Part 1 - Emerging challenges for farming systems · Part 1: 1. Farming in perspective 1 Introduction 1 1. Expectations of farming systems 5 Abstract 5 What are farming systems? 5

Emerging challenges for farming systems

lessons from Australian and Dutch agriculture

edited by Ken Rickert

ii

© 2004 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.

All rights reserved.

ISBN 0642 58620 9 ISSN 1440-6845

Emerging challenges for farming systems: lessons from Australian and Dutch Agriculture

Edited by Ken Rickert

Publication No. 03/053 Project No. UQ–90A

The views expressed and the conclusions reached in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of persons consulted. RIRDC shall not be responsible in any way whatsoever to any person who relies in whole or in part on the contents of this report.

This publication is copyright. However, RIRDC encourages wide dissemination of its research, providing the Corporation is clearly acknowledged. For any other enquiries concerning reproduction, contact the Publications Manager on phone 02 6272 3186.

RIRDC Contact Details

Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Level 1, AMA House 42 Macquarie Street BARTON ACT 2600

PO Box 4776 KINGSTON ACT 2604

Phone: 02 6272 4539 Fax: 02 6272 5877 Email: [email protected]. Web: http://www.rirdc.gov.au

Designed and typeset by the RIRDC Publications Unit Published in May 2004 by RIRDC Printed by Union Offset

iii

ContentsForeword vii

Preface viii

Part 1: 1. Farming in perspective 1

Introduction 1

1. Expectations of farming systems 5 Abstract 5 What are farming systems? 5 Criteria for assessing farming systems 7 Management environment 12 Food security: an international challenge 15 Conclusions 18 References 19

2. Lessons from frontier technology to interconnectivity 20 Abstract 20 Introduction 20 Productivity 23 Sustainability 28 Interconnectivity 31 Chain perspective 32 Conclusion 36 References 37

3. The marketing of food and fibre products: evolution and revolution 39 Introduction 39 Three forces of change 39 Where to from here? 50 References 51

iv

Part 2: Systems thinking 53

Introduction 53

4. System thinking in agriculture: an overview 57 Abstract 57 Introduction 58 Ancient system thinking and uncertainty 60 Modern system thinking in agriculture 62 Form and thermodynamic theory, a static approach. 74 Co-evolution of form and processes 79 Concluding comments 83 Acknowledgements 84 References 84

5. Technology and development: A gravy-train? 87 Abstract 87 Introduction 88 Technology, characterisation and typology 91 Contexts, forms and processes in farming 92 Criteria for evaluation of technology 96 Two cases: nitrogen and biotechnology 98 Conclusions 101 Acknowledgements 102 References 103

6. Land care and culture 104 Abstract 104 Introduction 105 Attitudes towards Nature 108 Land tenure and farming systems 117 Balance between regulations, incentives and education 119 Adaptation to environmental and cultural change 123 References 125

v

Part 3: Emerging technologies 127

Introduction 127

7. Who owns the gene pool? 130 Abstract 130 Introduction 130 Intellectual Property (IP) 131 Analysis of ownership in specific cases 137 Public perception of GMO’s 139 Verification of ownership claims 142 Conclusions 143 References 143

8. Pest management 2002 – beyond Silent Spring 145 Abstract 145 Where have we come from? – a brief history 145 Current status of chemical use in agriculture 146 Motivations for changing crop protection and animal health practices 151 Responses to concerns about pesticides 154 Conclusions 165 References 166

9. Managing climate risk in Australia’s rangelands 171 Abstract 171 An overview of Australia’s rangelands 172 Australia’s climate: past and present 175 Relative Rainfall Variability 175 Strategies for managing climate risk 177 Seasonal climate forecasting tools 182 Failure to manage for climate variability 186 Use of seasonal climate forecasting tools by producers 187 Climate change 189 Conclusions 191 Further reading 193 References 193

vi

Part 4: Future 197

Introduction 197

10. RD&E systems: challenges and opportunities 200 Introduction 200 A shift away from the public sector 202 The RDE providers 205 Current status of agriculture’s contribution to ecosystem health 206 Major responses to crisis 209 Discussion and interpretation 215 Conclusions 218 References 218 Government Reports 220

11. What of the future? 222 Abstract 222 Introduction 222 Training to be good managers 225 Triple bottom line in perspective 228 Conclusions: what business are farmers really in? 236 References 237

Glossary 242

List of abbreviations 243

vii

ForewordIs the book optimistic about the future? Yes, provided we do things differently!

It points to what should be done differently and describes a theoretical base for considering options. Since the future is uncertain, perhaps our greatest resource for coping is the ingenuity, skill and moral fibre of our farmers and the support services that encourage these qualities.

This publication is an addition to RIRDC’s diverse range of over 1000 research publications. It brings together research from our Resilient Agricultural Systems Sub-program which aims to foster agri-industry systems that have sufficient diversity, flexibility and robustness to be resilient and respond to challenges and opportunities.

The project was funded from RIRDC Core Funds, which are provided by the Commonwealth Government of Australia. While this support is gratefully acknowledged, the eleven chapters that follow contain the views of eleven Australian and seven Dutch authors who do not attempt to reflect the views of RIRDC or the Australian or Dutch governments.

Most of RIRDC’s publications are available for viewing, downloading or purchasing online through our website:

downloads—www.rirdc.gov.au/fullreports/index.htmlpurchases—www.rirdc.gov.au/eshop

Simon HearnManaging DirectorRural Industries Research and Development Corporation

viii

PrefaceAn early draft of this preface was prepared while I visited the Netherlands to consult with Hans Schiere and other Dutch authors. We were working from a cabin near the village of Kootwijk, which is adjacent to an area of desert-like sand dunes in the Kootwijkerzand forestry reserve. The sand dunes resulted from over exploitation by farmers until some hundred years ago. The village farmers not only grazed the area heavily but also cut and removed the sward and topsoil to their farms outside the reserve. A vivid example of the ‘tragedy of the commons’ in the Netherlands of all places. A few minutes drive to the west is a district that was once renowned for intensive livestock production that allowed many families to have a good income. In recent times, however, public concern with wastes from this type of farming led to government regulations that reduced animal numbers and to the introduction of manure disposal contracts. The village of Kootwijkerbroek is located in the same area. Its farmers had to contend with an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease early in 2001, which resulted in a bitter clash with government over vaccination policy. Twenty minutes drive to the south is Wageningen University, a key source of information for Dutch agriculture and a major contributor to literature on farming systems. But while notable reminders of farming and its complex and uncertain environment surrounded me, all was not peaceful outside. In the distance the Dutch army could be heard practising live firing in preparation for possible action in response to the tragic destruction of the World Trade Center in New York.

