A participatory method for the design and integrated assessment of crop-livestock systems in farmers’ groups

Ecological Indicators 72 (2017) 340–351

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

A participatory method for the design and integrated assessment of crop-livestock systems in farmers’ groups M. Moraine a,∗ , P. Melac a , J. Ryschawy a,b , M. Duru a , O. Therond a,c a b c

INRA, UMR 1248 AGIR, F-31326 Castanet Tolosan, France University of Toulouse, INP-ENSAT, UMR 1248 AGIR, F-31326 Castanet Tolosan, France UMR LAE, INRA, Université de Lorraine, F-68000 Colmar, France

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 31 July 2015 Received in revised form 19 July 2016 Accepted 7 August 2016 Keywords: Agroecology Sustainability Multiple-scale assessment Landscape diversification

a b s t r a c t Crop-livestock integration promises more sustainable farming systems, but is constrained by organizational and technical issues at the farm level. Developing locally-adapted crop-livestock systems between specialized farms remains theoretical due to a lack of methods for their design and of analysis of benefits and limits for their monitoring. This article presents a method for participatory design and assessment of territorial crop-livestock systems and its application to a group of organic farmers specialized in crop or livestock production in southwestern France. We developed an adapted assessment framework for territorial crop-livestock systems. We used it firstly to produce a diagnosis of strengths and weaknesses of farming systems then to identify the potential for new crop-livestock interactions between farms and finally we designed and assessed crop-livestock integration scenarios with farmers. The technical and organizational options for change were selected to satisfy objectives of partners, illustrated by specific performance criteria (biological regulation, work management economic viability, social learning and capacity building, embeddedness of agriculture in the territory, integration in public policies). This study shows the crucial role of an adaptive methodology that includes ad hoc indicators to support the design of sustainable farming systems that considers specific agroecosystem, constraints and objectives of farmers. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Integrated crop-livestock systems are often seen as models of sustainable agriculture based on complementarities between activities and a subsequently higher level of nutrient cycling and ecosystem services (Havet et al., 2014; Lemaire et al., 2014; Russelle et al., 2007). However, historical dynamics and economic rationality in developed countries led to farm overspecialization (Peyraud et al., 2014; Poux et al., 2009), far too intensive to be sustainable (Rockström et al., 2009). At the farm level, specialization of equipment and farmers’ skills, as well as constraints of rearing animals, make difficult to return animals to crop-specialized farms (Meynard et al., 2013; Peyraud et al., 2014). Specialization and the associated intensive use of industrial inputs lead to environmental issues like water scarcity, biodiversity decline, and diffuse pollution by nitrates and pesticides. Recent studies (e.g. Lemaire et al., 2014; Moraine et al., 2014, 2016) claim that developing

∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Moraine). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.08.012 1470-160X/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

more sustainable farming systems require innovative approaches that allow overcoming farm-level constraints by developing croplivestock interactions at the local level. Indeed, a “Territorial Crop-Livestock System” (TCLS), which contains coordinated and structured exchanges (e.g. grain, forage, manure, animals) between different farming systems, is a way to address production and organization issues at the farm level (e.g. self-sufficiency, work management) and environmental issues at the local level (Asai and Langer, 2014). Several methods have been developed to design agricultural systems to address environmental issues at the landscape level, regarding water quantity (Castelletti and Soncini-Sessa, 2007; Murgue et al., 2015), water quality (Moreau et al., 2012; Pahl-Wostl and Hare, 2004; Ravier et al., 2015), pollination, ecosystem services and biodiversity (Berthet et al., 2012). Such studies require to deal with the ill-defined nature of the problem to be tackled and incomplete scientific knowledge about key causal relationships. Researchers have to support local stakeholders to specify the problem through participatory methodology based on hybridization of scientific and actors’ knowledge and perceptions (Cash et al., 2003; Etienne, 2010; Murgue et al., 2015). Designing a TCLS typ-

M. Moraine et al. / Ecological Indicators 72 (2017) 340–351

ically raises issues about coordination between stakeholders as demonstrated by Asai and Langer (2014). It requires also dealing with individual farmer and collective expectations and identifying trade-offs between objectives at different levels: biophysical levels (e.g. field, farm and landscape, Ravera et al., 2014) and social levels (individual vs. collective level). Analyzing and explaining these trade-offs is necessary for successful development of a TCLS and requires an adequate framework, especially “locally adapted” indicators for assessment (Lefèvre et al., 2014). Moraine et al. (2016) developed a conceptual framework of crop-livestock integration that presents key processes and expected benefits to promote the systemic design of TCLS. Its use in several European case studies (Moraine et al., 2014) shows that it facilitates identification of the current issues in farming systems and support identification of practices for integrated crop-livestock systems. However, it is limited by its theoretical and qualitative character. Structured design process and quantitative assessment method remain to be developed to fully design and assess the technical and organizational dimensions of TCLS in a systemic way and consider the specific characteristics and constraints of farming systems. In this article, we present a methodology to design the technical and organizational functioning of a TCLS. To do so, we studied the ecological components (e.g. natural resources, ecosystems) and social components (e.g. farmers’ decisions, supply chains, commercialization) of current farming systems and of potential TCLS. Our methodology was applied within a group of organic farmers (southwestern France) that we led through iterative sequences of diagnosis/design/assessment of a TCLS. Particularly, an original quantitative and qualitative assessment approach dealing with system metabolism, ecosystem services, socio-economic perfor-

341

mances and local issues has been developed and applied. Our methodology enabled us to investigate the potential complementarities between crop and livestock farms, identify the issues and ideas for organization of crop-livestock exchanges and assess the sustainability and interest for farmers of developing a TCLS. After presenting these results, we discuss the potential for developing a generic method and tools to structure the design and assessment of sustainable TCLS in farmers’ groups. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Case study: a group of organic farmers in a highly diverse agricultural area The study was conducted in Tarn-et-Garonne, a region in southwestern France with highly diversified agricultural landscapes. The region is divided into four agricultural sub-regions (Fig. 1): • North: “Bas-Quercy”, clay-limestone hills, diversified farms (cereals, livestock, fruit trees) due to heterogeneous soil fertility. • East: “Causses of Quercy”, karstic relief (200–500 m in elevation) with a dry climate and poor soils, mainly containing very extensive livestock production. • Center: “Terraces of Garonne”, alluvial terraces close to river beds, with fertile soils and much irrigation infrastructure for maize, fruit trees, vegetables. Wheat and sunflower strongly dominate rainfed fields. • Southwest: “Plain of Lomagne”, hilly plain with shallow soils, dominated by rainfed cereals.

Fig. 1. Locations of farms in Tarn-et-Garonne’s main agricultural areas. Gray lines outline the administrative district of Tarn-et-Garonne.

