environmental indicators of agriculture - 01

Environmental Indicatorsfor Agriculture

M

EX

ORGANIS

0020001t1.fm Page 1 Thursday, November 16, 2000 8:58 AMethods and Results

ECUTIVE SUMMARY

2001

ATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT

!"

!

# $%&' ' &'##$

' & ' # # & $%&' (# &''

"#

! # '$ # )' # ' &'&$ #$ !#

$"%

'#&$"

!"#&*'#)#"$%"!))#!

&'

&''$"

&'( )*(%'( +%,-. /.0122

03 $ & + $ ! ) , # $ & ''# &( ! #!## $ ' $%&' #!" www.oecd.org/agr/env/indicators.htm ##$!

-.!$%&'#!*$!/)0

'$%&'#!*&!"

1&'&2$ 2#%343345,'"1&6#$"788+4+94,:("788++8,

3

OECD 2000

FOREWORD

The impacts of agriculture on the environment and the achievement of sustainable agriculture are ofmajor public concern in the context of agricultural policy reform, trade liberalisation, and multilateral envi-ronmental agreements. This Executive Summary accompanies the publication of Volume 3 of the OECDseries Environmental Indicators for Agriculture. It is a stocktaking of the environmental performance of agricul-ture considering a range of policy relevant agri-environmental issues in OECD countries. The study aims toreview and take stock of progress in developing agri-environmental indicators in OECD countries; build onearlier OECD work in establishing standard definitions and methods of calculation for indicators; providepreliminary results of the state and recent trends of environmental conditions in agriculture across OECDcountries; interpret indicator trends and highlight linkages between indicators; and outline the currentlimitations and key challenges for their future development.

Part I of the study, Agriculture in the broader economic, social and environmental context, outlines a set of contex-tual indicators which reveal the influence on agri-environmental relationships of macro-economic forces, theviability of rural areas, biophysical processes, land use changes, and farm financial resources, includingfarm income and public and private expenditure on agri-environmental schemes. Part II, Farm managementand the environment, examines different farming practices and systems and their impact on the environment,covering whole farm management, organic farming, as well as nutrient, pest, soil and irrigation management practices.Part III, Use of farm inputs and natural resources, tracks trends in farm input use, including nutrients, pesticides(including risks), and water use. Part IV, Environmental impacts of agriculture, monitors the extent of agri-cultures impact on the environment including: soil quality, water quality, land conservation, greenhouse gases, biodi-versity, wildlife habitats and landscape. Explanatory notes and sources to the figures in the Executive Summary areprovided at the end of the text.

The study is the result of work carried out by the OECD Joint Working Party of the Committee for Agri-culture and the Environment Policy Committee. These committees approved the study in August 2000, andagreed that it be published under the responsibility of the OECD Secretary-General. It is primarily aimed atpolicy makers and the wider public, in both OECD and non-OECD countries. Volume 1, Concepts and Frame-works, was released in 1997. Volume 2, Issues and Design was published in 1999 and provides the results of theOECD York Workshop (UK) which examined the design of suitable environmental indicators.

Acknowledgements

This study was prepared by the OECD Policies and Environment Division in the Food, Agriculture andFisheries Directorate, with the participation of Member countries, especially through a questionnaire in 1999which provided much of the data in the study. OECD wishes to acknowledge the many experts outside theSecretariat who have helped in preparing and editing draft chapters of the study, in particular, RichardArnold, Ben Ten Brink, Frank Clearfield, Robert Koroluk, Jonathan Lloyd, Eiko Lubbe, Katsuyuki Minami,Jamie Morrison, Andrew Moxey, Leslie Russell, Jesper Schou, Nicola Shadbolt, Dirk Wascher, Daniel Zrcherand also Richard Pearce for editing the complete text. The following Secretariat staff, under the overall guid-ance of Wilfrid Legg, contributed to drafting this study: Kevin Parris, Yukio Yokoi, Outi Honkatukia, SeiichiYokoi, Grard Bonnis, Morvarid Bagherzadeh, Jeanne Richards, Dan Biller and Myriam Linster, and manyother OECD staff who provided comments on the study. Technical assistance was provided by FranoiseBnicourt, Theresa Poincet, Laetitia Reille, and Vronique de Saint-Martin, with the production and market-ing of the publication provided by Mubeccel Valtat-Gevher, Colette Goldstein and Catherine Candea andtheir colleagues.

FRONTMATTER1 Page 3 Thursday, November 16, 2000 4:16 PM

Environmental Indicators for Agriculture: Methods and Results

4

HIGHLIGHTS

The impacts of agriculture on the environment are of major public concern, in the context of agri-cultural policy reform, trade liberalisation, international environmental agreements and theachievement of sustainable agriculture. Monitoring the environmental performance of agricultureand assessing the environmental effects of policies requires information on agri-environmentalinteractions.

This Report is a stocktaking of results in measuring the environmental performance of agricultureto address a range of agri-environmental areas considered of policy relevance to OECD membercountries. The Report is primarily aimed at policy makers, other stakeholders and the wider public, includingnon-member OECD countries, interested in recent developments and trends in agri-environmentalperformance.

An improved capacity to assess agricultures environmental performance has been a key outcome ofthe Report. This has been achieved by building on Member countries experiences and earlierOECD work, and through and data sets to calculatelinkages; and foster an edeveloping indicators.

Some positive developmboth nitrogen and pesticments in water quality andrates have declined in Ausing farming practices thatmanagement plans, integr

The environmental perciated with the intensificaactivities, such as livestocammonia and greenhouseas in regions of Canada, Eufor scarce water resourceneeds of aquatic ecosysteregions of Australia, the Un

Overall agri-environmeindicator results suggest tries, pollution levels are ious environmental risks pdoes provide certain envia sink for greenhouse gase

Interpreting the overaincrease in agricultural psome extent, by improvewith the use of fertilisers, ogy and farm managemenume of production.

Changes in the environtors. These include variaments, the influence of pchanges in policy settingssuggest a sequence of caulevel of financial resourcpractices, while agri-envirtaken by farmers. This lealogical conditions.

0020001t1.fm Page 4 Thursday, November 16, 2000 8:58 AM OECD 2000

helping to: establish a common framework, harmonised methodologies indicators; advance knowledge of agri-environmental interactions andxchange of national and international approaches and experiences in

ents can be observed. There has been a decrease of over 10 per cent inide use in many European countries and Japan, and associated improve- lowering of greenhouse gas emissions, since the mid-1980s. Soil erosiontralia, Canada, and the United States, and progress has been made in adopt- enhance environmental performance, such as the shift to using nitrogenated pest management and conservation soil tillage.

formance of agriculture has deteriorated in some cases. This has been asso-tion of farm production in some areas and the regional concentration ofk farming. In turn, this has resulted in higher levels of nutrient surpluses, gas emissions, with consequent increases in water and air pollution, suchrope, New Zealand and the United States. There is also growing competition

s both between agriculture and other users and also meeting the waterms for recreational and environmental purposes, particularly in the drierited States and Southern Europe.

ntal indicator results over the last 10-15 years have been mixed. The overallthat for many agri-environmental issues, and regions within OECD coun-relatively high (e.g. nitrogen and pesticide loadings in water) and that var-

ersist (e.g. soil erosion, water resource depletion). Agriculture, however,ronmental benefits and services (e.g. providing wildlife habitat, acting ass, providing landscape amenity).

ll impact of agri-environmental trends can be complex. For example, theroduction and total environmental emission levels has been offset, toments in farm input and natural resource use efficiency. This is the casepesticides, and water in some countries, where improvements in technol-t practices have led to a reduction in the use of these inputs per unit vol-

mental performance of agriculture can be attributed to a wide range of fac-tions in agricultural production, structural and technological develop-ublic pressure and market forces on farming practices and systems, and and priorities. The linkages between indicators observed in this Reportses and effects. Changes in market conditions or policy settings affect thees available to farmers, which influence production decisions and farmonmental measures and environmental regulations may constrain actionsds to different environmental outcomes depending on varying agro-eco-

Highlights

OECD 2000

These results need to be seen in a broader context. For most OECD countries agricultures role inthe national economy is small, but in terms of the use of natural resources is significant, accountingfor around 40 per cent of total land use and 45 per cent of water use. Where agricultural productionhas increased by around 15 per cent, resulting mainly from improvements in productivity with capi-tal replacing labour helped by new technologies. The higher production has been achieved fromincreasing yields as the total agricultural land area has decreased, by 1 per cent, and the use ofwater has risen, by over 5 per cent. Agricultural employment has declined by about 8 per cent,while the farm population has aged. Farm numbers have declined with a corresponding increase infarm size.

