Pearson, H. W., D. D. Mara, L. R. Cawley, H. M. Arridge and S. A. Silva, 1996. ......
Louvered garage doors were installed to promote ventilation and dissipate ...
Integrated biosystems for sustainable development Proceedings of the InFoRM 2000 National Workshop on Integrated Food Production and Resource Management
Edited by Kev Warburton Usha Pillai-McGarry Deborah Ramage February 2002 RIRDC Publication No 01/174 RIRDC Project No MS001-14
i
© 2002 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved.
ISBN 0 642 58393 5 ISSN 1440-6845 Integrated Biosystems for Sustainable Development Publication No. 01/174 Project No. MS001-14 The views expressed and the conclusions reached in this publication are those of the author 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.
Researcher Contact Details Dr. Kev Warburton School of Life Sciences, University of Queensland Phone: (07) 3365 2979 Fax: (07) 3365 1655 Email:
[email protected]
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]. Website: http://www.rirdc.gov.au
Published in February 2002 Printed on environmentally friendly paper by Canprint
ii
Foreword Integrated biosystems, where connections are made between different food production activities, can take a wide variety of forms. Such integrated systems offer many opportunities for increasing the efficiency of water and nutrient use, productivity and profit, and represent practical, creative solutions to problems of waste management and pollution. Environmental pressures and economic drivers such as the rising costs of water, fuel and other inputs are stimulating growing interest in eco-efficient production options that minimise resource consumption and pollution. Integrated biosystems satisfy these requirements. Because they conserve soil and water, increase crop diversity and can produce feed, fuel or fertilizer on-site, integrated biosystems are relatively sustainable and resilient and can do much to support local economies. They can help farmers diversify or combine forces with other complementary operations. Integration can be achieved over a range of scales and can assist in community, catchment and regional planning. Biosystem integration therefore helps to achieve the economic, environmental and social aims of sustainable development. Many examples of integrated design now exist worldwide and appropriate technologies for ecological engineering have been developed. Given these advances, how can we apply such ideas to construct cost-effective, ecologically sensible solutions for Australia? What is our vision for the future? This book shows how integrated biosystems can contribute to sustainable development and includes a wide array of current examples drawn from different production sectors. This publication was funded from RIRDC Core Funds which are provided by the Federal Government. The InFoRM 2000 workshop was co-sponsored by the University of Queensland, RIRDC, Queensland Department of Primary Industries and the Queensland Environmental Protection Agency. This book, a new addition to RIRDC’s diverse range of over 700 research publications, forms part of our Resilient Agriculture Systems R&D 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. Most of our publications are available for viewing, downloading or purchasing online through our website:
downloads at www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/Index.htm
purchases at www.rirdc.gov.au/eshop
Peter Core Managing Director Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation
iii
Acknowledgements The editors would like to extend special thanks to:
The University of Queensland, Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Queensland Environmental Protection Agency, for workshop sponsorship
RIRDC, for workshop and publication support
Peter Peterson, for invaluable help with workshop planning
Eddie Chan, for extensive administrative assistance
Andrew Gaines, for excellent workshop facilitation
Roger Swift and Joe Baker, for their perceptive opening and closing comments
George Wilson, for thought -provoking ideas
Joe Baker, Bob Pagan, John Mott, Jacky Foo and Peter Peterson, for chairing workshop sessions
The Bardon Centre, for providing an ideal workshop environment
iv
Contents (* indicates summary contribution)
PREFACE
VII
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF INFORM 2000
IX
Integrated biosystems and sustainable development, Kev Warburton and Usha Pillai-McGarry
ix
1.
1
INTRODUCTION
What is an integrated biosystem? The InFoRM 2000 workshop
2
Opening InFoRM 2000 address by Professor Roger Swift
3
2. FUTURE TRENDS, OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
4
Catchment issues: land and water use, planning and regulatory frameworks, Scott Spencer
4
Waste Management and Environmental Engineering, Paul Greenfield
9
Sustainable Economics and Business, Mark Diesendorf
12
The Natural Step and Natural Capitalism, Andrew Gaines
15
Sustainability and integration: a farmer's perspective, Paul Ziebarth
17
Integrated systems and rural community development: possibilities for partnership. Ingrid Burkett
19
Integrated Bio-Systems: A Global Perspective, Jacky Foo
37
Integrated Farming for Sustainable Primary Industry: Water and Nutrient Recycling through Integrated Aquaculture, Martin S Kumar
51
Israel Multiple Water Use and Aquaculture - Ten Lessons, Peter Peterson
65
Integrated Agri-Aquaculture in Australia: virtual industry or commercial reality? Gooley, G. J.* and Gavine, F. M.