342

M. Moraine et al. / Ecological Indicators 72 (2017) 340–351

Table 1 Structure and production of farms in the farmers’ group. L: Livestock farm; C: Crop farm. Main production is the most important in terms of income and time requirements. Grassland area represents the total area under permanent grasslands, temporary grasslands and rangelands. UAA: Usable Agricultural Area. Farm code

Farm type

Years of farming

Full-time workers

Main production (number of productive animals)

Secondary production/activity

UAA (ha)

Grassland area (ha)

Cereal area (ha)

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13 L14 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10

Soil-less Grass Grass Grass Soil-less Grass Soil-less Diversified Diversified Soil-less Grass Diversified Soil-less Diversified Cereal Cereal Cereal Cereal Cereal Cereal Cereal Cereal Cereal Cereal

1 30 35 2 6 25 10 1 27 0 3 15 0 37 28 2 21 29 13 31 16 32 24 24

2 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 0.5 2 1 1 2 5 1

Dairy goats (40) Meat sheep (200) Dairy cows (50) Meat sheep (380) Pigs (50) Beef cows (12) Chicken eggs (270) Chicken (450) Dairy cows (50) Chicken (200) Dairy goats (135) Chicken and chicken eggs (1600) Chicken (200) Beef cows (55) Pulses Bread Cereals Cereals Cereals Cereals Cereals Cereals Cereals Cereals

Fruit trees Cereals Pigs (15) Beef cows (15) Tourism Tourism Fruit trees Vegetables Fruit trees

12 300 132 202 4 42 6.5 10 109 1 16.5 23 3 112 97 29 32 76 64 63 86 62 54 130

6 296 118 193 4 38.3 3.8 2 54.2 1 16.5 2.7 3 73.8 30.9 3.3 1.5 22.7 8.7 23.8 12.2 15.2 5 42

0 4 14 9 0 7.5 2.1 2 15.3 0 0 20.3 0 31.2 35.3 8.8 16 29.5 18.8 19.2 36.9 24.2 18.5 29

A partnership with an association of organic farmers has been established to study the potential and methods for developing croplivestock interactions between farms. The group has been chosen for their diversity of production, their location in the same territory (Fig. 1) and their interest in developing crop-livestock interactions. It was limited to 24 farms to be able to understand deeply the farming systems and farmers’ decisions. The group consists of ten specialized crop farms and 14 livestock farms. Some farmers had previously worked together or knew each other, but many had no relationship before the project. The farms’ structures are highly diverse (Table 1). Four farm types were identified. - “Soil-less animal systems” (n = 5) are livestock farms with small land. An additional activity is often present (e.g. direct sales, hosting tourists). - “Grass-based ruminant systems” (n = 5) are extensive livestock systems based on grasslands. - “Diversified crop-livestock systems” (n = 4) are mixed systems with crops dedicated to animal feed. - “Field-crop systems” (n = 10) are crop farms with diversified crop rotations including high-added-value crops such as pulses (lentils, chickpeas) or field vegetables (garlic, onions). Due to their small size or unsuitable land for annual crop production, livestock farms are not self-sufficient and buy large amounts of feed, especially protein sources. Many farmers have secondary production or an activity such as hosting tourism, which supports their income but limits their flexibility in work organization. The farmers often sell their products through direct sales to consumers in major cities and to tourists. 2.2. Methodology for participatory design 2.2.1. Six-step assessment and design approach Our methodology is composed of six steps developed to design and assess technical and organizational options for change at farm and group of farms levels (Fig. 2). A “technical option for change” corresponds to changes in cropping systems (CS) or in animal feed-

Cheese

Off-farm employment Cereals Cereals Fruit trees Off-farm employment Vegetables Ducks

Fruit trees Vegetables

ing at farm level, while an “organizational option” deals with the conditions of exchanges of products between farmers. The first step, identifying the challenges and issues of croplivestock integration, was conducted in two workshops with farmers and the technical advisor of the association. Participants collectively discussed objectives that the TCLS must achieve. The second step consists of farm surveys to identify objectives and expectations of each farmer. We conducted 24 semi-structured interviews starting with the open question “Can you describe your farm as it is today?”. We collected data on production resources (e.g. types of soils and their advantages and disadvantages, equipment, irrigation, workforce), technical practices (e.g. detailed cropping and/or livestock systems and their evolution in recent years), farmers’ objectives and perceptions of sustainability issues, social and economic performances of their farms. Specific time was dedicated to discuss the expectations and perceived difficulties of the croplivestock interactions. It aimed to identify the technical options for change the farmer would voluntary implement or always refuse. In the third step we analyzed the farm surveys to evaluate the production potential and needs for animal feed at the collective level. We estimated livestock needs by animal type for fodder crops, cereals and protein crops using scientific references (INRA, 2007). Potential crop production was estimated based on farmers’ information. For crops not yet produced on the farm, we used either the yield of neighboring farms or a regional yield reference published by the regional federation of organic farmers. Organic manure production was quantified using local references, while the willingness of livestock farmers to provide manure to crop farms was determined by asking the farmers. In the fourth step, we identified three technical options and three organizational options of exchanges between crop and livestock farms on the basis of the farmers’ ideas collected during the farm surveys. These options were presented and discussed in a workshop, in which farmers were asked to identify strengths and weaknesses of each one and to select the most suitable options. The participants were asked to give five strengths and five weaknesses of technical and organizational option combinations. The cardboard was collectively sorted and commented on (Ryschawy et al., 2012). After discussion, participants selected the TCLS they

M. Moraine et al. / Ecological Indicators 72 (2017) 340–351

Involved stakeholders

Methodological step

Main outcomes

343

Use of information

1. Challenges and issues identification workshop

Farmers’ perceptions and objectives

Definition of criteria for assessment

2. Diagnosis of farms Farm surveys

Level of self-sufficiency Offer and demand

Technical and organizational options

3. Design workshop

Strengths and weaknesses of technical and organizational options

Selected scenario

4. Evaluation of technical and organizational options

Performances of options for change

Multicriteria assessment of the scenario

5. Assessment workshop

Collective validation of the scenario and plan for action

2. Diagnosis of farms Farm surveys

Farmers Researchers Farmers association technical advisor

Fig. 2. The six steps of the methodology, describing stakeholders involved, main outcomes and use of the information.

considered the most interesting i.e. the combination of technical and organization options of change. This half-day workshop led by researchers involved eight farmers and the technical advisor of the association. In the fifth step we built alternative cropping systems for each crop farm and alternative feeding systems for each livestock farm, introducing technical options for change in current practices. We analyzed the resulting TCLS using the multicriteria assessment grid developed by Moraine et al. (2016). It distinguishes the key domains of sustainability in crop-livestock integration (see Section 2.2.2). Each domain is divided into sub-domains and criteria. The sixth step was a workshop for collective discussion of the multicriteria assessment of the designed TCLS. Results of technical options at the farm level and ratings of qualitative criteria of the designed TCLS were presented and discussed. During this workshop, which included 15 farmers and the technical advisor, we discussed a plan of action to implement the TCLS in practice.