OECD agriculture continues to be characterised by high support, which currently accounts forabout 36 per cent of total farm receipts, although there are wide variations in the level, composi-tion and trends in support among countries and commodities. Where agricultural and trade policieshave caused distortions in market input and output price signals, in some cases this has led toenvironmental damage. Policy reform should help improve agricultures environmental perfor-mance but in some cases could reduce environmental benefits. As part of the reform process and inresponse to public pressure, many countries have introduced agri-environmental and environmen-tal measures to help achie

For some agri-environInformation is incompletedepletion resulting from aciated with the use of peunderstood but are not eand environmental outcomfor example, on water pbiodiversity, habitats andat a preliminary stage ofprogrammes.

The future challenge toing information on the cuture; and using indicatoimproving the analytical sceptual and data deficiencontribute to understandiing) and to examining thetal dimensions of sustaenvironmental indicators,these objectives.

0020001t1.fm Page 5 Thursday, November 16, 2000 8:58 AM 5

ve environmental goals.

mental areas there is incomplete knowledge and data to establish trends., for example, concerning the degree of groundwater pollution or rate ofgricultural activities, and the human health and environmental risks asso-sticides. In other cases the linkages between different indicators are

asy to measure, such as between changes in farm management practiceses, or attributing the relative impact of agriculture and other activities,

ollution. Also for a number of areas, notably agricultures impact on landscape, the understanding and measurement of these impacts is still research, partly because of the high costs associated with monitoring

developing agri-environmental indicators is to meet the objectives of provid-rrent state and changes in the conditions of the environment in agricul-rs for policy monitoring, evaluation, and forecasting. This requiresoundness and measurability of indicators, especially by overcoming con-cies, and providing a better interpretation of indicator trends. This couldng the linkages between indicators (e.g. water use, management and pric- synergies and trade-offs between the economic, social and environmen-inable agriculture. Developing a core set of integrated OECD agri- complemented as necessary by other indicators, could help to achieve


6

BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF THE REPORT

1. Objectives

The main objectives of the Report are to:

review and take stock of progress in developing indicators across OECD countries;

build on earlier OECD work in establishing standard definitions and methods of calculation;

provide preliminary results of the state and recent trends of environmental conditions in agricul-ture across OECD countries;

interpret indicator trends and highlight linkages between indicators; and,

outline limitations and the key challenges for the future development of indicators.

2. Developing the indicators

Developing the OECD agri-environmental indicators has involved five steps outlined below (seealso the OECD agri-environm

Identifying policy relevant issue

The choice of the agri-eOECD Member countries as temerged among OECD countposes, as outlined in the OEFramework (1997) and Volume 2process depending on changiand environment website: htt

Developing a common framewo

A common framework is uing Force-State-Response (DSR) frenvironmental conditions in afarm inputs; state indicators, himpacts on soil, water, and bithe changes in the state of theture. The DSR models builds environmental indicators (seand also the OECD environme

Establishing indicator definition

The indicators measure excluding the agro-food chainin the environment on agricuconsidered as indicators of environmental dimension of sdimensions of sustainable agalso the OECD sustainable de

Collecting data and calculating

The main basis for the dfrom OECD Member countr


ental indicator website: http://www.oecd.org/agr/env/indicators.htm).

s which indicators should address

nvironmental issues and indicators, shown in Box 1, has been made byhe current priority areas to address. This represents a consensus that hasries, building on their experience in developing indicators for policy pur-CD Reports: Environmental Indicators for Agriculture Volume 1: Concepts and: Issues and Design (1999). The choice of indicators, however, is an evolvingng societal pressures and political choices (see also the OECD agriculturep://www.oecd.org/agr/policy/ag-env).

rk to structure the development of indicators

sed by OECD to structure the process of developing indicators. The Driv-amework identifies: driving force indicators, focusing on the causes of change ingriculture, such as changes in farm management practices and the use of

ighlighting the effects of agriculture on the environment, for example,odiversity; and response indicators covering the actions taken to respond to environment, such as variations in agri-environmental research expendi-

on the Pressure-State-Response framework used by OECD to develop itse OECD, Towards Sustainable Development Environmental Indicators, 1998, Paris,ntal indicators website: http://www.oecd.org/env/indicators/index.htm).

s and methods of measurement

the relationship between primary agriculture and the environment, thus (e.g. pesticide manufacturing, food processing) and the impact of changeslture (e.g. impact of climate change on agriculture). While they cannot besustainability, many indicators can be useful inputs for illustrating theustainable agriculture. Some attention is given to the economic and socialriculture in the context of farm financial resources and rural viability (seevelopment initiative website: http://www.oecd.org/subject/sustdev).

indicators

ata sources and indicator calculations shown in the Report are derivedy responses to a Agri-environmental Indicator Questionnaire in 1999. The

Background and Scope of the Report

OECD 2000

Box 1. Complete list of OECD Agri-environmental Indicators1

1. This list includes all the agri-environSource: OECD Secretariat.

I. AGRICULTURE IN THE BROADER ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT

1. Contextual information and indicators 2. Farm financial resources

Agricultural GDP Land use Stock of agricultural land Change in agricultural land Agricultural land use

Farm income

Agricultural output Agri-environmental expenditure Public and private agri-environmental

expenditure Expenditure on agri-environmental research

Farm employment

Farmer age/gender distribution

Farmer education

Number of farms

Agricultural support

II. FARM MANAGEMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Whole farm management Environmental whole

farm management plans Organic farming

1. Nutrient use

Nitrogen balance

Nitrogen efficiency

1. Soil quality

Risk of soil erosion by water

Risk of soil erosion by wind

2. Water quality

Water quality risk indicator

Water quality state indicator

5. Biodiversity

Genetic diversity

Species diversity Wild species Non-native species

Eco-system diversity (see Wildlife Habitats)


mental indicators covered in the Report. For a detailed description of each indicator, see Main Report.

1. Farm management

Nutrient management Nutrient management plans Soil tests

Soil and land management Soil cover Land management practices

Pest management Use of non-chemical pest control

methods Use of integrated pest management

Irrigation and water management Irrigation technology

III. USE OF FARM INPUTS AND NATURAL RESOURCES

2. Pesticide use and risks 3. Water use

Pesticide use Water use intensity

Pesticide risk Water use efficiency Water use technical efficiency Water use economic efficiency

Water stress

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF AGRICULTURE

3. Land conservation 4. Greenhouse gases

Water retaining capacity Gross agricultural greenhouse gas emissions

Off-farm sediment flow (soil retaining capacity)

6. Wildlife habitats 7. Landscape

Intensively-farmed agricultural habitats Structure of landscapes Environmental features and land use

patterns Man-made objects (cultural features)

Semi-natural agricultural habitats

Uncultivated natural habitats

Habitat matrix Landscape management

Landscape costs and benefits


8

Questionnaire provided information on the basic data and related indicators currently available orbeing developed in countries. However, the coverage and quality of responses varied, because certainareas are of little relevance to some countries and the systematic collection of basic data and construc-tion of indicators has only begun recently in many countries. The Report has also drawn on OECD workon environmental data (see OECD, Environmental Data Compendium 1999, Paris), and the OECD WorkingGroup on Pesticides development of pesticide risk indicators (see the OECD Working Group on Pesti-cides website: http://www.oecd.org/ehs/pest_rr.htm). Also information and data has been obtained from exter-nal sources, such as FAO.

