Content uploaded by Vieri Tarchiani
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vieri Tarchiani on Mar 13, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
__________________________
https://doi.org/10.28924/ip/jas.1923
© Copyright 2020 the authors.
1
Journal of Agriculture and Sustainability
ISSN 2201-4357
Volume 13, 2020, 6
Assessing the Sustainability of Horticultural Farms in Central Senegal:
An Adaptation of the IDEA Method
Amy Faye1*; Emanuele Zucchini2;Yacine Ngom1; Patrizio Vignaroli2; Vieri
Tarchiani2, Djiby Dia1
1Bureau d’Analyses Macro-économiques (BAME),
Institut Sénégalais des Recherches Agronomiques (ISRA), Dakar, Senegal
2Istituto di Biometereologia (IBIMET),
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR), Florence, Italy
*Corresponding author: amy.faye1@gmail.com
Abstract
This paper evaluates the sustainability of the different forms of horticulture farms
(individual and collective) in the Groundnut Basin of Senegal using an adapted version
of the IDEA method to the Senegal context.
Results show that collective farms have higher sustainability scores than individual
farms. Also, collective farms are more sustainable in the agroecological scale while
individual farms are more sustainable in the economic scale. Results also suggest that
although IDEA can be adapted to both individual and collective horticulture farms of
Senegal, there is a need to include a fourth scale that will integrate the institutional and
organizational features of collective farms as well as the socio-political and research
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
2
context that can enable or hinder the adoption of sustainable farm practices.
Keywords: farm sustainability; water user associations; horticulture; groundnut
basin of Senegal; IDEA.
1. Introduction
Public awareness of the concept of sustainability came with the publication of the
"Limits to Growth" report (Meadows et al., 1972), which drew attention to the finiteness
of global resources and the importance of integrating environmental aspects in
development objectives. An earlier definition is given by the 1987 Brundtland report,
which defined sustainable development as an “economically viable, environmentally
sound and socially acceptable development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”
(WCED, 1987)
1
. Agricultural sustainability reflects the aforementioned definition.
Francis and Youngberg (1990) define it as “ecologically sound, economically viable,
socially just and human”. Specifically, sustainable agriculture should satisfy human
needs without destroying natural resources (Ikerd, 1993; Francis and Youngberg, 1990;
Harwood, 1990). Relating to the specific case of Sub-Saharan African countries,
agricultural sustainability implies the increase of agricultural output to meet food
demand, under the constraints of environmental fragility (Kleemann 2013; Pretty et al.
2011; Pretty et al. 2003).
In Africa, agriculture plays an important role in economic development. The sector
accounts for nearly half of the continent’s gross domestic product and employs 60
percent of the labor force (FAO, 2016). However, in Sahelian countries like Senegal,
agriculture is very dependent on rainfalls that are highly variable due to climatic
hazards. To mitigate drought risks, investing in irrigation has been promoted since the
70s droughts. Among the public initiatives to develop the irrigation sector, horticulture
1
The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) laid the foundation for the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 and the adoption of the Agenda 21, the
Rio Declaration and the Commission on Sustainable Development (United Nations 1992).
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
3
has been promoted through Water User Associations (WUAs), considered as a solution
to decentralize water management, under the framework of government or donor-
funded development projects not only to mitigate drought but also to diversify
production and revenue sources in areas where rainfed agriculture is predominant and
access to water resources is financially and technically constraining to farmers. In
addition to public initiatives, in rainfed areas such as the Groundnut Basin where
groundnut--as a cash crop--and millet are the main cultivated crops, there exist private
initiatives that involve family farms increasingly oriented towards irrigated
agriculture, particularly market gardening during the dry season. This has been
motivated by the uncertainties associated with rainfed production and the
government's withdrawal from the groundnut sector that has led to a deterioration of
production conditions of family farms.
However, the practice of irrigated agriculture in the Groundnut Basin characterized
by limited or inaccessible water resources and high temperatures could be difficult.
Therefore, it becomes relevant to wonder whether market gardening that was
previously practiced in wetlands such as the Niayes or the Senegal River Valley with
high irrigation potential thanks to the presence of water resources, favorable
temperatures, can be sustainable in an area where not only the irrigation potential is
limited but also the temperatures are high. In addition to this, there are financial
constraints associated with the high cost of inputs especially for horticultural crops
that are input-intensive, inaccessibility to funding, organizational difficulties and
inadequate infrastructures to ease market access. A field study of 12 horticulture-
oriented WUAs in the Groundnut Basin has shown that most of them are abandoned
after a few years of production (Robbiati et al., 2013). This strengthens the relevance of
the sustainability issue of horticultural farms in rainfed areas such as the Groundnut
Basin that has, to date not yet been studied carefully in the Senegal context. Moreover,
future interventions to develop the irrigation sector in the area should learn from the
successes and failures of the existing irrigation schemes.
Therefore, the main objective of this paper is to evaluate the sustainability of the
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
4
different forms of market gardening (individual and collective) in the Groundnut
Basin.
As suggests its definition, farm sustainability depends on environmental, economic
and social factors. Compared to the most common measurement methods IDEA
provides some important advantages. It allows measuring farm sustainability for each
unit of observation. It has a holistic approach that includes all the dimensions of farm
sustainability. It is easily adapted to different contexts. Finally, it is a useful tool for
policymakers, analysts, practitioners, and farmers who intend to increase agricultural
sustainability (Zahm et al. 2008). However, Zahm et al. (2008) pointed out that the
IDEA method is hardly adaptable to the horticultural sector given its level of
specialization.
Attempts to compare the sustainability of different forms of farm organization were
made (Biret et al., 2019). However, comparisons focused on different forms of
individual
2
farms; on livestock farms, etc. The comparison of individual and collective
farms has not yet been a matter of interest. Also, there has been little to no interest in
horticulture farms. This paper’s contribution is threefold: i) the paper adapts the IDEA
method to horticulture farms; ii) it compares the sustainability of two farm types based
on their management system which can be individual or collective; iii) it discusses the
necessity to include an institutional dimension in the IDEA method to analyze the
sustainability of collective farms.
The main hypothesis of this research is that the IDEA method can be adapted to
analyze the sustainability of both individual and collective horticulture farms in the
Senegal context.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. The horticultural sector in the groundnut basin of Senegal
The Groundnut Basin is one of the six agro-ecological zones of Senegal.
2
Here individual refers to the notion of one entity (family or an individual) managing the farm as
opposed to a collective farm where many individuals not belonging to the same entity gather to
commonly manage a farm.
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
5
Geographically, it is composed of central regions of Senegal, namely, Diourbel, Fatick,
Kaolack, Kaffrine, Louga, and Thiès. Groundnut is historically the main produced cash
crop in the area. The farming activity is majorly undertaken during the rainy season
from June to September with groundnut and millet occupying most of the cultivated
areas. However, in the face of climatic uncertainties, severe degradation of natural
resources, inadequate infrastructure, and agricultural equipment, and strong land
pressure, a reorganization of farm production systems is required. In addition,
liberalization policies that occurred during structural adjustments between the end of
the 1970s and the end of the 1990s led to the deterioration of production conditions of
family farms and affected the functioning of the groundnut sector (Oya 2009; 2001;
Boccanfuso and Savard 2008).
In this context, farms have adopted diversification strategies that ensure the food
security of their family by diversifying their production and their economic activities
(Chia et al. 2006). Thus, farmers adopted diet and income diversification strategies by
including non-agricultural activities, livestock, and horticulture activities (Chia et al.
2006). Consequently, the horticulture sector has steadily grown, becoming a promising
new source of income. Horticultural crops are mainly grown during the dry season
from October to June that is divided into two sub-seasons, the cold dry season (October
to February) and the dry dry season (March to June)
3
.
Although some big farms are involved in the horticulture sector, household farming
dominates the sector.
The development of horticulture in the Groundnut Basin has been supported by
development partners and extension services through water user associations. These
latter are considered as collective farms that involve numerous individual farmers
(from family farms) cultivating commonly shared land, sharing the management of
the farm and the irrigation system. They are usually organized in a formal agricultural
3
Due to climatic uncertainties, the duration of the two sub-seasons can be variable.
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
6
association that can be an Economic Interest Group
4
with men and women as members
or a Women Producer Organization
5
that is only composed of women or another type
of association. Besides these collectively organized farms, there are individual farms
managed by a unique household or an individual producer.