72
Integrating food production with urban consumption: some issues Rebecca Lines-Kelly
83
3. THE TECHNOLOGY OF INTEGRATION
88
Processing of Biomass and Control of Pathogens - Concept of a Bio-Refinery Horst W. Doelle
88
Biofuel Generation, Horst W.Doelle
98
Cleaner Production and Integrated Biosystems, Robert Pagan and Marguerite Lake
103
Adopting Vermiculture Technology to Manage and Utilize Organic Waste Steve Capeness
111
v
Processing of organic materials by the soldier fly, Hermetia illucens Kev Warburton1 and Vivienne Hallman2
115
Organic Production – a part of the Sustainable Future of Farming, Andrew Monk
127
Mobile Biodigester – a Platform Mounted Biogdigester for On-farm Demonstration David Tay and Phil Matthews
128
Biological Remediation of Aquaculture Waste, Dirk Erler
129
Biofilm Substrates in Integrated Biofiltration, Doug Pearson
130
Wetlands for production and purification, Vivienne Hallman
131
4. FURTHER EXAMPLES OF INTEGRATED SYSTEMS
133
Integrated Biosystems in Southern Australia, Paul Harris1 & Phil Glatz2
133
Integrating Multiple Water Use in Cotton and Grain Production, Paul McVeigh
139
Beef Feed Lot Integration, Ian Iker
141
Convergence is the Key, Geoff Wilson
143
Permaculture Approaches, Janet Millington
148
Eco-Efficient Settlements, Vivienne Hallman
153
Multi-use water systems –Environmentally sustainable aqua-agricultural farming system. David Tay
159 159
A Community Development Model for Mixed Enterprise Land Development Beth Mitchell and Michael Rooney
160 160
5. FUTURE VISION AND ACTION FOR CHANGE
161
Future vision
161
Action for change: promoting integrated biosystem development in Australia
162
6. CONCLUDING COMMENTS
166
Address to InFoRM 2000 by Dr. Joe Baker, Chief Scientist, Queensland Department of Primary Industries
APPENDIX 1.
166
171
A “wish list” for Australia’s future: comments from workshop participants
171
APPENDIX 2.
176
WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
176
vi
Preface This publication collates, summarises and reviews information relating to integrated biosystems presented at the InFoRM 2000 National Workshop on Integrated Food Production and Resource Management held in Brisbane on 9-10 November, 2000. The workshop was attended by more than 50 delegates representing government agencies, researchers, social scientists, planners, industry stakeholders and producers. A list of workshop participants and their contact details is provided in Appendix 2. The desired outcomes from InFoRM 2000 were:
Documentation of current examples of integration in Australia and overseas
Development of action plans, models and options for Australia
A clearer framework for planning, research and demonstration
Collaboration between stakeholders
Papers were presented on future trends and opportunities for integrated biosystems, constraints on the development of these production systems, the technologies involved, and local and overseas examples of integrated biosystems. Workshop sessions addressed issues relating to integrated systems such as resource use efficiency, economic viability, accreditation and quality control, and community development. Participants also discussed prerequisites for the future development of integrated systems in Australia.
Priorities and recommendations The key themes identified in this book are: RESPONSIBLE RESOURCE USE
Multiple use of water and nutrients, especially in agri-aquaculture systems
Environmental protection, especially with respect to water quantity and quality
COORDINATION
More emphasis on systems-level thinking and interdisciplinary cooperation
Development of policy, legislation and planning frameworks
RESEARCH
Increased funding for research and development
National and international research collaboration
INFORMATION
Dissemination of research findings and information to stakeholders
Development of communication, demonstration and education strategies vii
Benefit-cost analyses that place value on the social and environmental benefits of integration
This information builds on the RIRDC Research and Development Plan for Integrated AgriAquaculture Systems and describes many alternative and interchangable integrated options that promise to increase the diversity, flexibility and resilience of Australian production systems.
viii
Executive Summary of InFoRM 2000 Integrated biosystems and sustainable development Kev Warburton and Usha Pillai-McGarry The University of Queensland Abstract Integrated biosystems make functional connections between agriculture, aquaculture, food processing, waste management, water use, and fuel generation. They encourage the dynamic flows of material and energy by treating wastes and by-products of one operation as inputs for another. In this way food, fertiliser, animal feed and fuel can be produced with the minimum input of nutrients, water and other resources. Biosystem integration can help achieve sustainability objectives by:
treating the management of wastes and residues as a central design feature rather than as something external to the main production function;
specifying clear performance indicators and measures of efficiency;
encouraging holistic, systems-level thinking in which the dynamics of interconnection and interdependence are as important as the components that are connected;
providing a framework for flexible closed-loop applications over a wide range of contexts and spatial scales – e.g., in both rural and urban situations, and at single property, sub-catchment and catchment levels;
allowing different specialist producers and neighbouring landholders to combine complementary expertise, equipment and other infrastructure to mutual advantage;
increasing options for land use planning by placing the emphasis on the functional integration of complementary activities (e.g., by using vermiculture to process wastes from dairy/pig/fish farming, or by combining cane/grain growing with fuel generation), rather than just coexistence.
