En Manual RISE 2

RISE 2.
0 Field Manual
Making sustainable development measurable and tangible for farmers

All that we can do, produce and discover seems to me insignificant compared with what the
farmer can do. () The progress of the farmer diminishes the trouble and the uneasiness of men
and makes them susceptible for the good and the beauty which arts and sciences acquired, and
then gives our progress the right foundation and blessing. () A hungry man does not go
to church, and without a piece of bread, a child does not go to school. (from a
letter by Justus Liebig, 1862)
RISE Version 2.0, September-14, 2012

Jan Grenz, Michael Schoch, Andreas Stmpfli, Christian Thalmann
School of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences (Bern University of Applied Sciences)
Lnggasse 85
CH-3052 Zollikofen, Switzerland
School of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences, 2012
Contents
Contents ..........................................................................................................................
................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................
........................................................... v
1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................
............................................................. 1
1.1RISE in
brief ........................................................................................................................
.................................................. 1
1.2How was RISE 2.0
developed? .............................................................................................................
......................... 2
1.3Background and
Motivation ..............................................................................................................
............................ 3
1.4How is sustainable development interpreted in RISE
2.0? ........................................................................... 4
1.5Postulates for Sustainable
Development ..........................................................................................................
....... 6
1.6What is Sustainable
Agriculture? ............................................................................................................
.................... 7
2. The RISE 2.0 Indicators: Aspects of Sustainable
Agriculture .................................................................................. 8
3. The RISE 2.0
Analysis......................................................................................................................
...................................... 10
3.1Procedure of a RISE 2.0
Analysis ..................................................................................................................
............ 10
3.2Data collection and evaluation
procedure ............................................................................................................
10
3.3Qualifications required to conduct a RISE 2.0
analysis ................................................................................... 11
3.4Preparing the First Farm
Visit ........................................................................................................................
........... 12
3.5Farm Visit and Data
Collection ...............................................................................................................
................... 14
3.6Calculation of Parameters and

Indicators ............................................................................................................
15
3.7Feedback of RISE 2.0 Results to Farmers and
Clients ...................................................................................... 16
3.8Time Management during the RISE 2.0
Analysis ............................................................................................... 18
4. The RISE 2.0 Indicator
Set .............................................................................................................................
..................... 20
4.1Indicator: Soil Use
(so) .........................................................................................................................
......................... 20
Parameter
Management
22
so_1:
Soil
.........................................................................................................
Parameter
so_2:
Crop
Productivity ......................................................................................................... 23
Parameter
Supply
so_3:
Soil
Organic
..........................................................................................
Matter
24
Parameter
so_4:
Reaction
Soil
................................................................................................................
25
Pollution
Parameter
so_5:
Soil
................................................................................................................
26
Parameter
so_6:
Soil
Erosion ...................................................................................................................
27
Parameter
Compaction
28
so_7:
Soil
...........................................................................................................
4.2Indicator: Animal husbandry

(ah) ........................................................................................................................
... 30 Parameter ah_1: Herd
Management ......................................................................................................
32 Parameter ah_2: Livestock
Productivity .................................................................................................. 33
Parameter
ah_3:
Possibility
for
Species-Appropriate
Behavior .............................................................. 34 Parameter ah_4: Quality of

Housing ....................................................................................................... 35
Parameter
ah_5:
Animal
Health .............................................................................................................. 36
4.3Indicator: Nutrient Flows
(nf) .........................................................................................................................
.......... 37 Parameter nf_1: Nitrogen
Balance .......................................................................................................... 39
Parameter
nf_2:
Phosphorus
Balance ..................................................................................................... 40
Parameter
nf_3:
N
and
P
Sufficiency ................................................................................................ 41
Self-
Parameter
nf_4:
Ammonia
Emissions ..................................................................................................... 42
Parameter
nf_5:
Waste
Management ..................................................................................................... 43
4.4Indicator: Water Use
(wa) ........................................................................................................................
................... 45 Parameter wa_1: Water
Management ................................................................................................... 46
Parameter
wa_2:
Water
Supply .............................................................................................................. 47
Parameter
wa_3:
Water
Use
Intensity .................................................................................................... 48
Parameter
wa_4:
Risks
to
Quality ................................................................................................ 49
Water
4.5Indicator: Energy and Climate

(ec) .........................................................................................................................
. 51
Parameter
ec_1:
Energy
Management .................................................................................................... 55
Parameter
ec_2:
Energy
Intensity
of
Agricultural
Production................................................................. 55 Parameter ec_3: Share of

Sustainable Energy Carriers ........................................................................... 57
Parameter
ec_4:
Greenhouse
Balance ............................................................................................. 57
Gas
4.6Indicator: Biodiversity and Plant Protection

(bp) ............................................................................................. 51
Parameter
bp_1:
Plant
Management .................................................................................... 63
Parameter
bp_2:
Ecological
Areas .............................................................................................. 64
Protection
Priority
Parameter
bp_3:
Intensity
of
Production ............................................................................ 65
Agricultural
Parameter
bp_4:
Landscape
Quality ....................................................................................................... 66
Parameter
bp_5:
Diversity
of
Production ............................................................................ 67
Agricultural
4.7Indicator: Working Conditions

(wc) .......................................................................................................................
69
Parameter
wc_1:
Management
Personnel
..............................................................................................
Parameter
wc_2:
71
Working
time .............................................................................................................. 72
Parameter
wc_3:
Work
Safety ................................................................................................................. 73
Parameter
wc_4:
Wage
and
Level .............................................................................................. 74
Income
4.8Indicator: Quality of Life

(ql) .........................................................................................................................
............ 76 Parameter ql_1: Occupation and
Education ........................................................................................... 77
Parameter
Situation
ql_2:
Financial
........................................................................................................
Parameter
ql_3:
77
Social
Relations ............................................................................................................. 77
Parameter
ql_4:
Personal
Freedom
Values ...................................................................................... 77
and
Parameter
ql_5:
Health .......................................................................................................................
.... 77
Parameter
ql_6:
Further
Aspects
Life .................................................................................................. 78
of
4.9Indicator: Economic Viability

(ev) .........................................................................................................................
.. 79 Parameter ev_1: Liquidity
Reserve .......................................................................................................... 80
Parameter ev_2: Debt
ratio ....................................................................................................................
81
Parameter
ev_3:
Economic
Vulnerability ................................................................................................ 83
Parameter
ev_4:
Livelihood
security ....................................................................................................... 83
Parameter
ev_5:
Cash
Ratio ............................................................................................ 84
Flow-Turnover
Parameter
ev_6:
Debt
Service
Ratio........................................................................................ 85
Coverage
4.10
Farm
Management ..........................................................................................................
............................................. 87
Parameter
fm_1:
Farm
strategy
Planning ........................................................................................ 89
Parameter
fm_2:
Supply
and
Security ............................................................................................ 90
Parameter
fm_3:
Planning
Instruments
Documentation ................................................................. 90
and
yield
and
Parameter
fm_4:
Quality
Management .................................................................................................. 91
Parameter
fm_5:
Farm
Cooperation ....................................................................................................... 91
5. References .................................................................................................................
................................................................ 94
Important note on the contents of this manual: This version of the RISE 2.0
manual contains explanations on the background, philosophy and use of RISE, as well
as on the goals, rationale and principles of calculation of all RISE 2.0 indicators and
parameters. Questions related with parameters are included to the extent that the
reader can understand what information is used to calculate the respective
parameter. This is complemented by graphical representations of valuation functions,
or by an example of the respective calculation. This manual includes neither the
complete set of questions of the RISE 2.0 questionnaire nor the algorithms for
calculating parameter and indicator scores. The complete questionnaire is available
online. If you need further information on algorithms, please contact the RISE team.
Hints concerning possible inaccuracies or errors, as well as comments and
suggestions are appreciated by the SHL RISE team.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the management of the Swiss College of Agriculture, in
particular Fritz Schneider and Dr. Alfred Buess, for their long-lasting, truly sustainable
support of the RISE team. Our sincere thanks go to all colleagues at SHL, the Inforama
Rtti, the Research Institute for Organic Agriculture (FiBL), the Agroscope research
stations and other institutions who contributed to the development of RISE 2.0, and
also to the programmers of Afca. Special thanks go to Christian Bhler who laid the
foundations for the Animal husbandry indicator.
We wish to express our gratitude and appreciation to all the farmers in Switzerland
and abroad who patiently participated in RISE analyses and made important
contributions to the methods development. We are especially grateful to the sponsors
and partners of all RISE projects conducted since 2000, in particular the GEBERT RF
Foundation, without whose generous support the step from RISE 1.0 to the new
version and software would not have been possible. We thank Hans Jhr, Jrg Zaugg
and Emilio Diaz of Nestl for the continuing good collaboration.
Very special thanks go to our families and friends who tolerated our uncounted hours
of overtime during RISE 2.0 development, but also reminded us of their right for social
sustainability when it was necessary to do so. We also thank our long-standing team
mates, Dr. Christoph Studer and Hans Porsche. We owe a big and special thank you to
Dr. Fritz Hni, who is and will always be the intellectual father of RISE. Last but not
least, being the RISE teams coordinator, I take the liberty to express my gratitude and
appreciation to my team colleagues, Dr. Christian Thalmann, Andreas Stmpfli and
Michael Schoch, for their indefatigable, motivated and motivating commitment.
Zollikofen, May of
2011
Dr.
Jan Grenz
1. Introduction
1.1 RISE 2.0 in brief
The vision of a sustainable development that satisfies human needs in a fair and
environment-friendly manner (WCED, 1987), was globally legitimated since the 1992
Rio conference. The importance of environmental and social goals for agriculture,
which emanate from this vision, is steadily growing. The purely economic competition
that has often favored ecological and social dumping is developing into a
multidimensional competition in which an agricultural enterprises success is
expressed through its profitability as well as its accomplishment of social and
ecological goals. Innovation that boosts productivity and resource efficiency continues
to be desired, while further growth at the expense of man and nature does not.
The Response-Inducing Sustainability Evaluation (RISE) is an indicator-based method
for the holistic assessment of the sustainability of agricultural production at farm level.
Its underlying vision is to contribute to the dissemination and consolidation of the
philosophy and practice of agricultural production. The target group of RISE comprises
all stakeholders in agriculture, society and business who share this vision. The
application of RISE is meant to make the sustainability paradigm better measurable,
communicable and tangible in farming. With RISE 2.0, the farms contribution to a
sustainable development, as well as its own sustainability as an enterprise, is
quantified and evaluated.
If land use is to become more sustainable, then the practitioners, i.e. the land users
themselves, need to be fully integrated into the process. A common understanding of
sustainable agriculture in addition to motivating and supporting farmers to find a
sustainable pathway that is suitable to their farm is required. Control mechanisms
may be necessary, but they must not quench the intrinsic innovation and creativity of
farmers (Ostrom et al., 2007). Therefore, RISE 2.0 is no instrument of control or
enforcement, but serves to holistically determine a farms position in the context of a
voluntary record of achievement. On the farm, in education, training and extension
programs, it shall contribute to sustainable developments becoming a vision that
farmers all over the world can grasp and implement. The RISE 2.0 analysis is goaloriented and individual, rather than means-oriented, because every farm can
contribute to a sustainable development in its own way (von Wirn-Lehr, 2001). RISE
2.0 provides no panaceas, since those do not exist for complex and diverse socioecological systems such as a farm (Ostrom et al., 2007). With RISE, 2.0 the nonverifiable statement (Popper, 1935) whether or not a farm is sustainable is foregone in
favor of a determination of the farms position on the continuum between optimal
and inacceptable for all relevant spheres of activity. The RISE 2.0 assessment
reflects todays state of knowledge concerning the environmental, economic and social
effects of agricultural production systems. It always has to be interpreted taking into
account the farms specific circumstances.
1.2 How was RISE 2.0 developed?

The first step of RISE development was triggered in 1999 by the request of a Brazilian
plantation owner to the Swiss College of Agriculture (SCA).. Since no internationally
applicable tools for holistic analysis existed at that time, a prototype, RISE 0, was
Swiss College of Agriculture, 2011
developed. RISE 0.x and RISE 1.x were applied in a variety of contexts (Hni et al.,
2008a). From 2000 to the end of 2010, 750 farms in 22 countries were analyzed
including dairy, vegetable, arable and mixed farms as well as coffee, cocoa and tea
plantations, smallholder farms and nomadic herders (Fig. 1). The RISE method has
been developed and applied in joint projects of SCA with Nestl, the GEBERT RF
Foundation, the Research Institute for Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Syngenta, the Swiss
Federal Office of Agriculture and other partners. Aspects of development and
application of RISE have been the subject of more than 30 student projects, from
semester to master (MSc) theses. One important milestone on the way to establishing
an international community of researchers working on holistic farm analysis was the
INFASA Symposium (2006), jointly organized by SCA and the International Institute for
Sustainable Development (IISD) and held 2006 in Bern (Hni et al., 2008b).
Figure 1. Countries where RISE was used on more than 800 farms, from 2000 to
2011.
In 2008, an external evaluation was commissioned in which representatives of

administration, science, agriculture and industry were asked about their opinion on
and expectations from RISE. Also, RISE and two other indicator systems were assessed
by the working group Farm evaluation systems of the German KTBL (KTBL, 2009).
Two consultations, during which experts and practitioners from various fields discussed
RISE 1.0 and suggested improvements, followed in 2009. From 2009 until 2011, RISE
2.0 was developed on the basis of the feedback and advice collected during the
previous years, and with financial support by the GEBERT RF Foundation.
In RISE 2.0, sustainable development (SD) is interpreted in line with the 1987 WCED
(World Commission on Environment and Development) report (WCED, 1987) and
chapter 14 of the Agenda 21 1 (UN, 1992). The overarching paradigm of SD is
concretized into principles that were developed on the basis of international treaties
and scientific publications. The indicator set was subjected to a cross-comparison with
1 Sustainable development is a development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it (...)
the concept of 'needs', in particular the essential
several indicator sets in 2010 (OECD, 2004; GRI, 2006; ILO, 2008; Breitschuh et al.,
2008; Zahm et al., 2008; Meul et al., 2008; Pretty et al., 2008; Hlsbergen, 2009).
1.3 Background and Motivation

Agriculture is not only the most important source of food for mankind. The sector also
employs close to 1.3 billion people on ca. 500 million farms and manages more than
one third of all terrestrial surfaces (FAOSTAT, 2009). The farmers literally are
custodians of much of earths usable land.
At the wake of the modern age, an awareness of the need to maintain and manage the
productive potential of forests to prevent a scarcity of heating and building material
began to spread among European foresters. The according principle was labeled
sustainability in the 18th century (Radkau, 2000; Grober, 2010). In contrast to this,
the idea that a farm should be managed following economic logic only became popular
in European agriculture from the 19 th century onwards. Simultaneously, the growing
possibilities of coal- and later oil-fueled machines, targeted crop and livestock
breeding, irrigation, chemical plant protection and mineral fertilization were harnessed.
This path of development has facilitated great successes: life expectancy, literacy rate,
the level of income and the supply with food (Fig. 2), water, sanitary installations and
infrastructure have reached unprecedented levels in most regions of the globe and for
most people (see e.g. Human Development Report/UNDP, State of Food and
Agriculture/FAO, State of Food Insecurity in the World/FAO, World Development
Report/World Bank).
Today, this development may have reached its limits. Global agricultural area has
stagnated since 1993, while population has continued to grow (Fig. 3). While the
proportion of malnourished people in world population has decreased, their absolute
number has grown since 2000 (SOFI, 2009). As of 2050, world population is expected
to stabilize at around 9 billion, 34% more than in 2010. Due to urbanization and
increasing affluence, increases in food production by 70% are deemed necessary until
then: from 2.1 to 3 billion tons of grains, and from 270 to 470 million tons of meat
annually (Tilman et al., 2002; FAO, 2009).
)
day
*
person
3000
2500
2000
1500
kcal/(
1000
500
0
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Figure 2. Development of the mean global per capita caloric provision as determined
by the agricultural sector. 2500 kcal/day (and 75 g of protein) should suffice for an
adult (data: FAOSTAT, 2009).
needs of the world's poor (...) and the idea of limitations imposed (...) on the environment's
ability to meet present and future needs. (www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm)
Figure 3. Development of global agricultural area (left) and world population (right)
(data: FAOSTAT, 2009).
Due to its productivity being subject to natural limitations (climate, soil and genome),
work and investment in agriculture are financially less rewarding than in other sectors.
Common responses to this situation include increasing productivity usually through
mechanization and thus decreasing average cost per unit, expanding farm area
(Binswanger, 2009), renunciation of the farmer and his family, and living off the
farmers equity. The agricultural treadmill supplies society with cheap food but this
success comes at the cost of social and economic damage in agriculture and
environmental problems in and beyond the sector. Overuse of natural resources
causes water scarcity and pollution, loss of species, soil degradation and disturbances
of nutrient cycles. Fossil-based, energy-intensive production (IPCC 2007) and the
expansion of agricultural area may be facing natural limits (Tilman et al., 2002; WDR,
2008).
The realization that economic stakeholders not only in agriculture follow an
increasingly biased (towards profit) and short-sighted logic, motivated the search for a
more comprehensive, holistic development paradigm. The forestal term
sustainability was adopted by politics and enhanced into the principle of
sustainable development (WCED, 1987). This became the guiding paradigm of the
Rio declaration and the Agenda 21 which were signed by representatives of 178
governments in 1992. Agenda 21 reflects a global consensus and political
commitment at the highest level on development and environment cooperation. In
Chapter 14 of Agenda 21, a sustainable increase in food production and improved food
security are identified as the main goals of sustainable land use (UN, 1992). The use of
RISE 2.0 is meant to contribute to the achievement of these goals.
1.4 How is sustainable development interpreted in RISE

2.0?
An unambiguous definition of sustainable development and its translation into goals
that can be practically implemented are the foundations of any sound sustainability
evaluation (von Wirn-Lehr, 2001). In the RISE 2.0 method, this evaluation is achieved
by comparing data collected on all relevant spheres of activity on the farm with
reference data that were ultimately derived from a sustainability definition. Spheres of
activity (or topics), sustainability goals, reference data and valuation functions are the
building blocks of the RISE
2.0 sustainability evaluation.
The vision of RISE 2.0 is to contribute to sustainable development as defined by WCED
(1987), hence a development which meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Two notions
central to this definition are (1) the limited carrying capacity of ecosystems and (2) the
priority of meeting basic needs (UN, 1992). In RISE, sustainable development is
interpreted as being anthropocentric, dynamic and holistic, following the sensible
sustainability approach, and is translated to the farm level.
Anthropocentric: The term needs, first and foremost denotes basic needs, after
whose fulfillment everybody has to have the possibility of satisfying his/her wish for a
better life. Sustainable development is a concept centered on human needs and their
fulfillment by the present and future generations (Jrissen et al., 1999).
Dynamic: In accordance with the term sustainable development, RISE 2.0 adopts a
dynamic view of farm development. Not only is the conservation of certain goods and
balances needed, but also the assurance of sufficient scopes of development and
action (Luks, 2002). Therefore, the RISE 2.0 evaluation includes the current situation
as well as developments and trends.
Holistic: While the paradigm of sustainable development encompasses the economic,
social and environmental dimensions, RISE 2.0 is based on an integrated view on
sustainability in which no dimensions are distinguished. For example, the term poverty
line includes social and economic aspects which cannot be properly separated. The
RISE 2.0 set of indicators reflects the following model: for people on the farm to meet
their needs (social), the farm uses human (social), financial (economic) and natural
(environmental) resources to produce goods and services (economic), emissions and

waste (environmental). This model bears resemblance with the DFID (1999)
Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (Fig. 4).
Figure 4. Interaction of capital stocks, context and strategies for livelihood creation.
Transforming structures in political and market contexts (DFID, 1999).
Sensible sustainability: In the spectrum whose ends are marked by strong and weak
sustainability, i.e. by full complementarity with respect to full mutual substitutability of
natural and man-made resources (Grunwald & Kopfmller, 2006; Hediger, 2009), RISE
2.0 adopts the middle position of weak sustainability plus of the Swiss Sustainability
Strategy, which has also been termed sensible sustainability (Serageldin, 1996; ARE,
2008). It is postulated that man-made capital can replace natural capital within welldefined boundaries.
RISE 2.0 contributes to making the paradigm of sustainable development more
tangible and measurable at farm level. The method records and assesses (1) the
farms contribution to a sustainable development at societal level and (2) the
economic, environmental and social sustainability of production on the farm itself. In
brief, RISE 2.0 facilitates a determination of position of the farm with regard to all
relevant aspects of sustainable development and sustainable farming.
1.5 Postulates for Sustainable Development

Farm Management
1. The goal of sustainable farm management is to maintain and improve
competitiveness in all areas (sales, inputs, personnel, finance) which in turn is the
precondition for generating financial surplus to safeguard farm operations in the
long term. This is to be achieved through the efficient employment of materials,
personnel and capital, through the reduction of negative impacts and the
increase of positive impacts on society and environment; and on the basis of a
deliberately accepted responsibility for man and nature.
Environment
To safeguard a natural environment that is conducive for human health and well-being
and to meet the paradigm of sensible sustainability, resource use on the farm has to
comply with the following ecological principles of sustainable development (Pearce &
Turner, 1990; Daly, 1990; Enqute-Kommission, 1998; ARE, 2008; BFS, 2011):
2. Natural resources are maintained and existing damages are repaired.
3. Extraction rates of renewable resource must not exceed their respective renewal
rates.
4. Non-renewable resources must only be extracted to the extent at which they are
replaced by renewable resources and at which resource productivity increases.
5. Emissions of substances into the environment must neither exceed the absorptive
capacity and resilience of ecosystems nor pose a threat to human health.
6. The productivity and resilience of production systems must be maintained or
enhanced.
7. Animals have to be kept in a species-appropriate manner.
Economy
Economic activity is the use of labor, land and capital to produce goods and services
that meet peoples needs (Jrissen et al., 1999). Thus it is directly linked with the
fulfillment of needs (WCED, 1987). Sustainable economic activity serves to
economically enable people to live a humane life. The economic situation is usually
expressed via solvency, stability and profitability (Heissenhuber, 2000).
8. The farm enterprise must be capable of paying all debts, at any time.
9. The cost-benefit relation has to allow for a remuneration with which people on
the farm can fulfill their basic needs and their wish for a good life. This entails the
ability to invest into ones own future and into that of the farm.
10.The farm enterprise has to remain solvent and profitable even in case of
unforeseen problems.
Man and Society

In the social domain, the societal and the individual perspective have to be
distinguished. On a farm, the personal perspective features more prominently. Binding
social goals and standards emanate e.g. from the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UN, 1948) and the ILO (2008) guidelines for decent work. The RISE 2.0 social
sustainability postulates are (UN, 1948; UN, 1992; SKOS, 2005; ARE, 2008):
11.The workload must not jeopardize the mental, physical and social health of
people working on the farm. and well-being
12.The standard of life has to safeguard the health of workers and their families,
including food, water, clothing, housing, health care and necessary social
services.
13.Access to resources and education as well as the possibility to participate in
economic and social life must be guaranteed.
14.All persons can decide independently on their way of living and working and can
implement their own decision.
15.Financial safety has to be assured for cases of unemployment, illness, invalidity
or loss of a spouse, at old age as well as for any case of a loss of means of
subsistence.
16.All of these conditions are valid regardless of gender, age, religion, nationality,
skin complexion, personal preferences or conviction.
1.6 What is Sustainable Agriculture?

At the farm level, sustainable agriculture means that (1) the farm contributes to a
sustainable global development and (2) the sustainability postulate of WCED (1987) is
met for those who work on the farm today with respect to those in the future. The FAO
(modified; 1991) describes sustainable agriculture and rural development as:
"the management and conservation of the natural resource base, and the orientation
of technological and institutional change in such a manner as to ensure the attainment
and continued satisfaction of human needs for present and future generations. Such
development... conserves land, water, plant and animal genetic resources, is
environmentally non-degrading, technically appropriate, economically viable and
socially acceptable."
A sustainable production system is resilient, i.e. it can resist disturbances such as
droughts, storms or sudden price deteriorations in product markets (Walker et al.,
2004). A systems resilience is determined by its buffering capacity (soil organic
matter content, owners equity and credit limit, social network) and its diversity
(diverse crops, varieties and livestock, products, suppliers, buyers, landscape
structures).
Translated to the farm level, and harmonized with the principles of, inter alia, the FAO
(UN Food and Agriculture Organization), the SAI platform (Sustainable Agriculture
Initiative) and the Swiss law on Agriculture, the below definition of a sustainably
producing farm evolves. The RISE 2.0 parameters and indicators evaluate the
congruence of farm operations with this idealized situation.
The RISE definition of an ideal farm

The farm produces food, feed and further agricultural products and services in
amounts that meet the demands of population and trade and that reflect the local
production potential as defined by climate, soils and socio-economic framework
conditions.
Fossil fuels and other non-renewable resources are only used for agricultural
production at rates at which a physically and functionally equivalent renewable
replacement becomes available and at which demand for non-renewables is reduced
by increased resource use efficiency. The direct and indirect use of such resources, e.g.
energy consumption for mineral fertilizer production, is constantly reduced. Soil and
water are utilized such that their regeneration rate is not exceeded, their quality is
neither heavily nor irreversibly compromised and high resource productivity is
achieved. The withdrawal of water may not irreversibly disturb aquatic ecosystems.
Nutrients, namely nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon, are used efficiently and recycled
at farm level to the highest degree possible. The farm management employs
knowledge and technology to improve resource use efficiency. Adapted production
technologies are used to protect natural resources from damage. Inputs are used
following the principle as few as possible, as much as necessary.
The production systems on the farm help preserve the diversity and functionality of
ecosystems in and around the agricultural areas. Livestock are kept appropriately to
the respective species demands. No harmful substances (ozone, radionuclides,
organic pollutants, substances with high eutrophicating, acidifying or global warming
potential) are released to soils, water or atmosphere in amounts that exceed the intake
and carrying capacity of the environment or that could harm human, animal or
ecosystem health.
All those working on the farm are provided employment under decent and healthy
conditions, and human rights are fully respected. This includes fair remuneration and
treatment irrespective of gender, age, religion, nationality, skin complexion or
ideology. Within the limits set by safety and sustainability requirements, all employees
are free to choose their way of working and living. The farm management creates an
environment where employees can have access to resources, education and economic
and societal life. Through regional purchasing and hiring, the farm makes an
appropriate contribution to improved socioeconomic conditions in the region. The
income from farm work allows people on the farm and their families (or contributes
according to their employment status) to achieve a standard of living that safeguards
their mental and physical health and well-being, including food, water, clothes,
medical care and social benefits.
The farm yields a revenue that allows the owner to fulfill his/her obligation to pay in
time, to reinvest as needed to at least maintain productive capacity and to invest in
new, more sustainable technologies for integrated production and farm management.
The farm is economically, ecologically and socially resilient and can thus tolerate
natural and socio-economic turbulence. The farms existence does not depend on
single suppliers, buyers, products or government subsidies. Farm and people are
secured through a network of formal and informal mechanisms, including cooperation
with other farms and institutions.
2. The RISE 2.0 Indicators: Aspects of Sustainable

Agriculture
What aspects determine the sustainability of agricultural development and what goals
should be adopted for these aspects was discussed in Agenda 21, FAO (1991), national
sustainability strategies (e.g. ARE, 2008) and a diversity of scientific publications.
When selecting indicator topics, it has to be made sure that those aspects considered
relevant by society, politics and science are covered. Farmers and extension agents
have to be presented with new and relevant information that can be translated into
sustainable farm management. The most important quality criteria for RISE 2.0
indicators and parameters are theoretical and practical relevance, cost-benefit
relation, methodological soundness and transparency (Pannell & Glenn, 2000; Christen
& Halloran-Wietholtz, 2002; Isermeyer & Nieberg, 2003; Pannell, 2003). During RISE
2.0 development, the following sources were used for a cross-comparison of indicator
sets: Agenda 21 (UN, 1992); OECD (2004); Bylin et al (2004); GRI (2006); MOTIFS
(Meul et al., 2008), KSNL (Breitschuh et al., 2008), Unilever (Pretty et al., 2008), ILO
(2008), IDEA (Zahm et al., 2008), REPRO (Christen et al., 2009).
Table 1. Indicators (left) and parameters (right) of RISE 2.0.
Soil use
Soil management
Crop productivity
Soil organic matter supply
Soil reaction
Soil pollution
Soil erosion
Soil compaction
Animal
husbandry
Herd management
Livestock productivity
Possibility for species-appropriate behavior
Quality of housing
Animal health
Nutrient flows
Nitrogen balance
Phosphorus balance
N and P self-sufficiency
Ammonia emissions
Waste management
Water use
Water management
Water supply
Water use intensity
Risks to water quality
Energy &
Climate
Energy management
Energy intensity of agricultural production
Share of sustainable energy carriers
Greenhouse gas balance
Plant protection management
Ecological priority areas
Intensity of agricultural production Landscape quality
Diversity of agricultural production
Biodiversity &
Plant
protection
Working
conditions
Quality of life
Personnel management
Working times
Work Safety
Wages and income level
Occupation + education
Financial situation
Social relations
Personal freedom + values
Health
Further aspects of life
10
Economic
viability
Farm
management
Liquidity reserve
Level of indebtedness
Economic vulnerability
Livelihood security
Cash flow - turnover ratio
Debt service coverage ratio
Farm strategy + planning
Supply and yield security
Planning instruments+ documentation
Quality management
Farm cooperation
3. The RISE 2.0 Analysis

3.1 Procedure of a RISE 2.0 Analysis
Figure 5 provides an overview of the sequence of steps in a RISE 2.0 analysis. More
comprehensive descriptions can be found in the RISE Quality Manual.
Mandate for RISE
analysis
First analysis
in this region?
RISE calculations
Yes
Entry of new
region
Critical review
of results
No
Group of farms
How many
Sample selection
farms?
Group statistics
Single farm
Group
feedback?
No
Kontaktieren der
Landwirte
Documents
available
beforehand?
Yes
Group feedback
Yes
Data entry
beforehand
No
Farmer interview
and data entry
Farm data
completely
entered
Individual
feedback
discussion
Protocol and
report
Results fully
documented
Figure 5. Sequence of steps in a RISE 2.0 analysis. Left: data collection and entry.
Right: data analysis and farmer feedback discussion.
11
3.2 Data collection and evaluation procedure

