106 Int. J. Sustainable Development, Vol. 10, Nos.

1/2, 2007

Design of sustainability indicators of the production

systems in Brazilian semi-arid area by the analysis of
biomass flows

Nadine Andrieu*
CIRAD, TA 60/15, 73 rue Jean FrancËois Breton,
34398 Montpellier cedex 5, France
E-mail: nadine.andrieu@cirad.fr
*Corresponding author

Marc Piraux
CIRAD/University Federal of Campina Grande, ParaõÃ ba, Brazil
E-mail: marcpiraux@uol.com.br

Jean-Philippe Tonneau
CIRAD, TA 60/15, 73 rue Jean FrancËois Breton,
34398 Montpellier cedex 5, France
E-mail: jean-philippe.tonneau@cirad.fr

Abstract: In the north-eastern semi-arid area of Brazil, because of climatic

and economic risks, production systems use limited amounts of inputs and
instead exploit accumulated fertility. The substitution of the woody native
vegetation by pastures has led to its almost total deforestation. The
environmental and socio-economic viability of these systems is thus
questionable. Consequently, a team made up of researchers from Semi-Arid
Embrapa and Cirad centres tested a methodology to design sustainability
indicators. In this paper, we first present some methods used to design
indicators of the sustainability of production systems; secondly we describe
the approach used which consisted in defining a conceptual framework
based on the characterisation of the biomass flows within a farm, that
enabled us to simultaneously analyse the production systems as a whole;
and assess the state of resources. This framework was validated thanks to
farmers `focus groups'. Finally we discuss its potential for change and
drawbacks.

Keywords: agroecology; balances of the resources of the farm; biomass flow;

Brazil; sustainability indicators.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Andrieu, N., Piraux, M.

and Tonneau, J-P. (2007) `Design of sustainability indicators of the
production systems in Brazilian semi-arid area by the analysis of biomass
flows', Int. J. Sustainable Development, Vol. 10, Nos. 1/2, pp.106±121.

Biographical notes: Nadine Andrieu is an agronomist CIRAD researcher

specialised in farmers' practices and decision process analysis. She worked
from 2004 to 2006 in the Brazilian semi-arid region, modelling the farming
system's biomass flows and their consequences on their sustainability.

Copyright # 2007 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Design of sustainability indicators in Brazilian semi-arid area 107

Marc Piraux is a geo-agronomist CIRAD researcher specialised in

territorial development. He is working in the Brazilian semi-arid region
where he studies the linkages among technical, social and organisational
innovations at the territorial scale.
Jean-Philippe Tonneau is a geo-agronomist CIRAD researcher involved in
projects on sustainable agriculture, agroecology and participatory
innovation development. He worked more than 7 years in the Brazilian
semi-arid region contributing to the development of approaches to
multiple-stakeholder partnerships aiming at strengthening capacities at
the local and regional levels.

1 Introduction

The nature of the combination of cropping and livestock systems that is

characteristic of smallholder farming systems in the semi-arid north eastern zone
of Brazil, has changed over the last 30 years. Formerly, the availability of land
allowed the combination of extensive grazing systems based on natural vegetation ±
caatinga dense steppe dominated by thornbushes ± and itinerant agriculture
(Correia de Andrade, 1986).
The increasing population, the disappearance of common grazing land (more and
more of which has progressively became private property) (Sabourin and Caron,
2003) led to a growing pressure on natural resources. The pressure has resulted in
almost total deforestation of natural vegetation (Ibama, Instituto Brasileiro do Meio
Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renovaveis, 2006)1 for artificial grassland
plantation permitting higher stocking rates (Araujo Filho and Cavalcante de Carvalho,
1997), abandonment of fallow and successions of crops planted on the same fields.
Furthermore, because of the low investment capacity and the irregular spatio-temporal
distribution of rainfall in the rainy season associated with a marked dry season
(Rocha Porto et al., 1983), the farming systems are low-input users exploiting
accumulated fertility. In such a context, the intensification of production systems
becomes necessary.
The use of green revolution techniques (an increase in the production and in the
productivity per worker, head of cattle or unit area as well as increased use of capital
± mechanisation and intermediate consumptions and transformation of the
environment in particular via irrigation or artificial grasslands), associated with
credit and technical support, was not a success. In fact, these policies were not very
efficient (resulting in environmental problems, social exclusion, accumulation of
debt, etc.) primarily because they did not take climatic and economic risks into
account. The absence of regulatory mechanisms (guaranteed insurances, prices, etc.)
also played a decisive role.
Faced with this failure, our partners and in particular Semi-Arid Embrapa (the
Brazilian Center for Agricultural Research in semi-arid areas) chose a model of
controlled modernisation that is more autonomous, and was inspired by the theories
and assumptions of eco-development: `Agroecology'. Agroecology favours the study
of agroecosystems (Altieri, 1999), considered to be complex systems in which the
same ecological processes exist as in natural ecosystems, such as the recycling of
108 N. Andrieu, M. Piraux and J-P. Tonneau

