A User s Manual for Farm-level Environmental Sustainability Indicators

Transcription

1 A User s Manual for Farm-level Environmental Sustainability Indicators SEI Andrew Whitman and Peter Cooke Sustainable Economies Initiative Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences 14 Maine Street, Suite 410 Brunswick, ME awhitman@manomet.org Manomet

2 Table of Contents Table of Contents Introduction... 4 Indicator Selection... 5 Using the Indicators... 7 Managers/Employees... 7 Farm Manager/Owner(s)... 9 Environmental Indicators Background for Energy and GHG Emissions Indicators Energy and GHG Management (EP1-6 Policy Indicators, ED1-5 Documentation Indicators) E1 Energy Use and GHG Emissions E2 Energy Impact of Efficient Equipment E3 Equipment Maintenance Scheduling Background for Soil Indicators Soil Management (SP1-3 Policy Indicators, SD1-7 Documentation Indicators) S1 Land Productivity S2a Soil Erosion and S2b Soil Protection S3 Nitrogen Balance Background for Water Indicators Water Management (WP1-6 Policy Indicators, WD1-2 Documentation Indicators) W1a+b Soil Moisture Management W2 Non-point Source Pollution W3 Overflow and Runoff Control Background for Biodiversity Indicators Biodiversity Management (BP1 Policy Indicator, BD1-6 Documentation Indicators) B1 Compliance with Legal Obligations for Biodiversity B2 Ecosystem Services B3 Wildlife Habitat Background for Agricultural Chemical Indicators Agricultural Chemical Management (CP1-2 Policy Indicators, CD1-5 Documentation Indicators) C1 Employee Training on Agricultural Chemicals C2 Prioritize Integrated Pest Management (IPM) C3 High Hazard Chemical Phase Out

3 Background for Waste Indicators Waste Management (XP1 Policy Indicator, XD1-3 Documentation Indicators) X1 Crop residues and Organic Amendments X3 Reuse and Recycling of Packaging and Containers References Appendix I: Six major agricultural sustainability indicator systems Appendix II: The nine-criteria rating system used to identify top-ranked indicators Appendix III: Top ranked performance indicators within each topic Recommended citation: Whitman, A. and P. Cooke A User s Manual for Farm-level Environmental Sustainability Indicators. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Brunswick, ME. SEI

4 Introduction This document is a user s manual for farm-level environmental sustainability indicators. Previously, we identified six environmental sustainability topics that have been highlighted by other agricultural and natural resource sustainability frameworks (Table 1). We also identified 123 possible indicators for these topics. In this report, we systematically winnowed this long list of indicators into a shorter draft list of 23 farm-level indicators that could be field tested on farm units. Here, we selected three top-ranked performance indicators for each topic that can be used to measure the condition of natural resources and impacts of on-theground practices 1. We then selected several complementary policy indicators and documentation indicators. The policy indicators are types of policies that describe practices and strategies used to improve farmlevel sustainability for a topic. The documentation indicators are types of documents that describe procedures, monitoring data, and related information to improve farm-level sustainability for a topic. Policy and documentation indicators were organized so that they could be removed or supplemented to reduce or expand their scope. Together, the performance, policy, and documentation indicators form a loosely knit management system for each topic. These indicators can be used to measure and manage progress toward farm sustainability goals. This document describes how we selected these indicators, considerations for how farm employee might use the indicators, and an indicator user manual for monitoring and measuring these indicators. We highly recommend that users apply the following considerations as it deliberates how to best create a system of environmental indicators (cf. UNEP FI. 2011): Prioritize, focusing on implementing those indicators with the greatest potential to impact asset value and performance, recognizing that other indicators can be added later; Be moderate, selecting only essential indicators to make the collection and reporting task initially less onerous for staff; Be simple, using the most straightforward and useful indicators that are easy to understand and support with data; and Apply forethought, ensuring indicators are useful at the farm level. Table 1. Six selected environmental sustainability topics for the Farm Environmental Indicators Project. 1. Energy/greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions - energy use, energy conservation, and GHG emissions 2. Soil soil health and nutrient management 3. Water water management and impacts to water quality 4. Biodiversity wildlife habitat and ecosystem services 5. Agricultural chemicals pesticides and fertilizers 6. Waste organic materials and solid waste 1 Only two waste performance indicators were selected. 4

5 Indicator Selection For each topic, we identified relevant and related policy and documentation indicators, and three performance indicators that loosely create a management system for each topic (Fig. 1). This tiered approach is designed to ensure effective sustainability measurement to support management for farm-level sustainability. This system of indicators makes it possible to improve performance and sustainability by applying policies and procedures, tracking management through documentation and records, and tracking impacts through performance indicators. This type of framework ensures that sustainable practices are being managed and measured. We anticipate that many policies, practices, and/or system documents are already in place on larger farms and need only to be referenced. However, many farmers may want to consider extending some practices and policies or implementing new practices and policies in light of this document. For each topic, we identified policy indicators and documentation indicators which serve to describe the capacities, policies, and practices in place to ensure environmental sustainability (see Fig. 1). Policy indicators describe policies and expected practices and identify how frequently and when policies are applied. Policies are used to ensure different sustainability practices are implemented. Documentation indicators describe the documents and records that are necessary for verifying the implementation of specific sustainability practices. These two types of indicators have a moderate amount of detail to ensure that different employees consistently apply the procedures. Together, policy indicators and documentation indicators can form the basis of a management plan for a given topic. These indicators can be used to demonstrate a farmer s commitment to applying sustainable practices and a farm business s capacity for carrying out these practices. Topics Management System Policy Indicators Documentation Indicators Performance Indicators Fig. 1. Schema indicating the relationship of policy, documentation, and performance indicators in each topic 5

6 Performance indicators measure on-the-ground practices and their impacts. Since current performance is not a guarantee of future performance, policy and documentation indicators create a complementary system to prevent performance gaps. When performance indicators are backed up by policy statements, progress towards sustainability becomes easier to track and manage. When performance gaps are discovered, a documentation trail can lead back to where a goal or a practice description needs to be clarified or improved. Our approach parallels that of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to ensure the selection of effective policy-response indicators (Henigan 2009). The policy and documentation indicators can also cross link across topics. These crosslinks minimize gaps and reduce the total number of indicators necessary to maintain performance standards. Together, these indicators are intended to be a guide to help identify and authenticate those policies, documents, and practices that a farmer already has in place and to provide recommendations for prioritizing those that will help farms move toward more sustainable performance. Selection Methods The six sustainability topics were identified and cross referenced with six major agricultural sustainability indicator systems in Task 1 (see Appendix I). We developed 49 performance indicators for these topics. These 49 performance indicators were scored within each topic using a custom scoring system (see Appendix II). The top three scoring indicators in each topic were selected for developing a set of indicators for the topic (Appendix III). The management system indicators are the basis for establishing which policies, documents, and records will be required to ensure the performance indicators are implemented. Policies and documents associated with the three top-ranking performance indicators will be referenced or created, if needed. Cross referencing the topics and the performance indicators with other known agricultural sustainability systems provides a farmer with indicators that have been validated by other systems and the ability to claim alignment with other systems. For existing documents, procedures, records, and data streams, references to these documents may be all that is necessary as indicators are implemented. Many performance indicators may be fully or partially in practice already. For those that are currently in use, a policy or documentation indicator may be needed to ensure that the specific the practice is consistently applied. It is likely that many policies, procedures, and/or documents are already in place to support existing practices. Indicator Boundaries and Normalization Boundaries - The boundaries of the indicators in this report focus on tracking farm units and not impacts, policies, or practices up and down their supply chains. This is conceptually similar to the boundaries of Scope 1 GHG emissions (Russell 2011). Scope 1 emissions are direct GHG emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the farm management unit. For GHGs, this can include CO 2 emissions from land clearing, CH 4 emissions from manure and its management, and CO 2 emissions from internal combustion engines. Scope 2 includes GHG emissions resulting from the generation of purchased electricity, heat, or steam. Scope 3 includes GHG emissions from sources not owned or directly controlled by a farm unit but related to its activities, such as agrichemical production, delivery services, and employee travel and commuting. We focus on on-farm performance and policies and do not include the off-farm impacts, such as the production of agrichemicals where energy use, GHG emissions, pollution, and other impacts are potentially significant. While indirect environmental impacts can be substantial, they can be difficult and expensive to measure and for a farm manager to affect through changes in farm practices. A full analysis of indirect impacts could require an elaborate and expensive life cycle assessment approach. In the future, farmers may want to consider measuring indirect impacts (i.e., Scope 2 and Scope 3 impacts) as a means of reducing material risks to farm operations and product sales. For example, this might include an assessment of energy and GHG emissions associated with the production of different fertilizers or the availability of irrigation water used to produce livestock feed. Normalization - Many indicators in this report have been normalized. Instead of using the total amount, the indicators are presented in relative terms as a ratio of performance per specific unit of output ( intensity ). For example, instead of reporting total fossil fuel energy use, the indicator for fossil fuel intensity is defined as fossil fuel use per hectare (ha). Normalization helps users understand performance in a particular context. If, on the other hand, fossil fuel use was only measured as a total use, it could change according to levels of production and would not provide any real insight into fossil fuel efficiency or allow a comparison among operations. Although a variety of factors may be used to normalize performance, we primarily used units of materials produced within the boundaries of the farm unit or area extent (ha) of the farm unit. 6

7 Using the Indicators These indicators were selected to help a large farm track and manage the environmental sustainability of its farmland holdings. However, a key purpose of indicators is also to help communicate a system s sustainability to stakeholders (Hagan and Whitman 2006). In the large farm context, this entails communication among managers/employees, and the owner(s). There may be up to two types of key users and each may use the indicators differently: Manager/employees, who apply the indicator system at the farm level and use the indicators to maintain productivity and farmland value; Owner(s), who implement the indicator system across a farm and uses the indicators to maintain farmland value; Although these users use the indicators to make different decisions about the farm, the indicators should be used to create tangible value by reducing costs, increasing productivity, and/or enhancing farmland value, and intangible value by strengthening a farmer s social license to operate and reducing the threat of pressures from regulatory bodies and/or supply chain pressures. Here, we highlight key considerations for these four users. Managers/Employees Each farm manager is responsible for ensuring that sustainable practices are employed, and farm operations conform to written sustainability policies and procedures on their farm. They also should maintain accurate documents and records that can be used to measure sustainability through impact reduction and cost savings. Inventory Review Initially, the farm manager should perform an inventory to determine which performance indicators are currently in place by cross referencing with the indicator list (see Appendix III). The farm operator will then need to perform an inventory of existing policy and document indicators, including an inventory of existing data streams and farm operation records. A list of those practices and policies will then be developed and a gap analysis can be performed to identify which policy, document, and performance indicators are needed. Inventory Tasks Cross reference current practices with performance indicators in this report. Cross reference current policies, procedures, documents and records with policy, documentation, and performance indicators in this report. Identify major gaps where topics and sub-topics important to the farm s business model are not covered by indicators. As the system is implemented, the initial inventory review will become part of the systemized sustainability management strategy. The review would become more of a general activity of document control to ensure farm sustainability indicators are being routinely and systematically applied. Document Control An essential step is to establish a system for managing sustainability documents related to the sustainability plan. As the sustainability system unfolds, documents, procedures, or records may need to be developed to ensure conformance with sustainability goals and to collect data that help assess the value of sustainability practices at the farm level. When expected practices are backed up by documents, the practices are more likely to be implemented. This system is intended to help a farm manager systemize farm sustainability practices. Indicator Implementation Farms may be currently lacking key indicators from this report that could be implemented. New indicators will need a plan with objectives and targets to ensure their implementation. Objectives and targets could include key tasks, parties necessary for implementation, and target dates. Defining roles, responsibilities, and training needs could also help establish a strategy to meet objectives and targets. New documents and records might need to be developed. Existing documents (i.e., procedures, records, data streams) only need to be referenced as the system is being implemented. Monitoring Indicators Policy indicators and documentation indicators for energy and GHG emissions, soils, water, biodiversity, agricultural chemicals, and waste should be reviewed once every two to five years by the farm manager. Although 100% compliance of the farm unit is desirable, owners should consider whether there is a level of minor non-conformity that is acceptable (e.g., a level below 100%). Performance indicators should be monitored every one to five years (Table 2). 7

