Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Surrounding environment
(climate, weather, other societies)
3
rd
School: Society
Infrastructure, policy, regulation, labour: consumer and
stakeholder sustainability demands and preferences
2
nd
School: Stewardship
d
d
Resource base: water, soil, nutrients,
energy, biodiversity; supply, availability and
quality through time
1
st
School: Food security
Farming, processing, retail:
production,
efficiency and profitability
c
c
eff
ty
e
e
a
a
b
b
Fig. 18.1.
Illustration of the conceptual framework of schools of thinking and their interactions in a holistic
sustainable agroecosystem. Adopted from Hollmann (2010) and writings of Douglass (1984) and
Lowrance
et al
. (1986). Arrows indicate interactions among schools of thinking. Note that conceptually
the surrounding environment may affect the lower level schools or systems in major ways (e.g. arrows 'd');
whereas, the lower levels may have relatively little influence on the surrounding environment, unless
aggregated and primarily in uncontrollable ways (arrows 'e'). Emerging schools combine lower schools
(now subsystems) with parts of their surrounding environment. As a consequence, subsystems interact
and influence one another actively and directly (arrows 'a', 'b' and 'c').
conversion of inputs to outputs, following
through to processing and retail with the ulti-
mate driver being profitability at various stages
of the supply chain. As such, agriculture is obli-
gated to produce sufficient amounts of food
acceptable for humans and feed for livestock,
while providing sufficient income for farm opera-
tors and workers, processors and retailers. This
first school of thought captures a 'sustainability'
based primarily on the market drivers of supply
and demand, on profitability and on technologi-
cal advancements needed to ensure ever-rising
yields and marginal improvements in outputs
over inputs (improved efficiency). Followers or
proponents of this school believe that conven-
tional, commercial agriculture and its market
systems unequivocally will foster sustainabil-
ity. They may be sceptical of new or different
needs, ideas or practices outside the norms of
current mainstream agriculture (Thompson, 2007);
especially if potential changes or advances might
increase costs of production or otherwise affect
short- or intermediate-term markets or profita-
bility. Implicit in the first school is the assumption
of an unlimited resource base (e.g. water, soil,
nutrients, energy, biodiversity), a very robust if
not indestructible environment; and, perhaps if
some deterioration of the environment does occur,
it is a necessary sacrifice for the larger causes
or objectives of food security and profitability.
The second belief maintains that there is a
fixed (finite) supply, availability and quality of the
resource base through time; and that resource
depletion and (or) environmental damage are
risks, but they are not acceptable. In this school,
sustainability is regarded as stewardship (Brown,
1984). Whereas the first school focuses on food
security and profitability by maximization of