2.2.2. Multicriteria assessment of the designed TCLS The multicriteria grid developed by Moraine et al. (2016) was adapted to the farmers’ objectives and issues in the project to evaluate performances of technical options through quantitative or qualitative indicators. It was developed to investigate four key domains of sustainability in integrated crop-livestock systems: (i) efficiency of flows of products, nutrients and energy, conceptualized as the system metabolism; (ii) ecosystem services to agriculture (Duru et al., 2015); (iii) socioeconomic performances and knowledge management; and (iv) social embeddedness of farming systems. Criteria adapted to meet farmers expectations concern the “autonomy of decision for farmers” and “adaptive capacity”. All the criteria and associated indicators are presented in Table 2 and hereafter.

System metabolism is assessed by self-sufficiency in fertilizers (amount of exogenous sources of N per ha) for CS and in animal feed for livestock systems, as proposed by López-Ridaura et al. (2002). “Exogenous” means products that do not come from local farms. Self-sufficiency of livestock systems has been estimated for fodder, cereals, alfalfa, concentrates and straw for bedding. Ecosystem services focus on soil fertility maintenance and biological regulations which are crucial processes for farming sustainability (Duru et al., 2015; Bonaudo et al., 2014; Gliessman, 2007), especially in organic farming. Soil fertility maintenance is assessed through “permanent cover of soils”, “legume crop frequency in crop rotation” and “soil disturbance by tillage practices” (Diacono and Montemurro, 2010). Biological regulation is estimated by the diversity of crops and the abundance of semi-natural habitats at the landscape level (Koohafkan et al., 2011; Pelzer et al., 2012; Ratnadass et al., 2012). Socioeconomic performance is assessed through work management, often identified as a critical problem in diversified crop-livestock systems (Moraine et al., 2014), and economic viability. Work management includes both workload and work “quality” and is assessed by estimating the frequency of periods of overwork and the physical difficulty farmers experience (Craheix et al., 2012). Economic viability depends on the profitability of production systems, determined by production costs and selling prices. We measure profitability using the gross margins of CS, estimated upon production costs (work and inputs), yields and selling prices obtained from farm surveys (Supplementary Tables S1 and S2). For livestock farms, we considered only costs of purchased animal feed, the estimation of all costs (e.g. veterinary, reproduction, buildings) being too complex to implement and too far removed from our subject of research. Knowledge management is assessed through three criteria: farmer autonomy, potential knowledge capitalization, and devel-

344

M. Moraine et al. / Ecological Indicators 72 (2017) 340–351

Table 2 Multicriteria assessment domains, synthetic criteria, criteria and indicators to assess a crop-livestock integration alternative in the farmers’ group. Asterisks denote indicators that were qualitatively estimated by participants to the assessment workshop (Step 6, Fig. 2). Other indicators are quantitative indicators estimated at the individual level and averaged for the group. Domain of assessment

Synthetic criterion

Criterion

Indicator

System metabolism

Self-sufficiency

Crop systems

Amount of exogenous N-source fertilizers (t N/year) Amount of exogenous fodder (t/year) Amount of exogenous concentrates (t/year) Amount of exogenous straw (t/year)

Livestock systems

Ecosystem services

Socioeconomic performance

Soil fertility maintenance

Organic manure application Symbiotic fixation of N

Biological regulation

Diversity of crops at field level Diversity of land use at landscape level

Work management

Workload Work quality Stability of costs Added value of products

Economic viability

Profitability Knowledge management

Social learning and capacity building

Autonomy of farmers

Knowledge capitalization Adaptive capacity Social embeddedness

Embeddedness of agriculture in territory

Social acceptability of agriculture

Contribution to local economic dynamism Integration in public policies

Contribution to local and global sustainability issues

Area of arable land receiving organic manure (ha) Percentage of legume crops in the crop rotation (%) Duration of crop rotations (years) Number of botanical families Abundance of grasslands in landscape* Amount of work * Difficulty of work * Stability of supply and prices * Development of quality labels * Direct sales and collective shops * Use of by-products * Gross margins in crop rotations (D /ha) Costs of animal feeding systems (D ) Independence from commercial organizations* Institutionalization of groups* Structure of exchanges* Exchange of practices and results of trials* Strategic planning and tactical adaptation to annual conditions* Landscape quality* Direct producer-consumer relationships* Animal welfare * Quality of products* Tourism activities * Development of local supply chains and new activities* Establishment of new organic farmers* Conversion to organic farming* Impact of farming on water quality*

t opment of the farmer adaptive capacity. They are evaluated with qualitative indicators selected to meet farmers’ objectives and expectations. Farmer autonomy represents the ability of farmers to decide for themselves their marketing strategies and technical practices (i.e. decisional autonomy). Knowledge capitalization is identified as an important criterion for developing innovative practices: social proximity between farmers is a resource for diffusing and testing new practices when collective dynamics generate new ideas and increase members’ self-confidence (Compagnone and Hellec, 2015; Houdart et al., 2011; Wu and Zhang, 2013). It is assessed by qualitative rating of the potential knowledge exchanges among farmers of the group. Adaptive capacity is defined as the ability to manage both strategic planning of production systems in the long run and the tactical shift required to cope with annual conditions (e.g. the opportunity to switch from grain to silage maize). Social embeddedness assesses the potential benefits of the TCLS for the concerned territory. It is assessed through the qualitative estimation of its contribution to social acceptability of agriculture (quality of landscapes, producer-consumer relationships, product quality and animal welfare) and to local economic dynamism (tourism activities, local supply chains and new activities). Embeddedness in public policies refers to the contribution of TCLS to local sustainability issues, expressed by the contribution to the develop-

ment of organic farming and the impact of farming on water quality (Région Midi-Pyrénées, 2014). Quantitative indicators are filled with values from farm surveys (current situation) and technical options designed in the collective workshop (TCLS situation). Qualitative indicators are filled according to farmers’ qualitative assessment. All indicators were rated by comparing the current situation and the designed TCLS (from +2 for “strongly improved” to −2 for “strongly degraded”). The aggregation method, inspired by Sadok et al. (2009), enabled development of a synthetic representation of the performances of the designed TCLS (see details in Supplementary Table S3).

3. Results 3.1. Identified challenges of crop-livestock integration in the farmers’ group Self-sufficiency at the group level has emerged as the main objective to reach. Farmers of the case study target self-sufficiency at farm level to reduce their production costs and have diversified activities. However their limited land or skills make it difficult to obtain and currently they largely depend on exogenous inputs for crop fertilization or livestock feed.