Eighteen months later the foot-and-mouth outbreak was a painful memory but Europe was in political turmoil over a war with Iraq. Uncertainty and complexity are definitely not confined to farming.

What of Australia in September 2001. Grain farmers on the Darling Downs in Queensland had not received sufficient rain to plant a crop for two years. They were approaching the Federal Government for assistance due to these exceptional circumstances. Meanwhile the beef industry was booming – sale prices had increased by 130% in the past 18 months and export markets for live cattle were expanding once again. Not so with the dairy industry – national deregulation had drastically reduced milk prices for farmers in northern Australia. Government provided financial assistance to help farmers adjust to deregulation but many ‘adjusted’ by leaving the industry.

What of Australia in March 2003, eighteen months later. Eastern Australia was experiencing one of the most widespread and severe droughts on record, accompanied by bush fires that had burnt 3m ha of rangeland and forests, and destroyed over 500 homes in and adjacent to the leafy suburbs of the national capital Canberra. The national wheat harvest of 2002/03 was 38% of the harvest in 2001/02, livestock industries imported feed grains for the first time in many years, graziers struggled to survive and retain breeding stock even with drought relief from governments, and the summer crop harvest for 2003 was predicted to be 60-70% less than for 2002. Meanwhile cities and industry were experiencing water shortages and food prices were rising as the drought disrupted normal supply chains. Australia might be a ‘lucky’ country in

ix

terms of mineral resources and surfing beaches, but its people must cope with living in the driest continent with the most variable climate in the world.

With regard to over exploitation of soil and water resources, there was the growing public concern over salinisation and deterioration in the Murray-Darling and other river basins, problems that emerged many years after land was first cleared. Eleven leading and concerned scientists tabled a report as a ‘Blue Print for a Living Continent’, which pointed to policies and actions for the better management of our soil and water resources. The ensuing public debate over responsibilities, inter-governmental agreements and funding was in full swing. There was also public concerns over the number of large public corporations that failed in recent years, and the resulting enquiries and legal proceedings will lead to reforms in accounting and business practices. Uncertainty and complexity are definitely not confined to farming, or to Australia, Europe, or USA.

Whilst variation in prices and weather are major issues for Australian farmers that are usually not experienced to the same degree by Dutch farmers, there are many similarities in Australian and Dutch farming. For example, both countries have relied on technological developments to lift farm production with little appreciation of the trade-off elsewhere in the biophysical system (matter), and how they were seen by society at large (mind). The book stresses the need for a holistic view of mind and matter issues. Also the wider community scrutinises farmers and farming in both countries. Another Kootwijkerzand-like experience would be abhorred by the wider community who see farmers providing a secure supply of good food coupled with good stewardship of farmland. As a result, the triple bottom line is a widely accepted goal for farming today – farming systems should be ecologically sustainable, profitable and socially acceptable. This notion of the triple bottom line underpins the contents of this book.

Another purpose of the above reflections is to highlight the complex and dynamic environment of farming in both countries, and by association, farming in all developed countries. Change, uncertainty, complexity and interrelationships are part and parcel of farming today. How can farmers cope, is there a pattern to it all, and what about the future, including food security? These are all pertinent questions that this book attempts to address in four parts. Part1 (Chapters 1-3) sets the scene by reviewing agricultural development during the 20th century. Part 2 (Chapters 4-6) outlines contemporary theories on systems thinking. Part 3 (Chapter 7-9) reviews three technologies that are shaping farming systems as we move into the 21st century. Finally, Part 4 (Chapters 10 and 11) builds on the preceding material to reflect on the future of farming. The target audience includes all persons interested in the future of farming.

Ken Rickert

1

Part 1:Farming in perspectiveIntroductionThis book was based on the simple notion that comparison of the history and experiences of Australian and Dutch agriculture, particularly since World War II, would indicate lessons for the future of farming in developed countries, and to a lesser degree in developing countries. The primary task was to produce a book with invited authors writing 11 chapters that provided a theoretical base and review of some of the key biophysical and socio-economic issues facing farming in both countries. Dutch authors are involved in five of the following chapters and the chapters are arranged in four parts.

The notion of the triple bottom line – farming systems that are ecologically sustainable, profitable and socially acceptable – is a convenient framework for comparing and evaluating farming systems. The chapters that follow reinforce a central theme of the book – coping strategies for successful farming in a rapidly changing and complex ‘global village’. The three chapters in Part 1 emphasise the complex management environment of farmers (Box P1.1) and the emergence of interconnected ‘paddock to plate’ food chains that function on national and international scales (Box P1.2).

Australia and the Netherlands have quite different farming systems and climates. The Netherlands has a temperate climate and relatively intensive farming systems compared to extensive farming systems in Australia where climates range from tropical to temperate. With 87% of the population and only 0.5% of the area of Australia the Netherlands almost matches meat production and exceeds milk production in Australia (Box P1.3). Most Dutch farms belong to a mode of farming called High External Input Agriculture because they use large quantities of imported grain and fertiliser. Productivity is higher than in Australia (Box P1.4). Urban expansion coupled with disposal of waste from the pig, poultry and dairy industries are major problems for this densely populated nation (Box P1.5) and the Dutch are world leaders in regulating the management of waste from intensive agriculture (Breembroek et al., 1996).