The RISE 2.0 analysis takes place in the following scope and frame:
The RISE method combines standardized and generic elements, the latter of
which can be adapted to region and type of farm. The users degree of freedom
for adaptation is small for the indicator set, but relatively large for reference
values, system boundary and parts of the valuation functions.
A questionnaire-based interview with the farm manager is the main source of

information.
Except for very big and complex farms, data collection does not take more than
three hours, including a brief tour of the farm. No measurement devices are
needed.
The most precise and reliable sources of data available are used. Where
documentation is present, it should be drawn upon. Certain parameters may be
ticked off in countries with very high regulation and control density (e.g. waste
disposal in Switzerland).
The RISE 2.0 questionnaire can be filled in and the results can be presented by a
trained agronomist or by an appropriate agricultural professional.
Denominations and goals of all indicators and parameters as well as the RISE
2.0 polygon and tables are easily comprehensible possibly with a brief
explanation for all stakeholders in the agricultural sector.
The subject of the RISE 2.0 analysis is agricultural production at farm level
within one year. The analysis is extended at some points to match the realities
of farm management: (1) temporally from one to ten years in order to evaluate
trends, (2) spatially from the farm to the landscape and/or to the watershed.
The scope of some of the economic parameters can be modified. Hence, the
system boundary in RISE 2.0 is adapted to the spheres of influence and
dependence of the farm in relation to the respective aspect.
Since numerous calculations in RISE 2.0 are done on per unit area, the
agricultural area of the farm has to be delimited unambiguously. If soilless
farms (without open surfaces) manage substantial areas, e.g. a farmyard, areabased calculations should be done on the basis of these areas. Where no areas
can be attributed to the farm, the respective parameters or even the whole RISE
2.0 analyses may be cancelled. In cases where several farmers or herders jointly
use common lands, proportions of the area that is collectively used should be
attributed to the individual users according to their share e.g. in the number of
animals grazing on the land.
The collected information mainly refers to the whole farm. Factor use, costs and
revenues are determined at whole-farm level as well. Livestock-related data is
collected at the level of animal categories. Crop production data is structured
according to crop rotations resp. production systems. In addition, the
agricultural area of the farm is subdivided into parcel blocks corresponding with
soil texture and topography.
In RISE 2.0, farm, regional and reference data are administered. Farm data is
retrieved for every farm individually. Regional data is collected once prior to the
12
first farm analysis for the respective region, and in some instances for every
year in which farms in this region are analyzed. A set of reference data has been
entered into the RISE 2.0 database during model development; this data is
continuously being updated and completed with new information.
3.3 Qualifications required to conduct a RISE 2.0 analysis

In order to competently conduct the RISE 2.0 analysis, the person applying the
method, hereafter referred to as RISE 2.0 consultant, has to command a wellfounded knowledge of the agricultural, economic, ecological and socio-cultural
peculiarities of the farms to be analyzed. Such knowledge has been typically been
acquired through practical or academic training in agriculture and/or practical
experience in working with farmers of the respective region. Ideally, the RISE 2.0
consultant will be native to the region or have lived there long enough to be familiar
with the local language and culture. The involvement of a translator in the farmer
interview and feedback discussion inevitably leads to a loss of information and is
clearly not desirable.
The RISE 2.0 consultant has to be capable of properly analyzing and interpreting
complex interrelations and interactions in agricultural production systems (systems
approach). As stated above, such expertise may have been built through formal
education (vocational training, studies of agriculture / agronomy) as well as practical
field experience. A combination of both is desirable but not mandatory.
3.4 Preparing the First Farm Visit

Collection of national and regional data
To secure accuracy and relevance of the RISE 2.0 analysis, national and regional data
must be collected prior to the first farm visit in a region; this data is then used to adapt
calculations and valuations to regional conditions. This includes information about
climate (temperature, precipitation), hydrological situation (level of water stress),
agriculture (crops, livestock, yields) and the economic and social situation in the region
(life expectancy, inflation rate, exchange rate local currency (stated in USD), average
income, poverty line, minimum salaries). Many of the data can be retrieved from data
bases of institutions such as FAO, national statistical services and national banks (Tab.
2).
Table 2. Sources of regional and standard data for RISE 2.0.
Item
Source
WWW (May, 2011)
Climatic
FAO EX-ACT http://www.fao.org/tc/exact/ex-act-tool/en => Climate, bottom map
classification (based on
IPCC)
Climate data FAO New
LocClim
Coordinates
(longitude,
latitude)
Google
Maps
www.fao.org/NR/climpag/pub/en3_051002_en.asp; Single point mode >

select location >
Further climate information
maps.google.com, right click on location, whats here? => coordinates
appear in the search box
13
Crop humus
coefficient
LfL Bayern
Temperate Europe: www.lfl.bayern.de/iab/bodenschutz/12458
Crop
USDA
nutrient
contents
Crop yield
http://plants.usda.gov/npk/main,
Rehm
&
Espig
(1991),
http://www.feedalp.admin.ch/fmkatalog/katalog/de/html/unit_einfuehrung.
html (in German)
FAOSTAT
http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx
Currency
exchange
rate
Erosivity
(water)
Erosivity
(wind)
Greenhouse
gas
OANDA Cor- www.oanda.com/currency/converter

poration
USDA
http://soils.usda.gov/use/worldsoils/mapindex/erosh2o.html
USDA
http://soils.usda.gov/use/worldsoils/mapindex/eroswind.html
IPCC, FAO,
PAS 2050
www.fao.org/tc/exact/ex-act-tool/en/,
www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/EFDB/main.php, www.bsigroup.com/upload/Standards
%20&%20Publications/Energy/PAS2050.pdf
emission
coefficients
Life
Worldbank
expectancy
Livestock
FAOSTAT
performance
http://ddp-ext.worldbank.org/ext/DDPQQ/member.do?
method=getMembers
http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx
Minimum
Wikipedia
wage
Nitrogen immissions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country
Poverty line
Regional
WBCSD
water stress Global
level
Water Tool
Monthly expenses for food, beverages, tobacco, clothing, shoes,

rent/mortgage, energy carriers, maintenance & repair of house etc., minor
household items, (indispensable) transport, telecommunication, hygiene,
basic medical care, education, access to information, taxes, provisions for
old age & unemployment & accidents & invalidity & pregnancy
http://mapserver.wbcsd.org/mapserver/?
mapFile=l6j608izxnyti3oyikta.map => mean annual relative water stress
index (click on text to see legend)
Soil
information
www.ifu.ethz.ch/staff/stpfiste/Impact_factors_LCA_pfister_et_al.kmz
=>
detailed map of water stress by Pfister et al. (2009), can be accessed via
Google Earth.
www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/External-World-soildatabase/HTML/index.html
local
sources
IIASA & FAO
Galloway et al. (2004)
Virtual water various

content
www.fao.org/nr/water/docs/VirtualWater_article_DZDR.pdf,
www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report11.pdf
Wage /
salary
level
www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/natl_e.pdf;
www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/index/themen/03/04/blank/data/01/06_03.
html
WTO,
National
statistical
offices
14
Some data, such as the poverty line, will normally have to be determined on the spot.
A high quality (degree of correctness, accuracy) of the regional data, particularly
concerning the reference information on crops and livestock produced in the region, is
crucial for a sound and precise RISE 2.0 analysis. All data sources must be recorded
transparently.
Where legislation is highly congruent with the sustainability goals of the respective
RISE 2.0 parameter(s), and where these laws are strictly enforced, such as waste
disposal in Switzerland, the related questions in the RISE 2.0 questionnaire may be
checked automatically, and thus do not have to be asked on-farm. If the visited farm
obviously does not comply with legislation, appropriate corrections to the RISE 2.0
answers have to be made.
Which reference values are chosen has a strongly influence on the results of the RISE
analysis; for example choosing the mean energy intensity level of a specific farm type
for comparison will result in a different valuation than comparing with the average of
all farm types in the region. A number of valuation functions, particularly concerning
biodiversity and working conditions, can be modified by the used. The selected values
must be transparently handled and justified.
Farm selection
Frequently, groups of farms located in the same region or belonging to the same farm
type are analyzed using RISE 2.0. As time and budget constraints usually do not allow
for an analysis of all farms, a sample will have to be selected. This is usually done
either by the RISE 2.0 consultant (supported by statisticians or other experts, where
appropriate), or by staff of the client institution. Typical selection criteria include
representativeness of farm size and type with regard to the objectives of the study, a
farmer recognized as a pioneer (and thus multiplier), relation between farmers and
client institution, accessibility of farms and the expected quality of documentation. All
criteria applied to sample selection must be transparently reported. First contact with
the farmer(s)
At the first contact with a candidate farmer, goals and procedures of the RISE 2.0
analysis are briefly explained. Where appropriate, the context of the study can be
explained. In any case, questions of cost and benefit have to be addressed, and the
issue of confidentiality and data protection must be clarified. Having been provided
this information, the farmer is asked whether he/she is willing to participate in the RISE
2.0 analysis. If so, the date and time of the interview are determined. Preparatory
questions or the complete RISE 2.0 questionnaire may be offered to the producer prior
to the interview.
To work efficiently and to prevent duplications of data collection efforts, documents
present on the farm, which contain information relevant to the RISE 2.0 parameters,
should be used. Such information will commonly be available in good quality on farms
in most OECD countries. During the preparatory phone call or meeting -, the RISE 2.0
consultant clarifies with the producer which documents and records are available.
Wherever possible and acceptable to the farmer, copies of relevant documents and
data should be entered into the RISE 2.0 program before the farmer interview. This
information can be checked during the interview. If documents are kept by authorities,
a written consent of the farmer may be required to get access to this data. Any copies,
15
albeit digital form or written, should be destroyed or returned upon termination of the
respective RISE 2.0 analysis. This is previously agreed upon with the producer.
Shortly before the first farm visit, the farmer is sent a letter in which the consultant
thanks him/her for his/her readiness to participate in the analysis and his/her interest
in sustainable agriculture in addition to listing the required documents for the
interview. It should be indicated that all documents and information have to refer to
the same production, fiscal or calendar year.
3.5 Farm Visit and Data Collection

Prevention of livestock and crop diseases, Climate protection
Before visiting a farm, the RISE 2.0 consultant has to clarify whether specific measures
for preventing epidemics of livestock and/or crop diseases, such as quarantine
measures, are in force on the farm. When visiting farms where livestock or bees are
kept, disposable protective foot-gear must be worn.
If a RISE 2.0 study is done abroad, the consultant should, wherever possible, travel by
train. If a study is done overseas, greenhouse gas emissions resulting from flights are
to be compensated for with a serious company.
Data collection
The farmer interview is the most important data source for the RISE 2.0 analysis.
Therefore it has to be planned and done with utmost care. It is highly recommendable
that new RISE 2.0 consultants invest enough time to prepare for their first interview,
possibly by accompanying an experienced consultant during an interview.
It is recommended that a farm and/or parcel map plan is either received or drawn at
the beginning of the interview in order to provide useful orientation at several points of
the interview.
The RISE 2.0 questionnaire includes several questions on sensitive issues concerning
debts, solvency, life satisfaction and working conditions, and requires transparent and
unbiased data collected without difficulty. For this reason, it is recommended that the
farm manager be absent when farm employees are interviewed. If this is not allowed
by the farm manager (or responsible), than this circumstance is to be recorded.
It is necessary that the interviewer take a short tour of the farm. This allows for a firsthand impression of important items: farm buildings, parcels of land/crop area (at least
one), machinery/equipment, storage facilities for chemicals, slurry, manure, silage and
harvested/finished products as well as dangerous areas of the farm. The tour of the
agricultural operation is to be conducted at a suitable time during the interview
process and is determined by the interviewer. Photographs or videos are useful for the
interpretation of the results. Prior consent by the farm manager is required. Data can
be entered into an electronic device (notebook or notepad etc.) on the spot (both onand off-line), or a paper questionnaire can be used and data entered in the office.
3.6 Calculation of Parameters and Indicators

The farm data entered during or after the interview is compared with reference data
and transformed into a scale from 0 to 100, using one or several valuation functions. In
16
some instances, additional calculations are necessary, e.g. to transform animal

numbers into standardized large livestock units (LLU). Coefficients needed for these
calculations are retrieved from a database that is included with the RISE 2.0 software.
On the 0-100 scale, 0 always represents an inacceptable situation, while 100 points
represents an optimal and completely sustainable situation. The scores that result
from the normalization to this scale are termed parameters in RISE. The indicator
scores, termed as degrees of sustainability, are the arithmetic means of four to
seven equally weighted parameters. All valuated data are visualized using a traffic
light color code: red indicates problems (inacceptable), yellow means that further
scrutiny is recommended (critical), and green (optimal) indicates practices that can
most likely be continued without major sustainability risks
(Fig. 6).
Figure 6. Scores and color code used in RISE. In this example, the farm scores 70
points for the depicted indicator and is thus rated as being on track to sustainability.
The most aggregated form of the RISE 2.0 results is the sustainability polygon with
which the degrees of sustainability of all indicators are shown at a glance (Fig. 7).
Figure 7. The RISE 2.0 sustainability polygon.
As is the case with all indicator systems of this type, and due to the diversity of
agricultural production conditions encountered by a globally applied method, reference
data and valuation can neither be equally appropriate for all stakeholders and in all
situations, nor be regarded as universally valid (Pretty et al., 2008).
Therefore, part of the reference data is adapted to regional conditions (see above), e.g.
by distinguishing humid and arid climates and weighting the risks of water-logging and
soil salinization accordingly. Some reference values and weightings can be influenced
by the farmers themselves, particularly concerning the quality of life. For this reason,
an interactive questionnaire is used in accordance with the demand for a participatory
sustainability assessment (Grunwald & Kopfmller, 2006). Thus, the conflict of
17
objectives between global applicability on the one hand and local relevance on the
other can at least partly be tackled (von Wirn-Lehr, 2001).
3.7 Feedback of RISE 2.0 Results to Farmers and Clients

The communication of RISE 2.0 results is of pivotal importance for the step from RISE
2.0 analysis to the planning of measures to improve farm sustainability. Competent
and careful action is crucial at this stage. Prior to the feedback discussion, the raw
data collected on-farm as well as the calculated parameter and indicator scores have
to be checked for correctness and plausibility. Suitable approaches for the plausibility
check include a cross-comparison of agronomic information (e.g. livestock numbers vs.
available fodder, pesticides used vs. typical pests and diseases of crops grown onfarm), of agronomic and economic information (e.g. does income match farm output?)
and of information available on other farms in the region. In cases of doubt, the
respective information should be checked either with the farmer or another competent
expert.
Feedback discussion with the farmer
At the beginning of the feedback, the goals of the session should be agreed upon with
the farmer. An example of a suitable goal would be the identification of three feasible
and relevant measures that contribute to improving farm sustainability. Such measures
may be very concrete and limited in scope, e.g. implementation of safety measures
such as handrails. They can also aim at a more detailed analysis of an issue deemed
problematic according to the RISE 2.0 analysis; an example would be a systematic
analysis of safety risks on-farm using an established system such as the Swiss AgriTop
(www.bul.ch/d/information/agritop.htm).
The main steps of a typical feedback session are (1) presentation and explanation of
RISE 2.0 results, (2) discussion of central issues, (3) appraisal of results and farm
situation by the farmer, (4) identification of possible improvement measures and (5)
written documentation of the feedback discussions results. Before presenting the
farmer with the RISE 2.0 polygon, it might be useful to let him/her make a selfassessment by drawing the farms polygon results by hand. This personal perception
can then be compared with the calculated polygon with the differences discussed in
more detail. Where possible, the farm polygon may be put into perspective by
comparing with a summary polygon of a similar and/or nearby farm. During any
interpretation and communication of RISE 2.0 results, the indicator scores as well as
the sustainability polygon should primarily be seen as means of communication in
order to provide a holistic overview of the situation. The parameter level is more
suitable for discussing and motivating improvement measures.
It is therefore advisable not to spend too much time with discussing results at polygon
and indicator level, but to proceed to the more concrete and detailed level of
parameter scores. At the parameter level, noticeable sustainability potentials and
deficits can be discussed best, since at this level, scores can be linked more directly
with specific actions than at the indicator level. When discussing strengths and
weaknesses of the farm and in general finding the right words is particularly
important. The RISE 2.0 consultant has to accept the farmers competence level, as
he/she is the actual expert concerning the farm. Positive and concrete expressions are
preferable to negative, vague and generalizing ones. For example, sustainability
18
deficits can often be seen as sustainability potentials etc. Strengths and

accomplishments of the farmer should be explicitly recognized. Based on the RISE 2.0
results, the RISE 2.0 consultant and the farmer can together pinpoint those areas
where measures to improve farm sustainability seem promising. In some instances, no
measures may be required or recommendable.
To pave the way for further steps which may include an in-depth consultation with
the local extension service several things need to be clarified: (i) is the farmers
perception and the RISE 2.0 results in accordance with each other? (ii) is the farmer
motivated to take action for more sustainable farming? (iii) do the financial and other
circumstances allow for such improvement measures? If all of this can be affirmed,
appropriate measures, information, technology, contact addresses, programs etc. can
be searched for. Potential measures should be assessed based on their likely effects on
all sustainability areas measured by the 10 indicators; synergies and trade-offs have to
be explicitly analyzed and discussed. It is of utmost importance to apply a systems
approach at this stage so that no relevant effects are neglected. Through this holistic
approach, a sustainable farm strategy can evolve.
If up-to-date information materials (brochures, handouts, etc) written in the local
language (or understandable by the interviewee) related to sustainable farming
practices ( integrated plant protection, soil fertility management, waste disposal &
recycling etc.) are at hand, they should be given out to the farmer during the feedback
discussion. Additionally, contact information of known entities that can transmit this
knowledge should also be provided.
Analysis of farm groups

RISE 2.0 studies commissioned by industry or administration are usually analyzed in
farm groups. In such studies, a proper statistical evaluation of results is crucial. It is
recommended to conduct the study as a classical research project starting with the
formulation of one or several verifiable hypotheses concerning on-farm sustainability.
While parameter and indicator scores can be evaluated by means of descriptive
statistics, more complex calculations such as correlation and regression analyses and
analysis of variance (ANOVA) are only recommended where the respective
preconditions are fulfilled. Note that for many RISE 2.0 results, no normal distribution
can be expected due to the type of questions asked and because of the normalization
that is done to transform all data onto a scale from 0 to 100. Raw data, such as
livestock numbers, farm area or crop yields are more suitable for complex statistical
evaluations.
When analyzing farm groups, it is suggested to search for best practices and external
factors. Best practices may for example be solutions for trade-offs implemented on
single farms, which appear as outliers e.g. in a box-whisker plot of parameter scores.
External factors, such as bad weather conditions that affected the whole region, low
prices for certain inputs or products, or legal regulations will typically be reflected by a
low variability of scores for the respective parameter(s).
Protecting the anonymity of farmers takes precedence over the interests of the studys
sponsor. This must be clearly communicated to the sponsor from the beginning. In the
study report, RISE 2.0 results must not be combined with information that allows for an
identification of individual farms. Results can be presented in a summarized form
(means, standard errors etc. of the whole group). Individual scores must not be
19
presented together with information regarding farm name, location etc. Farmers must
be informed of cases where the staff of a sponsor may be able to decipher results
prior to their decision of participating in the study. Such situations are to be avoided
wherever possible.
The search for measures to improve farm sustainability can be organized similarly for
farm groups and individual farms. The clarification of the farmers perception,
motivation and scope of action may be done together with a sample of the concerned
farmers. A group feedback session is an option as well. However, sensitive topics
should be excluded from such sessions. Prior to handing over a catalogue of possible
measures to a RISE 2.0 study sponsor, possible unwanted side effects are to be
reviewed together with farmers and other stakeholders in order to avoid negative
consequences of RISE-based recommendations. For example, a RISE 2.0 study must
not pave the way for pressure that subsequently causes environmental problems or
the dismissal of farm workers.
3.8 Time Management during the RISE 2.0 Analysis

Farms are complex systems whose holistic analysis requires considerable effort and
time. In the development of the RISE 2.0 indicator set and questionnaire, care was
taken to keep the amount of data needed at the lowest level needed for a meaningful
sustainability analysis. Still, a significant volume of input and output information has to
be collected and interpreted. In order to make the best use of the farmers and the
RISE 2.0 consultants time, careful preparation, implementation and wrap-up of the
analysis is highly recommendable. Here are some hints that may help the consultant
save time:
The more familiar the RISE 2.0 consultant is with regional agriculture, culture
and language (see also 3.3), the better and faster he/she will be able to get a
picture of the farm and to know which aspects require scrutiny and which do
not. The same holds true for an intimate knowledge of the RISE 2.0
questionnaire and calculations.
The duration of the farm interview may be substantially reduced by diligently

collecting regional data and entering all available data before the farm visit. To
this purpose, the farmer can be asked whether he is willing to send some
information (e.g. copies of documents) beforehand. In some countries,
information may be retrieved from state authorities with the consent of the
farmer.
Where farms in a region or of a certain farm type are very homogenous, it may
make sense to define and enter a template farm. Data collection can then be
reduced to a differential analysis, focusing on differences between the visited
farm and the template farm. Particularly those aspects where a high degree of
regulation and control prevails, e.g. waste disposal, pesticide use and storage,
manure handling etc., may be checked off more quickly.
If the farmer agrees, some documents may be copied (e.g. accounts, parcel
plans, agronomic records.) Then the data can be entered afterwards. All copies
have to be destroyed and original documents must be returned to the farmer
during the feedback discussion at the latest.
20
During the interview, both the RISE 2.0 consultant and farmer should only divert
from the questionnaire to the extent that is possible for properly answering the
questions and receive a thorough impression of the farm. It may be necessary to
politely inform the farmer that during the feedback discussion there will be more
time for discussions. Also, the RISE 2.0 consultant should regularly inform the
farmer on the progress of the interview (e.g. we have now finished half of the
interview).
Not all parameters should be automatically discussed one by one during the
feedback discussion. Rather than discuss everything, the most relevant and
urgent potentials and problems should be focused on and put into perspective.
Take care to leave enough time for a thorough discussion of possible measures,
their likely synergies and trade-offs with regard to sustainability aspects, and
possibilities to integrate these measures into a holistic farm strategy.
21
4. The RISE 2.0 Indicator Set

4.1 Indicator: Soil Use (so)
Prior to giving loans to farmers, bankers should in fact go out to their customers
fields with a shovel. Soils and earthworms would quickly show how well a farm is
managed. Prof. Dr. Ludwig Volk, UAS South Westphalia
Topic of the Indicator

Fertile soils are a limited, easily degradable basis of life and production. This indicator
reflects the state of soils on the farm and the impact of farming practices on this state.
It answers the following questions of the farmer:
How is the fertility of my soils rated?
What impacts do my farming practices have on soil fertility?
Relevance of the Topic

Soils are fundamental to virtually all life on the continents, and thus, also to human
livelihood. Humans use fertile soils to grow food and fodder crops, renewable raw
materials and energy carriers; soils purify water and serve as building ground; they
store carbon and are archives of natural history (BMU, 2002). In ecosystems, they play
an indispensable role as buffer, filter and habitat.
Fertile soils provide plant roots with anchorage and a balanced supply of water, heat,
air and nutrients while preventing toxic accumulations of growth-inhibiting substances
(Scheffer & Schachtschabel, 1989). Soil fertility is determined by the amount and
quality of soil organic matter and clay minerals, texture and structure, soil pH and
depth (Kuntze et al., 1994; Craswell & Lefroy, 2001; Tab. 2). Fertile soils can hardly be
increased, but can easily be destroyed (European Soil Charter, 1972). On a majority of
the global land area, problem soils limit the productivity of the vegetation (FAO, 2001).
Although soil texture and clay mineral content and composition can hardly be changed
in the short term, soil organic matter can be modified within certain limits (Kuntze et
al., 1994). Soil depth, structure, pH, nutrient and pollutant contents, and to some
extent also the diversity and activity of soil life, can change more rapidly (Candinas et
al., 2002).
At what point is soil fertility unacceptably impaired such that soil management has to
be completely changed or ceased cannot be universally defined for many soil
properties, since the relation between soil properties and fertility is affected e.g. by
climatic conditions. For example, sandy soils often provide a physiologically more
suitable water balance than loamy soils in an arid climate, while the reverse holds true
for humid climate. Soil organic matter content is correlated with climatic humidity, but
is not linked with soil fertility without restrictions (Kuntze et al., 1994). Therefore, no
universal optimum can be defined for many soil properties. The figures in table 3 serve
as a rough orientation.
22
Table 3. Effect of soil properties on soil functions. 0 = massive modification of the

property does not affect the funtion, 3 = massive modification of the property
completely impairs the function (after Candinas et al., 2002).
SOIL FUNCTIONS
HABITAT
BIODIVERSI
TY
AGRICULTU
RE
ECONOMY &
SOCIETY
pH
soil
buf- sto- meta- filtrafer
orgarage bolism tion
plants nisms
wate
r
crop
balangrowth
ce
raw
C
sequesmatetration
rials
GENERAL ECOLOGY
Gas
Penetrab- Water exchan
le volume storage ge
Heat
stora
ge
3
3
Stability
2
Soil
0
SOIL PROPERTIES
3
3
2
0
0
3
2
0
3
2
2
0
3
0
0
0
3
1
0
1
1
2
1
3
3
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0
3
3
3
2
0
3
3
2
0
2
2
1
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.
5
3
2
2
2
3
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0.5
1.5
0.5
Depth
Structure
biodiversity
Biological
activity
Soil organic C
Soil reaction
Storage
capacity
Nutrients
Pollutant
Table 4. Measures and value ranges of important soil properties.

Soil property
Measurement
Range
Optimum range
30
(compacted
loam)
to
60
Total pore volume
(Chernozem)
Porosity
(TPV) in % of total
45-50 5, 6
resp.
80-90
soil volume (SV)
(Andosol,
raised bog) 1, 5
Large pore volume
Air capacity
(> 50 mm) in % of <3 to >15
15 3
SV
g/cm3
0.3(waterlogged
AnBulk density
dosol)
to
2(Durisol) 1, 2
Depth
of
root <10 cm (Leptosol)
peneto
Soil depth
>70 (deep)
trable soil in cm
>1 m
(Chernozem) 1
3.0 (acidic sulfate Mineral soils: 5.5
soil)
to
>9.5 (sand)
to
7.0
(Vertisol,
(clay),
Soil reaction pH value
resp. 6.5 to 7.2 3, 4,
Durisol, saline
5
2
soil)
0 (Sand) to 98
(raised
bog).
Soil
organic
Arable soils: ca.
Organic matter in
matter
0.5 (Arenosol) to No definite value.
volume (%)
10 (Chernozem)
content
resp. 30
(Andosol) 1, 2
Problem range
<3
resp. <5
Compaction
by
>0.1 compared to
optimum
<30 (shallow)
<5.0
>1
and >8.0
23
Erosion
Eroded soil in t/ha

0 to >30
and year
>1
to
(depending
depth) 3
10
on
Sources: 1FAO (2001), 2Kuntze et al. (1994), 3Candinas et al. (2002), 4VDLUFA (2004), 5Scheffer
& Schachtschabel (1989), 6van der Ploeg et al. (2006), 7Kolbe (2008),
Brunotte et al. (2008).
According to Oldeman (1998), the productivity of the global arable land and
pastureland has decreased by 13% and 4%, respectively, during the latter half of the
20th century. The most important processes of soil degradation (i.e. a loss of soil
fertility) by area are water erosion, wind erosion (Fig. 8), salinization, compaction and
pollution (Oldeman et al., 1991; MEA, 2005). Soil sealing, soil organic matter loss,
acidification, compaction and the formation or salt or metal oxide crusts are
problematic on a regional scale. Soil degradation causes problems not only on-site, but
off-site as well, including sedimentation and eutrophication of waterways, dust
emissions, floods and greenhouse gas emissions such as N 2O (Pimentel et al., 1995;
MEA, 2005; van der Ploeg et al., 2006).
Figure 8. Water erosion: minor hillside slide in the Entlebuch region of Switzerland
(left); erosion gullies in a loess layer in the Negev desert (right) (pictures: Jan
Grenz).
Parameter so_1: Soil Management

Sustainability goal: Knowledge and technology are actively employed for a siteadapted, soil conserving use.
Content: It is assessed whether soil analysis, soil organic matter and nutrient
balances are done and taken into account, and whether any agricultural areas were
lost within the last ten years (Fig. 9).
Questions:
1. What is the size of the agriculturally used area of the farm (in hectares)?
2. How many (net) hectares of agricultural area did the farm lose in the last ten
years due to soil degradation2 or building activities? How many hectares were
reclaimed?
2 Soil degradation includes: salinization, water logging, damage to drainage, erosion,
compaction and pollution. Caution: Do not include areas that were newly bought,
leased or cultivated (through deforestation or drainage).
24
3. Are soil analyses conducted: pH, P and K every 5 years, N min annually? If so, are
the results taken into consideration when planning fertilization or liming?
4. Is the soil organic matter balance calculated and considered when planning crop
production?
5. Are nutrient balances (at least for N and P) calculated? If so, are the results
taken into consideration when planning fertilization?
Explanations:
Increased resource efficiency is a precondition of sustainable development. This in turn
requires knowledge and up-to-date information on soil fertility. Until the middle of the
20th century, agricultural output was primarily increased by expanding the production
area. Since the mid-1990s, global agricultural area has (net) stagnated, as area
expansions were outbalanced by losses of fertile land due to soil degradation. Further
losses of fertile land must be minimized, in order to maintain an arable area above
0.07 ha per capita, which is the minimum considered necessary to feed global
population (Engelmann & Leroy, 1996).
Soil management (example)
100
90
80
70
NP balance available
60 no soil organic matter balance
50 no soil analyses
40
302 % net area loss
20
10 0
Figure 9. Example calculation of parameter so_1. The vertical axis represents the
RISE score.
25
Parameter so_2: Crop Productivity