2.2. Assessing sustainability at farm level
2.2.1. The IDEA method
The theoretical ground of agricultural sustainability assessment is the sustainability
theory according to which sustainability involves environmental, economic and social
dimensions. Therefore, as the definition of agricultural sustainability integrates these
three dimensions, the methods to assess agricultural sustainability should also
integrate the three pillars.
One of the primary challenges to finding a method to assess agricultural sustainability
is the lack of consensus on methodology application (De Olde et al., 2017), which has
led to the development of a wide range of composite indicators (Riley, 2001). In
addition, for a long time, sustainability indicators focused on environmental impact,
ignoring economic and social aspects (Latruffe et al., 2016; Binder et al., 2010; Hayati
et al., 2010; Singh et al., 2009; Bell and Morse, 2008; Sadok et al., 2008).
Consequently, environmental indicators cover a multitude of themes (Lebacq et al.,
2013), that Latruffe et al. (2016) classified into three main groups. Indicators that
analyze local or global impacts (Halberg et al., 2005), those that study the action chain
(Olsson, et al., 2009), and those focusing on the goal of the analysis (Bockstaller et al.,
2009). Differently, economic indicators investigate the standard business themes like
profitability, liquidity, stability, and productivity, whilst, social indicators consider the
sustainability relating to the farming community and/or the society (Latruffe et al.
2016).
Nonetheless, several authors have developed indicators that include the three pillars
4
GIE: “Groupements d’Intérêt Economique”.
5
GPF: “Groupement de Promotion Feminine”.
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
7
of sustainability
6
(Bertocchi et al., 2016; Paracchini et al., 2011; Dantsis et al., 2010;
Gomez-Limon and Sanchez-Fernandez, 2010; Rodrigues et al., 2010; Meul et al., 2008;
Zahm et al., 2008; Van Cauwenbergh et al., 2007; van Calker et al., 2006; López-Ridaura
et al., 2005; Rasul and Thapa, 2004; Tzilivakis and Lewis, 2004; Häni et al., 2003, etc.).
Using six selection criteria, De Olde et al. (2016) restrict the choice to four main
methods, that are RISE (Häni et al., 2003), SAFA (FAO, 2014), PG (Gerrard et al., 2012)
and IDEA (Zahm et al. 2008)
7
. However, PG has an emphasis on public-goods instead
of sustainability and SAFA applies to a wider scope by extending through supply
chains in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries (De Olde et al. 2016). Thus, only the IDEA
and RISE take account of farm-level sustainability.
According to the criteria proposed by Marchand et al. (2014)
8
, we believe that the IDEA
method of Zahm et al. (2008) is the most appropriate in Sub-Saharan African (SSA)
countries. Indeed, the three dimensions of the approach are in line with the definition
of a sustainable farm. It is adaptable to different agricultural contexts. It requires
information that is easy to collect in a context where information accessibility is low. It
analyses the three pillars of sustainability through multiple criteria, allowing a
thorough analysis of each sustainability aspect. Last but not least, it evaluates
sustainability both at farm and sector levels, representing a useful tool for policy advice
at different levels (Binder et al. 2010; Bockstaller et al. 2009; Galan et al. 2007).
On the contrary, RISE requires a set of information that can be difficult to obtain in the
Senegalese context, like some technical analysis on energy impact, water resources, soil
composition, and fertilizer environmental impact and is thus time-consuming (De
Olde et al. 2016).
6
An exhaustive list of the major sustainability assessment methods is presented in De Olde et al. (2016).
7
RISE: Response-Inducing Sustainability Evaluation; SAFA: Sustainability Assessment of Food
Agricultural Systems; PG: Public Goods.
8
Marchand et al. (2014) suggest that the key characteristics of the criteria for choosing sustainability
indicators are the balance of time requirement, the output accuracy and the complexity in relation to the
use and tool function.
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
8
IDEA is technically structured into 16 objectives grouped together to form three
sustainability scales: agroecological, socio-territorial and economic. Each of these
scales is subdivided into three to four components for a total of ten, which in turn are
composed of a total of 42 indicators
9
in the third version (18 in the agro-ecological and
socio-territorial scales and 6 in the economic scale). Each indicator is composed of one
or several criteria that are given a score. The final score of an indicator is the sum of
the scores of the criteria within it. In the same way, within each scale, the values of the
different indicators are added together to have the final score of the scale. Therefore,
there is compensation between the criteria of a given indicator and between indicators
of a given component and scale. This means for instance that within a scale “favorable
practices will offset practices with a harmful effect” (Zahm et al., 2008).
The calculation procedure is based on a grading system with an upper limit. The three
sustainability scales are of equal weight and range from 0 to 100 points. The final
sustainability score is the lowest value obtained among the three scales, thus,
sustainability is achieved when the farm reaches a score equal to or higher than 60
points in each scale. The initial IDEA is detailed in Zahm et al. (2008).
2.2.2. The adaptation of IDEA to horticulture farms in the Groundnut
Basin
IDEA was developed from the recommendation of Mitchell et al. (1995) and Girardin
et al. (1999) on the case study of French farms; thus Zahm et al. (2008) suggest that any
use of IDEA in a different context needs a specific adaptation. However, it has been
mainly adapted in Central America and North Africa. Specifically, in Mexico Salas-
Reyes et al. (2015) and Fadul-Pacheco et al. (2013) adapted IDEA to dairy farms.
M’Hamdi et al. (2009) in Tunisia and Srour et al. (2009) in Libya applied IDEA to dairy
farms and small livestock farms respectively. Ghadban et al. (2013) compared organic
and conventional small farms in Lebanon, as well as, Baccar et al. (2016) analyzed three
types of farms in the Saïs plain of Morocco. Elfkih et al. (2012) analyzed olive farms in
9
There was initially 41 indicators in the first version of the IDEA method.
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
9
Tunisia and De Castro et al. (2009) examined farms in the São Pedro Valley in the
Brazilian State of São Paulo. Biret et al. (2019) also adapted the IDEA method to assess
the sustainability of different forms of farming systems in Thailand. Recently, Agossou
et al. (2017) have adapted the IDEA for the analysis of farms in the Ouémé lower valley
in Benin.
Therefore, following the same approach, we adapted the IDEA grid to the specificities
of our case. We consider the specific issues relating to the relationship between the
territory and the farm as well as the agricultural characteristics. In that sense, we apply
a twofold adaptation: (i) to horticultural farms and (ii) to agronomic practices, social
values and economic accounting of Senegal’s farms.
In total, our adapted IDEA retained the three scales and ten components. The major
changes were made on the indicators to fit the specificities of our case study. Therefore,
the adapted IDEA contains 36 indicators, thus leading to a new notation system. This
latter is established based on the principle of compensation between criteria within the
same component (Zahm et al., 2008), and on the relevance of the criteria to the
horticulture farms in the groundnut basin of Senegal.
As suggests Elfkih et al. (2012), the adaptation and new scoring should not have major
negative effects. Indeed, thanks to the compensation criteria within components, “the
removal or the substitution of any indicators can be compensated by the retained
indicators of the same component”. Furthermore, “the calculation of the components
scores is obtained through the cumulative number of basic sustainability units of
indicators that is usually higher than its ceiling value; this offers more flexibility in
adapting scoring punctuation”.
Table 1 shows the selected and adapted indicators in comparison to the third IDEA
version. In total, 6 indicators were removed. In addition, we adapted the criteria of
some indicators. The reasons for these modifications are explained as follows:
- The removed indicators are those associated with livestock activities, i.e.
indicator A3 (animal diversity), A9 (contribution to environmental issues), A10
(valorization of space), A11 (management of fodder areas), A15 (veterinary
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
10
treatments) and B13 (animal well-being). This is done because of two reasons:
(i) as explained horticulture farms in the groundnut basin are either individual
or collective. The latter type is only specialized in horticulture with no livestock
activities associated with it. Therefore, to allow a fair comparison between the
two types of farms we decided to remove livestock-related indicators; (ii) as
stated previously, an individual farm can be a household or an individual;
therefore their respective households might have livestock activities. However,
due to the concerns raised in point (i) and the risk of loss of information related
to a lengthy questionnaire, we decided not to include information on their
respective households’ activities.
- Concerning the criteria of indicators, the agroecological scale is adapted by
considering the agronomic techniques as recommended by agricultural
research in Senegal. These recommendations have been collected during
interviews
10
with researchers at the national center for the development of
horticulture of the Senegalese Institute of Agricultural Research (ISRA-CDH)
11
.
Generally, this scale analyses the ability of the farming system to use
agricultural inputs without compromising the ecosystem.
