COMMISSION DECISION (EU) 2018/813
of 14 May 2018
on the sectoral reference document on best environmental management practices, sector environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence for the agriculture sector under Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
Article 1
Article 2
ANNEX
1.
INTRODUCTION
Relevant legal background
How to understand and use this document
How SRDs should be taken into account by EMAS-registered organisations:
Structure of the Sectoral Reference Document
2.
SCOPE
Section |
Description |
Target group |
||
|
This section covers cross cutting issues related to landscape planning, energy and water efficiency, biodiversity, use of environmental management systems and engagement of consumers with responsible consumption. |
All farms |
||
|
This section deals with the management of the quality of the soil. It covers the assessment of its physical conditions and the establishment of a management plan, as well as practical guidance on how soil quality can be improved by e.g. using organic amendments, on maintenance of soil structure and on drainage. |
All farms |
||
|
This section deals with the management of nutrients in soil. It includes best practices on field nutrient budgeting, crop rotation, precision application of nutrients and selection of fertilisers with lower environmental impact. |
All farms |
||
|
This section focuses on selecting appropriate tillage operations, minimising soil disturbance, applying low impact tillage, implementing efficient crop rotations and establishing cover and catch crops. |
All farms |
||
|
This section deals with maximising grass production and grazing uptake, managing grazing in high nature value areas, pasture renewal and clover incorporation as well as application of efficient silage production. |
Livestock farms |
||
|
This section outlines best practices related to animal husbandry. In particular, it presents practices related to appropriate breed selection, farm nutrient budgeting, dietary reduction of nitrogen excretion, improving feed conversion efficiency, green procurement of feed, animal health plans and herd/flock profile management. |
Livestock farms |
||
|
This section covers best practices related to optimised manure management by reducing emissions and improving nutrient uptake. It includes the building of low emission housing systems, the implementation and optimisation of anaerobic digestion, the separation of slurry or digestate, and appropriate solid and liquid manure storage facilities, as well as techniques for the application of slurries and manure. |
Livestock farms |
||
|
This section deals with efficient irrigation strategies and provides guidance on agronomic methods, optimisation of irrigation delivery and efficient management of irrigation systems. The importance of the source of the water used for irrigation is also addressed. |
Farms using irrigation |
||
|
This section deals with sustainable crop protection practices in applying low pesticides input for pest management. The objectives are prevention of pest occurrence, reduction of dependency on chemical crop protection products, optimisation of the use of plant protection products and of pest resistance management strategies. |
All farms |
||
|
This section outlines best practices for protected horticulture. In particular, it deals with energy efficiency, water and waste management, and selection of growing media. |
Protected horticulture farms |
Environmental aspects |
Related main environmental pressures(7) |
Relevant sections of the SRD |
Arable and horticultural production |
||
On-farm operations |
Energy use |
Section 3.1: Sustainable farm and land management, BEMP 3.1.5 Section 3.10: Protected horticulture, BEMP 3.10.1 |
Soil management |
Soil degradation (erosion, compaction) |
Section 3.2: Soil quality management, all BEMPs |
Nutrients application |
NH3 and N2O emissions Nutrient losses to water Biodiversity loss Heavy metal accumulation |
Section 3.3: Nutrient management, all BEMPs |
Tillage |
Soil C and N loss Erosion Potential water sedimentation GHG emission |
Section 3.4: Soil preparation and crop planning, BEMPs 3.4.1 — 3.4.3 |
Grazing |
NH3 and N2O emissions Soil erosion and compaction Nutrient losses to water Biodiversity loss Biomass C loss if land use has changed from forest |
Section 3.4: Soil preparation and crop planning, all BEMPs Section 3.5: Grass and grazing management, all BEMPs |
Crop protection |
Eco-toxicity effects Biodiversity loss |
Section 3.9: Crop protection, all BEMPs |
Irrigation and other on-farm water use operations |
Water stress Salinisation Nutrient losses |
Section 3.1: Sustainable farm and land management, BEMP 3.1.5 Section 3.8: Irrigation, all BEMPs Section 3.10: Protected horticulture, BEMP 3.10.2 |
Protected horticulture |
Plastic waste generation Biodiversity threat Energy and water use |
Section 3.10: Protected horticulture, all BEMPs |
Livestock production |
||
Feed |
CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation |
Section 3.6: Animal husbandry, all BEMPs |
Animal housing |
NH3 and CH4 emissions Nutrient losses Water use |
Section 3.1: Sustainable farm and land management, BEMP 3.1.6 Section 3.7: Manure management, BEMP 3.7.1-3.7.3 |
Manure storage |
CH4, NH3 and N2O emissions |
Section 3.7: Manure management, BEMP 3.7.4 and 3.7.5 |
Manure spreading |
NH3 and N2O emissions |
Section 3.7: Manure management, BEMPs 3.7.6 and 3.7.7 |
Grazing |
NH3 and N2O emissions Soil erosion and compaction Nutrient losses to water Biodiversity loss (or potential biodiversity gain) Biomass C loss if land use has changed from forest |
Section 3.5: Grass and grazing management, all BEMPs |
On-farm medical treatment |
Eco-toxicity effects Antibiotic resistance |
Section 3.6: Animal husbandry, BEMP 3.6.6 |
BEMP |
Intensive dairy (*1) |
Extensive dairy |
Intensive beef (*1) |
Extensive beef |
Sheep |
Intensive pigs (*1) |
Intensive poultry (*1) |
Extensive pig & poultry |
Cereals and oils |
Root crops |
Field fruit & vegetables |
Covered fruit & vegetables |
3.1.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.1.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.1.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.1.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.1.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.1.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.1.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.2.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.2.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.2.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.2.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.3.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.3.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.3.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.3.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.4.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.4.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.4.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.4.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.4.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.5.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.5.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.5.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.5.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.6.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.6.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.6.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.6.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.6.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.6.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.6.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.7.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.7.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.7.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.7.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.7.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.7.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.7.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.8.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.8.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.8.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.8.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.9.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.9.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.10.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.10.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.10.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.10.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.
BEST ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, SECTOR ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND BENCHMARKS OF EXCELLENCE FOR THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR
3.1.