M. Moraine et al. / Ecological Indicators 72 (2017) 340–351

Crop farmers expect to increase the area under temporary grassland, especially alfalfa or clover, and to introduce cereal-legume mixtures as an alternative to pure cereal crops to improve soil fertility and biological regulations. However they often struggle for commercializing fodder crops, supply chains being more interested in cereals and pulses. They also seek animal manure as an alternative to organic fertilizers currently purchased but very expensive. To reach these objectives, they look for stable outlets and direct interactions with livestock farmers. For livestock farmers, purchasing organic animal feed is expensive, particularly soybean meal which also has a bad image for the consumer. Most of the livestock farmers sell their products in direct sales and wish to guarantee the local origin of feedstuffs. The main livestock farmers’ expectations are to develop stable exchanges with crop farmers and to guarantee the provision of high-quality fodder, cereal and protein crops with a possible reduction in costs. Both types of farmers assumed that organizing direct exchanges between crop and livestock farms could reduce costs due to the absence of intermediaries. This would allow switching from expensive processed products to rawer but still valuable products. It would also increase price stability by maintaining fair prices through long-term agreements. Such agreements depend on trust between farmers, possible with direct relationships. Farmers claimed that technical exchanges and experience sharing could be beneficial, especially to young farmers. Many farmers have no organic farmer in their neighborhood and feel isolated. A structured farmers’ group could support the young farmers and reduce the feeling of being isolated. 3.2. Diagnosis of potential complementarities between crop and livestock farms 3.2.1. Low self-sufficiency and high production costs on livestock farms Despite their diversity, livestock farms face common concerns about animal feed supply: fodder production covers a mean of 91% of the usable agricultural area (UAA) of livestock farms, mainly pastures/rangelands, permanent grasslands, temporary grasslands and forage crops (Fig. 3). Grass is almost the only possible production in the “Causses” area with low productivity and is preferred by many farmers as a low-cost and environmentally-friendly way to feed herbivores. They have few or no arable crops and must purchase important amounts of fodder (342 t Dry Matter −DM- per year in total), cereals (225 t DM/year), concentrates (573 t DM/year) and straw (333 t DM/year). High self-sufficiency was observed for two farmers (L6 and L12) (Fig. 4). However, as they plan to develop new activities, a poultry enterprise (L6) and a processing unit with a farmers’ shop for direct sales (L12), they will need more supply to increase their livestock units. 3.2.2. Crop farms: diversified systems threatened by a decline in soil fertility Crop farms have three to seven crops per CS and several CS on the farm. They seek to implement long and diversified crop rotations with legumes to manage pests and diseases and soil fertility. Many crop farmers traditionally grow pulses and field vegetables because of land suitability and proximity of consumers. As these crops have high added value they do not consider reducing their area. In the same logic, they do not want to reduce the area of wheat and soybean that yield interesting gross margins. Multi-cereal mixtures and cereal-legume mixtures, despite their acknowledged interest in organic CS, are rare mostly because local supply chains rarely buy mixtures. Several crop farmers in the group formerly had animals on their farms. Because of time constraints and low profitability,

345

Table 3 Fertilization management on crop farms. Data from farm surveys. Farm code

N fertilization (kg/ha)

Fertilized area (% UAA)

Total N purchased (t/year)

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10

70 0 90 0 175 0 100 100 0 100

41 0 9 0 16 0 37 26 0 12

2.8 0 0.27 0 1.75 0 3.2 1.6 0 1.5

Table 4 Type and volume of potential exchanges in the farmers’ group. Product

Estimated potential supply (t/year)

Estimated potential needs (t/year)

Potential coverage of needs (%)

Alfalfa Cereal-legume mixtures Straw Manure

668 237 155 585

779 562 333 1870

86 42 47 31

they abandoned livestock enterprises to focus on crop production. Soil fertility is considered a crucial issue in these systems where livestock have disappeared. Crop farmers apply organic fertilizers (based on animal byproducts such as feather meal or dried blood) on the most demanding crops (onion, garlic, wheat, and maize) as sources of N, but they are extremely expensive. The total quantity of N fertilizers applied in crop farms is 11.2 t N/year (Table 3). Farmers who do not apply fertilizers are either recently established (C2), have recently stopped livestock activity (C6), or have fertile soils (C4, C9). Farmers who apply low levels of fertilizers have recently stopped livestock activity (C3, C5) or have alfalfa in the crop rotation (C8, C10). Farmers who apply the most fertilizer (C1, C7) have cereal-dominated rotations cannot access to any source of animal manure. Some farmers experience a decline in yield, such as C9, who declared, “We cruelly lack animals on our farms!” 3.3. Towards changes in agricultural practices: technical options 3.3.1. Technical options in cropping and livestock systems The technical options identified from farm surveys were discussed with the farmers during the design workshop. Feeding livestock with raw cereals and fodder produced by crop farmers could be done by introduction or increasing area of alfalfa in crop farms. As a protein-rich crop, alfalfa could be used as a substitute to soybean meal. Harvest of alfalfa would be done by livestock farmers who have the equipment and technical know-how necessary to do it. As some livestock farms do not have enough agricultural area to spread manure they are keen on providing crop farms with such organic fertilizers. Composting livestock manure would facilitate its transportation to crop farms and reduce the risk of introducing weed seeds to fields. Development of straw-for-manure exchanges is a strong motivation of crop farmers to participate to exchanges. Circulation of animals on crop farms is envisaged for heifers and beef that could graze temporary grasslands, crop residues or cover crops. It requires installing fences and coordinating watching of animals. The introduction of livestock enterprises on crop farms was also envisaged. Since some crop farms have unused buildings, animals confined in these buildings could generate organic manure locally. This option would be supported by knowledge exchanges and management partnerships between livestock and crop farmers.

346

M. Moraine et al. / Ecological Indicators 72 (2017) 340–351

Winter wheat Fruit trees 1% 1%

Barley 2% Triticale 2%

Cereal legume association 2% Other crops 2% Silage

Buckwheat Spelt Vegetables 1% 4% 2% Lentil 3% Chick pea 4%

maize 2% Sorghum 2% Pastures and rangeland 41%

Permanent grassland 26%

Alfalfa Temporary grassland 7% 12%

Fruit trees 2% Grain maize Triticale 1% 2%

Winter wheat 17% Pastures and rangeland 1%

Permanent grassland 4%

Total Livestock farms UAA: 973 ha

Alfalfa 7%

Sorghum 2%

Temporary grassland 11%

Flax 3%

Oat 1%

Faba bean 8%

Soybean 12%

Sunflower 11%

Cereal-legume mixtures 2% Cereal mixtures 1%

Total Crop farms UAA: 693 ha

Fig. 3. Land use in livestock and crop farms. “Cereal-legume mixtures” are diverse associations in which cereals are usually wheat, triticale, or barley and legumes are usually peas, faba bean or vetch. Gray areas are crops that will not be impacted by technical changes.

Fig. 4. Self-sufficiency of livestock farms in fodder, alfalfa, cereals, concentrates and straw according to the usable agricultural area (UAA). Self-sufficiency (%) is calculated by dividing the annual mass of products purchased by the sum of all products used (including on-farm production). Farms that do not use a given category of product have no corresponding symbol. Li: Livestock farm i.