Sustainability goal: Through high yields per unit area, the farm contributes to
satisfying the demand for agricultural products.
Content: Yields (per unit area) of all crops grown on the farm are compared to
national (or regional) averages, product quality as well as yield and quality trends of
the last five years are evaluated (Fig. 10).
Questions:
1. What crops were grown in the analyzed year?
2. How many hectares were cropped with each of these crops?
3. What yields (per unit area) were obtained in the analyzed year?
4. How good was the quality of each product? Was it well above, slightly above, at
the same level as, slightly below or well below regional average?
5. Describe the yield and quality trends of all crops during the last five years. Was
there a substantial improvement, a slight improvement, stagnation, a slight
deterioration or a substantial deterioration?
Explanations:
The main purpose of agriculture is the production of food and raw materials. It
produces 95% of the protein and 99% of dietary energy consumed by mankind (WRI,
2000). Global population is expected to rise to 7.8 to 11.9 billion by 2050 (UN, 2005).
As income levels and consumption habits change, the demand for agricultural
products will increase more than the number of people. Chapter 14 of the Agenda 21
calls for a sustainable increase of food production and for improved food security as
the overarching goals of sustainable agriculture and rural development (UN, 1992).
To calculate this parameter, the main products (most economically important product)
of all crops on the farm that yield a material output are considered and weighted by
the area on which they are grown. The maximum score of 100 is given to agricultural
operations, on which the weighted crop yield level exceeded the reference value
(national, regional or farm type average) by at least 33%. High quality and
improvements of yields and quality within the last five years are rewarded with a
bonus, while low quality and deteriorating trends result in a penalty.
26
Crop productivity
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
0.5
1.5
Average per ha yields farm : regional average

a
( verage quality, positive yield tendency)
Figure 10. Valuation function of parameter so_2.
Parameter so_3: Soil Organic Matter Supply

Sustainability goal: The arable soils of the farm are well supplied with organic
matter.
Content: The agriculturally used soils organic matter content is estimated and a soil
organic matter balance calculated for all rotations employed on arable land (Fig. 11).
Questions:
1. How much area of the farms arable land 3 has a high soil organic matter content
(>4 mas-% resp. >2 mas-% C org in the topsoil layer; at least rich in humus
according to AG Boden, 1994)?
2. Questions asked for each arable crop:
3. Were harvest residues (stover, sugar beet leaves etc.) or stubble burned?
4. Were harvest residues removed from the field?
5. Which organic fertilizers were applied? In what quantities (t/ha)?
6. Was a cover crop or intercrop sown?
Explanations:
Amount and quality of soil organic carbon strongly affect numerous biological,
physical, filter and buffer functions of the soil (Kuntze et al., 1994; Candinas et al.,
2002; Brock et al., 2008). Soil organic matter (SOM) content is a function of site
conditions, previous soil management, crop rotation, tillage, fertilization and crop
residue management. For a rough estimation of organic matter needs as determined
by site and management, a simple SOM balance can be calculated e.g. for a crop
rotation (e.g. VDLUFA, 2004; Neyroud, 1997; Oberholzer et al., 2006). The
3 Soil organic matter content under forest and other near-natural vegetation, including permanent
pastures, is assumed to be high. The lowest contents and the biggest improvement potential can be found
in arable soils (Kuntze et al., 1994).
27
heterogeneity of organic materials and of soil conditions limits the accuracy of the
results of such calculations. Also, SOM quality is very hard to estimate. For areas with
tropical or subtropical climate, no widely applicable calculation methods are available
(personal communication: Gattinger/FiBL, Oberholzer/ART, FAO); this holds true also for
carbon (C) accounting in the framework of the Clean Development Mechanism (www.vc-s.org/afl.html).
In RISE 2.0, a simple SOM balance is calculated based on land use, crop rotation, crop
productivity and imports and exports or organic materials. Commonly, SOM content
under permanent grassland and forest is substantially higher than under arable use
given the same climatic conditions (Kuntze et al., 1994). Therefore, high SOM contents
are assumed for these types of land use. Due to this deliberate simplification, SOM
balances are only calculated for arable land. In the RISE 2.0 SOM balance; 1 point
corresponds with 20 kg SOM-C per hectare and year, within a range from -1000 kg to
+ 1000 kg SOM-C. All crops are assigned an SOM coefficient according to their
productivity, with SOM-reducing crops being characterized by values below 50 points.
The crop coefficient is reduced if crop residues are removed or burned; the reduction is
calculated from crop yield, harvest index and the harvest residues SOM coefficient.
Intercrops, cover crops and green manure are assumed to increase SOM-C by 200 kg
per hectare and year. Where the RISE 2.0 output suggests a negative SOM balance,
further scrutiny using a more complex method (e.g. a soil C simulation model such as
CANDY or Roth-C; Smith et al., 1997) is recommended.
Soil organic matter

100
80
60
40
20
0
-1000
-500
500
1000
kg C
orgper ha and year
Figure 11. Valuation function of parameter so_3.
Parameter so_4: Soil Reaction

Sustainability goal: Soil reaction is within the range that is optimal for crop growth;
soils are neither acidified nor salinized beyond this range.
Content: The soil pH is evaluated from the perspective of crop requirements and the
risks of salinization and acidification are assessed (Fig. 12).
Questions:
1. Is the region characterized by an arid or by humid climate?
2. What pH values prevail on how many ha of the agricultural land?
28
3. Are acidifying fertilizers applied?

4. Are
the
soils
limed
regularly
(www.aglime.org.uk/limecalculator01.htm)
and
sufficiently?
5. What % of the irrigated area does not drain properly?

Explanations:
For most plants, a soil reaction between pH 5.5 and pH 7.0 is optimal. Below pH 5.0,
the availability of alkaline, and beyond pH 8.0 that of metallic ions are too low
(Scheffer & Schachtschabel, 1989). At very low pH levels, aluminum toxicity may
cause additional problems. Low pH values and soil acidification are common in areas
with humid climate, while in arid climates, saline soils and salinization occur (Fig. 13).
If more than 100 kg per hectare and year of physiologically acidic fertilizers (e.g. urea)
are applied in a humid climate, the RISE 2.0 score is reduced by 25 points, unless soils
are properly limed. If the regional climate is arid, the score is reduced by the
percentage of irrigated, non-drained land in the farms agricultural area.
Soil reaction (example)
100
90
80
70
humid climate,
60liming
50
40
100% of farm
30area with pH 5.3

20
10 0
Figure 12. Example calculation of parameter so_4.
29
Figure 13. World map of typical soil pH values. Source:

www.fao.org/nr/water/art/2008/soil_map5.html
Parameter so_5: Soil Pollution

Sustainability goal: Soil health is not impaired through the emission of pollutants.
Content: The risk of soil pollution by heavy metals, antibiotics and other pollutants is
qualitatively assessed (Fig. 14).
Questions:
1. Are recycled fertilizers (compost, sewage sludge, wastewater and/or other
wastes) for which no chemical analysis was conducted (heavy metal content,
antibiotic residues etc.) nor controlled by any entity, applied to fields?
2. Were fertilizers used that are likely to contain high heavy metal concentrations
(based on the RISE
2.0 standard list of fertilizers)?
3. Is manure from animals treated with antibiotics applied to agricultural areas?
4. Is any part of the agricultural operation located close to a highway or emissionintensive factory?
Soil pollution (example, 60

points)
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
manure/slurry contains
antibiotics
fertilizers contain heavy
metals
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
30
Figure 14. Example calculation of parameter so_5.
Parameter so_6: Soil Erosion

Sustainability goal: The farm loses no soil through water or wind erosion.
Content: Taking into account the climatic and topographic conditions, soil cover, soil
texture and management, the risk of water and wind erosion is calculated, weighted
by area and adjusted for observed erosion.
Questions:
1. How erosive is precipitation in this region 4? How erosive is the wind in this
region5?
2. What % of the farms agricultural area showed clear signs of water erosion over
the last few years?
3. What % of the farms agricultural area showed clear signs of wind erosion over
the last few years?
4. Describe the sequence of crops for all crop rotations on the farm.
5. What is the steepest slope (in %) of an area, on which the respective rotation is
implemented6? This refers to the slope of the steepest plot, or of a major part of
a plot (no areas < 1 a; slope length should be at least 15 m (Mosimann et al.,
1991)).
6. What is the dominant soil texture on the soils where this rotation is practiced?
7. Do stones cover more than 10% of the surface of these soils?
8. Is the soil permanently and densely covered by this rotation? Are cover crops
sown using a rotary band seeder (e.g. corn)?
9. Are soils ploughed in this rotation?
10.Is contour tillage practiced?
11.Are there enough well-managed windbreaks?
Explanations:
Water erosion risk is assessed in RISE 2.0 using a modified version of the CORINE
method (EEA, 1994), which in turn is a simplified version the Universal Soil Loss
Equation (USLE; www.iwr.msu.edu/rusle; Wischmeyer & Smith, 1961). For each crop
rotation on the farm, a risk index is calculated. Its score corresponds to the result for
those soils with the highest erosion risk. Since this calculation only allows an estimate
of sheet and rill erosion, farmers are directly asked whether they observed extreme
erosion events, such as landslides or gully erosion.
4 Von http://soils.usda.gov/use/worldsoils/mapindex/erosh2o.html (4 = very high; 3 =
high; 2 = moderate; 1 = low)
5 Von http://soils.usda.gov/use/worldsoils/mapindex/eroswind.html (4 = very high; 3 =
high; 2 = moderate; 1 = low)
6 Levels: 4 (very steep) = >30%, 3 (steep) = 15-30%, 2 (rather flat) = 5-15%, 1 (very
flat) = <5%
31
For each crop rotation, the steepest slope (with at least 15 m slope length) of the
concerned parcels is determined. Thus the area with the greatest erosion risk is
identified. Then soil cover is calculated based on standard crop coefficients, soil tillage
and measures to protect the soil. Crop coefficients were taken from Toy & Forster
(1998), Yang et al. (2003), Gabriels et al. (2003) and other, predominantly European
and North American sources. A regional value for rainfall erosivity has to be
determined beforehand. One possible source is the global USDA maps for water
erosion risk
(http://soils.usda.gov/use/worldsoils/mapindex). Soil erodibility is estimated based on
soil texture and corrected for very stony soils. Effects of soil organic matter (SOM)
content are not taken into account (Kuntze et al., 1994). Soil depth is also not taken
into account in RISE 2.0, i.e. erosion on deep soils is considered as critical as erosion
on shallow soils. The justification for this is that off-site damages can be considerable,
regardless of the eroded soils original depth. Wind erosion is assessed analogously;
with soil erodibility being determined from soil texture and SOM content (DIN, 2002).
If the RISE 2.0 results suggest a substantial erosion risk, it is recommended to conduct
more detailed analyses using
methods
and tools such as
PC-ABAG
(Germany; www.lfl.bayern.de/publikationen/daten/schriftenreihe/p_38585.pdf),
AVErosion
(Switzerland; www.terracs.com/produkte/software/av-erosion.html)
or
WEPS (international; www.weru.ksu.edu/weps/wepshome.html).
Parameter so_7: Soil Compaction

Sustainability goal: Crop growth and soil life are not impaired by soil compaction.
Content: The risk of excessive soil compaction is assessed based on risk factors
(wheel load, soil moisture, soil texture, tillage) and stability factors (pressure
reduction, improvement of soil stability).
Questions:
1. Were signs of soil compaction observed on substantial parts of a plot (not only
punctually)?
2. Are machines with a wheel load7 of more than 2.5 tons used?
3. Is such machinery employed on soils that contain more than 25 mas-% of clay?
4. Are wet fields driven upon with machinery that leaves track marks that are still
visible in the next crop?
5. Are fields accessed with heavy machinery intensely tilled e.g. by ploughing or
sugarbeet harvest?
6. Are any of the following measures taken to reduce pressure on the soil: double
wheels, reduced tire pressure, grid tires, tire pressure regulation, controlledtraffic farming?
7. Are any of the following measures used to increase soil stability: liming, cover
cropping, reduced tillage?
7 Total machine weight divided by the number of wheels. Do not confuse with axle
load!
32
Explanations:
Soils are porous structures in which large pores ( 0.05 mm diameter) are important
for aeration, drainage and penetrability by roots. If pressure on a soil exceeds its
inherent stability, this results in soil compaction, at the cost of large pore volume (van
der Ploeg et al., 2006). Subsoil compaction, which is particularly problematic, is a
consequence of compaction by machinery; livestock usually only compact soils
superficially (personal communication: Matthias Stettler/SCA; Oberholzer et al., 2006).
Soils containing more than 25 mas-% of clay are particularly prone to compaction (AG
Boden, 1994).
Several methods have been developed to calculate soil compaction risk, including TiM,
TASC (infoscience.epfl.ch/record/116272) and SALCA-SQ (Oberholzer et al., 2006). In
RISE 2.0, the risk of subsoil compaction is assessed by (i) directly asking for observed
signs of compaction, and (ii) by calculating a risk index that integrates risk and
stability factors.
33
4.2 Indicator: Animal husbandry (ah)

The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its
animals are treated.
(Mahatma Gandhi)

Livestock are an integral component of many agricultural production systems. Animals
have to be kept in an environmentally unproblematic and species-appropriate way. The
latter encompasses the five freedoms: freedom from hunger and thirst, from
discomfort, from pain and disease, from constraints to natural behavior, and from fear
and distress (FAWC, 1979). At the same time, a high performance and resource
efficiency are aimed for. This indicator reflects:
whether livestock performance is at a high level,
whether livestock husbandry systems allow for species-appropriate behavior,

whether the physiological needs of the animals are met and
whether animals live a healthy life.

Livestock keeping is a part of most agricultural production systems. Globally, 1.5 billion
cattle and buffalos, 2 billion sheep and goats, 0.9 billion pigs and 18.4 billion chicken
were kept in 2008 (FAOSTAT, 2010). They are raised for meat, milk and wool
production, as living piggy bank, or for numerous socio-cultural reasons (Sambraus,
1991). Improved nutrient cycling through manure availability is a further important
reason for keeping animals (Radkau, 2002). In parts of Asia and Africa, dung can be an
important fuel (Fig. 15). In many regions, e.g. in the savannas of the Sahel, the steppes
of Central Asia and the alpine meadows, an adapted pasture management is the only
possibility for agricultural land use. Permanent grassland covers 68% of the global
agricultural area (FAOSTAT, 2010). Livestock production also has considerable
economic significance, accounting for 50% of agricultural production value in
Switzerland, and 40% at the global level (Steinfeld et al., 2006; BFS, 2009).
Figure 15. Dried cow dung, to serve as fuel during winter. Inner Mongolia,
China (picture: J. Grenz).
34
Due to its environmental impacts, livestock production, in particular its intensification

has been heavily criticized:
Some 20% of all pasture areas are affected by soil degradation (Steinfeld et al.,
2006).
To feed growing livestock populations, large tracts of land are deforested, mostly
in Latin America.
Long-distance transports of feedstuff, e.g. soybeans, cause nutrient excesses in

the importing, and soil degradation in the exporting regions (Pengue, 2005;
Grenz et al., 2007).
Livestock production is a major source of man-made ammonia and methane

emissions: livestockrelated CH4 und CO2 emissions account for 18% of
humanitys total greenhouse gas emissions (Steinfeld et al., 2006).
Close to 1/3 of the global arable land is used to grow animal fodder (Steinfeld et
al., 2006). Since most energy bound in the crop biomass is lost during the
conversion to meat, these areas contribute much less to food security than they
potentially could.
The use of antibiotics, hormones, anesthetics and other veterinary drugs is a

potential ecological problem (Boxall et al., 2003). Up to 90% of all antibiotics
used in livestock fattening end up in urine and manure. Via animal excreta,
these chemicals and their metabolites enter soils and waterways (Kools et al.,
2005; Sattelberger et al., 2005; Helmholtz-Zentrum, 2007). Some antibiotics are
toxic for water (e.g. Daphnia) and soil organisms and for plants, even if
concentrations measured so far do not suggest serious environmental problems.
The evolution of pathogens resistant to antibiotics is a further risk (Boxall et al.,
2003; Stoob et al., 2005; Helmholtz-Zentrum, 2007).
Despite these concerns, livestock production plays an important role in a sustainable

agriculture, as long as stocking rates are adapted to the local environment, nutrients
are kept in tight circles and animal husbandry, feeding and breeding are done in a
species-appropriate way (Postler & Bapst, 2000).
Being sentient creatures that have their own dignity, animals are in many countries
protected by law8. For legal, ethical and agronomic reasons, they have to be kept such
that their well-being is ensured. Livestock should be kept under conditions that allow
them to meet their natural needs. The basic criteria of animal welfare include the
following:
Avoidance of thirst, hunger and malnutrition,
appropriate comfort and shelter,
avoidance of pain, injuries and parasites; immediate treatment of diseases,
right to species-appropriate behavior and
avoidance of fear, stress and distress (Bartussek, 1999).
In the frame of the EU research project Welfare Quality, animal welfare was analyzed
in relation with feeding, husbandry system, animal health and the possibility for
species-appropriate behavior. Husbandry systems such as battery caged poultry
production, in which natural behavior e.g. scratching and pecking the ground is
8 In Switzerland, Austria and Germany, animal rights are included in constitutional law.
35
impossible, are incompatible with sustainable agriculture. In contrast, programs such

as RAUS and BTS9, in which animals can spend plenty of time outside and live in
animal-friendly barns, can a priori be assumed to be more sustainable from an animal
welfare perspective (Danuser, 2005). However, a differentiated evaluation of animal
welfare should be done wherever possible.
Even a highly animal-friendly livestock production system may be in conflict with other
aspects of sustainability. For example, a continuous supply of water can aggravate
regional water stress, free-ranging pigs cause higher ammonia emissions (KTBL, 2006),
and animal-friendly husbandry systems often cause increased workload and cost.
Reciprocally, resource use, workload and cost must not be minimized at the cost of
animal welfare.
Evaluation methods
The effects of different husbandry systems on livestock health have been the subject
of extensive research (e.g. Algers et al., 2009, for dairy cows). The evaluation of
animal welfare was treated in detail by Bartussek (Animal Welfare Index; Bartussek,
2001), Whay et al. (2003), KTBL (2006), Winckler (2006) and the EU project Welfare
Quality (www.welfarequality.net/everyone). Most evaluation methods rate information
on animal condition, husbandry system and/or animal behavior. Animal conditions can
be captured via pathological circumstances and zootechnical measures such as
docking and castration. Husbandry systems are mostly characterized via livestock
performance, living environment (lighting, air quality, space, temperature etc.),
feeding and herd management. Rating animal behavior takes considerable time for
most species.
In the Welfare Quality project, a procedure for livestock welfare evaluation, covering
7 animal species, was developed and tested. The system encompasses 30 to 50
parameters for each species, which are related with 12 animal protection criteria; the
latter are in turn condensed into 4 principles of animal protection.
The RISE 2.0 evaluation of animal welfare is based on information provided by the
farmer, as well as a brief tour of farm, pastures and barns. It focuses on easily
recordable parameters such as lighting and air quality in barns, livestock mortality
and performance. The rating functions are based on Postler & Bapst (2000), KTBL
(2006), BVET (2009) and Welfare Quality (2009a; 2009b; 2009c). The RISE 2.0 analysis
provides a first impression of animal welfare on the farm in the context of whole-farm
sustainability. A detailed analysis should include observations of animal behavior and
as such is much more time-consuming. Where the RISE
2.0 analysis reveals problems or potentials for improvement, such detailed analyses
are recommended.
9 RAUS = Regelmssiger AUSlauf im Freien = frequent outside exposure; BTS =

Besonders Tierfreundliche Stallhaltungssystem = Special animal friendly housing
systems. Both are voluntary animal husbandry approaches in Switzerland
(www.blw.admin.ch/themen/00006/00053/index.html?lang=de).
36
Parameter ah_1: Herd Management

Sustainability goal: Livestock populations on the farm are managed long-term and
site-adapted to optimize animal health, animal welfare and sustainability.
Content: The availability of livestock-related information and its active use in
breeding and husbandry, with the aim of improved animal welfare, is rated.
Questions:
1. Is information about livestock populations collected, documented and used for
improving animal husbandry?
2. Are diseases and other impairments of animal welfare actively prevented?
3. When breeding or buying animals does
sustainability and animal welfare aspects?
the
selection
criteria
include
Explanations:
Being well informed about animal health and performance is a precondition of
sustainable production. Thorough documentation is increasingly demanded by buyers
and public administration in order to prevent outbreaks of epidemics and zoonosis, and
to facilitate the traceability of products. Apart from the indispensable observation of
animal behavior, efficient aids such as cow and sow breeding planners should be used.
Through breeding and selection, the farmer has considerable influence on livestock
welfare and performance as well as environmental impacts. Breeding for performance
and product quality aims is acceptable but can in itself not be considered sustainable.
Performance criteria may be complemented by further agronomical and ecologically
relevant aspects, such as longevity, life-long performance, disease resistance,
robustness and a good fundament (body shape) (Postler & Bapst, 2000).
Parameter ah_2: Livestock Productivity

Sustainability goal: Livestock performance on the farm is above national average.
Content: Annual performance of all livestock categories is compared with the
respective national average, and product quality and performance trends of the last 5
years are rated (Fig. 16).
Questions:
1. Which livestock categories were kept during the analyzed year? How many of
each category where kept during the analyzed year?
2. How many animals were temporarily absent from or present on- farm (e.g.
summer pasture)? How long did the absence / presence take?
3. What was the average annual production per animal during the analyzed year?
Only take into consideration animals with a quantifiable product.
4. How good was the quality of the animal categorys respective main product?
Was it well above average, slightly above average, average, slightly below
average or well below average?
37
5. How did the performance (quantity and quality) of this animal category develop
during the last 5 years? Did it clearly improve, slightly improve, stagnate,
slightly deteriorate or clearly deteriorate?
Explanations:
Since chapter 14 of the Agenda 21 postulates that the overarching goal of sustainable
agriculture and rural development is the sustainable increase of food production and
the improvement of food security (UN, 1992), the levels of livestock and crop
productivity are rated in RISE 2.0.
All livestock categories whose products can be meaningfully quantified are taken into
account. Productivity, quality and trend are weighted by large livestock units (LLU).
The farms performance level is compared with the most recent available national or
regional average. Farms whose performance exceeds the average by at least one third
are assigned the maximum score of 100 points. A maximum performance that was
only maintained for a single year is likely to have negative effects on animals and
environment. However, where such effects occur, they should be reflected by the
respective RISE 2.0 indicators and parameters. A very high indicator score can only be
achieved by a farm on which animal performance, health and welfare simultaneously
are on a high level. Furthermore, an optimum performance level is hard, if not
impossible, to determine.
Livestock productivity
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
0.5
1.5
Average animal performance farm : regional average

a
( verage quality, stagnating performance)
Figure 16. Valuation function of parameter ah_2.
Parameter ah_3: Possibility for Species-Appropriate Behavior

Sustainability goal: The animal husbandry systems allows animals to express their
natural social, movement, resting and sleeping, feeding, excretion, reproduction,
comfort and exploring behavior.
Content: Sufficient open-air exercise, contact with other animals of the same species
and the environment to allow species-appropriate behavior is evaluated.
Questions:
38
1. How many welfare criteria are not met for this livestock category? (predefined,
species-specific lists of criteria are used)
2. Is animal density clearly too high (no free movement possible, insufficient
access to food and water)?
Explanations:
Species-appropriateness is rated qualitatively, using a three-level scale. Criteria were
mostly adapted from KTBL (2006) and from the Swiss animal husbandry programs BTS
and RAUS (BLW, 2008); criteria are listed in Tab. 5 (next page). Rating scheme: A (all
criteria met, 100 points) = normal behavior can mostly be expressed, B (one criterion
not met, 50 points) = normal behavior possible with limitations, C (two criteria not
met, 0 points) = strongly limited possibility for normal behavior. If livestock density is
clearly too high, the rating is reduced by one level. The parameter score is the
weighted average (by large livestock units) of the scores of all livestock categories.
Table 5. Criteria for rating the possibility for species-appropriate behavior.
Cattle and Bovines

Optimal (A) = Outdoor access during at least 8 hours/day and 90 days/year distributed
over the whole year, free moving space, no cow trainer, skidproof, soft (and clean)
ground in the stable, direct contact with conspecifics (at least visual contact).
Pigs
Optimal (A) = Spatially structured pens, free moving space, areas to lie down are soft,
dry and clean, bedding and toys, stable groups. Sows: material for nest-building (e.g.
straw).
Poultry (laying hens, broilers, turkeys, Pekin ducks)
Optimal (A) = Zugang zu einer Weide, free moving space, formable bedding, elevated
perch.
Horses and Equines

Optimal (A) = Whole-year outdoor access, free moving space, skidproof, soft (and
clean) ground in the stable, structured environment in stable and/or paddock, direct
contact with conspecifics (at least visual contact).
Sheep and Goats

Optimal (A) = Outdoor access during at least 8 hours/day and 90 days/year distributed
over the whole year, free moving space, skidproof, soft (and clean) ground in the
stable, area to lie down with bedding in the stable, direct contact with conspecifics (at
least visual contact).
39
Parameter ah_4: Quality of Housing

Sustainability goal: The physiological needs of the animals are met; they live in an
appropriate environment.
Content: Temperature, lighting, air quality and noise level in the animal building(s)
are rated.
Questions:
1. Are there enough clean, functioning water troughs?
2. Can the animals cool down during hot weather
shelter during cold weather11?
10
(e.g. in a wallow) and get
3. Is the lighting in the animal barns sufficient (11-pt text can be read at the height
of the animals heads)?
4. Is the air in barns sufficiently clean such that the animals do not experience
breathing problems?
5. Are levels of technical noise (e.g. ventilation) sufficiently low?
Explanations:
Clean water and air (sufficient oxygen content, few aerosols, dust and ammonia), air
temperatures in the animalscomfort zone and enough light and quietness to not
disturb animal senses are preconditions of a healthy life (e.g. Algers et al., 2009). The
housing system affects all of these parameters, albeit with different intensity
(Wechsler, 2005). Humans working in the animal installations also benefit from
improved environmental conditions: working in a species-appropriate structure is
usually more convenient and healthy. For this parameter as well, the average of all
livestock categories, weighted by large livestock units, is calculated.
Parameter ah_5: Animal Health

Sustainability goal: The animals live free from pain and disease.
Content: The percentage of the herd lost within one year due to diseases and injuries,
the frequency and type of use of veterinary drugs, as well as the share of mutilated
animals are rated.
Questions:
1. What % of the animals in this livestock category were treated with veterinary
drugs (to cure, to prevent or to boost performance)?
2. What % of the animals in this livestock category were lost due to diseases and
injuries?
10 Pigs (except piglets), water buffalos, yaks, cattle (Bos taurus taurus only), laying
hens: >25C (Algers et al., 2009; BVET, 2009)
11 Piglets: <30C, hogs <16C, cattle, horses <-25C (Granz et al., 1990; Algers et al.,
2009; BVET, 2009)
40
3. What
% of the animals in this livestock category have been mutilated
(castrated, docked, dehorned, debeaked, etc) ? Were anesthetics and analgesics
used during the intervention?
Explanations:
The use of veterinary drugs may indicate deficits in livestock husbandry. Since these
substances do not cause major environmental damage according to the current (2011)
state of knowledge, this topic is treated in this indicator and not in the indicator
Biodiversity and plant protection. Homeopathic and nature identical substances
(vitamins, minerals), vaccines and feed additives are not taken into consideration
(Kools et al., 2008). Some prophylactic treatments are common practice such as the
use of antibiotics in dairy cows at the end of the lactation period. Since the need for
such practices stems from deficits in the production systems, they are negatively rated
in RISE 2.0.
Livestock mortality is rated based on Welfare Quality (2009); the alarm threshold of
their systems, approximately 5% per year for most species, corresponds with a RISE
2.0 score of 0 points. Injuries and signs of disease are not explicitly taken into account
because (1) they cannot be thoroughly assessed during a short tour of the barn(s), (2)
they reflect the current situation only and may not be representative for the whole
year and (3) chronic disease problems can be expected to be reflected by the use of
veterinary drugs, by mortality and by animal performance. In contrast to injuries,
animal mutilations (zootechnical interventions: castration, docking / clipping of piglet
tails etc.) are mostly easily recognizable, affect whole livestock categories and cause
pain and distress, but not disease or death. While the intervention may have taken
place on another farm, e.g. that of the pig breeder, it does indicate systematic deficits
of the animal husbandry system and is therefore negatively rated. If no analgesics
and/or anesthetics were used during the intervention (an illegal action e.g. in
Switzerland), the score is further reduced.
4.3 Indicator: Nutrient Flows (nf)

A sustainable agricultural production makes use of natural nutrient cycles. Nutrient
flows should be well- balanced and at a high level of productivity. Emissions of harmful
substances as well as waste production should be minimized. This indicator deals with:
nitrogen and phosphorus balances at farm level,
ammonia, nitrate and phosphate emissions caused by agricultural production on

the farm and
the quality of farm waste management.

