The agri-environmental Footprint Index

The Agri-Environmental Footprint project is developing a common methodology for assessing the environmental impact of European agri-environment schemes. The Agri-Environmental Footprint Index (AFI) has been constructed as a customisable approach. It is a farm-level index that aggregates the measurement of agri-environmental indicators. Farm-level impact scores can be aggregated at a regional level to track temporal change and/or to provide comparisons of the success (or otherwise) of an agri-environment scheme.

The economic dimensions of integrating flood management and agri-environment through washland creation: a case from Somerset, England

In many river floodplains in the UK, there has been a long history of flood defence, land reclamation and water regime management for farming. In recent years, however, changing European and national policies with respect to farming, environment and flood management are encouraging a re-appraisal of land use in rural areas. In particular, there is scope to develop, through the use of appropriate promotional mechanisms, washland areas, which will simultaneously accommodate winter inundation, support extensive farming methods, deliver environmental benefits, and do this in a way which can underpin the rural economy. This paper explores the likely economic impacts of the development of flood storage and washland creation. In doing so, consideration is given to feasibility of this type of development, the environmental implications for a variety of habitats and species, and the financial and institutional mechanisms required to achieve implementation. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Conceptual development of a harmonised method for tracking change and evaluating policy in the agri-environment: The Agri-environmental Footprint Index

An aggregated farm-level index, the Agri-environmental Footprint Index (AFI), based on multiple criteria methods and representing a harmonised approach to evaluation of EU agri-environmental schemes is described. The index uses a common framework for the design and evaluation of policy that can be customised to locally relevant agri-environmental issues and circumstances. Evaluation can be strictly policy-focused, or broader and more holistic in that context-relevant assessment criteria that are not necessarily considered in the evaluated policy can nevertheless be incorporated. The Index structure is flexible, and can respond to diverse local needs. The process of Index construction is interactive, engaging farmers and other relevant stakeholders in a transparent decision-making process that can ensure acceptance of the outcome, help to forge an improved understanding of local agri-environmental priorities and potentially increase awareness of the critical role of farmers in environmental management. The structure of the AFI facilitates post-evaluation analysis of relative performance in different dimensions of the agri-environment, permitting identification of current strengths and weaknesses, and enabling future improvement in policy design. Quantification of the environmental impact of agriculture beyond the stated aims of policy using an 'unweighted' form of the AFI has potential as the basis of an ongoing system of environmental audit within a specified agricultural context. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Evaluation of agri-environmental and forestry schemes with multiple objectives

The evaluation of EU policy in the area of rural land use management often encounters problems of multiple and poorly articulated objectives. Agri-environmental policy has a range of aims, including natural resource protection, biodiversity conservation and the protection and enhancement of landscape quality. Forestry policy, in addition to production and environmental objectives, increasingly has social aims, including enhancement of human health and wellbeing, lifelong learning, and the cultural and amenity value of the landscape. Many of these aims are intangible, making them hard to define and quantify. This article describes two approaches for dealing with such situations, both of which rely on substantial participation by stakeholders. The first is the Agri-Environment Footprint Index, a form of multi-criteria participatory approach. The other, applied here to forestry, has been the development of ‘multi-purpose’ approaches to evaluation, which respond to the diverse needs of stakeholders through the use of mixed methods and a broad suite of indicators, selected through a participatory process. Each makes use of case studies and involves stakeholders in the evaluation process, thereby enhancing their commitment to the programmes and increasing their sustainability. Both also demonstrate more ‘holistic’ approaches to evaluation than the formal methods prescribed in the EU Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework.

Isotype: representing social facts pictorially

In developing Isotype, Otto Neurath and his colleagues were the first to systematically explore a consistent visual language as part of an encyclopedic approach to representing all aspects of the physical world. The pictograms used in Isotype have a secure legacy in today's public information symbols, but Isotype was more than this: it was designed to communicate social facts memorably to less educated groups, including schoolchildren and workers, reflecting its initial testing ground in the socialist municipality of Vienna during the 1920s. The social engagement and methodology of Isotype are examined here in order to draw some lessons for information design today.

