MULTI - SCALE INTEGRATED ANALYSIS OF AGROECOSYSTEMS - CHAPTER 5

5 Integrated Assessment of Agroecosystems and Multi-Criteria Analysis: Basic Definitions and Challenges This chapter addresses the specific challenges faced by scientists willing to contribute to a process of integrated assessment. Integrated assessment, when applied to the issue of sustainability, has to be associated with a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) of performance, which,by definition, is controversial. This in turn requires (1) a preliminary institutional and conflict analysis (to define what are the relevant social actors and agents whose perceptions and values should be considered in the analysis, and what are the power relations among them); (2) the development of appropriate procedures able to be involved in the discussion about indicators, options and scenarios on the largest number of relevant social actors; and (3) the development of fair and effective mechanisms of decision making.The continuous switching of causes and effects among the activities related to both the descriptive and normative dimensions makes this discussion extremely delicate. Scientists describe what is considered relevant by social actors, and social actors consider relevant what is described by scientists.The two decisions—(1) who are the social actors included in this process and (2) what should be considered relevant when facing legitimate but contrasting views among the social actors—are key issues that have to be seriously considered by the scientists in charge of generating the descriptions used for the integrated assessment.This is why, in this chapter, I decided to provide an overview of terms and problems related to this relatively new field. 5.1 Sustainability of Agriculture and the Inherent Ambiguity of the Term Agroecology The two terms included in the title of this chapter—integrated assessment and agroecosystems—are terms about which it is almost impossible to find definitions that will generate consensus. In fact, integrated assessment is a neologism that is becoming more and more popular in the scientific literature dealing with sustainability. An international journal (http://www.szp.swets.nl/szp/ frameset.htm?url=%2Fszp%2Fjoumals%2Fia.htm) and a scientific society bear this name, to which one should add a fast-growing pile of papers and books dedicated to the subject.This term, however, is mainly gaining popularity outside the field of scientific analysis of agricultural production.Very little use of the term can be found in journals dealing with the sustainability in agriculture.The other term, agroecosystems, is derived from the concept of agroecology, which is another neologism that was introduced in the 1980s. Unlike the first term, this one is very popular in the literature of sustainable agriculture.At this point in the book, it is possible to make an attempt to justify the abundant use of neologisms so far. Nobody likes using a lot of neologisms or, even worse,“buzzwords” in scientific work.A simple look at the two definitions of neologism found in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary explains why: Neologism—(1) a new word, usage, or expression; (2) a meaningless word coined by a psychotic. Introducing a lot of neologisms without being able to share their meaning with the reader tends to classify the user or proponent of these neologisms in the category of psychotic. On the other hand, when an old scientific paradigm is no longer able to handle the challenge (and I hope that at this point the reader is convinced that this is the case with integrated analyses of sustainability), it is necessary to introduce new concepts and words to explore and build new epistemological tools. Moreover, a lot of 93 © 2004 by CRC Press LLC 94 Multi-Scale Integrated Analysis of Agroecosystems new words and concepts are already used in the fields of integrated assessment and multi-criteria analysis (and this author has nothing to do with this impressive flow of neologisms), so I find it important to share with the reader the meaning of these new terms. In particular, what is relevant here is the application of the concept of integrated assessment to the concept of agroecosystems. Before getting into this discussion, let us start with the definition of the term agroecosystem, which implies dealing with the concept of agroecology. The term agroecology was proposed in a seminal book byAltieri (1987).This was an attempt to put forward a new catchword pointing to the need to introduce a paradigm shift in the world of agricultural research when taking seriously the issue of sustainability. In that book,Altieri focuses on the unavoidable existence of conflicts linked to the concept of sustainability in the field of agriculture. His main point is that if we define the performance of agricultural production only in economic terms, then other dimensions such as the ecological, health and social dimensions will be the big losers of any technical development in this field.When mentioning conflicts here, we do not refer only to conflicts between social actors,but also to conflicts between optimizing principles derived by the adoption of different scientific analyses of agriculture (when getting into the normative side by using different definitions of costs and benefits). For example, an anthropologist, a neoclassical economist and an ecologist tend to provide very different views of the performance of the very same system of shifting cultivation in Papua New Guinea. Two main lines of action were suggested byAltieri: 1. The concept of agroecology has to be associated with a total rethinking of the terms of reference of agriculture. (What should be considered an improvement in the techniques of production? Improvement for whom? In relation to which criterion? Which time horizon should be adopted to assess improvements?) 