Sustainability objectives will be best served by the progressive introduction of carefully planned integrated systems capable of satisfying food production, fuel and fertiliser needs with near-zero environmental impacts. To this end, operational initiatives by individual producers and others will need to be complemented by legislative and government-led incentives, coordinated research and development, and the incorporation of integrated biosystem principles in land use planning. In this paper we consider how integrated biosystems (IB) can advance the sustainability agenda, and foreshadow some of the themes developed later in this volume. The names of contributors are cited in bold font. Over recent decades, growing problems of resource scarcity and environmental degradation have put pressure on conventional systems of food production and resource management. Responses have included a shift in community concern and a re-evaluation of natural capital and its relationship to our quality of life. In consequence, there is now widespread agreement as to the need for a long-term vision, increased community participation in resource management and a search for viable approaches to ecologically sustainable development.
ix
At the same time, there have been increases in the costs of environmental non-compliance, advances in renewable and other environmentally benign technology, and growing consumer demand for product quality assurance. These are fast making efficient, ”green” approaches to production and resource management economically viable. The pace of change makes it imperative that the assessment of appropriate systems is based on careful analyses of future trends using principles of true cost accounting. We tend to compartmentalize our thinking and assume that problems of resource use, environmental quality and community self-reliance require independent solutions. But what if a single targeted approach can help to satisfy economic, ecological and social sustainability objectives simultaneously? This is the possibility offered by biosystem integration. Integrated biosystems make explicit connections between agriculture, aquaculture, food processing, waste management, water use and fuel generation. They are life-support systems based on the dynamic flow of material and energy, where wastes and by-products of one operation become inputs for another. In this way food, fertiliser, animal feed and fuel can be produced with the minimum input of nutrients, water and other resources. In biosystem integration, the management of wastes and residues is treated as a central design feature. Thus, in contrast to other production systems where waste disposal and remediation are essentially treated as externalities, sustainable design features are intrinsic to integrated biosystems. Such design features include the following:
minimise resource inputs by redirecting "waste" outputs within the system;
contain material flows within the system;
treat production and consumption as a continuous cyclical process, rather than a linear one;
tighten production-consumption loops to minimise losses, transport costs etc;
maximise efficiency of natural conversion processes (e.g., microbial decomposition and trophic links) and of nutrient / water retention.
These design features make for increased system efficiency. Further, integrated biosystems take advantage of natural ecological processes, and as a result some components of such systems can be low technology, requiring less management, less maintenance and less capital expense (Harris and Glatz). Integrated biosystems are scalable both in size and in technical complexity and can be developed in stages, possibly through joint enterprise arrangements. These features help in the take-up of local farm-based systems. At the same time, the range of integrated options is very broad, and Doelle's designs for biorefineries for processing biomass are good examples of how genetic, biochemical and other forms of biotechnology can be applied to produce a rich diversity of products. A single integrated biosystem may produce biogas, microbial protein, mushrooms, compost, animal feed, biogas, ethanol, antibiotics, vitamins and acids. With its emphasis on holistic, multi-component design, permaculture can contribute valuable insights relevant to biosystem development. The overall design philosophy of permaculture, plus particular design principles such as sector/zonal planning, closed systems and species complementarity (Millington) can be applied when setting up many forms of integrated biosystem. The overall aim of permaculture is to construct a balanced production system that mirrors a real ecosystem. The aim is to minimise the amount of land under cultivation while maximising ecosystem services from the surrounding landscape, and in this respect permaculture systems represent good models of sustainable land use. Because no designs are perfect there should be an openness to change, experimentation and improvement. The relative advantages and efficiencies of different alternatives should be evaluated. In line with this, Pagan and Greenfield propose that life cycle analyses and cleaner production
x
strategies for assessing and minimising the environmental impacts from production and consumption be used. This would allow a review of the opportunities in an integrated biosystem in order to optimise the interplay of the components and ensure that full use is being made of different parts of the system. Several authors stress the increases in efficiency that can be achieved by biosystem integration when compared to conventional monocultures. A major concern in contemporary Australia is water conservation, and the multiple use of water is a theme taken up by Peterson, Kumar, McVeigh, Tay and Gooley and Gavine, who illustrate how aquaculture, hydroponics and modern plastic-house technology can be effectively integrated with irrigated agriculture. Models of optimal water use developed in Israel and other countries where water has always been a scarce and expensive resource can be used as reference points for Australian systems (Peterson). Although still in the developmental stage, McVeigh's integrated farm provides encouragement for other producers keen to explore options for low-cost diversification and the production of high-quality fish in an environment where pesticides are conventionally used on crops such as cotton and grain. Tay notes that such integrated, waterefficient solutions can help to solve important environmental problems such as soil and water salinity, ground water contamination, reduced river flows and ecological pollution. A parallel concern to water management is waste management. Capeness indicates how large-scale vermiculture can be used to process a wide variety of organic wastes, and that new system designs greatly increase the intensity of production while minimising the land area required. Additionally, the vermicompost produced by these systems is almost pure humus. It acts as a rich carbon energy source and contains high densities of beneficial bacteria and useful quantities of non-leachable macronutrients, trace elements and rock minerals. Iker and Monk similarly highlight the role of manures and green matter in conditioning and protecting the soil and reducing disease and pest problems. Iker stresses the advantages of integrating animal husbandry with cropping, so that organic soil quality can be maintained by manuring in areas where all above ground plant matter is removed for silage. Warburton and Hallman note the high efficiency with which insect larvae can reduce a wide variety of organic materials and convert them to a high-protein food source for livestock or fish. Despite the development of successful insect-based systems overseas, there has been little recognition of their potential in Australia. In the aquatic environment, the papers by Pearson and Erler describe new developments in biofiltration media and their ability to improve the quality of wastewaters and reduce sludge accumulation. Nutrients are recovered from the water through the provision of substrates for the growth of bacterial and algal films, which are then grazed by finfish, crustaceans or molluscs. Constructed wetlands are alternative, cheap and highly efficient systems for simultaneously purifying water and capturing nutrients. So far, the opportunities for such systems to generate products with an economic value (such as food, fertiliser and animal feed) have not been seized in Australia (Hallman), but this is likely to change as integrated biosystems become more widespread. In a global overview of biosystem integration, Foo notes that while traditional IBs tend to be labourintensive, low-input, micro-level systems, the new millenium will bring challenges that will make integrated biosystems relevant solutions at larger dimensions. Global challenges will include the sustainable use of natural resources and biodegradable wastes from cities and farms in the interests of food security and poverty reduction. Integrated biosystems can contribute to solutions through diversification, intensification and urban agriculture. In a similar vein, Ziebarth contends that reliability and intensity of production must complement sustainability. To these ends, Wilson identifies a trend towards the convergence of different technologies - such as aquaculture, agroforestry, hydroponics, probiotics and aeroponics - to create new opportunities in both food production and waste management. Gooley and Gavine contend that, while relevant to subsistence scale enterprise, an integrated systems approach in a developed country like Australia will see the greatest flow of benefits to rural and regional communities through the adoption of industrial scale enterprise.