nutrients, control of local microclimate, regulation of the abundance of undesirable

organisms, symbiosis and changes linked with ecological succession. The guiding
principle is to explore environmental biotic and abiotic diversity using natural
resources (water, soil, plant) with a concern for sustainability. The main assumption
is that it is possible to increase the productivity of agroecosystems by optimising the
biomass flows between the components of the production system by seeking
synergies (crop±livestock, production±transformation), reducing the use of inputs
and the environmental and social impacts.
This flow-oriented approach proposed by this model helped us to develop an
integrated and systemic approach to the `farm resources/cropping/livestocks systems'
entity. In order to assess the sustainability of the mixed cropping and livestock
systems of the region and evaluate the farmers' room for choices and alternatives, we
tested the relevance of this flow-oriented approach as a support to design indicators
of sustainability. The method used to design sustainability indicators is based on the
assumption that the characterisation of biomass flows enables analysis of production
systems, this being a precondition for the formulation of relevant indicators, as the
flows can themselves structure the design of sustainability indicators. Including the
people involved in the diagnostic survey by taking into account the criteria they
themselves use to evaluate sustainability, helped to guarantee the relevance of the
indicators selected. Thus, in this paper, we describe a framework based on the
analysis of biomass flows, enabling the design of indicators of sustainability.
In the first section, we discuss the indicators proposed in the literature and show
that it is important to define conceptual frameworks based on the analysis of both
decision making and biophysical processes. In the second section, we describe our
analytical framework which is based on the characterisation of biomass flows, and
show how:
* we improved it with field investigations in order to deduce some diagnosis
indicators
* we validated these indicators starting from interviews on the farmers'
representations of concept of sustainability.
After having illustrated the application of these indicators with a case study, we finally
discuss the potential for improvement and the drawbacks of our methodology.

2 Materials and methods

The design of sustainability indicators is based on:

* the definition of a conceptual framework based on a flow-oriented approach that
enables the design of sustainability indicators
* the characterisation of the biomass flows that exist within the farms of the target
people of the diagnosis in order to specify this framework and extract relevant
indicators
* the validation of the indicators selected comparing them with those used by the
farmers.
 Design of sustainability indicators in Brazilian semi-arid area 109

This study was carried out during the 2005 agricultural season. We identified a
network of 14 farms belonging to two rural communities located in the town of
AcauaÄ. This latter is characterised by the main socio-economic changes described
above (population pressure, decrease in the amount of common land, etc.).
The farmers were selected based on the diversity of production strategies with
respect to their degree of intensification and their access to resources (size of the herd,
size of the farm , etc).
For each farm, we characterised the existing flows by observations made at the
scale of the field as well as by interviews at the beginning, in the middle and at the
end of the study period. For the validation of the indicators of sustainability selected,
we used sustainability focus groups (with the 14 farmers and three researchers) in
order to understand what the farmers consider to be a sustainable farm asking them
three questions: `What does the word sustainability mean? What is lacking to
improve the sustainability of your farms? What are your suggestions to improve your
farms sustainability?' Individual interviews asking farmers about the strengths and
weaknesses of their farm should enable each farmer to express himself (in groups,
some farmers have difficulties in talking) and to eventually improve the list of
sustainability criteria we have previously drawn up. We make the assumption that
the identification by a farmer of a strong or a weak point in his farm can reveal what
are, for him, the criteria of sustainability. These focus groups or individual interviews
were different ways to describe the farmer's criteria of sustainability to be compared
with the indicators arising from the conceptual framework.
These indicators made it possible to carry out a diagnosis of the production
systems. Discussions and tests of management alternatives resulting from the
diagnosis are still underway and are not presented in this article.

3 Sustainability indicators in the literature

Many authors have dealt with the design of indicators of the sustainability of
production systems. In these studies, an indicator is defined as a quantitative or
qualitative measurement making it possible to carry out a diagnosis of the
performances and impacts of the production system. Four main selection criteria
for indicators are mentioned: facility of analysis; ease of use for decision making;
ability to reflect the transformations of the environment and the effect of the
practices; and validity at several scales of analysis (Camacho-Sandoval and Duque,
2001; Nambiar et al., 2001). These indicators arise mainly from the three `pillars' of
sustainability: ecology, society, economy. In other words, the performances of the
farms are evaluated according to a broader concept of economic effectiveness,
minimal ecological costs and participation in local dynamics. Based on these three
pillars, different authors have proposed different frameworks to analyse the
performance of production systems. Landais (1998) identified four main
components of systems performances: viability, which depends on the technical
and economic performances of the system and on the security of the market and
prices; vivability, which reflects the farmer's quality of life; transmissibility, which is
related to the possibility of succession; and finally, reproducibility, which is a
110 N. Andrieu, M. Piraux and J-P. Tonneau

