1 st INFASA Symposium and Workshop Synthesis March 16 and 17, 2006 Bern, Switzerland As presented at the Symposium and Workshop by Dr. Fritz Häni, SHL and Dr. László Pintér, IISD

Symposium Synthesis March 17, 2006

Why Indicators (H. Herren) Food production for future generations Food chain complexity – traceability and trends Disconnects between agriculture and environments, producers and consumers, policies and expectations Monitoring of impact policy Information for consumers, environment movement and private sector Discrimination from consumers, demand for certifications and standards Question of system boundaries (F. Häni) Holistic (F. Häni)

Advantages and limitations of sustainability tools (indicators) Indicators have the potential to expose problems relative to practices and policies (politically sensitive) (H.Herren). Indicators are central to the monitoring process (H.Herren). Indicators can add value and provide needed decision support information for policy makers (H.Herren). Can track environmental performance of agriculture, evaluate agricultural policies and compare developments across countries and time (W.Legg) Sustainability is site specific and multifaceted (integrated approach necessary) (K.Lewis) Policy tools are not appropriate at farm level (K.Lewis)

Key criteria and indicators Indicators should be SMART (G.Sérvin) Specific Measurable Achievable Relevant Time-bound Understandable Sensitive to changes Responsive Scientific Criteria and indicators should be few but well defined (H.Herren)

Use of Assessment Tools on Farms and at Institutions UKUse of various auditing systems based on Indicators for sustainable agriculture (EMA, LEAF, etc.) FranceIDEA method (= Farm Sustainability Indicators method) using 41 indicators RISERISE enables diagnosis and initiation of measures to improve agricultural production at farm, institution (Nestlé) and governmental level BrazilUse of 12 indicators to assess quality management systems at farm level and group of producers

NetherlandsUse of 11 Indicators and assistance of landowners (LAP) GermanyREPRO - Indicators are not isolated criteria but are considered in their mutual relationship CanadaIntegration of agro-environmental indicators with economic models for policy analysis and forecasting. Cooperation between governments, farmers and stakeholders SwitzerlandIndicators are used to evaluate sustainability in Swiss agriculture and to implement agricultural policy instruments (e.g. direct payments)

Panel discussion Sustainable agriculture is an important base for food industry (Nestlé) Partnerships help to improve indicator systems and create standards Constraints  Reduced data collection  Limited georeferencing of statistical data  High costs and little access to monitored informations  Many different indicator-sets  Confusion!  Targets are often complementary Solutions  Adopt criteria for selection of indicators (for measuring, assessing and reporting)  Enhance investment in data sourcing  Reduce costs through remote sensing and field sampling analysis  Adoption of standards reduced policy adjustment and implementation

Preliminary Synthesis (L. Pintér) Data: ongoing data availability and quality constraints Trade-off between complexity and manageability: need for simple, robust systems that users can understand Communication: make the indicator system easy to communicate (visually and otherwise, related to first point) Application: farm level application limited Participation in indicator development: participation is essential, helps increase buy-in and making indicators relevant for users

Preliminary Synthesis, continued Harmonization: need to work towards common approaches, even if the details are different to reflect specific local conditions Social dimension: very important, but most challenging to measure; many are struggling with it Capacity: need for capacity building at the farm level Linkage to policy issues and agendas: standards, certification natural capital accounting, etc.

Workshop Synthesis March 17, 2006 Workshop Synthesis March 17, 2006

Summary Impressions The discourse between industry, policy makers and science is a challenge Why? –Different aims and stakeholders Consumer confidence (industry) Justification for special support of agriculture (policy) Better understanding of systems, decision support tools (science) Added value for farmers OECD countries; developing countries –Different expectation on detail and accuracy Complex systems vs. communicable, simple and cheap tools Standardization vs. site/stakeholder oriented approaches –Although different concepts are partly based on the same inputs, the methodology of different approaches is diverse

How can we overcome this diverging needs and expectations? Talk together Develop a common language and terminology and harmonize concepts Identification of common goals in a pragmatic way  INFASA's challenge Summary Impressions continued

INFASA: Next steps and options for the future Products from Bern Symposium Thematic focus and activities Network Governance Funding