Humans have massively altered nutrient flows at regional and even global level.
Approximately 20% of all biomass produced by plants globally is extracted for human
purposes (Imhoff et al., 2004). Of the approximately 20 nutrients that are essential for
living organisms, it is nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) that most frequently limit
growth. Emissions of these two elements also cause some of the most problematic
41
environmental impacts of farming. Hence, N and P play a key role for both the
productivity and environmental performance of agriculture.
Of the yield increases achieved in cereals since the 1960s, some 40% can be
attributed to improved crop N supply, primarily due to mineral N fertilization (Brown,
1999). Through human-driven processes, namely legume production and the Haber
Bosch synthesis, approximately 190 million tons of N per year are fixed from the
atmosphere, more than the sum of all natural N fixation processes (Galloway et al.,
2008; Fig. 17).
Figure 17. Global production of mineral fertilizers, in million tons (Smil, 2001).
Because N-containing compounds, in particular nitrate, ammonia and nitrous oxide,

are highly mobile, crops can only absorb 50% or less of the applied N (Crews &
Peoples, 2004). As a consequence of increased N fixation and application, N (nitrate)
flows from vegetation and soils into open water and groundwater have more than
doubled compared to the pre-industrial situation (Vitousek et al., 1997). These
emissions mainly stem from the storage and spreading of manure, hence from
livestock production (UNECE, 2007). Globally, 64% of all anthropogenous ammonia
emissions are estimated to be caused by livestock; in Switzerland their share exceeds
90% (Steinfeld et al., 2006; Reidy et al., 2008). According to Galloway et al. (2004),
global ammonia emissions from terrestrial ecosystems have increased from 15 Tg to
53 Tg per year. All of these N emissions are not only losses of valuable agricultural
input but also contribute to soil acidification, eutrophication of ecosystems, reduced
biodiversity, health problems in humans and animals and to global warming (Crews &
Peoples, 2004).
42
Figure 18. Annual nitrogen flows on a typical Swiss farm (calculations: J. Grenz).
Unlike N, P is a rather immobile element which is mainly made available for

agricultural use by open pit mining. Phosphate rock is a non-renewable resource and
therefore has limited global stocks. Global P flows from rock into the plants and soils
have been increased by 75% compared to pre-industrial times, flows from soils into the
hydrosphere, predominantly via soil erosion, are now 70% higher. Each year, an
estimated 10.5 to 15.5 million tons of P accumulate in terrestrial ecosystems (MEA,
2005), where they contribute to eutrophication. Estimations of the global range of P
coverage mostly vary between 80 and 200 years (e.g. BGR, 2006). Ways to use P more
efficiently and to recycle it more effectively from e.g. sewage sludge are urgently
needed and are the subject of intensive research efforts. The aforementioned
accumulation is characterized by enormous disparities between world regions. Areas
with high livestock densities import large and growing quantities of feedstuff. Through
soybean imports, Germany alone imported 31000 tons of soy protein from South
America in 2005 (Grenz et al., 2007). On the other hand, large tracts of land e.g. in
Sub-Saharan Africa are inherently poor in P, and due to a lack of fertilization, soils
there have been depleted by an average 700 kg N and 100 kg P per hectare within a
period of 30 years (Stoorvogel & Smaling, 1990; Pieri & Steiner, 1996).
The keys to an improved nutrient efficiency are establishment or the maintenance of
spatially tight nutrient cycles, avoidance of unproductive losses and application of
fertilizers at the right time and in the right relation to each other as well as to other
growth factors such as water and temperature. Specific measures to reduce gaseous N
losses include optimized livestock feeding and manure storage, letting animals spend
more time on pastures and less on sealed surfaces, and adapted timing and
techniques for manure and slurry application. However, there are limits to efficiency;
losses of approximately 30% of the total N from barns, storage facilities and fields are
virtually impossible to avoid (Fritsch, 2007; GruDAF, 2009).
During recent decades, many industrialized countries reacted to ecological damages
caused by N and P emissions by establishing legislation aimed at limiting nutrient
losses. Examples include the Swiss Proof of Ecological Performance (PEP) and the law
for water protection as well as the various national implementations of the European
43
Communitys 1991 nitrate directive, which were later linked with cross compliance
rules. The PEP obliges farmers receiving direct payments to document that N and P
applications on their farm do not exceed crop nutrient demand by more than 10%,
excluding unavoidable N losses (BLW, 2009).
A number of algorithms, models and methods that facilitate the calculation of N and P
cycles and balances have been developed. The best established type of nutrient
balance is the supply-demand, or field-barn, balance, which mainly focuses on nutrient
flows between livestock and crop production. A further approach is that of the farm
gate balance, which reflects the nutrient exchange between the farm and the outside
world (VDLUFA, 2007). In RISE 2.0, N and P balances are calculated, using a supplydemand balance that resembles the Suisse-Bilanz (Swiss Balance), mandatory in
Switzerland. The estimation of ammonia emissions is based on UNECE (2007); for more
accurate calculations for Central European farms, the Agrammon model
(http://agrammon.ch) can be used.
Waste management
In agriculture, large quantities of wastes can accumulate including recyclable materials
such as manure, glass and metals but also problematic substances such as pesticide
packages and waste oil. Inappropriate waste management can cause risks to human,
animal and environmental health. Soil contaminations can even harm future
generations, in obvious violation of the principle of sustainable development. Proper
waste management follows the principles of a circular flow economy: (1) in the first
place, quantities and toxicity of wastes have to be minimized; (2) those wastes that do
accumulate should be utilized materially or energetically; (3) where wastes can be
neither avoided nor utilized, they have to be disposed of in environment-friendly ways
(Krw-/AbfG, 1994). The dominant approach in contemporary environment policy is the
fostering of improved eco-efficiency, i.e. less resource consumption, longer product
life, lower toxicity and improved recyclability. A more radical approach, eco-efficacy,
postulates the need for a closed-loop economy that would mimic natural ecosystems,
in which there are no wastes, but rather the supply of inputs into the next
compartment of the nutrient cycle (Braungart et al., 2007).
Parameter nf_1: Nitrogen Balance

Sustainability goal: Neither a lack of N that impedes high crop yields nor an excess
that leads to high emissions into the environment occur.
Content: The N balance at farm level is rated based on a supply-demand balance (Fig.
19).
Questions:
1. What N losses (% of total N) from barns and from manure/slurry storage or from
manure/slurry application are unavoidable in this region?
2. Does a major lack of N (supply level A in Switzerland and Germany) prevail on at
least 20% of the farms agricultural area?
3. Which organic fertilizers were imported and in what quantities?
44
4. Which organic fertilizers were exported and in what quantities?

Explanations:
A simple supply-demand balance is calculated, taking into consideration all livestock
kept and all crops grown, but excluding N and P mineralization from soils as well as
crop residues left on the field. The optimum score of 100 points is attributed to farms
with no more than 10% deviation between supply and demand. The valuation function
decreases linearly to both sides, with 33 points (upper limit of the critical zone)
reached at a deviation of 50%. A relative rather than an absolute value such as the
60 kg/ha limit of the German fertilization regulation (for the 2009-2011 period; Fritsch,
2007) was chosen because the absolute approach would not reflect the global
diversity of soil types. Where soils are characterized by substantial N deficit, an
increased farm N demand is assumed to allow for replenishing soil nutrient stocks.
Farm nitrogen balance

100
80
60
40
20
0
0
50
100
150
200
N supply vs N demand (in % of demand)

Figure 19. Valuation function of parameter nf_1.
Parameter nf_2: Phosphorus Balance

Sustainability goal: Neither a lack of P that impedes high crop yields nor an excess
of P that leads to high emissions into the environment occur.
Content: The P balance at farm level is assessed based on a supply-demand balance
(Fig. 20).
Questions: Same as for parameter nf_1 Nitrogen Balance.
Explanations:
The calculation is analogous to that for N, except for the omission of volatile losses
which are not relevant in the case of P. Since P is less mobile than N, major emissions
to the environment are less likely. Also, an excess of P in single years is not uncommon
because P fertilizer is often applied ahead every two or three years. For these
reasons, the critical score of 33 points is only reached at 100% over- or undersupply,
and a higher excess is tolerated on soils affected by a substantial lack of P. Soils with a
high level of P fixation (a result of soil chemical processes) can be considered as
lacking P, since most of the present P will not be plant-available.
45
Farm phosphorus balance

100
80
60
40
20
0
0
50
100
150
200
P supply vs P demand (in % of demand)

Parameter nf_3: N and P Self-Sufficiency

Sustainability goal: The N and P flows on the farm are as spatially tight as possible.
Content: The contribution of (farm-) internal sources in % to N and P supply of
livestock and crops is evaluated (Fig. 21).
Questions:
Same as for parameter nf_1 Nutrient Balance, complemented by questions on
feedstock imports and exports.
Explanations:
Long-distance nutrient flows, e.g. involving feed imports from overseas, have been
related to soil mining, energy use for transports, the displacement of smallholder
farmers, the destruction of natural ecosystems and increased dependency of livestock
production on imports (Pengue, 2005; Bosshard et al., 2010). To keep environmental
damages and economic dependencies on a manageable level, N and P (as well as
other nutrients) should flow in spatially tight cycles. Where possible, livestock should
be fed and crops be fertilized from the farms own resources. To what extent this
principle is implemented on the farm is rated by this RISE 2.0 parameter.
Crop N and P demand are imported from the calculations done for parameters nf_1
(nutrient balance) and nf_2 (Phosphorus Balance). Where available, the results of
nutrient balances available on the farm can be adopted. Livestock N and P demand are
calculated from livestock numbers and standard coefficients; the latter have been
derived from figures on excretion, performance and the N and P contents of meat, milk
etc. It must be noted that the use of standard N and P contents implies a certain
inaccuracy which should be in the range of that encountered in the Suisse-Bilanz and
similar official methods. From N and P demand, all imported nutrient quantities are
subtracted to determine the quantity obtained from farm sources (hay, silage, manure
etc. produced on-farm), which is then divided by total nutrient demand to obtain the
degree of self-sufficiency. It is thus presumed that total nutrient demand and total
supply are equal on an annual basis. The parameter score is linearly related with the
46
average percentage of N and P self-sufficiency of livestock and crop production: 100

points correspond with 100% N and P self-sufficiency.
Imported nutrients originating from regional agricultural sources, e.g. compost, sewage
sludge or composted horse manure may be considered as farm resources,
particularly if the farm from which they come is closely (symbiotically) connected
with the analyzed farm. The main criterion is how closely the two or more farms
depend on each other in terms of nutrient exchange. Nutrients contained in arable
products fed to livestock are not subtracted, since otherwise, e.g. hog fattening, which
is mainly based on such products, would automatically result in a low score.
Nitrogen & phosphorus cycling

100
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Share of the NP demand of crop and livestock

production covered from farm sources (in %)
Parameter nf_4: Ammonia Emissions

Sustainability goal: Ammonia emissions are kept at the lowest possible level.
Content: Ammonia emissions from livestock keeping, storage and application of
manure and slurry are calculated and evaluated.
Questions:
1. How many months of the year do animals of this category have access to
pasture?
2. How many hours per day do they on average spend on the pasture?
3. How are manure and/or slurry of this livestock category stored?
4. How are manure and slurry (including imported quantities) applied?
5. How are manure and slurry (including imported quantities) incorporated into the
soil?
Explanations:
Net N emissions originating from animal excreta nearly do not occur in natural
ecosystems. Galloway et al.
(2004) estimate that in 1860, mean global NH 3 emission was not higher than 0.3 kg
per hectare. This is in sharp contrast with current emissions that are in a range of 20
kg/ha and more in Switzerland. A universal threshold level, beyond which ecosystems
47
change irreversibly, cannot be determined for raised bogs this occurs at a very low
level, nutrient-rich meadows are much less susceptible. Calculations for the Ammonia
Emissions parameter are based on the UNECE approach (2007): a reference situation
with extremely high NH3-emissions marks the lower end (0 points) of the RISE 2.0
scale. The score improves with every aspect that is better than in the reference
situation. For example, lower livestock density results in less unavoidable emissions,
with longer pasturing, emissions decrease since urine seeps into the soil and is thus
protected from volatilization (Menzi et al., 1997) etc. The optimum situation
corresponds with minimal emissions (Tab. 6). Ammonia emissions are estimated for all
livestock categories. The parameter score reflects the most problematic livestock resp.
manure category.
Table 6. Reference situations for rating of ammonia emissions in RISE 2.0.
Criteria
Best situation
Worst situation
Livestock density
No livestock on the farm
3 LLU/ha agricultural area
Access to pasture
All year round, min. 22

No access to pasture
hours/day
Covered by concrete, wood or No cover, stirred at least three
plastic, stirred once per month times per month
Manure & slurry storage
Manure & slurry application Immediate, deep injection of

and incorporation
slurry
Spread without incorporation
Use of mineral N fertilizer
300 kg mineral N/ha

agricultural area
No mineral N fertilizer used
Parameter nf_5: Waste Management

Sustainability goal: Recyclables are completely recycled. Problematic substances
are disposed of in ways that pose no risk to humans or the environment.
Content: For the most important 12 types of waste, the quality of their utilization,
storage and/or disposal is rated and weighted according to the ecological harmfulness
of the respective waste type.
Questions:
1. Which wastes are produced on the farm and how are they disposed of or utilized?
Explanations:
To calculate this parameter, how wastes of the most environmentally relevant types
are recycled, stored and disposed of are recorded and rated. According to a types
respective environmental harmfulness, points are subtracted from the optimum score
of 100 (which reflects a situation without any problem wastes; Tab. 7). The rating of
disposal routes differentiates between recyclables and problem wastes. For
recyclables, an adequate utilization is considered the best option. Where this is not
possible, recyclables should be safely stored to allow for future utilization. Destruction,
commonly by incineration, is an option for some recyclables. Where these are of a
renewable nature (paper, natural rubber), this destructive practice is weighted less
negatively then for non-renewable substances (plastics). Unsafe storage is considered
less problematic for biologically inert materials (paper) than for potentially dangerous
ones (metals). Regarding problem wastes, their quantities should in general be
48
minimized; therefore their mere occurrence on the farm leads to a subtraction of

points. In some cases, problem wastes can be recycled (waste oil used to lubricate
chainsaws, to coat posts etc.). Otherwise, safe storage followed by adequate external
disposal is the best solution. If possible, the quality of external disposal should be
estimated as well.
Table 7. Evaluation of waste disposal (disposal/recycling on-farm and externally are

equally evaluated).
Type
Recycled
Destroyed
(burned)
Paper & carton
10
Unsafe
storage,
wild
disposal13
15
Metal
20
20
Plastics
Recyclable
Glass
materials
15
20
15
15
Rubber
15
20
Electronic
devices
Animal
carcasses14
Waste oil
20
20
20
35
20
35
Batteries
35
35
20
(packaging)
20
35
15
35
20
35
Category
Problem
wastes
Plant
protection
products,
veterinary
medicals (incl.
packaging)
Acidic & alkaline
detergents
Dyes, colors, wood
protection, thinner, glue, etc.
(incl. packaging)
15
(packaging)
20
(packaging)
Safe sto
age12 r-
12 Only taken into account if the external disposal is done appropriately. Otherwise:
destroyed or wild disposal.
13 On bare soil, accessible to animals and children. Liquids poured into waterways, toilet or sink, solids
thrown on roadside, field edge, in the forest, domestic waste etc. 14 The feeding of animal carcasses in
any form is not considered sustainable for hygienic reasons. Exception: vultures.
49
4.4 Indicator: Water Use (wa)

Clean water is an indispensable basis of human life, crop and livestock production.
Through the production system(s), the farmer can have a direct impact upon amount
and quality of the water available to other stakeholders. This indicator shows:
how well the farm is supplied with clean water,
how intense and efficiency water is used for production and
whether water use and wastewater disposal on the farm impose risks for water
resources and their users.

Clean freshwater is a finite, susceptible resource that is indispensable for life,
development and environment (Dublin Principles; GWP, 2000). In Agenda 21
(chapter 18), the signees postulate the aim of safeguarding an appropriate supply of
good quality water for the entire population of the planet while maintaining the
hydrological, biological and chemical functions of the ecosystems (UN, 1992).
In those areas with permanently or seasonally arid climate roughly half of the global
land area (Fig.22) it is usually water supply that limits the productivity of natural and
agricultural ecosystems most. More than 900 million people live in watersheds with
physical water scarcity which is expected to affect areas with a further 700 million
people in the near future (IWMI, 2006). According to Vrsmarty et al. (2000), more
than one third of humankind is living in watersheds affected by water stress. Falling
groundwater tables are a reality in e.g. North China, North India, parts of Mexico, North
Africa and West Asia (Araus, 2004; IWMI, 2006). Based on a conservative annual water
demand of 900 m per capita, Falkenmark (1997) expects virtually all of Africa, North
China South and West Asia to be incapable of achieving food self sufficiency due to
water scarcity by 2025. Even where water is not physically scarce, people may lack
access to clean water for financial reasons.
Figure 22. The Earths drylands (http://lada.virtualcentre.org/eims/download.asp?

pub_id=96700&app=0).
In many areas, water quantity is sufficient, but quality is not. In such areas, polluted
drinking water is a major source of infectious diseases which claim some 6000 human
lives a day (UNESCO, 2003). This is also related to agriculture: irrigation with
insufficiently cleaned wastewater can cause infections by intestinal worms and
50
bacteria, as well as diarrhea (Blumenthal & Peasey, 2002). Inappropriate water use as
well contributes to secondary soil salinization on large tracts of land in the Middle East
and
Central
Asia,
a
serious
cause
of
land
degradation
(www.isric.org/UK/About+ISRIC/Projects/Track+Record/
GLASOD.ht m;
www.fao.org/ag/agl/agll/terrastat; Oldeman et al., 1991).
Of the 4500 km3 of freshwater globally extracted by man, nearly 70% is used
agriculturally (Wolff, 1999). Yet, domestic, industrial and energy-related water demand
is growing rapidly and may contest the often less profitable agricultural use of water.
While water volume can often be used more than once within a watershed, quality will
usually decrease during the process (IWMI, 2006). The opportunity cost is usually
lowest in rainfed crop production, where quality decreases the least and no competing
uses may exist.
Pollution with acutely toxic chemicals or fecal germs, and inappropriate wastewater
treatment can cause immediate harm to human and animal health on-farm and in the
surrounding area. In the longer term, quality problems may be caused by the
accumulation of toxic substances in soils and water lines, and by the intake of water
containing chronically toxic chemicals. If a water source is overused, problems arise in
the middle and long-run: while the need to drill deeper wells only increases cost, the
farms very existence will be threatened when this is no longer possible. If the
agricultural operation has privileged access to water (e.g. because it is situated on the
upper reaches of a river or creek), its overusing of water resources will first damage
economically and/or politically weaker downstream riparians, as well as the natural
ecosystems. One approach to resolving or preventing such conflicts is the Integrated
Water Resources Management at watershed level (Integrated Water Resources
Management; GWP, 2000).
Traditional and new technologies allow for great improvements in agricultural water
use. Examples include water collection by rainwater harvesting and flash-flood
irrigation, water storage in low-cost cisterns, and water application through the various
variants of drip and sprinkler irrigation (including improved monitoring and regulation
technologies). Water use efficiency can also be improved through methods such as
deficit irrigation and alternate furrow irrigation (Kang et al., 2000). Wastewater can
be treated with constructed wetlands and gravel filters (Bunch & Lopez, 2003) and
recycled by appropriate wastewater irrigation (right quality to the right crop).
Overviews of traditional techniques sucha as Tassa, Za and stone walls were prepared
by Reij et al. (1996) and Cofie et al. (2004). Following the more crop per drop
paradigm, more water efficient cultivars are developed (Passioura, 2004). Increases in
economic water productivity can also be achieved by multiple use of water in
aquaculture, animal production and small enterprises such as brick production and
horticulture.
Parameter wa_1: Water Management

Sustainability goal: Knowledge and technology are actively used for an efficient,
site-adapted and resourceconserving utilization of water resources.
Content: The record and use of water quality and quantity information is assessed.
Additionally, water storage, water recycling and water use efficiency measure use
methods are evaluated (Fig. 23).
51
Questions:
1. Do you have access to information on water availability and quality? Do you
actively use this information?
2. What measures for saving water have been implemented on-farm: optimized
irrigation timing and technology, precise leveling of irrigated fields, optimized
water use in barns and milk parlor?
3. What measures to increase water storage / buffering capacity (increasing soil
organic matter content, mulching, constructing cisterns & tanks) have been
implemented and used?
4. Is waste water recycled in a hygienically safe way?
Explanations:
These questions regarding the cited measures are examples which can be adapted to
the regional availability of knowledge and technology. The question on availability and
use of information also serves to produce awareness that such information may exist
and could be effectively used.
Water saving measures are attributed more weight than increasing storage and
recycling, because a greater diversity of effective technologies and measures, both
high- and low-tech, exists in this regard. Hence, the farmers scope for actively taking
measures is best for water saving. A farm where nothing is done to save water in crop
and animal production can at best achieve 50 points and will thus be rated as further
scrutiny is required.
Water management (example)

100
90
80
70
Hygienically safe water recycling
60
No water storage measures
50
Several water-saving measures
40
Water use is monitored
30
20
10
0
Figure 23. Example calculation of parameter wa_1.
Parameter wa_2: Water Supply

Sustainability goal: Quantity and quality of the farms water supply are secure in the
long-term.
Content: Current situation, trends and potential for conflicts concerning quantitative
and qualitative water supply are recorded and assessed (Fig. 24).
52
Questions:
1. What is the regional level of water stress? (use: WBCSD Global Water Tool)
2. Did quantitative water supply deteriorate in the last 5 years? Can certain waterdemanding crops not be produced any more? Has any livestock been
slaughtered or sold due to water scarcity?
3. Have wells been dug deeper, pumps lowered or pumps need to be changed due
to a decrease in water supply?
4. Did water quality deteriorate in the last 5 years?
5. Were or are there conflicts with other water users, concerning quantity and/or
quality of water?
6. Is fossil water (from non-renewable sources) used on-farm?
Explanations:
Water scarcity becomes a problem when it turns into water stress, i.e. the farm lacks
water in sufficient quality. Since water stress at regional level may not yet be felt onfarm, and since the agricultural activity can directly impact water availability to other
users in the region, the regional catchment level is also taken into account in RISE 2.0.
Thus the farmers awareness of upcoming water conflicts shall be increased.
The regional water stress index (blue water) is taken from the World Business
Council for Sustainable
Developments (WBCSD) Global
Water
Tool
for
the
farms coordinates
(www.wbcsd.org/templates/TemplateWBCSD5/layout.asp?
ClickMenu=special&type=p&MenuId=MTUxNQ;
mapserver.wbcsd.org/mapserver/?
mapFile=l6j608izxnyti3oyikta.map -> mean annual relative water stress index).
Accordingly, water stress starts at a demand: supply ratio of 0.2 and strong water
stress starts at 0.4. The Global Water Tools stress levels of low, medium, scarce
and stress translate into 100, 66, 33 and 0 RISE 2.0 points, respectively.
Water supply (example)

100
90
No use of fossil water sources
80
70
No water-related conflicts
60
Deteriorating water quality
50
40
Groundwater levels stable
30
No decrease in water availability
20
Regional level of water stress: moderate
10
0
53
Parameter wa_3: Water Use Intensity

Sustainability goal: The intensity of agricultural production is adapted to local water
supply.
Content: Farm crops and livestock demand is calculated based on standard
coefficients and compared with water supply as determined by climatic conditions (Fig.
25).
Questions:
1. In which temperature zone is the region located?
2. In which humidity zone is the region located?
3. What crops are grown, on what area?
4. What livestock categories are kept, in what numbers (annual average)?
5. How much water is used annually for livestock production (cleaning of barn(s)
and milk parlor, slurry dilution, preparation of feed, cooling; excluding animal
drinking water)?
6. How much water is used annually for crop production (cleaning of products
excluding irrigation water)?
Explanation:
More than half of the worlds population now lives and works in urban areas and
depends on the supply of blue water. Accordingly, the domestic and industrial
sectors water demand increases and agriculture, which tends to be financially less
competitive, runs the risk of being less well supplied with blue water. To reduce this
risk, the water use intensity of sustainable production systems in all sectors has to
be siteadapted.
The water intensity of agricultural production is calculated based on standard values of
annual crop and livestock water demand for the respective climatic region. The result
is then normalized by comparing to a scale to which the values calculated by
Chapagain
&
Hoekstra
(2004)
using
the
CropWat
tool
(www.fao.org/nr/water/infores_databases_cropwat.html) serve as a basis. An intensity
of less than 2000 m3/ha corresponds with 100 points, then the curve decreases
linearly to 0 points, or 10000 m 3/ha. Water supply is expressed via a Moisture Index
(MI), calculated from FAOs Aridity Index (AI), which is the quotient of annual
precipitation and potential evapotranspiration: MI = 100 * AI 1. The MI is converted
into scores from 0 to 100. The parameter score, meant to be a measure of hydrological
site-adaptedness, is the arithmetic mean of water intensity and water supply.
54
Water intensity of agricultural

production
Climatic water availability

100
100
50
50
0
-100
0
0
2000 4000 6000 8000 1000012000
m3water per ha and year
-50
50
100
Regional moisture index (FAO New

LocClim)
Figure 25. Valuation functions of parameter wa_3. Example calculation: water

intensity of production = 7000 m3/ha (37.5 points), moisture index = 42 (46 points)
wa_3 = (37.5 + 46)/2 = 41.75.
Parameter wa_4: Risks to Water Quality

Sustainability goal: Agricultural production on the farm poses no risk to the health of
aquatic systems, humans nor livestock.
Content: The risk of local eutrophication or other forms of water pollution resulting
from the handling of manure, slurry, silage, soils and waste water is evaluated (Fig.
26).
Questions:
1. How are slurry, manure and silage stored? (If several storage sites exist, choose
the most problematic one.)
2. How often do livestock have access to open waters? (Situation of the most
problematic livestock category. If there are less than 0.16 LLU (1 pig), check
relevancy.)
3. What % of the farms wastewater is appropriately treated?
4. Are there sites on the farm with shallow (<30 cm soil) and/or light soils (>33%
sand), to which more than 440 kg N per ha and year are applied?
5. Are all surface waters protected by a densely vegetated buffer strip of at least 3
m width, to which neither slurry nor chemical plant protection products are
applied?
Explanations:
An overloading of surface or ground water with nutrients (eutrophication) as well as
emissions of pollutants or pathogens are common threats to the health of humans,
livestock and ecosystems caused by agricultural production. Typical sources of such
contamination include effluents from manure and silage storage, and eroded soil. Both
factor complexes storage and soil erosion are taken into account in RISE 2.0.
The optimum score of 100 points can only be achieved by farms whose storage sites
are sufficiently safe (e.g. lined with concrete) and situated at a sufficient distance from
water bodies, and who maintain vegetated riparian buffer zones that are respected
during fertilizer and pesticide application. Particularly in developing and emerging
55
countries, livestock often has direct access to water holes. Due to the high probability
of fecal contamination, this is rated as a risk to water quality.
Risks to water quality (example)

100
90
No parcels with very high N leaching risk
80
Livestock never enter open water
70
Moderate water erosion risk
60
50
100 % of wastewater adequately treated
40
No silage stored
30
Liquid slurry stored very safely
20
Solid manure stored very safely
10
0
4.5 Indicator: Energy and Climate (ec)

To be sustainable, agricultural production has to be energy-efficient and independent
from non-renewable, environmentally harmful energy carriers. This also serves to
safeguard climatic conditions conducive to the health of plants, animals, humans and
ecosystems. This indicator shows:
How energy-intensive agricultural production is on-farm,
To what extent does energy depend on non-sustainable energy carriers,
What energy-saving measures have been implemented,
How agricultural production on the farm contributes to global warming.