8 Table 2. A summary of farm-level indicator monitoring. Topics Indicator code Indicator Minimum geographic unit to be assessed Frequency of monitoring Energy and GHG Emissions E1 Energy use and GHG emissions Whole farm Annually Energy records should be kept by the farm manager so energy usage can be determined on an annual schedule. Reductions can then be tracked over time. Receipts for energy resources should be kept and delivered to the farm manager. E2 Equipment maintenance scheduling Whole farm Annually A maintenance schedule for equipment should be updated yearly and checked monthly to ensure that equipment is maintained on its required schedule. A farm-level person should be assigned to manage the maintenance schedule. This schedule should be updated yearly to keep up with new and retired equipment. E3 Energy impact of efficient equipment Whole farm Annually As with E2, this task should be assigned to someone that can track the inventory of equipment, as it may change when farm equipment is retired or updated. If new equipment is known to be more efficient, estimates of the potential energy savings should be reported. Soils S1 Land Productivity Whole farm Annually Land productivity should be assessed annually. Productivity can then be used to normalize other data streams and more accurately detect improvements in resource usage, waste generation, and overall impact. S2 Soil erosion Farm fields Annually Soil cover and tillage strategies can be reviewed yearly as per the requirements or opportunities on the farm. S3 Gross Nitrogen Balance Farm fields 2-3 years Strategies for balancing nutrient supply can be reviewed over a period of a few years and based on soil samples from specific fields. Water W1 Soil moisture management Farm fields 2-3 years An analysis of water requirements per crop can be updated over a several year period. W2 Non-point source pollution Farm fields Annually Strategies and systems to minimize non-point source pollution can be reviewed yearly. Frequent observation on the fields can lead to early detection of potential problems. A record of problems should be reviewed annually. W3 Overflow and runoff control Farm fields Annually Strategies and systems to minimize runoff into water bodies can be reviewed yearly. Frequent observation on irrigated fields can lead to early detection of potential problems. A record of problems should be reviewed annually. Biodiversity B1 Compliance with biodiversity legal obligations Whole farm Annually An annual review of farm compliance with applicable laws and regulations is recommended. Potential liability costs might be minimized when compliance issues arise if records can be made available to regulating authorities. B2 Ecosystem services Whole farm 2-3 years The strategy or plan for maintaining biodiversity should be reviewed every several years to determine its effectiveness. B3 Wildlife habitat Farm fields Annually Landscape changes to high conservation value areas should be assessed annually and recorded to document those changes. 8

9 Table 2. A summary of farm-level indicator monitoring (con t.). Topics Indicator code Indicator Minimum geographic unit to be assessed Frequency of monitoring Agricultural Chemicals C1 Employee training on agricultural chemicals Whole farm Annually An annual training schedule for employees helps employees anticipate timing of training and training needs. C2 Prioritize Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Whole farm 2-3 years Farm systems should document the use of IPM every couple of years to ensure that this strategy is still being used. C3 Toxic chemical phase out Whole farm 2-3 years Documentation for phasing out chemicals should be monitored every 2 to 3 years. It may take several years for effective alternative chemicals to become available. An inventory of chemicals on site should be reviewed regularly as the farm manager may phase out the use of some chemicals over time. If chemical use is normalized by extent of area (ha) and tracked over several years, then reductions in toxic chemical use could be monitored and communicated. Waste X1 Crop residues and organic amendments Farm fields Annually Annual records of organic waste use as a soil amendment will help document overall waste numbers. If normalized by extent of area (ha) and measured over several years, then waste reduction might also be monitored. X3 Reuse and recycling of packaging and containers Whole farm Annually Annual records of plastic, cardboard, and paper waste diversion from the solid waste stream will help document waste. If normalized by total waste weight (tonnes) and measured over several years, then waste reduction might also be monitored. Farm Manager/Owner(s) The Farm Manager or Owner(s) would likely oversee the implementation of indicators in this report to ensure that sustainable practices are employed at the farm level and are appropriately managed, and farm operations conform to written sustainability policies and procedures. System Components Five system components are necessary for ensuring the application of sustainable practices: (1) Establishment of Indicator Framework - Ensuring the indicator framework is set to the tiered structure described in the introduction of this manual. Management system - Indicators for topics create a management framework composed of policies, documentation, and monitoring. Policy and documentation indicators - The policies and documents that are essential to supporting positive change in the performance indicators. Performance indicators Assess whether practices improve farm sustainability and minimize impacts. (2) Systemization of Practices with Documents - Identifying existing and necessary policy, documentation, and performance indicators creates for the farmer a foundation for a sustainability system and plan. The plan begins by categorizing the sustainability topics and prioritizing topic indicators through a scoring mechanism in the sustainability matrix (see Appendix II). (3) Implementation and Operation - This system will identify current sustainability practices, potentially add sustainability practices, and reduce environmental impacts. Detailed targets and goals will be performance and policy based. Documentation indicators can include other environmental documents and records. Sustainable strategies can be developed for each topic by establishing relevant targets (reduction amounts and completion dates). Farm employees may have specific responsibilities for ensuring conformance with sustainability practices, safety, health, and operations management. Training should be provided to farm employees, so that they are aware of objectives and targets and can help achieve them. 9

10 (4) Farm Review - Once the system has been established, farm reviews should be conducted to ensure conformance with owner goals and with other requirements (e.g., UNPRI). Annual reviews can help determine the effectiveness of sustainability practices and key gaps. Records and documents that include gap analysis, actions to address identified gaps, environmental incidents with follow-up, maintenance records, equipment inventory, energy usage, and monitoring data can form documentation indicators. (5) Management Review - The farm management team should periodically review the system s effectiveness. A system of relatively few indicators may be more practical and sustainable than a thorough system as long as it addresses key management and shareholder concerns. Identify Indicators to Implement The purpose of prioritizing indicators is to begin with indicators that can have the greatest value to the owners in managing environmental impact. If a farm manager was to simultaneously implement 50 indicators, the work load would be overwhelming and he/she might fail. By starting with a few indicators, there is greater likelihood of success. Forty-nine sub-topic indicators have been identified and discussed. These indicators have been evaluated and three top indicators were selected because they were the highest scoring indicators for their topic. An owner may want to start with three or fewer indicators. If it is determined that this is either too many or too few, our selection system was designed to be able to reduce or increase the number of indicators selected. Evaluating Indicators - Performance indicators were scored for nine criteria which were summed into a final score (see Appendix II). We selected three top indicators by topic (Appendix III). A key scoring criterion was existence of cross links between indicators and potential legal responsibilities. This ensures that indicators related to farm-relevant laws, regulations, and other requirements (e.g., UNPRI) would be more highly ranked so that selected indicators might help address farm compliance with legal requirements and voluntary programs. Implement Activities and Achieve Targets Implementation Plans can be created to meet established objectives and targets and thereby address any gaps in the system. It is recommended that no more than five plans are set in place at any one time. Identify Responsibilities and Training Needs Four other key responsibilities are: (1) establishing procedures for defining and documenting training; (2) establishing roles, responsibilities, and authority designed to enable effective environmental management; (3) defining the process for planning and implementing employee training; and (4) strengthening employee awareness about the farm s sustainability policies. Using the Indicators These indicators could yield financially relevant information to help better manage operating costs, productivity, and long-term farm unit value (Table 3). They might also be used to manage exposure to risks affecting their social license to operate, local regulatory pressures, and supply chain pressures (Table 3). Owner(s) could also use these indicators to manage key issues such as (c.f., GRI 2010): Farmland risks and opportunities; Farmland financial and non-financial performance; Farmland value in the context of long-term asset management strategy and business plans; Benchmarking and assessing sustainability performance with respect to laws, norms, codes, performance standards, and voluntary initiatives; Avoiding reputational risk from publicized environmental, social, and governance failures; and Comparing performance internally, and between business units and sectors if multiple farm units are part of the business. Farms with sustainability systems are perceived as having lower risk, may be more attractive to buyers, and be used to enhance market share of their agricultural products (Hartmann 2011, Heikkurinen and Forsman-Hugg 2011). Farmers can use these indicators to quantify the benefits of impact reductions, cost savings, and enhancement of farm unit value and ultimately communicate their strategies to ensure economic return and asset risk management to lenders and investors. Thios can include communication about (Boulter 2011, GRI 2010): Mitigate or reverse negative environmental, social and governance impacts; Improve reputation; Enable external stakeholders to understand the farm unit s value, and tangible and intangible assets; and Demonstrate how owners influences and is responsive to expectations about sustainability. 10

11 Reduce costs /increase productivity Farmland value Social license Regulatory pressure Supply chain pressures Table 3. Tangible and intangible values that can be addressed by applying Manomet indicators for each topic. Tangible Value Intangible value Topics Sub-topics addressed by Manomet indicators Energy/GHG emissions Energy X 1 X 1 X GHG X 2 X Equipment maintenance Soil Soil health X X X X X Productivity X X Water Water use X X X X X Water quality X (-) 3 X X X Biodiversity Wildlife habitat X (-) 3 X Ecosystem services X X X X X Legal compliance X X X Agricultural chemicals Pesticides X X X X Employee safety X X X X Waste Recycling X? X 1 If farm produces energy (e.g., methane digester, wind energy). 2 If offsets are used. 3 Costs likely exceed tangible financial benefit. Waste disposal X X X X X 11

12 Environmental Indicators The remainder of this document describes key features about the selected indicators. We made every effort to select practical and useful indicators. For each indicator, we included information about measurement units, other indicator systems that use similar indicators, relevant definitions, a rationale for the indicator including relevant background information, and information necessary for measuring the indicator (sampling units, frequency, and methods). We report this information using the following standardized template (cf. GRI 2010). For each topic, we describe policy and documentation indicators together in one template. Performance indicators are described individually. 1. Indicator units List units of measure for indicator. 2. Examples of systems using related indicators Lists similar indicators found in other agriculture indicator systems (mostly farm-level systems). 3. Definition Defines key terms. 4. Rationale Describes the big picture importance of the indicator and limited information related to the veracity of the indicator. 5. Monitoring methods 5.1. Selection of Monitoring Sites Identifies the basic level of measurement (field level, farm level, or portfolio level) and scope of sampling, typically a random sub-sample or the entire population of sites Frequency of Monitoring Describes the frequency of measurement, typically annually or every two to five years Data Measurement and Sampling Identifies farm data sources and/or methods for measurement. 12

13 Background for Energy and GHG Emissions Indicators GHG emissions are the emission of atmospheric gases, both natural and anthropogenic, that absorb and emit radiation at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface, the atmosphere, and clouds. This property causes the greenhouse effect that leads to climate warming (IPCC 2007). The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor (H 2O), carbon dioxide (CO 2), nitrous oxide (N 2O), methane (CH 4), and ozone (O 3). Agriculture accounts for 10-12% of total global anthropogenic GHG emissions, including about 60% of N 2O and about 50% of CH 4 (Smith et al. 2007). Globally, agricultural CH 4 and N 2O emissions have increased by nearly 17% from 1990 to Energy usage and GHG emissions go hand in hand in agricultural settings because up to 30% of GHG emissions in some agriculture sectors are attributable to fossil fuel use (IPCC 2007). Energy is frequently tracked in sustainability efforts, fossil fuel use especially, because it is directly linked to other key sustainability concerns, including cost of production, GHG emissions, air pollution, water quality and use, and other, indirect environmental impacts. Earth s atmosphere is undergoing unusual changes due to anthropogenic GHG emissions that are globally altering the climate and ecosystems (Parmesan and Galbraith 2004, IPCC 2007). Energy costs are also frequently monitored by agriculture sustainability efforts. This is because the unabated trend of increasing and volatile energy prices affects the bottom line and creates significant business risks. Many businesses strategically track energy use in order to manage costs and exposure to market uncertainty. Although climate change impacts are now inevitable, a reduction of GHG emissions is considered to be essential to avoiding even larger impacts. Most corporations focus on GHG emissions, but changes in the insurance industry and in the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) disclosure requirements regarding climate change have led businesses also to consider the regulatory, market, and physical risks posed by climate change to their business operations (Brandon et al. 2010). Consumer and supply chain pressures on the food industry on this topic are likely only to increase. 13