- The socio-territorial scale is adapted to capture the role that agriculture plays in
rural communities in terms of food access and supply, or in terms of labor
supply and farm training. Overall, this scale assesses the quality of life of
farmers and the services that the farm provides to the community. Finally, the
economic scale is adapted following the standard norms of general accounting
because most farms are not officially registered; so they do not have any formal
account ledgers.
10
We undertook one on one interviews with scientists at the national center for the development of
horticulture. These interviews covered agronomic norms related to crop association, rotation, the
practice of fallow, crop diversification, organic farming practices, animal control, water use and
management, crop water requirements, seed conservation, etc. The interview guide is available from
the authors.
11
“Centre pour le Développement de l’Horticulture”.
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
11
Table A1 in the appendices shows the adapted IDEA grid that we applied to our
sample.
Table 1. Adaptation of the original IDEA (version 3)
Scales and
components
Indicators
Original
IDEA score
Adapted
IDEA score
Maximum
value of each
component
Agroecological scale
Diversity
A1-Diversity of annual and
temporary crop
14
24
33
A2-Diversity of perennial crops
14
12
A3-Animal diversity
14
Removed
A4-Enhancement and
conservation of genetic heritage
6
12
Organization of space
A5-Cropping pattern
8
11
33
A6-Dimension of plots
6
8
A7-Organic matter management
5
14
A8-Ecological regulation zones
12
9
A9-Contribution to the
environmental issues
4
Removed
A10-Valorization of space
5
Removed
A11-Management of fodder area
3
Removed
Farming practices
A12-Fertilization
8
9
33
A13-Liquid organic effluents
3
3
A14-Pesticides
13
14
A15-Veterinary treatment
3
Removed
A16-Soil resource protection
5
5
A17-Water resource
management
4
4
A18-Energy dependence
10
11
Total of the agroecological scale
100
Socio-territoriale scale
Qualité des produits
et du terroir
B1-Quality approach
10
7
33
B2-Enhancement of building and
landscape heritage
8
3
B3-Inorganic waste management
5
5
B4-Space accessibility
5
4
B5-Social involvement
6
14
Employment and
services
B6-Short marketing channel
7
7
33
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
12
B7-Autonomy and Promotion of
local resources
10
9
B8-Services, multi-activities
5
6
B9-Employment contribution
6
6
B10-Collective work
5
4
B11-Probable farm sustainability
3
3
Ethics and human
development
B12-Contribution to world food
balance et à la gestion durable
des ressources planétaires
10
8
34
B13-Animal well-being
3
Removed
B14-Training
6
10
B15-Labour intensity
6
6
B16-Quality of life
6
8
B17-Isolation
3
3
B18-Reception, hygiene, and
safety
4
3
Total of the socioterritorial scale
100
Economic scale
Viability
C1-Economic viability
20
20
30
C2-Economic specialization rate
10
10
Independence
C3-Financial autonomy
15
22
25
C4-Reliance on subsidies
10
3
Transferability
C5-Economic transferability
20
20
20
Efficiency
C6-Process efficiency
25
25
25
Total of the economic scale
100
Source: authors’ elaboration
2.3. The dataset
2.3.1. Sampling strategy
The study concerns three regions of the Groundnut Basin, i.e. Diourbel, Fatick, and
Thiès
12
. Most of the horticulture farms in the Groundnut Basin are not formally
registered and there is no existence of a nation-wide census of horticulture farms in
Senegal. Therefore, to select farmers we constructed a sampling frame by undertaking
a census of horticulture farms in the three regions of the study in 2015. We found 246
horticulture farms among which were drawn a sample of 65 horticultural farms for all
12
These are the three regions where the project that funded this research intervened.
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
13
the growing seasons during which horticultural crops were cultivated in 2015.
Farms were selected based on a stratified random sampling method (each region being
a stratum) that ensured to respect the regional representativeness of collective and
individual farms in the sample.
Our sample is mainly composed of farms of the Thiès region (73.85%) where there are
more horticultural farms, followed by Diourbel and Fatick regions that represent
respectively 23.08% and 3.08% of the sample. Most farms are collective (55.38%, the
remaining 44.62% being individual farms), which are large in size and use a high level
of labor, especially female workers, and capital. In fact, as stated, collective farms are
organized in agricultural associations.
2.3.2. Summary statistics of farms characteristics
Table 2 shows the characteristics of the two farming systems. It shows that collective
farms have greater land endowments and thus exploit more land than individual
farms. This can be explained by the fact that collective farms gather multiple individual
farmers, exploiting a common space. These collective farms are commonly
conceptualized as water user associations that have been promoted all around the
world in the 1970s, to decentralize irrigation systems’ management that was
historically under the responsibility of national entities that failed to maintain
irrigation systems (IWMI, 2018). They have been introduced in Senegal in the 1980s,
1990s mainly under donor or government-funded projects. That makes land and water
access easier for them.
Table 2 also shows that collective farms have a higher number of workers. This is again
explained by the collective nature of these farms. The active members contribute as
labor force and are sometimes helped by their family members or paid labor. Each
individual member or a group of members is allocated some small plot(s) under their
responsibility. That ensures the participation of individual members in production
activities. Therefore, since the average number of members is high, it is normal to have
a higher number of workers contrary to individual farms. As for the higher number of
female workers, it is explained by the higher number of active female members of
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
14
WUAs. The high number of female workers can be explained by the intervention logic
of projects/programs or NGOs that are more likely to target women in order to
contribute to reducing gender inequalities.
The value of capital (irrigation and agricultural equipment) is much more important
for WUAs. This is also expected since WUAs are usually introduced by donor-funded
projects or when they were initiated by farmers, they usually benefit from funding that
finance the acquisition of the irrigation system shared among members. Therefore one
would expect these to have higher capital.
Individual farms
Collective farms
Land
Cultivated land (ha)
0.53 (1.01)
2.98 (2.68)
Available land for cultivation
1.01
6.61
Labor force
Number of active male
members
10.63 (11.76)
Number of active female
members
22.94 (22.35)
Number of male workers
2.0 (1.5)
10.6 (11.8)
Number of female workers
0.8 (1.8)
20.8 (18.4)
No. of not paid workers (plot
owners or family labor)
5.3 (5.7)
36.6 (37.1)
Capital
Capital value farm (LCU)
86,58 (203,91)
1,594,56 (3,801,57)
Per capita profit (LCU)
127,17 (301,63)
263,03 (692,96)
Total observations
29
36
Note: all values are means; standard deviation in parentheses. The local currency unit (lcu) is cfa
franc (xof).
Source: authors’ elaboration
3. Results and discussion
This section presents the results on the sustainability of the two types of farms. It first
shows the results on the overall sustainability of farms (considering the three scales),
showing the differences in the level of sustainability between the two types. It then
Table 2. Summary statistics
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
15
presents the results for the different scales and their components by highlighting the
main differences between the two types of farms and the reasons for such differences.
This section finally discusses the results, the limits of the IDEA method and future
methodological orientations to better assess horticulture farms' sustainability in the
groundnut basin of Senegal and farms in general.
3.1. Sustainability analysis based on the type of farm management:
collective vs individual
Results show that no farm reaches the IDEA sustainability level established at the
threshold of 60 points for each scale (see table 3). Considering that sustainability is
determined by the least sustainable scale, the table shows that on average collective
farms appear closer to sustainability. When analyzing the scales individually,
collective farms have higher mean scores for the agro-ecological and socio-territorial
scales with more statistically significant differences (at 0.1 percent level) for the latter
scale. Individual farms are more sustainable in the economic scale; however, for this
scale, the difference between the two farm types is not statistically significant.
Scales
Individual
farm
Collective
farm
t-test
(means)a,b
Agro-ecological
42,03
48,28
-2,05*
Socio-territorial
32,72
46,75
-6,11***
Economic
54,83
46,75
1,77
Observations
29,00
36,00
at statistics: * p<0.05, **p<0.01, *** p<0.001
bt-test assumptions were validated before running the test. The Shapiro-Wilk test was
used to test the normality assumption and Levene’s test was used for the
homoskedasticity (equality of variances) assumption.
Source: authors’ elaboration
We analyzed farms individually to assess the intensity of the results. Figure 1 shows
the distribution of farms’ sustainability scores for each of the three scales. Distributions
are light-tailed and skewed to the right. Indeed, most farms are slightly below the
IDEA sustainability threshold for all the scales, demonstrating that there is room for
increasing sustainability with few indicators improvement. The analysis also shows
Table 3. Farms average sustainability scores
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
16
that many farms are sustainable in at least one scale (approximately 38 percent of
individual farms and 47 percent of collective farms).
