Review of the definitions of the existing ecological approaches

The aim of this present Deliverable 1.1 (D1.1) is to lay the foundation for the development of a framework for farm typologies, which takes into account existing typologies and existing nomenclature (e.g. low-input, organic, extensive, high nature value farming, conservation agriculture, agroecological, etc.) when considering in particular the degree to which farms adopt ecological practices. This early phase of the typology work aims at providing a consolidated framework composed of farming systems and farming practices, and a first screening of which practice is associated with which system. This initial stage will be complemented in further deliverables by indicators and thresholds to link concepts to data and models.

A literature review was conducted to identify existing categorisations of farm types based on the degree of uptake of ecological approaches and practises to farming. The review involved a detailed search of three databases (Web of Science-WoS Core Collections; Scopus; CAB Direct) using a common search string, adapted where necessary to conform to the structure of the database, to identify potentially relevant papers published from 1993 onwards (the cut-off date was selected with reference to the 1992 CAP reform). All documents returned by this search were subsequently screened for relevance based on their titles, their abstracts (if the relevance from the title was unclear) or consideration of the full text (where the relevance from the title or abstract was unclear). Publications which considered farming systems based only on non-ecological criteria (such as farm size, economics, crop and livestock type) were discarded. However, documents containing mixed classification systems, i.e. based on both ecological and other criteria were retained so that the ecological aspects of the classification systems could be examined in more detail.

The search returned 1,634 documents from Scopus, 2,124 from WoS and 498 from CAB. After removing duplicates, the total number of documents obtained was 2,403. After the screening process described above, a total of 203 documents from across the three databases were considered to meet the selection criteria and were skimmed or read completely.

The terms crop/cropping systems, farm/farming system and agricultural systems are conceptualised with different nuances in the literature and sometimes used synonymously or with no clear distinctions. For the purpose of the LIFT project we will adopt the term ‘farming system’ where fields are considered to be components of farms under management of particular farmers. The principal crops, livestock, and management practices employed on a particular farm constitute a farming system. A farm is a goal-oriented system in which goals dictate how capital and labour are used in production activities. Some aspects of agricultural ecology, such as crop-livestock-pasture integration and cycling of nutrients, are therefore better analysed at the farm level.

Several studies frame the identification of farming systems based on ecological practices within the broader concept of sustainable agriculture. Although there have been a wide range of definitions of sustainable agriculture in the literature, most involve some aspects of the following common characteristics to a greater or lesser degree: adequate economic returns to farmers; maintenance of natural resources and productivity; minimal adverse environmental impacts; optimal production with minimal external inputs; satisfaction of human needs for food and income; provision for the social needs of farm families. In other words, they promote environmental, ecological, economic, and social stability and sustainability.

There are a number of ways to group farming systems based on similarities in their management ethos or ecological farming practices. The literature review has suggested the following would be useful for LIFT to investigate further:

• Conservation agriculture: In conservation agriculture the primary focus is on the preservation of soil quality and properties through alternative tillage strategies. In more recent years, the concept in the literature has been broadened slightly to encompass a variety of measures to mitigate soil erosion, improve water holding capacity and increase soil organic matter, help to improve soil health and boost crop yields. A key feature is the revision or reduction of soil disturbance through tilling and crop rotation.
• Low-input farming systems: This terminology is used in a variety of ways in the literature, with input intensity being regarded as the amount of input (e.g. kg nitrogen or kg pesticide active matter) or the frequency of intervention per area and time unit. Low-input farming system and extensive farming system are sometimes being used to refer to the same thing. Common characteristics are: seeking to optimise the management and use of internal production inputs (i.e. on-farm resources); minimising the use of external production inputs such as purchased fertiliser and pesticides; avoiding pollution of surface and ground water; reducing pesticide residues in food; reducing farmer’s overall risk; and seeking to increase both short- and long-term farm profitability. Within Europe, High Nature Value (HNV) farming systems is a term used primarily to apply to low-input farming systems where the farming practices help support and maintain habitats and species considered to be of high nature conservation value.
• Integrated farming system: This terminology is also used in the literature in a variety of ways. In general, integrated farming system is often used to refer to systems which fall between conventional and organic farming. Integrated farming systems are thus distinctive from conventional farming practice in that sustainability is at the core of the objectives, as is the case in organic systems. However, unlike organic farming, integrated farming systems can still utilise inorganic inputs, albeit at lower levels or used in a less systematic way than those of conventional systems. Integrated farming systems are increasingly seen as involving a combination of biological cycles for nutrient, weed, pest, and disease management with tactical use of fertilisers and other agrichemicals. Sustainable, efficient production in these systems depends on careful monitoring of soil conditions and requirements and use of water and nutrients.
• Organic and biodynamic farming systems: amongst the different farming systems identified from the literature review, organic agriculture is the one with the greatest recognition worldwide having been established by legislation, regulations and certification schemes. Within the European Union (EU), organic farming is defined as a holistic production management system which promotes and enhances agroecosystem health, including biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity. It emphasises the use of management practices in preference to the use of off-farm inputs, taking into account that regional conditions require locally adapted systems. The term Biodynamic is a trademark held by the Demeter-International e.V association; national organisations who are members of Demeter International are responsible for Demeter certification in their own countries. Like organic farming, biodynamic farming uses no synthetic chemical fertilisers and pesticides, and instead emphasises building up the soil with compost additions and animal and green manures, controlling pests naturally, rotating crops, and diversifying crops and livestock. In practice, the difference with organic farming schemes is that biodynamic farmers must add eight specific preparations to their soils, crops, and composts to enhance soil and crop quality and to stimulate the composting process.
• Agroecology: the literature on agroecology has increased steadily over the past two decades. Agroecology can be considered jointly as a science, a practice and a social movement. It encompasses the whole food system from the soil to the organisation of human societies. It is value-laden and based on core principles. As a science, it gives priority to action research, holistic and participatory approaches, and transdisciplinarity including different knowledge systems. As a practice, it is based on sustainable use of local renewable resources, local farmers’ knowledge and priorities, wise use of biodiversity to provide ecosystem services and resilience, and solutions that provide multiple benefits (environmental, economic, social) from local to global. As a movement, it defends smallholders and family farming, farmers and rural communities, food sovereignty, local and short marketing chains, diversity of indigenous seeds and breeds, healthy and quality food. Diversified farming systems is a term used to refer to an agroecological, systems-based alternative to modern intensive agriculture. Such a farming system is considered as ‘diversified’ when it intentionally includes functional biodiversity at multiple spatial and/or temporal scales, through practices developed via traditional and/or agroecological scientific knowledge. The term is considered as an extension rather than an alternative to the agroecological approach.

Considering the large number of documents describing different farming systems, there is a paucity of attempts to classify the variety of such systems into consistent frameworks or schemes, based on the degree of ecological functionality of the different systems. Based on the literature review we suggest that LIFT should consider clustering farming systems according to their uptake of ecological practices by using the five terms above together with the term conventional.

The literature review also considered similarities and differences in the terminology to describe different farming practices. Based on the literature and expert judgement we suggest a framework to cluster farming practices, and provide a first attempt to link the farming systems with farming practices. These will be investigated further in future deliverables.

This deliverable also involved an initial investigation as to whether further interpretation of the literature review findings could be achieved through automatized textual analysis. The number of documents identified in the literature review and subsequent screening process were too few to perform robust analyses. Accordingly, all documents identified in the initial literature review were analysed. A contingency matrix was produced to show which farming practice terms were occurring in association with each of the six farming systems terms. Co-citation mapping was also tested to identify which terms were occurring in association with which farming system terms. Finally, a frequency timeline was constructed showing the number of papers containing the terms relative to the six farming system clusters over time. This indicated that the literature has been dominated by a focus on conventional and organic systems.