14 Energy and GHG Management (EP1-6 Policy Indicators, ED1-5 Documentation Indicators) 1. Indicator units Compliance/non-compliance with policy and documentation indicator specifications or percent of farm units in compliance. 2. Examples of systems using related indicators ISO (ISO 2011), EN16001, GRI EN6 Initiatives to provide energy efficient or renewable energy-based products and services, and reductions in energy requirements as a result of these (GRI 2011); Global GAP AF 6.3 Energy Efficiency (Global GAP 2012); Sustainability Measurement and Reporting Framework for US Dairy 1.1 Direct Energy Use, 1.2 Energy Intensity, 1.3 Energy Conservation; Unilever Energy (King et al. 2010); SAI Platform Sustainable Agricultural Practices for Cereals- 9.5 (SAI Platform 2010b). 3. Definition Agricultural energy and GHG management commonly focuses on farm energy audits which identify how energy is used on a farm and can be a proxy for many GHG emissions (NRCS 2012). An energy audit provides a framework and guidance for prioritizing actions and planning equipment upgrades that improve energy efficiency. An audit can be extended to address and reduce GHG emissions associated with use of fossil fuel and electricity. 4. Rationale The potential for energy and cost savings in the agriculture sector is large. One conservative analysis suggests that annual savings of >34 trillion BTUs and $1 billion dollars could be achieved in the U.S. alone (Brown and Elliott 2005). Increases in energy efficiency in irrigation could achieve savings of $436 million annually (Brown and Elliott 2005). Motors, vehicles, and lighting are among the largest direct energy end uses on the farm, and the former largely rely on gasoline and diesel. In 2005, diesel fuel accounted for 43% and electricity for 33% of US agricultural sector carbon dioxide (CO 2) emissions (USDA 2008). There are also other benefits to energy conservation, such as increased financial stability due to reduced energy cost exposure, and decreased use of other resources, including water (Murray and Elliott 2009). The indirect energy and GHG emissions embodied in fertilizers and agricultural chemicals is large as these chemicals are produced by energy-intensive industries using natural gas. By implementing efficient technologies and practices, farms can reduce their reliance on fossil fuels and their carbon footprint, while decreasing risks due to energy price volatility. Agricultural energy and GHG management allows businesses to systemically analyze, manage and reduce energy use and GHG emissions, enabling them to lower energy costs, and enhance productivity and competitiveness (International Energy Agency 2012). It creates a process through which new ideas and knowledge are generated that produce additional energy efficiency gains (e.g., Kannan and Boie 2003). These indicators can show whether farms have systemized and managed energy efficiency and reductions in GHG emissions. 5. Monitoring methods 5.1. Selection of Monitoring Sites All farms should be reviewed to determine whether they have energy and GHG management policy and documentation indicators Frequency of Monitoring Once a farm has a system of energy and GHG management policy and documentation indicators, they should be reviewed once every two to five years Data Measurement and Sampling A reviewer should assess whether the policy indicators are complete and being applied (Table 4) and determine whether the appropriate documentation is in place (Table 5). The Minnesota Project (2010) and NRCS (2012) can be consulted for additional farm energy and GHG policies. 14

15 Table 4. Energy and GHG policy indicators and key issues to be addressed by the indicators. Policy Indicators (with indicator codes) EP1. Energy use (including renewables) EP2. Pre-align with Scope 1 1 and 2 2 of GHG emissions Key issues to be addressed Reduction goals Renewable use goals Identify Scope 1and 2 requirements and how the farm could address these requirements Farm buildings and equipment EP3. Reduce headquarters energy use EP4. Shut-down policy on equipment and lighting Energy audit for: Fuel use around the farmstead for heating and equipment (make, model, size, and runtime) Electricity use around the farmstead for ventilation, water system, heating, lighting Identify upgrade opportunities Lighting and types of equipment that use energy and when they should be shut down Agronomic operations EP5. Reduce agronomic equipment energy use EP6. Reduce GHG emitted from cropping Energy audit for fuel use in agronomic operations including cropping, manure handling equipment, and irrigation (including make, model, size, and runtime of stationary equipment) Identify upgrade opportunities GHG audit for N from soils, fertilizer use Emissions from manure use (in dairy and confined animal operations only) Field equipment Table 5. Energy and GHG emissions documentation indicators and key issues to be addressed by indicators. Documentation Indicators (with indicator codes) ED1. SOP for soil emissions assessment Key issues to be addressed Estimated emissions from soil and how calculated ED2. Energy records and equipment use history Fossil fuel use Renewable energy use Electricity use Equipment use history ED3. Inventory list of equipment and energy used List of equipment, energy use, and estimated efficiency rates ED4. Operator training schedule and records Type of training needed for each operator List of trainings completed ED5. Legal obligations listed and compliance records List of legal obligations regarding energy use and GHG emissions (if any) and how obligations were fulfilled 1 Scope 1 refers to direct GHG emissions from: (1) mechanical sources: mobile machinery (e.g., CO2, CH4, N2O from tilling, sowing, harvesting, and transport vehicles), stationary machinery (e.g., CO2, CH4, N2O from milling and irrigation equipment), and refrigeration and air conditioning equipment (e.g., HFCs, PFCs); (2) non-mechanical sources: drainage and tillage of soils (CO2, CH4, and N2O); addition of synthetic fertilizers, livestock waste, and crop residues to soils (CO2, CH4, and N2O); addition of urea and lime to soils (CO2), enteric fermentation (CH4), rice cultivation (CH4), manure management (CH4 and N2O), land-use change (CO2, CH4, and N2O), open burning of savannahs and of crop residues left on fields (CO2, CH4, and N2O), managed woodlands (CO2 from tree strips, shelterbelts, etc.), composting of organic wastes (CH4), and oxidation of horticultural growing media such as peat (CO2). 2 Scope 2 refers to indirect GHG emissions associated with the consumption of purchased or acquired electricity, heating, cooling or steam. 15

16 E1 Energy Use and GHG Emissions 1. Indicator units Direct fossil fuel use fossil fuel energy (joules) by fuel type (Global Reporting Initiative 2010). Fossil fuel intensity fossil fuel energy (joules) per ha (FAO 2012, Hani et al. 2007). Fossil fuel GHG emissions intensity fossil fuel emissions (t CO 2eq) per area extent (ha) (FAO 2012). 2. Examples of systems using related indicators Green Accounting for Farms (Halberg et al. 2005), GRI EN3 Direct energy consumption by primary energy source (GRI 2010), OECD Environmental Indicators for Agriculture (OECD 2001), RISE (Hani et al. 2007). 3. Definitions Direct fossil fuel use fossil fuel energy (joules) by fuel type. Fossil fuels include coal, crude oil, natural gas, gasoline, diesel, and blended biofuels. Fossil fuel intensity the energy of fossil fuels (joules) emitted per cultivated ha (including cropland and forage production). Fossil fuels include coal, crude oil, natural gas, gasoline, diesel, and blended biofuels. Fossil fuel GHG emissions intensity fossil fuel emissions (t CO 2eq) per area extent (ha). Fossil fuels include coal, crude oil, natural gas, gasoline, diesel, and blended biofuels. Fossil fuel emissions can be estimated by using a CO 2eq coefficient for each fuel type. 4. Rationale Reducing energy costs from fossil fuels usually begins with an audit of energy use which assesses how and where energy is used. Energy use levels directly affect operational costs and exposure to volatility in energy supply and prices. A farm can reduce indirect environmental impacts for energy generation (e.g., GHG emissions from fossil fuels) by changing its energy sources (e.g., switching from diesel to compressed natural gas). It is important to monitor both energy intensity and total energy consumption because energy intensity is directly linked to energy efficiency. Farmers are interested in understanding their direct energy use but are less aware of indirect (or embedded) energy use (Halberg et al. 2005) Frequency of Monitoring Fossil fuel use on farm units should be routinely sampled by tracking the records of fossil fuel purchases, but fossil fuel use only needs to be calculated once a year Data Measurement, Sampling, and Analyses Fossil fuel consumption should be estimated using receipts and records from fossil fuel purchases. Energy from fossil fuels can be calculated by multiplying the energy coefficients found in Table 6 by the units of fossil fuel type consumed. CO 2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion are calculated by multiplying the CO 2 emission coefficient in Table 7 by the units of each fossil fuel type consumed. GHG emissions from farms are difficult to measure precisely because of the non-point source nature of farms (Osterburg 2004). However, fossil fuel emissions can readily be tracked by simply monitoring fuel use. 5. Monitoring methods 5.1. Selection of Monitoring Sites All farm units should be sampled. 16

17 Table 6. Energy coefficients for converting energy units of fossil fuels to GJ. Coal GJ Crude Oil GJ Gasoline GJ Natural GJ Electricity GJ Gas tonne Barrel 6.22 US gallon therm kilowatthour (metric) ton (short) tonne tonne megawatthour (metric) (metric) cubic feet ton (long) ton Diesel gigawatthour (short) cubic meters ton (long) US gallon MMBtu tonne (metric) Fuel Oil US gallon All conversion factors were from GRI (2010). tonne (metric) Table 7. Emission coefficients for converting fossil fuel units to CO 2eq (from Environment Canada 2011). 17

18 E2 Energy Impact of Efficient Equipment 1. Indicator units 1.1. Reduction in direct fossil fuel use reduction in fossil fuel (joules) used Reductions in fossil fuel intensity reduction in fossil fuel (joules) used per ha of cropland, pasture, and forage productions areas. 2. Examples of systems using related indicators GRI EN5 Energy saved due to conservation and efficiency improvements (GRI 2011). 3. Definitions 3.1. Reduction in direct fossil fuel use year-to-year changes in fossil fuel energy (joules) by fuel type (GRI 2010) Reductions in fossil fuel intensity year-to-year changes in fossil fuel energy (joules) per ha (FAO 2012, Hani et al. 2007). 4. Rationale This indicator shows how improved practices and other energy conservation efforts have improved energy-efficiency (GRI 2011). Improved energy efficiency of equipment can reduce costs and create competitive advantages. Supporting efficient energy technology has a direct impact on farm operational costs, and reduces dependency on non-renewable energy sources. Efficient energy use is one key strategy in combating climate change and other environmental impacts caused by the extraction and processing of fossil fuels. 5. Monitoring methods 5.1. Selection of Monitoring Sites All farm units should be sampled Frequency of Monitoring Fossil fuel use on farm units should be sampled continuously by tracking the records of fossil fuel purchases but fossil fuel use only needs to be calculated once a year Data Measurement and Sampling Reductions can be calculated from the Energy and GHG emissions indicator (above), which uses data from fossil fuel consumption estimated using receipts and records from fossil fuel purchases. 18

19 E3 Equipment Maintenance Scheduling 1. Indicator units Percent of farm units following a maintenance schedule (Wireman 2005). 2. Examples of systems using related indicators <none in agriculture> 3. Definition A maintenance schedule is a document used to schedule and manage consistent maintenance of equipment (Wireman 2005). 4. Rationale Routine maintenance of engines and electrical motors can maintain their efficiency and minimize energy use (Malik 1979). It can directly reduce operational costs and a farm s future dependency on nonrenewable energy sources. Better energy management is a key strategy for reducing GHG emissions, costs and impacts from the extraction and processing of energy. Maintaining equipment, proper ballasting and tire inflation, and selection of the proper tractor and gear affect fuel consumption during field operations and can result in cost savings ranging from 3% to 25% (Hanna and Flammang 2010). This indicator shows whether farms are adequately maintaining equipment and minimizing energy and related maintenance costs. 5. Monitoring methods 5.1. Selection of Monitoring Sites All farm units should be properly maintained on their own recommended schedule Frequency of Monitoring This will vary depending the equipment, its use and manufacturer s recommended maintenance schedule Data Measurement and Sampling Each farm should maintain a simple record that includes an inventory list of all applicable units, dates of scheduled necessary maintenance, and an indication whether the maintenance has been performed as scheduled. 19

20 Background for Soil Indicators Soil health is fundamental to the productive capacity of agriculture and its ability to produce food, feed, fiber, and fuel, the chief benefits of agriculture. It is a function of chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of the soil and management practices that lead to dynamic changes in soil properties and processes. It reflects the capacity of soil to facilitate nutrient cycling; regulate water flow; maintain physical stability; neutralize environmental pollutants; and provide habitat, food, and fiber. Farm management strategies for crop residue management, crop rotations, and soil conservation can improve or maintain dynamic soil quality, mitigate environmental damage, and raise economic returns. About 33% of agricultural land has been moderately or highly degraded by human activities such as soil erosion, over grazing, land clearing, salinization, and desertification (FAO 2011). Impacts of the degradation and loss of productive agricultural lands have greater implications for human health and biodiversity than almost any other human activity. 20

