MEASURING PROGRESS TOWARD SUSTAINABILITY:
THE ENVIRONMENTAL YARDSTICK

Prepared by:
Frank Wefering, Graduate Research Assistant; Michele Marra, Associate Professor; and Leon Danielson, Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics

August 20, 1997

Environmental Indicators

The main purpose of environmental monitoring is to represent in a simple, understandable way, complex environmental systems with the goal to develop effective and efficient policy options and to measure progress toward the desired environmental objectives. This report focuses on the description and evaluation of the Environmental Yardstick approach developed in the Netherlands. Particular attention is paid to its adaptability for United States agricultural and environmental policy making. Another European monitoring tool, the AMOEBA approach, is presented and discussed in a companion report.

Effective and efficient political decisions depend on reliable information. This is true for environmental matters as well as for every other field of political action. The close relationships and dependencies between economies and ecology are well known and best described by the concept of sustainability. Until recently, environmental monitoring played only a minor role compared to economic monitoring, especially with regard to its importance for political decision making.

The absence of recognized environmental indicators is the primary reason for the secondary role of environmental monitoring. Although substantial amounts of data, both economic and ecological, are generated each period, established indicators that serve as inputs for political decisions and actions exist only for economic data (i.e., rate of employment, GNP [Gross National Product], and the inflation rate). A comparable set of indices for the ecological context is missing so far. Currently available ecological information often is of a qualitative and specialized nature. Moreover, these data generally are fragmented, so they do not provide an overall view of the ecological situation.

When attempting to measure progress toward sustainability, adequate economic and ecological information, according to the Dutch ecologist ten Brink, must:

There is a demand for environmental, as well as economic, indicators that satisfy these criteria.

Sustainability Indicators: Functions and Standards

In the following, we first present an overview of the purposes of environmental indicators. Secondly, we introduce additional features of sustainability indicators which go beyond the purposes of general environmental indicators and the requirements they must meet.

The German Experts’ Council for Environmental Questions, Der Rat von Sachverständigen für Umweltfragen, listed the purposes of environmental indicators as follows:

1. Description of the environmental situation
2. Diagnosis of existing environmental problems
3. Prediction of environmental trends
4. Setting goals for the quality of the environment
5. Information for the public
6. Facilitation of political decision making
7. Test of strategies for environmental protection
8. Success control for environmental protection policies

Sustainability indicators, in contrast to common environmental indicators, not only describe the situation of the environment and the burden on it, they also show what environmental burden the ecosystem is able to withstand in the long run without affecting its basic recuperative capacity. Economic activities that unavoidably cause burdens on the environment will only be tolerated as long as they do not detract from the operating ability of the natural capital stock in the long run.

According to Braat, sustainability indicators should satisfy the following additional requirements:

The existence of reference values and sustainability thresholds is the most important requirement for sustainability indicators. The formulation of reference values presumes that a reference situation exists or can at least be constructed. As a reference for a damaged ecosystem, it is possible to utilize an ecosystem that can be found somewhere else and that is largely uninfluenced by human activities. Ten Brink refers to such an ecosystem as the geographical reference situation. Other possibilities are the reconstruction of a past environmental situation or a quantitative description, based on scientific criteria, of an environmental situation to be achieved. Furthermore, sustainability thresholds whose passing endangers the sustainability of an environmental situation can serve as reference.

The concept of sustainability combines not only the needs of future and present generations but also the interdependencies of economic activities and ecological status as well. Although widely accepted all over the world as a concept, the goal of sustainable development has a noteworthy weakness - the difficulty of measuring sustainability. Is a political decision sustainable? Is it more sustainable than the alternatives? Is the way a firm produces, a farmer grows, or a citizen behaves sustainable? Or is it at least more sustainable than the alternatives? A sustainability indicator should tell us if, and to what degree, we are making progress toward the goal of sustainability.

 Introduction

In the Netherlands, it has been a policy goal to reduce the physical amount of pesticides used in agriculture. Such a reduction, however, does not necessarily imply fewer environmental impacts. In fact, Reus shows that dosages of pesticides and impacts on the environment are not significantly correlated. Farmers lack information about the environmental impacts of pesticides and fertilizers they use. In order to provide that information in a useful way for farmers and to allow a responsible and more sustainable agriculture, the Center for Agriculture & Environment (CLM) in Utrecht developed an environmental yardstick for pesticides - a tool for farmers to measure the environmental impacts of their farming practices, with the hope that this knowledge would contribute to changes in pesticide use behavior.

Construction of the Indicator

The yardstick gives information about the following three effects:

• leaching into ground water,
• risk to water organisms and
• risk to soil organisms (Reus and Pak).