Crop farmers envisaged partial replacement of pure cereal crops by cereal-legume mixtures. Farmers explained that crop associations reduce the incidence of crop diseases, sustain yields and, because of their high soil cover, provide adequate weed control. Crop farmers need to know which species in which proportions may interest livestock farmers. The analysis of potential supply and demand for different types of products at the group level (Table 4) reveals complementarities between crop and livestock farms, with a relatively limiting supply of cereal-legume mixtures and straw. Some livestock farmers are cautious about giving away animal manure and as farmers anticipated, consequently manure is the most limited lacking product.

3.3.2. Evaluation of technical options for change Current cropping systems and livestock systems are compared to the alternative ones with technical options for change selected

by farmers during the design workshop (Table 5, Supplementary Table 4 for details about current and alternative crop rotations). Alternative crop rotations are proposed for each crop farm and built upon their current CS. They all present 3-years alfalfa followed by winter wheat, followed by crops already present in current CS to respect the farmers’ reasoning. Cereal-legume mixtures are introduced to replace pure cereals when placed after winter wheat, sunflower or flax. Fertilization in alternative CSs is based on the same rules as those of the current situation but accounts for the fertilizing effect of alfalfa and manure application as follows: Total N fertilization of the surface area of the entire group with alternative CS = (N amount in the current situation) − [(area of crop after alfalfa × N release per ha after alfalfa) + N content of applied manure]. The amount of N applied in the current situation was obtained from the farm surveys. The effect of alfalfa was estimated with

M. Moraine et al. / Ecological Indicators 72 (2017) 340–351

347

Table 5 Values and ratings of assessment indicators for the current situation and the designed TCLS. The rating of each indicator allows aggregation of quantitative and qualitative indicators. Ratings are based on the difference between the current situation and the designed TCLS (alternative system). Synthetic criteria

Criteria

Indicators

Current situation

Alternative system

Difference (%)

Rating

Self-sufficiency

Crop systems Livestock systems

Amount of exogenous N-source fertilizers (t/year) Amount of exogenous fodder (t/year) Amount of exogenous concentrates (t/year) Amount of exogenous straw (t/year)

1.1 342 573 333

0.6 0 336 178

−45 −100 −41 −47

2 2 2 2

Soil fertility

Organic manure application Symbiotic fixation of N

Area of arable land receiving organic manure (ha)

0

4

+

1

Percentage of legume crops in the crop rotation (%)

30

60

100

2

Biological regulation

Diversity of crops at field level

Duration of crop rotations (years)

6

9

50

2

Number of botanical families

3

3.3

10

0

Economic viability

Profitability

Gross margins in crop rotations (D /ha) Costs of animal feeding systems (D /LU)

579 367

554 392

−4 −20

0 1

farmers as a release of approximately 30 kg N/ha the first year after destruction. For manure, we estimated that the 585 t available for exchange per year are equally shared among crop farms: each farm thus receives approximately 58 t of manure each year. Farmers usually spread at least 15 t of manure per ha because spreading equipment is not accurate enough to spread less; thus, manure is applied on approximately 4 ha per farm each year. Considering the manure application and the symbiotic N fixation of alfalfa, purchased inputs for N fertilization would decrease by 45% in average in alternative CS. Biological regulation and soil fertility are increased in alternative CS because of longer crop rotations, introduction of legume crops and organic manure application. Mean gross margins of alternative CSs decrease by 25D /ha, with differences ranging from −209 to +96 D /ha. Given inter annual market variations in the current situation, profitability is likely to be little affected. At the group level, the production of alternative CS covers all current imported fodder, half of imported straw and less than half of concentrates (assuming optimal distribution of products, with no limits on transport or organization). Feed costs in ruminant systems are strongly decreased (approximately 150 D lower per LU), while livestock systems with monogastric animals have no or little decrease in feed costs. 3.4. Organizational options for change 3.4.1. Selection of the organization option Three main organizational options to manage the crop-livestock exchanges were presented by researchers to farmers: - Multi-relationship exchanges can be organized based on a model of an internal market or small advertisements. According to L7, it could be supported by “an online database filled out by farmers, to identify who sells stuff that interests us”. - Polycentric exchanges would involve small groups of farmers (3–5 of each type) close to each other in dedicated structured cooperation. After identifying the productions and resources of each farm, each group could organize collective investments such as storage units. For C9 “the best would be local interactions, with a regional project but managed in small zones. Farmers have to keep the decision and monitoring of what they do”. - Centralized exchanges would be organized using pooled equipment, similar to that in a cooperative. This structure would centralize production; take charge of storage, conditioning and transport; and offer products to livestock farmers according to

their production and specific needs. Investments are important to establish this structure, but it could include more farmers than the initial group of 24 farmers and develop new activities over time.

Farmers determined that the most suitable form for exchanges would be the polycentric organization. It could support development of structured interactions, optimize capacities of each farm while allowing direct exchanges between farmers and avoid purely opportunistic behaviors. Small groups could share work, mutual assistance, equipment and knowledge. In some groups, collective drying units for alfalfa and cereals could be built to ensure highquality products. Each would consist of a solar oven that dries hay in a barn using warm air, requiring no fossil energy. In these small groups, straw-for-manure exchanges could be organized with collective management of a local composting area for manure.

3.4.2. Evaluation of organizational options Qualitative criteria of the assessment grid were rated for the selected “polycentric organization” (Table 6, Fig. 5). Work management was rated “neutral” by farmers, considering that flexibility being higher but workload also. Both livestock and crop farmers considered collective investment in drying and storage units as a way to guarantee supply and outlet stability. Coordinated governance could be established for exchanges of products in order to increase the decision autonomy of the group and develop new activities (e.g. collective hay drying units or an oil press for sunflower seeds). This collective organization has positive impacts, according to farmers, on the farm dynamism and adaptability. Farmers considered that structured exchanges may contribute to farm resilience by diversifying production, information networks and commercial networks. Networking could also reduce farmer isolation and ease the establishment of young farmers. Regarding social embeddedness, polycentric organization was considered beneficial for the opportunity to develop direct sales. Indicators “Animal welfare” and “Tourism activities” were considered as not impacted. “Quality of products” was rated “moderately improved” because of the local origin of animal feed, which is often positively perceived by consumers and farmers as a guarantee of quality. Also, as suggested by scientific literature and confirmed by livestock farmers, introduction of alfalfa or cereal-legume mixtures into the feeding system could improve the color of poultry flesh and eggs and the composition of fatty acids (ratio between Omega 3 and 6, due to alfalfa) in meat and milk, criteria that are recognized by several quality labels.