Energy is, in plain language, a systems ability to do work. It is an important peculiarity
of the primary sector (agriculture, forestry and fisheries) that it can provide more
energy in the form of biomass than it consumes. Prior to the fossil-fuel age, the
area and productivity of vegetation determined energy availability (Radkau, 2002).
Thanks to their high energy density (gasoline 43 MJ/kg vs. dry wood 15 MJ/kg) and
comparably low prices, fossil-fuel energy carriers made more energy-intensive
economies feasible. Thus, vegetated area and energy were largely decoupled. The
peak of oil production, the so-called peak oil, has been predicted to occur before the
year 2020 (Campbell et al., 2007). After this point in time, the demand for oil is
predicted to rise faster than the supply, resulting in rising prices. For natural gas, hard
coal and uranium, no such bottleneck of geological availability is expected over the
next decades (BGR, 2006). Overall, the importance of fossil-fuel energy carriers is
56
expected to slowly decrease unless drastic changes of political framework conditions

occur.
In 2008, the statistically recorded global per capita energy utilization was 76.4 GJ per
year (IEA, 2009) (excluding traditional biomass such as firewood in rural areas of
Africa); the corresponding figure for Switzerland was 156 GJ per year (BFE, 2009). The
energetically utilizable productivity of vegetation in Central Europe amounts to 25 to
200 GJ/ha and year. Similar quantities can be made available with modern
bioenergy/bio-fuel production technologies. In the tropics, palm oil plantations can
yield up to 5000 liters of oil per hectare, corresponding with approximately 200 GJ/ha.
Given the limited productive area available for bioenergy/biofuel production, a
complete return to a vegetation-based energy supply system seems virtually
impossible even with major improvements of energy efficiency (e.g. Weizscker et al.,
1997).
Improvements of farm sustainability with regard to energy can be achieved by
reducing energy utilization and by providing renewable energy carriers. Particularly
energy-intensive processes include heating and cooling of buildings, milk cooling,
ventilation of barns, active drying of hay and other produce, tillage (plowing 1 hectare
requires approximately 25 liters of diesel), irrigation and greenhouse heating. Energy
demand can be reduced by using heat exchangers and heat pumps, through good
isolation of buildings including greenhouses, or by reduced tillage (Agridea, 2010).
Farms can also provide energy via the production or installation of biogas, firewood,
agro-fuels, solar energy (electricity or heat), wind and water power (Agridea, 2010).
Climate
Weather and climate conditions within the ecological tolerance of the regional flora
and fauna are a precondition for the productivity and stability of natural and
agricultural ecosystems. Weather records, data gained from ice cores and lake
sediments, observations of plant phenology (e.g. earlier cherry blossoming in Japan)
and further evidence suggest that climate has become warmer in nearly all regions of
the globe. Parallely, the atmospheric concentrations of climatically effective
greenhouse gases (GHG), namely carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, have
increased significantly. The likelihood that these increased concentrations are a major
cause of the observed warming has been rated very high (IPCC, 2007).
For the coming decades, further increases of atmospheric GHG concentrations are
expected, which are predicted to cause a further warming of mean global
temperatures by at least 0.2C per decade. Regions at higher latitudes and altitudes
will probably experience an even more pronounced warming (Fig. 27). Rainfall is
forecasted to become more variable within and between years (Dore, 2005). The
predicted impacts of this climate change for agriculture include yield gains at high
latitudes and losses at low latitudes, more severe damages due to pests, and more soil
erosion caused by torrential rains (Gregory et al., 2005; Weigel, 2005; Smith et al.,
2007). Higher frequencies of thunderstorms, heat waves, floods, landslides and other
extreme events have been forecasted. For example, the incidence of lightning
increases exponentially with rising temperatures (Rosenzweig et al., 2001).
57
On the other hand, agriculture is also a major driver of climate change. Methane
emissions from livestock production, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide released from
arable fields (due to N fertilization and paddy rice production), as well as carbon
dioxide emissions from burning fossil-fuels for agricultural purposes together
contribute roughly 15% to the man-made component of the greenhouse effect
(Baumert et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2007; Fig. 28). Emissions of a similar magnitude are
caused by land use cover change, i.e. primarily by the conversion of forests into
agricultural areas. Slash-and-burn practices, livestock production and N fertilization are
the most important sources of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide emissions,
respectively (Steinfeld et al., 2006; Burney et al., 2010). The widespread post-harvest
burning of crop residues and other vegetation not only contributes to climate change
but also causes more immediate damage to human health and economy, as well as to
soil health (Fig. 29).
Figure 27. Temperature changes projected from 1980-1999 until 2090-2099

(Scenario A1B SRES; IPCC, 2007).
Figure 28. Agriculture-related greenhouse gas emissions by source (Baumert et al.,

2005).
58
Figure 29. Left: smoke released from burned areas in South East Asia, March 2010
(www.eosnap.com). Right: area cleared by slash-and-burn, Ntoaso, Ghana (picture:
Jan Grenz).
During the last 300 years, a net 170 Gt of carbon (C) have been released to the
atmosphere through deforestation and tillage, a figure that increases by 1.6 Gt each
year (Hillel & Rosenzweig, 2009). According to Burney et al. (2010), additional
emissions of 87 to 161 Gt C were avoided during 1961 and 2005, because higher
yields allowed to slow down deforestation and thus to save land. Part of the emitted
C might be re-sequestered through agricultural and forestry measures, such as
reduced tillage, measures to increase soil organic matter (SOM) content, more efficient
use of N fertilizers, optimized irrigation practices in paddy rice cultivation, biogas
production and, under certain conditions, the production of biofuels (Reinhard & Zah,
2009; Schahczenski & Hill, 2009). In temperate climate, C sequestration rates between
0.1 and 0.8 t of C per hectare and year have been measured following conversion to
no-till and improvements of crop rotation. This effect ceases when a new, site-specific
SOM level is reached, typically within 20 to 50 years (Smith et al., 2007; Hillel &
Rosenzweig, 2009). Larger amounts of C can be sequestered through afforestation and
the conversion of arable into pastureland, in some instances also by undoing drainage.
In the frame of the Kyoto Protocol of the UN, the Clean Development Mechanism and
Joint Implementation were established, through which such C sequestration
measures can be financially compensated.
Scientific evidence suggests that climate change can in the best case be reduced, but
not stopped. Given this notion and the already existing intra- and interannual
variability of weather conditions, a high resilience of agricultural production systems is
of utmost importance. Accordant measures are (1) improvement of buffer capacities
(SOM content, water storage and product storage facilities, economic liquidity), (2)
protection from damage (good soil coverage to prevent erosion, flood protection, nets
against hail etc.), (3) risk spreading through adequate diversification (different crops
and varieties, livestock genetic diversity, permanent crops, reduction of dependence
on single products and buyers, etc.) and (4) where available and affordable, risk
reduction through insurance against damage (hail or drought insurance, livestock
insurance, fire and invalidity insurance).
Energy is a topic treated in most environmental and sustainability indicator systems.
The systems of Breitschuh et al. (2008) and Christen et al. (2009) calculate energy
59
balances by comparing energy output contained in agricultural produce with energy

input in the form energy carriers and other farm inputs. This approach is not pursued
in RISE 2.0 based on the notion that many agricultural products are not produced for
energy (including food energy) purposes. Products with low energy density such as
cotton, and energetically unproductive uses such as ecological compensation areas,
are automatically rated low in such energy balances; a rating which the RISE 2.0 teams
deems problematic. Therefore, energy intensity and productivity (in kg of product per
hectare, not in MJ per hectare) are calculated and rated separately in RISE 2.0, and not
combined into an artificial efficiency measure. A similar procedure was applied by
Vilain et al. (2008). Like in most, if not all, indicator sets of this type, energy input in
the form of human and animal labor is not taken into account in RISE 2.0. Farm energy
use is calculated from the amount of energy carriers used within a year, multiplied by
the respective energy density. This figure is then corrected by energy imports and
exports through contract work. Since fossil-fuels are limited, a shift to 100% renewable
sources of energy is inevitable. Therefore, the share of sustainable renewables is rated
in a separate RISE 2.0 parameter. Sustainability is an explicit criterion to avoid a
positive rating e.g. of excessive firewood collection.
Unlike life cycle assessment (LCA) and related methods, RISE 2.0 is not based on a life
cycle approach. Energy use, emissions and resource consumption during the
production phase of agricultural inputs, machinery and buildings are not included in
the RISE 2.0 energy balance. This narrow system boundary was chosen to optimize
congruency with farmers scope of action and thus scope of responsibility. Where
avoidable, stakeholders should not be held responsible for circumstances that he/she
can hardly or not at all influence. For a farmer, information on nutrient use efficiency
and cycling is relevant to be able to minimize nitrogen emissions to the environment,
to make the best use of manure and to minimize the need for expensive mineral
fertilizers. On the contrary, the energy intensity of mineral fertilizer production is
relevant to the fertilizer manufacturer who will aim at reducing energy costs and risky
dependencies on cheap energy. Emissions from energy provision are relevant for
politicians, consumers and energy providers, i.e. for those who can actively shape the
energy system. The use of providing all this information to the farmer is at least
disputable.
For the calculation of GHG emissions, the method developed by the IPCC (2007), which
links
processes
with
specific
emission
factors
(www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/EFDB/main.php), is the most authoritative. On this basis, e.g. carbon
footprints for persons, enterprises and countries have been calculated (Wiedmann &
Minx, 2008). Agricultural emissions of CO 2, CH4 and N2O as well as C sequestration can
be quantified with computer-based tools, e.g. GAS-EM (Dmmgen et al., 2002), Holos
(Janzen et al., 2005) and CALM (www.calm.cla.org.uk), all of which are calibrated for
the temperate climate zone. Calculations for all climate zones can be made using the
EX-ACT program (FAO EX-ACT, 2009). The GHG balance in RISE 2.0 is largely based on
EX-ACT algorithms and coefficients.
Parameter ec_1: Energy Management

Sustainability goal: The energy intensity of agricultural production and the share of
non-sustainable energy carriers are actively reduced.
60
Content: The availability and active use of on-farm energy is evaluated. Additionally,
energy-saving measures are assessed (Fig. 30).
Questions:
1. Is on-farm energy consumption monitored (quantities, trends)?
2. What measures have been implemented to reduce energy consumption?
Explanations:
Consciousness of the importance of resource management and adequate monitoring
including information on dependencies and bottlenecks are the first steps to the
efficient and sustainable management of any resource. To become effective,
monitoring has to be complemented by active measures to achieve improvements.
Where a farmer has taken steps to reduce the amount of energy needed and to be less
dependent on fossil-fuels, these measures can be selected from a drop-down list and
the parameter score is augmented according to the efficacy of the respective
measure(s). By comparing the list of possible with that of implemented measures,
entry points can be identified.
Energy management (example)

100
heat exchanger
90
80
zero-tillage
70
60
open front stable
50
40
tractor welladjusted
30
20
energy use
monitored
10
0
Figure 30. Example calculation of parameter ec_1.
Parameter ec_2: Energy Intensity of Agricultural Production

Sustainability goal: The energetic dependence of agricultural production on the farm
and damages caused by energy use are minimized.
Content: Energy intensity in GJ per hectare of agricultural area is determined from
quantities and energy densities of all energy carriers used, corrected by imports and
exports through contract work and rated by comparison with the national or regional
average energy intensity (Fig. 31).
Questions:
1. What energy carriers were used in what quantities?
2. What on-farm machine work was done by third-parties using their own
machinery and not using fuel of the farm? How many hectares and/or how many
machine hours were done?
61
3. What off-farm machine work using machines and fuels of the farm? On how
many hectares and/or machine hours were done?
Explanations:
Since agricultural areas receive far more energy in the form of solar radiation than the
amounts used for agricultural production, even high energy-intensive production
systems could, in theory, be sustainable concerning their energy balance. In reality,
the energy balance (energetic output : energetic input) deteriorates considerably with
the intensity of production, i.e. the amounts of mineral fertilizer, fuels etc. used
(Conforti & Giampietro, 1997), and as crops use only a small proportion of radiation
energy, some agricultural production systems can even be net energy consumers.
Intensive production increases the demand for and thus the prices of energy carriers,
and contrariwise depends, directly as well as indirectly, on cheap energy. As long as
energy intensity continues to increase, for example due to rebound and backfire
effects, neither a shift to renewable energy carriers not improved energy efficiency can
be expected to lead to sustainable production. One reason is the fact that renewable
energy provision also negatively impacts the environment, albeit through competition
with food production for fertile land, environment pollution from photovoltaic module
manufacturing or noise and landscape pollution by wind turbines. If very large
quantities of renewable energy are needed, these unwanted impacts will increase as
well. Hence, what is needed is an absolute reduction of energy intensity.
Energy intensity
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
Energy intensity farm : national average

Figure 31. Valuation function of parameter ec_2.
The middle of the RISE 2.0 scale, 50 points, corresponds with an energy intensity that
is equal to the national average (calculated from WRI and FAO data). If all farms strive
to reduce their energy intensity below the national average, then the latter will be
reduced as well and thus the scale will be a dynamic one, fostering continuous
improvement. Farms are not differentiated by type (e.g. hog fattening, dairy farming)
because the necessary reference data does not yet exist; it is therefore recommended
to appraise results with regard to the peculiarities of the farm type during the RISE 2.0
feedback discussion. Where reliable data exist on a regional basis or for a specific farm
type, the default national average can be overwritten with these data to facilitate a
more specific rating.
62
Parameter ec_3: Share of Sustainable Energy Carriers

Sustainability goal: The farm is supplied with energy from sustainable sources and
carriers only.
Content: The share (in %) of sustainable energy carriers in total farm energy use is
calculated and directly translated into RISE 2.0 points (1% = 1 point, Fig. 32).
Questions:
1. What share of the energy used is provided in the form of sustainable energy
carriers14?
Explanations:
This RISE 2.0 rating does not directly reflect the sustainability goal of using nonrenewable energy carriers only to the extent that renewable replacements become
available. In order to reliably check this criterion, complex multi-year calculations
would be needed. For the sake of simplicity, it is postulated that as few non-renewable
energy carriers as possible should be used. Depletive practices, such as the collection
of firewood beyond an ecosystems regenerative capacity, cannot be considered
sustainable. Therefore, wood consumption is only considered sustainable if the wood
originated from a production system in which extraction and re-growth are at least in
balance.
Share of sustainable energy carriers

100
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Share of energy from sustainable sources in total

farm energy use (in %)
Parameter ec_4: Greenhouse Gas Balance

Sustainability goal: Agricultural production on the farm does not contribute to GHG
emissions that exceed the buffer capacity of the atmosphere.
14 An energy carrier is considered sustainable if it is renewable and not overused and

its production does not cause major environmental or social damage. Palm oil
produced on newly deforested areas and converted into biodiesel, or corne-based
bioethanol do not meet these criteria. In cases of doubt, the criteria of the Swiss Fuel
Ecobalance Directive can provide guidance (www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/c641_611_21.html).
63
Content: A GHG balance is calculated based on land and energy use, livestock
keeping, use of GHG-relevant inputs as well as land use changes, and rated by
comparison with a global threshold value (Fig. 33).
Questions:
1. What mineral N fertilizers were applied, and in what quantities?
2. How many hectares of forest were removed from the farm areas in the last 20
years?
3. How many hectares of the farm area were afforested in the last 20 years? In
what year(s) were the trees planted?
4. How many hectares were planted with paddy rice (annual average)? Were the
fields left dry for at least 180 days before sowing? Were they flooded at least 30
days before planting? How many days of the year were the fields flooded? Were
they flooded continuously, with interruptions of at least 3 days each, was
deepwater rice grown, or did a drought period occur? How many tons of
compost, straw, animal manure or green manure were applied to paddy rice?
5. On how many hectares of the arable land could yields be boosted substantially
during the last 20 years OR on how many hectares could soil organic matter
content be increased substantially during the last 20 years?
Explanations:
The RISE 2.0 GHG balance, which is largely based on the EX-ACT method (FAO EX-ACT,
2009), takes into account the following items: land use cover change, burning of
biomass, use of fossil-fuel energy carriers, mineral N fertilizers or lime, livestock
production, crop production and paddy rice production. As in the calculation of energy
intensity (parameter ec_2 Energy Intensity of Agricultural Production), gray
emissions from the production of inputs such as mineral fertilizers and pesticides are
not included in the calculation. Emissions related with electricity provision and with
biofuel production are taken into account, while emissions linked with the provision of
fossil- fuels are not considered due to their relative insignificance compared to the
emissions occurring during the consumption of these fuels. Due to a lack of reliable
reference data, GHG emissions from peat land drainage cannot be calculated in RISE
2.0. The CO2 exhaled by livestock and released through the burning of crop residues
and pastureland are also not considered, in accordance with the rules of the Kyoto
Protocol. The justification in the first case is the fact that similar quantities of C had
been sequestered by the plants consumed by the animals, in the second case,
regrowing vegetation is presumed to fix the same quantity of C that was released by
burning. Both assumptions may be questioned if a very long perspective is adapted,
considering the pre-industrial state as the optimum.
The middle of the RISE 2.0 scale (50 points) corresponds with a GHG emission intensity
of 2400 kg CO2eq per hectare of the farm area. This value is meant to represent the
most recent available (2005) global average per hectare GHG emission from
agriculture. It was calculated by dividing the total agricultural emissions of 11.7 trillion
kg CO2eq per year (without gray emissions and electricity provision; IPCC, 2007) by
the global agricultural area of 4.95 billion hectares (FAOSTAT, 2010). According to
conservative estimations, the goal of letting global average temperatures rise to at
most 2C above pre-industrial levels (corresponding with atmospheric CO 2
concentrations of 450 to 550 ppmv; EU, 2005) requires reductions of global GHG
64
emissions by at least 50%. Therefore, the maximum of the RISE 2.0 scale (100 points)
corresponds with net GHG emissions of 1200 kg CO 2eq per hectare or less. To increase
sensitivity of the valuation function, the slope between 0 and 50 points is half that
between 50 and 100 points; hence farms with net emissions of 4800 kg CO 2eq per
hectare or more get 0 points. Hansen et al. (2008) even ask for a reduction of global
temperatures to pre-industrial levels; this would require a substantially stricter rating
function and most likely result in a low selectivity of the function. One global valuation
function is adapted for all farm types and locations because there is only one
atmosphere, and from an ecological point of view, neither type nor location of
production would justify differentiations.
Greenhouse gas balance

100
80
60
40
20
0
0
Net GHG emissions

(in t CO
/ha of agricultural area)
2eq
65
4.6 Indicator: Biodiversity and Plant Protection (bp)

The diversity of organisms and the health of ecosystems are closely tied with each
other. Through the regulation of water, nutrient and gas balances, pollination, soil
formation and other functions, diverse ecosystems render agricultural production and
human existence possible in the first place. This indicator rates:
How diversity at the species and genome level is fostered on the agricultural
area,
How well natural ecosystems are preserved and interlinked within the
agricultural landscape,
The quality of plant protection management on the farm, and
Whether substances that are poisonous to man and nature and used for crop
and livestock protection.

Biodiversity
Biodiversity is the diversity of ecosystems on Earth, the diversity of species in these
ecosystems and the diversity of the genome within these species (www.cbd.int). Its
preservation is essential for mankind, not only because we utilize a great diversity of
species, directly or indirectly. Healthy, diverse ecosystems provide vital services
including pollination, filter functions of the soils and the regulation of all nutrient
cycles. The functioning of ecosystems and thus also their capability to provide a basis
to human life is closely, albeit not always causally, linked with biodiversity (McCann,
2000; Loreau et al., 2001; Hooper et al., 2005; Lep, 2005; Balvanera et al., 2006). To
protect biodiversity, the Convention for Biodiversity (CBD) was adopted at the UNCED
in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
The global economic value of ecosystem services was estimated at 16 to 54 trillion
USD per year by Costanza et al. (1997); global gross domestic product was 18 trillion
USD at that time. The global value of pollination alone was estimated by Gallai et al.
(2008) to be 240 billion CHF/year. Another biodiversity-related ecosystem service is
natural pest control. For example, the release of the parasitoid Epidinocarsis lopezi, in
Sub-Saharan Africa in the 1980s strongly contributed to the control of the cassava
mealybug and is thus believed to have saved humans there from enormous economic
damage and even from starvation (Neuenschwander et al., 2003). Similar projects
have prevented large yield losses in California, Australia and Europe (Wood & Lenn,
1999). Consequently, measures for the protection and biodiversity and ecosystems
and thus of their services clearly pay off; the return on investment being estimated
to exceed cost by a factor of 10 to 100 (TEEB, 2009).
During recent decades, humans have altered the worlds ecosystems at
unprecedented scales and intensity. Between 1950 and 1980 alone, larger areas of
natural ecosystems were transformed into agricultural areas than between 1700 and
1850. Today, more than one quarter of the global landmass is used arable or
66
pastureland (MEA, 2005). On parts of these areas, intensive fertilization, plant

protection and tillage have created homogenous eutrophic conditions. The
consequences include a loss of species and an impairment of ecosystem services
(Pimm & Raven, 2000; MEA, 2005). Land use change will most likely continue to be the
biggest threat to biodiversity on a global scale (Sala et al., 2000).
Agriculture is a custodian of biodiversity on and around the areas it manages and
disposes of powerful levers to influence biodiversity: allocation of land to different
uses, design of crop rotations, choice of species, varieties and breeds to be produced,
and last but not least a whole set of land management measures including fertilization,
plant protection, tillage, harvesting etc. It has been shown that biodiversity in
agricultural landscapes depends on the landscapes richness in biological structures as
well as on the intensity of farming. Fischer et al. (2001) have postulated that the
sustainability principle requires an efficient use of landscapes which should be
pervaded by a network of regionally adapted ecotone and biotope structures. Such
structures include for example groups of trees and bushes, hedgerows, field edges
hosting a diversity of herbs, managed and unmanaged fallows and nutrient-poor
grassland. A network of ecological infrastructures may consist of spacious protected
areas, and smaller stepping-stone and corridor habitats. The quality of the network
depends on the mutual proximity of similar habitats (Boller et al., 2004).
Numerous approaches have been developed for the quantification of biodiversity
(Magurran, 1988; Krebs, 2001; Buckland et al., 2005). The fundamental challenge is
that species communities are virtually impossible to capture completely, simply
because there are too many species. Some approaches therefore consider selected
taxa only, which may for example represent specific functional groups of organisms
(predators, pollinators, etc.). However, for many landscapes it is not yet known which
species are suitable for this approach. Other methods are used to valuate agricultural
practice with regard to biodiversity, including criteria lists such as that of IP Suisse
(www.ipsuisse.ch/?id=143&fid=4271). Their list includes a variety of cropspecific
measures to foster biodiversity, including fallowing, mulching, skip-row seeding of
cereals, mowing of grass at staggered intervals, and the establishment and
management of ecological compensation areas and structures such as stone heaps,
uncut herbs etc. (IP-Suisse, 2009).
Biodiversity is indirectly captured in RISE 2.0 as well, i.e. as a function of the diversity
of wild and utilized plant and animal species on the farm and of the ecological quality
of the landscape. Criteria include the share of ecologically valuable areas and
structures, participation in agro-environment schemes, quality of habitat networks,
numbers of crop varieties and livestock breeds, mixed cropping, conservation of rate
varieties and breeds, and average parcel size (Christen & OHalloran-Wietholtz, 2002;
Oppermann, 2003; Breitschuh et al., 2008; Pretty et al., 2008; Vilain et al., 2008).
Concerning the valuation of biodiversity, one fundamental question is what is
considered as an optimum situation maximum biodiversity, or ecosystems that are
as close to the natural situation as possible? Since RISE 2.0 considers agricultural
landscapes that cannot be reconverted to forest, savanna etc., a compromise was
chosen: the area required to conserve healthy natural ecosystems has to be protected,
while the managed areas should host a regionspecific minimum of biodiversity.
Plant protection
67
Pests, weeds and diseases of crops and livestock can be an unwanted biodiversity,
as they can inflict major damage on agricultural production. Oerke & Dehne (2004)
have estimated the average global damage in major crops 15 to be in a range of 26% to
40% of potential crop yields in the period 1996 to 1998. To prevent yield losses,
chemical plant protection products (PPP) worth 42.8 billion USD were purchased in
2009 (bccresearch.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/biopesticides-the-global-market). While
PPP quantities have decreased for years in industrialized countries, they have
increased in emerging and developing countries (OECD, 2010; FAOSTAT, 2010). As new
ingredients tend to be biologically more potent, the potential biological impact of the
applied PPP can be expected to have strongly increased on a global scale. Where no
synthetic PPP are available and affordable, higher quantities of workforce and
resources are bound to weeding: according to Lenn (2000), women in rural areas of
Sub-Saharan Africa spend up to 80% of the working hours hoeing.
Inappropriate use of PPP can cause the accumulation of active ingredients or their
metabolites in soils, aquatic ecosystems and agricultural produce which damage the
health of humans and ecosystems and give way to the evolution of resistant pests,
weeds and pathogens. Intoxication can be both of an acute and a chronic nature, with
PPP users bearing a particularly high risk (McCauley et al., 2006). The production and
use of a number of highly problematic PPP is regulated by national and international
rules, for example the Stockholm Convention (Tab. 8).
Table 8. Chemicals whose production and use is restricted or prohibited by the 2001
Stockholm Convention
(home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~umguerri/PLNT4600/mini2/2%20where%20are%20they
%20from/dirty%20dozen.jpg).
The RISE 2.0 definition of sustainable plant protection largely follows the philosophy of
integrated plant protection (IPP): a combination of measures that make use of the
natural regulation within the agroecosystem to the greatest extent possible, while
minimizing external interventions in general and the use of PPP in particular. To
achieve this aim, synergies in the production system and the potential of
agroecosystems for self-regulation can be used (Boller et al. 2004). Typical measures
are the choice of resistant or tolerant crop cultivars, an avoidance of excessive N
fertilization, the optimization of sowing by selecting appropriate planting dates, and a
diverse and site-adapted crop rotation (Hni et al. 1998).
15 Wheat, rice, corn, barley, potato, soybean, sugarcane and cotton.
68
To quantify the human and ecotoxicity of PPP, tests are conducted prior to registration.
The results can be retrieved from web-based databases (e.g. Extoxnet
extoxnet.orst.edu,
PAN
Pesticide
Database
www.pesticideinfo.org,
Agritox
www.dive.afssa.fr/agritox/index.php). Based on these data, risk assessments can be
made, albeit not without considerable analytical and scientific effort (e.g. Chvre &
Escher, 2005). Agricultural indicator systems mostly capture plant (and sometimes
livestock) protection on farms via the applied PPP regarding active ingredient
quantities, the share of the farm area treated with such products or the number of
applications (e.g. Meul et al., 2008; Pretty et al., 2008; Vilain et al., 2008). The toxicity
of the applied PPP is rarely considered. The RISE 2.0 rating of toxicity is a simplified
version of the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) proposed by Kovach et al.
(1992). This method takes into account information on the persistence of active
ingredients in the field and on their toxicity in several groups or organisms, including
humans (www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/eiq).
Parameter bp_1: Plant Protection Management

Sustainability goal: Based on up-to-date knowledge and information, measures are
implemented that increase the resilience of agro-ecosystems to pests, diseases and
extreme events, resulting in high productivity with low use of toxic chemicals.
Content: It is rated to what extent plant protection management on the farm is in
accordance with the principles of integrated plant protection, and how toxic and
persistent the applied plant protection products are (Fig. 34).
Questions:
1. Is the crop rotation designed taking into account pest, disease and weed
management?
2. Are resistance and tolerance to pests and diseases taking into account when
choosing cultivars?
3. Are damage thresholds or prognosis systems applied to minimize pesticide use?
4. Are pests, diseases and weeds reliably identified prior to taking control
measures?
5. Has the efficacy of certain pesticides decreased during the last years?
6. Are genetically modified organisms produced in accordance with all relevant
regulations?
7. Does the agricultural operation participate in programs to foster biodiversity?
8. What plant protection products were used, and in what quantities?
Explanations:
The following principles describe integrated plant protection:
Rotational diseases and pests are controlled through an adapted rotation, i.e.
crops are grown in sequences and at intervals that break pest and disease
cycles.
69
Where available, cultivars with high pest and disease resistance or tolerance are
chosen.
Pests and diseases are curatively treated with PPP only after the economic
damage threshold has been exceeded, or when prognosis or expert systems
recommend a treatment.
All relevant harmful organisms are identified to avoid ineffective PPP application.
Through participation in agro-environmental programs, natural biodiversity and

thus also ecosystem stability is fostered.
Apart from checking adherence to these principles, RISE 2.0 records what PPPs were
used on-farm. Based on reference data, the persistence of these substances in the
field and their toxicity to animals (beneficial insects, aquatic organisms, birds, etc.) is
rated. Using only PPP with low environmental persistency reduces the probability of
animals, plants, microorganisms or humans being exposed to and eventually harmed
by the substances. It also reduced the likeliness of a rapid evolution of organisms that
are resistant to the PPP, since it reduces selective pressure on populations.
Crop protection management (example)

100
persistence index of PPP used
90
toxicity index of PPP used
80
cultivar selection partly based on resistence
70
60
no consideration of damage thresholds
50
crop rotation optimized for crop protection
40
30
no participation in agro-biodiversity programs
20
compliance with GMO regulations
10
no resistence problems
Figure 34. Example calculation of parameter bp_1.
Parameter bp_2: Ecological Priority Areas

Sustainability goal: The farm hosts a large share of areas with high biodiversity
potential that serve as habitat to rate and specialized plants and animals.
Content: The share of areas with a high potential to host wild biodiversity in the farm
area is determined and compared with a global target level (Fig. 35).
Questions:
70
1. What is the share of ecologically valuable 16 areas in the agricultural operation

(including forest, unproductive areas and the homestead)?
Explanations:
Many plant and animal species require ecologically valuable, structurally diverse and
near-natural habitats for their survival. The extreme changes that have affected
cultural landscapes in recent decades, in particular the intensification of production
practices have reduced species diversity. Biodiversity can survive in protected areas,
but given the large proportion of agriculturally used surfaces in many landscapes, the
preservation of extensive production practices is important as well. Scientific evidence
suggests that e.g. state-run agro-environment programs in Switzerland have the
potential to positively affect most taxa investigated - depending on the ecological
quality of areas such as their structural diversity (Knop et al., 2006).
The RISE 2.0 parameter Ecological Priority Areas reflects the share of ecologically
valuable areas. By default, only the agricultural area is considered. Where deemed
necessary and meaningful, the RISE 2.0 consultant may also take the land use types
homestead, unproductive areas and forest into consideration. The ecological
value of the various areas is rated by the farmer with support by the RISE 2.0
consultant. Protected status, participation in agro-environmental programs, and
comparisons with reference photos can yield useful information.
The optimum score of 100 points is achieved by farms with at least 17% of ecologically
valuable areas. The figure is based on the 17% goal (near-natural areas) emanating
from the Nagoya Protocol (IOBC, 2004; UN, 2010); this threshold can be regionally
adapted. If the default value is used, the parameter measures the contribution of the
farm to the achievement of this UN goal.
Share of ecological priority areas

100
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Share of ecologically valuable areas in the farm's

agricultural area (in %)
Figure 35. Valuation function of parameter bp_2.
16 In Switzerland, the following can be regarded as ecologically valuable: areas

fulfilling the criteria of the koqualittsverordnung, Qualitt, (ecological quality
regulation) and areas having project quality according to the IP-Suisse rating system.
Further valuable areas can be rated based on an evaluation by the farmer and the RISE
2.0 consultant.
71
Parameter bp_3: Intensity of Agricultural Production

Sustainability goal: The level of production intensity is low enough to provide
habitat for a diverse flora and fauna.
Content: The intensity of fertilization, PPP use and livestock production is calculated
on an area basis and records what measures are taken to foster biodiversity on the
agricultural area. The rating combines both aspects (Fig. 36).
Questions:
1. How many kg of nitrogen are applied per hectare of agricultural area?
2. How high is the stocking density (large livestock units per hectare of agricultural
area)?
3. How many PPP applications were made per hectare of agricultural area? What
share of the area was treated how often?
4. What measures were taken to foster biodiversity, and on what area? Examples:
undersown crops in cereals and corn; no use of insecticides, fungicides and
growth regulators; no use of herbicides; biodiversity-friendly mowing techniques
(by hand or scythe, mowing bar instead of rotary mower); no use of forage
conditioner; mowing at staggered intervals; delayed mowing; no silage
production.
5. Were natural or near-natural areas converted into agricultural area?
Explanations:
The intensity of agricultural production strongly affects species diversity (Donald et al.,
2001; Marshall et al., 2003; Green et al., 2005; Kleijn et al., 2009) as well as
ecosystem functions such as biological pest control (Tscharntke et al., 2005; Geiger et
al., 2010), crop pollination (Biesmeijer et al., 2006) and the conservation of soil fertility
(Brussaard et al., 1997). Excessive nitrogen application substantially alters competitive
relations in plant communities, resulting in a dominance of certain species and
disappearance of others (Grime & Hunt, 1975).
Potential measures of intensity include productive output (e.g. per unit area yields)
(Donald et al., 2001) and the intensity of agricultural input use and management
interventions (Donald et al. 2001). In considering the intensity of fertilization, PPP use
and livestock production, the RISE 2.0 Intensity of Agricultural Production parameter
largely adopts the approach suggested by Herzog et al. (2006). While livestock density
is to some extent correlated with fertilization intensity, it does provide additional
information on the intensity of pasture and meadow use (Herzog et al., 2006). The
valuation of PPP use in RISE 2.0 takes into account toxicity and persistence since
farmers frequently have the possibility to select products varying in these parameters
and should therefore be sensitized to this issue.
72
Biodiversity potential:
component N fertilization intensity
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
kg tot
N per ha agricultural area
Figure 36. Valuation function of the fertilization intensity component of parameter
bp_3.
Parameter bp_4: Landscape Quality