Sustainable farm and land management
3.1.1.
Strategic farm management plan
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
||||||
(i1) Strategic farm management plan in place (Y/N) (i2) Participation in existing accreditation schemes for sustainable farming or food certification schemes (Y/N) |
(b1) The farm has in place a strategic management plan that:
|
3.1.2.
Embed benchmarking in environmental management of farms
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i3) An EMS based on benchmarking for an appropriate selection of indicators is in place (Y/N) (i4) Environmental management training is provided to staff (Y/N) |
(b2) Relevant indicators are applied to benchmark the performance of individual processes, and the entire farm system, against all relevant best practice benchmarks described in this SRD. (b3) Permanent staff participates in mandatory environmental management training programmes at regular intervals; temporary staff is provided information on environmental management objectives as well as training on relevant actions |
3.1.3.
Contributing to water quality management at river basin level
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i5) Stream total nitrogen and/or nitrate concentration (mg N, NO3/l) (i6) Stream suspended solid concentration (mg/l) (i7) Width of buffer strips (m) |
(b4) Farmers work collaboratively with neighbouring farmers and river basin managers from relevant authorities to minimise risk of water pollution, for example through the establishment of strategically located integrated constructed wetlands. (b5) Buffer zones comprising of at least 10 m in width are established adjacent to all surface watercourses, in which no tillage or grazing operations are carried out. |
3.1.4.
Landscape level biodiversity management
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i8) Nutrient application rate (kg N/P/K/ha/year) (i9) Average livestock number per hectare (i10) Locally important species abundance(8) (No of key species/m2) |
(b6) A biodiversity action plan is implemented on the farm, to maintain and enhance the number and abundance of locally important species. |
3.1.5.
Energy and water efficiency
Energy:
Water:
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i11) Final energy use within the farm (kWh or ldiesel per hectare) (i12) Farm water use efficiency (m3 per hectare and year or per livestock unit or tonne of produce) |
(b7) An energy management plan is implemented and revised every five years, including: (i) mapping of direct energy use across major energy-using processes; (ii) mapping of indirect energy use via fertiliser and animal feed consumption; (iii) benchmarking of energy use per hectare, livestock unit or tonne of produce; (iv) energy efficiency measures; (v) renewable energy measures. (b8) A water management plan is implemented and revised every five years, including: (i) mapping of direct water consumption by source across major processes; (ii) benchmarking of water consumption per hectare, livestock unit or tonne of produce; (iii) water efficiency measures; (iv) rainwater harvesting. |
3.1.6.
Waste management
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i13) Waste generation by type (t/ha/year) (i14) Percentage of waste separated into recyclable fractions (%) (i15) Percentage of organic waste that is treated either anaerobically or aerobically (%) |
(b9) Waste prevention, reuse, recycling and recovery is implemented so that no waste is sent to landfill. |
3.1.7.
Engage consumers with responsible production and consumption
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i16) Percentage of products sold to a defined (local) market(13) (%) (i17) Number of farm open days per year (No/year) |
N/A |
3.2.
Soil quality management
3.2.1.
Management plan for assessing and maintaining soil physical condition
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i18) Soil infiltration capacity (mm/hour) (i19) Visual evaluation of soil structure for erosion and compaction signs across fields (Y/N) (i20) Soil bulk density (g/cm3) (i21) Soil water holding capacity (m3 water content/m3 dry soil or g water content/100 g dry soil) |
(b10) A soil management plan is implemented for the farm that incorporates: (i) an annual report for signs of erosion and compaction based on field inspections; (ii) soil bulk density and organic matter analyses at least every five years; (iii) implementation of concrete actions for maintenance of soil quality and organic matter |
3.2.2.
Maintain/improve soil organic matter on cropland
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i22) Organic dry matter application rate (t/ha/year) (i23) Soil organic carbon (% C) (i24) Carbon to Nitrogen ratio (C/N) |
(b11) Ensure all arable soils on the farm receive organic matter inputs, e.g. from crop residues, manures, catch/cover crops, composts, or digestates, at least once every three years, and/or establish grass leys for one to three years. |
3.2.3.
Maintain soil structure and avoid erosion and compaction
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i19) Visual evaluation of soil structure for erosion and compaction signs across fields (Y/N) (i20) Soil bulk density (g/cm3) (i25) Erosion losses (t/ha/year) |
(b10) A soil management plan is implemented for the farm and it incorporates: (i) annual report for signs of erosion and compaction based on field inspections; (ii) soil bulk density and organic matter analysis at least every five years; (iii) implementation of concrete actions for soil quality and organic matter |
3.2.4.
Soil drainage management
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i26) Installation of drains on grassland and arable land (Y/N) (i27) Production of field drain maps (Y/N) (i28) Minimisation of drainage on peat soils (Y/N) |
(b12) Natural drainage is maximised through careful management of soil structure; the effectiveness of existing drains is maintained; new drains are installed where appropriate on mineral soils. (b13) Drainage is minimised on peat soils and soils where there is a high risk of increased nutrient transfer to water via drainage. |
3.3.
Nutrient management
3.3.1.
Field nutrient budgeting
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i8) Nutrient application rate (kg N/P/K/ha/year) (i29) Field nutrient surplus (kg N/P/K/ha/year) (i30) NUE calculated for N/P/K (%) (i31) Gross Nitrogen Balance(14) (kg/ha) |
(b14) The fertiliser nutrients applied do not exceed the amount required to achieve the ‘economic optimum’ crop yield. (b15) Nutrient surplus or nutrient use efficiency is estimated for nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium for individual crop — or grassland — management parcels. |
3.3.2.
Crop rotation for efficient nutrient cycling
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i31) Gross Nitrogen balance (kg/ha) (i32) Crop rotation cycles include legume and break crops (Y/N) (i33) Length of crop rotation cycles (years) |
(b16) All grassland and crop rotations include at least one legume crop and one break crop over a five-year period. |
3.3.3.
Precision nutrient application
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i34) Use of precision farming tools such as GPS technology guidance to optimise nutrient delivery (Y/N) (i29) Field nutrient surplus (kg N/P/K /ha/year) (i30) NUE calculated for N/P/K (%) |
N/A |
3.3.4.