2. The concept of agroecology requires expanding the universe of possible options (technical solutions, technical coefficients, socioeconomic regulations) for agricultural development. This can be obtained in two ways: a. By exploring new alternative techniques of production (changing the existing set of available technical coefficients) b. Studying and preserving the cultural diversity of agricultural knowledge already existent in the world (preserving techniques guaranteeing technical coefficients, which could be useful when adopting different optimizing functions) It should be noted that the majority of groups using the term agroecology, especially in the developed world, endorse basically the second line, without fully addressing the implications of the first.The basic idea of this position can be characterized as follows:The sustainability predicament and the existing difficulties experienced by agriculture in both developed and developing countries are just because humans are not using the most appropriate technologies and not relying on a given set of sound principles. Put another way, this second historical interpretation of agroecology assumes a substantive definition of it.The vast majority of the people using this interpretation tend to associate agroecology with concepts like organic farming, low-external-input agriculture, “small is beautiful,” and empowerment of family farms.They are assuming that the way out of the current lack of sustainability in agriculture can be found by relying on sound principles and by studying how to produce more profit with (1) less environmental impact and (2) happier farmers. The problem with this position is that it does not address (1) the unavoidable existence of conflicts implicit in the concept of sustainable development and (2) the unavoidable existence of uncertainty and ignorance about our knowledge of future scenarios. Put another way, the very concept of sustainability entails an unavoidable dialectic between actors and strategies. When discussing the development of agricultural systems, there is no single set of most appropriate technologies.At each point in space and time, the objectives (goals, targets), constraints (resources, laws, taboos), the available sets of options and of acceptable compromises among which to choose must first be explicitly defined for the scientists. Only at this point does it become possible for them to identify a set of appropriate technologies based on either politically defined priorities among the different objectives or a negotiated © 2004 by CRC Press LLC Integrated Assessment of Agroecosystems and Multi-Criteria Analysis 95 consensus on a compromise solution that realizes all the various goals (as expressed by relevant social actors) to some extent. This is why, in the last two decades, the first direction of research suggested by Altieri,“totally rethinking the terms of reference of agriculture,” has also been gaining attention.This radical position seems to be supported by those working on scenarios about the future of agriculture (e.g., within the U.S. to avoid the Blank hypothesis (Blank, 1998)). It is also shared by those working on ex post evaluation of agricultural policies (e.g., the massive failure of development programs of UN agencies in developing countries and that of agricultural policies in the EU). In fact, a complete recasting is at the moment the official position of the European Commission for the future of European agriculture (e.g., http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991854). In the face of this mounting pressure, the forces for business as usual (economic and political lobbies, academic institutions) are trying to develop a strategy of damage control. Many within the agricultural establishment say that a total rethinking is not really needed.They suggest that a few technical adjustments and a little more talking with the farmers will suffice.They also recommend a few new regulations to internalize some of the externalities that have until now escaped market mechanisms.This position has important ideological implications. It accepts the notion that technical development of agriculture should be driven, by default, by the maximization of productivity and profit (bounded by a set of constraints to take care of the environment and the social dimension). I have no intention of getting into an ideological discussion of this type.This chapter and book are written assuming that the emerging paradigm that perceives the development of rural areas in terms of integrated resource management carried out by multifunctional land use systems is valid. In this paradigm, flexibility in the management strategy and participatory techniques for defining what should be the desirable characteristics of the system are assumed to be necessary steps to achieve such a goal.Therefore, in the rest of this chapter, I will not deal with the question,“Why should we do things in a different way when perceiving and representing the performance of agriculture?” but rather with the question, “How can we do things in a different way?” In fact, acknowledging the need for a total rethinking of agriculture is just the first step.To act, we must first reach an agreement as to how things should be done differently.This can be achieved only by answering some tough questions such as:Who is supposed to rethink the terms of reference of agriculture? How might we change