_text_

Please post any comments relevant to the Metrics & Methodology Task Force here.

Molly - I think you have us off to a good start with your metrics categories document. My suggestions:
-> Add packaging. This can be signficant at the farm level.
-> Add community development
-> Remove food quality. Like food safety, I think this is an important but separate issue from sustainability.

I also think we should combine the two sub-categories to simplify things.

When making changes to the Common Ag Sustainability Metrics spreadsheet, please note the date of your revisions in the file name. This will help everyone keep track of the latest edits. Thanks!

Regarding the "Terms from Roundtable on Sustainable Soy" (which should be Responsible Soy, by the way):

This came from Tom Redick, but it wasn't clear whether this glossary had been approved for use by the Roundtable, or just proposed. I edited the list slightly to alphabetize the terms and to cluster terms that refer to standard-setting separately from terms that refer to agricultural
practices, roles, management or monitoring.

Please take a look at these terms before our next call. If you think specific terms on this list are not relevant to our process and should
be removed, note that. If you think of other terms that should be added, please list them with the following information:
- term
- suggested definition
- reference or source of the definition

Also, if you have an alternate definition for something included in "Terms from Roundtable on Sustainable Soy", please add it with a source or reference. Ideally, every term in our final glossary will have a source or reference. The list Tom sent has very few sources listed.

Thanks!

I'm unclear how we are supposed to proceed for the metrics subgroups -- just start diving into the reference documents?

Suzy

Some comments/questions on the Common Ag Sustainability Metrics spreadsheet:
Water use -- is this measured as efficiency or just overall use volume? I recommend efficiency
Water source -- should this be limited just to impacts on endangered species? I would argue for looking more broadly -- ecosystem function even. other users? look beyond just endangered species
Under water -- what about temperature? bacteria? salinity?
Why is "pesticide use" it's own issue while others are captured under water quality? I would recommend just including pesticides under water quality
Resource efficiency -- replace "fossil fuel" with "energy/fuel"
Under energy use -- what about electricity?
I would recommend we look for efficient use of renewable energy as well - should the metric be increased % of the operation's energy from renewables instead of straight increase?
I recommend against including subsidies/rewards as a measure of evaluation

Pesticides affect much more than water quality -- they affect soil biota, air quality, stratospheric ozone, terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity, aquatic ecosystems, workers, and community members, and some cropping systems in which pesticides are used heavily may sequester less carbon and and be less resilient under changing climatic conditions. If the environmental and social endpoints are too difficult or expensive to measure directly, pesticide use (or a pesticide toxicity index of some kind) can be a surrogate measure of behavior change that one could reasonably expect to affect the related endpoints. So I would retain it as a category.

Proposed guidelines for entering metrics into the spreadsheet - (determined by members of the Metrics Entry Subgroup)
- For now, the objective is to compile metrics that are being used or referenced in existing agricultural standards.
- Put text in one cell (with a page citation, if appropriate) and link to the full document in the next cell, to provide as clear a pathway for other users as possible. At present, we just need the metrics that are proposed, not full documentation of how that metric was designed and how it is implemented (that will be needed later, after we have decided which metrics to select). So people will need to make judgment calls about how much text to include. If in question, just ensure that another person can find the document you used and the point in the document to which you are referring.
- Regarding the possibility of discriminating between “input-based” vs. “outcome-based” sustainability indicators (and perhaps eliminating one?) - This is still on the table and needs to be decided by the full Standards Committee. To the extent that the type or scale of impact depends on the technology being used, the Metrics & Methodology Task Force should note the technology.
- Regarding Tom Redick’s suggestion to adopt a “technology neutral” approach to inputs and then do whatever measurements an “optimized market will bear”: It isn’t up to the Metrics TF to make this decision; our job is to compile metrics that meet the criteria proposed by the Mission & Principles Task Force. The Standards Committee as a whole needs to decide how to position sensitive issues, for example, when the public has preferences that differ from industry preferences.

Sample Criteria from Other Indicators Projects:

From the Vivid Picture Project in California (http://www.vividpicture.net/documents/indicators.html)

• Is the indicator measurable?
• Is the data source available?
• Is the data cost effective (affordable)?
• Is it reliable and credible?
• Is the data easy to understand?
• Is it usable (on a regional level)?
• Is it sensitive (is it able to change as the food system changes)?

From Sustainable Measures (http://www.sustainablemeasures.com/Indicators/Characteristics.html)
• Effective indicators are relevant; they show you something about the system that you need to know.
• Effective indicators are easy to understand, even by people who are not experts.
• Effective indicators are reliable; you can trust the information that the indicator is providing.
• Lastly, effective indicators are based on accessible data; the information is available or can be gathered while there is still time to act.

From National Agri-Environmental Standards Initiative Technical Series (Environment Canada)’s report on comparative environmental risk assessment tools for pesticides:

• Indicators should be designed with a specific purpose in mind
• To be most useful, indicators should be calculated at low levels of integration
• Indicators allowing for work at different spatial scales are best
• Data are often incomplete or non-existent and this is a large source of uncertainty for indicators. Chronic toxicity data are often missing and the participants concluded that there was little point in developing long-term (chronic) indicators until that gap was filled.
• Validation of indicators is highly desirable but difficult.
• Indicators are most useful in showing trends because the actual values produced are often meaningless.
• Indicators should be consistent with regulatory risk assessments
• Relatively simple aggregate indicators such as the Danish Frequency of Application Index and Load Index as well as the Norwegian Indicator, while potentially adequate for policy use, were inadequate for more narrowly focused assessments such as a comparison of alternative pest management practices.