348

M. Moraine et al. / Ecological Indicators 72 (2017) 340–351

Table 6 Levels and ratings of the qualitative indicators for the technical and polycentric organization options for change. Synthetic criterion

Criterion

Indicator

Current situation

Polycentric organization

Rating

Biological regulation

Diversity of land use at landscape level

Abundance of grasslands in landscape

Medium

High

1

Work management

Workload Work quality

Amount of work Difficulty of work

High High

High High

0 0

Economic viability

Stability of costs Added value of products

Stability of supply and prices Development of quality labels Direct sales and collective shops Use of by-products

Low Medium Medium

High High High

2 1 1

Low

Medium

1

Independence from commercial organizations Institutionalization of groups Structure of exchanges Exchange of practices and results of trials Strategic planning and tactical adaptation to annual conditions

Low

High

2

Low

Medium

1

Low

High

2

Low

High

2

Landscape quality

High

High

0

Producer-consumer direct relationship Animal welfare Tourism activities linked to landscape quality Development of local supply chains and new activities Quality of products

Medium

High

1

Medium Medium

Medium Medium

0 0

Medium

High

1

Medium

High

1

Low

Medium

1

Low Low

Low Low

0 0

Social learning and capacity building

Autonomy of farmers

Knowledge capitalization Adaptive capacity

Embeddedness of agriculture in the territory

Social acceptability of agriculture

Contribution to local economic dynamism

Integration in public policies

Contribution to local and global sustainability issues

Establishment of new organic farmers Conversion to organic farming Impact of farming on water quality

Fig. 5. Multicriteria assessment of the designed TCLS according to synthetic criteria. The current situation is considered as the reference, rated null, for every criterion. The designed TCLS is rated null if it has the same value as the baseline, +1 or +2 if it lightly or strongly improves the criterion, respectively, and −1 or −2 if it lightly or strongly degrades the criterion, respectively.

The criteria about public policies are almost unchanged in the TCLS, except for the establishment of young organic farmers, perceived has improved by the cooperation opportunities. Water quality is unlikely to be improved as organic farming practices are already beneficial for water resources. The integration of the TCLS

project in public policies is overall good and farmers’ association had already received funds from the French Ministry of Agriculture and the region at the start of the project, and could be elected in a support plan for groups of mixed farmers.

M. Moraine et al. / Ecological Indicators 72 (2017) 340–351

4. Discussion 4.1. Performances, credibility and saliency of the designed TCLS Developing interactions between crop and livestock systems seems interesting for synergistic effects, both for the ecological system (Altieri, 2002) and social system where proximity between partners increase the benefits of exchanges (Angeon et al., 2006). Crop diversification is the key issue for ecological benefits, made possible by the direct, local sale of products, which overcomes the current constraint of supply chain specialization (Geels, 2004; Meynard et al., 2013). The collective dimension of the TCLS may facilitate learning processes among peers and encourage changes in practices (Lamine, 2011). Designing options for change both at an individual-farm and collective level encourages single-loop learning (changes in practices) as well as double-loop learning (changes in how practices are evaluated) (Argyris and Schön, 1996). Cooperation is key factor of empowerment of farmers (Coudel et al., 2008; Bellon et al., 2010) but it is determined by their social and geographical proximity (Asai et al., 2014). It could also be a factor of resilience of individual farms; the group being more resilient to changes and perturbations than isolated farms (Milestad and Darnhofer, 2003). However, as observed by Simon (2014) in similar initiatives, the interest of the TCLS and its longevity depends of the commitment of farmers in cooperation and the emergence of leaders in the group. Further actions, like collective organization of field trials of new CS and feeding strategies, would be required to reduce uncertainties associated to new agricultural practices. A key issue for livestock farmers is developing methods to estimate the nutritive value of cereal-legume mixtures for animals. Many livestock farmers are reluctant to take any risk of nutritional deficiency, because feeding strategies directly determine the quantity and quality of animal products and, consequently, their economic performances (Meynard et al., 2013). In other words, the implementation of the TCLS would depend on the capacity of the farmers’ group to develop a collective organization with adaptive management strategies at individual and collective levels (Duru et al., 2015). Another challenge lies in the need for collective investments for alfalfa drying and logistics management. Investments would require commitment of a sufficient number of farmers to reach a critical size. Public policies could support such investments to support sustainable farming systems. Further partnership with researchers could help develop local references and shared understanding of processes, benefits and limits of designed TCLS (Kemp et al., 2007).

4.2. Methodological outcomes and limits The diagnosis/design/evaluation structure of our methodology is classic in the design of sustainable agricultural systems (Daniell and Bijlsma, 2010; Elzen and Spoelstra, 2010; Kalaugher et al., 2013; Lefèvre et al., 2014). However, the specific complexity of developing crop-livestock systems between farms required methodological innovation. Along the working sequences, the object of design evolved from “reducing dependency of farming systems to external inputs” to “technical and organizational options for crop-livestock integration, consistent with farmers’ constraints and objectives”. This “design trajectory” (Lang et al., 2012) alternates individual and group meetings. The multicriteria assessment grid acted as an intermediary object in these discussions, allowing a systemic approach of design. It allows defining precisely the conditions and issues when implementing the designed TCLS, i.e. shifting from general ideas to contextualized proposals (Mitchell et al., 2014).

349

A first trade-offs between individual and collective interests appear when farmers agree on fixed prices for several years: the market price can be higher one year (then the buyer is beneficial) and lower the other year (then the seller is beneficial). A second tradeoff between farm- and collective-level concerns flexibility. When organizing exchanges, flexibility at the farm level implies possible changes in product nature, volume or quality, either from the supply side or the demand side. Adaptive capacity is necessary at the collective level to ensure stability of exchanges, especially the ability for crop farmers to plan production over several years. Our study provides understanding of functional, spatial and decisional issues of TCLS, i.e., the main issues in modelling and design of integrated crop-livestock systems at the collective level (Martin et al., 2012, Martin et al. submitted). Although data and local references would have to be adapted, the multi-criteria grid could be tested in other contexts. Further knowledge about relations between practices and ecosystem services would be important to support the development of TCLS, as limited knowledge raises high uncertainty about potential benefits, specifically for biological regulation (Power, 2010; Sarthou et al., 2014). The question of the effect of “biodiversity hotspots” provided by organic farms over their own and neighboring farms ecological functioning could be developed (Gosme et al., 2012). Other key factors to be considered include the spatial distribution of grasslands, the connectivity and structure of hedgerow networks and the “hidden diversity” associated with temporal and spatial differences in soil cover types (Vasseur et al., 2013; Puech et al., 2015). In other words, crop patterns and the landscape matrix generated by TCLS would have to be assessed with more suitable ecosystem-service indicators (Oudenhoven et al., 2012). 5. Conclusion We developed a method to design and assess a Territorial CropLivestock System and applied it to support a group of organic farmers willing to increase their self-sufficiency by developing product exchanges and the necessary social networks. Through diagnosis of farming systems and farmers’ objectives at the individual level, we identified the key issues and expectations about crop-livestock integration in the group and synthesized it in a multicriteria assessment grid. This grid was used to support the design of technical and organizational options for crop-livestock integration at the collective level. The design methodology was adapted and enriched throughout the process by refining the research question and defining objectives for individuals and for the group. The designed TCLS is based on polycentric structured exchanges that increase land-use diversity at the farm level and subsequent synergetic effects on ecosystem services. The envisaged cooperation provides conditions for capacity building, active exchange of knowledge, and increased resilience by increased individual and collective adaptive capacities. This work contributes to the design and assessment of sustainable agricultural systems at a supra-farm level in the present state of scientific knowledge. It examines conditions for considering local dynamics and estimates their potential impacts at the farm and collective levels. It contributes to a scientific understanding and monitoring of agroecological transition in farming systems. Acknowledgements This work was performed with the support of the Tata-Box project (Territorial Agroecological Transition in Action: a tool-Box for designing and implementing a transition to a territorial agroecological system in agriculture) funded by the French Agency for