Whereas the Dutch face degradation of the soil, water and atmosphere through excess waste, Australian farming systems commonly use relatively low inputs of external energy and are faced with serious degradation of soil and water resources through exploitation (Box P1.6). Degradation through soil erosion, acidification and salinisation are so widespread and serious that a national commitment to new farming methods is required (White, 1997).

Part 1: Farming in perspective

2

Thus the Dutch and Australian experiences represent two contrasting examples, perhaps extreme examples, of the impact of agriculture on the environment, which should encompass likely impacts in other industrialised countries. This emphasis on industrialised countries is justified because farming is a commercial activity, national food security is not under threat and the political infrastructure for effecting change is in place. Options for managing change are very restricted when these conditions do not exist. However the concepts, experiences and theories outlined in this project can be seen as a starting point for dealing with farming systems throughout the world.

Box P1. 1

Farmers must cope with a complex management environment.

The management environment is a mix of biophysical and socio-economic influences that function on micro and macro scales. Success depends on making many correct operational, tactical and strategic decisions. The production of crops and animals of high quality, like this crop of oats on the Darling Downs in Queensland, usually gives farmers much pride and personal satisfaction.

Phot

ogra

ph b

y K.

G. R

icke

rt

Box P1. 2

Farm products are marketed through interconnected consumer-driven chains

Photograph by K.G. Rickert

Consumers have a wide choice in range, quality and price of food. In response, large retailers are influencing the nature of farm production, via a paddock-to-plate chain that is strongly influenced by consumer preferences.

Part

1: F

arm

ing

in p

ersp

ectiv

e

3

The Dutch climate combined with their intense farming systems based on high external inputs means that productivity is much higher than in Australia where the climate is less favourable for farming and external inputs are less, as shown by the following data for 2001.

Australia NetherlandsAverage wheat yield kg/ha

1818 8741

Average milk production kg/cow

5167 7143

Both Australia and the Netherlands are large exporters of animal products, predominately beef and wool from Australia’s semi-arid rangelands and pig, poultry and dairy products from intensive farms in the Netherlands. Almost all Australia’s requirements for animal feeds are produced internally but the Netherlands imports large quantities of feeds, particularly grain and the nutrients it contains, from other European countries to support the intensive production of livestock.

Item and units Australia NetherlandsRelative size and amount of selected inputsPopulation M 18.5 15.7Area km2 7682300 41160Potash fertiliser Mt/yr 0.26 0.064Nitrogen fertiliser Mt/yr 0.84 0.37Phosphate fertiliser Mt/yr 1.15 0.067Selected Outputs: annual production and exports (million metric tonnes)

Production % Exported * Production % Exported *Total cereal 31.70 62 1.43 -305Potatoes 1.37 1 7.70 26Vegetables 1.81 3.72 n.a.Raw sugar 5.73 71 0.90 47Total meat 3.93 31 2.94 55Beef and veal 2.01 41 0.51 40Mutton and Lamb 0.61 46 0.02 12Pig meat 0.36 2 1.70 60Poultry meat and eggs 0.80 2 1.30 48Whole milk 8.20 10.90 66+Greasy wool 0.71 117 0.003 n.a.Cotton lint 0.56 94 0 0

+ Approximation of whole milk converted to export products. * 100(exports-imports)/production

Box

P1.

3 C

ompa

riso

n of

Aus

tral

ian

and

Dut

ch a

gric

ultu

re

Sour

ce F

AO Y

ear B

ook,

199

9

Box P1.4 Examples of productivity from Australian and Dutch farms

Source: FAOSTAT


4

Box P1.5 Comparison of Australian and Dutch agriculture

Phonotgraph by K.G. Rickert

Dutch farmers must dispose of waste from pig poultry and dairy farms by methods that minimise nutrient losses to the atmosphere and ground water. To this end Dutch farmers are also required to maintain a farm nutrient balance.

Box P1.6 Comparison of Australian and Dutch agriculture

In many regions, such as in the wheat-sheep belt of southern Australia, soil erosion by water and wind, soil acidification, soil salinisation or decline in soil chemical and physical properties are now major concerns. Some remedial measures have been devised through research as noted in Chapter 2.

Phonotgraph by K.G. Rickert

Part

1: F

arm

ing

in p

ersp

ectiv

e

5

1. Expectations of farming systemsK.G. Rickert1

Abstract

As a foundation for the following chapters this chapter mentions criteria for evaluating farming systems, including the notion of the triple bottom line – farming systems that are ecologically sustainable, profitable and socially acceptable. Farming in both Australia and the Netherlands is evolving to meet the triple bottom line, particularly in response to the wider community’s demand for farming to be ecologically sustainable, regardless of a long-term and persistent decline in terms of trade for farming in developed countries. Farmers not only provide food and fibre but they are also stewards of the land that provides ecosystem services for the wider community. Their management environment is described. It is challenging – a complex mix of biophysical and socio – economic influences that fluctuate on local to global scales. Good managers respond to change and make good operational, tactical and strategic decisions within their dynamic management environment.

On a global scale lack of food security is a particular problem for developing countries and lessons from this book should be relevant as farming in developing countries intensifies to meet a rising demand for food. The allocation and management of scarce resources of land and water are emerging problems in both developed and developing countries.

What are farming systems?

Farming can be regarded as a form of land use that produces food and fibre for local or international markets, ecosystem services, such as biodiversity, for local and international communities and a way of life for the farming community. Consumers of farm products, who are often articulate and urbanised, are concerned with the amount, range, quality and price of food, and with the impact of farming on the environment. Attitudes of society prevail on farmers through international agreements, government policies and regulations, business standards, interest groups and market forces, but these are also co-evolving with the operation of society. Farmers also contend with the biophysical environment, emerging technologies and cultural traditions. Thus the management environment of a farmer is a complex interaction between biophysical (matter) and socio-economic (mind and money) factors that are constantly changing and are often conflicting.