Interpreting indicators trends

The indicators should be viewed as an integrated preliminary set, with caution needed in inter-preting trends in individual indicators, for a number of reasons discussed below.

Definitions and methodologies for calculating of indicators are standardised in most cases (e.g. the nitrogenuse balance definition), but not all (e.g. definitions of organic agriculture vary). Also, calculatingthe indicators are at dbackground of researchversity, wildlife habitat

Data quality and comparacoherence and harmonthe absence of data ser

Spatial aggregation of indcant variations at the developing regionally d

Trends and ranges in indicabsolute levels for manwithin and across couclearly defined scientif

Contribution of agriculture issues such as water (e.g. industry) or the n(e.g. the water may cont

Direction of change of the increase or decrease insions). However, for soimprovement or deteri

Baselines, threshold levels abut some explanation OECD average trends.

Many of the limitations oexample, there can be wid(e.g. employment), and methodistribution). Also work on aglonger history of developing ebetween the biophysical envirthan monitoring trends in socioare also not valued in markets


ifferent stages of development, with work on some areas having a longer, such as nutrient use and soil quality, while for other areas, such as biodi-

s and landscape, work is at a very early stage.

bility have been expressed as far as possible in terms of the consistency,isation of data across different indicators, but deficiencies remain such asies, variability in data coverage and questions related to data sources.

icators is at the national level. Because national averages can mask signifi-regional level, where possible the Report highlights the possibility ofisaggregated indicators.

ators are important for comparative purposes across countries rather thany indicators, especially as local, site specific conditions vary considerably

ntries. Absolute levels, however, are significant where they are aboveic limits (e.g. nitrates in water).

to specific environmental impacts is sometimes difficult to isolate, especially forquality, where the impact of other economic activities is significantatural state of the environment itself contributes to pollutant loadingsain high levels of naturally occurring salts).

indicators is unambiguous in terms of the impact on the environment of an the specific indicator (e.g. changes in agricultural greenhouse gas emis-me indicators it is not always clear what constitutes an environmental

oration (e.g. changes in landscape indicators).

nd targets for indicators are not used to assess indicator trends in the Report,is provided especially where changes diverge significantly from overall

f interpreting agri-environmental indicators apply to other indicators. Fore variations around national averages of socio-economic indicatorsdological and data deficiency problems are also not uncommon (e.g. wealthri-environmental indicators began quite recently compared with the muchconomic indicators, such as gross domestic product. Capturing the interfaceonment and human activities through indicators, is also often more complex-economic phenomena, while some agri-environmental outputs and effects

and are not easily measured in physical terms (e.g. landscape).

Part I

AGRICULTSOCIAL

1. CONT

2. FARM

0020001t1.fm Page 9 Thursday, November 16, 2000 8:58 AMURE IN THE BROADER ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT

EXTUAL INFORMATION AND INDICATORS

FINANCIAL RESOURCES


10

1. CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION AND INDICATORS

To set the discussion on agri-environmental indicators in this Report in a broader economic, socialand environmental context, this Chapter examines the impact on agri-environmental relationships ofeconomic forces, societal preferences, environmental processes, and land use changes.

Economic forces shape the performance of the agricultural sector and its role in the national econ-omy. Agricultures contribution to gross domestic product is under 4 per cent for most OECD countries, with therole of agriculture in the economy declining in all countries during the last decade. The real value of agri-cultural output has risen for most countries over the past 10 years attributed to higher production, the lat-ter almost entirely due to increases in productivity.

Nevertheless, over a 30-year period the value of output has declined, mainly because of adecrease in real commodity prices. Trends in real net farm incomes from agricultural activities have beenvariable over the last 10 years, rising for many countries but sharply declining over recent years in somecases, largely reflecting changes in macro-economic conditions, farm costs and support levels.

The growing world demandcultural production, especialland livestock product exportethe environment through inte

Agricultural employment ascountries, and the age distributvery few countries where theyounger, well-educated workand environmental conditions40 per cent of farmers receive

Farm numbers have declining to the concentration of profarm numbers is, at the samesize usually entails field conscapital replaces labour and th

Changes in farm structurdamaged the environment, sutechnologies relates to eco-effiand reduce environmental ha

Agricultural and trade policienals through, for example, linkronmentally fragile land, andagriculture is high, but with wcommodities. OECD average producer support estimate (P

The reform of agricultural poimpacts of agriculture on the providing environmental bensures to address environmental isspatterns incompatible with ac

There is at present insuffsome improvements have bewithout production enhancingstill remain at relatively high l


for food and industrial crops will continue to present a challenge to world agri-y as some of the future demand will continue to be met by OECD cerealrs. But the future expansion in production may heighten the pressure on

nsification and growth in farm output, particularly for exporting countries.

a share of total employment is now less than 7 per cent for most OECDion of farmers often shows a major share to be over 55 years old. There are majority of new entrants into agriculture are less than 35 years old. A

force is more likely to be able to respond rapidly to changing economic. In addition, there are only a small number of countries where more than even basic agricultural training.

ed in most OECD countries with a corresponding increase in farm size, lead-duction in a small number of larger farms. The share of small farms in total

time, increasing. Research suggests that the trend toward increasing farmolidation with the loss of boundary features, as well as intensification ase use of inputs per hectare increases.

es have been influenced by technological developments, some of which havech as the use of certain pesticides. An increasing focus in research of newciency and environmentally cleaner technologies, which can increase profitabilityrm, for example precision farming.

s in many cases have caused environmental harm by distorting price sig-ing support to agricultural commodities and encouraging farming on envi-

lowering the costs of inputs, such as energy and water. Support to OECDide variations in the level, composition and trends among countries andshare of support to producers in total gross farm receipts, the percentageSE), has declined from 40 to 36 per cent between 1986-88 to 1997-99.

licies should improve the allocation of resources and reduce the negativeenvironment, but reform can also lower performance where agriculture isefits. As part of the reform process OECD countries have introduced mea-ues, mainly focusing on altering farm management practices and land usehieving environmental goals.

icient information to provide a full assessment of these changes, but whileen made, they have been more costly than would have been the case policies. Also, the negative environmental impacts resulting from farmingevels in many cases.