21 Soil Management (SP1-3 Policy Indicators, SD1-7 Documentation Indicators) 1. Indicator units Compliance/non-compliance with policy and documentation indicator specifications or percent of farm units in compliance. 2. Examples of systems using related indicators Global GAP- CB4 Soil Management, CB5.1-CB5.5 Fertilizer Application (Global GAP 2012); Unilever Soil Management , Nutrient Management (King et al. 2010); SAI Platform Sustainable Agricultural Practices for Cereals- 1.c, , 4 (SAI Platform 2010). 3. Definition Soil management for farms can include policies and documentation that take into account the risks inherent in the farm and field location and topography, the choice of crops, cultivation methods and/or stocking levels (Unilever 2012). The goal is to maintain soils that support healthy crops of high yield, and quality and farm value, while minimizing pollution. 4. Rationale Maintaining and improving soil health is an indicator of sustainable soil management, as it can improve performance of crops and livestock. Poor soil structure can lead to loss of productivity. Soil amendments such as fertilizers and crop residuals are important to soil health and managing soil nutrients and these inputs can be important for economic and environmental sustainability of farm soils. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon need to be balanced for maximum efficacy. Soil management often includes setting goals for soils; inventories of soils, practices, and existing and potential problems; an action plan; and monitoring for continuous improvement (DEFRA 2005, Lewandowski 2002). 5. Monitoring methods 5.1. Selection of Monitoring Sites All farms should be audited to determine whether they have soil management policy and documentation indicators Frequency of Monitoring Once a farm has a system of soil management policy and documentation indicators in place, they should be audited once every two to five years Data Measurement and Sampling A reviewer should assess whether the policy indicators are complete and being applied (Table 8) and whether the appropriate documentation is in place (Table 9). Table 8. Soil management policy indicators and key issues to be addressed. Policy Indicators (with indicator code) Key issues to be addressed SP1. Use of cover crops Cover crop usage SP2. Improve soil health Maintenance or improvement of soil organic matter Status of micro nutrients SP3. Reduce amount of nitrogen lost to environment Nutrient balance 21

22 4 Table 9. Soil management documentation indicators and key issues to be addressed. Documentation Indicators (with indicator code) SD1. Crops mapped and grown on soils appropriate for that crop and in appropriate rotations with other crops SD2. Crop suitability for areas of expansion, including documented environmental assessment SD3. Documentation of soil erosion assessment, including maps SD4. Documentation of soil structure assessment SD5. Documentation of chemical and fuel spills and accidents assessment, including maps SD6. Documentation of soil contamination assessment (macro nutrients, ph, organic carbon, salinity, metals) Key issues to be addressed Soils and crop maps for farm Nutrient balance Status of micro nutrients Soil ph monitored and managed Salinity, alkaline conditions monitored and managed Assessment of field locations and their crop suitability Soil conservation measures controlling erosion Farm map with soil erosion sites marked Soil conservation measures controlling structure Map of locations of chemical and fuel spills and accidents Nutrient balance Status of micro nutrients SD7. Soil organic matter (SOM) is managed to reach or maintain optimum concentration SOM levels 22

23 S1 Land Productivity 1. Indicator units Units of agricultural product per ha. 2. Examples of systems using related indicators RISE (Hani et al. 2007). 3. Definition A measurement of the amount of a crop (e.g., bushels for corn, wheat, and soybeans, kg for cotton) that was harvested per unit of land area (ha) (Field to Market 2009). 4. Rationale Global agriculture must produce more food for an increasingly affluent and growing world population that will demand a more diverse diet, support rural development, and alleviate poverty while reducing competition for finite land and water resources and help to conserve resources (Godfray et al. 2010, FAO 2009). Improving agricultural productivity is essential to increasing global food supplies (Alston et al. 2009). Agricultural productivity can be assessed as a ratio of outputs to inputs (Zepeda 2011). Two methods are commonly used to assess agricultural productivity: partial measures of productivity (PMP) and total factor productivity (TFP). PMP is often assessed as crop yield or food production per unit of land area (ha) or labor (hours) because it is simple to calculate. Crop yield can also be used to assess agricultural footprint, as it can indicate the amount of land needed to produce agricultural products (Field to Market 2009). Increasing PMP can contribute to minimizing the amount of land used in production so that more land is available for other uses. TFP compares an index of agricultural inputs to an index of outputs and is used to remedy the limitations of the PMP; notably including the inability to identify the underlying factors, such as levels of fertilizer use. TFP is complex to calculate so this report recommends using PMP. A PMP indicator can help track improvement of farm efficiency and continuous improvement of farm production and can be used to identify farm units that are lagging behind in productivity (Latruffe 2010). 5. Monitoring methods 5.1. Selection of Monitoring Sites All farm units should be sampled Frequency of Monitoring Farm units should be sampled annually Data Measurement and Sampling Farm-level crop production statistics should be estimated from sales receipts of agricultural products and any on-farm consumption of crops. Land productivity should be calculated separately for each crop and for grass-fed beef operations. Land productivity for most other meat operations and dairy production will not be estimated at this time. Farm managers will need to track land area (ha) used to produce each crop and grass-fed beef operations. 23

24 S2a Soil Erosion and S2b Soil Protection 1. Indicator units 1.1. S2a Soil erosion percent of area (ha) of cropland, pasture, rangelands, and forage lands with soil erosion (Gobin et al. 2004, Hani et al. 2007) S2b Soil protection percent of area (ha) of cropland, pasture, rangelands, and forage lands with different levels of soil protection (Gobin et al. 2004). 2. Examples of systems using related indicators EC (European Commission 2006), DESIRE (Agricultural University of Athens 2008), IRENA (EEA 2005), RISE (Hani et al. 2007), OECD Agri- Environmental Indicators (OECD 2008). 3. Definitions 3.1. Soil erosion Agricultural production areas (cropland, pasture, and forage production) where significant (>4.5 metric tons/ha/year) soil movement can be evidenced by reductions in soil horizon thickness, soil deposition at field boundaries, and presence of channels and gullies (Agricultural University of Athens 2008) Soil protection Agricultural production areas (cropland, pasture, and forage production) where soil protection practices have been adopted to reduce or eliminate surface runoff and soil erosion (Agricultural University of Athens 2008). 4. Rationale Soil erosion is a widespread critical threat to global food production (Pimentel 2006). Physical factors like climate, topography, and soil characteristics, as well as management factors like land use and management practices, greatly influence the process of soil erosion (Li et al. 1990). The main causes of soil erosion are still inappropriate agricultural practices, deforestation, overgrazing, forest fires and construction activities. With a very slow rate of soil formation, soil loss of 4.5 to 11.2 metric tons/ha per year may be irreversible over a span of years (Schertz 1983). Nearly 10 million ha of cropland worldwide are abandoned every year because of the impacts of soil erosion (Pimentel 2006). Erosion reduces on-farm productivity and contributes to water quality problems (Bakker et al. 2004). Prolonged erosion leads to soil loss over time and reduces water adsorption and filtering capacity (Gobin et al., 2004). Soil erosion Soil erosion is often assessed by simple field assessments, expert scoring systems or models that estimate soil loss and vary greatly in their complexity (Grimm et al. 2002). Expert scoring systems vary but often require detailed ground assessments and have scores greatly influenced by the underlying system of weighing factors assessed in the field. Models are also complex and can over predict soil loss (Van Rompaey et al. 2003) and so at least periodic on-the-ground assessments of soil erosion should be conducted (Gobin et al. 2004). Soil protection Soil protection practices can slow water movement and reduce the dislodgement of soil particles that increase infiltration rates and reduce surface runoff, nutrient loss and soil erosion (Volk et al. 2010). They can include mechanical methods (terraces, contour farming, grade stabilization structures, and structures for water control basins), crop and vegetation management (filter strips, grassed waterways, field borders, riparian buffers, strip cropping, crop rotation, and cover crops), and soil management (conservation tillage/no-till, soil amendments, and drainage) (Maetens et al. 2012). The residues left by conservation tillage can also increase soil organic matter, reduce soil GHG emissions, reduce soil particulate emissions, increase soil moisture, provide food and escape cover for wildlife, reduce energy use, and increase crop yields (Toliver et al. 2012, Laflen and Colvin 1981, Reicosky et al. 2005, Shaffer and Larson 1987). The level of effectiveness for soil protection practices is becoming more evident for most practices and varies across sites (Maetens et al. 2012). Soil protection practices can be used to track progress at protecting soil (Gobin et al. 2004). 5. Monitoring methods 5.1. Selection of Monitoring Sites For these two indicators, ten to twenty field sites should be randomly selected for each farm unit. To reduce sampling error when monitoring trends, the same field site should be sampled during monitoring Frequency of Monitoring For these two indicators, field sites should be monitored annually Measurement Methods and Sampling Soil erosion The level of soil erosion can be described according to: (1) the presence or not of the A-horizon, (2) the existence and percentage of eroded spots, (3) the degree of exposure of the parent material on the soil surface, and (4) the presence of erosional gullies (Agricultural University of Athens 2008). Each field site should be assigned to one of the following soil erosion classes that best describes the field site overall: very severe, severe, moderate, slight, and no erosion (Table 10). 24

25 Table 10. Soil erosion classes (Agricultural University of Athens 2008). Erosion class Key features None No erosion features are present. Slight Parts of the A-horizon have been eroded, so that usually less than 20% of the initial A-horizon is present, scattered spots of erosion. Moderate Soils that present an intricate pattern of current spots of erosion, ranging on average from 20% to 50% on the original A-horizon. Severe Soils that show an intricate pattern of eroded spots, ranging from 50% to 80% of the original A- horizon. In most areas of this erosion class, the parent material is exposed at the surface. Very severe Soils that have lost more than 80% of the A-horizon, and some or all of the deeper horizons, throughout most of the area. Original soil can be identified only in spots. Some areas may be smooth, but most have an intricate pattern of gullies and the parent material is exposed at the soil surface Soil protection The effectiveness of the existing soil protection measures at the field level can be assigned to one of the following four categories: (1) no actions undertaken; (2) low, incomplete protection and less than 25% of the area protected; (3) moderate, partial protection and 25-75% of the area protected; or (4) adequate, complete protection and >75 of the area protected (Agricultural University of Athens 2008). Soil protection practices may include terraces, grade stabilization structures, grassed waterways, structures for water control basins, filter strips, field borders, riparian buffers, contour farming and strip cropping, crop rotation, cover crops, and conservation tillage/no-till. 25

26 S3 Nitrogen Balance 1. Indicator units Farm-level nitrogen surplus, kg per area extent (ha) (Halberg et al. 2005). 2. Examples of systems using related indicators Green Accounting for Farms (Halberg et al. 2005), RISE (Hani et al. 2007), OECD (2008). 3. Definition Nitrogen balance the balance between nitrogen added to an agricultural system and nitrogen removed from the system per hectare of agricultural land calculated at the farm gate (OECD/Eurostat 2003). 4. Rationale Nitrogen is essential for crop production, as it promotes growth and improves the uptake of the other essential plant nutrients. Increases in N-based fertilizers along with modern agricultural practices have doubled the number of people who were fed from a hectare of agricultural land since 1900 (Smil 2002). However, nitrogen can be a significant source of pollution and releases of nitrogen into the environment have created important and growing impacts on human and ecological health (Johnson et al. 2010), affecting essential ecosystem services including the provision of clean air and water, recreation, fisheries, forest products, aesthetics and biodiversity. Gaseous emissions of nitrogen can also occur and are a significant contributor to GHG emissions that lead to global warming (Compton et al. 2011). The nitrogen cycle in natural ecosystems is largely closed, with nitrogen inputs balancing nitrogen losses. In agricultural systems, the nitrogen cycle is affected by the export of substantial amounts of nitrogen in harvested products and potentially in runoff. Nitrogen fertilizers are applied to balance inputs and outputs. Nitrogen balance is one of the most frequently applied farm-level nitrogen indicators because it is readily measurable, is based on the simple concepts of inputs and outputs so is easy to interpret, and appeals to both farm managers and scientists (Langeveld et al. 2007, Halberg et al. 2005). Although moderately correlated with nitrogen levels in groundwater (Schroder et al. 2003), nitrogen balances may be a very good indicator of the risk of nutrient leaching by identifying agricultural areas that have very high nitrogen loading (Wick et al. 2012, Oborn et al. 2003). 5. Monitoring methods 5.1. Selection of Monitoring Sites All farm units should be sampled Frequency of Monitoring Farm units should be sampled annually Data Measurement and Sampling Nitrogen balance can be calculated as the sum of all imported nitrogen minus all nitrogen in sold products and corrected for change in stocks: ([Input output] * ha 1 ) The data needed include all field inputs of nitrogen, production and sales data, and nitrogen content inventory. The nitrogen value of input can be estimated based on the weight or volume of the input and coefficients available in OECD/Eurostat (2007, Bassanino et al. 2007). Inputs include purchased mineral fertilizers, manure, purchased litter, purchased animal feed and forages, the live animals, the biological N fixation, and atmospheric deposition. Outputs include sold animal products and sold crop products. Farm managers aim to minimize the use of fertilizers to reduce costs and avoid environmental impacts. Nitrogen balance is the difference between nitrogen added to an agricultural system and nitrogen removed from the system per unit of agricultural land (OECD/Eurostat 2003). It provides some insight into links between agricultural nutrient use, changes in environmental quality and the sustainable use of soil nutrient resources. A deficit over a number of years indicates that farm unit soils are losing their fertility. Water pollution is a major concern associated with surplus nitrogen because nitrates are highly soluble and migrate easily into groundwater through the soil and to surface water through runoff. Surpluses are in part dependent on agricultural practices, weather conditions and soil type. 26