A system can be regarded as a group of interacting components within a boundary, which operate together for a common purpose by converting, in the case of farming systems, specified inputs into outputs, such as food, fibre, a social network and waste (Figure 1.1). Further, a systems approach is a holistic or systemic approach that considers all the important biophysical and socio-economic components and their interactions. This contrasts with a reductionist or systematic approach that considers separate often isolated components with few interactions.

1 Ken Rickert, formerly Director of Research, Faculty of Natural Resources, Agriculture and Veterinary Science, University of Queensland; retired December, 2001.


6

Part

1: F

arm

ing

in p

ersp

ectiv

e1.

Exp

ecta

tion

s of

farm

ing

syst

ems

Note the following important implications of these definitions, which are further elaborated in Chapter 4:

• The boundary need not be a physical boundary; rather it is a conceptual boundary that ensures all the important influencing components are included in a description of a system. Thus a cell, organ, organism, forest, landscape, ecosystem, city, country, and the world can be regarded as systems and the boundary is adjusted accordingly. Obviously a manager can be part of a system and this book emphasises the role of managers in rural systems.

• As mentioned above, systems can be arranged in a hierarchy of complexity, and components in high-level systems can be regarded as sub-systems, which may in turn consist of sub-sub-systems. Thus, the level and nature of components will vary with the scope of the system being described, the purpose of the description, and the interests of the observer.

• Inputs usually refer to various types of resources such as land, labour, capital, energy, nutrients, time and expertise. Outputs vary with the type of system being described. They may be quantitative expressions (primarily about matter) of amount of product such as grain, dollars or biodiversity but outputs may also include more qualitative expressions such as quality of life, beauty, local ingenuity or cultural heritage (primarily attitudes or mind issues). A wide range of inputs and outputs will be considered in this book including the implications of separating or closing the gap between mind and matter issues (Chapter 4).

• Because the components of systems interact, a holistic view is a greater and richer view than merely the sum of the separate components. Indeed, this concept underpins the systems approach, and the key to successful management is understanding the interactions between components of systems, as well as the interactions between the system and its environment.

• Farming is a human activity that involves stakeholders other than the farmer. Consumers, service industries, government, business, conservation groups etc. could all be seen as stakeholders. Whether or not they are included depends on the scope of the study and where the boundary to the system is drawn. The observer makes choices that will affect the outcome of the study (Figure 1.1).

• Farming systems have many common elements with natural ecosystems – the natural biophysical processes and their spatial and temporal variations. In a broad sense, all forms of land use can be regarded as a variation of natural ecosystems, be it farming, mining, forestry, town planning, waste dumping or a natural park. Many lessons from natural systems are relevant to farming systems.

The above points imply that farming systems can be regarded as natural ecosystems that have been modified and managed to supply products for humans, such as food, fibre, and fuel, often at the expense of ecosystem services like clean water or biodiversity. The ‘natural’ inputs are expanded to include labour, imported energy, money and expertise. Sub-systems may include bankers and social networks as well as soil, plants and animals. Products from a system are harvested and often consumed outside the system (Figure 1.1). Farming systems have been widely studied by scientists and farmers alike (farming systems research) in an attempt to better understand and improve their

7


1. Expectations of farming system

s

InputsClimate Sunlight LabourMoney

ExpertiseFossil fuel

OutputsFood/fibre

Money WasteWater

Life style Communities

Farming system of 7 sub-systems

Soil Plants Animals

Banker Markets Manager

Socialnetworks

Figure 1.1 A schematic representation of a farming system where a natural ecosystem has been modified to convert inputs into products needed by consumers who are often remote to the system.

The above description of a system with a defined boundary and goal or purpose is fine for biophysical systems but it has limitations when applied to socio-economic or socio-psychological systems. In these cases the goals and boundaries of the systems tend to reflect the attitudes and aspirations of the observer. Here boundaries tend to be arbitrary constraints to emphasise interrelationships and emergent properties, and the system is given a goal depending on its context and who looks at it. For example, a dairy farmer who wants a good living has a different goal and purpose to a politician who wants cheap milk for export. Thus it is necessary to consider farming systems in relation to different stakeholders or levels of perspective, and these choices will affect the outcome of the analysis.

The above notions have led us to distinguish three broad approaches to systems analysis. Hard system methodologies give a system a defined boundary and goal, and then quantify the various components and their interrelationships (mainly those of ‘matter’). On the other hand, soft systems methodologies include social elements with ill-defined boundaries, often changing and conflicting goals, and interrelationships that are often qualified rather than quantified (‘mind’). With this separation, hard system approaches can be regarded as a subset of larger, more complex soft systems. The third approach is popularly called complex systems methodologies or non-linear thinking. It provides an overarching theoretical framework for the first two approaches and for the fluctuating behaviour of farming systems. The hard, soft and complex system methodologies are described in Chapter 4.

Criteria for assessing farming systems

Criteria for evaluating farming systems vary across stakeholders, the hierarchical scale of consideration, and whether or not the consideration is static or temporal. For convenience we regard a specific farming system as belonging to a particular mode of farming. The term mode refers to a rather stable combination of form, structure, and processes, as well as the relationships between the components and their temporal and spatial variations. The significance of ‘mode’ is explained in Chapter 4 and is also expressed in Figure 1.2 by the level and temporal trend in outputs. It is also convenient to consider the implication of farming systems from the

operation. Lessons from these endeavours are discussed in subsequent chapters. Since sustainable farming is a major challenge for society, and because farm managers make land-use decisions, the management environment of a contemporary farmer is emphasised in this chapter.

8

Part

1: F

arm

ing

in p

ersp

ectiv

e1.

Exp

ecta

tion

s of

farm

ing

syst

ems

perspective of different stakeholders, such as the farm household, the national socio-economic level, the regional level and the ecosystem level. As an illustration, a number of criteria for assessing farming systems are mentioned below. Some of these, in various forms, apply to the four stakeholders mentioned above while others refer only to one stakeholder.