the shape of the plane on which we are flying? What do we do if different social actors have different views on how to make changes? An acute problem in this regard is that both colleges of agriculture and reputable scholars, in general, are less than fully willing to engage in this debate, perhaps because they view totally rethinking the terms of reference of agriculture as a threat to their present agenda.This is, however, not reasonable: If we acknowledge that changes on the societal side resulted in a shift in the priorities among objectives and, in some cases, led to the formulation of completely new objectives in agriculture, then we are forced to accept the following conclusions: (1) We have to do things differently in agriculture, and to do that (2) we have to perceive and represent things differently in the scientific disciplines dealing with the description of agricultural performance. As soon as one tries to draw this logical consequence, however, one crashes against one of the mechanisms generating the lock-in on business as usual. Much funding of colleges of agriculture is channeled through private companies with a clear agenda (maximizing profit through maximization of productivity). Even public funding is heavily affected by lobbies that are operating within the conventional paradigm.These lobbies perceive agriculture as just an economic sector producing commodities and added value. To the best of my knowledge, the only big agricultural university that is working hard on a radical and dramatic restructuring of its courses (to reflect a total rethinking of the terms of reference for agriculture) is Wageningen University in the Netherlands.Actually, the restructuring started with its very name. It used to be the glorious WAU (Wageningen Agricultural University) until 2 years ago, and then they dropped the A. A very quick summary of relevant events leading to this restructuring is that, in the early 1990s, the big departments resisted any friendly attempts at change from the inside.Actually, they reacted to signals of crisis by continuing to do more of the same thing.The concept of “ancient regime syndrome,” © 2004 by CRC Press LLC 96 Multi-Scale Integrated Analysis of Agroecosystems proposed by Funtowicz and Ravetz (when facing a crisis, do more of the same, even though it is not working) ,discussed in Chapter 4 should be recalled here.The fatal response of agricultural departments was better and more complicated, optimizing models to get additional economies of scale and increases in efficiency.At the very moment when the basic assumptions of agriculture as an economic sector just producing commodities were under revision, the credibility of these assumptions was stretched even further.The catastrophe came when the rest of society (e.g., consumers,farmers, politicians) imposed a new research agenda in a quite radical way.They were told, “No more money for models that optimize the ratio of milk produced per unit of nitrogen and phosphorus in the water table.”And the edict was given almost overnight. Central to any discussion about a different way to perceive and represent the performance of agricultural systems is the idea that agricultural production is not the full universe of discourse for any of the relevant agents operating at different levels (households, local communities, counties, states, countries, international bodies).Then it becomes obvious that analytical approaches aimed at optimizing production techniques do not represent the right way to go.When we analyze the livelihood of households, local communities, counties, states, countries and international bodies, a sound representation of the performance of agricultural activities (how to invest a mix of production factors to alter ecosystems to produce food and fibers) is just a part of the story.That is, (1) the mix of relevant activities considered in the analysis has to include more than just the production of crops and animal products and (2) the list of consequences considered in the analysis has to include more than the economic and biophysical productivity of agricultural techniques (e.g., additional relevant indicators should address social, health and ecological impacts and quality of life). Performing this integrated analysis does not require the introduction of new revolutionary analytical tools, but rather the ability to provide new packages for existing tools. In engineering, for example, it is possible to have a rigorous treatment of decision support analysis for design.The terms used there are multi-objective decision making and multi-attribute decision making (e.g., http://design.me.uic.edu/~mjscott/papers/95f.pdf).The great advantage of industrial design is that all the relevant information for defining the performance of the designed system is supposed to be available to the designer.The same approach is explored in other fields dealing with the issue of sustainability (e.g., ecological economics, science for governance (participatory integrated assessment), evaluation of sustainability, natural resources management).The application of these concepts is generally indicated under a family of names like integrated assessment, sustainability impact assessment, strategic environmental assessment and extended cost-benefit analysis (CBA). However, when applying these tools to self-organizing systems, especially when dealing with reflexive systems (humans), a multi-criteria evaluation has to deal with three very large systemic problems: • It is not possible to formalize a procedure to define in a substantive way (outside of a specific and local context of reference) what is the right set of