27 Background for Water Indicators The core water issues for agriculture are impacts to water quality and water use, primarily irrigation. Agriculture principally impacts water quality in three ways, through the accumulation of: (1) excess nutrients in surface and coastal waters resulting in eutrophication; (2) nitrates in groundwater; and (3) pesticides in groundwater and surface water bodies. Although modern agricultural intensification has brought enormous benefits to agricultural productivity and global food security, it has also resulted in unanticipated impacts to surface and groundwater water resources (Mateo-Sagasta and Burke 2010). Approximately 70% of the world s freshwater withdrawals are for agricultural use and food production is the major consumer of water in most countries (FAO 2010). About 20% of the world's cropland is irrigated and it produces about 40% of the world's food (Restrepo et al. 2007). Agriculture faces the huge challenge of needing to produce 50% more food by 2030 and 100% more food by 2050 than is currently produced. This will only be possible by using less water because of growing demand from urbanization, industrialization and climate change (OEDC 2010). Increasingly, farmers will feel pressure to increase water use efficiency and improve agricultural water management, while maintaining aquatic ecosystems. Water is widely tracked by businesses because water is essential to everything in life, including the economy (WBCSD 2009). Its use poses immediate challenges to agriculture supply chains. Water resources are highly regulated in many countries, are a significant emerging material business risk, are limited in several key agricultural supply areas, and are tangible to stakeholders (Sarni 2011). Water management has become a key issue for many environmental organizations because freshwater ecosystems are currently declining faster than terrestrial ecosystems due to human impacts (Hoekstra 2006). Water-related challenges in agricultural production are a regional phenomenon because impacts on freshwater are confined to watersheds. 27

28 Water Management (WP1-6 Policy Indicators, WD1-2 Documentation Indicators) 1. Indicator units Compliance/non-compliance with policy and documentation indicator specifications or percent of farm units in compliance. 2. Examples of systems using related indicators Global GAP CB Irrigation/Fertigation (Global GAP 2012); GRI EN8 Total water withdrawal by source, EN9 Water sources significantly affected by withdrawal of water (GRI 2011); Sustainability Measurement and Reporting Framework for US Dairy Use (2012), 3.2 Water Efficiency, 3.3 Relative Stress on Water Sources by Withdrawal, 3.4 Water Recycling, Reuse and Return, 3.5 Direct Discharge and Water Quality, 3.6 Prevention of Impacts on Water Quality; SAI Platform Sustainable Agricultural Practices for Cereals- 5 (SAI Platform 2010); Unilever Water Management (King et al. 2010). 3. Definition Water management for farms includes policies and documentation that aim to use water efficiently and manage the risk of water pollution by systematically tracking and managing how water is used on the farm (Environment Agency 2007). 4. Rationale Maintaining efficient use of water is important, as it is a resource where availability is becoming more limited. Insufficient water supplies can affect productivity, so water efficiency should be prioritized. Increasing demand for water around the planet has caused many regions to experience water stress. Maintaining unpolluted water resources is vital to water quality for many regions. Water management systems will help a farmer manage water resources in a systematic manner, use water efficiently, and prevent water bodies from becoming polluted. Many water-related issues are addressed in the soil management system and nutrient management system. 5. Monitoring methods 5.1. Selection of Monitoring Sites All farms should be audited to determine whether they have water management policy and documentation indicators Frequency of Monitoring Once a farm has a system of water management policy and documentation indicators in place, they should be monitored once every two to five years Data Measurement and Sampling A reviewer should assess whether the policy indicators are complete and being applied (Table 11) and the whether appropriate documentation is in place (Table 12). Bianchi et al. (2009), Environment Agency (2007), Kresge and Mamen (2009), Izuno (2011), and SAI Platform (2010) can be reviewed for other additional water policy and documentation indicators. 28

29 Table 11. Water management policy indicators and key issues to be addressed. Policy Indicators (with indicator codes) Key issues to be addressed WP1. Timing and amount tailored to crop requirements Application techniques should be appropriate to water availability Avoidance of over use of irrigation An assessment of use and recharge rates of water sources for irrigation that uses best available information to verify water source sustainability WP2. Minimize evapotranspiration Minimization of unproductive losses when using overhead irrigation WP3. Not using streams and rivers for overflow or runoff Protection of water resources WP4. Minimize indirect pollution to water Protection of surface and ground from direct and indirect pollution including a) Siltation through sediments b) Pollution from nutrients c) Pollution from agrochemicals and other chemicals d) Pollution from fuels e) Pollution from contaminated runoff f) Pollution from livestock g) Pollution from human sewage h) Pollution from waste water e.g., yard and machine shop should not drain into ditches or streams WP5. Maintenance of buffers Assessment and management of sedimentation risk to water bodies with soil from fields (e.g.. erosion control, riparian buffer strips, drain design) WP6. Reduce water usage for irrigation Timing and amount of irrigation tailored to crop requirements to meet planned yield Application techniques should be appropriate to water availability Avoidance of over use of irrigation Minimization of unproductive losses when using overhead irrigation Table 12. Water management documentation indicators and key issues to be addressed. Documentation Indicator (with indicator numbers) WD1. Legal obligations listed and compliance records WD2. Irrigation and soil records Key issues to be addressed List of legal obligations regarding water use and pollution (if any) and indication of how obligations were fulfilled Soil moisture monitoring records Timing and amounts of water applied 29

30 W1a+b Soil Moisture Management 1. Indicator units 1.1. W1a Integrated irrigation scheduling Percent of irrigated farm units or irrigated cropland, pasture, and forage land hectares with integrated irrigation scheduling (SAI Platform 2010) W1b Dryland farming Percent of dryland or similar farm units or dryland cropland, pasture, and forage land with dryland farming techniques used to manage soil moisture for crops, pasture, and/or forage. 2. Examples of systems using related indicators SAI 1.2 Sustainability management system (amount of irrigated water applied) (SAI Platform 2010). 3. Definitions 3.1. Integrated irrigation scheduling where the timing and amounts of irrigation water applied are based on soil moisture and crop needs to optimize crop production and minimize adverse environmental impacts (Christian-Smith et al. 2011) Drylands arid or semi-arid regions characterized by the ratio of annual precipitation to potential evapotranspiration of between 0.05 and 0.65 (Koohafkan and Stewart 2008) Dryland farming a system of growing crops without irrigation, by reducing evaporation and by special methods of tillage that reduces evaporation of soil moisture (Stewart et al. 2006). 4. Rationale Irrigation scheduling takes into account the evapotranspiration rate, soil moisture, and climate conditions to assess daily crop water requirements. It applies water at the right time and in the right quantity in order to optimize production and minimize adverse environmental impacts. It has many advantages (Christian-Smith et al. 2011, Buchleiter et al. 1996): (1) by utilizing soil moisture storage, it can reduce water, energy, and labor costs by as much as 35% through fewer irrigation sessions; (2) it reduces fertilizer costs by minimizing runoff and leaching; (3) it increases net returns by increasing crop yields and crop quality; (4) it minimizes water-logging problems by reducing the need for drainage; (5) in soils where salinity is a problem, it assists in controlling root zone salinity through controlled leaching; and (6) it reduces water withdrawals and impacts to local water levels and wetlands, especially those highly sensitive to changes in hydrology (e.g., seasonal wetlands, panne wetlands). Dryland farming practices of water and soil conservation and management can increase water use efficiency, thus increasing yields and reducing the likelihood of crop failure and costs, and avoid some negative impacts of irrigation (Koohafkan and Stewart 2008, Rockström 2002). Soil moisture management indicators can demonstrate strategies that control production costs, increase yield, reduce yield variability, and address local and global environmental concerns associated with water use and conservation (Pretty and Koohafkan, 2002). 5. Monitoring methods 5.1. Selection of Monitoring Sites Farm units with irrigation or that are located in drylands where water limits crop productions Frequency of Monitoring Farm units should be monitored annually Data Measurement and Sampling Area extent (ha) of cropland, pasture, and forage land where integrated irrigation scheduling or dryland farming techniques are applied based on field records and maps. 30

31 W2 Non-point Source Pollution 1. Indicator units Percent of farm units or percent of cropland, pasture, and forage land, ha lacking observable non-point pollution. 2. Examples of systems using related indicators SAI 4.2 ENV3, 4.7 ENV9 (SAI Platform 2010b), Unilever , (King et al. 2010). 3. Definition Agricultural non-point source pollution nutrients, sediment, animal wastes, salts, heavy metals, and pesticides from agricultural sources which is carried by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and through the ground and deposited in surface waters (USDA 1991). 4. Rationale Agriculture can have an impact on water quality through various activities. Common sources of nonpoint water pollution on farms include soil erosion, application of fertilizer and manure, agro-chemicals, heavy metals, manure storage, and livestock (USDA 1991). Rainfall onto fields and pens that is not captured and stored on-site can infiltrate into the soil or run off the site to rivers and streams. The process of water flowing across the landscape, including crop areas, results in solubilization of some constituents and detachment and transport of others. Runoff is a transport mechanism for transporting agriculturerelated pollutants, particularly sediment, nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) and pathogenic bacteria. These pollutants can have significant off-farm impacts. Non-point pollution can be monitored in two ways: 1) intensive monitoring of biological and chemical parameters in water bodies and groundwater; and (2) through a risk-oriented assessment based on management practices. While direct monitoring of water quality is preferable, it is difficult, expensive, and time consuming. Over 80% of the annual nonpoint pollution loads can be delivered during the 10% of rain events that correspond with snow-melt and storm events (i.e., dry weather conditions) (Richards 1997). This type of variability makes real-time water quality monitoring impractical. Buffers along water bodies effectively control sediment and pathogens, and reduce the risk of pesticides entering water bodies. Their use can be verified during annual sediment surveys along water bodies. Nutrient management plans and prohibition of livestock access to water bodies can control major sources of nutrients and animal wastes. IPM should significantly control pesticide fluxes. This indicator focuses on the strategies and practices that can help prevent water quality impacts. 5. Monitoring methods 5.1. Selection of Monitoring Sites Ten to twenty field sites adjacent to permanent water bodies should be randomly selected from each farm unit for monitoring. To reduce sampling error when monitoring trends, the same field site should be sampled during monitoring Frequency of Monitoring Field sites should be monitored annually during the growing season Data Measurement and Sampling We propose a cross between a practiced-based and evidence-based assessment for monitoring non-point source pollution following approaches taken by others, including government agencies (e.g., EPA, Barbour et al. 1999; USDA, USDA NRCS 1998). At each field site, reviewers should determine whether (1) water body buffers, (2) the nutrient management plan, (3) IPM, and (4) control of livestock access to water bodies are adequate and whether there is (5) direct sediment delivery to a water body or (6) eutrophication that can be solely linked to activities on the farm s lands. 1. Buffers (see Indicator S2b Soil protection) A buffer is adequate if 100% of the field/water body interface has a vegetated buffer > 33m or 100 ft wide. 2. Nutrient management plans The adequacy of the nutrient management plan for the field site can be evaluated by reviewing the plan, interviewing the farm manager to determine whether the plan is being appropriately applied to the field, and by evidence in the field (e.g., management activities are appropriate for that time of year and consistent with the plan). 3. IPM (see Indicator C2 Prioritize IPM) The adequacy of IPM can be evaluated by reviewing the IPM policy and documentation, interviewing the farm manager to determine whether the plan is being appropriately applied to the field, and by evidence in the field (e.g., management activities are appropriate for that time of year and consistent with IPM BMPs). 4. Livestock access (see Indicator S2b Soil protection) The adequacy of control of livestock access to water bodies can be evaluated by interviewing the farm manager to determine whether livestock had access to water bodies during the past year and, if so, evaluating whether permanent or temporary fencing is sufficient for preventing livestock or whether livestock have been loafing along 31

32 the edge of the water body (USDA NRCS 1998, Lewis et al. 2001). 5. Sedimentation Sediment delivery can be detected by surveying the field/water body interface for gullies, washouts, sediment fans, tile drainage, etc. that reaches the water body (Barbour et al. 1999, Lewis et al. 2001). 6. Eutrophication Eutrophication can be detected by looking for algal mats or filamentous algae in the adjacent water body (Barbour et al. 1999, USDA NRCS 1998). If the upstream portion of the water body is completely within farm s management and/or algal mats and/or filamentous algae is lacking from upstream sites, then farm s lands are the likely source of non-point pollution contributing to eutrophication if these indicators are present. 32