Environmental Impact Points (EIPs) of individual pesticides are assigned to each of these. If considered important for a particular crop or pesticide, the yardstick can include additional effects such as measures of food safety. They are calculated by computer models that predict the leaching of pesticides into ground water, soil and surface water and their biodegradation. To calculate EIPs, the following formula is used:

 EIP = (PEC / ES) * 100
where PEC = predicted environmental concentration, and ES = the environmental standard (the maximum concentration allowed by current regulation).

Methodology

To measure the environmental impacts of pesticides, methods derived from the pesticide registration procedure of the Dutch government are used. Reference points of the yardstick according to proposed Dutch environmental standards are set at 100. Actual scores below 100 are considered to be acceptable. EIPs are assigned for a standard application of 1 kg/ha. For dosages differing from the standard application, the number of EIPs should be multiplied by the actual dosage measured in kg/ha.

How are EIPs measured? The conditions determining risks to humans and to the environment are complicated. The environmental impacts of pesticides depend on (Figure 1.):

(Reus and Pak)

For each of the three environmental effects covered in the yardstick approach - leaching into ground water, effects on water organisms and effects on soil organisms - a variety of variables have to be taken into account to calculate EIPs.

The Environmental Yardstick In Practice

The yardstick is used to compare different pesticides (figure 2). The farmer decides which of the three environmental effects is most significant for his conditions. He can select the pesticide with the lowest EIP for the most important environmental effect. That is, the pesticide which puts the least environmental pressure on his farm. It is also possible to compare the environmental effects of the use of pesticides in a certain crop. As figure 3 shows, a farmer can calculate the EIP scores for each application during the season. Afterward, the scores are added to get a rough estimation of the total environmental effect.

Figure 2. Comparison of the environmental impact of several insecticides

Figure 3. Example of a Dutch farmer’s EIP’s for potato pest control

Dutch agricultural consultants (equivalent to Cooperative Extension in the United States) encourage farmers to keep records of their scores and to compare them with their own scores from previous years as well as with those of other farmers. This practice leads farmers towards a more environmentally sound (sustainable) crop protection regime. In fact, yardsticks have become widely used by Dutch farmers. They have achieved voluntary reductions of 70% and more in environmental impacts since they started to apply yardsticks. Water companies who supply drinking water to towns and cities have begun to pay farmers a bonus for achieving specific percentage reductions in their pesticide impact scores or for specific levels of reduction in nutrient loss.

It also is interesting to note that the Dutch Department of Agriculture gives eco-labels to biologically grown products based on the EIPs of the product. Eco-labeling requires a permanent evaluation and control system. The standards to receive an eco-label have a progressive character in order to provide incentives for quality improvement in the sustainability of the production system. Standards are set by the responsible environmental agency. Moreover, the chemical industry is cooperating by increasing research funding to improve evaluation methods on the one hand and pesticides with regard to reductions in EIPs on the other.

Existence of Reference Values

The most important requirement to judge the degree of sustainability is the existence of reference values. Sustainability indicators should be able to do more than merely describe the current situation. They should enable an evaluation of a current situation with respect to the sustainable reference system chosen by policymakers and scientists.

The environmental yardstick for pesticides uses certain standards (set by policymakers) that are primarily based on toxicity data (for example₅₀). These acceptable concentration standards are a crucial factor in calculating EIPs (EIP = 100 x predicted environmental concentration / acceptable concentration). Thus, EIP values smaller or equal to 100 indicate that concentrations are at or below reference values for this indicator.

Scientific Exactness

An indicator should be scientifically based to be used for policy and it should also provide useful information for nonscientists. It should be noted that indicators are a compromise among scientific exactness, the demand for condensed and understandable information and constraints (Verbruggen and Kuik). In order to satisfy the requirements of scientific exactness, an indicator should represent adequately the system it describes.

The environmental yardstick relies on data submitted by the pesticide industry. In order to introduce pesticides to the market, the Dutch mandate all technical data about the pesticide be made available by the industry. Data then are validated by an independent governmental research institute and are made available in pesticide fact sheets. Since the industry is required by law to provide accurate data, there is no reason to doubt the scientific exactness of this indicator. Rather, the more accepted the yardstick becomes, the higher the incentive for the pesticide industry to make their products less harmful.

Clarity

The effectiveness of an indicator depends to a large extent on its clarity. Therefore, three different target groups whose attitudes toward clarity differ must be considered:

a) scientists are primarily interested in statistically utilizable and possibly raw (uncondensed) data,

b) political decision-makers requires some condensation of the data as well as setting it into relation to political goals and criteria, and

c) individual users (the public) tend to prefer unambiguous statements and a condensation of the data to one value (for example, an index number).