relevant criteria of performance that should be considered for a sound analysis. • It is unavoidable to find legitimate contrasting views on what should be considered an improvement or what should be the best alternative to select. Social agents will always have divergent opinions. For example, it is unavoidable to find different opinions on whether it is good or bad to have nuclear weapons or use genetically modified organisms. • It is not possible to get rid of uncertainty and ignorance in the various scientific analyses that are required.This implies that not all the data, indicators and models required to consider different dimensions of analysis (the views of different agents at different levels) have the same degree of reliability and accuracy. Because of these three major problems, there is a general convergence in the field of integrated assessment and multiple-criteria analysis that it is not possible to achieve the right problem structuring of a sustainability problem without the integrated and iterative use of two types of tool kits: 1. Discussion support systems (term introduced by H.van Keulen) © 2004 by CRC Press LLC Integrated Assessment of Agroecosystems and Multi-Criteria Analysis 97 In this activity scientists are the main actors and social actors are the consultants; the goal is the development of integrated packages of analytical tools required to do a good job on the descriptive side.The resulting information space used in the decision-making process has to represent the system of interest, in scientific terms, on different scales and dimensions of analysis. This information space has to be constructed according to the external input received from the social actors of what is relevant and what is good and bad.The social actors, as consultants, have to provide a package of questions to be answered. But the scientists are those in charge of processing such an input according to the best available knowledge of the issue. This is a new academic activity, which implies a strong scientific challenge: keeping coherence in an information space made up of nonequivalent descriptive domains (different scales and different models).This requires an ability to make a team of scientists coming from different disciplines interact on a given problem structuring provided by society.This is what we will introduce later on under the label of multiple-scale integrated analysis (MSIA). 2. Decision support systems In this activity, social actors are the main actors and scientists the consultants; the goal is the development of an integrated package of procedures required to do a good job on the normative side.The resulting process should make it possible to decide, through negotiations: a. What is relevant and what should be considered good and bad in the decision process b. What is an acceptable quality in the process generating the information produced by the scientists (e.g., definition of quality criteria—relevance, fairness in respecting legitimate contrasting views, no cheating with the collection of data or choice of models) c. Deciding on an alternative (or a policy to be implemented) This process requires an external input (given by scientists) consisting of a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the situation on different scales and dimensions. In their input, scientists also have to include information about expected effects of changes induced by the decision under analysis (discussion of scenarios and reliability of them), but the social actors are those in charge of processing such an input.This is what we will introduce later as social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE), following the name proposed by Munda (2003). Since the scientific process associated with the operation of tool kit 1 affects the social process associated with the operation of the tool kit 2 and vice versa, the only reasonable option for handling this situation is to establish some form of iteration between the two. In doing this, however, it must be clear that process 1 is a scientific activity (which requires an input from social actors) and process 2 is a social activity (which requires input from scientists). Each, however, depends on the other.This is where the need of a new type of expertise enters into play.To have such an iterative process, it is necessary to implement an adequate procedure. The rest of this chapter is divided into three sections. Section 5.2 discusses the systemic problems faced when considering agriculture in terms of multifunctional land use. Any analysis based on indicators reflecting legitimate but contrasting views and referring to events described at different scales implies facing serious procedural problems.This section makes the point that, when dealing with the sustainability of agriculture, we do face a postnormal science situation. Section 5.3 provides an overview of concepts and tools available for dealing with such a challenge (e.g., integrated assessment, multi-criteria evaluation, and a first view at multi-objective multi-scale integrated analysis), as well as practical examples of problems associated with their use. Section 5.4 briefly describes existing attempts to establish procedures able to generate the parallel development of discussion support systems and decision support systems, and then an iteration between the two (e.g., the soft systems methodology proposed by Checkland, 1981, Checkland and Scholes, 1990)), Section 5.5 provides a practical example (the current making of farm bills) in which we can appreciate the need of developing these procedures as soon as possible. © 2004 by CRC Press LLC ... - tailieumienphi.vn