Productivity and profitabilityFarm households are keenly interested in productivity, the level or amount of valued product per unit of space and or time (Figure 1.2). Various expressions are used depending on the nature of the farm or purpose of the expression. When expressed as the ratio of selected outputs to selected inputs, productivity can be an expression of biological efficiency, or when expressed as the ratio of value of outputs to the value of inputs, productivity is an expression of economic efficiency. Examples include:

• comparison of paddocks: yield/ha or tonne/ha• comparison of animals: milk/cow or wool/sheep• comparison of alternative crops or enterprises: gross margins ($/ha) or terms of trade• comparison of farms: bullocks sold per year, cases of vegetables per year, bales of cotton per

year, net income per year.

Profitability is allied to productivity. It refers to the net profit of farmers relative to other sections of society. A steady decline in farm profitability in developed countries since WWII, expressed as declining terms of trade in Table 1.1, is a national concern that impacts on the farmer’s quality of life and ability to be a good steward of the land. The associated decline in number of farms indicates a trend towards bigger farms that benefit from more mechanisation and a larger scale of operation. The long-term decline in terms of trade, which is often colloquially called ‘the cost/price squeeze’, is a major ongoing challenge for farmers in developed countries. It also challenges the philosophies and policies of governments as it often gives rise to demands for farm-subsidies and other forms of financial assistance from governments. This topic is covered in more detail in Chapters 3, 10 and 11.

Items 1960 1975 1980 1990 1996Index of prices received (Australia) 38 35 100 153 174Index of prices paid (Australia) 25 31 100 199 251Index of terms of trade Australia 148 112 100 77 70Index of prices received (Netherlands)+ na 90 100 109 109Index of prices paid (Netherlands) na 79 100 107 116Index of terms of trade (Netherlands) 115 100 102 94Number of farms (Australia ‘000)* 204 193 179 128 115Number of farms (Netherlands ‘000) 230 185 149 125 113Number of farms (EU10 ‘000) 8147 7685 6820 5803 5202Number of farms (USA ‘000) 3711 2780 2439 2143 1912* ABARE changed the definition of farms and this magnified the decline from 1980 to 1990. + Sources Eurostats 1998.

Table 1.1 Long-term trends in price indices for farm inputs and outputs, and the number of farms. Price indices equal 100 for 1980. The declining terms of trade (ratio of the index of prices received to prices paid) shows that farm households have experienced stress from a cost/price squeeze or declining profitability for many years. The resulting decline in number of farms also indicates a decline in the sustainability of farming communities.

9



sStability or reliabilityFarm households are also interested in stability or reliability, the degree to which productivity remains constant in spite of normal small-scale fluctuations in weather or prices. It is conveniently measured by the coefficient of variation in productivity. Reliability is a desirable attribute, which can be used to compare different farming systems (Figure 1.2). For example, a vegetable farmer who experiences wide fluctuations in crop yield and prices will have a less stable income than a dairy farmer who sells milk at a constant price. Chapter 9 mentions how recent developments in long-range weather forecasts might improve the reliability of farming in Australia’s variable climate. Sustainability or resilience All stakeholders are interested in some degree of sustainability or resilience, the ability of the system to maintain productivity when subjected to stress or perturbation (Figure 1.2). Stress is a regular, relatively small and continuous disturbance such as increasing soil salinity or farm indebtedness. A perturbation is an irregular, infrequent, relatively large and unpredictable disturbance noticeable at farm level, such as drought, flood, frost, fire or a major political upheaval. While sustainable farming systems or sustainable development is a common national goal in developed countries it is often only measured retrospectively. Lack of sustainability can be indicated by a gradual decline in profit, or equally, by a sudden collapse of an industry. Chapter 4 introduces theoretical approaches to the notion of sustainability. The failure of farming systems in the Netherlands and Australia to be sustainable is a national concern in both countries that gives rise to this book.

Ecosystem condition refers to the temporal and spatial trends in health or vigour of the biophysical processes in an ecosystem. It is a reflection of ecological sustainability and is commonly expressed by a change in biophysical indicators over time, or by the level of a biophysical indicator relative to critical benchmarks. A range of indicators is available and the ones chosen depend on the mode of farming or on the changes in biophysical process that are most critical to sustainability. Further details will be given in Chapter 2 but the few prominent examples below illustrate a range of likely indicators and how they may trigger changes to farming methods:-

• Concern over soil erosion in dryland farming systems in Australia gave rise to a suite of measures (eg. graded banks, conservation tillage) that reduced the problem.

• Loss of soil fertility in Australia through soil erosion and nutrient removal in crop products has led to wide use of fertiliser and to ley pastures using legumes.

• Accumulation of soil nutrients in Dutch farming systems caused deterioration in quality of the atmosphere and ground water, which led to government regulations on fertiliser inputs.

• Soil acidification under legume pastures in Australia has led to regular applications of lime and to a view that long-term use of legume pastures is not a sustainable management option on acid soils.

• Soil salinisation in Australia through rising water tables has led to a realisation that some farming systems must change dramatically to avoid permanent degradation of landscapes.

10

Part

1: F

arm

ing

in p

ersp

ectiv

e1.

Exp

ecta

tion

s of

farm

ing

syst

ems

• Land clearing and tillage has released carbon dioxide, contributed to Australia’s difficulties in meeting international targets in emission of green house gases, and drawn attention to farming for ‘carbon credits’.

• Agricultural expansion in Australia has caused a loss in national biodiversity and a decline in amount and quality of water in rivers, thereby leading to government controls on land clearing and water harvesting.

• Loss of biodiversity due to farming in the Netherlands has led to the introduction of management contracts whereby farmers agree to reduce the impact of specific farm operations on wildlife, as mentioned in Chapter 5.

• The emergence of exotic diseases such as BSE in Europe has led to a strong decline in beef consumption and to a drastic worldwide change in the formulation of concentrate feeds.