Environmental evaluation of agri-environment schemes using participatory approaches: experiences of testing the Agri-Environmental Footprint Index

The Agri-Environment Footprint Index (AFI) has been developed as a generic methodology to assess changes in the overall environmental impacts from agriculture at the farm level and to assist in the evaluation of European agri-environmental schemes (AES). The methodology is based on multicriteria analysis (MCA) and involves stakeholder participation to provide a locally customised evaluation based on weighted environmental indicators. The methodology was subjected to a feasibility assessment in a series of case studies across the EU. The AFI approach was able to measure significant differences in environmental status between farms that participated in an AES and nonparticipants. Wider environmental concerns, beyond the scheme objectives, were also considered in some case studies and the benefits for identification of unintentional (and often beneficial) impacts of AESs are presented. The participatory approach to AES valuation proved efficient in different environments and administrative contexts. The approach proved to be appropriate for environmental evaluation of complex agri-environment systems and can complement any evaluation conducted under the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. The applicability of the AFI in routine monitoring of AES impacts and in providing feedback to improve policy design is discussed.

Options for enhancing the biodiversity value of intensive livestock farms: experience from the English agri-environment schemes

Permanent grassland makes up a greater proportion of the agricultural area in the UK and Ireland than in any other EU country, representing 60% and 72% of UAA respectively (Eurostat 2007). Of the permanent grassland in the UK, approximately half (about 6 million hectares) comprises improved grassland on moist or free-draining neutral soils typical of lowland livestock farms. These swards tend to have low plant species richness and are typically dominated by perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne). The aim of this paper is to review the ways in which biodiversity of such farmland can be enhanced, focussing on the evidence behind management options in English agri-environment schemes (AES) at a range of scales and utilising a range of mechanisms.

Narrativising the facts: acting in screen and stage docudrama

This article presents findings and seeks to establish the theoretical markers that indicate the growing importance of fact-based drama in screen and theatre performance to the wider Anglophone culture. During the final decade of the twentieth century and the opening one of the twenty-first, television docudrama and documentary theatre have grown in visibility and importance in the UK, providing key responses to social, cultural and political change over the millennial period. Actors were the prime focus for the enquiry principally because so little research has been done into the special demands that fact-based performance makes on them. The main emphasis in actor training (in the UK at any rate) is, as it always has been, on preparation for fictional drama. Preparation in acting schools is also heavily geared towards stage performance. Our thesis was that performers called upon to play the roles of real people, in whatever medium, have added responsibilities both towards history and towards real individuals and their families. Actors must engage with ethical questions whether they like it or not, and we found them keenly aware of this. In the course of the research, we conducted 30 interviews with a selection of actors ranging from the experienced to the recently-trained. We also interviewed a few industry professionals and actor trainers. Once the interviews started it was clear that actors themselves made little or no distinction between how they set about their work for television and film. The essential disciplines for work in front of the camera, they told us, are the same whether the camera is electronic or photographic. Some adjustments become necessary, of course in the multi-camera TV studio. But much serious drama for the screen is made on film anyway. We found it was also the case that young actors now tend to get their first paid employment before a camera rather than on a stage. The screen-before-stage tendency, along with the fundamental re-shaping that has gone on in the British theatre since at least the early 1980s, had implications for actor training. We have also found that theatre work still tends to be most valued by actors. For all the actors we interviewed, theatre was what they liked doing best because it was there they could practice and develop their skills, there they could work most collectively towards performance, and there they could more directly experience audience feedback in the real time of the stage play. The current world of television has been especially constrained in regard to rehearsal time in comparison to theatre (and, to a lesser extent, film). This has also affected actors’ valuation of their work. Theatre is, and is not, the most important medium in which they find work. Theatre is most important spiritually and intellectually, because in theatre is collaborative, intensive, and involving; theatre is not as important in financial and career terms, because it is not as lucrative and not as visible to a large public as acting for the screen. Many actors took the view that, for all the industrial differences that do affect them and inevitably interest the academic, acting for the visible media of theatre, film and television involved fundamentally the same process with slightly different emphases.

Envy, facts and justice: a critique of the treatment of envy in justice as fairness

A common anti-egalitarian argument is that equality is motivated by envy, or the desire to placate envy. In order to avoid this charge, John Rawls explicitly banishes envy from his original position. This article argues that this is an inconsistent and untenable position for Rawls, as he treats envy as if it were a fact of human psychology and believes that principles of justice should be based on such facts. Therefore envy should be known about in the original position. The consequences for Rawlsian theory—both substantive and methodological—are discussed.