Source: authors’ elaboration
Looking at the distribution of those farms in the three scales (figure 2); results indicate
that the 47 percent of sustainable collective farms are almost equally distributed across
the agro-ecological and socio-territorial scales (25 percent are sustainable in the former
and 22 percent in the latter). On the contrary, the 38 percent of sustainable individual
farms are almost all sustainable in the economic scale (with no farm sustainable in the
socio-territorial scale and only 3 percent sustainable in the agro-ecological scale).
Source: authors’ elaboration
To investigate further the results and understand the differences in the two groups, we
analyzed the components of the sustainability scales, by
(i) plotting a star diagram (figure 3) that represents the mean score of the
different farms for each component;
(ii) looking at the strengths and weaknesses of the farms for each component
based on the scores of the criteria defining an indicator. A criterion is
Figure 1. Farms distribution on each IDEA scale
Figure 2. Distribution of sustainable farms in the different scales
3.45%
0.00%
34.48%
25.00%
11.11%
22.22%
Agroecological
scale
Socio-
territorial scale
Economic scale
Percentage of Sustainable farms
Scales
Individual farms Collective farms
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
17
considered as strength for a farm type if the score obtained by a given farm
for that criterion is at least half the maximum score of the criteria. Based on
that logic, we designed table A2, in the appendix, which shows these
strengths and weaknesses.
Both the star diagram and the table A2 show that for the agroecological scale, the
diversity component is the most discriminating one when comparing the two types of
farms and thus explains the higher performance of collective farms in that scale. Table
A2 shows that collective farms cultivate a higher number of vegetable crops and
varieties which can be related to the nature of collective farms that are mainly
impulsed or supported by donors and governments through projects and programs.
This allows them to benefit from support services, have access to new technologies
including crop varieties.
When considering the socio-territorial scale, the quality of products and territory
appears to make the biggest difference between the two farm types. Then follows
employment and services to a lesser extent. The difference in the quality of products
and territory is related to the higher level of women inclusion in collective farms and
their participation in collective actions in the farming community of the study areas.
Indeed as shown in table 2 and table A2, there are more female workers in collective
farms and they have greater access to responsibility positions within collective farms.
This result was expected. Indeed, it is more likely for collective farms to have a higher
number of female workers since development interventions are very gender-sensitive
and ensure gender balance. As for individual farms, they are more frequently headed
by men who control productive resources. Therefore, women usually don't have equal
access to productive resources such as land which reduces their likelihood to have
responsible roles. Also, the affiliation to agricultural associations is more common in
collective farms. As for the employment component, figure 3 does not show notable
differences. However, when considering the strengths and weaknesses of the farms,
table A2 shows that each farm type has some strengths over the other. Indeed,
collective farms show positive external spillover effects within the community with a
greater contribution to job creation. Also, they tend to commercialize more of their
output locally compared to individual farms. This is also seen in the equality and
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
18
human development component. However, individual farms have better interactions
with other farms in terms of equipment sharing and services. This can also be
explained by the fact that collective farms already have such interactions within them
(between members) and might not necessarily feel the need to have such interactions
with farms outside of their organization.
Concerning the economic scale, figure 3 shows that only the efficiency component
displays notable differences between the two groups. This means that individual farms
use production resources (inputs) in a less wasteful way. When looking at the other
components of the economic scale, table A2 shows some weaknesses for the collective
farms for the independence component. Indeed, individual farms have more financial
autonomy. This can be explained by the fact that collective farms have greater
possibilities to access to credit than individual farms. Therefore, they receive more
financial support through loans which reduces their financial autonomy since they rely
less on their own funding. For the viability and transferability components, we don’t
discuss the differences since they are small.
Source: authors’ elaboration
3.2. Comparison of results with the literature
The increasing importance of sustainability is not a debate anymore. In the face of this,
multiple studies have been undertaken around the world to perform sustainability-
0
5
10
15
20
25
Diversity
Organization of
space
Farming
practices
Quality of
products and
territory
Employment
and service
Ethics and
human
development
Viability
Independence
Transferability
Efficiency
Individual farms
Collective farms
Figure 3: Star diagram of sustainability components
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
19
related analyzes for the agriculture sector (see in Biret et al., 2019; Baccar et al., 2016).
Some of them compared the sustainability of different farm types and others compared
different farm types under different farming systems. For instance, in SSA, particularly
in Senegal, agricultural sustainability studies have mainly compared conventional and
organic horticulture farms in the Niayes area of Senegal (Ba and Barbier, 2015; De Bon
et al., 2019).
The two types of studies were generally oriented towards individual (family) farms.
Therefore, the comparison of our results with theirs will only be possible for some
results. Due to the fact that the second type of study compared conventional and
organic farms, it is hardly comparable to our results because our sample is only
composed of conventional agriculture farms. Concerning the first type of studies, we
can compare our results on (i) the discriminating scales and components between farm
types; (ii) the higher performance of individual farms in the economic scale.
Concerning the discriminating scales, our results show that the socio-territorial scale
displayed more differences between farm types followed by the agroecological scale
to a lesser extent. Biret et al. (2019) compared different types of family farms based on
land use and also found that those two scales were different in the three groups.
Indeed, their results show that the agroecological scale was the most discriminating
scale followed by the socio-territorial scale to a lesser extent. They also found that the
economic scale was not discriminating (considering the statistical significance of the
differences) when comparing their farm types.
Since the difference between the two farm types was not statistically significant for the
economic scale and that the literature on farm sustainability assessment mainly
concentrated on family/individual farms, our comparison for the economic scale will
focus on individual farms. Our results on the score of individual farms that performed
better in that scale can be compared to Biret et al. (2019) who also found a greater
proportion of farms sustainable in the economic scale. We would be surprised if
individual farms performed better on the other scales. Indeed, it is understandable that
in a low-income context, the most urgent needs are met first regardless of the
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
20
environmental impact of the practices. This relates to Baccar et al. (2016) who argue
that “according to farmers’ perception of sustainability, environmental issues do not
represent a top priority for them, whatever their production system is. This does not
mean that they are not aware of local environmental issues”.
However, this performance of individual farms on the economic scale contrasts with
the results of Salas-Reyes et al. (2015) and Fadul-Pacheco et al. (2013) who found that
the economic scale displayed the lowest scores among the three scales.
At the component level, Biret et al. (2019) found that “only the diversity of agricultural
production and the efficiency components showed any notable difference among the
different types of farms”. Although we did not have the same farm types, those two
components were among the ones we found to show differences between farm types.
3.3. The importance of integrating an institutional/organizational scale to
better assess collective farms sustainability
This study has also been the occasion to test the IDEA relevance on collectively
organized farms that have not yet been investigated in the literature on agricultural
sustainability. Our adaptation of the IDEA method to the two types of farms has shown
that the IDEA method can be adapted and applied to specialized farms and
particularly to individual horticulture farms of Senegal. Concerning collective farms,
we have found that the three scales of IDEA are all relevant to analyze their
sustainability. However, in collectively organized farms, there is an institutional and
organizational dimension that plays a huge role in their sustainability (Meinzen-Dick
et al, 1994; IWMI, 2018). A new IDEA version has been proposed in Zahm et al. (2019),
however, it still does not include that dimension. The role of such a dimension in
collective farms sustainability has been showed not only by our field experience but
can also be easily demonstrated using the theory of collective action.
Indeed “in principle WUAs are legally constituted, farmer-run associations with an
elected managerial board that supervises irrigation water management at the collective
farm level” (Pia, 2015). This type of farm can be conceptualized as common pool
resource institutions and analyzed by considering the theoretical framework of
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
21
collective action in the New Institutional Economics (NIE), specifically Ostrom’s (1990)
work on governing the commons; the latter representing here the irrigation system
developed for the farm. In Senegal, such associations offer other services to their
members related to input acquisition, group commercialization, facilitation of credit
access, etc. Therefore, they can have other committees for each service, in addition to
the committee managing the irrigation system. When any of these committees fail, that
can impact the sustainability of the farm. This is, for instance, the case when the
irrigation system has dysfunction and that there is no cost recovery mechanism that
allows repairing it; thus highlighting the importance of that institutional and
organizational dimension.