Agriculture in the Broader Economic, Social and Environmental Context

OECD 2000

20

10

5

0

%

15

15

10

5

0

%15

10

5

0

%

%70

60

50

0

40

30

20

10

Share o

Turke

y

Gree

ce

Polan

dKo

re

Mexic

o

Portu

gal

Share of agriculture in Gross Domestic Product: mid-1990s

Turke

y

Gree

ce

Icelan

d

New

Zeala

nd

Hung

ary

Polan

dKo

rea

Mexic

o

Irelan

d

Portu

gal

Finlan

dSp

ain

Denm

ark

Austr

alia

Nethe

rland

s

ech R

epub

lic Italy

Cana

daFra

nce

EU-15

Norw

ay

Swed

en

Japa

n

Unite

d Stat

es

ited K

ingdo

m

Austr

ia

Belgiu

m

Switze

rland

Germ

any

Luxe

mbo

urg

% o

Gree

ce

Kore

a

PortuSp

ain

20

10

5

0

%

15

15

10

5

0

%15

10

5

0

%

%70

60

50

0

40

30

20

10

Share o

Turke

y

Gree

ce

Polan

dKo

re

Mexic

o

Portu

gal


Turke

y

Gree

ce

Icelan

d

New

Zeala

nd

Hung

ary

Polan

dKo

rea

Mexic

o

Irelan

d

Portu

gal

Finlan

dSp

ain

Denm

ark

Austr

alia

Nethe

rland

s

ech R

epub

lic Italy

Cana

daFra

nce

EU-15

Norw

ay

Swed

en

Japa

n

Unite

d Stat

es

ited K

ingdo

m

Austr

ia

Belgiu

m

Switze

rland

Germ

any

Luxe

mbo

urg

% o

Gree

ce

Kore

a

PortuSp

ain

20

10

5

0

%

15

15

10

5

0

%15

10

5

0

%

%70

60

50

0

40

30

20

10

Share o

Turke

y

Gree

ce

Polan

dKo

re

Mexic

o

Portu

gal


Turke

y

Gree

ce

Icelan

d

New

Zeala

nd

Hung

ary

Polan

dKo

rea

Mexic

o

Irelan

d

Portu

gal

Finlan

dSp

ain

Denm

ark

Austr

alia

Nethe

rland

s

ech R

epub

lic Italy

Cana

daFra

nce

EU-15

Norw

ay

Swed

en

Japa

n

Unite

d Stat

es

ited K

ingdo

m

Austr

ia

Belgiu

m

Switze

rland

Germ

any

Luxe

mbo

urg

% o

Gree

ce

Kore

a

PortuSp

ain


20

10

5

0

%

15

%70

60

50

0

40

30

20

10

f agricultural employment in total civilian employment: late 1990s

Icelan

d

New

Zeala

nd

Hung

arya

Irelan

d

Finlan

dSp

ain

Denm

ark

Austr

alia

Nethe

rland

s

Czec

h Rep

ublicIta

ly

Cana

da

Franc

e

EU-15

Norw

ay

Swed

en

Japa

n

Unite

d Stat

es

Unite

d King

dom

Austr

ia

Belgiu

m

Switze

rland

Germ

any

Luxe

mbo

urg

Cz Un

Educational level of farmers: mid/late 1990s

f farmers receiving basic training

Icelan

dIre

landga

l

Denm

ark

Austr

alia

Nethe

rland

sIta

ly

Cana

daFra

nce

Norw

ay

Unite

d Stat

es

Unite

d King

dom

Austr

ia

Belgiu

m

Germ

any

% of farmers receiving full training

20

10

5

0

%

15

%70

60

50

0

40

30

20

10


Icelan

d

New

Zeala

nd

Hung

arya

Irelan

d

Finlan

dSp

ain

Denm

ark

Austr

alia

Nethe

rland

s

Czec

h Rep

ublicIta

ly

Cana

da

Franc

e

EU-15

Norw

ay

Swed

en

Japa

n

Unite

d Stat

es

Unite

d King

dom

Austr

ia

Belgiu

m

Switze

rland

Germ

any

Luxe

mbo

urg

Cz Un



Icelan

dIre

landga

l

Denm

ark

Austr

alia

Nethe

rland

sIta

ly

Cana

daFra

nce

Norw

ay

Unite

d Stat

es

Unite

d King

dom

Austr

ia

Belgiu

m

Germ

any


20

10

5

0

%

15

%70

60

50

0

40

30

20

10


Icelan

d

New

Zeala

nd

Hung

arya

Irelan

d

Finlan

dSp

ain

Denm

ark

Austr

alia

Nethe

rland

s

Czec

h Rep

ublicIta

ly

Cana

da

Franc

e

EU-15

Norw

ay

Swed

en

Japa

n

Unite

d Stat

es

Unite

d King

dom

Austr

ia

Belgiu

m

Switze

rland

Germ

any

Luxe

mbo

urg

Cz Un



Icelan

dIre

landga

l

Denm

ark

Austr

alia

Nethe

rland

sIta

ly

Cana

daFra

nce

Norw

ay

Unite

d Stat

es

Unite

d King

dom

Austr

ia

Belgiu

m

Germ

any



12

Societal preferences affect agriculture and the environment across a range of issues. There is growingpublic concern about agricultures impact on the environment in terms of reducing pollution and enhancing bene-fits, mainly in response to rising incomes, increasing leisure time, heightened public knowledge ofthese issues, and the desire for the space offered by rural areas.

Rural viability relates to issues such as farmer age structures, educational and managerial skills, andaccess to key services. The retention of a skilled workforce in rural areas and having an appropriate ruralcommunity infrastructure, will affect the capacity of farming to adjust and manage their enterprises tochanging economic and environmental conditions and the sustainability of agriculture.

Environmental processes relate to the interaction between agriculture and natural environmentalprocesses. Particularly relevant in this respect, is that farming forms a part of the ecosystem rather thanbeing external to it, unlike most other economic activities. Agri-environmental relationships are oftencomplex, site specific and non-linear, with a wide range of biophysical conditions within and acrossOECD countries, reflecting, for example, variations in climate, soils, availability of water resources, andland use patterns.

Land use changes represent the integrating element between the economic, societal and environ-mental influences on agriculture. For most OECD countries agricultural land occupies over 50 per cent ofthe total land area, with onlytural land being converted toother land uses has raised economic impacts in some cosity and related amenity value

The pattern of agricultural lamanent pasture in agricultuChanges in farm land use fromterms of different cropping paerosion rates.


a small reduction in area over the past 10 years, mainly through agricul- forests in marginal farming areas. The change of marginal farming land to

concerns related to the associated harmful environmental and socio-untries, but equally the conversion of this land may enhance its biodiver-s.

nd use change within countries has mainly involved a growing share of per-ral land, largely because of the adoption of land diversion schemes. arable crops to pasture, more to less intensive cropping systems, and intterns can have major environmental effects, such as through altering soil