Selecting synthetic fertilisers with lower environmental impact
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i35) Carbon footprint of nitrogen fertilisers used (kg CO2e/kg N) (i36) Synthetic fertilisers applied have low post application ammonia and GHG emissions (Y/N) |
(b17) Mineral fertiliser used on the farm has not given rise to manufacturing emissions exceeding 3 kg CO2e per kg N, which must be demonstrated in an openly reported calculation provided by the supplier. (b18) Synthetic fertilisers applied have low post-application ammonia emissions. |
3.4.
Soil preparation and crop planning
3.4.1.
Matching tillage operations to soil conditions
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i37) Percentage of winter soil coverage by vegetation (%) (i38) Percentage of peat soils cultivated (%) (i23) Soil organic carbon (% C) (i24) Carbon to Nitrogen ratio (C/N) |
(b19) Fields with peat soils must be kept covered with long-term grass ley; soil tillage on peat soils to reseed the ley is carried out at a minimum interval of five years. |
3.4.2.
Minimising soil preparation operations
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i18) Soil infiltration capacity (mm/hour) (i20) Soil bulk density (g/cm3) (i25) Erosion losses (kg/ha/year) (i39) Percentage of seeding area where direct drilling is applied (%) (i40) Percentage of area where non-inversion tillage operations for crop establishment are applied (%) |
(b20) Inversion tillage is avoided through the use of e.g. direct seed drilling, strip tillage and reduced tillage (chisel plough). |
3.4.3.
Mitigating tillage impacts
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i20) Soil bulk density (g/cm3) (i21) Soil water holding capacity (g water content/100 g dry soil or m3 water content/m3 dry soil) (i25) Soil erosion losses (kg/ha/year) |
N/A |
3.4.4.
Crop rotation as a measure for soil protection
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i33) Length of rotation cycles (years) (i41) Number of break crops (ley, legume, oilseed) in the rotation cycles (number of crops/rotation cycle) (i42) Spatial diversity is considered in crop selection (Y/N) (i43) Selection of early maturing varieties of crops for the most susceptible land (Y/N) |
(b21) On farms with a cereal-dominated crop rotation, break crops are planted for at least two years in a seven year crop rotation and for at least one year in a six-year or shorter crop rotation. (b22) Farms alternate crops cultivated in neighbouring fields to increase spatial diversity of cropping patterns at the landscape level. (b23) Early maturing varieties of crops are selected in order to harvest before the wet season and to facilitate the establishment of cover crops. |
3.4.5.
Establishing cover crops and catch crops
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i5) Stream total nitrogen and/or nitrate concentration (mg N, NO3/l) (i44) Percentage of land left as bare soil over winter (%) (i45) Percentage of land with catch/cover crops planted (%) |
(b24) The farm provides evidence of a full assessment of the potential to integrate cover/catch crops into cropping plans, providing justification for any land left bare over winter. |
3.5.
Grass and grazing management
3.5.1.
Grass management
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i46) Grazing days per year (No/year) (i47) Percentage of grass dry matter uptake by animals (%)(23) (i48) Average stocking rate, calculated as Livestock Units per hectare of Utilised Agricultural Area (LU/UAA) |
(b25) 80 % grass dry matter uptake by grazing animals during the grazing period. |
3.5.2.
Managing high nature value grassland
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i10) Locally important species abundance(24) (No of key species/m2) (i48) Average stocking rate, calculated as Livestock Units per hectare of Utilised Agricultural Area (LU/UAA) |
N/A |
3.5.3.
Pasture renovation and legume inclusion in permanent pasture and leys
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i49) Percentage of field cover as legume (%) (i50) D-value of pasture |
(b26) Pasture renovation (e.g. over-seeding) is employed to maximise forage production, maintain high legume coverage and introduce other flowering species. |
3.5.4.
Efficient silage production
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i51) Feed conversion ratio(26) (kg of animal feed DM uptake/kg of output meat or l of milk) (i52) Percentage of dry matter loss post ensiling (%) |
N/A |
3.6.
Animal husbandry
3.6.1.
Locally adapted breeds
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i53) Percentage of animals that are of rare genetic origin (%) (i54) Percentage of animals that are of locally adapted breeds (%) (i51) Feed conversion ratio (kg of animal feed DM uptake/kg of output meat or l of milk) |
(b27) The livestock population of the farm consists of at least 50 % locally adapted breeds and at least 5 % rare breeds. |
3.6.2.
Nutrient budgeting on livestock farms
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i55) Farm level nutrient surplus (kg N, P /ha/year) (i56) Farm level NUE calculated for N and P (%) |
(b28) The farm-level nitrogen surplus is, at the most, 10 % of farm nitrogen requirements. (b29) The farm-level phosphorus surplus is, at the most, 10 % of farm phosphorus requirements. |
3.6.3.
Dietary reduction of nitrogen excretion
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i57) Dairy urea nitrogen in milk (mg/100 g) (i51) Feed conversion ratio (kg of animal feed DM uptake/kg of output meat or l of milk) |
N/A |
3.6.4.
Dietary reduction of enteric methane in ruminants
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i58) Enteric methane emissions per kg meat or l milk (i51) Feed conversion ratio (kg of animal feed DM uptake/kg of output meat or l of milk) |
N/A |
3.6.5.
Green procurement of feed
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i59) Percentage of procured feed that is sustainability certified (%) (i60) Feed related kg CO2e per kg feed or per kg meat or l of milk |
(b30) Imports of soy- and palm-based feeds are minimised, and where used, 100 % of such feeds are certified not to originate from areas of recent land use change. |
3.6.6.
Maintain animal health
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i61) Weight gain of the animals in the farm (kg/head/time unit) (i62) Occurrences of veterinary treatment per head over a year (No/year) (i63) Preventative healthcare programme in place (Y/N) |
(b31) The farm systematically monitors animal health and welfare and implements a preventative healthcare programme that includes at least one preventative visit per year by a veterinary surgeon. |
3.6.7.
Herd/flock profile management
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i64) Age at slaughter time (months) (i58) Enteric methane emissions per kg meat or l of milk (i61) Weight gain of the livestock in the farm (kg/livestock unit/time unit) |
N/A |
3.7.