requirement for long-term economic viability, for the protection of the environment
and for maintaining biodiversity. Lopez-Ridaura et al. (2002) identified seven attributes
of the sustainability of production systems: productivity, stability, reliability, resilience,
adaptability, equity, self-reliance and proposed a number of diagnostic indicators
from this grid. Some authors suggested integrating the different components into a
single index (Barrera-Roldan and Saldivar-Valdes, 2002; Nambiar et al., 2001) but
this raises questions about the respective contribution of the different components.
Such weightings can mask anomalous situations because the stakes involved may be
contradictory (for example, production versus environment). One possible solution
would be to incorporate only indicators that refer to the same component and to
carry out a diagnosis based on multiple indicators, as in the IDEA method (Vilain,
1998). The systems diagnosis is then more precise and helps to highlight different
farmers' profiles characterised by the strong and weak points of sustainability for
which specific proposals have to be made. However, even if the diagnosis is more
precise when multiple indicators are used, the design of indicators remains highly
controversial because of the subjectivity of the choices made in the selection of the
indicators, particularly in the case of the scoring of qualitative indicators, but also
because there is no consensus on the definition of sustainability (Hueting and
Reijnders, 2004; Nambiar et al., 2001; Rigby et al., 2001). Moreover, the design stage
implies making certain assumptions about the long-term impact of practices with
respect to the aspirations, perceptions and representations that depend to a great
extent on the current sociopolitical context (von WireÂn-Lehr, 2001). It is
consequently important to justify the choices that are made. Several authors
mentioned the interest of participative approaches in the choice and validation of
indicators (Nicholls et al., 2004). Made with the people involved in the diagnosis
survey, these approaches are based on the collective definition or validation of criteria
and indicators suggested by research studies. These authors recommended keeping
only the indicators that can easily be used by farmers. Lopez-Ridaura et al. (2002)
thus proposed a participatory construction framework based on inter-disciplinary
teams made up of researchers and the different people involved in natural resources
management. The diverging needs and aspirations of different social groups can
render the participatory process difficult or lead to the definition of indicators and
thresholds arising from a compromise that does not match the real critical thresholds
of natural resources (Hueting and Reijnders, 2004). It is consequently always
important to compare the participants' representations with references and analytical
frameworks resulting from research. In previous studies, these frameworks and
references were often technical (derivatives of the pillars of sustainability) and were
not based on analysis of biophysical processes or on farmers' decision-making
processes (Pannell and Glenn, 2001; von WireÂn-Lehr, 2001).
The sustainability diagnosis should thus be multiple, but given the complexity of
the diagnosis, the number of indicators selected should be limited. In addition, the
indicators must be based on analysis of biophysical or farmers' decision-making
processes in order to allow the farmers' production strategy to become apparent. To
ensure their relevance, it is important to validate by farmers an analytical framework
designed by researchers.
 Design of sustainability indicators in Brazilian semi-arid area 111

4 Biomass flows to design indicators for sustainability diagnosis

We propose the definition of indicators in three steps:
* the definition of a conceptual framework enabling the design of sustainability
indicators
* the improvement of this framework through field investigations during the
2005 agricultural season enabling the identification of relevant indicators for the
farmers involved in the study
* the validation of the indicators comparing them with those used by farmers.
The climatic conditions of 2005 were characterised by farmers as good for crop
production but bad for water reserves constitution. In reality, 2005 was a relatively
normal climatic year for this region characterised by a great irregularity.

4.1 Definition of the conceptual framework

Within a farm, areas for production and concentration of biomass can be identified
(Tonneau et al., 2002), the latter resulting from practices that enable the accumulation,
concentration or transformation of organic matter. These areas represent different
modes of land use, which remain relatively constant over time and reflect land-use
management as a function of the farmer's production strategy and environmental
constraints. Throughout the year, the farmer implements flows of vegetal or animal
biomass in the different areas. These flows can be characterised as exports, imports
and transfers/returns of biomass resulting in areas of loss, accumulation or
maintenance of soil fertility. These flows are also the product of the farmer's
production strategy translated in a biomass management strategy by means of
variables and rules of management (Aubry et al., 2002) and particularly adjustment
rules (HeÂmidy et al., 1993), used by the farmer in the case of an unfavourable event.
Thus, the characterisation of areas and biomass flows that exist within the farm
makes it possible to account for the interactions between mixed-cropping and
livestock systems in smallholder farming systems and to understand and evaluate the
farmer's production strategy.
These flows affect the level of farm resources. Consequently the resources change
from an initial state at the beginning of the cropping year to a final state at the end of
the year. For example, the harvest of fodder crops, that is an export of biomass, results
in a reduction in the stock of soil nutrients at the field and farm scales at the end of
the year, but in an increase in the supply of forage. Such changes can be quantified
and traduced in balances of resources: forage balance or mineral balance in our
example. A biomass flow will result in a positive balance in the case of production
and a negative balance in the case of consumption of resources. The reduction in the
farm resources highlighted by negative balances may jeopardise the sustainability of the
farm. The characterisation of biomass flows and the balances of farm resources are thus
one way of implementing a sustainability diagnosis of the farmer's production strategy.
These balances focus on the description of annual practices. This scale of analysis
is relevant because, on the one hand the practices described at the annual scale result
from the management strategy of the farmer that is defined at the long-term scale. On
the other hand, with respect to the high climatic risk, the management decisions and
112 N. Andrieu, M. Piraux and J-P. Tonneau