350

M. Moraine et al. / Ecological Indicators 72 (2017) 340–351

Research and of the European FP7 project CANTOGETHER (grant agreement no. 289328). The authors thank the farmers who participated in the survey and workshops, the technical advisors of the association BIO 82, the experts who contributed in the analysis of farming systems and the two anonymous reviewers for their comments. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016. 08.012. References Altieri, M.A., 2002. Agroecology: the science of natural resource management for poor farmers in marginal environments. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 93, 1–24. Angeon, V., Caron, P., Lardon, S., 2006. Des liens sociaux à la construction d’un développement territorial durable: quel rôle de la proximité dans ce processus? Développement Durable et Territoires, in French, http:// developpementdurable.revues.org/2851. Argyris, C., Schön, D., 1996. Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice. Addison Wesley (Mass). Asai, M., Langer, V., 2014. Collaborative partnerships between organic farmers in livestock-intensive areas of Denmark. Org. Agric., http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s13165-014-0065-3. Asai, M., Langer, V., Frederiksen, P., Jacobsen, B.H., 2014. Livestock farmer perceptions of successful collaborative arrangements for manure exchange: a study in Denmark. Agric. Syst. 128, 55–65, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy. 2014.03.007. Bellon, S., Desclaux, D., Le Pichon, V., 2010. Innovation and research in organic farming: a multi-level approach to facilitate cooperation among stakeholders. In: Proceedings of the 9th European IFSA Symposium, 4–7 July 2010, Vienna (Austria), pp. 703–717. Berthet, E., Bretagnolle, V., Segrestin, B., 2012. Analyzing the design process of farming practices ensuring little bustard conservation: lessons for collective landscape management. J. Sustain. Agric. 36, 319–336, http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/10440046.2011.627988. Bonaudo, T., Bendahan, A.B., Sabatier, R., Ryschawy, J., Bellon, S., Leger, F., Magda, D., Tichit, M., 2014. Agroecological principles for the redesign of integrated crop-livestock systems. Eur. J. Agron. 57, 43–51, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. eja.2013.09.010. Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N., Guston, D.H., Jager, J., Mitchell, R.B., 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100, 8086–8091, http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100. Castelletti, A., Soncini-Sessa, R., 2007. Bayesian networks and participatory modelling in water resource management. Environ. Modell. Soft-ware 22 (8), 10751088. Compagnone, C., Hellec, F., 2015. Farmers’ professional dialogue networks and dynamics of change: the case of ICP and no-tillage adoption in burgundy (France). Rural Soc. 80 (2), 248––273, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12058. Coudel, E., Rey-Valette, H., Tonneau, J.P., 2008. Which competencies and learning facilitate the involvement of local actors in territorial governance? The example of a Farmer University in Brazil. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 11. Craheix, D., Angevin, F., Bergez, J., Bockstaller, C., Colomb, B., Guichard, L., Omon, B., Reau, R., Doré, T., n.d. Multicriteria assessment of the sustainability of cropping systems: A case study of farmer involvement using the MASC model, in: Proceedings of 9th European IFSA Symposium, 1 − 4 July 2012, Aarhus, Denmark. pp. 1–9. Daniell, K.A., Bijlsma, R., 2010. Designing participation processes for water management and beyond. Ecol. Soc. 15 (3), 1 http://www.ecologyandsociety. org/vol15/iss3/art1/. Diacono, M., Montemurro, F., 2010. Long-term effects of organic amendments on soil fertility. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 30, 401–422. Duru, M., Therond, O., Martin, G., et al., 2015. How to implement biodiversity-based agriculture to enhance ecosystem services: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev., http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0306-1. Elzen, B., Spoelstra, S., 2010. Towards sustainable livestock production systems—Outline of a Learning and Experimentation Strategy (LES). In: Proceedings of 9th European IFSA Symposium, 4–7 July 2010, Vienna, Austria, pp. 823–834. Etienne, M. (Ed.), 2010. Companion Modelling, A Participatory Approach to Sustainable Development. Quae Editions, Versailles. Geels, F.W., 2004. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems. Res. Policy 33, 897–920, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015. Gliessman, S.R., 2007. Agroecology. The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems, second edition. CRC Press. Taylor & Francis Group. Gosme, M., Villemandy, M., Bazot, M., Jeuffroy, M., 2012. Local and neighbourhood effects of organic and conventional wheat management on aphids, weeds, and foliar diseases. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 161, 121–129, http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.agee.2012.07.009.

