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