particularly the adjustment decisions used by the farmer in the case of climatic risk
are more relevant in these systems than planning decisions. Furthermore the
comparison of these annual balances with the initial state of resources (for example
the initial area of native vegetation) can permit assessment of the long-term impacts
of these practices and improve the sustainability diagnosis: the long-term impacts,
and diagnosis conclusions will not be the same for a farmer that has a large area of
land than for another that has a small area.

4.2 Improvement of this framework by field investigations

With each of the 14 farmers of the network (Table 1), we characterised existing
spaces within the farm and the kind of flows implemented in these areas (Figure 1).
This description showed a diversity of biomass management strategies characterised
by the specific number and nature of areas and flows implemented. Three main
management strategies were identified:
* Farmers in phase of installation, few areas are identified and consequently
few biomass flows.
* Dairy systems that are not necessarily more diversified than the previous ones but
have significant areas of artificial grasslands and buy protein rich vegetal biomass.
* Farms that minimise the risk (climatic and economic) ± these farms are more
structured than the previous ones and have fences permitting distinguishing of
diversified areas and more complex flows (seasonal use of the areas by the batches
of animals, green forage production . . .). They limit the import of biomass to be
more autonomous.

Table 1 General presentation of the farmers: main characteristics of the farm at the
beginning of the growing season

Farmer Total Farmer's Family Number Caatinga Grazing Cultivated areas

area age labour of animal area area (cotton, sorghum,
(ha) units (ha) (ha) bean) (ha)

1 84 45 5 36 47 33 4
2 190 59 5 124 30 100 6
3 31 38 2 42 0 26 1
4 88 45 7 31 54 27 8
5 97 43 5 23 84 3 10
6 82 35 2 22 74 5 2
7 42 39 2 21 25 9 1
8 59 33 1 49 24 30 4
9 166 54 2 87 60 100 5
10 80 56 6 17 75 2 2
11 58 40 2 28 38 6 4
12 42 56 5 32 15 9 5
13 40 46 1 7 36 3 1
14 21 57 2 11 12.5 7 1.5
 Design of sustainability indicators in Brazilian semi-arid area 113

Figure 1 Example of representation of a farm, based on the identification of its areas and
biomass flows

Below, we give a list of the kind of areas and flows identified, all farms combined, in
order to make our generic conceptual framework precise and define the relevant flow
balances for the farmers of the network, knowing that each farming system can be
described by a specific area/flow scheme.

4.2.1 Characterisation of the existing areas and flows for the farmers of the
network
We identified areas of biomass concentration (where animal manure was
concentrated) the quintal (a small area used for market gardening, growing fruit
trees and medicinal plants) and the animal enclosures (used for milking, herd medical
treatments, calves contention).
We also identified areas of biomass production that were not fertilised, such as
`the meadows' (mainly artificial grasslands of buffel grass, Cenchrus ciliaris); `the
fodder crops' (palma (Opuntia sp.), sorghum or bean fodder); the `cultivated fields'
(beans, corn or manioc fields) with crops intended for household consumption and
sale in case of surplus; and finally `woody areas'. The woody areas correspond to
areas of native vegetation (caatinga) or to shrub regrowth areas (capoeira) that were
formerly used to grow cotton (which declined in the 1980s) or artificial pasture
invaded by adventitious vegetation. They are used for grazing but also as a reserve
area for land or wood and of return of soil nutrients after burning.
It was also possible to characterise flows of imports of vegetal biomass: the
purchase or exchange of seeds, forage (conserved forage, concentrates) and renting of
land outside the farm; there was no purchase of organic fertilisers. The transfers/returns
of vegetal biomass were associated with the use of organic manure (taken from
animal enclosures) mainly in the very limited areas of the `quintal', the cleared patch
of native vegetation that is most commonly observed and also tillage operations (to
bury crop residues). Exports of vegetal biomass are characterised by harvesting of
crops for household consumption, sale or animal feeding (green forage or conserved
forage), even if, in the latter case, part will be restored in the form of manure.
114 N. Andrieu, M. Piraux and J-P. Tonneau

Imports of animals are generally represented by the purchase of a reproducer and

exports by the sale or consumption of the animals. Given the limited nature of other
flows, the movements of the herd on the farm, which represent a transfer/return
flow, is the main animal flow. It depends on the supply of forage available in the
fields but also on the needs of the herd, and determines the time the animals spend in
different fields and thus the quantity of returns of biomass to the soil in the form of
manure.
The variables and rules of adjustment are responsible for circumstantial flows
and are implemented as a function of climatic conditions. The rules and variables
play a particularly significant role during transition periods (end of the dry season).
Some previously identified variables are also adjustment variables that are used to
face climatic risks and are mobilised in a circumstantial way: the use of reserve areas
(palma but also sometimes caatinga and some distant fields of buffel grass), the
purchase of animal feed, renting grazing areas, reducing the size of the herd.