Socially acceptableSocial acceptability refers to the complex mix of ethical, health, social, cultural and spiritual satisfaction of farming families, together with the wider community’s perceptions of these issues. Certainly an affluent well-informed population in developed countries increasingly questions the ethical, health, and social consequences of traditional farming. To mention a few responses, recently we have seen an expansion in organic farming, a reluctance by consumers to accept food from genetically modified plants or animals, a desire in the community for high standards of animal welfare, and an expectation that farm workers are fairly treated. Such trends are discussed more fully in subsequent chapters and are a component of the farmer’s management environment.

Equitability is another social term pertaining to farming at the household, community and national levels. It indicates how evenly the products or benefits of farming are distributed among persons at the farm, village, regional or national levels. On a family farm equitability is often reflected in personal goals and estate planning – how are the benefits and responsibilities shared among family members. On a regional level, issues of equitability are often reflected trough the social and financial status of farmers relative to the wider community. On a national scale, issues of equitability often influence government policies pertaining to land ownership, water allocations, gender, taxation and industry restructuring. Attitudes to equitability tend to be a reflection of moral philosophies or ethics of a community (e.g. what is fair and just) and are linked to the notions of ‘for the common good’ (Daly and Cobb, 1994). On an international scale a major benefit of farming, national food security, is not equitably distributed between developed and developing countries, a topic that is discussed below.

Common goal: triple bottom lineIn broad terms the stakeholders in farming are not only the farmers and agencies that serve farmers, but also to an increasing degree the urban community and governments who are interested in good resource management and a secure supply of inexpensive, high quality food. Whilst the stakeholders in farming are wide and varied, and often see farming from different

11



s

High LowProductivity

Time Time

Stability

Time Time

Sustainability

Perturbation and recovery Perturbation and no recovery

Time Time

Time Time

Yiel

d

Stress and recovery Stress and no recovery

Yiel

dYi

eld

Figure 1.2 Stylised representation of levels and trends in three criteria for measuring farming systems, which can be applied at farm, regional or national levels; based on Conway (1985).

perspectives, they share a common goal for farming – a satisfactory triple bottom line – farming systems that are ecologically sustainable, profitable and socially acceptable. The notion of the triple bottom line is a convenient combination of the above criteria that is widely used for evaluating farming systems in this book.

12

Part

1: F

arm

ing

in p

ersp

ectiv

e1.

Exp

ecta

tion

s of

farm

ing

syst

ems

Carrying capacityCarrying capacity is a term that is relevant at the farm or national levels. At a farm level it refers to the number of specific livestock a field or farm may carry without degrading the base resource (Rickert, 1996). Similarly, at the national level it refers to the number of people a nation can support at a specified standard of living, given sustainable farming systems (Prugh, 1995). One key but controversial component of national carrying capacity is the level of external support permitted in the definition. For example, if Australia was restricted to using renewable sources of energy and recycled nutrients it could support a population of about 6M, or 30% of the present population. However the carrying capacity would be much higher if, for example, sufficient fossil fuel could be used to reach an agreed global target in CO2 emissions. Clearly there must be qualifications when referring to national carrying capacity, but it remains a useful term since the results of an initiative, such as sustainable farming are integrated and expressed in units that are familiar and readily compared to historical trends. A national carrying capacity ensures food security for a population.

Management environment

The management environment is a generic term for all those biophysical, socio-economic and cultural factors that influence the lives of active adults, be they farmers, academics, merchant bankers, politicians or mothers with children. It includes all the ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ factors that are called ‘context’ in Chapters 4 and 5. Successful farm managers tend to understand and manipulate their management environment as it impacts on all their strategic, tactical and operational decisions. Thus an appreciation of the management environment on farms helps to identify the attributes of successful farmers. The management environment for most farmers is constantly changing in response to both external and internal factors, that is factors arising from either outside or inside their farm. It recognises constraints that influence decision-making, opportunities to meet personal goals and aspirations, coping strategies for addressing problems, and criteria for selecting a preferred solution, Figure 1.3.

Self-employed farmers do not answer to a hierarchical structure like employees in a public company or government service. While they might respond to external authorities, such as a bank, their overall survival and well-being depends on their own decisions, initiatives and resourcefulness, an independence that is often valued in rural communities. Farmers are constantly making decisions of a strategic, tactical or operational nature, which impact upon a farm’s success (Figure 1.3). While some farmers might seek professional advice to help make good decisions, their decisions also reflect their operational skills, technical knowledge, past experiences, financial resources, and their goals and aspirations. Indeed, internal goals and aspirations tend to underpin a person’s motivation and responses to the management environment, and importantly, goals and attitudes change during a person’s lifetime for example according to domestic circumstances. Figure 1.3 also illustrates the complex, non-linear, management environment for farmers as they respond to prevailing biophysical and socio-economic forces, which interact with each other. For example choosing a mode of farming depends on matching resources such as the prevailing climate, the type of soil and topography

13



sof the farm, with options for profitable crop and or animal production. This is a key strategic decision and if it is wrong the whole mode of farming fails.

External social forces may arise from the local community, such as social clubs, religious or political affiliations, as well as the wider society through government demands and regulations on environmental management and marketing of farm products.

Decisions

Decisions

Decisions

Goals

Aspirations

Biophysical Animal & crop selection and husbandry

Topography, climate & soil management

Selection & maintenance of machinery & infrastructure

Socio-economicMarkets, costs, prices, taxes, banks, foreign trade etc.

Regulations and social demands

Figure 1.3 Management environment of a self employed farmer.

Strategic, tactical and operational decisions, pertaining to components in the biophysical socio-economic environments are made constantly, and are tempered by personal goals and attitudes. Good managers make good decisions and attempt to manage their management environment. Source: K.G. Rickert

14

Part

1: F

arm

ing

in p

ersp

ectiv

e1.

Exp

ecta

tion

s of

farm

ing

syst

ems

Change and uncertainty are a part of life, notions that are captured by the phrase ceteris imparibus of Chapter 4. Good managers adapt to change and prepare for the future conditions of society rather than for current or past conditions. Besides, as Naisbitt (1982) said, ‘trends, like horses are easier to ride if you are facing the direction they are going’. Some of the major future-shaping forces pertaining to farming in developed countries are listed below.