Based on this, we believe that there is a need to include another scale in the IDEA grid,
at least for adaptations to collective farms that would be composed of institutional and
organizational sustainability indicators. That scale would include specific indicators
that would consider organizational matters that can hinder or favor collective farms’
sustainability that heavily relies on their internal rules and organization. The new
dimension can be developed using Ostrom’s work and the large body of literature on
WUAs (Meinzen-Dick et al, 1994; IWMI, 2018).
This proposition also holds for the alternative methods analyzing farms' sustainability
such as the RISE method.
In addition to that, the institutional scale can include (for both farm types) broader
institutional indicators that take into account the local political and research context
that are not internal to farms. Such indicators would include (i) the ability of research
to provide innovations that are adapted to farmers’ needs and ensure farming
sustainability, (ii) farmers’ willingness to adopt sustainable friendly innovations, (iii)
the existence of policies encouraging and enabling sustainability of irrigation systems.
The importance of such factors is illustrated in Baccar et al. (2016) who reported that
farmers “think that the sociopolitical context, in which they operate, encourages the
adoption of intensive practices. The public bodies aim to increase production, so they
promote directly (by irrigation subsidy) or indirectly (by importing and
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
22
manufacturing of fertilizers and crop protection products) the intensive practices”.
This highlights how the socio-political context can encourage or discourage
sustainable practices.
Conclusion
This study adapted the IDEA method to two types of horticulture farms in rural
Senegal that differ in their management strategy (collective and individual).
Our results show that, with the current version of the adapted IDEA, horticulture in
the Groundnut Basin of Senegal appears not sustainable in holistic terms as on average,
no farm type reaches the IDEA sustainability level established at the threshold of 60
points for each scale.
For individual farms, their average sustainability score is lowest for the socio-
territorial scale followed by the agroecological scale while the economic scale displays
the highest scores. This is mainly explained by the income-maximizing behavior of
farmers in a context of poverty. Although this behavior can lead to short to medium-
term economic gains, it might lead to long term negative effects on the environment
and natural resources such as soil and water which in turn would lead to lower
economic returns. This highlights that sustainability-driven agriculture should be
encouraged through policies, projects and programs that sensitize farms about
sustainability issues. Fostering agroecological transition, which is still timid in Senegal,
could be an avenue to ensure sustainable farm practices.
Concerning collectively organized farms, results show that contrary to individual
farms, on average, their highest sustainability score is noted for the agroecological
scale followed by the socio-territorial and economic scales that display the same score.
This greater sustainability of collective farms on the agroecological scale can be
explained by the nature of collective farms that are mainly impulsed or supported by
donors and governments through projects and programs. This allows them to benefit
from agricultural support services, have access to new technologies including crop
varieties. This suggests that to enhance individual farms sustainability in those scales,
access to agricultural support services should be strengthened for individual farms.
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
23
Comparing the two farm types, on average collective farms have higher scores,
compared to individual farms, on the different scales except the economic scale.
Results also show that on average, collectively organized farms appear more
sustainable than individual farms with their limiting scales (the socio-territorial and
economic scales) having higher scores than individual farms limiting scale (the socio-
territorial scale). Also, considering individual scores of the entire sample in the three
scales, the percentage of collective farms sustainable is higher.
Concerning methodological features, the adapted IDEA can be used as a monitoring
and evaluation tool to better guide development interventions for the improvement
and strengthening of the horticultural sector in the Groundnut Basin and other areas
of Senegal. However, the results show that the IDEA method needs further
improvements to better fit the assessment of collective farms’ sustainability. Indeed,
by considering the theoretical framework of collective action in the New Institutional
Economics, specifically Ostrom’s (1990) work on governing the commons and the
broad literature on Water User Associations, collective farms can be conceptualized as
Common Property Institutions or Common Pool Resources and display characteristics
of Water User Associations.
Therefore, organizational/institutional aspects are important to analyze their
sustainability as suggested by Ostrom’s eight principles for the governance of common
pool resources. Based on this, we believe that there is a need to include another scale
in the IDEA grid, at least for adaptations in the Sub-Saharan Africa context that would
be composed of institutional and organizational sustainability indicators. For
collective farms, the development of such a scale can be based on Ostrom’s work and
the literature on Water User Associations.
In addition to that, there are context-specific attributes related to the socio-political
environment that could be favorable or unfavorable to farm sustainability. Therefore,
an institutional/organizational scale can also include (for both farm types) broader
institutional indicators that take into account the local socio-political and research
context.
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
24
In conclusion, although further improvements are needed to adapt IDEA to the Sub-
Saharan African context and collectively organized farms, IDEA is easily applied to
different contexts and agricultural sectors. Specifically, the analysis should be
extended to assess sustainability by considering the institutional and socio-political
environment enabling or hindering sustainability. Nevertheless, our adaptation of the
IDEA method proves to be a useful tool both to assess farm sustainability and to guide
policymakers and development interventions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was carried out under the PAPSEN program (“Programme d’Appui au
Programme National d’Investissement dans l’Agriculture au Sénégal”) which supports the
development of the horticultural sector in Senegal. We are grateful to the Italian
cooperation agency AICS (Agenzia Italiana per la Cooperazione allo Sviluppo) which
financed this study. We finally thank the farms involved in the survey for their
willingness to participate in this analysis, the researchers interviewed at ISRA-CDH,
particularly Youga Niang, as well as Adama Lo of ISRA-BAME that collaborated with
us in the data collection and cleaning process.
References
Agossou G. Gbehounou G. Zahm. F. Agbossou E K. 2017. Adaptation of the
“Indicateurs de Durabilité des Exploitations Agricoles (IDEA)” method for
assessing sustainability of farms in the lower valley of Ouémé River in the
Republic of Benin. Outlook on Agriculture 46(3): 185-194.
DOI: 10.1177/0030727017726130.
Alkan Olsson J. Bockstaller C. Stapleton L. Ewert F. Knapen R. Therond O. Géniaux G.
Bellon S. Pinto Correia T. Turpin N. Bezlepkina I. 2009. A goal oriented indicator
framework to support integrated assessment of new policies for agri-
environmental systems. Environmental Science & Policy 12(5): 562-572.
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2009.01.012.
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
25
BA, B.A. and B. Barbier, 2015. — Economic and Environmental Performances of
Organic Farming System Compared to Conventional Farming System: A Case
Farm Model to Simulate the Horticultural Sector of the Niayes Region in Senegal.
Journal of Horticulture. 02(04), [en ligne], adresse U.R.L. : <doi:10.4172/2376-
0354.1000152>.
Baccar M. Bouaziz A. Dugue P. Gafsi M. Le Gal P Y. 2016. Assessing family farm
sustainability using the IDEA method in the Saïs plain (Morocco). 12th European
IFSA Symposium: International Farming Systems Association Newport 12-15 July
2016, UK; 11. http://agritrop.cirad.fr/582649/.
Bell S. Morse S. 2008. Sustainability indicators. Measuring the immensurable. 2nd Edition,
The Earthscan Publications: London, UK; 256.
Bertocchi M. Demartini E. Marescotti M E. 2016. Ranking farms using quantitative
indicators of sustainability: the 4Agro method. Procedia – Social and Behavioral
Sciences 223: 726-732. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.249.
Binder C R. Feola G. Steinberger J K. 2010. Considering the normative, systemic and
procedural dimensions in indicator-based sustainability assessments in
agriculture. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30(2): 71-81.
DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2009.06.002.
Biret, C., Buttard C., Farny M., Lisbona D., Janekarnkij P., Barbier J.M., Chambon B.
2019. Assessing sustainability of different forms of farm organization:
Adaptation of IDEA method to rubber family farms in Thailand. Biotechnologie,
Agronomie, Société et Environnement, 23 (2), 14 p.
http://www.pressesagro.be/base/index.php/base/issue/archive?issuesPage=4#i
ssues
Boccanfuso D., Savard L. 2008. Groundnut sector liberalization in Senegal: a multi-
household CGE analysis. Oxford Development Studies 36(2): 159-186. DOI:
10.1080/13600810802037845.
Bockstaller C. Guichard L. Keichinger O. Girardin P. Galan M B. Gaillard G. 2009.
Comparison of methods to assess the sustainability of agricultural systems: a
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
26
review. In Sustainable Agriculture, Lichtfouse E, Navarrete M, Debaeke P,
Véronique S, Alberola C (eds.). Springer: Dordrecht, Netherlands; 769-784. DOI:
10.1007/978-90-481-2666-8_47.