4.2.2 Translation of these flows into relevant balances: the indicators of

sustainability
Each of the biomass flows identified affect in a specific way a range of farm
resources. For example, the identified import of biomass through `purchase of
forage' affects the forage, financial and soil nutrient resources of the farm through
the associated production of manure. Then, taking each flow one by one, we
characterised its effects on the farm resources. Depending on the flows described
before and their impact, relevant farm resources were identified for the farmers of the
network. The resources to be considered are the forage, the caatinga surface, soil
nutrients, financial resources, the size of the herd and reserve areas such as the palma
area, that are kept to face climatic risks.
Many flows can affect the same resource. For example, the flows `transfer of
organic matter' or `harvesting of crops' affects the soil nutrients. It is then possible to
aggregate the effects of these different flows through a same indicator: the mineral
balance. In other words, a given balance is the result of different biomass flows.
Then, for the studied farms, the key indicators (that aggregate the effects of many
flows on the farm resources) to take into account are the agricultural financial
balance (for revenues we took into account, the vegetal and animal biomass
consumed by the household; in production costs, we included the possible cost of
outside labour, whereas family labour was not taken into account), the forage
balance, the proportion of this balance based on external forage resources, number
of financial resources (diversification of sources of income), changes in the size of the
caatinga, in reserve areas and in the number of animals, and the mineral balance. In
the latter, we focused on degraded cultivated areas taking into account the limited
imports and transfers in these areas.

4.3 Comparison of these indicators with those proposed by farmers

This phase of the study consisted in identifying the farmers' concrete definition of a
sustainable farm and their diagnosis criteria (Table 2).
 Design of sustainability indicators in Brazilian semi-arid area 115

Table 2 Farmers' definition of sustainability and diagnostic criteria

Definition and criteria from the sustainability Translation into indicators of

focus groups sustainability

What is a `A farm that provides food for ±

sustainable the household'
farm?
`A farm that provides food for
the herd'

What is lacking `To have more area'
to improve the
sustainability
`To have less poor soil'
of your farm?
`To control crop diseases'
`To improve the income'
`To increase the size of
the herd'
`To be able to feed the herd'
`To have water well-distributed
water points to water the
animals'
`To have more fences'
`To have reserve areas of
caatinga'
`To have less stony land'
Usable area (% of the total area) ±
biomass production (t haÿ1 )
Organic matter ± crop production
(t haÿ1 )
Incidence of diseases ± crop production
(t haÿ1 )
Income (reÂais)
Strength of the herd (animal unit)
Forage production (t haÿ1 )
Water availability (m3 of water/animal
unit)
Area fenced (%) ± usable area (%) ±
financial capacity (reÂais)
Area of caatinga (ha)
Stony areas (%) ± Usable area (%)

Our discussions with the farmers highlighted five points:

* According to farmers, a sustainable farm is one that provides food for the
household and the herd. This definition highlights the importance of the herd in
these systems. Indeed the herd is often the only source of income, as crops are
intended for household consumption or forage. The herd is thus the only way of
acquiring consumer goods.
* Farmers did not identify problems within their farms and thought their
difficulties were only due to prevailing climatic conditions. More detailed
investigations resulted in a list of problems that enabled the sustainability criteria
used by farmers to be extracted.
116 N. Andrieu, M. Piraux and J-P. Tonneau

* Farmers did not establish a hierarchy between criteria that were interrelated and
often represented different ways of qualifying the same critical point. For
example the criteria `to have more fences', `to increase the size of the herd', `to
have more land' are linked to the criterion `to improve the income'. Indeed the
clearing of new land depends on the financial resources available to enclose it: it
will enable the farmer `to have more land' and is a precondition for `increasing
the size of the herd', which as previously mentioned, is the main source of income
in these production systems. In the same way, the criterion `poor soil', even if it
reflects a problem of soil fertility, is primarily linked with a problem of
insufficient forage offer as was the case of several other criteria cited by farmers
(`to control crop diseases', `to have more area', `to have less stony land', `to be
able to feed the herd', `to increase the size of the herd', `to have more fences').
* Environmental criteria are mentioned by farmers only if they have an impact on
the productive results: soil fertility, area of caatinga. This illustrates the divergent
conceptions of sustainability between farmers and researchers.
* The criteria chosen by the farmers are related to the indicators arising from
the characterisation of biomass flows with the exception of the criterion `to have
well-distributed water points to water the animals'. Such water points determine
the size of the herd, and whether the herd can be increased, but can also be the
cause of work-related stress due to the scattering of the herd or the need to
transport water. This confirmed the relevance of our framework but also the need
to improve our description of farm resources.