Sustainability goal: A dense network of valuable ecological habitats exists in the
agricultural landscape and allows animals to move along ecological stepping stones
and corridors. No erosion of ecological structures takes place.
Content: The mutual proximity of ecological structures as well as the development of
the share of these structures in the landscape over the last 10 years are evaluated
(Fig. 37).
Questions:
1. How large is the share of ecologically connected habitat areas in the total
farm area?
2. How did the number of landscape elements (trees, bushes, hedges, stone
heaps, ecological priority areas etc.) develop over the last ten years?
Explanations:
How well habitats are interconnected is a well-established measure of ecological
landscape quality (understood as the potential to host biodiversity and provide
ecosystem services), together with the share of structurally diverse areas. While total
habitat area is an important predictor of the likeliness of populations survival (and can
be expressed via species-area curves), the location of these habitats in the
landscape and the possibilities for genetic exchange between populations are very
important as well. Conserving stable and healthy populations is in agricultures own
interest, as strongly fragmented landscapes were shown to provide only a low
potential for natural pest control (Kruess & Tscharntke, 1994).
Whether a habitat can be considered connected with similar habitats is determined in
RISE 2.0 using either remotely sensed information (e.g. satellite imagery available via
Google Earth), maps, or by visual inspection of the landscape and compared with
archetypical landscapes. A buffer of 50 m width is laid around all ecologically
valuable habitats. Then, the percentage of land that falls into a buffer is calculated and
directly translated into RISE 2.0 points. Hence, in this RISE parameter, well Swiss College of Agriculture, 2011
73
connected is interpreted as with many ecological structures that are distributed all
over the area. It is assumed that if this is the case, then it is likely that an exchange
of populations between habitats is possible, meaning that an ecological network in the
classical sense exists.
Share of ecologically connected areas

100
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Share of farm area <50 m from an ecologically

valuable habitat (in %)
Figure 37. Valuation function of parameter bp_4.
Parameter bp_5: Diversity of Agricultural Production

Sustainability goal: Through a diverse agricultural production, resilience is improved
and valuable genetic resources are conserved.
Content: The respective numbers of land use types, crop and livestock species,
cultivars and breeds are recorded and rated, the score being adjusted for 1) rare and
old cultivars and breeds and for 2) beekeeping (Fig. 38).
Questions:
1. How many of the following land use types cover at least 8% each of the farms
agricultural area: arable farming, fruit orchards, vegetable production,
agroforestry, other special crops, pastures, meadows, litter meadows, vineyards
and forest?
2. How many different crops are grown on arable land, including intercrops and
cover crops? How many old, rare crop cultivars are grown?
3. How many livestock species are kept on the farm? How many old, rare breeds
are kept?
4. Are bees kept on the farm?
Explanations:
In modern agriculture, the diversity of locally adapted crop varieties and livestock
breeds bred in many parts of the world has been replaced to a large extent by few
high-yielding cultivars and breeds. This allowed to boost yields and performance but at
the same time fostered an erosion of the genetic basis of resilient production systems.
The concentration on few cultivars and breeds bears risks including a reduced
possibility to breed for disease resistance and adaptation to various environmental
conditions, as well as the danger of inbreeding. Where genetic diversity disappears,
options for future breeding work are inevitably lost as is a valuable cultural heritage.
74
This RISE 2.0 parameter Diversity of Agricultural Production therefore measures the
contribution of the farm to in-situ (on-farm) conservation of agrobiodiversity. On-farm
conservation is an important contribution to the protection of genetic resources and at
the same time can serve the protection, management and development of valuable
cultural landscapes. Synergies between nature conservation, agriculture and tourism
can be generated.
The production of old, rare, pest or disease-resistant and/or region-specific crop
cultivars is a particularly important contribution to agrobiodiversity conservation and is
therefore rewarded with a bonus in the RISE 2.0 valuation. The farmer and RISE 2.0
consultant establish a simple list of measures taken to conserve rare agrobiodiversity.
This is then rated based on expert opinion. A further bonus can be obtained for
beekeeping which is the provision of an important ecosystem service, namely
pollination.
Diversity of agricultural production (example)

100
no bee-keeping
90
80
no rare livestock breeds
70
60
1 rare crop cultivar
50
2 livestock breeds kept
40
30
4- year crop rotation
20
10
3 land use types with >8% of the agricultural area
Figure 38. Example calculation of parameter bp_5.
4.7 Indicator: Working Conditions (wc)

An able and willing labor force is a basic requirement for the success of an agricultural
operation. These traits are decisively influenced by on-farm working conditions.
Working conditions for farm employees and self-employed farm labor are estimated in
RISE 2.0 by measuring the following aspects:
Organizational Health and Safety
Work Organization
Respect of Human Rights
Remuneration
Fairness/Justice
75

Poor working conditions result in losses and dissatisfaction, reduce productivity and
are directly related to economic success (Antle & Pingali, 1994; Bronnum-Hansen,
2000; Shikdar & Das, 2003). Specifically, long working hours increase the risk of
accidents, (Hrm, 2006), direct contact with chemicals and pesticides can lead to
acute or chronic diseases (Dich et al., 1997; Gorell et al., 1998; Bin Nordin et al., 2002;
McCormick et al., 2002), and the inhalation of dust can cause lung damage (Thaon et
al., 2006).
Work related accidents and sickness cause high economic costs and influence both
local and national development. Social networks are directly affected through tax
losses and low productivity. In addition to economical arguments, there are also ethical
aspects to be considered as to why good working conditions are indispensable for
sustainable development. Many national and international entities have established
standards for healthy and humane working conditions (UN-Human rights, ILO, SUVA
Guidelines, Swiss federal laws etc).
Problematic working conditions predominate in the agricultural sector, a sector
characterized as having, by far, the highest amount of (self) employed and long
working hours (EWCS, 2007). Swiss accident statistics place the agricultural sector in
second place for work-related accidents after the construction sector. Low profit
margins of the primary sector and the use of low qualified workforce negatively affect
the wage and income level (Worldwatch Institute, 2003; EWCS, 2007); although the
work is physically demanding and often of high risk. According to the Job Stress
Health model of Hurrell and McLaney (1988) (Fig. 17), work related stress can lead to
psychological, physical or behavioral reactions (low motivation, dissatisfaction,
physical ailments, accidents and work absences) and chronic illness. The effects of the
job stressors are directly influenced by the individual factors. Non-work factors and
buffer factors, external to the work environment also play a large role in the impacts.
76
Figure 39. Job Stress Health Model of Hurrell & McLaney (1988).
The Effort-Imbalance Reward (ERI) model of Siegrist (1998) (Fig. 18) places willingness
and motivation on extrinsic levels in which effort and rewards are indirectly related.
Rewards, measured by both material and ideals including esteem, career opportunities
and job security, are considered motivational factors. Intrinsic factors of the person
also influence willingness. The ERI model states that work characterized by both high
efforts and low rewards represents a reciprocity deficit, or sustained strain reactions.
Work load, defined as the sum of the activities of a person (Melin & Lundberg, 1997),
signifies that unpaid home and family related work, auxiliary work and free-time
activities can also influence work-related stress.
Figure 40. Effort-Imbalance Reward Model (Siegrist, 1998).
Working conditions can be affected by a variety of factors. These can be grouped into
the following areas: (Pfeuffer, 2003):
Physical work factors (degree of physical work, chemical exposure)
Work Plan (type of work, work organization)
Social and psychological-social environment (work load or intensity, time

pressure, low support, monotonous activity)
Human resource
remuneration).
factors
(training,
adequate
allocation
of
work,
The indicator Working Conditions focuses on the measurable objective properties of

the work place. The measurement of subjective factors such as work satisfaction and
motivation is included in the Quality of Life indicator. Whereas the result of both
indicators can complement each other, paradoxical results can also appear: good
working conditions with low quality of life or vice versa. Job stressors and their effects
on health are evaluated according to the Job Stress Health Model of Hurrell and
McLaney (1988). These are determined through physical and mental stress and are
gauged by safety measures and damage prevention controls. Each respective
parameter of the Working Condition indicator is taken into account in accordance to
other aspects and sources such as the use of child labor as per the ILO definition.
Wherever possible, data collection should be done for all farm workers individually. For
several parameters, only the most stressed persons response is assessed since
protection from overburden should apply to all workers. In order to avoid masking
individual sustainability risks, the average load of the workforce is not used.
77
Parameter wc_1: Personnel Management

Sustainability goal: Good Personnel Management provides the production unit
enough short, middle and long term supply of satisfied, motivated and adequately
trained personnel. There is little potential for conflict when transparent and fair
conditions and terms exist.
Content: The agricultural enterprise is checked to determine if the operation counts
on professional, forward-looking personnel management and whether working
conditions comply with the standards set by International Human Rights Conventions
and Accords as well as (local) laws and regulations.
Questions:
1. Are the short, medium and long-term operational personnel requirements
known?
2. Are there labor replacements for age-related departures? Is succession planning
organized? Is there an apprenticeship program?
3. Do all direct laborers have a legal written working contract? If this is not the
norm, are binding arrangements met and maintained?
4. Do direct laborers receive a payroll slip? If this is not the norm, are there
problems with paying wages?
5. Do all working personnel possess working permits and are duly registered with
the respective authorities?
6. Are motivational drivers used?
7. Is there protection against unfair dismissal in case of accident, sickness,
pregnancy etc.?
8. Does income protection exist for self-employed and/or direct labor?
9. Is there any discrimination (pay, education, social safety issues, stress, training,
access to resources, co-determination) because of gender?
10.Do disadvantages exist because of origin, skin color, religion, beliefs, disability,
age, sexual orientation or other non-gender based reasons?
11.Please state if any problematic on-farm working conditions exist: retention of
personal documents, wages or any type of lien on wages 17; employed labor may
not freely leave the job due to contract stipulation, local norms or sanctions;
disciplinary measures (physical violence, threats); forms of servitude (e.g.
indentured labor).
12.Do employee accommodations adhere to an excepted standard?
13.Do workers have the right to form, join and organize trade unions as well as to
negotiate collectively with the farm enterprise on their behalf?
17 Acceptable liens on wages include: wage reserve of a maximum of of 1 months wage. For site
operation expenses and for the arrival to a new job, the maximum of 1 salary may be retained. (according
to Canton Bern law 222.153.21, Art. 30)
78
Explanations:
Although human resource management is not often specified as a direct element in
working conditions, it does have a relevant influence on them. RISE 2.0 assesses the
legality and documentation of employment within the measurement of residence and
employment factors. It is presumed that the absence of residence and work permits,
working contracts and/or wage slips, reduces a workers ability for social and financial
rights.
RISE 2.0 questions concerning child labor, problematic working conditions such as
servitude and discrimination are based upon the fundamental principles of freedom,
self-determination and integrity as well as the universal respect for and observance of
human rights (UN, 1948). The International Labor Organization Convention (ILO)
defines forced and compulsory labor as involuntary work carried out under the threat
of punishment (Article 2 Section 1). A representative number of personnel from the
various farm labor categories should be interviewed in order that the most negative
responses are measured. All members of the labor force have the right to form, join
and organize as well as to negotiate collectively with the farm enterprise/company on
their behalf; see ILO Conventions 11, 87, 98, 135 and 154.
Parameter wc_2: Working time

Sustainability goal: Each person working on the farm has enough free time to
recover physically and mentally, in order to remain healthy and productive in the long
run.
Content: Daily, weekly and yearly hours of work, as well as the annual holiday
season, are determined and compared to the regional standard.
Questions:
1. How many hours do self-employed workers (in-house and external) work per
week? How many weeks of vacation (paid or unpaid) are they entitled to?
2. How many hours per day and how many days per week does a direct laborer
work?
3. How many weeks of paid vacations are workers entitled to?
4. Can employees compensate their overtime? Is the compensated time taken as
free time or is the worker paid?
Explanations:
Working hours are a key factor in the assessment of working conditions. Excessive
working hours can affect the health of an employee due to the lack of physical and
mental relaxation required for effective performance (Ala-Mursula et al., 2006; Hrm,
2006). Exhaustion and stress are often the reason for illness and accidents that can
eventually lead to bottlenecks in productivity. Even when no there are no illnesses nor
accidents, excessive working hours negatively affect work performance and quality of
life.
RISE 2.0 calculates the work load according to the type of work employed. Part time
employment is adjusted to a 100% (full-time) position where the hourly work is fully
79
compensated and then compared to a reference scale. Piece work is calculated as the
time allocated for the performed work. The measurement of the working time required
is in accordance to the ILO Convention. These standards are also in compliance with
the respective certification schemes (e.g. BSCI, 2009). Although agricultural work
tends to be an exception to the labor convention, there are no medical reasons, in our
opinion, why the agricultural sector should be treated differently than other productive
sectors. Statistics show agricultural workers to be subject to above average physical
loads and to above average work hours (BFS, 2010; EWCS, 2007). The working times
specified in the ILO agreements are considered as minimum values and correspond
with the RISE 2.0 evaluation of the score 34 (33 points and less indicate a need for
action).
Weighting: Working conditions for each person employed on-farm are considered of
equal importance. Therefore, each worker receives an equal weight within the
evaluation, regardless of the total amount of time worked during the year.
The limit values for each worker are determined as:
Direct workers of public or private commercial enterprises or their subsidiary

establishments may be employed for a maximum of eight hours a day and of
48 hours a week (ILO convention
1, Art. 2).
All employed personnel of public or private commercial enterprises are

entitled to have at least one period of rest of a minimum of 24 hours over a
seven days period if not otherwise specified in the exceptions (ILOConvention 14, Art. 2).
Workers employed in agricultural undertakings and related occupations shall

be granted an annual holiday with pay after a period of continuous service
with the same employer (ILO convention 101, Art. 1). The holiday shall in no
case be less than three working weeks for one year of service (ILOConvention 132, Art. 3). When employment duration is less than one year,
holiday requirements are shortened accordingly. All hours worked in excess
of the normal hours should be deemed to be overtime, unless they are taken
into account in fixing remuneration in accordance with custom. Overtime
work should be remunerated at a higher rate or rates than normal hours of
work (ILO Recommendation 116).
Parameter wc_3: Work Safety

Sustainability goal: The number of on-farm accidents and illness are reduced to a
minimum. Children are not harmed by work conducted on the agricultural enterprise.
Content: The frequency of on-farm accidents and illness and the respective
prevention methods are evaluated. Additionally, the risk of child labor for on-farm
activities is assessed (Fig. 41).
Questions:
1. How many work-related accidents and/or illnesses occurred on the farm
during the past 5 years? (not including incidental accidents and illness that
did not affect work performance)
80
2. Is there a professional safety concept in use within the agricultural

enterprise? Is the agricultural operation certified through GlobalGAP or
another recognized security concept (e.g. Agritop)?
3. What security elements are currently used on the farm? Example: Are risks
known and prevention measures taken? Have all users received training in
the use and application in plant protection products (PPP)?
4. Are there protection means for users of harmful substances sufficient? Are
toxic substances stored as recommended by the manufacturer, i.e in a
secure and safe manner? Are the waiting periods for PPP and veterinary
drugs known and complied with?
5. Do children (<16 years old) help with agricultural activities? If so, do they
perform work that may be problematic for their health or development (e.g.
carry heavy weight, use of PPPs)? Is their school achievement impaired by
on-farm work (e.g. concentration problems due tiredness or reduced school
attendance, etc.)?
Explanations:
Excessive manual labor and the exposure to harmful substances, such as chemicals,
pesticides and dust, can lead to health problems and to loss of productivity. Compared
to other sectors, the health impacts of agricultural work are very high (EWCS, 2007).
Sixty-two percent of active agricultural workers report health issues related to their
work. The most common health problems include: back pain, muscular pains, fatigue,
stress, headaches, irritation, eye problems, hearing loss, respiratory problems and
allergies.
The protection of children from exploitation is an urgent problem of society. To
determine which forms of on-farm labor are and are not acceptable for children, RISE
2.0 follows the UN definition (Grimsrud, 2001).
Component accidents
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
Work accidents and work-related diseases per

person and year
Figure 41. Valuation function of the accidents component of parameter wc_3.
Parameter wc_4: Wage and Income Level

Sustainability goal: On-farm labor receives an hourly wage for an acceptable
working time that is clearly above the poverty threshold.
81
Content: Remuneration and financial needs of those working on-farm are evaluated
(Fig. 42).
Questions:
1. Determination of the cost of living for self-employed, and of all on-farm income
for employed workers.
Explanations:
Remuneration and/or income for performed work is a central aspect of working
conditions (EWCS, 2007). This parameter evaluates the level of income received for
the work performed by measuring the financial attractiveness of the farm as a work
place. To do so, the hourly wage of a worker is compared to a referenced hourly wage
of a position with standard working times. This standardization is particularly
important for part-time and temporary work. The level of the reference wage and
standard working hours are established together with local specialists and then
verified in the field.
The evaluation of the parameter Wage and Income Level is set so that a score of 34
points (the lowermost yellow area) signifies the poverty level. This is determined by
the basket of personal consumer goods required for subsistence (food, clothing,
housing, basic health care) as well as social security coverage (pension, disability,
accident, death) (SKOS, 2005). The results of a worker who receives a low hourly will
showup in the red area of the sustainability polygon. The maximum score that may be
achieved are for hourly wages determined as three times the poverty threshold.
The calculation of the poverty level is estimated for the average needs of a family in
accordance to a fair and transparent personnel management for the compensation of
job performance. Prevention should be taken so that single workers receive lower
wages and income than those with family.
In cases of family labor, the monetary standard of living is calculated on the basis of
effective expenses, since no wages are received. The basic needs of a family are
determined by the size and composition of the family. A comparison shows whether
the family can surpass the poverty threshold with normal working hours. It is possible
that a lower monetary standard of living per hourly wage from a less profitable
agricultural operation results not only because of a higher and inefficient input of labor
but also due to a lower priority of management in this area (investment in the
agricultural enterprise rather than in the family). The RISE 2.0 assessment establishes
if a household lives in absolute poverty despite a possible higher living standard in
conjunction with the Parameter ev_4 (Household Livelihood Security) in the indicator
Economic
Viability.
82
Wage and income level

100
80
60
40
20
0
0
100
200
300
400
Farm wage and income level

vs regional poverty level (in %)
Figure 42. Valuation function of parameter wc_4. In this case, the target value was
set at 300% of the regional poverty line.
4.8 Indicator: Quality of Life (ql)

A high level of satisfaction with work and life in general is important for the physical,
mental and social health of people living on the farm. Quality of life, satisfaction and
happiness are important indicators for the success of sustainable development. Quality
of life stems from the fulfillment of individual goals within current objectives.

Quality of life is the physical, mental and social wellbeing of an individual. It is the
desire of every person to lead a fulfilled life in which not only basic, but also social,
cultural and societal needs are met (Diener et al., 1998; King & Napa, 1998). Quality of
life, satisfaction and happiness are important indicators for the achievement of
sustainable development (Gowdy, 2005; Binswanger, 2006).
The current level of quality of life of people on the farm has been determined through
different factors. Depending on the study, these factors have been differently
categorized and defined. The most frequently specified include interpersonal relations,
social integration, personal development, physical health, selfdetermination, material
wealth, emotional well-being, rights, environment, family and spare time (leisure)
(Schalock, 2004; Verdugo et al., 2005). Reactions to a poor quality of life include low
motivation, burn-out, increasing conflict and/or or health problems. A high quality of
life can be quantified within the agricultural operation by increased performance,
satisfaction, well-being and by a decrease in work-related errors (Diener et al., 2008).
In assessing the quality of life, several challenges arise: (1) quality of life is a crosscutting issue and is determined by various aspects of life; (2) the assessment of the
quality of life depends on the individual objectives of a person. Both the relevant areas
of life as well as the individual objectives, are developed in the context of
environment, culture, experience and personal interests (Carr et al., 2001; Wirtz et al.,
83
2009). In order to assess the quality of life, a flexible and participative approach is
needed to define the relevant areas of life and the weight of the individual factors
(Radlinsky et al., 2000); (3) the principle of sustainability requires an intergenerational
system of justice which is achieved when the opportunities of future generations to
meet their own needs (quality of life!) are at least as high as those of the present
generation.
RISE 2.0 essentially utilizes the basic approach to gauge the quality of life in the USA
as was reported by Campbell et al. (1976). The method was also used in Switzerland
for social reporting in agriculture by the Federal Office of Agriculture (BLW) (Radlinsky
et al., 2000). For simplifications and clarity, the thirteen areas of life were divided into
six groups with respect to different aspects while following Campbell et al. (1976). The
quality of life for these areas is determined in two steps. In the first step, the
respondent indicates how important this area of life is for him/her by selecting one of
the four degrees of importance: very important (1), important (0.75), partly (0.5), not
important (0.25). Two other responses include: do not know (0) and no answer (0).
Numerical values are assigned to each of the answers given. In the second step the
respondent answers how satisfied she/he is with the quality of life. Satisfaction is given
a range of 0 to 100, with 100 as the most satisfied: very satisfied (100 points),
satisfied (75 Points), partly satisfied (50 Points), unsatisfied (25 Points), extremely
unsatisfied (0 Points). Additional answers are provided as above. Table 9 provides an
example of the calculation of this indicator.
Parameter ql_1: Occupation and Education

Sustainability goal: All farm personnel are satisfied with their occupation as well as
with their education and continued education courses.
Content: Current satisfaction levels of occupation and education are evaluated.
Questions:
1. How important are the areas employment, education and continued education
to you?
2. How satisfied are you with your current situation in these areas?
Parameter ql_2: Financial Situation

Sustainability goal: All on-farm personnel are satisfied with their financial situation.
Content: The importance and level of satisfaction regarding individual financial
situations are measured.
Questions:
1. How important are your financial situation, income and overall standard of living
to you?
2. How satisfied are you with the actual financial situation?
84
Parameter ql_3: Social Relations

Sustainability goal: All on-farm personnel who reside on the agricultural enterprise
are satisfied with their social relations.
Content: The importance and satisfaction level of actual social relations are
determined.
Questions:
1. How important is your family situation and your social environment?
2. How satisfied are you with your actual family and social situation?
Parameter ql_4: Personal Freedom and Values

Sustainability goal: All on-farm personnel are satisfied with their personal freedom
and values.
Content: The importance of personal freedom and values are analyzed. Additionally,
current satisfaction levels regarding these areas are measured.
Questions:
1. How important are political and economic conditions and possibilities with
regard to culture, spirituality and free time?
2. How satisfied are you with your current situation regarding personal freedom
and values?
Parameter ql_5: Health

Sustainability goal: On-farm personnel are satisfied with their health situation.
Content: Respondents gauge their personal
management) and their level of satisfaction.
health
situation
(including
time
Questions:
1. How important is your health situation?
2. How satisfied are you with your current health situation?
Parameter ql_6: Further Aspects of Life

Sustainability goal: All on-farm personnel are content with their situation in further
aspects of life.
Content: Further aspects of life are measured including the current satisfaction level.
Questions:
1. How important are further aspects of life?
2. How satisfied are you with your current situation regarding further aspects of
life?
85
Table 9. Example calculation of the indicator Quality of life. Two persons, A and B,
were interviewed. Both did not mention further important aspects of life.
Person A
Parameter
Aspect of
life
Work &
education
Work
Weig Satisfact Weig

ht
ion
ht
100
75
0.5
50
75
0.75
100
0.5
50
2.25
89
2.5
70
75
25
0.75
75
50
1.75
75
38
100
75
0.75
75
0.5
75
1.75
89
1.5
75
0.5
25
0.75
50
0.5
75
100
0.5
75
2.25
61
50
75
100
Time
managemen
t
0.75
75
50
1.75
75
75
Further
educ.
Income
General
standard of
living
Social relations Family

Social
contacts
Personal
freedom &
values
Political &
economic
framework
Leisure
Culture &
spirituality
Health
Sum
of
Satisfact weigh
ion
ts
Education
Financial
situation
Person B
Physical and
mental
health
Weighte
d score
4.75
79
ql_1
3.75
55
ql_2
3.25
83
ql_3
4.25
56
ql_4
3.75
75
ql_5
19.75
69
ql
4.9 Indicator: Economic Viability (ev)

An agricultural operation such as a farm is first and foremost a commercial enterprise.
Therefore, as a business case, the obtainment of economic targets is central to the
operations while ecological and social objectives of farm management are seen as
constraints. Business responsibility entails long-term profit maximization while
maintaining liquidity and stability. Daily management has to follow the principle of
Liquidity before Profitability. The indicator Economic Viability measures the solvency
86
of the agricultural operation: (1) at the current situation (using the last three business
years), (2) under the scenario of price development (10 budget years) and (3) in view
of the planned management and operational needs for future investments in order to
remain permanently solvent.

Why does RISE 2.0 not evaluate Return on Capital?
The economic dimension of sustainability is typically determined by the aspects
profitability, liquidity and stability (e.g. Heissenhuber, 2000; Breitschuh et al., 2008).
Gauging the sustainable profitability level for an agricultural operation is problematic
given the following. (1) According to the objective of revenue maximization, capital in
regards to yield (interest) is foreseen as a guaranteed return on investment. Capital is
normally invested into higher yield opportunities where there is a guaranteed return on
investment. To maximize revenue, capital is to be placed in promising investments in
order to guarantee an acceptable return. Thus, sustainable investment forms, normally
less profitable, are at a disadvantage. (2) Revenue maximization is only possible with
capital mobility. The majority of capital in an agricultural operation is bound in land,
buildings, infrastructure, equipment and animals whose sale contradicts the operating
philosophy of most farmers. (3) The rate of return is calculated according to a basis
whose exact value determination in agriculture is hardly feasible. Thus, the book value
of land seldom corresponds to market price. In many countries, land is subject to
special legislation and rules so that the market price is not freely set.
During the RISE 2.0 expert workshops (2009 and 2010), the classical relevance of
profitability figures such as own capital profitability and total production productivity,
as potential measurements of farm development sustainability, were questioned by
consultants and farmers alike. When the operating figures from the financial
accounting standards used e.g. in OECD countries are used, the interpretations of key
data can be misleading. Therefore, RISE 2.0 does not calculate return on investment. It
would also be methodically incorrect to calculate them for the whole enterprise and
not only at farm level. The same goes for sales profitability; since off-farm income and
private consumption may not be taken into consideration in the accounts (personal
communications: Steingruber 2010; Raaflaub, 2010). Also, invested capital must be
divided into private and operational capital. This is outside of the scope of this quick
analysis tool. RISE 2.0, therefore, refrains from measuring operational profitability and
focuses economic viability instead on liquidity and stability indicators. Because RISE
2.0 is designed to be used as broadly as possible on agricultural operations over the
whole world, also in places where double accounting is not used, RISE 2.0 limits itself
to using the provided cash flows, an easier and better comparable financial measure.
Liquidity and Stability
The access to money (credit) is a world-wide limiting factor for a sustainable socialeconomic development. Even in Switzerland, the threat of existence is great for a
significant number of farmers due to the lack of liquidity where the cash flow is
insufficient to cover middle and long-term existence requirements (Meierhofer, 2008).
Often a farm will use (interfamily) wage-dumping so that investment and production
systems remain at acceptable levels. The end result of this includes low wages and
87
long working hours of agricultural workers as well as the restriction of private

expenditures for self-employed, which ultimately have negative impacts on the social
sustainability of the agricultural enterprise.
When the medium-term sustainability of the business is investigated for a credit
application, the historical performance and future economic development of the farm
are assessed. Sustainability in all likelihood occurs when: the current expenditures for
agricultural activities and the family are covered; the interest obligations are met; the
repayment obligations satisfied; necessary future investments can take place and the
operation remains solvent (www.nw.ch/dl.php/de/20070727145945/Merkblatt_soziale_
Begleitmassnahmen_01012010.pdf). The RISE 2.0 assessment of economic viability
closely follows the standard credit criteria of lending institutions.
The cash flow provides more realistic details concerning the financial situation of a
farm than the income statement (personal communications: Tscher, 2010;
Steingruber, 2010). Cash flows for self-employed farmers only take into consideration
cash operations of farm and household in the form of money inflows (revenues) and
outflows (expenses). This procedure has a direct impact on the liquidity average of the
household. It is also easier to calculate household income by using cash flow (Fluder et
al., 2009). Furthermore, comparisons are easier to make because no valuations (e.g.
land value) are required. The same argumentation is given by Meier (2004) regarding
international comparisons of the financial situation of farmer households: Major
obstacles to comparability are depreciation, valuation of stock and livestock and
calculated values for payment in kind, non-cash rents, etc. Looking at cash flow
indicators, one does not have to tackle these problems.
The world-wide trend towards specialization and the increase in the size of production
units have increased efficiency, but also made the operations more vulnerable to
market fluctuations. Because of the globalization of markets, more fluctuations are to
be expected. A professional farm management is becoming more important to identify
market opportunities, to recognize potential risks as well as to initiate appropriate
measures at the opportune moments.
Conclusion: Insolvency is an acute problem of existence for the sustainable production
of an agricultural operation. Due to the limited time and financial budget for the data
collection and the framework of the RISE 2.0 operational analysis of the farm, the
complex development and collection of profitability and productivity performance is
not considered. RISE 2.0 places strong emphasis on cash flow analysis, on one hand as
a starting point and on the other with respect to financial planning. RISE 2.0 operates
on the operational level of the enterprise and subsequently does not calculate unit
costs. If RISE 2.0 identifies a farm operation with having a weakness in the liquidity
planning and/or in the liquidity reserve area, then unit costs may be analyzed in a
more depth consultancy (a follow-up process for RISE).
Parameter ev_1: Liquidity Reserve