• The global village. Globalisation of economic systems is leading to interdependence of national economies, international mobility of funds and fluctuations in currency exchange rates. E-commerce is changing the manner and speed of doing routine business and banking. Trade is increasingly competitive, and is often tied to special arrangements for credit or to regional or global trade agreements such as the European Union.

• Public opinion. Improved education standards stimulate change as people become more informed and discerning, less loyal to political and social traditions, and more urbanised. Currently in Australia and the Netherlands about 83% and 90% of the population live in cities respectively. The mass media also informs and influences public opinion and the Internet allows interest groups to coordinate their activities. Public participation in land management policy is increasing at all levels, as typified by moves towards managing farms based on landscapes, catchment units or cultural heritage values (Chapter 6). Examples include farmland that is reverting to nature in the Netherlands, management of the Murray Darling Basin in Australia, recognition of Native Title Tenure in Australia and the use of farms for tourism.

• Markets and trade. Population growth and food demand in developed countries is relatively static compared to the growth in developing countries. Also dietary preferences are changing, such as a decline in consumption of red meat and dairy products in some developed countries and an increase in consumption of these products in some developing countries. In response, markets are increasingly fragmented along quality or environmental specifications, as typified by the resistance to genetically modified organisms in the European Union and the emergence of vertically integrated supply chains that provide ‘paddock to plate’ control of the amount, quality and distribution of food (Chapter 3).

• Cost price squeeze. The contribution of agricultural production to Gross Domestic Product is declining (e.g. in Australia from 14% in 1956 to 2.7% in 1996) as secondary, tertiary and quaternary industries expand along with the population of large cities. Terms of trade for farmers are consistently declining (Table 1.1) resulting in a smaller number of bigger more efficient farms via farm amalgamations, or alternatively, farm households being supplemented by income from off-farm work or investments.

• Climate change will probably be expressed through more variable rainfall and warmer minimum temperatures, eventually leading to changes in the regional boundaries and instability in existing modes of farming (Chapter 9).

• Appropriate technologies. Production technologies are changing rapidly on many fronts and new technologies may profoundly change farming methods, such as the availability of rapid air transport allowing Australian and Dutch horticultural farmers to market fresh products internationally.

15



sA good farm manager is a good decision maker in a challenging and dynamic management environment, a quality that reflects the farmer’s knowledge, skill, experience and a willingness to accept change. It follows that training institutions are faced with a big challenge – how best to provide farmers and their advisors with appropriate training (Rickert, 2001; also see Chapters 6 and 11 ).

Food security: an international challenge

Food security refers to the supply of food in relation to human demand for food. Shortfalls in supply at regional, national and global levels are a major concern to planning authorities, not to forget the people going hungry.

Food security is a primary objective for most governments and a key national criterion for assessing farming systems. Indeed, for many years, after experiencing famine in World War II, European agricultural policies achieved food security by encouraging high levels of farm production and the stockpiling of surplus food. Mansholt, the Dutch and later European minister of agriculture, was one of the key persons shaping this policy. Over time the emergence of a reliable international trade in food, particularly from USA, Canada, Europe and Australia, has allowed countries such as Japan and Singapore to relax the strong logical desire for self-sufficiency in food and to rely on food imports.

Currently both Australia and The Netherlands have secure food supplies. Australia exports about 60% and 40% of grain and meat production respectively, while the Netherlands exports 50-60% of its animal production, but that is partly offset by the importation of grain (Table P1.1). A broadly similar pattern exists in Europe and North America. Since the population of developed countries is increasing at a modest rate (<1%/year; Figure 1.4), food security is not likely to be a concern and the triple bottom line is a realistic national goal. However food security in developing countries is an emerging concern because of the stresses some farming systems are experiencing.

Since the 1960s, global food production has expanded and more or less met the global demand for food (Pinstrup Andersen, 1999). Severe famine in some developing countries has been a reflection of local droughts, ineffective food distribution or political unrest. This expansion in global food production largely resulted from two traditional options for increasing food supply– farming new lands and irrigation farming. The future potential of both options is rapidly diminishing because suitable land and water are increasingly unavailable (Pinstrup Andersen et al., 2000).

World population is likely to become more urban and increase by 2 billion in the next 20 years, mostly in developing countries while remaining relatively static at 1.3 billion for developed nations, and actually declining in some European countries (Figure 1.4). This threat to world food security from population growth is well recognised, and, to varying degrees, population control policies exist in developing countries. Population control is a vital step in achieving world food security,

16

Part

1: F

arm

ing

in p

ersp

ectiv

e1.

Exp

ecta

tion

s of

farm

ing

syst

ems

particularly when improved food security is coupled with a not unreasonable desire for a parallel improvement in the range and quality of food. Further, if Australian and Dutch experiences are a guide, achieving food security through higher levels of production (intensification of farming) is likely to degrade soil and water resources. Because farmers of the world will have to produce 40% more grain by 2020 (Pinstrup Andersen et al., 2000), the lessons from farming in developed countries that are mentioned in this book should have relevance to the intensification of farming in developing countries (Cassman and Harwood, 1995; Pinstrup Andersen, 2001) .

The land area of earth is about 134 M km2, or 32.0% of the total surface area, but cold temperatures, low rainfall, mountains, poor soils and cities restrict the area of land available for farming to about 50 M km2, or 31 and 19 M km2 in developing and developed countries respectively. Thus the food production for the world’s population is largely confined to 37% of the total land area, and as world population increases, more and more will be expected from this finite resource. The situation is further exacerbated by past farming practices that have seriously degraded the available land resource. The simple message here is that our land resource is finite and current land use is often not sustainable.

0

2

4

6

8

10

1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050

Year

Bill

ion

DevelopedCountries

Developingcountries

World

Figure 1.4

Projected populations of the world, developed countries, and developing countries, using a medium estimate of population growth.

Source: FAOSTAT, 2002.