Bolis I. Morioka S N. Sznelwar L I. 2014. When sustainable development risks losing
its meaning. Delimiting the concept with a comprehensive literature review and
a conceptual model. Journal of Cleaner Production 83: 7-20.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.041.
Carvalho G O. 2001. Sustainable development: is it achievable within the existing
international political economy context?. Sustainable Development 9(2): 61-73.
DOI: 10.1002/sd.159.
Chia E. Dugué P. Sakho-Jimbira S. 2006. Les exploitations agricoles familiales sont-elles
des institutions ?. Cahiers Agricultures 15(6): 498-505.
DOI: 10.1684/agr.2006.0027.
Dantsis T. Douma C. Giourga C. Loumou A. Polychronaki E A. 2010. A methodological
approach to assess and compare the sustainability level of agricultural plant
production systems. Ecological indicators 10(2): 256-263.
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.05.007.
De Bon H., Brun-Diallo L., Sène J.-M., Simon S.and Sow M. A. 2019. Cahier
Agricultures, 28 (2), 9 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/cagri/2019001
De Castro J., Sanchez D., Moruzzi P., De Lucas A., Bonaudo T. 2009. Adaptation de la
méthode française IDEA pour l’évaluation de la durabilité des exploitations
agricoles de la commune de São Pedro (État de São Paulo, Brésil). XVI Journées
Rencontres, Recherches et Ruminants Paris 02-03 December 2009, France; 4.
http://www.journees3r.fr/IMG/pdf/2009_02_04_DeCastro.pdf
de Olde E M. Moller H. Marchand F. McDowell R W. MacLeod C J. Sautier M. Halloy
S. Barber A. Benge J. Bockstaller C. Bokkers E A M. de Boer I J M. Legun K A.
Le Quellec I. Merfield C. Oudshoorn F W. Reid J. Schader C. Szymanski E.
Sørensen C A G. Whitehead J. Manhire J. 2017. When experts disagree: the need
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
27
to rethink indicator selection for assessing sustainability of agriculture.
Environment, Development and Sustainability 19(4): 1327-1342.
DOI: 10.1007/s10668-016-9803-x.
De Olde E M. Oudshoorn F W. Sørensen C A. Bokkers E A. de Boer I J. 2016. Assessing
sustainability at farm-level: Lessons learned from a comparison of tools in
practice. Ecological Indicators 66: 391-404. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.01.047.
Elfkih S. Guidara I. Mtimet N. 2012. Are Tunisian organic olive growing farms
sustainable? An adapted IDEA approach analysis. Spanish Journal of Agricultural
Research 10(4): 877-889. DOI: 10.5424/sjar/2012104-2624.
Everitt B S. Landau S. Leese M. Stahl D. 2011. Cluster Analysis. 5th Edition, John Wiley
& Sons, Ltd: Chichester, UK. DOI: 10.1002/9780470977811.
Fadul-Pacheco L. Wattiaux M A. Espinoza-Ortega A. Sánchez-Vera E. Arriaga-Jordán
C M. 2013. Evaluation of sustainability of smallholder dairy production systems
in the highlands of Mexico during the rainy season. Agroecology and Sustainable
Food Systems 37(8): 882-901. DOI: 10.1080/21683565.2013.775990.
FAO. 2016. Senegal: Irrigation market brief. Country highlights, FAO Investment
Centre, Rome.
FAO. 2014. Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems (SAFA): guidelines.
Version 3.0. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations: Rome,
Italy; 267.
Francis C. Youngberg G. 1990. Sustainable agriculture - an overview. In Sustainable
agriculture in temperate zones, Francis C A, Flora C, King L (eds.). John Wiley and
Sons: New York, USA; 1-23.
Galan M B. Peschard D. Boizard H. 2007. ISO 14 001 at the farm level: analysis of five
methods for evaluating the environmental impact of agricultural practices.
Journal of Environmental Management 82(3):341-352.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.06.025.
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
28
Gerrard C L. Smith L G. Pearce B. Padel S. Hitchings R. Cooper N. 2012. Public goods
and farming. In Farming for food and water security, Lichtfouse E (eds.). Springer:
Dordrecht, Netherlands; 1-22. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-4500-1_1.
Ghadban E. Talhouk S. Chedid M. Hamadeh S K. 2013. Adapting a European
sustainability model to a local context in semi-arid areas of Lebanon. In Methods
and Procedures for Building Sustainable Farming Systems, Marta-Costa A, Soares
da Silva E (eds.). Springer: Dordrecht, Netherlands; 251-258. DOI: 10.1007/978-
94-007-5003-6_17.
Girardin P. Bockstaller C. van der Werf H M G. 1999. Indicators: tools to evaluate the
environmental impacts of farming systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture
13(4): 5-21. DOI: 10.1300/J064v13n04_03.
Gómez-Limón J A. Sanchez-Fernandez G. 2010. Empirical evaluation of agricultural
sustainability using composite indicators. Ecological economics 69(5): 1062-1075.
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.027.
Halberg N. van der Werf H M. Basset-Mens C. Dalgaard R. de Boer I J. 2005.
Environmental assessment tools for the evaluation and improvement of
European livestock production systems. Livestock Production Science 96(1): 33-50.
DOI: 10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.05.013.
Häni F. Braga F. Stämpfli A. Keller T. Fischer M. Porsche H. 2003. RISE, a tool for
holistic sustainability assessment at the farm level. International food and
agribusiness management review 6(4): 78-90.
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/34379/1/0604br01.pdf
Hansen J W. 1996. Is agricultural sustainability a useful concept?. Agricultural Systems
50(2): 117-143. DOI: 10.1016/0308-521X(95)00011-S.
Harwood R R. 1990. A history of sustainable agriculture. In Sustainable Agricultural
Systems, Edwards C A, Lal R, Madden P, Miller H R, House G (eds.). Soil and
Water Conservation Society: Ankeny, Iowa, USA; 3-19.
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
29
Hayati D. Ranjbar Z. Karami E. 2010. Measuring agricultural sustainability. In
biodiversity, biofuels, agroforestry and conservation agriculture, Lichtfouse E (eds.).
Springer: Dordrecht, Netherlands; 73-100. DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-9513-8_2.
Ikerd J E. 1993. The need for a systems approach to sustainable agriculture. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 46(1-4): 147-160. DOI: 10.1016/0167-8809(93)90020-
P.
IWMI. 2018. Water user associations: a review of approaches and alternative management
options for Sub-Saharan Africa. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water
Management Institute (IWMI). 77p. (IWMI Working Paper 180).
doi: 10.5337/2018.210
Kleemann L. 2013. An overview and discussion of solution proposals for sustainable
agriculture and food security in Sub-Sahara Africa. Sustainable Agriculture
Research 2(4): 48-63. DOI: 10.5539/sar.v2n4p48.
Latruffe L. Diazabakana A. Bockstaller C. Desjeux Y. Finn J. Kelly E. Ryan M. Uthes S.
2016. Measurement of sustainability in agriculture: a review of indicators.
Studies in Agricultural Economics 118(3): 123-130. DOI: 10.7896/j.1624.
Lebacq T. Baret P V. Stilmant D. 2013. Sustainability indicators for livestock farming.
A review. Agronomy for sustainable development 33(2): 311-327.
DOI: 10.1007/s13593-012-0121-x.
Lopéz-Ridaura S. van Keulen H. van Ittersum M K. Leffelaar P A. 2005. Multiscale
methodological framework to derive criteria and indicators for sustainability
evaluation of peasant natural resource management systems. Environment,
Development and Sustainability 7: 51-69. DOI: 10.1007/s10668-003-6976-x.
M’Hamdi N. Aloulou R. Hedhly M. Ben Hamouda M. 2009. Evaluation de la durabilité
des exploitations laitières tunisiennes par la méthode IDEA. Biotechnologie,
Agronomie, Société et Environnement 2(13): 221-228.
Marchand F. Debruyne L. Triste L. Gerrard C. Padel S. Lauwers L. 2014. Key
characteristics for tool choice in indicator-based sustainability assessment at
farm level. Ecology and Society 19(3): 46. DOI: 10.5751/ES-06876-190346.
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
30
Meadows D H. Meadows D L. Randers J. Behrens W W. 1972. The limits to growth.
Potomac Associates – Universe Books: New York, USA; 205.
Meinzen-Dick R., Mendoza M., Sadoulet L., Abiad-Sheld G., Subramanian A. 1994.
Sustainable water user associations: Lessons from a literature review. World
Bank Water Resources Seminar, Lansdowne, Virginia, Dec. 1994.