Sustainability goal: The agricultural operation is always able to pay wages, salaries,
payments to suppliers, financial liabilities and interest from its own resources. In order
to do this, an average liquidity reserve of 24 weeks (6 months) for the payment of
obligations must be maintained.
88
Content: The relationship between cash and available credit lines at an average of
weekly disbursements is assessed (40:1 = 100 points, Fig. 43).
Questions:
1. Tables are set up showing the farms financial performance; these figures are
then used for all parameters of this indicator.
Explanations:
The agricultural operation is considered liquid when all obligations can be met at the
required time. Liquidity is a parameter that demonstrates the solvency of an
economical activity. Liquidity constraints can threaten existence of the operation
(Kutter & Langhoff, 2004). The liquidity reserve indicates how long financial reserves
are available to cover payment commitments and is composed of cash available on
hand and credit lines obtained from the bank. The liquidity reserve can be set as a
ratio of the obligations to be paid and in relation to a specific time period. Figure 19 is
a visual example of the assessment of the liquidity situation of an agricultural
operation according to time.
Good
Unsatisfactory
2-3 Months
Latent Risk
> 1 Month
1-2 Weeks
Figure 43. Assessment of the liquidity situation of an agricultural operation

regarding the liquidity reserve according to time (reach).
The stated measurements and assessment range from unsatisfactory to good are the
result of experience. As such, they do not consider the specific characteristics of a
particular business activity (Kutter & Langhoff, 2004). The liquidity reserve of
agricultural operations in Switzerland should be enough with 6 months (24 weeks)
given that direct payments are received semi-annually (personal communication:
Steingruber, 2010). In other countries, other thresholds may be better adapted.
RISE 2.0 divides the total expenditures for the year by 52 weeks. If cash and cash
equivalents are enough for 15 weeks or less, then the maximum points received is 33
and is determined as having an unsatisfactory liquidity reserve (red). Liquidity
reserves for more than 25 weeks are assessed as sustainable (green). Any liquidity
reserve with a result between these two is evaluated as a latent risk (yellow) and
requires further analysis.
Parameter ev_2: Debt ratio

Sustainability goal: The agricultural operation can amortize long-term debt with the
operating cash flow within a reasonable amount of time, while maintaining the current
standard of living and without a disproportionate dependency on borrowed funds.
89
Content: The ratio between effective debt and the operating cash flow is measured
(20:1 = 0, Fig. 44).
Questions:
1. See parameter ev_1.
Explanations:
The debt ratio links the income with the level of debt. This means that an operation
with higher income can carry more debt. First the net debt is calculated. This is the
third-party debt net of cash. This amount is then divided by the cash flow where the
cash flow is composed of own capital and the booked depreciation. The calculated debt
ratio states in how many years the debt could be repaid in case the total yearly cash
flow is dedicated to amortizing debt. This is under the presumption that the future
business results will remain constant. High debts can eliminate flexibility. If the debt
ratio results in 15 or more (represented in years), the bank will classify the operation
as one in a risk position. In this case, the bank will demand actions from the
agricultural operation and given the situation will not provide more capital. A high level
of debt has negative consequences on the payment abilities and can limit financial
flexibility. For instance, in a liquidity crisis, no access to additional credit is possible.
The significance of the debt ratio, a key financial indicator, is large when compared
over several years. With an increasing exposure of the company, normally the
denominator (net debt) increases and at the same time the numerator (cash flow)
decreases.
With a low debt ratio, it is certainly easier to react to market forces where investments
are required. A new business activity or the expansion of an existing activity ties-up
cash. Thus the debt ratio becomes a type of leveraging effect and the adverse financial
development becomes emphasized. In one single indicator, both the performance
potential and debt situation of the agricultural operation are stated (Kamber, 2009).
A level of indebtedness within RISE 2.0 between 0 and less than 5 (number of years
until the actual cash flow repays the actual debt.), the results are rated between 67
and 100 points (green). A level of indebtedness between 5 and 15 (years) results in
RISE 2.0 assigning 34 to 66 points (orange). A level of indebtedness between 15 and
20 generates between 0 and 33 points (red). A level of indebtedness over 20 results in
0 points.
90
Debt ratio
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
15
20
25
Years to completely amortize debts with the

farm's current cash flow
Figure 44. Valuation function of parameter ev_2.
Parameter ev_3: Economic Vulnerability

Sustainability goal: The agricultural operation has adequate business infrastructure
and several pillars of business and is not dependent on the price development of
single products or the relation with individual customers.
Content: The degree of dependence is quantified for each business activity or
product.
Questions:
1. Data collection of all finance information of the agricultural operation is valid for
all parameters of the indicator Economic Viability.
Explanations:
Stronger market variations for the agricultural markets are expected with the increase
in globalization. Business pressures force agricultural companies to lower cost through
increased efficiency. Many businesses try to differentiate themselves from their
competitors through specialization and therefore obtain a cost advantage. This also
creates a higher dependency on individual markets and customers which in extreme
cases will question their economical existence.
Parameter ev_4: Livelihood security

Sustainability goal: Household expenses from unpaid family members in the
business reach at least the regional minimum existence level for farm households. The
household expenses clearly exceed the poverty line.
Content: The relationship between private expenses and basic needs are measured
(3:1 =100) Questions:
91
Explanations:
The assessment of household income in comparison to the minimum existence level is
the central focus for small producers. The fight against poverty is the first of the UN
Millennium Goals (www.un.org/millenniumgoals). According to the UN, the reference
value for the poverty threshold is 1 dollar per head per day. Additionally, within the
same goal, full occupation of labor is required.
The RISE 2.0 indicator Livelihood Security assesses livelihood security via the familys
private household expenses, independently from the level of employment. Real
expenses are evaluated. This signifies that if a family lives on the farm and no actual
rent is paid, then the (fictitious) financial value of housing is not considered.
Additionally, household consumption of farm-produced goods is deducted from the
regional basic needs, since there is no monetary transaction by the agricultural unit.
The parameter answers the question: Does the farm (through main and supplemental
income) provide the necessary money to cover actual household expenses as defined
by the regional comparable minimum necessary to maintain a family of the given size
(poverty line)?
In combination with the parameter Cash Flow-Turnover Ratio, it can be assessed
whether the farm would have enough financial scope to increase household expenses
(meaning that more could be spent on the family, but is not e.g. due modest demands
concerning the standard of living) or whether the family has to restrict itself due to a
lack of income. In the indicator Working Conditions, parameter wc_4, on-farm working
hours are compared to household expenditures (hourly wage). Thus the attractiveness
of the job is determined: can the family member (at normal working hours) live above
the poverty threshold? If the laborer is not fully employed on-farm and the subsistence
is not guaranteed even with a good hourly wage, then this is not considered as
problematic in the Working Conditions indicator.
If actual household expenses of unpaid family members are lower than household
expenditures should be according to the poverty line, then RISE 2.0 assigns 0 to 33
points (red). For household expenses between 100%, but less than 200%, of the
poverty threshold, the agricultural operation is assigned 34 to 66 points (orange,
critical). When household income is two to three times higher than the poverty line,
then the farm is assigned 67 to a maximum of 100 points (green, sustainable).
Parameter ev_5: Cash Flow-Turnover Ratio

Sustainability goal: The farm generates a positive operating cash flow over several
years. Ordinary maintenance costs, the procurement of production resources,
personnel expenses and private expenses of unpaid family members can be financed.
Content: The relationship between operating cash flow and gross results is assessed
(20% = 100 points, Fig. 45).
Questions:
Explanations:
The cash flow measures the financial strength of the operation. The basis is the surplus
(income minus expenses) that can be obtained within a specified period of time on its
92
own accord. The cash flow shows the farms ability to generate its own resources for
investments, dividend payments, debt payment and to increase liquidity without the
use of borrowed funds. On the one hand, the assessment of liquidity can be better
measured with cash flows than with liquidity indicators. On the other hand, the cash
flow can be used to measure profitability, since it frequently incorporates items that
are also used in the calculation of farm financial success (e.g. depreciations). The cash
flow is a portion of sales that remains in the liquidity of the company and for
investment expenditures, reduction of debt and available for dividend payments. The
cash flow is not a freely disposable quantity (Kutter & Langhoff, 2004).
Cash flow turnover ratio

100
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
15
20
Ratio of operative cash flow

vs gross output (in %)
It is not common to calculate the cash flow ratio including off-farm income since farms
with off-farm income do not generate additional farm sales. Thus the cash flow ratio
cannot be improved through off-farm salaries (personal communication: Raaflaub,
2010). The RISE 2.0 farmer panel (2010) requested the inclusion of off-farm income to
be considered as an additional pillar to the agricultural operation. Therefore, RISE 2.0
considers the proceeds from off-farm revenues in turnover and in cash flow, in the
numerator and the denominator. A cash flow turnover ratio of 0% to 5% is considered
problematic (33 points, red). If the cash flow turnover ratio is between 5% and 10%,
the ratio is considered acceptable (34-66 points, orange). Ratios over 10% are
considered sustainable (67-100 points, green).
Parameter ev_6: Debt Service Coverage Ratio

Sustainability goal: The agricultural operation has enough financial flexibility to
withstand unfavorable market conditions.
Content: The relationship between debt service and operative cash flow is assessed
(Fig. 46).
Questions:
1. Data collection of all finance information of the agricultural operation is valid for
all parameters of the indicator Economic Viability.
93
Explanations:
The vast majority of the worlds poor live in rural areas. Economical development is
key to fighting poverty. The central precondition includes a financial management
system that is tailored to the needs of farmers and small producers as well as nonagricultural businesses such as intermediaries and laborers. For households with small
and irregular incomes, especially for women, secure savings possibilities are of major
importance. These savings possibilities provide resources in emergency situations or
the necessary money for childrens education and other long-term investments. This
aspect is widely covered in parameter ev_1 (Liquidity Reserve). In addition to savings,
loans enable the participation in business activities. Business opportunities can be
realized and existing commercial activities can be increased. Access to financial
services can pave the way to a more self-determining life of economic independence.
This is especially true for poor women
who comprise
more than half of
the
worlds
micro-credit customers
(www.sdc.admin.ch/de/Home/Themen/Wirtschaft_und_Beschaeftigung/Finanzsektorent
wicklung/Mikrofin anzwesen). While the calculation of credit limits in developed
countries is rather complicated, (e.g. in Switzerland the lending limit depends on
returns), in developing countries calculations are often easier since small producers
will not be awarded credit due to the lack of guarantees and small money flows. This
results in the impossibility for investment and thus prevents the increase in well-being.
Utilization of the short-term

debt service limit
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Ratio of debt service

vs operative cash flow (in %)
94
4.10 Farm Management

I am noticing an inevitable development: our traditional understanding of farm
management - focused narrowly on short term growth has survived. Sustainability
will be the new measurement of success. (C.K. Prahalad, University of Michigan,
2010)

The management of an agricultural operation is demanding more and more
entrepreneurial skills due to increasing market integration. The sustainability principle
in itself requires long term planning. Consequently, a sustainable farm operation
dictates the adoption of sustainable farm management. This is achieved through a
consciously accepted responsibility in relation to people, society and nature.
Sustainable farm management is the steering of the operation with the primary
objective of maintaining competitiveness in all relevant markets (sale, purchase,
personnel, financing etc.) as a prerequisite for the long-term continuation of the
business based on a continuous financial surplus. This is to be obtained by an
environmentally and socially efficient employment of material, personnel and capital
resources. This indicator measures the existence and quality of purposeful, long-term
and holistically aligned farm management.

In recent years, producers, agribusiness, scientists and governments have increasingly
recognized the importance of an entrepreneurial culture in agriculture (de Lauwere et
al., 2002). The development of said entrepreneurial competencies is an important task
that all stakeholders of agricultural systems should address (McElwee, 2005). While
sustainable farm management places high demands on the farm manager, it is
indispensable for the long-term social, economical and environmental success of the
agricultural operation. The practical experience obtained from the application of RISE
1.0 and by personal communication with Swiss and international extension agents as
well as producers (McElwee, 2005) show that increasingly higher management and
entrepreneurial skills are required. Since those responsible for production usually do
not have the necessary time or skills, certain managerial functions are either
delegated to third parties or neglected entirely, which sooner or later leads to
problems (personal communication: Flckiger, 2010). Because the demands on the
production management increase with promotion and development programs,
extension agents are noticing an increase of questions from insecure production
managers who have lost their general overview (personal communication: Marthaler,
2010). Many farms have no specific operational strategy such as to face price
deteriorations for their products (Fig. 20).
The objective of the agricultural operation as the principal guideline for operational
development must be in line with the sustainable principle: it involves a balance
between economic development, social justice and ecological compatible actions,
where the objective of prosperity through growth is re-interpreted as prosperity by
95
avoiding environmental damage and through more justice in the distribution of limited
resources (Mller & Hennicke, 1995).
Figure 47. Development strategies for securing farm income (McElwee, 2005). There
are 8 principal development strategies an agricultural operation can implement in
order to react to decreasing price in raw materials. Many farms lack a clear business
development strategy (pers. comm.: Obrist, 2009).
Two main principles of sustainable farm management are environmental and social
efficiency. Environmental (or eco-)efficiency is a principle for protecting the
environment. The objective is to produce more output with fewer resources. Polluting
emissions and environmental impacts are reduced although not entirely avoided.
Through the improvement of the input-output balance (for example, with the help of
material flow analysis and energy analysis), the use of raw materials is reduced. The
environmental impacts (atmosphere, ground water, water, soil, flora and fauna) of
emissions and waste are also reduced. Environmental efficiency strives for
improvements in product or production (i.e. though energy savings, less CO 2 emissions,
better use of raw materials or inputs or through less waste production). Compensation
effects (market growth, changes in consumer behavior) can create additional effects
that partly offset the success of environmental efficiency solutions. Social efficiency
will increase value creation through positive performance on entrepreneurial actions
and reducing negative social effects. It concerns a relative improvement of the social
conditions (human capital), in order to increase business success as an increase in
governance.
Objectives of sustainable farm management: farmers align their farm management
activities according to the principle of sustainable development, such that farm
development strategies are assessed by economic, social and environmental criteria,
and corresponding measures taken. When markets fail, such as in cases where
products are not remunerated by market actors (e.g. landscape value, biodiversity),
the corresponding political correctives should be set. Figure 21 provides an overview of
the areas of sustainable farm management and their related effects. See Table 10 for
an example calculation of this indicator.
96
Figure 48. Areas of sustainable management and their interaction

(files.steuerfachschule.de/AMNDaten/beschreibung-AMN.pdf).
Parameter fm_1: Farm Strategy and Planning

Sustainability goal: The farm has a long-term development strategy with which
short and medium term actions are aligned.
Content: The existence and sustainability of a long-term development strategy is
assessed.
Questions:
1. Is there a clear, long-term business concept (development strategy)? What are the
objectives of the development strategy?
2. What are the economic, social and environmental objectives of farm management?
Explanations:
The implementation of sustainable development presents many business problems.
Apart from the few positive exceptions, sustainability is seldom integrated into
management systems, processes and business culture. Many farms entirely lack
explicit long-term development strategies. Where one exists, it is often unilaterally
oriented towards economic and/or agronomic performance indicators.
97
Parameter fm_2: Supply and Yield Security

Sustainability goal: The income from animal husbandry and crop production is
stable owing to good management and reliable access to resources.
Content: The resilience of the farm is measured in which the loss of income due to a
lack of production factors or external disturbances (environmental, economical and
social) is assessed.
Questions:
1. Was income from crop and animal production stable over the last few years?
2. Did the agricultural operation suffer from a lack of: energy, qualified labor,
production inputs or water?
3. Have there been any problems with severe weather conditions (storms, flooding,
drought, lightening etc), diseases, pests, weeds, marketing or the overuse and
degradation of resources?
Explanations:
Stable incomes at the highest possible level are prerequisites for providing selfsufficiency and food security, particularly in poor regions. Constant production
surpluses are a prerequisite for economic well-being for farming families. There are
different reasons for unstable incomes, including lack of knowledge and money, no
access to natural resources and poor site conditions (e.g. climate and soil).
Parameter fm_3: Planning Instruments and Documentation

Sustainability goal: The farm manager uses tools and documentation for a wellplanned, professional farm management.
Content: The availability and use of various types of information pertaining to
operational resources as well as external expertise and insurance is assessed.
Questions:
1. Is documentation concerning plant and animal health, biodiversity, nutrients,
water, energy and soil organic matter balance available and maintained?
2. What tools and documentation measures are actively used on the farm:
inflow/outflow journal, systematic filing system, profit and loss, cash flow,
balance sheet statements?
3. Are work contracts and payrolls used for on-farm labor?
4. Are technical advisors consulted prior to any major on-farm business changes
and/or for budget preparations?
5. Are identified risks covered by insurance including: pension, accident, illness,
natural hazards (severe weather), third-party liability, water (flooding, drought),
fire etc.? Explanations:
98
Reliable planning instruments as well as practical and comprehensible documentation

are indispensible in providing a transparent farm management, one of the pillars of
good farming practice. These are gaining importance with globalized trade and
increasing regulatory requirements.
Parameter fm_4: Quality Management

Sustainability goal: A comprehensive quality management prevents accidents and
food scandals.
Content: The existence and operation of a quality management approach to product,
labor and waste disposal are evaluated.
Questions:
1. Do marketed products regularly undergo quality testing by the producer or the
customer?
2. Is a professional security concept implemented? If not: Are security risks
systematically recorded? Are risk groups detected? Is there an action plan? If
not: Is there a date set for an Action Plan? Is the process guided by the
respective professional guidance required?
3. Is there a concept for separate waste disposal in use? If not: Is there one to be
implemented? If so:
When?
Explanations:
Due to the intensive resource use and the greater distances between the production
and consumption of products, quality assurance and traceability of agricultural
products are gaining world-wide importance.
Parameter fm_5: Farm Cooperation

Sustainability goal: Inter-farm cooperation improves economic and environmental
efficiency, employs labor at full capacity, reduces work peaks and better distributes
works responsibilities.
Content: The degree of cooperation between farms is evaluated. This includes the
efficient and careful use of production areas, machinery, buildings and labor;
production inputs purchased at a savings and the arrangement of better selling
conditions.
Questions:
1. Are off-farm production areas used or exchanged?
2. Is traction equipment or machinery that would otherwise be underutilized used
in cooperation or rented to or rented from third parties?
3. Is there joint investment on production and/or storage facilities?
4. Is inter-farm labor utilized?
99
5. Are production inputs (seed, fertilizer, plant protection, fuel etc) purchased
cooperatively?
6. Are products marketed collectively?
Explanations:
Operational cooperation between farms is gaining importance due to the (world-wide)
increasing and ever more expensive mechanization and because of the increasing
economic pressure of decreasing prices. Often social factors are the reason that no
inter-farm cooperation is implemented. Therefore, farm management should be guided
by professional advisors and receive coaching in order to overcome prejudices and
work cooperatively with other farms.
Table 10. Example calculation of the Farm management indicator.
Ye Partiall
s
y
No
Do you have a clear, long-term concept for farm development (development

strategy)?
Are short- to medium-term measures planned, or already implemented, in all three

sustainability dimensions:
Measures to improve economic performance
50
Measures to improve social performance
50
Measures to improve ecological performance

fm_1 Farm strategy and planning
0
0
RISE score
100
25
1
Could partial or total yield losses through one of the following be prevented
during recent years?
Lack of energy
10
0
Lack of qualified staff
10
0
Lack of financial means to purchase farm inputs
10
0
Lack of water, adverse weather conditions
50
Lack of nutrients
10
0
Pests and diseases
10
0
fm_2 Supply and yield security
50
0
RISE score
50
92
1
Do you make use of adequate planning and documentation instruments for farm
management?
Production: Records available concerning crop and livestock health, biodiversity, water
use, nutrient and soil organic matter balances
50
Farm administration: Records of expenses and revenues, receipts, profit accounting,

cash flow statement and balance sheet are available
50
Personnel management: work contracts, payslips etc. available
10
0
100
Is external professional advice seeked, and are cost calculations done prior to major 10
changes of farm strategy?
0
Are relevant risks adequately covered by insurances (old age, accidents, illnesses,
adverse weather, water, fire, third party liability)?
10
0
fm_3 Planning instruments and documentation
30
0
RISE score
100
80
1
Do you make use of a standardized quality management system?

Product quality: Marketed products regularly checked for quality by the producer or
the buyer
Quality of safety at work: Machinery and installations regularly maintained, protective
equipment and gear available etc.
10
0
Quality of accounting: Clear responsibility, annual accounts professionally prepared

and checked
10
0
10
0
Quality of waste management: Materials recycled wherever possible and adequate, 10

otherwise professional disposal
0
fm_4 Quality management
40
0
RISE score
100
1
Did you check for possibilities of cooperation and implement those, where
deemed adequate?
Joint use (joint rotation) or exchange of areas
Joint use, renting or lending of machinery that would otherwise not be used to
capacity
Joint investment into production or storage facilities
0
50
0
Workforce: sharing of workers
Joint purchase of farm inputs: increase leverage by purchasing bigger quantities of

e.g. seeds, fertilizer, PPP, fuels etc.
50
Joint marketing / sale of products
50
fm_5 Farm cooperation
RISE score
150
25
Total RISE score Farm management (fm)
64
101
5. References
AG Boden. 1994. Bodenkundliche Kartieranleitung. 4. Auflage. Ad-hoc-Arbeitsgrupe Boden.
Bundesanstalt fr
Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, Geologische Landesmter der Bundesrepublik
Deutschland. Hannover.
Agridea. 2010. Erneuerbare Energien. Loseblattsammlung (Stand 2010). Agridea Lindau,
sol-E Suisse AG.
Ala-Mursula L, Vahtera J, Kouvonen A, Vaananen A, Linna A, Pentti J, Kivimaki M. 2006. Long
hours in paid and domestic work and subsequent sickness absence: does control over
daily working hours matter? Occup. Environ. Med. 63: 608-616
Algers et al. 2009. Scientific report of EFSA prepared by the Animal Health and Animal
Welfare Unit on the effects of farming systems on dairy cow welfare and disease. Annex
to the EFSA Journal 1143: 1-7
Antle JM, Pingali PL. 1994. Pesticides, Productivity, and Farmer Health - a Philippine CaseStudy. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76: 418-430
Araus JL. 2004. The problems of sustainablewater use in the Mediterranean and research
requirements for agriculture. Ann. Appl. Biol. 144: 259272
ARE. 2008. Strategie Nachhaltigkeit Entwicklung. Leitlinien und Aktionsplan 2008-2011.
Bundesamt fr Regionalentwicklung, Bern.
http://www.are.admin.ch/themen/nachhaltig/00262/00528/index.html
Balvanera P. et al. 2006. Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem
functioning and services. Ecology Letters 9: 11461156
Bartussek H. 1999. A review of the animal needs index (ANI) for the assessment of animals
well being in the housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation.
Livestock Production Science 61: 179-192
Bartussek H. 2001. A historical account of the development of the animal needs index ANI35L as part of the attempt to promote and regulate farm animal welfare in Austria: An
example of the interaction between animal welfare and society. Acta Agriculturae
Scandinavica Suppl. 30: 34-41
Baumert HA, Herzog T, Pershing J. 2005. Navigating the numbers. Greenhouse gas data
and international climate policy. World Resources Institute, Washington D.C.
www.wri.org/publication/navigating-the-numbers BFE, 2009. Schweizerische
Gesamtenergiestatistik. Bundesamt fr Energie, Ittigen.
www.bfe.admin.ch/forschungewg/02544/02804/index.html?lang=en&dossier_id=03510
BFS. 2009. Schweizer Landwirtschaft. Taschenstatistik 2009. Schweizerisches Bundesamt
fr Statistik, Neuchtel. BFS. 2010. Schweizer Landwirtschaft. Taschenstatistik 2010.
Schweizerisches Bundesamt fr Statistik, Neuchtel.
BGR. 2006. Deutsche Bundesanstalt fr Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe. Jahresbericht
2006. Hannover.
Biesmeijer JC, Roberts SP, Reemer M, Ohlemller R, Edwards M, Peeters T, et al. 2006.
Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the
Netherlands. Science 313: 351354
102
Bin Nordin R, Araki S, Sato H, Yokoyama K, Muda Wamb, Kyi DW. 2002. Effects of Safety
Behaviours With Pesticide Use on Occurrence of Acute Symptoms in Male and Female
Tobacco-Growing Malaysian Farmers. Industrial Health 40: 182-190
Binswanger, M. 2006. Wachstum, nachhaltige Entwicklung und subjektives Wohlempfinden.
GAIA 15/1: 69 71
Binswanger M. 2009. Globalisierung und Landwirtschaft. Mehr Wohlstand durch weniger
Freihandel. PicusVerlag, Wien.
Blumenthal U, Peasey A. 2002. Critical review of epidemiological evidence of the health
effects of wastewater and excreta use in agriculture. Unpublished document prepared
for WHO (available upon request), World Health Organization, Geneva.
BLW. 2008. Ethoprogrammverordnung. Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft, Bundesamt fr
Landwirtschaft. Bern.
BLW. 2009. Verordnung ber die Direktzahlungen an die Landwirtschaft (Stand Februar
2009). Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft, Bundesamt fr Landwirtschaft. Bern.
Boller EF, Hni F, Poehling H-M. 2004. kologische Infrastrukturen. Ideenbuch zur
funktionalen Biodiversitt auf Betriebsebene. LBL, Lindau, Switzerland.
Bosshard A et al. 2010. Weissbuch Landwirtschaft. Haupt-Verlag, Bern.
Boxall A, Kolpin B, Soerensen B, Tolls J. 2003. Are veterinary medicines causing
environmental risks? Environmental Science and Technology August 1, 2003: 286-294
Braungart M, McDonough W, Bollinger A. 2007. Cradle-to-cradle design: creating healthy
emissions a strategy for eco-effective product and system design. Journal of Cleaner
Production 15: 1337-1348
Breitschuh G, Eckert H, Matthes I, Strmpfel J. 2008. Kriteriensystem nachhaltige
Landwirtschaft (KSNL). Kuratorium fr Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft,
Darmstadt, Germany.
Brock C, Hoyer U, Leithold G, Hlsbergen K-J. 2008. Entwicklung einer praxisanwendbaren
Methode der Humusbilanzierung im kolandbau. Abschlussbericht zum Projekt
03OE084. Bundesministerium fr Ernhrung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz,
Berlin. http://orgprints.org/16447/1/16447-03OE084-uni_giessen brock-2008humusbilanzierung.pdf
Bronnum-Hansen H. 2000. Socioeconomic Differences in Health Expectancy in Denmark.
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 28: 194-199
Brown LR. 1999. Feeding nine billion. In: Brown LR, Flavin C, French H (Eds.), State of the
World. W. Norton & Co., New York, pp. 115132.
Brunotte J, Lorenz M, Sommer C, Harrach T, Schfer W. 2008. Verbreitung von
Bodenschadverdichtungen in Sdniedersachsen. Ber Landwirtsch 86: 262-284
Brussaard L, Behan-Pelletier VM, Bignell DE, Brown VK, Didden W, Folgarait P et al. 1997.
Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in soil. Ambio 26: 563570
BSCI. 2009. Business Social Compliance Initiative. Code of Conduct. Version 2.3-11/09. FTA
Foreign Trade Association, Brussels. www.bsci-intl.org/resources/code-of-conduct
BMU. 2002. Bundesministerium fr Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit.
Bodenschutzbericht der Bundesregierung fr die 14. Legislaturperiode. Berlin.
103
www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/bodenschutzbericht2002.pdf
Buckland ST, Magurran AE, Green RE, Fewster RM. 2005. Monitoring change in biodiversity
through composite indices. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 360: 243-254
Bunch R, Lopez G. 2003. What we have learned. LEISA India 19(2): 13-15. www.leisa.info
Burney JA, Davis SJ, Lobell DB. 2010. Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural
intensification. PNAS 107: 1205212057
BVET. 2009. Tierschutz-Kontrollhandbcher. Baulicher und qualitativer Tierschutz.
Schweizerisches Bundesamt fr Veterinrwesen, Bern.
Bylin C, Misra R, Murch M, Rigterink W. 2004. Sustainable agriculture development of an
on-farm assessment tool. Report No. CSS04-03. Center for Sustainable Systems,
University of Michigan.
css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS04-03.pdf
Campbell A, Converse PE, Rodgers WL. 1976. The Quality of American Life. Russel Sage
Foundation, New York
Campbell CJ, Liesenborghs F, Schindler J, Zittel W. 2007. lwechsel. Das Ende des
Erdlzeitalters und die Weichenstellung fr die Zukunft. Deutscher Taschenbuchverlag,
Mnchen.
Candinas T, Neyroud J-A, Oberholzer HR, Weisskopf P. 2002. Ein Bodenkonzept fr die
Landwirtschaft in der Schweiz. Bodenschutz 3/02: 90-98.
Carr AJ, Gibson B, Robinson PG. 2001. Measuring quality of life: Is quality of life determined
by expectation or experience? British Medical Journal 322: 1240-1243
Chapagain AK, Hoekstra AY. 2004. Water footprints of nations. Volume 1: Main Report. Value
of Water Research Series No. 16. UNESCO-IHE, Delft, The Netherlands.
www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report16Vol1.pdf
Chvre N, Escher B. 2005. Welches Risiko stellen Pestizide fr die Gewsser dar? EAWAG
News 59d. EAWAG, Dbendorf, Switzerland.
Christen O, Hvelmann L, Hlsbergen K-J, Packeiser M, Rimpau J, Wagner B (eds.). 2009.
Nachhaltige landwirtschaftliche Produktion in der Wertschpfungskette Initiativen im
Umweltschutz Bd. 78
Christen O, OHalloran-Wietholtz Z. 2002. Indikatoren fr eine nachhaltige Entwicklung der
Landwirtschaft. FIL Gesellschaft zur Frderung des Integrierten Landbaus, Bonn.
http://wcms.uzi.unihalle.de/download.php?down=12810&elem=2228795
Cofie O, Barry B, Bossio D. 2004. Human resources as a driver of bright spots: the case of
rainwater harvesting in West Africa. Proceedings NEPAD/IGAD Regional Conference
Agricultural Successes in the Greater Horn of Africa, 22-25 November 2004, Nairobi,
Kenya.
Conforti P, Giampietro M. 1997. Fossil energy use in agriculture: an international
comparison. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 65: 231-243
Costanza R et al. 1997. The value of the Worlds ecosystem services and natural capital.
Nature 387: 253-260
Craswell ET, Lefroy RDB. 2001. The role and function of organic matter in tropical soils.
Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 61: 7-18
104
Crews TW, Peoples MB. 2004. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 102: 279-297.
www.prescott.edu/faculty_staff/faculty/tcrews/documents/crews_and_peoples_2004.pdf
Daly HE. 1990. Toward some operational principles of sustainable development. Ecological
Economics 2: 1-6.
Dmmgen U, Lttich M, Dhler H, Eurich-Menden B, Osterburg B. 2002. GAS-EM ein
Kalkulationsprogramm fr
Emissionen aus der Landwirtschaft. In: Landbauforschung Vlkenrode 52: 19-42
Danuser J. 2005. Auswirkungen des Haltungssystems auf das Wohlergehen der Tiere, auf
die Produktequalitt und auf die Wirtschaftlichkeit. Tagung der Schweizerischen Vereinigung
fr Tierproduktion (SVT), 14.5.2005. de Lauwere C., Verhaar K, Drost H. 2002 Het Mysterie
van het Ondernemerschap, boeren en tuinders op zoek naar nieuwe wegen in een
dynamische maatschappij (The Mystery of Entrepreneurship; Farmers looking for
new pathways in a dynamic society). Wageningen University and Research Centre, The
Netherlands.
DFID. 1999. DFID sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. Department For International
Development, London.
www.ennonline.net/resources/667
Dich J, Zahm SH, Hanberg A, Adami HO. 1997. Pesticides and cancer. Cancer Causes Control
8: 420443
Diener E, Kesebir P, Lucas R. 2008. Benefits of accounts of well-being For societies and for
psychological science. Applied Psychology 57: 37-53
Diener E, Sapyta JJ, Suh E. 1998. Subjective well-being is essential to well-being.
Psychological Inquiry 9: 3337
DIN. 2002. Ermittlung der Erosionsgefhrdung von Bden durch Wind. Entwurf DIN 19706.
Deutsches Institut fr Normung, Berlin.
Donald PF, Green RE, Heath MF. 2001. Agricultural intensification and the collapse of
Europes farmland bird populations. Proc. R. Soc. B 268: 25-29
Dore MHI. 2005. Climate change and changes in global precipitation patterns: What do we
know? Environment International 31: 1167 1181
EEA. 1994. CORINE Soil erosion risk and important land resources - in the southern regions
of the European
Community. European Environment Agency (EEA) Report.
www.eea.europa.eu/publications/COR0-soil
Engelmann R, LeRoy P. 1996. Mensch, Land! Report ber die Weltbevlkerungsentwicklung
und nachhaltige Nahrungsmittelproduktion. Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevlkerung,
Hannover.
Enqute-Kommission. 1998. Konzept Nachhaltigkeit - Vom Leitbild zur Umsetzung. Bericht
der EnquteKommission des Deutschen Bundestages Schutz des Menschen und der
Umwelt - Ziele und Rahmenbedingungen einer nachhaltig zukunftsvertrglichen
Entwicklung. Deutscher Bundestag, Bonn/Berlin.
European Soil Charter. 1972. Council of Europe. Committee of Ministers.
wcd.coe.int/wcd/com.instranet.InstraServlet?
command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=58829
5&SecMode=1&DocId=644074&Usage=2
105
EWCS. 2007. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.
Fourth European Working Conditions Survey. Ed.: European Foundation for the
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Luxembourg.
www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2006/98/en/2/ef0698en.pdf
Falkenmark M. 1997. Meeting Water Requirements of an Expanding World Population. In DJ
Greenland, PJ Gregory, PH Nye: Land Resources: On the Edge of the Malthusian
Precipice? CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
FAO. 2001. Lecture notes of the major soils of the World. Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations. Rome.
FAO. 2009. How to feed the world in 2050. Insights from an expert meeting at FAO, 24 -26
June, 2009.
www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in
_2050.pdf FAO EX-ACT. 2009. EX-ACT EX-Ante Carbon balance Tool. Technical
Guidelines. FAO, Rome.
www.fao.org/tc/exact/en
FAOSTAT. diverse years. FAO-STAT-Agriculture Statistical Database. United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organisation, Rome. http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx
FAWC. 1979. The five freedoms. Farm Animal Welfare Council of Great Britain.
www.fawc.org.uk
Fischer C, Frangenberg A, Geissen V. 2001. Naturschutz in und mit der Landschaft.
Mglichkeiten und Grenzen beim Schutz von Edaphon und Bltenpflanzen. FIL
Gesellschaft zur Frderung des Integrierten Landbaus, Bonn.
Fluder R, Neukomm S, Contzen S, Genoni M. 2009. Schlussbericht Konzeptstudie
Bauernhaushalte unter dem Existenzminimum. Berner Fachhochschule.
Fritsch F. 2007. Die neue Dngeverordnung. KTBL-Heft 64. Kuratorium Technik und
Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft, Darmstadt, Germany.
Gabriels D, Ghekiere G, Schiettecatte W, Rottiers I. 2003. Assessment of USLE covermanagement C-factors for 40 crop rotation systems on arable farms in the Kemmelbeek
watershed, Belgium. Soil and Tillage Research 74: 47-53
Gallai N et al. 2008. Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted
with pollinator decline. Ecological Economics 68: 810-821
Galloway JN et al. 2004. Nitrogen cycles: Past, present, and future. Biogeochemistry 70:
153-226
Galloway JN et al. 2008. Transformation of the Nitrogen cycle: Recent trends, questions, and
potential solutions. Science 320: 889-892
Geiger F, et al. 2010. Persistent negative effects of pesticides on biodiversity and biological
control potential on European farmland. Basic and Applied Ecology 11: 97-105
GWP. 2000. Integrated Water Resources Management. TAC background paper no. 4. Global
Water Partnership, Stockholm. www.gwpforum.org/gwp/library/Tacno4.pdf
Gorell JM, Johnson CC, Rybicki BA, Peterson EL, Richardson RJ. 1998. The risk of Parkinson's
disease with exposure to pesticides, farming, well water, and rural living. Neurology 50:
1346-1350
106
Gowdy, J. 2005. Toward a new welfare economics for sustainability. Ecological