33 W3 Overflow and Runoff Control 1. Indicator units Percent of irrigated farm units or irrigated cropland, pasture, and forage land hectares with overflow and runoff control. 2. Examples of systems using related indicators SAI 4.2 ENV2 (SAI Platform 2010b), Unilever (King et al. 2010). 3. Definitions Runoff precipitation, snow melt, or irrigation water that drains off land into surface water. Overflow untreated runoff discharges to surface water that occurs when the water storage capacity of irrigation systems is exceeded either through over watering or flooding by storm flows. Controlled irrigation drainage the control of surface and subsurface water through use of drainage and water control structures (Dressing 1997). Its purpose is to conserve water and maintain optimum soil moisture to (1) store and manage infiltrated rainfall for more efficient crop production; (2) improve surface water quality by increasing infiltration, thereby reducing runoff, which may carry sediment and undesirable chemicals; and (3) reduce nitrates in the drainage water by creating conditions for denitrification (Texas Water Development Board 2005). [Note: Indicator S2b (Soil protection) addresses runoff and overflow issues for all farmland, whereas this indicator address runoff and overflow issues specific to irrigated lands]. 4. Rationale Both runoff and overflow can carry sediments and pollutants into the receiving waters (US EPA, Dressing 1997). Controlling runoff and overflow improves irrigation water management and irrigation efficiency (Hansen and Trimmer 1997, Ongley 1996). It can reduce the amount of water needed and energy costs associated with pumping water. A number of practices can be used to avoid runoff and overflow: (1) aligning water application rates to soil infiltration rates; (2) management practices that reduce potential runoff; (3) tillage practices that leave the soil surface with a high infiltration rate and rough enough to prevent quick runoff (e.g., furrow dikes; Harris and Krishna 1989); (4) reservoir or basin tillage practices that provide numerous small water reservoirs on the soil to hold water until the soil can absorb it; and (5) tail water (runoff water from an irrigated field) management structures, including tail water recovery systems that recycle irrigation water and runoff retention systems that allow sediment and other pollutants to settle from the water column before being discharged into surface water (Texas Water Development Board 2005). Runoff retention systems can include percolation basins, drainage swales, dry wells, dry ponds, wet ponds, and trenches. The goal is to avoid discharging untreated irrigation water directly into surface waters. 5. Monitoring methods 5.1. Selection of Monitoring Sites Ten to twenty randomly selected irrigated fields on farm units with irrigation Frequency of Monitoring Once every two to five years Data Measurement and Sampling The irrigation drainage control system should be inspected to assess whether untreated irrigation water is being discharged into surface waters. This entails an inspection of tail water management systems to assess the frequency and amount of untreated irrigation water being discharged into surface waters. 33

34 Background for Biodiversity Indicators Biodiversity is the variety within and among living organisms, assemblages of living organisms, biotic communities, and biotic processes, in a particular area, whether naturally occurring or modified by humans (Noss 1990). It can be measured in terms of composition (e.g., genetic diversity and the identity and number of different types of species, assemblages of species, biotic communities), biotic processes, and the amount (e.g., abundance, biomass, cover, rate) and structure of each. Its loss can disrupt ecosystem functions, making ecosystems more vulnerable to disturbances (including extreme weather), less resilient, and less able to supply humans with needed services such as clean water and food. Unfortunately, biodiversity is being lost at an everincreasing rate (Neave et al. 2000). The need to boost world food supplies has led to the intensification of agricultural practices and conversion of many forests, grasslands and wetland areas into farmland to increase food production. Although this has led to a loss of biodiversity and degradation of ecosystem services in many agricultural areas, intensive agriculture can be compatible with biodiversity conservation (Lindenmayer et al. 2012). The pressure on biodiversity is expected to significantly increase, as the global population is predicted to increase to more than 10 billion people by Managing for biodiversity in an agricultural context is challenging because there are tradeoffs: reducing the intensity of farm practices and crop yield to benefit biodiversity requires expanding the physical footprint and potential impacts of crop land necessary to produce the same amount of food. Agri-environmental practices applied in intensively managed landscapes have been shown to significantly increase biodiversity with little reduction in productivity (Batáry et al. 2011). 34

35 Biodiversity Management (BP1 Policy Indicator, BD1-6 Documentation Indicators) 1. Indicator units Compliance/non-compliance with policy and documentation indicator specifications or percent of farm units in compliance. 2. Examples of systems using related indicators GRI EN11 Location and size of land owned, leased, managed in, or adjacent to, protected areas and areas of high biodiversity value outside protected areas; GRI EN12 Description of significant impacts of activities, products, and services on biodiversity in protected areas and areas of high biodiversity value outside protected areas (GRI 2011); Global Gap- AF 6.1 Impact of Farm on Environment and Biodiversity, AF 6. Environment and Conservation, AF 6.2 Unproductive Sites (Global GAP 2012); Unilever Biodiversity (King et al. 2010); SAI Platform Sustainable Agricultural Practices for Cereals- 1.b, 9.2 (SAI Platform 2010). 3. Definition Farm-level biodiversity management can include policies and documentation that can be used to identify and manage impacts on biodiversity and to report on progress (Anderson et al. 2001). This is a systematic approach to planning, implementing and reviewing a farm unit s efforts to manage its biodiversity risks and impacts, such as degradation of the natural environment, threats to rare and endangered species and habitats, and regulatory obligations. 4. Rationale Economic activity is one of the major drivers of biodiversity loss, and many agricultural areas are losing biodiversity at an alarming rate (EU B@B Platform 2010). The pressure on biodiversity is expected to significantly increase as the global population is predicted to increase. The loss of high conservation value habitats can disrupt ecosystem functions, making them less resilient and less able to supply humans with needed ecosystem services. Key direct drivers include habitat change, climate change, invasive species, over-exploitation and pollution. Agriculture can help reduce these pressures by managing and mitigating their impacts on biodiversity. The agricultural sector can best provide biodiversity benefits when sustainable management systems are applied and innovative practices are adopted. Understanding the interface between biodiversity and food production, and using this information to create cost-effective conservation practices, is essential to ensure food production and the delivery of essential ecosystem services (Smith et al. 2012). Managing for biodiversity in an agricultural context is challenging because there are tradeoffs to reducing the intensity of farm practices and crop yield to benefit biodiversity, especially as this could require expanding the physical footprint of crop land necessary to produce the same amount of food (Egan and Mortensen 2012). 5. Monitoring Methods 5.1. Selection of Monitoring Sites All farms should be audited to determine whether they have biodiversity management policy and documentation indicators Frequency of Monitoring Once a farm has a system of biodiversity management policy and documentation indicators in place, they should be monitored once every two to five years Data Measurement and Sampling A reviewer should assess whether the policy indicators are complete and being applied (Table 13) and whether the appropriate documentation is in place (Table 14). Anderson et al. (2001), EU B@B Platform (2010), and Douglas (2008) can be reviewed for additional biodiversity policies and documents. Table 13. Biodiversity management policy indicators and key issues to be addressed by policy indicators. Policy Indicator (with indicator code) BP1. Commitment to maintain biodiversity Key issues to be addressed Actions necessary to maintain areas of high conservation value (multi-field, semi-natural agricultural habitats in traditional agricultural systems), high biodiversity areas, and primary forest Actions necessary to maintain legally listed species Actions necessary to maintain aquatic habitats (may reference soil and water policies) An assessment of biodiversity issues in the land area of the farm 35

36 Table 14. Biodiversity management documentation topics and key issues to be addressed in documents. Documentation Indicator (with indicator code) BD1. Records of progress Key issues to be addressed Size of areas in proximity to farm and rate of increase or decrease BD2. Environmental Impact Assessment documentation Estimated impact and descriptions BD3. Legal obligations listed and compliance records BD4. Assessment of farm management unit biodiversity issues BD5. Plan to make progress BD6. Map of site identifying high conservation value areas List of legal obligations regarding threatened or endangered species, rare habitats, and water quality (if any) and how obligations were fulfilled Areas of high conservation value and the need to maintain those areas An assessment of biodiversity issues in the land area of the farm Data necessary to maintain biodiversity in land area around farm Map of areas of high conservation value, high biodiversity, and primary forest 36

37 B1 Compliance with Legal Obligations for Biodiversity 1. Indicator units Percent of farm units or farm acres in compliance with legal obligations 2. Examples of systems using related indicators GRI EN30 Total environmental protection expenditures and investments by type (GRI 2011), RISE (Hani et al. 2007). 3. Definition Legal obligation regulations and voluntary agreement related to biodiversity issues (i.e., effluent discharges, other water quality issues, listed species, and their habitats) applicable to farms (GRI 2011). This includes binding voluntary agreements that are made with regulatory authorities and developed as a substitute for implementing a new regulation. Voluntary agreements can be applicable if the reporting organization directly joins the agreement or if public agencies make the agreement applicable to organizations in their jurisdiction through legislation or regulation. 4. Rationale The level of non-compliance among farm units helps indicate the ability of management to ensure that farm operations conform to certain performance parameters (GRI 2011). From an economic perspective, ensuring compliance helps to reduce financial risks that occur either directly through fines or added regulatory restrictions, or indirectly through impacts on reputation. In some circumstances, noncompliance can lead to clean-up obligations or other costly environmental liabilities. The strength of the organization s compliance record can also affect its ability to expand operations or gain permits. 5. Monitoring methods 5.1. Selection of Monitoring Sites All farm units should be assessed Frequency of Monitoring Farm units should be monitored annually Data Measurement and Sampling Data sources could include audit results or regulatory tracking systems operated by the legal department (GRI 2011). Information regarding monetary fines might be tracked by the accounting department. It could be possible that a portion of a farm unit s area is out of compliance while most of the farm unit area is in compliance (e.g., a pesticide is applied off label to a single crop on a farm with different crops). 37

38 B2 Ecosystem Services 1. Indicator units Percent of farmland, production (tonnes, bu, etc.) per unit area (ha) (see Table 16). 2. Examples of systems using related indicators <Many use similar indicators> 3. Definition Ecosystem services the benefits people receive from ecosystems that support human life on earth. These include provisioning services (e.g., food, water); regulating services (e.g., flood, disease control); cultural services (e.g., spiritual, recreational, cultural benefits); and supporting services (e.g., nutrient cycling). The list of ecosystem services is long and so we list services most relevant in Table Rationale Ecosystem services, from biodiversity to scenic sites, are integral parts of agricultural landscapes and can change with agricultural practices (Oñate et al. 2000). In many regions, the quantity of ecosystem services has declined with intensification of agriculture (Swift et al. 2004). On the other hand, agriculture can provide a range of ecosystem services including pest control, pollination, nutrient re/cycling; soil conservation, structure, and fertility; water provision, quality and quantity; carbon sequestration; and biodiversity. For agriculture, there often is a tradeoff between provisioning services (i.e., production of agricultural goods such as food, fiber or bioenergy) and regulating services (i.e., water purification or soil conservation or carbon sequestration (MEA 2005)). Tradeoffs between food production and ecosystem services may not be inevitable. An analysis of agricultural systems from around the world indicates that farm units using practices like conservation tillage, crop diversification, legume intensification and biological control perform as well as intensive, highinput systems but better conserve ecosystem services (Badgley et al. 2007, Rollett et al. 2008). There are several ways to assess ecosystem services (Haines-Young and Potschin 2009). A widely accepted approach is to conduct biophysical assessments where key indicators or elaborate models are used to estimate amounts of ecosystem services associated with various types of land cover (e.g., InVEST, Tallis et al. 2011). Often assessments using indicators based on land cover are used because data collection is simple and analysis is inexpensive and because the relationships between land cover types and specific ecosystems services are well known (Egoh et al. 2008). 5. Monitoring methods 5.1. Selection of Monitoring Sites All farm units should be assessed Frequency of Monitoring Farm units should be monitored every two to five years Data Measurement and Sampling Most data for this indicator can be obtained from other indicators (Table 16). Estimating fiber production would require a review of timber harvesting records. Estimating the level of climate regulation would require an assessment of the area extent of non-degraded pasture areas. Table 15. Ecosystem services widely associated with global farmland (cf. UNEP-WCMC 2011). Major Types Description Ecosystem services 1. Provisioning services are products obtained from ecosystems. Food Foods derived from plants, animals, and microbes Fiber Materials such as wood, jute, cotton, hemp, silk, and wool Fresh water Drinking water 2. Regulating services are benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes. Climate regulation Water regulation Erosion regulation Local (e.g., heat island effect) and global (e.g., GHG sequestration) climate regulation Flood control associated with natural vegetation Soil retention Water purification Waste filtration to prevent water impacts, including related soil and subsoil processes Pollination The transfer of pollen between male and female plants by pollinators 3. Supporting services are services necessary for the production of ecosystem services, often having indirect human impact. Soil formation The rate of soil formation 38