OECD 2000

10

0

-5

%

5

-10

%100

75

50

25

0

0

1997-991986-88

Sha

Kor

Finlan

d

Cana

da

Norw

ay

Swed

en

Japa

n

Percentage Producer Support Estimate: 1986-88 to 1997-99

Kore

a

Irelan

d

FinIta

lyJa

pan

Austr

ia

Switzerland

Norway

Korea

Iceland

Japan

EU

OECD

Turkey

Poland

United States

Mexico

Czech Republic

Canada

Hungary

Australia

New Zealand

10

0

-5

%

5

-10

%100

75

50

25

0

0

1997-991986-88

Sha

Kor

Finlan

d

Cana

da

Norw

ay

Swed

en

Japa

n


Kore

a

Irelan

d

FinIta

lyJa

pan

Austr

ia

Switzerland

Norway

Korea

Iceland

Japan

EU

OECD

Turkey

Poland

United States

Mexico

Czech Republic

Canada

Hungary

Australia

New Zealand

10

0

-5

%

5

-10

%100

75

50

25

0

0

1997-991986-88

Sha

Kor

Finlan

d

Cana

da

Norw

ay

Swed

en

Japa

n


Kore

a

Irelan

d

FinIta

lyJa

pan

Austr

ia

Switzerland

Norway

Korea

Iceland

Japan

EU

OECD

Turkey

Poland

United States

Mexico

Czech Republic

Canada

Hungary

Australia

New Zealand


%10

0

-5

5

-10

%100

75

50

25

0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80%

re of agricultural land use in the total national land area: 1995-97

Agricultural land Other land

Turke

y

Gree

ce

Icelan

d

New

Zeala

nd

Hung

ary

Polan

dea

Mexic

o

Irelan

d

Portu

gal

Spain

Denm

ark

Austr

alia

Nethe

rland

sIta

lyFra

nce

EU-15

Unite

d Stat

es

Unite

d King

dom

Austr

ia

Belgiu

m

Switze

rland

Germ

any

OECD

Czec

h Rep

ublic

Change in the agricultural land area: 1985-87 to 1995-97

Turke

y

Gree

ce

Icelan

d

New

Zeala

nd

Hung

ary

Polan

d

Mexic

o

Portu

gal

land

Spain

Denm

ark

Austr

alia

Nethe

rland

s

Cana

daFra

nce

EU-15

Norw

ay

Swed

en

Unite

d Stat

es

Unite

d King

dom

Belgiu

m

Switze

rland

Germ

any

OECD

%10

0

-5

5

-10

%100

75

50

25

0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80%



Turke

y

Gree

ce

Icelan

d

New

Zeala

nd

Hung

ary

Polan

dea

Mexic

o

Irelan

d

Portu

gal

Spain

Denm

ark

Austr

alia

Nethe

rland

sIta

lyFra

nce

EU-15

Unite

d Stat

es

Unite

d King

dom

Austr

ia

Belgiu

m

Switze

rland

Germ

any

OECD

Czec

h Rep

ublic


Turke

y

Gree

ce

Icelan

d

New

Zeala

nd

Hung

ary

Polan

d

Mexic

o

Portu

gal

land

Spain

Denm

ark

Austr

alia

Nethe

rland

s

Cana

daFra

nce

EU-15

Norw

ay

Swed

en

Unite

d Stat

es

Unite

d King

dom

Belgiu

m

Switze

rland

Germ

any

OECD

%10

0

-5

5

-10

%100

75

50

25

0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80%



Turke

y

Gree

ce

Icelan

d

New

Zeala

nd

Hung

ary

Polan

dea

Mexic

o

Irelan

d

Portu

gal

Spain

Denm

ark

Austr

alia

Nethe

rland

sIta

lyFra

nce

EU-15

Unite

d Stat

es

Unite

d King

dom

Austr

ia

Belgiu

m

Switze

rland

Germ

any

OECD

Czec

h Rep

ublic


Turke

y

Gree

ce

Icelan

d

New

Zeala

nd

Hung

ary

Polan

d

Mexic

o

Portu

gal

land

Spain

Denm

ark

Austr

alia

Nethe

rland

s

Cana

daFra

nce

EU-15

Norw

ay

Swed

en

Unite

d Stat

es

Unite

d King

dom

Belgiu

m

Switze

rland

Germ

any

OECD


14

2. FARM FINANCIAL RESOURCES

Context

Financial resources are a key driving force behind farmers actions, but are not directly related toenvironmental performance. The relationship between farm financial resources and environmental out-comes is complex, as farms can remain profitable at the expense of environmental degradation, at leastover the medium term. Profitable farms, however, can better afford to take the environment intoaccount in their investment and farm management decisions.

The availability of financial resources influences farming practices; the ability to acquire new tech-nologies; as well as the type, level and intensity of input use and of production. They also affect thedegree of adoption of environmentally benign production methods, including farmers attitude towardsenvironmental risks; rates of structural adjustment, including farm amalgamation; and the exit and entryof farmers into the sector.

The two main sources of ket and government supportThe type and level of suppormany countries have introducronmental objectives, mainly through farm advisory servic(e.g. on soil carbon changes(e.g. animal waste treatment faddition, farmers also have tregard to the use of pesticide

Indicators and recent trends

OECD indicators on farmareas: first, net farm income froexpenditure, including agri-en

Net farm income is calculadepreciation at the farm leveover the past 10 years, the peincomes have sharply declinshare of their income from noaverage income of agricultura

Public and private agri-enviroculture on the environment there has been a very rapid iated with the introduction of expenditure varies widely acpriorities.

A significant share of pubagri-environmental concernsWhile in a few countries privattion of this expenditure data.


farm financial resources in OECD countries include returns from the mar- (farm household income can also include non-farm sources of income).t provided to farmers varies widely across the OECD. Since the late 1980sed agri-environmental measures, and land diversion schemes with envi-aimed at: changing farming practices (e.g. raising environmental awarenesses or voluntary farm groups); developing agri-environmental research

); providing payments to farmers for reducing environmental damageacilities) and enhancing environmental services (e.g. laying hedgerows). Ino comply with environmental standards and regulations, especially withs and inorganic fertilisers.

financial resources reflect the financial health of the farm and cover twom agricultural activities, and second, public and private agri-environmentalvironmental research expenditure.

ted as the difference between gross output and all expenses, includingl. While nominal net farm incomes have risen for most OECD countriesrformance in real terms has been variable and over recent years net farm

ed for some countries. Agricultural households also obtain a substantialn-agricultural activities in many countries, and in some countries the totall households exceeds that of non-agricultural ones.

nmental expenditure is aimed at both mitigating the negative impacts of agri-and also enhancing the benefits. For a large number of OECD countriesncrease in public agri-environmental expenditure over the 1990s, associ-many new environmental measures related to agriculture. The use of thisross countries, reflecting differences in agri-environmental concerns and

lic agricultural research expenditure in many countries is spent on addressing, and in some cases this share has been increasing since the mid-1980s.e agri-environmental expenditure is important, there is little systematic collec-


OECD 2000

-8 8-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6%

250

0

200

150

100

50

1993 1994

%40

0

30

20

10

Nominal and real net farm income from agricultural activities: mid-1980s to mid-1990s

FranceDenmark

AustriaJapan

BelgiumUnited States

NetherlandsItaly

NorwayCanada

AustraliaKorea

GreeceFinland

Annual change in real net farm income

France 1990-1995 10.3 7.9Denmark 1985-1997 7.8 5.4Austria 1985-1997 7.4 5.1Japan 1985-1998 4.9 3.7Belgium 1987-1994 2.9 0.8United States 1991-1998 2.5 0.6Netherlands 1988-1994 0.5 -0.1Italy 1987-1995 4.5 -0.3Norway 1985-1997 1.8 -1.2Canada 1985-1997 1.2 -1.5Australia 1988-1996 1.2 -1.6Korea 1990-1998 1.2 -2.6Greece 1986-1995 8.2 -4.6Finland 1991-1996 -4.1 -5.6

Percentage annual change in net farm income

Period NominalincomeReal

income

Public expenditure o

Not included in the figure:Italy: + 2 857 sinceSpain: + 1 149 sinceSweden: + 552 sinceSwitzerland: + 665 since

Share of public agri-env

Portugal Iceland

-8 8-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6%

250

0

200

150

100

50

1993 1994

%40

0

30

20

10


FranceDenmark

AustriaJapan


NetherlandsItaly

NorwayCanada

AustraliaKorea

GreeceFinland





income




Portugal Iceland

-8 8-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6%

250

0

200

150

100

50

1993 1994

%40

0

30

20

10


FranceDenmark

AustriaJapan


NetherlandsItaly

NorwayCanada

AustraliaKorea

GreeceFinland





income




Portugal Iceland


250

0

200

150

100

50

19981995 1996 1997

%40

0

30

20

10

n agri-environmental goods, services and conservation : 1993 to 1998Index 1993 = 100

1994 1993 1993 1993

Japan

Germany

NetherlandsFrance

United Kingdom Norway

United States

IcelandAustria

Portugal

ironmental research expenditure in total agricultural research expenditure:1985 to mid/late 1990s

Mid/late 1990sEarly 1990s

Japan Austria United Kingdom United States Switzerland Netherlands

1985

250

0

200

150

100

50

19981995 1996 1997

%40

0

30

20

10


1994 1993 1993 1993

Japan

Germany

NetherlandsFrance


United States

IcelandAustria

Portugal




1985

250

0

200

150

100

50

19981995 1996 1997

%40

0

30

20

10


1994 1993 1993 1993

Japan

Germany

NetherlandsFrance


United States

IcelandAustria

Portugal




1985

Part II

FARM MAN

0020001t1.fm Page 17 Thursday, November 16, 2000 8:58 AMAGEMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENT

1. FARM MANAGEMENT


18

1. FARM MANAGEMENT

Context

Environmental conditions and farming systems vary within and across OECD countries and, conse-quently, best farm management practices vary from one region to another. Farm management decisionsare influenced by environmental regulations, agricultural support measures, investments in research,education and extension services and site-specific environmental conditions. Information on farm man-agement practices, and how these practices affect the environment and meet compulsory, regulatory orvoluntary standards, is an important tool for policy makers.