Manure management
3.7.1.
Efficient housing
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i65) Installation of grooved floors and automated floor scrapers (Y/N) (i66) Ammonia emissions generated in animal housing system per livestock unit per year (kg NH3/livestock unit/year) |
(b32) Installation of a grooved floor, roof insulation and automatically controlled natural ventilation systems to animal housing. |
3.7.2.
Anaerobic digestion
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i67) Percentage of slurries/manure generated on farm treated in an anaerobic digestion system from which digestate is returned to agricultural land (%) (i68) Amount of digestate that returns on the agricultural land of the farm as a fertiliser (kg/year) |
(b33) 100 % of the slurry generated on the farm is treated in an anaerobic digestion system with gas-tight digestate storage, from which digestate is returned to agricultural land |
3.7.3.
Slurry/digestate separation
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i69) Percentage of on-farm slurry generated on dairy, pig and poultry farms that is separated prior to storage (%) (i70) Percentage of digestate from an on-farm anaerobic digestion system that is separated prior to storage (%) (i71) Targeted application of liquid and solid fraction in accordance with crop nutrient and soil organic matter requirements (Y/N) |
(b34) Slurry or digestate arising on dairy, pig and poultry farms is separated as needed into liquid and solid fractions that are applied to soils in accordance with crop nutrient requirements and soil organic matter requirements. |
3.7.4.
Appropriate slurry processing and storage systems for slurry or digestate
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i72) Capacity of liquid storage tanks for slurries (m3) (i73) Implementation of slurry acidification or slurry cooling (Y/N) (i74) Liquid slurry storage tanks and anaerobic digestate store tanks are covered (Y/N) |
(b35) New-build slurry stores, and anaerobic digestate stores, are built as tall tanks (> 3 m in height) with a tight lid or tent cover. (b36) Existing storage tanks are fitted with a tight lid or tent cover where possible, or a floating cover otherwise; existing lagoon slurry stores are fitted with a floating cover. (b37) Total liquid slurry storage capacity is at least equal to that required by relevant national nitrate-vulnerable zone regulations, whether or not the farm is in a nitrate-vulnerable zone, and is sufficient to ensure that the timing of slurry application can always be optimised with respect to farm nutrient management planning. |
3.7.5.
Appropriate solid manure storage
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i75) Percentage of solid manure fractions stored (%) (i76) Location and management of solid manure stores avoids contamination of surface watercourses (Y/N) |
(b38) Solid manure fractions are composted or stored for at least three months in batches with no fresh manure additions. (b39) Solid manure stores are covered and located away from surface watercourses, with leachate collected and recycled through the farm manure management system. |
3.7.6.
Injection slurry application and manure incorporation
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i77) Incorporation of manure into arable soils within two hours of spreading (Y/N) (i78) Use of shallow injection for slurries application (Y/N) |
(b40) In accordance with nutrient requirements of the crops, 100 % of the slurries applied to land are applied via shallow injection, trailing shoe or banded application, and 100 % of the high ammonium manures applied to bare arable land are incorporated into the soil as soon as possible and in any case within two hours. |
3.7.7.
Slurry application to grassland
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i78) Use of shallow injection for slurries application (Y/N) (i79) Use of banded spreading or trailing shoe for slurries application (Y/N) (i80) Percentage of slurry applied to grassland via shallow injection, or trailing shoe or banded application (%) |
(b41) In accordance with the nutrient requirement of the crops, 100 % of the slurries applied to grassland are applied via shallow injection, trailing shoe or banded application. |
3.8.
Irrigation
3.8.1.
Agronomic methods for optimising irrigation demand
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i81) WUE, expressed as kg/m3 (i82) Percentage change in irrigation demand (%) |
N/A |
3.8.2.
Optimisation of irrigation delivery
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i83) Drip irrigation installed (Y/N) (i84) Low pressure sprinklers installed (Y/N) (i85) Irrigation efficiency(41) at crop level (%) |
N/A |
3.8.3.
Management of irrigation systems
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i86) Irrigation efficiency at farm level (%) |
N/A |
3.8.4.
Efficient and controlled irrigation strategies
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i81) WUE, expressed as kg/m3 |
N/A |
3.9.
Crop protection
3.9.1.
Sustainable crop protection
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i87) A dynamic crop protection plan for sustainable crop protection is in place that includes: (i) crop rotation aimed at pest prevention, (ii) biological pest control, (iii) precision application of plant protection products (if their use is needed), (iv) appropriate training on crop protection, (v) periodical review and improvement of the plan (Y/N) |
N/A |
3.9.2.
Crop protection products selection
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i89) Selected crop protection products have the least toxicity and are compatible with the overall crop protection strategy (Y/N) |
N/A |
3.10.
Protected horticulture
3.10.1.
Energy efficiency measures in protected horticulture
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i90) Energy use for lighting in the greenhouse (kWh/m2/year) (i91) Total energy use in the greenhouse (kWh/yield) (i92) Share of the greenhouse energy use for heating, cooling, lighting and manufacture of carbon dioxide (if applicable) met by on-site renewable energy generation on an annual basis (%) |
(b42) The combined energy use of the protected horticulture system for heating, cooling, lighting and manufacture of carbon dioxide (if applicable) is met by at least 80 % of on-site renewable energy generation, on an annual basis. |
3.10.2.
Water management in protected horticulture
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i81) WUE, expressed as kg/m3 |
N/A |
3.10.3.
Waste management in protected horticulture
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
||||||
(i93) All biomass waste is composted or sent to anaerobic digestion (Y/N) (i94) Use of fully biodegradable bio-based plastic materials for nursery pots and mulching films (Y/N) (i95) Percentage of non-contaminated plastic waste that is sent for recycling (%) |
(b43) All waste is collected, separated and properly treated, the organic fraction is composted and no waste is sent to landfill. In particular:
|
3.10.4.
Selection of growing media
Applicability
Associated environmental performance indicators and benchmarks of excellence
Environmental performance indicators |
Benchmarks of excellence |
(i96) Use of environmentally certified growing media (e.g. EU Ecolabel) (Y/N) |
N/A |
4.