Meul M. Van Passel S. Nevens F. Dessein J. Rogge E. Mulier A. van Hauwermeiren A.
2008. MOTIFS: a monitoring tool for integrated farm sustainability. Agronomy
for sustainable development 28(2): 321-332. DOI: 10.1051/agro:2008001.
Mitchell G. May A. Mc Donald A. 1995. PICABUE: A methodological framework for
the development of indicators of sustainable development. International Journal
of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 2(2): 104-123.
DOI: 10.1080/13504509509469893.
Ostrom E. 1990. Governing the Commons: the evolutions of institutions for collective action.
Cambridge University Press, Political economy of institutions and decisions:
Cambridge, UK; 298.
Oya C. 2001. Large‐and middle‐scale farmers in the groundnut sector in Senegal in the
context of liberalization and structural adjustment. Journal of Agrarian Change
1(1): 124-163. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0366.00005.
Oya C. 2009. Libéralisation de la filière arachide à partir des stratégies des producteurs.
In Libéralisation et politique agricole au Sénégal, Dahou T (eds.). Editions Karthala:
Paris, France; 99-129.
Paracchini M L. Pacini C. Laurence M. Jones M. Pérez-Soba M. 2011. An aggregation
framework to link indicators associated with multifunctional land use to the
stakeholder evaluation of policy options. Ecological Indicators 11(1): 71-80. DOI:
10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.04.006.
Pia, A. E. (2015) ‘For the Common Good: Water Users’ Associations, Collective
Action and the problem of “success” for Non-State Water Provisions’, in, p. 31.
Available at: https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/9855/PIA_-
_IASC_2015_paper.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (Accessed: 7 October 2019).
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
31
Pretty J N. Morison J I L. Hine R E. 2003. Reducing food poverty by increasing
agricultural sustainability in developing countries. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment 95(1): 217-234. DOI: 10.1016/S0167-8809(02)00087-7.
Pretty J. Toulmin C. Williams S. 2011. Sustainable intensification in African agriculture.
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 9(1): 5-24.
DOI: 10.3763/ijas.2010.0583.
Rasul G. Thapa G B. 2004. Sustainability of ecological and conventional agricultural
systems in Bangladesh: an assessment based on environmental, economic and
social perspectives. Agricultural systems 79(3): 327-351.
DOI: 10.1016/S0308-521X(03)00090-8.
Riley J. 2001. The indicator explosion: local needs and international challenges.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 87(2): 119-120.
DOI: 10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00271-7.
Robbiati G., Faye A., Ngom Y., Ngom M. et Valori F. (2013) Exploitation horticoles avec
irrigation goutte-à-goutte dans le Bassin Arachidier, Rapport PAPSEN n. 5, 127p
Rodrigues G S. Rodrigues I A. de Almeida Buschinelli C C. de Barros I. 2010. Integrated
farm sustainability assessment for the environmental management of rural
activities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30(4): 229-239.
DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2009.10.002.
Sadok W. Angevin F. Bergez J-E. Bockstaller C. Colomb B. Guichard L. Reau R. Doré
T. 2008. Ex ante assessment of the sustainability of alternative cropping systems:
implications for using multi-criteria decision-aid methods. A review. Agronomy
for Sustainable Development 28(1): 163-174. DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-2666-8_46.
Salas-Reyes I G. Arriaga-Jordán C M. Rebollar-Rebollar S. García-Martínez A.
Albarrán-Portillo B. 2015. Assessment of the sustainability of dual-purpose
farms by the IDEA method in the subtropical area of central Mexico. Tropical
Animal Health Production 47(6): 1187-1194. DOI: 10.1007/s11250-015-0846-z.
Singh R K. Murty H R. Gupta S K. Dikshit A K. 2009. An overview of sustainability
assessment methodologies. Ecological indicators 9(2): 189-212.
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
32
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.05.011.
Srour G. Marie M. Abi Saab S. 2009. Evaluation de la durabilité des élevages de petits
ruminants au Liban. Options Méditerranéennes Série A 91: 21-35.
Tzilivakis J. Lewis K A. 2004. The development and use of farm‐level indicators in
England. Sustainable Development 12(2): 107-120. DOI: 10.1002/sd.233.
United Nations. 1992. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development,
Agenda 21: Rio de Janerio, Brazil; 351.
Van Calker K J. Berentsen P B M. Romero C. Giesen G W J. Huirne R B M 2006.
Development and application of a multi-attribute sustainability function for
Dutch dairy farming systems. Ecological Economics 57(4): 640-658.
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.05.016.
Van Cauwenbergh N. Biala K. Bielders C. Brouckaert V. Franchois L. Cidad V G.
Hermy M. Mathijs E. Muys B. Reijnders J. Sauvenier X. Valckx J. Vanclooster M.
van der Veken B. Wauters E. Peeters A. 2007. SAFE-A hierarchical framework
for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agriculture, ecosystems &
environment 120(2-4): 229-242. DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2006.09.006.
WCED. 1987. Our common future. Report of the World Commission on Environment
and Development, United Nations: New York, USA; 247.
Zahm F., Ugaglia A. A., Barbier J.M., Boureau H., Del’homme B., Gafsi M., Gasselin
P., Girard S., Guichard L., Loyce C., Manneville V., Menet A.
and Redlingshöfer B. 2019. Cahier Agriculture, 28, 5, 10 p.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/cagri/2019004
Zahm F. Viaux P. Vilain L. Girardin P. Mouchet C. 2008. Assessing farm sustainability
with the IDEA method – from the concept of agriculture sustainability to case
studies on farms. Suistainable Development 16(4): 271-281. DOI: 10.1002/sd.380.
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
33
Appendices
(This page is intentionally left blank)
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
34
Table A4: Adapted IDEA grid
Scal
es
Componen
ts
Indicators
Criteria
Maximum
Scores
Agroecological scale
Diversity
A1-Diversity of annual and
temporary crops
No. of vegetable crops
14
24
33
No. of vegetable varieties
3
Dynamics of the number of cultivated vegetable crop
3
No. of other crops (cereal and legume)
4
A2-Diversity of perennial crops
No. of perennial crops (arboreal and agroforestry)
12
12
A4-Valorisation and conservation of
genetic heritage
No. of local vegetable crop (okra, african eggplant, bissap)
12
12
Organization of space
A5-Cropping patterns
Presence and type of crop rotation
4
11
33
Presence and type of crop association
4
% of land left to fallow
3
Presence of monocropping (last 2 years)
-3
A6-Dimension of fields
% of used land on total land
4
8
% of land of two main crops on used land
2
Average plot size by worker
2
A7-Organic matter Management of
organic matter
Quantity of organic fertilizer by hectare and by crop
7
14
Quantity of compost by hectare and by crop
7
A8-Ecological regulation zone
Farm position respect to the village
2
9
Presence of natural elements (hedge; groves; paths)
7
Farming practices
A12-Fertilization
Quantity of chemical fertilizer (nitrogen) by hectare and by
crop
8
9
34
Use of wild shrubs for fertilization (ngere, ratt)
1
A13-Liquid organic effluents
Presence of fertigation
3
3
A14-Pesticides
Use of natural products (neem, pyrethrum)
2
14
Use of integrated or biological control practices (against weeds
and parasites)
2
Typology of pesticides (herbicides, fungicides, insecticides,
nematodes, other)
8
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
35
Presence of a register for pesticide use program and/or
treatment practices
2
A16-Soil resource protection
Anti-erosion and soil restoration practices (zai, stony ropes,
bunds)
2
5
Mulching practice
1
Management of ravaging and animal attacks
1
No tillage practice
2
A17-Water resource management
Irrigation system (drip, furrow, sprinkler, hand watering)
3
4
Source of water supply (open well, drilling, volumetric meter)
1
A18-Energy dependence
Quantity of fuel consumed (EFH l/ha)
8
11
Use of solar energy
3
Socio-territorial scale
Quality of the products and territory
B1-Quality approach
Use of product storage techniques
2
7
33
Use of seed conservation techniques
2
Presence of organic agriculture
1
Presence of product transformation
2
B2-Enhancement of buildings and
landscape heritage
Presence and maintenance of buildings
3
3
B3-Inorganic waste management
Non-organic waste recycles
3
5
Non-organic waste disposal
2
Non-organic waste burning and burial
0
B4-Space accessibility
Presence of fencing devices to protect plot from animals and
no-allowed people
2
4
Presence of paths for product transport
2
B5-Social involvement
% of female workers on total worker
3
14
Agricultural association membership
3
Confederation agricultural association membership
3
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
36
% of responsibility position held by female workers
3
Presence of ROSCA (rotating savings and credit association)
2
Employment and services
B6-Short trade promotion
% of local trade on total trade
2
7
33
Presence of short trade (no more than one mediator)
1
Presence of packaging materials (gunny bags and box)
2
Presence of transport equipment (cart, motorcycle and
vehicles)
2
B7-Promotion of local resources
% of owned seed on total seed
5
9
Use of crop residues (feed for animals)
4
B8-Services, multi-activities
Presence of school field
2
6
Training services for other farmers
2
Presence of agricultural membership fees
2
B9-Employment contribution
Use of local and external workers
6
6
B10-Collective work
Sharing of equipment and services within farm
1
4
Sharing of equipment and services between farms
1
Work exchange within farm
1
Work exchange between farms
1
B11-Probable farm sustainability
Self-estimation of farm survival (No. of years)
3
3
Ethics and human development
B12-Contribution to world food
balance
% of vegetable quantity sold in the village
3
8
34
Presence of self-consumption
3
Presence of reduced price for the villager
2
% of vegetables sold for export
0
B14-Training
Participation to training courses
4
10
Participation to extension services
3
Presence of internship
3
B15-Labour intensity
% of overburdened cropping operations on total cropping
operations
6
6
B16-Quality of life
Educational level of farmers
3
8
Distance from health centre
1
Distance from primary school
1
Needs covered by farm income (child enrolment, family health,
food needs)
3
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
37
Source: authors’ elaboration
B17-Isolation
Distance from main cities
1
3
Distance from main roads
1
Distance from sell markets
1
B18-Reception, hygiene and safety
Use of protective equipment during storage, preparation and
distribution of pesticides
3
3
Economic scale
Economic
viability
C1-Available income per worker
compared with the national legal
minimum wage
Profit= [Revenue- (direct cost + indirect cost + other cost)]/No.