xi
Biodigesters commonly feature in integrated system designs, and play an important role in converting organic wastes to biofuel, reclaimed water and relatively pathogen-free fertiliser. Tay and Mathew note that in Australia biodigester technology has a long history, but is currently used only in largescale operations. However, with the advent of new environmental protection legislation, farm automation and diversification into on-farm value adding of farm produce, there is likely to be increasing demand for smaller units to service average-sized piggery, feedlot, dairy and poultry operations. The fact that the Australian electricity supply industry is becoming increasingly disaggregated and privatised, leading to questions regarding its commitment to power security and upgrading of the grid may encourage this trend. Under these circumstances, higher standards of local self-sufficiency may be in order (Zimmerman 2000; Harris and Glatz). Integrated biosystems can enhance local economies in a range of ways - for example, by minimising the need to import chemical fertilisers (Capeness; Iker) or foreign oil (Doelle); by allowing farmers to diversify into additional value-added areas (McVeigh); by helping to meet potential new markets for tradeable emissions such as salt and nutrients (Gooley and Gavine); and by creating jobs in new sectors (McKinnon et al. 2000; Harris and Glatz; Wilson). Doelle makes the point that Australia could reap significant economic and social benefits by investing in IB-compatible technologies such as ethanol production, that are already the basis of important industries in other countries. An important consideration is the fact that the costs of essential resources like fuel and water are projected to rise very significantly in coming years, and the Australian economy is already shifting in response to such pressures (Diesendorf). There is a need for more strategic support (e.g., in the form of tax concessions) to encourage practitioners to take up more sustainable practices in cases when the capital outlay is excessive relative to current levels of return (Iker). Harris and Glatz and Kumar note that there can be no one "ideal" integrated biosystem, as each application will have different constraints, abilities and aims. At the same time, model or example systems can be used as starting points for site-specific applications so that each system suits local conditions, resource availability, the enterprise mix and the individuals concerned. This will avoid pushing up input costs by excessive demand and depressing the value of outputs by oversupply. Hallman describes how IB principles can be applied, at different spatial scales, to the design of human settlements. Activities at the macro scale include the planning of sustainable communities (e.g., as nodal developments around cities), while those at the micro level include the design of eco-efficient houses. At both levels the guiding principles are the same - circular flow and closed loop ecosystems. Biosystem principles lie at the heart of designs for self-contained communities where recycling of grey water and domestic wastes is coupled with renewable energy use in order to grow food and increase resource economy - these technologies are already crucial in ecologically sensitive locations such as barrier reef islands. In terms of social development, Burkett echoes the need to meld macro and micro approaches. The macro level Integrated Rural Development (IRD) approach to the sustainable development of rural communities emphasises the connections between sectors such as agriculture, forestry, local industry, waste management, social services, education and tourism, such that the interconnections between the pressures facing rural communities can be explored and addressed. At the same time, micro principles of system integration can be applied to enhance the macro approaches of IRD - these principles can be applied not only within individual farms but also in making links between agricultural, ecological, social, communal, political and economic systems within and between communities. In the context of integrated catchment management, a biosystem approach can increase options for land use planning by placing the emphasis more on the functional integration of complementary activities (e.g., by using vermiculture to process wastes from dairy/pig/fish farming, or by combining cane/grain growing with fuel generation), rather than merely on the balanced coexistence of existing practices. Biosystem integration offers a context within which producers and other practitioners with different skills can combine complementary expertise, equipment and other infrastructure to their
xii
mutual advantage. Such developments also stimulate a search for the scale at which system efficiencies and economic returns can be optimised. Integration can be facilitated by the formation of local cooperatives and clusters, which help to unite communities in a common purpose. Initiatives such as these help to build community by encouraging communication, social exchange and sharing (Hallman). It has been argued that prerequisites of sustainability include a strongly democratic civil society as well as the development of economic and ecological alternatives such as green cities, clean production and biologically diversified forms of agriculture (O'Connor 1994). In more general terms, integration also encourages a better awareness of relationships between the biophysical and socioeconomic environments and factors that constrain or enhance the viability of sustainable options. Such awareness is crucial to the development of informed policy with respect to the integrated sector, and is best be fostered through multidisciplinary programs involving specialists who share an holistic perspective. Ultimately, the selection of the correct technology for an integrated biosystem requires a careful