There can be trade-offs in implementing environmentally sound management practices. Reducingsoil erosion, for example, whereby farmers move from conventional to reduced or no-tillage in crop pro-duction, can be achieved if weeds are controlled with herbicides. An environmental side-effect of thesepractices is a likely change in water movement in the soil, with no-tillage leading to increasing infiltra-tion and percolation of nutrients such as nitrate to the water table compared with conventional tillage.In addition, the increase in hesoil erosion through no-tillage


Farm management indicaages and trade-offs betweenincluding: whole farm manageat specific practices related to

Concerning whole farm maincreasing, but cross-country increased significantly over thOECD countries. Many countproviding financial compensa

Nutrient management indicfrequency of soil nutrient testhere is little quantitative infcountries at regular intervals.

Pest management indicatorpesticides and the share of climited information, for a fewthe 1990s.

Soil and land management iwith vegetation. The greater tpaction and run-off and the cinitiatives to increase soil covof countries, soil cover days hin a few countries days of soil

Irrigation and water managemirrigation technologies, fromemitters) that use water moretion technologies exist, this sover, water is not considererelated to irrigation efficiency


rbicide use may cause pesticide leaching. Thus, the objective of lowering may lead to some negative environmental effects.

tors have the potential to help policy makers take into account the link- different management practices and their impact on the environment,ment involving the overall farming system; and farm management aimed nutrients, pests, soils, and irrigation.

nagement indicators, the share of farms with environmental whole farm plans isdata is limited. Also the share of agricultural area under organic farming hase past ten years, but from a very low base and with wide variations among

ries now encourage conversion to and maintenance of organic farming bytion to farmers for any losses incurred during conversion.

ators include the share of farms with nutrient management plans and thets. Although many countries have developed nutrient management plans,ormation available, however, and soil tests are conducted in most OECD

s measure the share of cultivated agricultural area that is not treated withultivated agricultural area under integrated pest management. Based on countries it appears both practices have been used more widely during

ndicators measure the number of days in a year that the soil is coveredhe cumulative soil cover, the greater the protection from soil erosion, com-ontribution, in general, to biodiversity. Many OECD countries have policyer and promote environmental land management practices. In a numberave increased since the mid-1980s and now exceed 250 days per year, but cover has decreased.

ent indicators measure the share of irrigation water applied by different the least efficient methods (e.g. flooding) to technologies (e.g. drip- efficiently. For the few countries where information on changes in irriga-

uggests a shift toward technologies that use water more efficiently. More-d a scarce resource in many OECD countries and consequently issues are of less importance in those countries.

Farm Management and the Environment

OECD 2000

%

10

8

6

4

2

0

10

8

6

4

2

0

%

365

300

200

100

0

100

75

50

25

0

%

Share of the total agricultural area under organic farming:early 1990s and mid/late 1990s

Gree

ceIce

land

Hung

aryKo

rea

Irelan

d

Portu

gal

Finlan

dSp

ain

Denm

ark

Nethe

rland

sIta

lyFra

nce

Swed

en

Unite

d Stat

es

nited

King

dom

Austr

ia

Belgiu

m

Switze

rland

Germ

any

zech R

epub

lic

Early 1990s Mid/late 1990s

Number of

Korea France

Days/year

Share of total

United Kingdom

Flooding

%

10

8

6

4

2

0

10

8

6

4

2

0

%

365

300

200

100

0

100

75

50

25

0

%


Gree

ceIce

land

Hung

aryKo

rea

Irelan

d

Portu

gal

Finlan

dSp

ain

Denm

ark

Nethe

rland

sIta

lyFra

nce

Swed

en

Unite

d Stat

es

nited

King

dom

Austr

ia

Belgiu

m

Switze

rland

Germ

any

zech R

epub

lic


Number of

Korea France

Days/year

Share of total

United Kingdom

Flooding

%

10

8

6

4

2

0

10

8

6

4

2

0

%

365

300

200

100

0

100

75

50

25

0

%


Gree

ceIce

land

Hung

aryKo

rea

Irelan

d

Portu

gal

Finlan

dSp

ain

Denm

ark

Nethe

rland

sIta

lyFra

nce

Swed

en

Unite

d Stat

es

nited

King

dom

Austr

ia

Belgiu

m

Switze

rland

Germ

any

zech R

epub

lic


Number of

Korea France

Days/year

Share of total

United Kingdom

Flooding

%

10

8

6

4

2

0

10

8

6

4

2

0

%

365

300

200

100

0

100

75

50

25

0

%


Gree

ceIce

land

Hung

aryKo

rea

Irelan

d

Portu

gal

Finlan

dSp

ain

Denm

ark

Nethe

rland

sIta

lyFra

nce

Swed

en

Unite

d Stat

es

nited

King

dom

Austr

ia

Belgiu

m

Switze

rland

Germ

any

zech R

epub

lic


Number of

Korea France

Days/year

Share of total

United Kingdom

Flooding

%

10

8

6

4

2

0

10

8

6

4

2

0

%

365

300

200

100

0

100

75

50

25

0

%


Gree

ceIce

land

Hung

aryKo

rea

Irelan

d

Portu

gal

Finlan

dSp

ain

Denm

ark

Nethe

rland

sIta

lyFra

nce

Swed

en

Unite

d Stat

es

nited

King

dom

Austr

ia

Belgiu

m

Switze

rland

Germ

any

zech R

epub

lic


Number of

Korea France

Days/year

Share of total

United Kingdom

Flooding

%

10

8

6

4

2

0

10

8

6

4

2

0

%

365

300

200

100

0

100

75

50

25

0

%


Gree

ceIce

land

Hung

aryKo

rea

Irelan

d

Portu

gal

Finlan

dSp

ain

Denm

ark

Nethe

rland

sIta

lyFra

nce

Swed

en

Unite

d Stat

es

nited

King

dom

Austr

ia

Belgiu

m

Switze

rland

Germ

any

zech R

epub

lic


Number of

Korea France

Days/year

Share of total

United Kingdom

Flooding


365

300

200

100

0

100

75

50

25

0

%

U C

days in a year that agricultural soils are covered with vegetation:mid/late 1980s and mid/late 1990s

Italy CanadaAustria

Mid/late 1980s Mid/late 1990sDays/year

Norway IcelandSweden Netherlands

irrigated crop area using different irrigation systems: mid/late 1990s

Poland United States

High-pressure rainguns

Netherlands

Low-pressure sprinklers Drip-emitters

365

300

200

100

0

100

75

50

25

0

%

U C


Italy CanadaAustria






Netherlands


365

300

200

100

0

100

75

50

25

0

%

U C


Italy CanadaAustria






Netherlands


365

300

200

100

0

100

75

50

25

0

%

U C


Italy CanadaAustria






Netherlands


365

300

200

100

0

100

75

50

25

0

%

U C


Italy CanadaAustria






Netherlands


365

300

200

100

0

100

75

50

25

0

%

U C


Italy CanadaAustria






Netherlands


Part III

USE OF FAR

0020001t1.fm Page 21 Thursday, November 16, 2000 8:58 AMM INPUTS AND NATURAL RESOURCES

1. NUTRIENT USE

2. PESTICIDE USE AND RISKS

3. WATER USE


22

1. NUTRIENT USE

Context

Inputs of nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, are essential to agricultural production, andintegral to raising productivity. At the same time, a surplus of nutrients in excess of immediate cropneeds can be a source of potential environmental damage to surface and ground water (eutrophication),air quality (acidification) and contribute to global warming (greenhouse effect). If soils are farmed andnutrients not replenished, this can lead to declining soil fertility and may impair agricultural sustainabil-ity throughsoil mining of nutrients.