4.4 Illustration with a case study

With one of the 14 farms studied, we illustrate how these indicators were used to
carry out a farm sustainability diagnosis (farmer 1 of Table 1).
The biomass management strategy on this farm is specific to dairy systems. These
systems are characterised by the amount of the land area of buffel grass, which is the
main forage resource of the farm since, although the caatinga occupies a large area, it
represents a reserve of land to be used to increase the size of artificial pasture.
Principal biomass flows were linked to forage stocks (sorghum silage) harvesting,
biomass imports via the systematic purchase of protein rich feed during the dry
season, and renting of palma land. Animal biomass flows were limited, the caatinga
area (60% of the total area) was under-used, being grazed only at the beginning of
the dry season when the leaves fall off the trees. Both during the rainy and the dry
season, the buffel grass is the main source of animal feed.
Table 3 shows the values of different indicators for the same farm that were
estimated from the different interviews made during the agricultural year and
measurements at the scale of the field according to the indicators selected (yields,
biophysical characteristics of soils, areas deforested). There is a reduction in caatinga
land, a slightly negative mineral balance, production costs that are high for the
region concerned linked with a significant proportion of the forage balance with
external resources and the absence of reserve areas that could be used during the dry
season. On the other hand, revenues are high (the minimum wage is 3600 reÂais)
thanks to the diversification of sources of income (the farmer has four sources of
income: milk, meat, cotton, surplus food crops).
 Design of sustainability indicators in Brazilian semi-arid area 117

Table 3 Sustainability of the studied farm

Indicators Value

Changes in the size of the caatinga (ha) ÿ6

Mineral balance-phosphorus case ± (kg/ha) ÿ0:5
Financial balance: revenues (reÂais) +14,323
Financial balance: production costs (reÂais) +4,638
Forage balance (ton of dry matter) ÿ21
Proportion of the forage balance based on external forage resources (%) 14
Changes in the number of animals (animal unit) +6
Changes in reserve areas (absl) 0
Number of financial resources (Diversification of the sources of income) (absl) +4

Referring to some of the attributes of the sustainability defined by Lopez-Ridaura

et al. (2002), we can say that the `productivity' of the farm can be considered to be
relatively good but with limited `autonomy' due to the imports of external forage
resource and limited `stability' of the production system due to the pressure on
natural resources (the caatinga in particular). Possible management alternatives
concern diversification of production areas with, in particular, the introduction of
palma, but also of protein rich fodder crops (Cajanus cajan, Leucaena leucocephala)
and better valorisation of the caatinga (selection of species and caatinga enrichment
with native protein rich species) as an alternative to its clearing.

5 Discussion
Here we discuss the potential, the drawbacks and the prospects for improvement of
our framework.

5.1 Indicators for understanding of the functioning of the production system

In our study, we did not select indicators that took into account predetermined
attributes of sustainability. Identifying indicators was mainly based on the definition
of an analytical framework permitting an integrated approach of the biophysical and
decisional processes and thus to understand (by means of interviews and observations)
the production strategies.
Von WireÂn-Lehr (2001) highlighted two types of diagnosis: an absolute diagnosis
established according to thresholds, and a relative diagnosis based on the comparison
between production systems. In both cases, the lack of elements relating to the
production strategy prevents a clear understanding of the factors involved in the
observed differences and thus makes it difficult to propose relevant alternatives.
Von WireÂn-Lehr noted the absence of valid proposals to put the sustainability
concept into practice. In our study, the clear understanding of the differences of
efficiency between systems is provided by the selection of indicators translating the
effect of the management strategies on the environmental and productive resources.
118 N. Andrieu, M. Piraux and J-P. Tonneau

Furthermore, as in the example presented, in order to give meaning to the final

diagnosis, we linked it to a typology of biomass management strategies. For example,
the indicator `forage balance' can account for a high deficit associated with a crisis on
the farm or, conversely for the strategy to buy protein rich fodder crops to improve
milk production and consequently the income. It is thus not the value given to the
indicator that counts, but the intelligibility of the management strategy that it enables.
The complementarity between the diagnosis and the typology of management allows
a comparison between a production target and its consequences for the sustainability
of the production system. It thus gives meaning to the proposals for alternative
management strategies.
Pannell and Glenn (2000) judge the value of an indicator according to the
information it provides to improve decision making. In our study, the information
provided by our indicators (our balances) led the farmers to reconsider balances
between supply and demand for forage and to think of ways to diversify their supply
of forage. Five farmers changed their practices (reintroducing palma, using organic
manure) in the agricultural year immediately following the diagnosis even before the
end of the discussion process on possible management alternatives. Indeed, the
option chosen in this study was not to make the analytical framework a predictive
tool, but rather a support for discussion in farmers groups about current practices
and possible ways of modifying them.