RECOMMENDED SECTOR-SPECIFIC KEY ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Indicator |
Units |
Target group |
Short description |
Recommended minimum level of monitoring |
Related EMAS core indicator(50) |
Related benchmark of excellence |
Related BEMP(51) |
||||||
Sustainable farm and land management |
|||||||||||||
Strategic farm management plan in place |
Y/N |
All farms |
An integrated management plan for the entire farm is in place that addresses market, regulatory, environmental and ethical considerations over a time period of at least five years |
Per farm |
Material efficiency Energy efficiency Emissions Biodiversity Water Waste |
The farm has in place a strategic management plan that:
|
3.1.1 |
||||||
Participation in existing accreditation schemes for sustainable farming or food certification schemes |
Y/N |
All farms |
The farm participates in accreditation schemes that add value to farm produce and ensure sustainable management |
Per farm |
Material efficiency |
— |
3.1.1 |
||||||
An EMS based on benchmarking for an appropriate selection of indicators is in place |
Y/N |
All farms |
The EMS in place uses relevant indicators to benchmark the environmental performance of individual processes and at the entire farm level. |
Per farm |
Material efficiency Energy efficiency Emissions Biodiversity Water Waste |
Relevant indicators are applied to benchmark the performance of individual processes, and the entire farm system, against all relevant best practice benchmarks described in this SRD |
3.1.2 |
||||||
Environmental management training is provided to staff |
Y/N |
All farms |
Training on environmental aspects is given to all staff of the farm (temporary and permanent) at regular intervals. |
Per farm |
Material efficiency Energy efficiency Emissions Biodiversity Water Waste |
Permanent staff participates in mandatory training environmental management programmes at regular intervals; temporary staff is provided information on environmental management objectives as well as training on relevant actions |
|
||||||
Width of buffer strips |
m |
All farms |
Width of the strips of land along watercourses that are maintained in permanent vegetation and where tillage and grazing are not carried out |
Per field |
Water |
Buffer zones of at least 10 m in width are established adjacent to all surface watercourses, in which no tillage or grazing operations are carried out |
3.1.3 |
||||||
Stream total nitrogen and/or nitrate concentration |
Mg NO3/l, Mg N/l |
All farms |
The nitrogen or nitrate concentration should be measured in all watercourses adjacent or passing through the farm |
Per farm or per field |
Material efficiency Biodiversity Water |
Farmers work collaboratively with neighbouring farmers and river basin managers from relevant authorities to minimise risks of water pollution, for example through the establishment of strategically located integrated constructed wetlands |
3.1.3, 3.4.5 |
||||||
Locally important species abundance |
number of key species/m2 |
All farms |
Measurement of the presence of selected species to monitor changes in the local biodiversity |
Per farm or per field |
Biodiversity |
A biodiversity action plan is implemented on the farm, to maintain and enhance the number and abundance of locally important species. |
3.1.4, 3.1.1, 3.4.4 3.5.2 |
||||||
Final energy used within the farm |
kWh/ha ldiesel/ha |
All farms |
Direct energy use (e.g. solid fuels, oil, gas, electricity, renewables) within the farm per hectare in terms of final energy. Different units can be used as appropriate for different energy carriers. Energy used for specific processes (e.g. diesel use in tractors) should be reported separately whenever possible. |
Per farm or per process |
Energy |
An energy management plan is implemented and revised every five years, including: (i) mapping of direct energy use across major energy-using processes; (ii) mapping of indirect energy use via fertiliser and animal feed consumption; (iii) benchmarking of energy use per hectare, livestock unit or tonne of produce; (iv) energy efficiency measures; (v) renewable energy measures |
3.1.5 |
||||||
Farm water use efficiency |
m3/ha/year m3/tonne of produce m3/livestock unit |
All farms |
Water used within farms per hectare and year or tonne of produce or per livestock unit. It needs to distinguish by source (e.g. water from wells, from municipal water supply, from surface watercourses, harvested rainwater, reclaimed water). Water used for specific processes should be reported separately whenever possible. |
Per farm or per process |
Water |
A water management plan must be implemented and revised every five years, including: (i) mapping of direct water consumption by source across major processes; (ii) benchmarking of water consumption per hectare, livestock unit or tonne of produce; (iii) water efficiency measures; (iv) rainwater harvesting |
3.1.5, 3.8.1 |
||||||
Percentage of waste separated into recyclable fractions |
% |
All farms |
Amount of waste separated into recyclable fractions divided by the total amount generated within the farm |
Per farm |
Waste |
Waste prevention, reuse, recycling and recovery is implemented so that no waste is sent to landfill |
3.1.6, 3.10.3 |
||||||
Soil quality management |
|||||||||||||
Visual evaluation of soil structure for erosion and compaction signs across fields |
Y/N |
All farms |
This indicator monitors whether the farmer inspects the fields in his farm in order to identify signs of erosion and compaction |
Per field |
Material efficiency |
A soil management plan is implemented for the farm that incorporates: (i) an annual report for signs of erosion and compaction based on field inspections; (ii) soil bulk density and organic matter analyses at least every five years; (iii) implementation of concrete actions for maintenance of soil quality and organic matter |
3.2.1 |
||||||
Soil bulk density |
g/cm3 |
All farms |
Weight of dry soil divided by the total soil volume. The value of this indicator is obtained by laboratory testing. |
Per field |
Material efficiency |
A soil management plan is implemented for the farm that incorporates: (i) an annual report for signs of erosion and compaction based on field inspections; (ii) soil bulk density and organic matter analyses at least every five years; (iii) implementation of concrete actions for maintenance of soil quality and organic matter |
3.2.1, 3.2.3 |
||||||
Organic dry matter application rate |
t/ha/year |
All farms |
Amount of organic matter applied in the field per hectare per year, expressed as dry matter |
Per field |
Material efficiency |
Ensure all arable soils on the farm receive organic matter inputs, e.g. from crop residues, manures, catch/cover crops, composts, or digestates, at least once every three years, and/or establish grass leys for one to three years |
3.2.2 |
||||||
Erosion losses |