Many OECD countries have established goals to reduce nutrient emissions from agriculture.These are closely linked to the need for agriculture to comply with national standards for nitrate andphosphate emissions into aquatic environments. A number of international conventions and agree-ments also have the objective of limiting and reducing transboundary emissions into the environ-ment, including nutrient emissions from agriculture into surface and ground water, marine waters andthe atmosphere.


The OECD soil surface nitroto an agricultural system (inpof nitrogen by agriculture (ouenvironmental pollution, whilems.

The indicator provides inface or groundwater. Howevefrom livestock housing and sto

The trend with regard to downward or constant for mosfrom agricultural nitrogen emigen surplus have reported sig

The spatial variation of ngests that even in countries wenced in some localities, whil

A second nutrient use initrogen input/output ratio. most countries over the pasthe efficiency of using nitrogdeteriorated.


gen balance indicator measures the difference between the nitrogen availableuts, mainly from livestock manure and chemical fertilisers) and the uptaketputs, largely crops and forage). A persistent surplus indicates potential

le a persistent deficit indicates potential agricultural sustainability prob-

formation on the potential loss of nitrogen to the soil, the air, and to sur-r, nitrogen loss through the volatilisation of ammonia to the atmospherered manure is excluded from the calculation.

surpluses in national nitrogen soil surface balances over the last decade ist OECD countries, which suggests that the potential environmental impactssions is decreasing or stable. Some countries with a relatively high nitro-nificant reductions, although for a few countries surpluses have risen.

itrogen surpluses within a country can be considerable. Regional data sug-ith a relatively low national nitrogen surplus, nitrate pollution is experi-

e soil nutrient deficits occur in others.

ndicator, the efficiency of nitrogen use in agriculture, measures the physicalThis indicator has shown an improvement in nitrogen use efficiency fort decade. However, there is considerable variation across countries inen in agriculture, and in some cases the efficiency of nitrogen use has

Use of Farm Inputs and Natural Resources

OECD 2000

-150 -1%

%100

60

20

0

40

80

The main elements in the OECD soil surface nitrogen balance

Agricultural Land

InorganicFertilisers

LivestockManure

BiologicalNitrogenFixation

AtmosphericDeposition

OrganicManure

Seeds andPlantingMaterials

HarvestedCrop

Production

Grass andFodder CropProduction

Nitrogen Inputs

Nutrient Balancesurplus (deficit) into :

Air Soil Water

Nitrogen outputs(uptake)

Soil surface nitrogen balance estimates: 1985-87 to 1995-97

CanadaKorea

New ZealandIreland

United StatesAustraliaPortugal

SpainNorwayOECD

IcelandBelgium

JapanFranceEU-15

NetherlandsFinland

United KingdomAustria

DenmarkSwitzerland

SwedenMexicoTurkey

ItalyGermany

GreecePoland

Czech RepublicHungary

Nitrog

Cana

daTu

rkey

Austr

iaIta

ly

Swed

New

Zeala

nd

-150 -1%

%100

60

20

0

40

80


Agricultural Land


LivestockManure



OrganicManure


HarvestedCrop

Production


Nitrogen Inputs


Air Soil Water



CanadaKorea

New ZealandIreland


SpainNorwayOECD

IcelandBelgium

JapanFranceEU-15

NetherlandsFinland


DenmarkSwitzerland

SwedenMexicoTurkey

ItalyGermany

GreecePoland


Nitrog

Cana

daTu

rkey

Austr

iaIta

ly

Swed

New

Zeala

nd

-150 -1%

%100

60

20

0

40

80


Agricultural Land


LivestockManure



OrganicManure


HarvestedCrop

Production


Nitrogen Inputs


Air Soil Water



CanadaKorea

New ZealandIreland


SpainNorwayOECD

IcelandBelgium

JapanFranceEU-15

NetherlandsFinland


DenmarkSwitzerland

SwedenMexicoTurkey

ItalyGermany

GreecePoland


Nitrog

Cana

daTu

rkey

Austr

iaIta

ly

Swed

New

Zeala

nd


15000 -50 0 50 100 1985-87 1995-97

%100

60

20

0

40

80

Nitrogen balancekg/ha of total agricultural land

Change in the nitrogen balancekg/ha of total agricultural land

Canada 6 13Korea 173 253New Zealand 5 6Ireland 62 79United States 25 31Australia 7 7Portugal 62 66Spain 40 41Norway 72 73OECD 23 23Iceland 7 7Belgium 189 181Japan 145 135France 59 53EU-15 69 58Netherlands 314 262Finland 78 64United Kingdom 107 86Austria 35 27Denmark 154 118Switzerland 80 61Sweden 47 34Mexico 28 20Turkey 17 12Italy 44 31Germany 88 61Greece 58 38Poland 48 29Czech Republic 99 54Hungary 47 -15

en efficiency based on the soil surface nitrogen balance: 1995-97Percentage of nitrogen uptake (output) to nitrogen input

OECD

Austr

alia

Norw

ayPo

landen

Icelan

d

Germ

anyFra

nce

Gree

ce

Switze

rland

EU-15

Czec

h Rep

ublic

Mexic

o

Unite

d Stat

es

Irelan

d

Finlan

d

Unite

d King

dom

Japa

n

Denm

ark

Nethe

rland

s

Belgiu

mSp

ainKo

rea

Portu

gal

15000 -50 0 50 100 1985-87 1995-97

%100

60

20

0

40

80





OECD

Austr

alia

Norw

ayPo

landen

Icelan

d

Germ

anyFra

nce

Gree

ce

Switze

rland

EU-15

Czec

h Rep

ublic

Mexic

o

Unite

d Stat

es

Irelan

d

Finlan

d

Unite

d King

dom

Japa

n

Denm

ark

Nethe

rland

s

Belgiu

mSp

ainKo

rea

Portu

gal

15000 -50 0 50 100 1985-87 1995-97

%100

60

20

0

40

80





OECD

Austr

alia

Norw

ayPo

landen

Icelan

d

Germ

anyFra

nce

Gree

ce

Switze

rland

EU-15

Czec

h Rep

ublic

Mexic

o

Unite

d Stat

es

Irelan

d

Finlan

d

Unite

d King

dom

Japa

n

Denm

ark

Nethe

rland

s

Belgiu

mSp

ainKo

rea

Portu

gal


24

2. PESTICIDE USE AND RISKS

Context

Agricultural pesticides contribute to agricultural productivity but also pose potential risks tohuman health and the environment. The risks vary greatly depending on pesticides inherent toxicity (orhazard) and exposure. Exposure to a pesticide depends on the way it is applied and its mobility andpersistence in the environment.