(Braat)

The calculation of EIPs in the environmental yardstick approach does not appear difficult once a farmer knows how to include his/her particular farming conditions.

 Analysis and Description of the Environmental Situation

The environmental yardstick can be used to describe the current impact of farmers' pesticide application. Matching their particular farming conditions, their dosages, and data about the pesticides they want to use, they can calculate the index of environmental impact. The value of the yardstick begins as soon as they compare different EIP values for different pesticides or even if they compare values and underlying conditions with other farmers. It is still their decision which pesticide to use, but the environmental yardstick enables them to be aware of and consider environmental, as well as economic, impacts in a more quantitative way.

 Setting Goals for the Quality of the Environment

In the concept of sustainability, goals like the observance of the management rules, sustainable yields in agriculture or a sustainable stock of a certain species play a major role. It is therefore necessary to include such goals in an indicator of sustainability. However, a chosen environmental goal does not have to be the same as a sustainable reference value. The goal behind the environmental yardstick approach is simply to enable farmers to evaluate the environmental impact of their pesticide application. The sustainable goal is defined as a target number of environmental impact points per pesticide application or per growing season not to be exceeded.

The Environmental Yardstick’s Adaptability for Use in the United States

The environmental yardstick tells a success story. First applied in the Netherlands in 1994, it is today used by individual farmers, farmers' study groups, and by the extension service in training courses for farmers and in agricultural schools. The yardstick also made its way across the Atlantic within this short period of time. The Dutch Centre for Agriculture and Environment (CLM) and the United States Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) already have initiated demonstration projects using the yardstick in the context of nutrient balance in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and New York.

To apply the yardstick successfully, the toxicity, leaching potential, half-life and other data for a pesticide must be available. In order to effectively calculate the predicted environmental concentration (PEC) and EIPS, soil types and growing conditions of the particular region need to be evaluated as well as the relationship between the soil type and pesticide. This information is becoming more available in the United States as a result of various, ambitious research and modeling projects begun in the last few years. An example of this is the Herrings Marsh Run watershed demonstration and research project in Duplin County, North Carolina. Researchers associated with this project have begun to model and understand how pesticides and nutrients affect water quality in the soils and growing conditions of the coastal plain. The advantage of this approach to pesticide impact reduction is that it is a way to achieve the goals through voluntary means without reducing the farmer’s choice set. Farmers are simply provided more information about the environmental impacts of the set of possible pesticides.

This approach seems to change, at least in part, an externality or off-site impact to one that is more internal to the pest control decision and decision maker. The method seems well suited for adoption in the United States and follows well the current philosophy of providing carrots, rather than sticks, in the regulation of United States agricultural producers. It seems then that this technique shows promise as one applicable to most United States situations fairly soon. It can be adapted for nutrient applications as well. In some areas, this use could be much more important environmentally than its application to pesticide use. This is particularly true where livestock operations are relatively concentrated, such as in parts of Iowa or the southern coastal plain of North Carolina. It will be interesting to see whether introduction of this indicator to farmers in the United States results in the same degree of adoption and pesticide use reduction as has been seen in the Netherlands.

 Reference List

Braat, L. (1991): The Predictive Meaning of Sustainability Indicators, in Kuik, O., Verbruggen, H. (editors): In search of Indicators of Sustainable Development, Dordrecht, Boston, London, pages 57-70.

Brink, B.J.E. ten (1991): The AMOEBA approach as a useful tool for establishing sustainable development in: Kuik, O., Verbruggen, H. (editors): In search of Indictors of Sustainable Development, Dordrecht, Boston, London.

Der Rat von Sachverständigen für Umweltfragen (1974): Umweltfragen 1974, Stuttgart, Mainz., Germany. Dutch Government (1991): Multi-Year Crop Protection Plan (MYCPP).

Opschoor, H. and L. Rjinders, (1991): Towards Sustainable Development Indictors, in: Kuik, O., Vergruggen, H. (editors): In Search of Indicators of Sustainable Development, Dordrecht, Boston, London, Pages 7-27.

Reus, J.A.W.A. (1995): Minder kilo’s, minder milieubelasting?, Gewasbescherming 26 (2), pages 53-57.

Reus, J.A.W.A. and G.A. Pak. (1993): an Environmental Yardstick For Pesticides, Dept. Pub. No. 58./2a, Med. Fac. Landbouww. Univ. Gent, pages 249-55.

Verbruggen, H., and O. Kuik, (1991); Indicators of Sustainable Development: An Overview, in: Kuik, O., Verbruggen, H. (editors): In Search of Indicators of Sustainable Development, Dordrecht, Boston, London, pages 1-6.

AREP97-1

2/17/98 Judy Bridges