Tonnes of soil/ha/year |
All farms |
Loss of the topsoil of a field caused either by water (run-offs) or wind, expressed by the amount of the soil lost per hectare per year |
Per field |
Material efficiency |
A soil management plan is implemented for the farm that incorporates: (i) an annual report for signs of erosion and compaction based on field inspections; (ii) soil bulk density and organic matter analyses at least every five years; (iii) implementation of concrete actions for soil quality and organic matter |
3.2.3 |
||||||
Production of field drain maps |
Y/N |
All farms |
This indicator monitors whether drains are systematically mapped across fields in order to enable their management |
Per field/per farm |
Material efficiency Water |
Natural drainage is maximised through careful management of soil structure; the effectiveness of existing drains is maintained; new drains are installed where appropriate on mineral soils |
3.2.4, 3.4.3 |
||||||
Minimisation of drainage on peat soils |
Y/N |
All farms |
Drainage is avoided in the fields with peat soils. |
Per field |
Material efficiency Water |
Drainage is minimised on peat soils and soils where there is a high risk of increased nutrient transfer to water via drainage |
3.2.4 |
||||||
Nutrient management |
|||||||||||||
NUE calculated for N/P/K |
% |
All farms |
Ratio between the amount of fertiliser removed from the field by the crop and the amount of fertiliser applied. The amount of fertiliser removed from the field by the crop is calculated by multiplying the crop yield by the average nitrogen content. |
Per field |
Material efficiency |
The fertiliser nutrients applied do not exceed the amount required to achieve the ‘economic optimum’ crop yield. Nutrient surplus or nutrient use efficiency is estimated for nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium for individual crop — or grassland — management parcels. |
3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.5.3 |
||||||
Gross Nitrogen Balance |
kg/ha |
All farms |
This indicator represents the surplus or reduction of nitrogen on agricultural land. It is calculated by subtracting the amount of nitrogen added to the farming system by the amount of nitrogen taken away from the system per hectare of agricultural land. |
Per field/per farm |
Material efficiency |
The fertiliser nutrients applied do not exceed the amount required to achieve the ‘economic optimum’ crop yield. Nutrient surplus or nutrient use efficiency is estimated for nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium for individual crop — or grassland — management parcels. |
3.3.2, 3.3.1 |
||||||
Crop rotation cycles include legume and break crops |
Y/N |
All farms |
This indicator refers to the incorporation of legume and break crops in the crop rotation cycles. The duration of the cycle should be reported too. |
Per field/per farm |
Material efficiency |
All grassland and crop rotations include at least one legume crop and one break crop over a five-year period |
3.3.2 |
||||||
Use of precision farming tools such as GPS technology guidance to optimise nutrient delivery |
Y/N |
All farms |
This indicator refers to whether geolocation tools are used to define precisely the amount of nutrients to be applied in each specific location within the field/farm. |
Per field |
Material efficiency Emissions |
— |
3.3.3 |
||||||
Carbon footprint of nitrogen fertilisers used |
kg CO2e/kg N |
All farms |
This indicator refers to the manufacturing emissions of the nitrogen fertilisers used in the farm, expressed as kg CO2e/kg N; the values are provided by the supplier of the fertilisers and must be based on an openly reported calculation. |
Per farm |
Emissions |
Mineral fertiliser used on the farm has not given rise to manufacturing emissions exceeding 3 kg CO2e per kg N, which must be demonstrated in an openly reported calculation provided by the supplier |
3.3.4 |
||||||
Synthetic fertilisers applied have low post application ammonia and GHG emissions |
Y/N |
All farms |
This indicator monitors whether the synthetic fertilisers applied have specific characteristics (such as nitrification inhibitor coating) to limit post application emissions |
Per farm |
Emissions |
Synthetic fertilisers applied have low post application ammonia emissions |
3.3.4 |
||||||
Soil preparation and crop planning |
|||||||||||||
Percentage of peat soils cultivated |
% |
All farms |
Surface of the cultivated land with peat soils divided by the total surface of the land with peat soils in the farm |
Per field/per farm |
Material efficiency |
Fields with peat soils must be kept covered with long-terms grass ley; soil tillage on peat soils to reseed the ley is carried out at a minimum interval of five years |
3.4.1, 3.2.4 |
||||||
Percentage of winter soil coverage by vegetation |
% |
All farms |
Surface of the land covered over winter by vegetation divided by the total surface of the field or the farm |
Per field/per farm |
Material efficiency |
— |
3.4.1 |
||||||
Percentage of area where non-inversion tillage operations for crop establishment are applied |
% |
All farms |
Surface of the land where non-inversion tillage (e.g. direct seed drilling, strip tillage and reduced tillage) operations are implemented divided by the total surface of the field or farm |
Per field/per farm |
Material efficiency |
Inversion tillage is avoided through the use of e.g. direct seed drilling, strip tillage and reduced tillage (chisel plough) |
3.4.2 |
||||||
Number of break crops (ley, legume, oilseed) in the rotation cycles |
No of crops/rotation cycle |
All farms |
This indicator refers to the number of break crops in the rotation cycle. |
Per field/per farm |
Material efficiency |
On farms with a cereal-dominated crop rotation, break crops are planted for at least two years in a seven year crop rotation and for at least one year in a six-year or shorter crop rotation |
3.4.4, 3.3.2 |
||||||
Length of rotation cycles |
Years |
All farms |
Length of the applied rotation cycles. |
Per field |
Material efficiency |
On farms with a cereal-dominated crop rotation, break crops are planted for at least two years in a seven year crop rotation and for at least one year in a six-year or shorter crop rotation |
3.4.4, 3.3.2 |
||||||
Spatial diversity is considered in crop selection |
Y/N |
All farms |
This indicator monitors whether, when designing crop rotation cycles, the farmer ensures the alternation of crops in neighbouring fields within the farm. |
Per field |
Material efficiency Biodiversity |
Farms alternate crops cultivated in neighbouring fields to increase spatial diversity of cropping patterns at the landscape level |
3.4.4 |
||||||
Selection of early maturing varieties of crops for the most susceptible land |
Y/N |
All farms |