5.2 Prospects for improvement of the framework of analysis

Other studies used flow analysis to design indicators of sustainability. For Haberl
et al. (2004) these flow-oriented approaches are relevant to link socio-economic
processes to natural ecosystems and enable a systemic analysis of human activities.
These studies mainly focus on energy, materials (Huang and Hsu, 2003) and nutrients
flows at national, supra-national or regional scales (Herenden and Wildermuth,
2002). Some studies analysed these flows at the farm scale (Martin et al., 2006), but
they generally focus on their effects on the soil compartment through nutrient
balances (Van den Bosch et al., 1998). Few studies tried to integrate the stakeholder
group target of the diagnosis in the process of identification of the flows.
In our study, the identification of flows was made, with an attempt to describe the
farmers' perceptions of the concept of sustainability. Our study nevertheless
highlights the difficulty involved in discussing with farmers abstract concepts for
which there is no consensus within the scientific community. In particular, it revealed
the difficulty for farmers to deal with their problems on a hierarchical basis which in
turn is reflected in their difficulties in identifying alternative strategies.
It thus appears to be impossible to ask farmers to identify a list of indicators. In
these circumstances, the approach would consist in questioning them about the
strength and weakness of their production system, and then deducing, thanks to our
understanding of farmers' management strategies, a list of diagnosis criteria.
Our study showed that when the definition of indicators is based on the analysis
of the production systems, these are compatible with the criteria used by farmers.
However, the fact that the criterion `to have well-distributed water points to water
the animals', identified by the farmers was not taken into account, pointed to two
possible ways to improve our analytical framework: the characterisation of the
 Design of sustainability indicators in Brazilian semi-arid area 119

effects of biomass flows on the labour resource and the characterisation of water
flows. The impact of biomass flows on different farm resources was evaluated
(resource forage, mineral nutrients, areas of the farm, herd). The family labour
resource was not characterised in this study, but is an important production factor in
smallholder farming systems (use of external labour was considered for the calculation
of financial balance). The characterisation of the impact of different flows on labour
use could make it possible to highlight problems of workload, stress, working
conditions and painfulness connected with the farmer's quality of life. We focused on
vegetal and animal biomass flows to highlight the interactions between cropping and
livestock systems. This analysis could also have taken into account flows associated
with the water resources: imports (use of communal water points, water use by the
different hydraulic works) exports (losses) and transfers of water (transport of water
to water animals).
These improvements do not invalidate the analytical framework. On the contrary,
they show all the potential of the characterisation of the flows (biomass, water . . .)
implemented by farmers for relevant propositions that will allow putting into
practice the concept of sustainability.

6 Conclusion

Our analytical framework is based on:

* characterisation of the initial situation of the farm at the scale of the field or
the farm to identify and quantify resources: stocks of nutrients, biomass,
biodiversity
* characterisation of the farmers' cropping and herd management practices that
mobilise some or all these resources to produce biomass, by organising flows
between the various fields
* characterisation of the final situation by identifying the changes made on the
resources of the farm thanks to indicators that make it possible not only to
measure physical production but its consequences in terms of the quantity and
quality of the initial resources.

Because our framework accounts for both biophysical and decisional processes
underway at the scale of the agricultural season, it also accounts for many of the
sustainability criteria used by the farmers. We believe that our study supported a
learning process with the farmers involved (indirectly by the data gathering and
directly by the focus groups) because some of them developed the capacity to analyse
their own system and its potential for improvement. This learning process has
already contributed to the adaptation of the practices within the course of our
study. Now it is important to improve the study of this leaning process through
carry-forward of practices, to validate the sustainability indicators taking into
account the suggested changes of the analytical framework (labour, water flow) and
to evaluate their capacity to enable the monitoring of the different scenarios
identified.
120 N. Andrieu, M. Piraux and J-P. Tonneau