Pesticide use by farmers depends on a multitude of factors, such as climatic conditions, the compo-sition and variety of crops, pest and disease pressures, farm incomes, pesticide cost/crop price ratios,pesticide policies and management practices. Pesticide indicators are potentially a useful tool to helppolicy makers monitor and evaluate policies and also provide information concerning human and envi-ronmental pesticide risks.

All OECD countries have to ensure they do not pose uthresholds. A number of councides used over a given time cide taxes, are being used ipesticide use.


OECD is developing twosales and/or use data in termby combining information on the conditions that might affeOECD member countries aimbut highly policy relevant ind

Overall the trend in pestOECD countries, although forby changing crop prices, greatment practices and technolopractices, and in some cases t

There is evidence to suggtries, with the volume of cropcide use. For a considerable nbe closely correlated with fluc

The close correlation betries, over a period of 10 or mment can be reduced by redlinking trends in pesticide usalways equivalent to a changand because different pestici

Preliminary results of OEdifferent indicator methods caon pesticide risks and use.


a regulatory system that assesses pesticides prior to their release for sale,nacceptable risks to the environment and public above nationally agreedtries have also set targets to reduce the total quantity of agricultural pesti-period. In addition, policies to reduce risk, and other measures like pesti-n some countries, to reduce the environmental and health impacts of

kinds of indicators. One shows pesticide use trends over time based ons of active ingredients. The other indicator tracks trends in pesticide riskspesticide hazard and exposure with pesticide use data and information onct risks. Pesticide use indicators are simpler, but because the policies of ultimately to reduce risks, it is important to develop the more complexicators of risk trends.

icide use over the last decade has remained constant or declined in most a few countries use has increased. The reduction can be explained partlyer efficiency of pesticide use as a result of improvements in pest manage-

gy, and government policies aimed at both improving pest managementargeting a reduction in pesticide use.

est an increasing efficiency in the use of pesticides for some OECD coun- production over the past 10-12 years increasing more rapidly than pesti-umber of countries, however, annual changes in pesticides use appear totuations in annual crop production trends.

tween trends in pesticide use and risks estimated by a few OECD coun-ore years suggest that pesticide risks to human health and the environ-ucing the use of particular chemicals. Caution is required, however, ine with changes in risks. This is because a change in pesticide use is note in risks, especially with the development of more targeted pesticides,des pose different types and levels of risks.

CD work on pesticide risk indicators for the aquatic environment show thatn produce different pesticide risk trends, even when using the same data

Use of Farm Inputs and Natural Resources

OECD 2000

6 000

19860

5 000

4 000

3 000

2 000

1 000

1987 1

1964

250

0

200

150

100

50

-80 40-60 -40 -20 0 20% 1985-87 1995-97

Tonnes of active ingredients

Pesticide use in agriculture: 1985-87 to 1995-97

Change in tonnes of active ingredients

Greece 6 928 9 143Ireland 1 812 2 107Korea 22 276 25 063Belgium 8 806 9 710New Zealand 3 690 3 752France 96 897 97 229United States 377 577 373 115Japan 97 672 84 850United Kingdom 40 768 34 910Canada 35 370 29 206Spain 41 592 31 704EU-15 333 804 253 684Switzerland 2 456 1 832Denmark 6 144 4 051Austria 5 670 3 552Poland 15 107 8 628Norway 1 455 797Netherlands 20 241 10 553

GreeceIrelandKorea

BelgiumNew Zealand

FranceUnited States

JapanUnited Kingdom

CanadaSpainEU-15

SwitzerlandDenmark

AustriaPolandNorway

NetherlandsFinland

ItalySweden


Pesticide cons

Comparison of the

Tonnes

Indicators

6 000

19860

5 000

4 000

3 000

2 000

1 000

1987 1

1964

250

0

200

150

100

50

-80 40-60 -40 -20 0 20% 1985-87 1995-97





GreeceIrelandKorea

BelgiumNew Zealand

FranceUnited States

JapanUnited Kingdom

CanadaSpainEU-15

SwitzerlandDenmark

AustriaPolandNorway

NetherlandsFinland

ItalySweden


Pesticide cons

Comparison of the

Tonnes

Indicators

6 000

19860

5 000

4 000

3 000

2 000

1 000

1987 1

1964

250

0

200

150

100

50

-80 40-60 -40 -20 0 20% 1985-87 1995-97





GreeceIrelandKorea

BelgiumNew Zealand

FranceUnited States

JapanUnited Kingdom

CanadaSpainEU-15

SwitzerlandDenmark

AustriaPolandNorway

NetherlandsFinland

ItalySweden


Pesticide cons

Comparison of the

Tonnes

Indicators


6 000

0

5 000

4 000

3 000

2 000

1 000

988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

19921966 1971

250

0

200

150

100

50

Finland 1 962 1 001Italy 99 100 48 270Sweden 3 885 1 454Czech Republic 11 217 3 860Hungary 28 359 8 628

umption in tonnes of active ingredients

Environmental risk indicator

Health risk indicator

environmental and health risk indicators with the quantity of pesticides sold:Sweden, 1986 to 1996

Tonnes

of pesticide use and human health risks: United States, 1964 to 1992Index 1964 = 100


Acute human health risk indicator

Chronic human health risk indicator

6 000

0

5 000

4 000

3 000

2 000

1 000

988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

19921966 1971

250

0

200

150

100

50






Tonnes





6 000

0

5 000

4 000

3 000

2 000

1 000

988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

19921966 1971

250

0

200

150

100

50






Tonnes






26

3. WATER USE

Context

In some regions in OECD countries agriculture is facing increasing competition for surface andgroundwater from urban and industrial demands. Also there is a growing recognition to meet environ-mental needs through allocations of water for the environment and protection of down-stream impactsfrom agricultural pollution. Even so, for some OECD countries the issue of water use is not a policy con-cern because they are richly endowed with water resources.

Governments have traditionally invested in the development of irrigation schemes for the pur-poses of national and regional development. This often involved a substantial subsidy to establish andmaintain irrigation systems and the consequent underpricing of water to agriculture. A number of OECDcountries are beginning to seek more efficient and effective use of water in agriculture, by movingtowards a full-cost recovery system of water pricing, as a means of adequately valuing water as an inputto agricultural production.


OECD is developing threthe intensity of water use bymeasurement of the technicaand third a water stress indicrivers are impacting on aquati

The share of agriculture isector currently accounting fofor nine OECD countries. Whitries, for more arid regions thshare of available resources. available water resources.

Even where competitionnounced, the growing need tthat agriculture improves its e

Information on the technextremely limited. Since the egation in many OECD countriin the irrigated area has beenand an irrigation water subsidtially below that paid by inducosts of water conveyancing s

There is relatively little inface water from rivers for agrifor rivers subject to diversionmany OECD countries that wWhere flow rates are defined boundary flows.


e indicators related to agricultures use of surface and groundwater: first agriculture relative to other users in the national economy; second thel (volume) and economic (value) efficiency of water use on irrigated land;ator to gauge the extent to which diversions or extractions of water fromc ecosystems.

n total national water utilisation is high for most OECD countries, with ther nearly 45 per cent of total OECD water utilisation, and over 60 per centle utilisation levels are far below available water resources for most coun-e utilisation intensity of water, especially by agriculture, is a much higherIn these situations agriculture has to compete with other users for scarce

for water resources between agriculture and other sectors is less pro-o meet recreational and environmental demands for water may requirefficiency of water use.

ical or economic efficiency of irrigation water use across OECD countries isarly 1980s there has been a continuous upward trend in water use for irri-

es, associated with the increase in the irrigated land area. The expansion mainly encouraged by government investment in irrigation infrastructurey. The price of water paid by farmers in many OECD countries is substan-strial and household users, even when differences in water quality and theys

environmental indicators of agriculture - 01

Documents