study of economic viability, government policy, regulatory direction and market opportunity (Spencer 2000). Spencer's paper indicates that IB developments have to be integrated into a broader framework of natural resource management. Both regulation and planning are available as instruments to facilitate these processes by alleviating constraints and maximising opportunities, but regardless of the type of mechanism, decision-making has to be underpinned by community acceptance. The most effective moves towards sustainability will be those that recognise that resource use, environmental protection and quality of life are interconnected issues that demand to be considered within a common, holistic framework. Several aspects of biosystem integration are consistent with the achievement of key sustainability objectives such as ecological integrity, liveability and equity. In the interests of intergenerational equity, new legislation that places a greater emphasis on preventative action means that (a) waste streams will have to be treated as resources to be recycled or reused, and (b) waste production will have to be reduced or prevented through the efficient design of entire industrial processes (Wright and Clague 2000). Similarly, with respect to the liveability of the physical environment, integrated planning legislation (e.g., the Integrated Planning Act, Queensland 1997) requires the specification both of desired environmental outcomes and quantitative performance indicators with respect to measures of carrying capacity (Wright and Clague 2000). To date, land use planners have not complied well with this requirement (Wright and Clague 2000). Through its accent on sustainable design, biosystem integration lends itself to the definition of clear performance indicators and measures of efficiency. Some indicators of the sustainability of integrated biosystems include species diversity, bioresource recycling, natural resource systems capacity and economic efficiency (Lightfoot et al. 1996). In terms of achieving the objective of ecological integrity, the similarities between integrated biosystems and natural ecosystems help to define a common framework within which appropriate approaches to production and natural resource management can be developed. Indeed, large-scale natural ecosystems (e.g., lakes, forests, and grasslands) as well as smaller-scale mesocosms (e.g., soils, digesters, and ponds) can form vital components of integrated biosystems. There is a growing awareness of the cost-effective services provided by properly functioning natural ecosystems (e.g., water purification, nutrient cycling, soil enhancement, pollination, carbon sequestration, nitrogenfixing), and of the need for improved awareness of ecosystem processes and their potential economic benefits (Daily 1997; Cork and Shelton 2000). Unlike conventional production systems, integrated biosystems are intrinsically diverse and emphasise polyculture and mixed farming rather than monoculture. In this respect they more closely emulate natural ecosystems. Natural ecosystems can be highly diverse (i.e., contain many species) and complex (i.e., exhibit many connections between species in the food web). However, in such systems the component species and sub-systems are not connected at random, and the stability of the system as a whole (i.e., its capacity to resist environmental stress) depends on the sub-systems being loosely
xiii
coupled (Kikkawa 1986). The same is true of integrated biosystems, where high overall diversity and strategic links between component activities help to maintain relatively stable yields from the system as a whole and thus minimise economic risk. Natural ecosystems have inspired a wide range of models for balanced and diverse production systems (e.g., permaculture designs). The integrated biosystem approach increases the usefulness of component species - e.g., by using legumes and water ferns to fix atmospheric nitrogen for use in the system as a whole, and by utilising duckweed and other floating aquatic plants to convert dissolved nutrients to protein-rich feed for fish, livestock and humans. It is worth noting that while some such species (e.g., water hyacinth and Salvinia) are normally regarded as "pest" organisms in natural waterways, their aggressive growth can make them a positive asset in an integrated biosystem context. More imaginative use could be made of native Australian species (Ziebarth), and this is an area requiring further research. A planned approach to IB development will ensure that the potential of IB is maximised in a context of appropriate land use (Ziebarth) and the optimal use of locally produced materials. For example, the establishment of biorefineries requires knowledge of land and biomass availability, crop biodiversity, maintenance of soil fertility crop yields, local population growth and demand, and the production of livestock and animal manures (Doelle). Intelligent planning will also help to bring producers and consumers closer together so as to improve resource use efficiency, protect valuable agricultural land and reduce storage, preservation, packaging and transport costs - thereby aiding local self-sufficiency and food security (Lines-Kelly). Community models that satisfy the requirements of both land and community development already exist - for example, in the form of mixed enterprise farms that blend activities such as market gardening, nursery operations, livestock farming, flower and bush tucker production, farm tourism and art and craft production (Mitchell and Rooney). In ways such as these, the integrated biosystem approach can provide sustainable methodologies to help realise the vision articulated in regional plans. By way of example, the SE Queensland plan envisages discrete human scale urban areas framed by green open space; the clustering of mutually supportive economic activity; urban