39 Table 16. Ecosystem services for farmland, their indicators, indicator units with key citation, and data sources. Ecosystem Service Indicator Indicator units Data sources Food Food production Amount of food (bu or tonnes) per unit area of cropland (ha) (Layke 2009) Fiber Wood production Amount of wood fiber (tonnes or m 3 ) per forest unit area (Layke 2009) Biodiversity Wildlife habitat Percent of farmland providing wildlife habitat (Layke 2009) Climate regulation Water regulation Erosion regulation Water purification Area where sequestration likely to exceed emissions Area where water regulation approximates natural conditions Area lacking soil erosion Area lacking non-point source pollution Percent of farmland (ha) with carbon sequestration (FAO 2001) Percent of farmland in farm units or watersheds where amount of semi-natural and natural habitats exceeds 70% (this attenuates peak flows; Verry 2000) Percent of farmland lacking erosion (Gobin et al. 2004) Percent of cropland, pasture, and forage land; ha lacking observable non-point source pollution From S1 Land productivity From timber harvest records From B3 Wildlife Habitat (area extent of natural habitats, uncultivated habitats, and semi-natural habitats) Would require an assessment to calculate area extent of non-degraded pasture and use of data from B3 - Wildlife Habitat (area extent of natural habitats, uncultivated habitats, and semi-natural habitats) and X1 Crop residues and organic amendments (area extent of no-till and incorporation of organic amendments) From B3 Wildlife habitat (area extent of natural habitats and semi-natural habitats) From S2a Soil erosion (areas with no soil erosion) From W2 Non-point source pollution Pollination Soil formation Area of natural and seminatural habitat Area where soil erosion is the same as natural vegetation Percent of farmland in natural and semi-natural habitat (Ricketts et al. 2008, Kremen et al. 2004) Percent of farmland in seminatural and natural habitat (UNEP-WCMC 2009) From B3 Wildlife habitat (area extent of natural habitats and semi-natural habitats) From B3 Wildlife habitat (area extent of natural habitats and semi-natural habitats) 39

40 B3 Wildlife Habitat 1. Indicator units Area extent (ha) and percent of farmland in seminatural agricultural habitats, pasture/open range, uncultivated habitats, natural habitats. 2. Examples of systems using related indicators EC (European Commission 2006), GRI EN13 Habitats protected or restored (GRI 2011), IRENA (EEA 2005), Environmental Indicators for Agriculture (OECD 2001); Unilever and and (King et al. 2010); Global GAP AF and AF (Global GAP 2010). 3. Definitions Natural habitats land and water areas where (1) an ecosystem s biological communities are formed largely by native plant and animal species, and (2) human activity has not essentially modified the area's primary ecological functions (World Bank 2012). This can include primary forest that has never been logged and has developed following natural disturbances and processes, and secondary forest that has been logged and has largely recovered natural processes naturally or artificially. Semi-natural agricultural habitats areas of farmland where the use of farm chemicals is either absent or they are applied at considerably lower rates per unit area than in more intensively cultivated areas (OECD 2001). These habitats are relatively undisturbed by plowing, mowing, and weeding. High conservation value habitats are a type of semi-natural agricultural habitat that occurs on a farm with many decades of traditional low-intensity agriculture (typically found in Europe, in margin agricultural areas, and in areas with traditional agriculture (e.g., shade coffee). Seminatural habitats arise through interactions with other ecosystems, and can be broadly classified as follows: Semi-natural habitats typical of agricultural ecosystems, such as extensive grassland and pasture; fallow land; extensive margins in cropped land; and low-intensity permanent crop areas, including certain fruit orchards and olive groves. Semi-natural habitats arising from the interaction between agricultural and aquatic ecosystems, including some types of wetlands exploited for agricultural use, such as grazing in marshes and water meadows. Semi-natural habitats arising from the interaction between agricultural and forest ecosystems, including agroforestry and pastoral woodland. Semi-natural habitats arising from the interaction between agricultural and mountain ecosystems, including alpine pastures and grass patches. Semi-natural habitats arising from the interaction between agricultural and steppe ecosystems, ranging from semi-arid to desert steppe and including dry meadows and dry pastureland. Pasture/open range semi-natural habitats used for pasture, including open range areas used for grazing. Uncultivated habitats habitats on and/or bordering agricultural land that were once natural areas converted to agriculture and now are reverting back to natural area (OECD 2001). This includes woodlands, small rivers, wetlands (including bogs, marshes, and swamps), hedges, shelterbelts, ditches and planted woodland and plantations. Uncultivated habitats that are recovering or restored forest areas may be difficult to distinguish from natural habitats such as secondary forest. 4. Rationale Loss and alteration of habitat are the leading causes of depletion of the earth s wildlife species, and thus of biodiversity (Neave et al. 2000). Conversion of natural land to agriculture has contributed to declining wildlife habitat, but agriculture can also provide more, quality habitat than some other human land uses, such as urban development. Wildlife on farmland creates opportunities (e.g., aesthetic appeal, hunting, fishing) and challenges (e.g., reduced crop yields) for farmers and productivity. The maintenance of wildlife habitats on farm land can help achieve other environmental objectives, including those associated with international obligations for the protection of rare or scarce wildlife habitats and their associated species. Wildlife habitats can serve as buffers to reduce water pollution and soil erosion. Some wildlife habitats enhance the survival of natural enemies of crop pests and allow a reduction in pesticide use. Many farm practices affect the quality and availability of natural habitats and wildlife (Egan and Mortensen 2012). For example, many bird species have become dependent on the presence of permanent pasture land, semi-natural grasslands and small habitats in the landscape, such as hedgerows. Agriculture also impacts wildlife that is not directly present on agricultural land, but which is connected through, for example, the downstream effects of nutrients and pesticide residues in water and through changes in the length of the contact zone between farmed land and natural habitats. Agriculture can also affect natural habitats through the escape of domesticated species, as previously described in relation to the issue of biodiversity. The quality of wildlife habitats might also be affected by agriculture through increased fragmentation, which can lead to damaging effects on species population size and distributions, and the potential loss of species diversity. 40

41 The value of semi-natural agricultural habitats for wild flora and fauna varies according to the individual type of habitat (OECD 2001). In general, these habitats are considered to have systematically better conditions for wildlife than intensively farmed habitats. They also include some important sites for nature conservation, with frequently a high level of species richness of botanical and entomological value. Moreover, the interspersion of intensively farmed areas with semi-natural habitat enhances the quality of the entire agricultural ecosystem, both from the viewpoint of biodiversity and also in terms of the amenity value of a varied landscape (Egan and Mortensen 2012). High natural value farmland is threatened by two contrasting agricultural trends: intensification and abandonment (EEA 2004). The larger the area covered by semi-natural agricultural habitats, the more beneficial are the effects on wildlife, as these habitats often support a greater variety of species than intensively farmed areas (Hietala-Koivua et al. 2004, OECD 2001). Semi-natural agriculture habitats are also characterized through their symbiotic relationship with surrounding habitat. 5. Monitoring methods 5.1. Selection of Monitoring Sites All farm units should be surveyed Frequency of Monitoring Habitat surveys should be conducted once every two to five years Data Measurement and Sampling Using maps, aerial photos, and other materials, the area extent of farmland in semi-natural agricultural habitats, uncultivated habitats, and natural habitats should be assessed. 41

42 Background for Agricultural Chemical Indicators Global agriculture has grown significantly in the past century. One factor responsible for such growth has been the large increase in the use of chemical-based fertilizers and pest-control strategies in farming (Tilman 1999). Most farmers rely on chemical fertilizers and pesticides to produce high yields with less labor on reduced amounts of land (Lindenmeyer et al. 2012). Agricultural chemicals including fertilizers and pesticides have been a great benefit to human populations (Akhtar et al. 2009). However, pesticides can harm wildlife and contaminate the environment (soil, air and water) when used inappropriately (Lindenmayer et al. 2012, Akhtar et al. 2009, Gibbs et al. 2009). The effects of pesticides on wildlife are closely associated with the type of agriculture practiced. The spread and intensification of agriculture, involving increased use of pesticides and fertilizers, has had significant negative impacts on the abundance and diversity of wildlife species and the quality of the environment (Akhtar et al. 2009). In recent years the costs for fuel and chemicals have increased sharply. The high use of pesticides has led to development of resistance in some pest species, and concern has developed over environmental contamination by fertilizers and pesticides. Increasing attention, therefore, is being given to means of reducing the agricultural reliance on chemical-intensive production systems to reduce risk to the environment (Tilman 1999) and human health, and labor and production costs. 42

43 Agricultural Chemical Management (CP1-2 Policy Indicators, CD1-5 Documentation Indicators) 1. Indicator units Compliance/non-compliance with policy and documentation indicator specifications or percent of farm units in compliance. 2. Examples of systems using related indicators Global Gap- AF Training, CB 2.2 Chemical Treatments and Dressings, CB 7- Integrated Pest Management, CB 8- Plant Protection Products, CD 8.11 Application of Products other than Fertilizer and Plant Protection Products (Global GAP 2012); Unilever (King et al. 2010). 3. Definition Farm-level agricultural chemical management uses policies and documentation to address chemical storage; BMPs for use; container recycling; a simple safety and environmental plan, labels and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for all chemicals; contact information for the farm staff, first responders, and a local poison control center; and a spill response plan (Howard et al. 1998). 4. Rationale Proper management of agricultural chemicals (e.g., pesticides, fertilizers, fuels, oils) is often a legal requirement in many jurisdictions (Epstein and Bassein 2003). Agricultural chemicals can pose significant hazards to humans and the environment if improperly used. They can pose a risk to human health (e.g., skin irritants, dust inhalation, fire/explosion) if not used efficiently or appropriately. Impact reductions can best be achieved through strategies that seek to use the least harmful chemicals possible, reduce the amount of chemical used, and worker training to ensure chemicals are used safely. 5. Monitoring methods 5.1. Selection of Monitoring Sites All farms should be assessed for agricultural chemical policy indicators and documentation indicators Frequency of Monitoring Once a farm has a system of agricultural chemicals management policy and documentation indicators in place, they should be monitored once every two to five years Data Measurement and Sampling A reviewer should review whether the policy indicators are complete and being applied (Table 17), and determine whether the appropriate documentation is in place (Table 18). Table 17. IPM policy indicators and key issues to be addressed by policy indicators. Policy topics (with indicator number) CP1. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy CP2. Hazardous waste policies for waste generation, storage, and disposal Key issues to be addressed in policies Methods used to reduce chemical usage and increase use of less-toxic alternatives Types of waste generated, how it is handled, stored, and transported Table 18. IPM documentation indicators and key issues to be addressed in documentation indicators. Documentation Indicators CD1. Inventory chemicals used CD2. Map areas where chemicals are used and stored CD3. Legal obligations listed and compliance records CD4. Pre-measure pesticide batch SOP CD5. Training schedule Key issues to be addressed Master list of all chemicals used Where chemicals are stored How legal obligations were fulfilled An SOP describing how chemical batches can be measured to minimize waste Type of training needed for each operator List of trainings completed 43

44 C1 Employee Training on Agricultural Chemicals 1. Indicator units Percent of farm workers with agricultural chemical trainings. 2. Examples of systems using related indicators RISE (Hani et al. 2007); Unilever 2.1.9, (King et al. 2010); Global GAP AF 3.3, CB 8.2.1, , CC (Global GAP 2010); SAI Principles & Practices for the Sustainable Production of Arable & Vegetable Crops 3.2 (SAI Platform 2010). 3. Definition Agricultural chemical worker trainings providing information and training on hazardous chemicals in the work area at the time of hiring and when new hazards are introduced into their work area. This includes information on-site hazardous chemicals; location of useful information; health hazards of the chemicals in the work area; appropriate work practices, emergency procedures, and personal protective equipment to be used (US EPA 2006). 4. Rationale Training of employees on use, chemical handling, storage, and disposal can help reduce the frequency of spills and employee incidents of exposure to hazardous chemicals, reduce liability and insurance costs, and may even reduce chemical use. Workers who use chemicals should be familiarized with the chemical hazards, how to appropriately use chemicals, how to prevent and manage spills, and how to respond to emergencies (Hurst and Kirby 2007). Training effectiveness is greatest when it is provided in the native language of employees and if personal protective equipment, such as gloves, are provided (Levesque et al. 2012, Vela Acosta et al. 2005). Several studies show that greater knowledge of pesticide risks increases workers sense of control and willingness to practice safety behaviors that should reduce exposure (Arcury et al. 2002; McCauley et al. 2002). 5. Monitoring methods 5.1. Selection of Monitoring Sites All farm employees on all farm units should be censused Frequency of Monitoring: Farm units should be assessed annually Data Measurement and Sample Evidence of worker training can include records of relevant workshops with proof of attendance (e.g., signed attendance sheet), appropriate licensing (e.g., a pesticide applicators license), or certificate of training. 44