The world contains about 1400 M km3 of water, but about 99.3% of this occurs in oceans and polar icecaps. Thus about 0.7%, or 10M km3 of water is available for human consumption but this is unevenly distributed. About 30% is relatively accessible in deep aquifers, and Canada has about 26 times more fresh water per capita than Mexico and Mexico about 10 times more fresh water per capita than Israel. Whilst the supply of fresh water is fixed, demand has increased greatly – a 4-fold increase between 1950 and 2000 (Figure 1.5). This rapid growth in water demand is mainly due to irrigated agriculture and industry rather than water for domestic purposes. Further, competition between potential users commonly leads to the progressive exploitation of water reserves, water pollution and water scarcity, particularly for food production.

Water shortages in much of the world are going to get worse along with a deterioration in amount and quality of drinking water and human health (Rosegrant, 1997). Being the biggest user, water will probably be diverted from agriculture to other users. In the words of Sir Crispin

17



sTickell, former British Ambassador to the UN: – ‘The world has a big water problem and it will be the cause of more wars than oil shortages. World demand for water doubles every 21 years but the volume is the same as it was in Roman times. Something has to give’. Clearly technologies that give higher yields through better water use efficiencies in irrigated and rain-fed agriculture will be vital to meeting the rising demand for food with diminishing water supplies. In terms of the triple bottom line the benefits might be (Rosegrant, 1996):

• improved productivity – more crop for the drop

• improved profit – more dollars for the drop

• more employment and income generated through agriculture – more jobs for the drop.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

Year

Cub

ic k

m Municipal

Industry

Agriculture

Figure 1.5 Trends in annual global use of fresh water. Currently agriculture uses about 70% of the annual total and another 23% goes to industry.

Source: World resources Institute.

18

Part

1: F

arm

ing

in p

ersp

ectiv

e1.

Exp

ecta

tion

s of

farm

ing

syst

ems

Conclusions

How should we cope with the uncertainty pertaining to world food security and meet an increasing global demand for food through farming systems and technologies that are ecologically sustainable, profitable and socially acceptable – the triple bottom line? Obviously by the development and application of appropriate farming systems and appropriate socio-economic structures, topics that are addressed in the following chapters of this book.

Achieving food security through sustainable farming methods in developing countries is a major challenge that should benefit from noting the good and bad experiences of agriculture in developed countries. Indeed, if developed countries with their relative affluence and low rates of population growth cannot achieve both food security and the triple bottom line, there is little hope of achieving these outcomes in developing countries. One aim of this book is to contribute to world food security by considering theories, technologies and management approaches that help to shape modes of farming that meet the triple bottom line. The essence of this book is that choices have to be made about the type and application of technology, and our thinking regarding technology. Whereas traditional approaches tend to see technology as something beneficial and value free, systemic approaches stress choices, context and relationships pertaining to technology.

Another challenge of the future was expressed by (Waters Bayer et al., 1999): ‘As land use is in constant flux, not primarily because of changes in ecological conditions (and technologies) but more because of changes in socio-political and economic conditions, there is a continuing need for learning, innovation and adaptive management on all levels’. Therefore land and policy managers must accept change as a given feature of their management environment (Chapter 11) and be prepared for a lifetime of learning to cope with the change.

19



sReferences

Breembroek, J.A., Koole, B., Poppe, K.J. and Wossink, G.A.A. (1996). Environmental farm accounting: the case of the Dutch nutrients accounting system. Agricultural Systems, 51: 29-40.

Cassman, K.G. and Harwood, R.R. (1995). The nature of agricultural systems: food security and environmental balance. Food Policy, 20: 439-454.

Conway, G.R. (1985). Agricultural ecology and farming systems research. In Agricultural systems research for developing countries, (J.V. Remenyi, ed.), ACIAR-Proceedings-Series, No. 11, pp. 43-59.

Daly, H.E. and Cobb, J.B. (1994). For the common good : redirecting the economy toward community, the environment, and a sustainable future, Beacon Press, Boston , 534 pp.

Naisbitt, J. (1982). Megatrends: ten new directions transforming our lives. Macdonald & Co Ltd., London.

Pinstrup Andersen, P. (1999). Towards ecologically sustainable world food production. Industry and Environment, 22: 10-13.

Pinstrup Andersen, P. (2001). Appropriate technology for sustainable food security. Focus Briefs International Food Policy Research Institute, 18 pp.

Pinstrup Andersen, P., Pandya Lorch, R. and Rosegrant, M.W. (2000). World food prospects. Agrarwirtschaft, 49: 311-319.

Prugh, T. (1995). Natural capital and human economic survival, ISEE Press, Solomons, MD. 198 pp.

Rickert, K.G. (1996). Stocking rate and sustainable grazing systems. In Wageningen Agricultural University Papers, (A. Elgersma, P.C. Stuik and L.J.G.van.den. Maesen, eds.), 96, 29-63.

Rickert, K.G. (2001). Training and extension in grassland farming. In: XIX International Grassland Congress, Theme 33 Paper 1. Brazilian Society of Animal Husbandry, 11-21 February 2001, Sao Pedro, Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Rosegrant, M.W. (1996). Water: a scarce resource. International Agricultural Development, 16: 7-9.

Rosegrant, M.W. (1997). Water resources in the twenty-first century: challenges and implications for action. In: Food, Agriculture and the Environment. Discussion Paper No. 20, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, USA.

Waters Bayer, A., Abay, F. and Haile, M. (1999). Enhancing indigenous innovation in land husbandry. In People and rangelands: building the future, (D. Eldridge and D. Freudenberger, eds.), pp. 366-367. Proceedings of the VI International Rangeland Congress, Townsville, Queensland, Australia, 19-23 July, 1999.

White, M.E. (1997). Listen – Our Land is Crying: Australia’s environmental problems and solutions., Kangaroo Press Pty Ltd, Kenthurst, Australia.

Documents

Part 1 - Emerging challenges for farming systems · Part 1: 1. Farming in perspective 1 Introduction 1 1. Expectations of farming systems 5 Abstract 5 What are farming systems? 5