Post on 21-Jan-2016
Balancing outcomes and making transparent trade offsDr Liz Wedderburn AgResearch & ColleaguesRural Futures conference 24th Sept 2009
What are we attempting to balance?
Social
Cultural
Economic
Environmental
Quality of Life
SourceChoosing Regional Futures 2007
Today’s presentation
• Describe the system properties that underpin agriculture
• Discuss the knowledge sets required to achieve co- existence of outcomes
• Outline some tensions resulting from system properties
• Give examples of balancing outcomes at farm, catchment and community level
Coupling of Human Capability and Natural Capital is New Zealand’s Competitive Advantage
Ecosystem processesBiogeochemical
hydrological
Resources
Economic activity
Interface of high tension
Sustainable Development from a natural capital base
Functions for human well being: food, clean air,water, waste assimilation, biodiversity, cultural Leadership
GovernanceCapacity
Knowledge Systems required to operate from a natural capital base
• The limits of ecosystem properties and behaviour: to set targets
• Ecosystem functions: – what are they? – how do we protect them? and – how does land management impact on them?
• The value of natural capital: how do we include in assessments?
• What are the skills, capability, institutions that couple human behaviour and ecosystem behaviour?
Tensions caused by system properties“wicked problems” • Distance in space and time:
– Impacts of decisions– Nutrient flow lag– Policy requirements; Research time lines
• Fast and slow cycles: fast societal change; slow biological response
• How can you manage what you cannot see?
• We do not have exact science knowledge
• No simple cause and effect instead we deal with dynamic coupled systems where relationships and systemic interactions defy ‘silver bullet’ solutions
Some attempts to balance the outcomes
Nutrient balance
Optimum soil test values
Nitrification inhibitors
Low-rate effluent irrigation
Wintering/spring pads
Herd HomesHerd HomesHerd Homes
Effluent storage
Irrigation Bunds
On Farm Technological
FixesTool Box
Source Monaghan 2005
0
100
200
300
400
500Farm EBIT, $000
N leached, g/kg MS
GG emissions, kgCO2-eq/kg MS
Energy use, MJ/kg MS
Forage crop grazing
Feedpad
Economic and environmental performance of a feedpad and a winter cropsystem for a dairy farm
Source Monaghan et al 2005
Animals Fert N$ GM per
ha
N leached
kg N/ha/yr
$ GM per kg N leached
Steers 0N 560 10 56
Ewes 140%
lambing0N 680 9 75
Designing farm systems to balance nutrient emissions and financial returns
Source Ledgard pers com
System Reconfiguring, Catchment Land use
Pine on steep landStock policy change Riparian protectionFragment restorationSpaced Poplar planting
Indicator Old System Benchmark value
New system
Soil fertility (Olsen phosphate)
17 25 23
Pasture production (t DM/ha/y)
9.5 12.1 10.0
Sediment export (t/ha/y)
2.86 0.44 0.69
Phosphorus export (kg/ha/y)
3.0 0.8 1.2
Indigenous plant diversity (# spp per plot)
20 34 28
Lambing (% weaned)
109 120 124
Cattle gross margin ($/stock unit)
46 58 82
Annual farm surplus ($/ha grazed)
181 253 285
Source Dodd et al 2007
Informed ConsensusTransition cost too high Future institutions: Catchment CompanyRemoval of property boundaries to design an extensive whole farm system To meet community goals
Sustainability of What, Why and for Whom ?A community conversation
Social
Cultural
Economic
Environmental
Quality of Life
SourceChoosing Regional Futures 2007
CommunitySustainability Outcomes
Environment Economy Quality of Life Culture/Identity
Participation and Equity
Values Air Productivity Safety and security
Identity Equity
Land and soil
Prosperity Health Culture Civic participation
Water Employment Paid work Treaty of Waitangi
Landscape Infrastructure Recreation & leisure
Political/social trust
Biodiversity Tourism Knowledge and skills
Human rights
Biosecurity Socialconnections
International treaties
Kaitiakitanga/stewardship
Housing
Outcomes Environment Economic Quality of life Politics/Culture
Stakeholders Green= Better
Red=worse Blue=does not matter
Yellow=moderate
Scientists 50 30 15 5
Dairy Industry
35 40 15 10
NGO 50 10 15 25
Urban 15 25 50 10
Evaluating impact of capping nutrient emissions
Outcomes
• Differing perspectives exposed• Makes transparent the judgements and reasoning• Identifies where co-existence and trade offs exist• Enables collective learning• Takes a systems approach to identifying unintended
consequences• Exposes who wins, who looses, who cares• Mobilises science knowledge
Conclusions
• Multiple simultaneous approaches are required to balance outcomes
• Collective learning and building adaptive capacity within a systems context is essential
• Leadership is necessary to have an informed conversation at local-national scale about what we want to sustain
• Science informs