45 C2 Prioritize Integrated Pest Management (IPM) 1. Indicator units Percent of cropland, pasture, and forage land with IPM. 2. Examples of systems using related indicators RISE (Hani et al. 2007); Unilever 2.1.1, (King et al. 2010); Global GAP CB7 (Global GAP 2012); SAI Principles & Practices for the Sustainable Production of Arable & Vegetable Crops 1.4 SF11 (SAI Platform 2010). 3. Definition IPM an approach that first assesses the pest situation, evaluates the merits of pest management options and then implements a system of complementary management actions within a defined area (Flint 2012). The goal of IPM is to minimize pest damage while reducing costs and protecting human health and the environment. IPM is a dynamic system that is adaptable to diverse management approaches. Pest management decisions are made by the individual producer, business entity or government agency, but are influenced by the diversity of public and private values. 4. Rationale IPM is a comprehensive approach to pest control that repeated application of pest monitoring and control strategies to reduce the negative economic impacts of insects, pathogens, nematodes, weeds, and vertebrates while maintaining a quality environment. Effective IPM practices will reduce the use of amount of hazardous chemicals, environmental impacts, occupational risk, and risk of contamination of food (Flint 2012). 5. Monitoring methods Records with names of products used and target pests. Inventory of chemicals on site tracked over time and adjusted to farm productivity to determine if reductions are being made Selection of Monitoring Sites IPM use should be measured on all farms Frequency of Monitoring IPM use should be assessed annually for each farm Data Measurement and Sampling Area extent (ha) of IPM on cropland, pasture, and forage land and total area (ha) of cropland, pasture, and forage land should be estimated annually for each farm. 45

46 C3 High Hazard Chemical Phase Out 1. Indicator units Total reductions of products used in liters (for liquid pesticides) and kilograms (dry pesticides). 2. Examples of systems using related indicators Unilever (King et al. 2010). 3. Definition High hazard pesticides pesticides classified as extremely hazardous or highly hazardous by the World Health Organization (WHO 2010). These chemicals should be considered for phasing out when a less hazardous alternative is feasible. 4. Rationale As recently as the year 2000, 40% of the total mass of pesticides used in the United States were in the riskiest group of pesticides (Epstein and Bassein 2003). An estimated million cases of pesticide poisoning occurred world-wide annually, with 220,000 deaths (WHO 1990). Murray and Taylor (2000) proposed a policy and strategic approach to deal with issues of occupational pesticide poisoning that builds upon the classic industrial hygiene hierarchy of controls. Its top two strategies are to eliminate the most toxic pesticides and to substitute toxic pesticides with less toxic, equally effective alternatives. Reducing the availability of highly toxic pesticides in many countries has been shown to be an effective strategy in reducing total death rates, where accidental and self-harm cases have been greatly reduced as a result (Konradsen et al. 2003). With the prioritization of IPM and by using chemicals that have less impact on the environment, farm units can phase out of the more hazardous and toxic chemicals and reduce liability and insurance costs; risks to employees, the environment, and consumers; risk of reputation impacts on sales; and supply chain risks. 5. Monitoring methods Inventory of chemicals on site tracked over time and adjusted to farm productivity to determine if reductions are being made Selection of Monitoring Sites Reduction in hazardous pesticide use should be measured on all farms Frequency of Monitoring Reductions should be estimated annually for each farm Data Measurement and Sampling Annual use of WHO extremely hazardous or highly hazardous pesticides should be monitored so that year-to-year reductions can be calculated by liters (for liquids) and kilograms (for dry pesticides). If possible, estimate reductions in active ingredients used. 46

47 Background for Waste Indicators About 4 billion tonnes of waste are produced globally each year, which represents a market opportunity worth an estimated 300 billion euros (Chalmin and Gaillochet 2010). Agricultural waste, which includes both natural (organic) and non-natural wastes, is waste produced on a farm through various farming activities. It can include routine farm trash, bale and bunker plastic, packaging for medicine and other supplies, equipment fluids, silage leachate, human waste, unneeded equipment, leftover cropping chemicals, expired chemicals, and milk room waste (Whitman and Clark 2010). Some waste can be re-used (e.g., waste motor oil for heating) or recycled (e.g., some plastics). Good waste management on farms is essential to ensure a healthy, safe and productive farming enterprise. Inappropriate waste disposal can cause contamination and pollution, harm local communities, and result in legal liability. 'Clean and green' agriculture is of increasing importance in the marketing of food, especially on international markets. Appropriate management of farm wastes can benefit farms by preventing contamination of the land, water, or agricultural products, and preventing penalties imposed on the land owner. There is a hierarchy of actions for managing waste that land owners should use to efficiently manage universal waste, ranking from most preferable to least preferable: avoidance, reuse, recycling, recovery of energy, treatment, containment, and disposal. 47

48 Waste Management (XP1 Policy Indicator, XD1-3 Documentation Indicators) 1. Indicator units Compliance/non-compliance with policy and documentation indicator specifications or percent of farm units in compliance. 2. Examples of systems using related indicators Global Gap AF Protective Clothing and Equipment, AF 5 Waste and Pollution Management, Recycling and Re-use, CB 8.9 Empty Plant Protection Product Containers, CD 8.10 Obsolete Plant Protection Products (Global GAP 2012); GRI - EN22 Total weight of waste by type and disposal (GRI 2011); Unilever (King et al. 2010); SAI Platform Sustainable Agricultural Practices for Cereals- 9.4 (SAI Platform 2010). 3. Definition Waste management - includes policies and documentation that help achieve the reduction, reuse, recovery, or disposal of waste, with a preference toward waste avoidance (Adedipe et al. 2003). Farm waste includes routine farm trash, bale and bunker plastic, tree guards, packaging for medicine and other supplies, equipment fluids, silage leachate, human waste, unneeded equipment, leftover cropping chemicals, expired chemicals, and milk room waste (Whitman and Clark 2010). Farm waste in the form of spilled or leftover fuel, pesticides, or chemical fertilizers can be considered hazardous waste and pose a health risk to employees. Dairy farms and confined animal production systems can also have animal manure to consider. 4. Rationale Effective management of waste streams from agricultural systems is important to farm sustainability because waste streams can be regulated and pose a health hazard to employees. Regulated waste streams may pose a reputational and cost liability if they are mishandled on the farm. An effective waste minimization strategy can help a farm reduce the amount of waste generated and even divert certain wastes to other valuable uses. 5. Monitoring methods 5.1. Selection of Monitoring Sites All farm units should be sampled Frequency of Monitoring Once a farm has a system of waste management policy and documentation indicators in place, they should be audited once every two to five years Data Measurement and Sampling A reviewer should review whether the waste management policy indicators are complete and being applied (Table 19) and determine whether the appropriate documentation is in place (Table 20). Table 19. Waste management policy indicators and key issues to be addressed by indicators. Indicator Code Policy Indicator (and indicator code) XP1. Solid waste and recycling policy Key issues to be addressed by indicator Waste reduction goals and methods to attain those goals Recycling goals and methods to achieve Table 20. Waste management documentation indicators and key issues to be addressed by indicators. Indicator Code Documentation Indicators XD1. Farm processing map XD2. Inventory and map areas where waste is generated and stored XD3. Inventory of what should be recycled Key issues to be addressed by indicator Waste throughputs of farming process How waste is generated in farm operations Where waste is generated on the farm by specific location and mapped Recyclable items 48

49 X1 Crop residues and Organic Amendments 1. Indicator units Area extent (ha) and percent of cropland area where organic waste is recycled. 2. Examples of systems using related indicators Global Gap AF (Global GAP 2012), RISE (Hani et al. 2007), Unilever 2.3.1, (King et al. 2010). 3. Definition Organic matter recycling the incorporation of cover crop, crop residue (through conservation tillage), and organic waste materials such as compost or manure into cropland soils. 4. Rationale Agricultural and food industry residues, refuse, and organic wastes greatly contribute to global agricultural productivity (Ashworth and Azevedo 2009). The recycling of organic waste on cropland can protect soils from erosion, water retention capacity, enhance soil organic matter, which improves soil structure, and recycle nutrients for crop production (Fauci et al. 1999, Haug 1993). The residues left by conservation tillage can also increase soil organic matter, reduce soil GHG emissions, reduce soil particulate emissions, increase soil moisture, provide food and escape cover for wildlife, reduce energy use, and increase crop yields (Toliver et al. 2012, Laflen and Colvin 1981, Reicosky et al. 2005, Smil 1999, Shaffer and Larson 1987). These organic wastes may support over 30% of global agricultural productivity (Ashworth and Azevedo 2009). 5. Monitoring methods 5.1. Selection of Monitoring Sites All farm fields on all farm units should be sampled Frequency of Monitoring Farm fields should be sampled annually Data Measurement and Sampling For each farm unit, farm managers will need to track (1) the total area extent (ha) of cropland and (2) the area extent of cropland where organic matter has been applied and/or incorporated into the soil through cover cropping, conservation tillage, manure and compost spreading on cropland, and injection of manure in pasture and forage production areas. Hectares receiving more than one treatment should only be counted once. 49

50 X3 Reuse and Recycling of Packaging and Containers 1. Indicator units Percent of packaging and containers reused and/or recycled by weight. 2. Examples of systems using related indicators RISE (Hani et al. 2007); Unilever (King et al. 2010); Global GAP CB 8.9 (Global GAP 2012). 3. Definitions Reuse the use of a product or component of solid waste in its original form more than once. Examples include refilling glass or plastic bottles, repairing wood pallets, and using corrugated or plastic containers for storage (e.g., machinery parts; US EPA 1994). Recycling the series of activities by which discarded materials, such as paper and agricultural plastics, are collected, sorted, processed, and converted into raw materials and used in the production of new products. It excludes the use of these materials as a fuel or for energy production (National Recycling Coalition 1995). 4. Rationale Reuse and recycling (including composting) is an essential part of integrated solid waste management, which seeks to dispose of waste efficiently (US EPA 1997). Reuse and recycling are the preferred waste management options, after source reduction, to reduce risks to human health and the environment, divert wastes from landfills and burning, conserve energy, and reduce the depletion of nonrenewable natural resources. Most commercial waste is placed in landfills or surface impoundments where it may contaminate groundwater, rivers and streams. When waste is burned, it releases hazardous gases into the air and leaves toxic residues in the form of ash. Waste from packaging and other plastics can be a pollution risk and can add to the amount of material in landfills (CropLife International 2012). Packaging materials include plastics, paper, glass and metals. Plastic waste includes silage wrap, crop cover and tree guards. Waste can be reused (e.g., pallets) or recycled (e.g., plastics pesticide containers; Whitman and Clark 2010). This indicator focuses on packaging and container reuse and recycling because it may be most practical to reuse or recycle these waste materials. For example, last year s silage sheet can be re-used as a groundsheet. Over 35 countries, including most major agricultural countries, have pesticide container recycling programs (CropLife International 2012) and average a 17% recycling rate (WHO/FAO 2008). Global recycling rates for solid waste vary from about 17% in developing countries through informal recycling to >20% in developed countries. 5. Monitoring methods 5.1. Selection of Monitoring Sites All farm units should be sampled Frequency of Monitoring The weight of all reused and recycled solid waste should be estimated at time of reuse or recycling Data Measurement and Sampling The weight of solid waste reused or recycled can be estimated using methods from Table 21 (US EPA 1997 Appendix B) where weights can be estimated based on volume estimates for different types of waste. 50

51 Table 21. Waste coefficients for estimating solid waste weight based on waste volume, by waste category (from US EPA 1997 Appendix B). 51

52 Table 21 (continued). Waste coefficients for estimating solid waste weight based on waste volume, by waste category (from US EPA 1997 Appendix B). 52

53 Table 21 (continued). Waste coefficients for estimating solid waste weight based on waste volume, by waste category (from US EPA 1997 Appendix B). 53

54 Table 21 (continued). Waste coefficients for estimating solid waste weight based on waste volume, by waste category (from US EPA 1997 Appendix B). 54