form that is well defined, integrated and efficient in its use of land and energy; protection of natural assets such as air, water, forests, landscapes and biodiversity; a focus on waste minimisation and environmentally responsible technologies; and ongoing participation and commitment by all sectors of the community (QDLGP 1998). Australian agriculture is currently struggling with problems of declining terms of trade, environmental deterioration, declining rural populations and ageing workforces. Solutions to these problems that are based solely on expanding the output of conventional production systems will be ultimately limited by competition for natural resources, declining soil fertility and rising fuel prices. However, there is significant scope for alternative integrated solutions and by increasing the unit value of enterprises. This can be done by producing high quality speciality items and satisfying niche markets (e.g., organic products; sheep cheeses; free range eggs; fine wool; locally branded cheeses, wines, olives; emus, deer, alpacas). Tourism is often associated with successful boutique industries such as those listed above, and is Australia's fourth largest earner of foreign exchange dollars. Niche tourists want to see agricultural production, National Parks, wildlife and endangered species, Aboriginal culture, homesteads and outback towns. There is a huge potential for rural-based eco-tours and homestead visits. Most wild places are on private property (National parks and reserves only cover 5% of the landmass). Niche tourism can therefore play an integrating role by providing benefits for enhancing the landscape, addressing resource degradation and supporting production activities. These benefits can be tapped with minimal changes to current practice and with the multiple use of resources (George Wilson, pers.comm.) Biosystem integration encourages holistic, systems-level thinking in which the dynamics of interconnection and interdependence are as important as the components that are connected. Thus, it
xiv
helps to raise awareness of flows and transfer processes and develop a conceptual framework for effective resource management. It also promotes flexibility, adaptability and openness to new possibilities and experimentation. These are essential if innovative design solutions are to be found. Harris and Glatz suggest that the current mindset of separate enterprises and single use / discarding of resources needs to change, and Pagan appeals for holistic approaches to the twin challenges of minimising environmental impacts and maximising utility. Greenfield notes that there has been a progressive move away from neglectful or "end-of-pipe" approaches to waste management, and towards newer approaches based on whole-system analysis and an appreciation of environmental assets. He observes that improved understanding based on the modelling of complex processes can only be achieved through collaborative multidisciplinary research programs. Ziebarth contends that more integrated, less reductionist research programs would greatly improve the quality of extension services aimed at the farming community. As indicated by Roberts (1995), a lack of systems research has been identified as the key obstacle to adopting alternative farming practices, and as the major step necessary to develop sustainable agriculture. As a basis for more holistic approaches, Diesendorf notes that conceptual frameworks for sustainable businesses are evolving in the form of ecological economics, "natural capitalism", sustainable development studies and related transdisciplinary fields. Such frameworks are most powerful when they integrate environmental, economic and social aspects (the "triple bottom line"). Diesendorf also signals the need to develop (among other things) new organisational structures and operations in spheres ranging from the business to nation to international agreements. If integrated biosystems can indeed help to achieve sustainability objectives, what can be done to develop and promote the uptake of viable models and options? Gooley and Peterson contend that moves toward biosystem integration will require institutional change and a fundamental paradigm shift by stakeholder agencies and individuals. They will also require coordination between industries and sectors, supported by Government/industry partnership-based investments in infrastructure, training, marketing, policy development, R&D and extension. Kumar stresses the importance of developing a national strategy for promoting and establishing biosystem integration and providing clear guidance to the stakeholders concerned. In some cases, a degree of diversification of operations, and an increase in overall profit, can be achieved without great cost because existing infrastructure can be used with little modification and without disrupting other activities. Such possibilities have driven recent developments in the integration of aquaculture and irrigated farming in Australia (Gooley 2000; McKinnon et al. 2000). However, if the full potential of biosystem integration to achieve sustainability objectives is to be exploited, it will be important to move towards the progressive introduction of “purpose-built” integrated multi-component systems capable of satisfying food production, fuel and fertiliser needs with near-zero environmental impact. To this end, operational initiatives by individual producers and other practitioners will need to be supported by:
coordinated, regional, multidisciplinary research and development programs, including feasibility studies, foresighting and sustainable economic trend analyses;
the inclusion of integrated biosystem principles as key elements in land use planning and integrated catchment management; and
legislative and government-led incentives to encourage the development, adoption and public awareness of integrated biosystem designs.