This indicator refers to whether the farmer avoids that the most susceptible land is left bare during the wet season by selecting early maturing varieties and facilitating the establishment of cover crops before the beginning of the wet season |
Per farm |
Biodiversity Material efficiency |
Early maturing varieties of crops are selected in order to harvest before the wet season and to facilitate the establishment of cover crops |
3.4.4 |
||||||
Percentage of land left as bare soil over winter |
% |
All farms |
Surface of the land left as bare soil over winter divided by the total surface of the farm |
Per farm |
Water |
The farm provides evidence of a full assessment of the potential to integrate cover/catch crops into cropping plans, providing justification for any land left bare over winter |
3.4.5 |
||||||
Grass and grazing management |
|||||||||||||
Percentage of grass dry matter uptake by animals |
% |
Livestock farms |
Quantity of grass dry matter eaten by grazing animals over the grazing period out of the total grass dry matter available in the field. Grass height readings are taken throughout the growing period, which are then used to estimate the offtake amount of grass by the animals |
Per field |
Material efficiency |
80 % grass dry matter uptake by grazing animals during the grazing period |
3.5.1 |
||||||
D-value of pasture |
No |
Livestock farms |
This indicator represents the digestibility rate of pasture by livestock; it can be improved thanks to pasture renovation |
Per field |
Material efficiency Biodiversity |
Pasture renovation (e.g. over-seeding) is employed to maximise forage production, maintain high legume coverage and introduce other flowering species |
3.5.3 |
||||||
Feed conversion ratio |
kg of animal feed dry matter uptake/kg of output meat or l of milk |
Livestock farms |
Ratio between the amount of the feed (in terms of dry matter) eaten by the animals divided by the amount of farm produce, such as kg of output meat or litres of milk |
Per field |
Material efficiency Emissions |
— |
3.5.4, 3.6.1, 3.6.3, 3.6.4 |
||||||
Animal husbandry |
|||||||||||||
Percentage of animals that are of rare genetic origin |
% |
Livestock farms |
Ratio between the number rare breeds livestock units and the total number of livestock units within the farm |
Per farm |
Biodiversity |
The livestock population of the farm consists of at least 50 % locally adapted breeds and at least 5 % rare breeds |
3.6.1 |
||||||
Percentage of animals that are of locally adapted breeds |
% |
Livestock farms |
Ratio between the number of locally adapted breeds livestock units and the total number of livestock units within the farm |
Per farm |
Material efficiency |
The livestock population of the farm consists of at least 50 % locally adapted breeds and at least 5 % rare breeds |
3.6.1 |
||||||
Farm level nutrient surplus |
kg N/ha/year kg P/ha/year |
Livestock farms |
This indicator refers to the difference between the nutrient input and output at farm level. |
Per farm |
Material efficiency Emissions |
The farm-level nitrogen surplus is, at the most, 10 % of farm nitrogen requirements The farm-level phosphorus surplus is, at the most, 10 % of farm phosphorus requirements |
3.6.2, 3.6.3 |
||||||
Farm level NUE calculated for N and P |
% |
Livestock farms |
Ratio between the nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) inputs,(52) and the nutrient outputs (nutrient contained in crop and animals products sold and in exported livestock manure). |
Per farm |
Material efficiency Emissions |
The farm-level nitrogen surplus is, at the most, 10 % of farm nitrogen requirements The farm-level phosphorus surplus is, at the most, 10 % of farm phosphorus requirements |
3.6.2, 3.6.3 |
||||||
Dairy urea nitrogen in milk |
mg/100 g |
Livestock farms |
Urea concentration in milk is obtained by performing laboratory tests |
Per farm |
Material efficiency |
— |
3.6.3 |
||||||
Enteric methane emissions |
kg CH4 per kg meat or l milk |
Livestock farms |
Calculation of the enteric methane emissions from the fermentation of feed per produce outcome |
Per farm |
Emissions |
— |
3.6.4, 3.6.7 |
||||||
Percentage of procured feed that is sustainability certified |
% |
Livestock farms |
Ratio between the weight of purchased feed that is sustainability certified and the total procured feed. This indicator can be broken down per different types of feeds and is specifically relevant for soy- and palm-based feeds. |
Per farm |
Material efficiency |
Imports of soy- and palm-based feeds are minimised, and where used, 100 % of such feeds are certified not to originate from areas of recent land use change |
3.6.5 |
||||||
Preventative healthcare programme in place |
Y/N |
Livestock farms |
This indicator monitors whether the farm has a pro-active preventative healthcare programme for the livestock. |
Per farm |
Biodiversity |
The farm systematically monitors animal health and implements a preventative healthcare programme that includes at least one preventative visit per year by a veterinary surgeon |
3.6.6 |
||||||
Occurrences of veterinary treatment per head over the year |
No/year |
Livestock farms |
Number of the health treatments with medicines (e.g. antibiotics) per livestock unit per year |
Per farm |
Biodiversity |
— |
3.6.6 |
||||||
Weight gain of the livestock in the farm |
kg/livestock unit/time unit |
Livestock farms |
This indicator refers to the average measured increase in weight of livestock on the farm over an appropriate time unit (e.g. daily weight gain) |
Per farm |
Biodiversity |
— |
3.6.6 |
||||||
Manure management |
|||||||||||||
Ammonia emissions generated in animal housing system per livestock unit per year |
kg NH3 per livestock unit per year |
Livestock farms |
Generation of ammonia emissions from animal housing, before excreta reach storage areas, per livestock unit per year |
Per animal housing system |
Emissions |
Installation of a grooved floor, roof insulation and automatically controlled natural ventilation systems to animal housing |
3.7.1 |
||||||
Percentage of slurries/manure generated on farm treated in an anaerobic digestion system from which digestate is returned to agricultural land |
% |
Livestock farms |
Amount of slurries/manure treated in an anaerobic digestion system divided by the total amount of slurries generated in the farm |
Per farm |
Waste |
100 % of slurry generated on farm is treated in an anaerobic digestion system with gas-tight digestate storage, from which digestate is returned to agricultural land |
3.7.2 |
||||||
Percentage of on-farm slurry generated on dairy, pig and poultry farms that is separated prior to storage |
% |
Livestock farms |
Ratio between the slurry separated into liquid and solid fraction prior to storage and application and the total amount of slurries generated in the farm |
Per farm |
Waste |
Slurry or digestate arising on dairy, pig and poultry farms is separated as needed into liquid and solid fractions that are applied to soils in accordance with crop nutrient requirements and soil organic matter requirements |