Economics 53: 211222 Granz E et al. 1990. Tierproduktion. Parey, Berlin.
Green RE, Cornell SJ, Scharlemann, JPW, Balmford A. 2005. Farming and the fate of wild
nature. Science 307: 550555
Gregory PJ, Ingram JSI, Brklacich M. 2005. Climate change and food security. Phil. Trans. R.
Soc. B 360: 21392148
Grime JP, Hunt R. 1975. Relative growth-rate: Its range and adaptive significance in a local
flora. J. Ecol. 63: 393422
Grimsrud B. 2001. A Comparison of Survey Instruments for Collecting Data on Child Labour.
UCW Project "Understanding Children's Work and its Impact". An Interagency Research
Cooperation Project of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the United Nations
Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the World Bank.
Grober, U. 2010. Die Entdeckung der Nachhaltigkeit. Kulturgeschichte eines Begriffs.
Kunstmann, Mnchen.
GruDAF. 2009. Grundlagen fr die Dngung im Acker- und Futterbau. Agrarforschung 16(2)
(Sonderheft).
Grunwald A, Kopfmller J. 2006. Nachhaltigkeit. Campus-Verlag, Frankfurt /New York.
Hni F, Boller E, Keller S. 1998. Natural Regulation at the Farm Level. In: Enhancing
Biological Control (eds. C.H.
Pickett and R.L. Bugg). University of California Press, Berkeley USA, 161 -210
Hni F, Pinter L, Herrren H. (eds.). 2008. Sustainable Agriculture: From Common Principles
to Common Practice.
IISD, Winnipeg.
Hni F, Studer C, Thalmann C, Porsche H, Stmpfli A. 2008. RISE Massnahmenorientierte
Nachhaltigkeitsanalyse landwirtschaftlicher Betriebe. KTBL-Schrift 467. Kuratorium fr
Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft, Darmstadt, Germany.
Hansen J, et al. 2008. Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?
www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf
Hrm M. 2006. Work hours in relation to work stress, recovery and health. Scand J Work
Environ Health 32:502 514
Hediger W. 2009. The conceptual strength of weak sustainability: In: Ralf Dring (ed).
Sustainability, natural capital and nature conservation. Beitrge zur Theorie und Praxis
starker Nachhaltigkeit. Band 3, MetropolisVerlag.
Heissenhuber A. 2000. Nachhaltige Landbewirtschaftung - Anforderungen und Kriterien aus
wirtschaftlicher Sicht, In: VDLUFA-Schriftenreihe 55, Teil 1. Darmstadt, Germany.
Helmholtz-Zentrum. 2007. Antibiotika und Antibiotikaresistenzen. FLUGSFachinformationsdienst. HelmholtzZentrum, Mnchen.
Herzog F, et al. 2006 Assessing the intensity of temperate European agriculture at the
landscape level. Eur. J. Agronomy 24: 165181
Hillel D, Rosenzweig C. 2009. Soil carbon and climate change: Carbon exchange in the
terrestrial domain and the role of agriculture. CSA News 54, No. 6: 4-11.
pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Hillel_Rosenzweig.pdf Hooper DU, et al. 2005. Effects
107
of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecological

Monographs 75: 335
Imhoff ML et al. 2004. Global patterns in human consumption of net primary productivity.
Nature 429: 870-873.
ILO. 2008. Decent work indicators for Asia and the Pacific. International Labour
Organisation, Geneva.
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---robangkok/documents/publication/wcms_099163.pdf
IOBC. 2004. Integrated Production: Principles and Technical Guidelines. 3rd edition.
IOBC/WPRS Bull. Vol.27 (2)
IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change.
www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms1.html
IP-Suisse. 2009. Leitfaden fr die Anwendung des Punktesystems. Biodiversitt IP-Suisse.
www.ipsuisse.ch/?id=143&fid=4271
Isermeyer F, Nieberg H. 2003. Mglichkeiten und Grenzen des Einsatzes von
Umweltindikatoren.
KTBL-Schrift 415. Kuratorium Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft, Darmstadt,
Germany.
IWMI. 2006. Insights from the Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in
Agriculture. International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Janzen et al.. 2005. A proposed approach to estimate and reduce net greenhouse gas
emissions from whole farms. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 86: 401-418
Jrissen J, Kopfmller J, Brandl V. 1999. Ein integratives Konzept nachhaltiger Entwicklung.
Wissenschaftliche Berichte FZKA 6393. Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe.
Kamber C. 2009. Was der Verschuldungsfaktor uns verrt. Bauernzeitung vom 8.5.2009,
Rubrik Beratung.
Kang S, Liang Z, Pan Y, Shi P, Zhang J. 2000. Alternate furrow irrigation for maize production
in an arid area. Agric.
Water Manag. 45: 267-274.
King LA, Napa CK. 1998. What makes a life good? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 75: 156-165
Kleijn D et al. 2009. On the relationship between farmland biodiversity and land-use
intensity in Europe. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 276: 903-909
Knop E, Kleijn D, Herzog F, Schmid B. Effectiveness of the Swiss agri-environment scheme
in promoting biodiversity. Journal of Applied Ecology 2006, 43: 120-127
Kolbe H. 2008. Einfache Verfahren zur Berechnung der Humusbilanz fr konventionelle und
kologische Anbaubedingungen. http://orgprints.org/13626
Kools S, Boxall A, Moltmann J, Bryning G, Koschorreck J, Knacker T. 2008. A ranking of
European veterinary medicines based on environmental risks. Integrated Environmental
Assessment and Management 4: 399-408.
Kovach J, Petzoldt C, Degnil J, Tette J. 1992. A method to measure the environmental impact
of pesticides. New Yorks Food and Life Sciences Bulletin 139: 1-8
108
Krebs CJ. 2001. Ecology. The experimental analysis of distribution and abundance. Benjamin
Cummings, San Francisco.
Kruess A, Tscharntke T. 1994. Habitat fragmentation, species loss, and biological control.
Science 264: 15811584
KrW-/AbfG. 1994. Gesetz zur Frderung der Kreislaufwirtschaft und Sicherung der
umweltvertrglichen Beseitigung von Abfllen (Kreislaufwirtschafts- und Abfallgesetz KrW-/AbfG). Bundesministerium der Justiz, Bonn/Berlin.
KTBL. 2006. Nationaler Bewertungsrahmen Tierhaltungsverfahren. Kuratorium Technik und
Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft. KTBL-Schrift 466. Darmstadt, Germany.
KTBL. 2009. Bewertung der Nachhaltigkeit landwirtschaftlicher Betriebe. Kuratorium Technik
und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft. KTBL-Schrift 471. Darmstadt, Germany.
Kuntze H. et al. 1994: Bodenkunde, 5. Auflage. Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart.
Kutter S, Langhoff D. 2004. Frherkennung in Klein- und Kleinstunternehmen Quick-Check
Finanzanalyse: Nutzeranleitung. Stuttgart.
Lenn J. 2000. Pests and poverty: the continuing need for crop production research. Outlook
on agriculture 29:
235-250. www.dfid.gov.uk/r4d/PDF/Outputs/CropProtection/CPPPestsPoverty.pdf
Lep, J. 2005. Diversity and ecosystem function. In: van der Maarel, E. (Hrsg.). Vegetation
ecology. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Loreau M, et al. 2001. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: Current knowledge and
future challenges. Science 294: 804-808
Luks F. 2002. Nachhaltigkeit. Europische Verlagsanstalt, Hamburg.
Magurran AE. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Croom Helm, London.
Marshall E J P, Brown V K, Boatman N D, Lutman P J W, Ward L K. 2003. The role of weeds in
supporting biological diversity within crop fields. Weed Research 43: 7789
McCann KS. 2000. The diversity stability debate. Nature 405: 228-233.
McCauley LA, Anger WK, Keifer M, Langley R, Robson MG, Rohlman D. 2006. Studying
health outcomes in farmworker populations exposed to pesticides. Environmental
Health Perspectives 114: 953960
McElwee G. 2005. Developing entrepreneurial skills of farmers. SSPE-CT-2005-006500, D2.
A Literature review of entrepreneurship in agriculture. University of Lincoln, June 2005.
MEA. 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being:
Synthesis. Available online at www.maweb.org/en/index.aspx
Meier B. 2004. The role of cash flow indicators in understanding farm households.
Agroscope Tnikon, Switzerland.
Meierhofer U. 2008. RISE-Nachhaltigkeitsanalyse fr die Ausgangslage und fr den
Planzustand 2015 am Beispiel von vier Schweizer Betrieben. Bachelor Thesis, SHL
Zollikofen.
Melin B, Lundberg U. 1997. A biopsychosocial approach to work stress and musculoskeletal
disorders. J Psychophysiol 11: 238247
109
Menzi H, Frick R, Kaufmann R. 1997. Ammoniak-Emissionen in der Schweiz: Ausmass und

technische Beurteilung des Reduktionspotentials. Schriftenreihe der FAL 26.
Eidgenssische Forschungsanstalt fr Agrarkologie und Landbau, Zrich.
Meul M, Van Passel S, Nevens F, Dessein J, Rogge E, Mulier A, Van Hauwermeiren A. 2008.
MOTIFS: a monitoring tool for integrated farm sustainability, Agronomy for Sustainable
Development 28, 321332.
Mosimann T, Maillard A, Musy A, Neyroud J-A, Rttimann M, Weisskopf P. 1991.
Erosionsbekmpfung in Ackerbaugebieten. Ein Leitfaden fr die Bodenerhaltung.
Themenbericht des Nationalen Forschungsprogramms Nutzung des Bodens in der
Schweiz. Bern.
Mller M, Hennicke P. 1995 Mehr Wohlstand mit weniger Energie: Einsparkonzepte,
Effizienzrevolution und Solarwirtschaft. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,
Darmstadt, Germany.
Neuenschwander P, Langewald J, Borgemeister C, James B. 2003. Biological control for
increased agricultural productivity, poverty reduction and environmental protection in
Africa. In: Neuenschwander P, Borgemeister C, Langewald J. Biological Control in IPM
Systems in Africa. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
Neyroud JA .1997. La part du sol dans la production intgre 1. Gestion de la matire
organique et bilan humique. Revue suisse dagriculture 29: 45-51.
Oberholzer HR et al. 2006. Methode zur Beurteilung der Wirkungen landwirtschaftlicher
Bewirtschaftung auf die Bodenqualitt in kobilanzen SALCA-SQ. Agroscope FAL
Reckenholz, Eidgenssische Forschungsanstalt fr Agrarkologie und Landbau.
OECD (ed.) 2004. OECD Key Environmental Indicators. Organization for Economic Co
operation and Development, Paris. www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/20/31558547.pdf OECD.
2010. OEC Environmental Data. OECD, Paris.
www.oecd.org/document/0,3746,en_2649_201185_46462759_1_1_1_1,00.html
Oerke EW, Dehne H-W. 2004. Safeguarding production losses in major crops and the role
of crop protection. Crop Protection 23: 275-285
Oldeman LR, Hakkeling RTA, Sombrock WG. 1991. Global Assessment of Soil Degradation GLASOD. World map of the status of human-induced soil degradation. ISRIC,
Wageningen and UNEP, Nairobi.
Oppermann R. 2003. Nature balance scheme for farms evaluation of the ecological
situation. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98: 463-475
Ostrom E, Janssen MA, Anderies JM. 2007. Going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 104: 15176-15178.
Pannell DJ, Glenn NA. 2000. A framework for economic evaluation and selection of
sustainability indicators in agriculture. Ecological Economics 33: 135-149.
Pannell DJ. 2003. What is the value of a sustainability indicator? Economic issues in
monitoring and management for sustainability. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 43: 239-243
Passioura J. 2004. Increasing crop productivity when water is scarce from breeding to field
management. Proceedings of the 4th International Crop Science Congress, 26 Sep - 1
Oct 2004, Brisbane, Australia.
110
www.regional.org.au/au/cs
Pearce DW, Turner RK. 1990. Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment.
Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead and London
Pengue W. 2005. Transgenic crops in Argentina: The ecological and social debt. Bulletin of
Science, Technology and Society 25: 314322
Pfister S, Koehler A, Hellweg S. 2009. Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Freshwater
Consumption in LCA.
Environ. Sci. Technol., 43: 4098-4104.
Pieri C, Steiner KG. 1996. The role of soil fertility in sustainable agriculture with special
reference to sub-Saharan Africa. Entwicklung und lndlicher Raum 4: 3-6
Pimentel C, et al. 1995. Environmental and economic cost of soil erosion and conservation
benefits. Science 267:
1117-1123.
Pimm SL, Raven P. 2000. Extinction by numbers. Nature Volume 403:
843-845 Popper K. 1935. Logik der Forschung. Wien.
Postler G, Bapst B. 2000. Der kologische Gesamtzuchtwert ZW. Ein grosser Schritt in
Richtung Biokuh. Forschungsinstitut fr biologischen Landbau, Frick, Switzerland.
Pretty J et al. 2008. Multi-year assessment of Unilever's progress towards agricultural
sustainability I: indicators, methodology and pilot farm results. Internat. J. Agric. Sust. 6:
37-62
Radkau J. 2002. Natur und Macht. Eine Weltgeschichte der Umwelt. C.H. Beck, Mnchen.
Radlinsky A, Theler C, Lehmann B. 2000. Soziale Nachhaltigkeit in der Schweizer
Landwirtschaft. Agrarforschung 7: 342-347
Rehm S, Espig G. 1991. The cultivated plants of the Tropics and Subtropics. Verlag Josef
Margraf, Weikersheim, Germany.
Reidy B, Rhim B, Menzi H. 2008. A new Swiss inventory of ammonia emissions from
agriculture based on a survey of farm and manure management and farm-specific
model calculations. Atmospheric Environment 42: 32663276
Reij, C, Scoones I, ToulminC. 1996. Sustaining the soil: indigenous soil and water
conservation in Africa. Earthscan Publications.
Reinhard J, Zah R. 2009. Global environmental consequences of increased biodiesel
consumption in Switzerland: consequential life cycle assessment. J. Clean. Prod 17: 46-56.
Rosenzweig C, Iglesias A, Yang XB, Epstein PR, Chivian E. 2001. Climate change and
extreme weather events.
Implications for food production, plant diseases, and pests. GLOBAL CHANGE & HUMAN
HEALTH 2: 90-104
Sala OE, et al. 2000. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2000. Science 287: 17701774
Sambraus HH. 1991.Nutztierkunde. UTB fr Wissenschaft Nr. 1622. Verlag Eugen Ulmer,
Stuttgart.
Sattelberger R, Gans O, Martinez E. 2005. Veterinrantibiotika in Wirtschaftsdnger und
Boden. Umweltbundesamt GmbH, Wien.
111
Schahczenski J, Hill H. 2009. Agriculture, climate change and carbon sequestration. ATTRA,
National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service. www.attra.org/attrapub/PDF/carbonsequestration.pdf
Schalock, RL. 2004. The concept of quality of life: what we know and do not know. Journal of
Intellectual Disability Research 48: 203-216
Scheffer F, Schachtschabel P, et al. 1989. Lehrbuch der Bodenkunde, 12. Auflage.
Ferdinand Enke Verlag, Stuttgart.
Serageldin I. 1996. Sustainability and the wealth of nations : first steps in an ongoing
journey. World Bank, Washington D.C.
Siegrist J. 1998. Adverse health effects of effort-reward imbalance at work: Theory,
empirical support, and implications for prevention. In: Cooper CL, editor. Theories of
Organizational Stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p 190204.
SKOS. 2005. Richtlinien fr die Ausgestaltung und Bemessung der Sozialhilfe.
Schweizerische Konferenz fr Sozialhilfe, Bern.
Smil V. 2001. Enriching the Earth. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Smith P, et al. 1997. A comparison of the performance of nine soil organic matter models
using datasets from seven long-term experiments. Geoderma 81: 153-225.
Smith P et al. 2007. Agriculture. In: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of
Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (Metz B et al. (eds)). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom, New York, USA.
SOFI. 2009. The State of Food Insecurity in the World. Report of the United Nations Food
and Agriculture Organization. Rome. http://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/en/
Steinfeld H et al. 2006. Livestocks long shadow. Environmental issues and options. FAO,
Rome.
ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e00.pdf
Stoob K, Schmitt H, Wanner M. 2005. Antibiotikaeinsatz in der Landwirtschaft Folgen fr
die Umwelt. EAWAG News 59d. EAWAG, Dbendorf, Switzerland.
Stoorvogel JJ, Smaling EMA. 1990. Assessment of soil nutrient depletion in sub-Saharan
Africa: 1983-2000. Report
28. Winand Staring Centre, Wageningen (Niederlande).
TEEB. 2009. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International
Policy Makers. Summary: Responding to the Value of Nature 2009. www.teebweb.org
Thaon I, Reboux G, Moulonguet S, Dalphin JC. 2006. Occupational hypersensitivity
pneumonitis. Revue des maladies respiratoires. 23: 705-25
Tilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Naylor R, Polasky S. 2002. Agricultural sustainability and
intensive production practices. Nature 418: 671-677
Toy TJ, Forster GR. 1998. Guidelines for the use of the revised universal soil loss equation
(RUSLE) Version 1.06 on mined lands, contruction sites and reclaimed lands.U.S. Office
of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. www.greenfix.com/Channel
Web/pdfs/RUSLE Guidelines.pdf
112
Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C. 2005. Landscape

perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity Ecosystem service
management. Ecology Letters 8: 857874 UN. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. United Nations, New York.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
UN. 1992. Agenda 21. The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio. UN, New York.
www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21
UNECE. 2007. Guidance Document on Control Techniques for Preventing and Abating
Emissions of Ammonia.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.
www.unece.org/env/documents/2007/eb/wg5/WGSR40/ece.eb.air.wg.5.2007.13.e.pdf
UNESCO. 2003. 1st UN World Water Development Report: Water for People, Water for Life.
Paris, New York and Oxford. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization) and Berghahn Books. van der Ploeg RR, Ehlers W, Horn R. 2006. Schwerlast
auf dem Acker. Spektrum der Wissenschaft, August 2006.
VDLUFA. 2004. VDLUFA-Standpunkt: Humusbilanzierung Methode zur Beurteilung und
Bemessung der Humusversorgung von Ackerland. Verband Deutscher
Landwirtschaftlicher Untersuchungs- und Forschungsanstalten, Selbstverlag.
VDLUFA. 2007. Standpunkt: Nhrstoffbilanzierung im landwirtschaftlichen Betrieb. Verband
deutscher landwirtschaftlicher Untersuchungs- und Forschungsanstalten. VDLUFASelbstverlag.
Verdugo MA, Schalock RL, Keith KD, Stancliffe RJ. 2005. Quality of life and its measurement:
important principles and guidelines.
Vilain L, Girardin P, Mouchet C, Viaux P, Zahm F. 2008. La Mthode IDEA Guide
dUtilisation, troisime dition.
Educagri: Dijon, France.
Vitousek PM, Aber JD, Howarth RW, Likens GE, Matson PA, Schindler DW, Schlesinger WH,
Tilman D. 1997. Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: sources and
consequences. Ecol. Appl. 7: 737750
Von Wirn-Lehr S. 2001. Sustainability in agriculture an evaluation of principal goaloriented concepts to close the gap between theory and practice. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 84: 115-129
Vrsmarty CJ, Green P, Salisbury J, Lammers RB. 2000. Global water resources:
Vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science 289: 284-288
Walker B, Holling CS, Carpenter SR, Kinzig A. 2004. Resilience, adaptability and
transformability in socialecological systems. Ecology and Society 9: 5-13.
http://fiesta.bren.ucsb.edu/~gsd/resources/courses/Walker.pdf
WCED. 1987. Our common future. Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development. Oxford
University Press, Oxford. http://worldinbalance.net/intagreements/1987brundtland.php WDR. 2008. World Development Report. World Bank, Washington
113
D.C. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2008/Resources/27950871192111580172/WDROver2008ENG.pdf
Wechsler B. 2005. An authorisation procedure for mass-produced farm animal housing
systems with regard to animal welfare. Livestock Production Science 94: 71-79
Weigel HJ. 2005. Gesunde Pflanzen unter zuknftigem Klima. Wie beeinflusst der
Klimawandel die Pflanzenproduktion? Gesunde Pflanzen 57:617
Weizscker EU, Lovins AB, Lovins LH. 1997. Faktor Vier doppelter Wohlstand, halbierter
Verbrauch. Der neue Bericht an den Club of Rome. Droemer Knaur.
Welfare Quality. 2009a. Assessment protocol for cattle. Lelystad, The Netherlands.
Welfare Quality. 2009b. Assessment protocol for pigs. Lelystad, The Netherlands.
Welfare Quality. 2009c. Assessment protocol for poultry. Lelystad, The Netherlands.
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF. 2003. Animal-based measures for the
assessment of welfare state of dairy cattle, pigs and laying hens: consensus of expert
opinion. Animal Welfare 12: 205-217
Wiedmann T, Minx J. 2008. A Definition of 'Carbon Footprint'. In: C. C. Pertsova, Ecological
Economics Research Trends: Chapter 1, pp. 1-11, Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge
NY, USA.
Winckler C. 2006. On-farm welfare assessment in cattle. From basic concepts to feasible
assessment systems.
World Buiatric Congress, Nice, France.
Wirtz D, Chiu CY, Diener E, Oishi S. 2009. What constitutes a good life? Cultural differences
in the role of positive and negative affect in subjective well-being. Journal of Personality
77: 1167-1196
Wischmeier WH, Smith DD. 1961. A universal soil loss equation to guide conservation farm
planning. Transact. of 7th Int. Cong. of Soil Sci., Madison/Wisconsin, Vol. 1: 418-425
Wolff P. 1999. On the sustainability of water use. Natural Resources and Development
49/50. Institute for Scientific Co-Operation, Tbingen.
Wood D, Lenn JM. 1999. Agrobiodiversity: characterization, utilization and management.
CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
WRI. 2000. Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems. Agroecosystems. World Resources Institute,
Washington D.C.
Yang D, Kanae S, Oki T, Koike T, Musiake K. 2003. Global potential soil erosion with
reference to land use and climate changes. Hydrological Processes 17: 2913-2928
Zahm F, Viaux P, Vilain L, Girardin P, Mouchet C. 2008. Assessing farm sustainability with
the IDEA method from the concept of agriculture sustainability to case studies on
farms. Sust. Dev. 16: 271-281
114

En Manual RISE 2

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

En Manual RISE 2

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

RISE 2.

Making sustainable development measurable and tangible for farmers

RISE Version 2.0, September-14, 2012

School of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences, 2012

School of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences, 2012

3.6Calculation of Parameters and

4.2Indicator: Animal husbandry

Behavior .............................................................. 34 Parameter ah_4: Quality of

4.5Indicator: Energy and Climate

Production................................................................. 55 Parameter ec_3: Share of

4.6Indicator: Biodiversity and Plant Protection

4.7Indicator: Working Conditions

4.8Indicator: Quality of Life

4.9Indicator: Economic Viability

School of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences, 2012

School of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences, 2012

1.2 How was RISE 2.0 developed?

In 2008, an external evaluation was commissioned in which representatives of

Swiss College of Agriculture, 2011

1.3 Background and Motivation

Swiss College of Agriculture, 2011

1.4 How is sustainable development interpreted in RISE

(environmental) resources to produce goods and services (economic), emissions and

1.5 Postulates for Sustainable Development

Swiss College of Agriculture, 2011

Man and Society

Swiss College of Agriculture, 2011

1.6 What is Sustainable Agriculture?

The RISE definition of an ideal farm

2. The RISE 2.0 Indicators: Aspects of Sustainable

Table 1. Indicators (left) and parameters (right) of RISE 2.0.

Swiss College of Agriculture, 2011

3. The RISE 2.0 Analysis

Swiss College of Agriculture, 2011

3.2 Data collection and evaluation procedure

A questionnaire-based interview with the farm manager is the main source of

Swiss College of Agriculture, 2011

3.3 Qualifications required to conduct a RISE 2.0 analysis

3.4 Preparing the First Farm Visit

WWW (May, 2011)

www.fao.org/NR/climpag/pub/en3_051002_en.asp; Single point mode >

Swiss College of Agriculture, 2011

Temperate Europe: www.lfl.bayern.de/iab/bodenschutz/12458

OANDA Cor- www.oanda.com/currency/converter

Monthly expenses for food, beverages, tobacco, clothing, shoes,

IIASA & FAO

Galloway et al. (2004)

Virtual water various

Swiss College of Agriculture, 2011

3.5 Farm Visit and Data Collection

3.6 Calculation of Parameters and Indicators

some instances, additional calculations are necessary, e.g. to transform animal

Figure 7. The RISE 2.0 sustainability polygon.

3.7 Feedback of RISE 2.0 Results to Farmers and Clients

deficits can often be seen as sustainability potentials etc. Strengths and

Analysis of farm groups

3.8 Time Management during the RISE 2.0 Analysis

The duration of the farm interview may be substantially reduced by diligently

Swiss College of Agriculture, 2011

Swiss College of Agriculture, 2011

4. The RISE 2.0 Indicator Set

Topic of the Indicator

How is the fertility of my soils rated?

What impacts do my farming practices have on soil fertility?