References
Altieri, M.A. (1999) `The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems', Agriculture
Ecosystems & Environment, Vol. 74, pp.19±31.
Araujo Filho, J.A. and Cavalcante de Carvalho, F. (1997) `Desenvolvimento sustentado da
caatinga', Circular tecnica, Vol. 13, Embrapa, p.19.
Aubry, C., Paillat, J.M. and Guerrin, F. (2002) `ModeÂlisation conceptuelle de la gestion des
matieÁres organiques issues des eÂlevages dans les exploitations agricoles. L'exemple de l'õÃ le
de la ReÂunion', in F. Guerrin and J.M. Paillat (Eds) ModeÂlisation des flux de biomasse et
des transferts de fertilite ± cas de la gestion des effluents d'eÂlevage aÁ l'õÃle de la ReÂunion,
Actes du seÂminaire, 19±20 juin 2002, Montpellier.
Barrera-Roldan, A., and Saldivar-Valdes, A. (2002) `Proposal and application of a sustainable
development index', Ecological Indicators, Vol. 2, pp.251±256.
Camacho-Sandoval, J., and Duque, H. (2001) `Indicators for biodiversity assessment in Costa
Rica', Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, Vol. 87, pp.141±150.
Correia de Andrade, M. (1986) `A problematica da utilizacËaÄo econoÃmica da caatinga', in
Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana (Ed) Simposio sobre caatinga e sua exploracËaÄo
racional, Feira de Santana, pp.25±45.
Haberl, H., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Krausmann, F., Weisz, H. and Winiwarter, V. (2004)
`Progress towards sustainability? What the conceptual framework of material and energy
flow accounting (MEFA) can offer', Land Use Policy, Vol. 21, pp.199±213.
HeÂmidy, L., Maxime, F. and Soler, L.G. (1993) `Instrumentation et pilotage strateÂgique dans
l'entreprise agricole', Cahiers d'eÂconomie et sociologie rurales, Vol. 28, pp.91±118.
Herenden, R.A. and Wildermuth, T. (2002) `Resource-based sustainability indicators: chase
County, Kansas, as example', Ecological Economics, Vol. 42, pp.243±257.
Huang, S.L. and Hsu, W.L. (2003) `Materials flow analysis and energy evaluation of Taipei's
urban construction', Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 63, pp.61±74.
Hueting, R. and Reijnders, L. (2004) `Broad sustainability contra sustainability: the proper
construction of sustainability indicators', Ecological Economics, Vol. 50, pp.249±260.
Landais, E. (1998) `Agriculture durable: les fondements d'un nouveau contrat social', Courrier
de l'environnement de l'INRA, Vol. 33, pp.5±22.
Lopez-Ridaura, S., Masera, O. and Astier, M. (2002) `Evaluating the sustainability of complex
socio-environmental systems. The MESMIS framework', Ecological Indicators, Vol. 2,
pp.135±148.
Martin, J.F., Diemont, S.A.W., Powell, E., Stanton, M. and Levy-Tacher, S. (2006) `Energy
evaluation of the performance and sustainability of three agricultural systems with
different scales and management', Agricultural, Ecosystems and Environment, Vol. 115,
pp.128±140.
Nambiar, K.K.M., Gupta, A.P., Qinglin, F. and Li, S. (2001) `Biophysical, chemical and
socio-economic indicators for assessing agricultural sustainability in the Chinese coastal
zone', Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, Vol. 87, pp.209±214.
Nicholls, C.I., Altieri, M., Dezanet, A., Feistauer, D., Lana, M.A., Baptista, M.O. and
Ouriques, M. (2004) `A rapid, farmer-friendly agroecological method to estimate soil
quality and crop health in vineyard systems', Biodynamics, Vol. 250, pp.33±40.
Pannell, D.J. and Glenn, N.A. (2000) `A framework for the economic evaluation and selection
of sustainability indicators in agriculture', Ecological Economics, Vol. 33, pp.135±149.
Rigby, D., Woodhouse, P., Young, T. and Burton, M. (2001) `Constructing a farm level
indicator of sustainable agricultural practice', Ecological Economics, Vol. 39, pp.463±478.
Rocha Porto, E., Garagorry, F.L., de Souza Silva, A. and Moita, W.A. (1983) `Estimativa de
sucesso da agricultura dependente de chuva para diferentes eÂpocas de plantio', Embrapa-
Cpatsa, Documentos, Vol. 23, 18pp.
 Design of sustainability indicators in Brazilian semi-arid area 121

Sabourin, E. and Caron, P. (2003) `Origem e evolucËaÄo da agricultura familiar no Nordeste

semi-arido', in P. Caron and E. Sabourin (Eds) Camponeses do SertaÄo. MutacËaÄo das
agriculturas familiares no Nordeste do Brasil, Brasilia: Embrapa, pp.29±45.
Tonneau, J.P., Sabourin, E., da Silveira, L.M. and Sidersky, P. (2002) `ModeÂlisation des flux
de biomasse: une approche de la fertilite dans l'agreste de la Paraiba (BreÂsil)', Cahiers
Agricultures, Vol. 11, pp.127±136.
Van den Bosch, H., Gitari, J.N., Ogaro, V.N., Maobe, S. and Vlaming, J. (1998) `Monitoring
nutrient flows and economic performance in African farming systems (NUTMON) III.
Monitoring nutrient flows and balances in three districts in Kenya', Agriculture
Ecosystems & Environment, Vol. 71, pp.63±80.
Vilain, L. (1998) La meÂthode IDEA. La bergerie nationale, p.110.
Von WireÂn-Lehr, S. (2001) `Sustainability in agriculture ± an evaluation of principal goal-oriented
concepts to close the gap between theory and practice', Agriculture Ecosystems &
Environment, Vol. 84, pp.115±129.

Note
1
www.ibama.gov.br.