3.7.3 |
||||||
Liquid slurry store tanks and anaerobic digestate store tanks are covered |
Y/N |
Livestock farms |
This indicator refers to taking appropriate actions to minimise emissions from slurry or digestate stores: for new build tanks, these should be covered with tight lid or tent cover and built as tall tanks; for existing tanks, when is not possible to use tight lid or tent cover, plastic-sheeting-type, clay ball or floating systems can be used. |
Per farm or per animal housing system |
Emissions |
New-build slurry stores, and anaerobic digestate stores, are built as tall tanks (> 3 m in height) with a tight lid or tent cover. Existing storage tanks are fitted with a tight lid or tent cover where possible, or a floating cover otherwise; existing lagoon slurry stores are fitted with a floating cover |
3.7.4 |
||||||
Capacity of liquid storage tanks for slurries |
m3 |
Livestock farms |
Volume of the tank for the slurry storage. This can be compared against the minimum required capacity value in order to apply nutrients according to the farm nutrient management plan. |
Per farm |
Emissions Waste |
Total liquid slurry storage capacity is at least equal to that required by relevant national nitrate-vulnerable zone regulations, whether or not the farm is in a nitrate-vulnerable zone, and is sufficient to ensure that the timing of slurry application can always be optimised with respect to farm nutrient management planning |
3.7.4 |
||||||
Implementation of slurry acidification or slurry cooling |
Y/N |
Livestock farms |
This indicator refers to the implementation of slurry processing techniques such as acidification or cooling |
Per farm |
Waste Emissions |
— |
3.7.4 |
||||||
Percentage of solid manure fractions stored |
% |
Livestock farms |
Amount of solid manure stored divided by the total generation of solid manures |
Per farm |
Waste Emissions |
Solid manure fractions are composted or stored for at least three months in batches with no fresh manure additions |
3.7.5 |
||||||
Location and management of solid manure stores avoids contamination of surface watercourses |
Y/N |
Livestock farms |
This indicator monitors whether the farm has selected the location for solid manure stores away from surface watercourses and whether leachates are collected and recycled through the farm manure management system. |
Per farm or per animal housing system |
Waste Emissions |
Solid manure stores are covered and located away from surface watercourses, with leachate collected and recycled through the farm manure management system |
3.7.5 |
||||||
Incorporation of manure into arable soils within two hours of spreading |
Y/N |
Livestock farms |
This indicator refers to the immediate incorporation of the manure into arable soils |
Per farm |
Waste Emissions |
In accordance with nutrient requirements of the crops, 100 % of the slurries applied to land are applied via shallow injection, trailing shoe or banded application, and 100 % of the high ammonium manures applied to bare arable land are incorporated into the soil as soon as possible and in any case within two hours |
3.7.6 |
||||||
Percentage of slurry applied to grassland via shallow injection, or trailing shoe or banded application |
% |
Livestock farms |
Amount of slurries applied to grassland via banded spreading or trailing shoe application or shallow injection techniques divided by the total amount of slurries applied to grassland |
Per farm |
Waste |
In accordance with the nutrient requirement of the crops, 100 % of the slurries applied to grassland are applied via shallow injection, trailing shoe or banded application |
3.7.7 |
||||||
Irrigation |
|||||||||||||
Water Use Efficiency |
kg/m3 |
Farms using irrigation |
Crop yield per irrigation water applied in the farm |
Per farm |
Water |
— |
3.8.1-3.8.4, 3.10.2 |
||||||
Irrigation efficiency at crop level |
% |
Farms using irrigation |
It is calculated by multiplying the conveyance efficiency of the water to the field by the field application efficiency. |
Per field |
Water |
— |
3.8.2 |
||||||
Crop protection |
|||||||||||||
A dynamic crop protection plan for sustainable crop protection is in place that includes: (i) crop rotation aimed at pest prevention, (ii) biological pest control,(iii) precision application of crop protection products (if their use is needed), (iv) appropriate training on plant protection, (v) periodical review and improvement of the plan |
Y/N |
All farms |
This indicator refers to the implementation and periodical review of a dynamic crop protection plan, which incorporates key aspects of integrated pest management. |
Per farm |
Material efficiency Biodiversity Water |
— |
3.9.1 |
||||||
Selected crop protection products have the least toxicity and are compatible with the overall crop protection strategy |
Y/N |
All farms |
This indicator refers to the selection of crop protection products which are compatible with the overall crop protection strategy and have the least toxicity. |
Per field or farm |
Biodiversity Water |
|
3.9.2 |
||||||
Protected horticulture |
|||||||||||||
Total energy use in the greenhouse |
kWh/yield |
Protected horticulture farms |
Total energy use supplied to the protected horticulture system per yield |
Per protected horticulture facility |
Energy efficiency |
— |
3.10.1 |
||||||
Share of the greenhouse energy use for heating, cooling, lighting and manufacture of carbon dioxide (if applicable) met by on-site renewable energy generation on an annual basis |
% |
Protected horticulture farms |
Ratio between the use of renewable energy generated on-site and the total energy use over the year |
Per protected horticulture facility |
Energy efficiency |
The combined energy use of the protected horticulture system for heating, cooling, lighting and manufacture of carbon dioxide (if applicable) is met by at least 80 % of on-site renewable energy generation, on an annual basis |
3.10.1 |
||||||
All biomass waste is composted or sent to anaerobic digestion |
Y/N |
Protected horticulture farms |
This indicator refers to the composting or anaerobic digestion of all biomass waste produced in the protected horticulture system. Anaerobic digestion can take place off-site |
Per protected horticulture system |
Waste |
All waste is collected, separated and properly treated, the organic fraction is composted and no waste is sent to landfill. In particular:
|
3.10.3 |
||||||
Use of fully biodegradable bio-based plastic materials for nursery pots and mulching films |
Y/N |
Protected horticulture farms |
This indicator monitors the use of biodegradable plastics for pots, mulching, coverings, etc. |
Per protected horticulture facility |
Waste |
All waste must be collected, separated and properly disposed, organic fraction composted and no waste to landfill. In particular:
|
3.10.3 |