of non-paid worker
Profit per capita=Profit/national legal minimum wage
20
20
30
C2-Economic specialization rate
Share of product sold to main customer
4
10
Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI) for vegetables revenue
8
Independence
C3-Financial autonomy
Level of indebtedness: Debt ratio=expected credit to pay / profit
11
22
25
Ability to cover production cost (direct cost): Cost
ratio=profit/direct cost
11
C4-Reliance on subsidies
Receiving of aid
1
3
Input purchase by credit
2
Transferability
C5-Economic transferability
Ability to generate income: Income=profit/total cost
6
20
20
Ability to recreate equipment: Equipment ratio= [maintenance
case- (total equipment value-amortisation)]/maintenance case
6
Ability to refund total debt: Debt ratio= profit/total credit
6
Ability of management and planning (presence of
administrative and accounting books; of equipment
depreciation plan; of repair fund plan)
3
Efficiency
C6-Process efficiency
Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA):
Where output is total revenue and inputs are land, capital
value and labour
25
25
25
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
38
Table A2: Strengths and weaknesses of the farms
Component
Strength
Weaknesses
Exceptions specific to
collective farms
Diversity
• On average, the number
of vegetable crops
cultivated over the years
remains stable or
increases
• The number of vegetable crops and
varieties cultivated is limited
• Almost no presence of other crops such
as cereals or legumes that play an
important role in soil restoration
• The number of perennial crops is
limited for both farm types and there is
hardly any practice of agroforestry
• Very limited cultivation of local
vegetables (gombo, african eggplant,
bissap) which shows a low valorization
of local heritage
The weakness related to the
diversity of vegetable crops
cultivated is not observed
for collective farms
Organization of
space
• There little practice of
monocropping
• Percent of the used land
on total land
• Practice of crop rotation not very
common and when it is so, the type of
rotation is often not as recommended
by research.
• As for crop association, farms that
practice it do not do it well
• On average, the amount of land left to
fallow is little to nothing
• The main cultivated crops occupy much
space, thus leaving fewer possibilities
for crop diversification. This is more
observed for individual farms
• The average plot size per worker is
either too small or too high
• The quantity of organic fertilizer by
hectare and by crop--no use or not
enough quantity of OF used
• The quantity of compost by hectare and
by crop--no use or not enough quantity
of compost used
• Farm position respect to the village--on
average farms are either to close to
villages (<1km) or too far from villages
(>1.5km)
• Presence of natural elements (hedge;
groves; paths)--little to no presence
Farming
practices
• The quantity of chemical
fertilizer (nitrogen) by
hectare and by crop
• Mulching practice
• Use of wild shrubs for fertilization
(ngere, ratt)
• Presence of fertigation
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
39
• Management of ravaging
and animal attacks
• No tillage practice
• Irrigation system (drip,
furrow, sprinkler, hand
watering)
• The quantity of fuel
consumed (EFH l/ha)
• Use of natural products (neem,
pyrethrum)
• Use of integrated or biological control
practices (against weeds and parasites)
• Typology of pesticides (herbicides,
fungicides, insecticides, nematodes,
other)
• Presence of a register for pesticide use
program and/or treatment practices
• Anti-erosion and soil restoration
practices (zai, stony ropes, bunds)
• Source of water supply (open well,
drilling, volumetric meter)
Use of solar energy
Quality of
products and
territory
• Presence of fencing
devices to protect plot
from animals and no-
allowed people
• Presence of paths for
product transport
• Agricultural association
membership
• Use of product storage techniques
• Use of seed conservation techniques
• Presence of organic agriculture
• Presence of product transformation
(thus showing a low effort to increase
product value. Also, transformation
allows to differ sales when prices at
harvest are too low…)
• Presence and maintenance of buildings
• Processing of non-organic waste
• % of female workers on total worker
• Agricultural association membership
• % of responsibility position held by
female workers
• Presence of ROSCA (rotating savings
and credit association)
Strengths for collective
farms :
• % of female workers on
total worker
• % of responsibility
position held by female
workers
• Agricultural association
membership
Employment
and sevices
• Presence of short trade
(no more than one
mediator)
• Presence of packaging
materials (gunny bags and
box)
• Presence of transport
equipment (cart,
motorcycle, and vehicles)
• Use of crop residues (feed
for animals)
• Sharing of equipment and
services within the farm
• Sharing of equipment and
services between farms
• Work exchange within the
farm
• Work exchange between
farms
• Self-estimation of farm
survival (No. of years)
• % of local trade on total trade
• % of owned seed on total seed
• Presence of school field
• Training services for other farmers
• Presence of agricultural membership
fees
• Use of local and external workers
Strength for collective
farms
• % of local trade on total
trade
• Use of local and external
workers
Weakness for collective
arms
• Sharing of equipment and
services between farms
JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND SUSTAINABILITY
40
Source: authors’ elaboration
Ethics and
human
development
• Presence of self-
consumption
• % of vegetables sold for
export
• Education level of farmers
• Distance from primary
school
• Isolation
• % of vegetable quantity sold in the
village
• Presence of reduced price for the
villager
• Participation in training courses
• Participation in extension services
• Presence of internship
• % of overburdened cropping operations
on total cropping operations
• Distance from the health center
• Needs covered by farm income (child
enrolment, family health, food needs)
• Use of protective equipment during
storage, preparation and distribution of
pesticides
Strength for collective
farms
• % of vegetable quantity
sold in the village
Viability
• Share of product sold to
main customer
• Available income per worker compared
with the national legal minimum wage
• Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI) for
vegetable crops revenue
• Herfindahl-Hirschman
index (HHI) for vegetable
crops revenue strength for
collective farms
Independence
• Level of indebtedness:
Debt ratio=expected credit
to pay / profit
• Ability to cover
production cost (direct
cost): Cost
ratio=profit/direct cost
• Receiving of aid
• Input purchase by credit
• Ability to cover
production cost (direct
cost): Cost
ratio=profit/direct cost:
weakness for collective
Transferability
• Ability to generate
income:
Income=profit/total cost
• Ability to refund total
debt: Debt ratio=
profit/total credit
• Ability to recreate equipment:
Equipment ratio= [maintenance case-
(total equipment value-
amortisation)]/maintenance case
• Ability of management and planning
(presence of administrative and
accounting books; of equipment
depreciation plan; of repair fund plan)
• Ability to generate income:
Income=profit/total cost:
weakness for collective
farms
Efficiency
• Process efficiency
• Process efficiency:
weakness for collective
farms