xv
References Cork, S.J. and Shelton, D. 2000. The nature and value of Australia's ecosystem services: a framework for sustainable environmental solutions. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Queensland Environment Conference. Environmental Engineering Society: Brisbane. 447 pp. Dailey, G.E. 1997. Nature's services - societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press: Washington. Gooley, G. 2000. R&D plan for integrated agri-aquaculture systems 1999-2004. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Publication No. 99/153. 29 pp. Kikkawa, J. 1996. Complexity, diversity and stability. In: Kikkawa, J. and Anderson, D.J. (eds.). Community ecology: pattern and process. Blackwell: Melbourne. 432 pp. Lightfoot, C., Prein, M. and Ofori, J.K. 1996. The potential impact of integrated agriculture-aquaculture systems on sustainable farming. In: Prein, M., Ofori, J.K. and Lightfoot, C. (eds.). Research for the future development of aquaculture in Ghana. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 42. 94 pp. McKinnon, L., Gooley, G., Ingram, B., De Silva, S. and Gasior, R. 2000. Directions for integrated aquaculture in Victoria. In: Kumar, M.S. (ed.) Proceedings of National Workshop on Wastewater Treatment and Integrated Aquaculture Production, 17-19 Sept. 1999. SARDI: Henley Beach. 191 pp. O'Connor, J. 1994. Is sustainable capitalism possible? In: O'Connor, M. (ed.) Is capitalism sustainable? Political economy and the politics of ecology. Guilford Press: New York.. 283 pp. Queensland Department of Local Government and Planning. 1998. South East Queensland Regional Framework for Growth Management (SEQ2001). QDLGP. 125 pp. Roberts, B. 1995. The quest for sustainable agriculture and land use. University of New South Wales Press, Sydney. 245 pp. Spencer, P. 2000. The wastewater treatment industry - technologies and policies for integrated biosystems. In: Kumar, M.S. (ed.) Proceedings of National Workshop on Wastewater Treatment and Integrated Aquaculture Production, 17-19 Sept. 1999. SARDI: Henley Beach. 191 pp. Wright, I and Clague, S. 2000. Sustainability - the 21st century agenda: future directions in environmental law and policy. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Queensland Environment Conference. Environmental Engineering Society: Brisbane. 447 pp. Zimmerman, L. 2000. The role of the biomass to energy industry in economic and ecological sustainability. In: Kumar, M. (ed.) Proceedings of the National Workshop on Wastewater Treatment and Integrated Aquaculture. SARDI, Henley Beach, Australia. 191 pp.
xvi
1. Introduction What is an integrated biosystem? Integrated biosystems connect different food production activities with other operations such as
waste treatment and fuel generation. Integrated biosystems treat production and consumption as a continuous closed loop system where outputs of one operation become inputs into another, thus reusing resources and minimising environmental impact. They can vary enormously in type and complexity, as illustrated by the examples below.
1. Simple connections: e.g., livestock manure is used as a fertiliser for plant crops. 2. Intermediate connections: e.g., organic waste - compost or vermiculture - plant crops 3. Closed loops: e.g., livestock - manure - fodder crop - feed - livestock. 4. Fuel generation: e.g., organic waste - biodigester - biogas 5. Remediation and nutrient recovery: e.g., effluent from sewage treatment is pumped into storage lagoons and used to grow floating aquatic plants (e.g., duckweed). Duckweed growth reduces the originally high nutrient load to a level where the water is suitable for irrigation (e.g., for fibre crops). The duckweed is also harvested as feed for livestock and fish. 6. Multiple water use: e.g., recycling dams allow the same water to be used for growing several crops (e.g., fish, crustaceans, rice, and hardwood). 7. Use of industrial by-products: e.g., fermentation of grain (for beer, spirits, motor fuel) produces organic residues, heat and carbon dioxide. The heat and organics are directed to aquaculture where they increase the growth rates of cultured fish, the carbon dioxide is used in soft-drink production, and both heat and carbon dioxide improve growing conditions in hydroponic greenhouses. 8. Settlement design: integration of on-site biological systems (e.g., for food production and waste treatment) with individual dwellings and local communities.
In the above system combinations, integration allows resources to be converted, recycled or re-used. Such integrated systems offer many opportunities for increased efficiency, productivity and profit and represent practical, creative solutions to problems of waste management and pollution. Integrated biosystem websites: http://www.roseworthy.adelaide.edu.au/~pharris/biosys/welcome.html http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ibs/ibsnet/index.htm
1
The InFoRM 2000 workshop The Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation has played an important role in facilitating the move toward integrated systems by defining a national strategy and a framework for R&D on integrated agri-aquaculture systems1. This framework includes networking, system-bysystem research and the development of regional demonstration sites. A complementary theme of aquaculture-wastewater integration was taken up in a 1999 workshop organised by the South Australian Research and Development Institute2. The InFoRM 2000 workshop on Integrated Food Production and Resource Management (Brisbane, 910 November 2000) built on this background. Its main rationale was the need to take a broad systems approach and consider how Australia can benefit from the whole field of biosystem integration - in particular, through the capacity of integrated designs to satisfy the requirements of economic, environmental and social sustainability. The workshop was an exciting occasion enlivened by a shared awareness of an emerging paradigm shift towards more holistic, systems-level approaches to food production and natural resource management. The outcomes of the workshop are covered in detail later in this volume, but for many participants the workshop confirmed the general relevance and feasibility of the integrated biosystem approach for Australia. The focus is now on methods of implementation. This will have far-reaching implications for the restructuring of a wide range of Australian industries and local communities. The key themes of InFoRM 2000 were resource utilisation efficiency, economic viability, best practice, quality control and the strengthening of local economies. Its specific aims were to:
bring stakeholders together (especially farmers, industry leaders, technologists, resource
managers and planners)
explore integrated options for food production, waste recycling, water conservation and fuel
generation
identify potential gains (in efficiency, value-adding, environmental quality and community
stability)
highlight gaps in knowledge and identify priorities for planning, research and development.
1
Gooley, G. 2000. R&D Plan for Integrated Agri-Aquaculture Systems 1999-2004; RIRDC publication 99/153. 29 pp. 2
Kumar, M.S. (ed.) 2000. Proceedings of the National Workshop on Wastewater Treatment and Integrated Aquaculture; South Australian Aquatic Sciences Centre; 191 pp.