Havet, A., Coquil, X., Fiorelli, J.L., Gibon, A., Martel, G., Roche, B., Ryschawy, J., Schaller, N., Dedieu, B., 2014. Review of livestock farmer adaptations to increase forages in crop rotations in western France. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 190, 120–127, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.01.009. Houdart, M., Bonin, M., Compagnone, C., 2011. Social and spatial organisation −assessing the agroecological changes on farms: case study in a banana-growing area of Guadeloupe. Int. J. Agric. Res., Gov. Ecol. 9, 15–30. INRA (Ed.), 2007. Alimentation Des Bovins, Ovins Et Caprins. Besoins Des Animaux − Valeur Des Aliments. Tables INRA 2007. Quae Editions, Paris, France. Kalaugher, E., Bornman, J.F., Clark, A., Beukes, P., 2013. An integrated biophysical and socio-economic framework for analysis of climate change adaptation strategies: the case of a New Zealand dairy farming system. Environ. Modell. Software 39, 176–187, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.03.018. Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., Rotmans, J., 2007. Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 14, 1. Koohafkan, P., Altieri, M.A., Gimenez, E.H., 2011. Green agriculture: foundations for biodiverse, resilient and productive agricultural systems. Int. J. Agric. Sustain., http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2011.610206. López-Ridaura, S., Masera, O., Astier, M., 2002. Evaluating the sustainability of complex socio-environmental systems. The MESMIS framework. Ecol. Indic. 2, 135–148. Lamine, C., 2011. Transition pathways towards a robust ecologization of agriculture and the need for system redesign. Cases from organic farming and IPM. J. Rural Stud. 27, 209–219, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.02.001. Lang, D.J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Moll, P., Swilling, M., Thomas, C.J., 2012. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain. Sci. 7, 25–43, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149x. Lefèvre, V., Capitaine, M., Peigné, J., Roger-estrade, J., 2014. Farmers and agronomists design new biological agricultural practices for organic cropping systems in France. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 34, 623–632, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s13593-013-0177-2. Lemaire, G., Franzluebbers, A., Carvalho, P.C.D.F., Dedieu, B., 2014. Integrated crop-livestock systems: strategies to achieve synergy between agricultural production and environmental quality. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.08.009. Martin, G., Martin-Clouaire, R., Duru, M., 2012. Farming system design to feed the changing world. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev., http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s13593-011-0075-4. Martin, G., Moraine, M., Ryschawy, J., Magne, M.A., Asai, M., Sarthou, J.P., Duru, M., Therond, O., submitted to Agron Sust Dev. Crop–livestock integration beyond the farm level: a review of prospects and issues. Meynard, J., Messean, A., Charlier, A., Charrier, F., Fares, M., Le Bail, M., Magrini, M.-B., Savini, I., 2013. Freins et leviers à la diversification des cultures: étude au niveau des exploitations agricoles et des filières. Oilseeds Fats Crops Lipids 20, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/ocl/2013007, in French. Milestad, R., Darnhofer, I., 2003. Building farm resilience: the prospects and challenges of organic farming. J. Sustain. Agric. 22 (3), 81–97. Mitchell, M., Griffith, R., Ryan, P., Walkerden, G., Walker, B., Brown, V.A., Robinson, S., 2014. Applying resilience thinking to natural resource management through a planning-by-doing framework. Soc. Nat. Resour.: Int. J. 27 (3), 299–314, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2013.861556. Moraine, M., Duru, M., Nicholas, P., Leterme, P., Therond, O., 2014. Farming system design for innovative crop-livestock integration in Europe. Animal 8, 1204–1217, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114001189. Moraine, M., Duru, M., Therond, O., 2016. A social-ecological framework for analyzing and designing crop-livestock systems from farm to territory levels. Renew. Agric. Food Syst., http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1742170515000526, available on CJO2016. Moreau, P., Ruiz, L., Mabon, F., Raimbault, T., Durand, P., Delaby, L., Devienne, S., 2012. Reconciling technical, economic and environmental efficiency of farming systems in vulnerable areas. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 147, 89–99, http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.06.005. Murgue, C., Therond, O., Leenhardt, D., 2015. Towards sustainable water and agricultural land management: participatory design of spatial distributions of cropping systems in a water-deficit basin. Land Use Policy 45, http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.01.011. Oudenhoven, A.P.E., Petz, K., Alkemade, R., Hein, L., de Groot, R.S., 2012. Framework for systematic indicator selection to assess effects of land management on ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic. 21, 110–122, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolind.2012.01.012. Pahl-Wostl, C., Hare, M., 2004. Processes of social learning in integrated resources management. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 14, 193–206, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/casp.774. Pelzer, E., Fortino, G., Bockstaller, C., Angevin, F., Lamine, C., Moonen, C., Vasileiadis, V., Guérin, D., Guichard, L., Reau, R., Messéan, A., 2012. Assessing innovative cropping systems with DEXiPM, a qualitative multi-criteria assessment tool derived from DEXi. Ecol. Indic. 18, 171–182, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolind.2011.11.019. Peyraud, J., Taboada, M., Delaby, L., 2014. Integrated crop and livestock systems in Western Europe and South America: a review. Eur. J. Agron., http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.eja.2014.02.005. Poux, X., Narcy, J.B., Ramain, B., 2009. Réinvestir le saltus dans la pensée agronomique moderne: vers un nouveau front eco-politique? L’Espace Politique 9, in French, on line https://espacepolitique.revues.org/1495.

M. Moraine et al. / Ecological Indicators 72 (2017) 340–351 Power, A.G., 2010. Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 365, 2959–2971, http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010. 0143. Puech, C., Poggi, S., Baudry, J., 2015. Do farming practices affect natural enemies at the landscape scale? Landscape Ecol. 30, 125–140, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10980-014-0103-2. Région Midi-Pyrénées, 2014. PLAN BIO 2014–2020. La Région poursuit son engagement en faveur de l’agriculture biologique en Midi-Pyrénées. (Rapport d’Assemblée Plénière N (14/AP/06.07 du 26 juin 2014) www.midipyrenees.fr/ IMG/pdf/plan bio oct 2014 avis daj.pdf. Ratnadass, A., Fernandes, P., Avelino, J., Habib, R., 2012. Plant species diversity for sustainable management of crop pests and diseases in agroecosystems: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 32, 273–303, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13593011-0022-4. Ravera, F., Scheidel, F., Dell’Angelo, J., Gamboa, G., Serrano, T., Mingorria, S., Cabello, V., Arizpe, N., Ariza, P., 2014. Pathways of rural change: an integrated assessment of metabolic patterns in emerging ruralities. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 16, 811–820, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-014-9534-9. Ravier, C., Prost, L., Jeuffroy, M., Wezel, A., Paravano, L., Reau, R., 2015. Multi-criteria and multi-stakeholder assessment of cropping systems for a result-oriented water quality preservation action programme. Land Use Policy 42, 131–140, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.07.006. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Å. Persson, ChapinIII, F.S., Lambin, E.F., Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J., Walker, B.,

351

Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., Foley, J.A., 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/461472a. Russelle, M.P., Entz, M.H., Franzluebbers, A.J., 2007. Reconsidering integrated crop-livestock systems in north america. Agron. J. 99, 325–334, http://dx.doi. org/10.2134/agronj2006.0139. Ryschawy, J., Choisis, N., Choisis, J.P., Joannon, A., Gibon, A., 2012. Mixed crop-livestock systems: an economic and environmental-friendly way of farming? Animal 6 (10), 1722–1730, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ S1751731112000675. Sadok, W., Angevin, F., Bergez, J.E., Bockstaller, C., Colomb, B., Guichard, L., Reau, R., Messean, A., Doré, T., 2009. MASC® : a qualitative multi-attribute decision model for ex ante assessment of the sustainability of cropping systems. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 29, 447–461. Sarthou, J., Badoz, A., Vaissière, B., Chevallier, A., Rusch, A., 2014. Local more than landscape parameters structure natural enemy communities during their overwintering in semi-natural habitats. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 194, 17–28, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.04.018. Simon, G., 2014. Collective initiatives of organic farmers in Haute Garonne (France). In: Master Thesis. VetAgroSup, pp. 149. Vasseur, C., Joannon, A., Aviron, S., Burel, F., Meynard, J.M., Baudry, J., 2013. The cropping systems mosaic: how does the hidden heterogeneity of agricultural landscapes drive arthropod populations? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 166, 3–14, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.08.013. Wu, B., Zhang, L., 2013. Farmer innovation diffusion via network building: a case of winter greenhouse diffusion in China. Agric. Hum. Values 30, 641–651, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10460-013-9438-6.