2
Opening InFoRM 2000 address by Professor Roger Swift (Executive Dean, Faculty of Natural Resources and Veterinary Sciences, University of Queensland). It is my great pleasure to welcome you to the InFoRM 2000 Workshop. It is particularly pleasing to see so many young people here: they are especially welcome because they will be carrying the scientific baton into the future. As a result of being at this meeting, I hope that they will generate many new ideas. Thanks are due particularly to the University of Queensland, QDPI and RIRDC for their support for this Workshop and to the organisers for their efforts both in developing the idea and promoting it. Meetings such as this need a considerable amount of organisation to ensure smooth and efficient operation. When I read the background to this Workshop, it was clearly focussed on looking at the integration of production and waste management systems. The concept of integrated production systems alone has been around for some time. Such approaches have brought together all aspects of crop and animal production with an integrated farm management system. Linking the system of production at the farm level with the demands of the processor and consumer is more recent. It has taken us quite a long time to realise that there are consumers at the end of this chain who want food products in a particular form, and food processors who need products with particular properties in order that they could work effectively. Consequently, these components were added to the overall system. In this way the system was extended to post-farmgate to link the on-farm production with processing and particularly with marketing and sales. However, what was still missing from the system was a proper considering of the waste management system. Consequently, we kept asking “what do we do with all the waste material that comes out at the end?” Traditionally, waste materials have not been used effectively or productively and have been seen as a problem rather than a resource and more often than not have been disposed of by dumping them in someone else’s backyard (or the equivalent). The important issue that we should be considering here is the extension of the management system into the area of waste management. In this way we could make more effective and efficient use of all the materials that are generated in the production system in a whole number of ways. This would be particularly beneficial for the environment and possibly for the economy. Therefore, I commend the extension of the whole of system approach and I hope that the meeting comes up with some new ideas on this issue. This type of approach is increasingly important in the face of scarce resources and environmental considerations. However, not all of our resources are scarce and some are, some aren’t, but where they are scarce we need to be looking quite carefully at issues of re-use and recycling. There is no point in wasting valuable resources as has been done so often in the past. In your deliberations, I would offer a word of caution. Although the underpinning ‘science’ is important and is often our main concern, in the end economics will determine whether or not a process is taken up. So do think very carefully about not only whether a practice is scientifically feasible, but whether it is economically viable. I have seen many excellent ideas for recycling materials which founder on simple economic grounds. I also remember an event from early on in my scientific career when a wordly-wise man from ICI said in response to an idea that I had for making a slow-release fertiliser ‘never build an industry on anyone else’s waste materials’. The reason is because the waste creators might well find a use for it themselves. You might suddenly find yourself without any raw material. The moral is that there are a number of other factors which need to be taken into account when pursuing an idea. The University of Queensland is a large, research intensive University with considerable range and depth of skills which could be brought together to look at this whole production and disposal system. This also means collaborating with outside organisations where complimentary skills exist. UQ has taken a number of initiatives, particularly a recent one in the Recycled Organics Consortium (ROC) funded by my Faculty. We look to ROC as one of the facilitating bodies that could help to bring people together and establish linkages and contacts and help to develop projects
3
2. Future trends, opportunities and constraints Catchment issues: land and water use, planning and regulatory frameworks Scott Spencer
Department of Natural Resources In recent years the political focus of the nation has been firmly fixed on economic issues. Virtually every survey conducted of public perceptions of the important issues of the day has seen environmental issues slip in priority. Yet most practitioners in the natural resource management will tell you that all the evidence suggests that the situation, if anything, is getting worse, despite the considerable efforts of government, industry and the general community in recent years. Perhaps of more concern is that the current debate is an “ us versus them” situation. The “us” tend to be rural communities. They believe that the rest of the community is unfairly blaming the rural sector for the problems that are besetting our natural resources. There is also a strong view that we are asking the farm community to carry an unreasonable share of the costs of addressing the issues. You need go no further than the debate over tree clearing in Queensland to demonstrate this situation. The debate has become one about “rights” rather than “what is the right thing to do?” In Queensland we have long been accused of being years behind our southern cousins. In terms of resource management this is probably a great blessing as, in general, the natural resource problems have not yet reached the point of no return in this State as they are in other areas. However, this is no reason for complacency because we could be close to the brink in some areas. I would prefer to see this as indicating that we have a chance of avoiding the disaster. It should not be taken as a sign that the potential (and in some cases existing) problems do not need to be confronted. In recognition of the situation, the Queensland Government has embarked on a major program of reform of the management of our natural resource. In the last two years there have been significant changes to the management regimes of our native forests, vegetation and water resources. To say these reforms have not been uniformly embraced is a massive understatement! Interestingly, our southern colleagues and many respected scientists think that we have not gone far enough. Why then has there been such opposition to the reforms that many think are most desperately needed? A superficial consideration of this question will lead to the rights and compensation debate. Often it is suggested that the response by the rural sector has been characterised as “denial” but it is my view that the issue runs much deeper. As a person who has worked with rural communities for well over twenty years I think statements of this nature sell the rural community short. At present we have to ask the question "have we got the balance right in terms of our approach to natural resource management?" If one looks at our current practices in the management of our land, water, vegetation and marine resources, most of the regimes we have in place are strongly regulatory. They are designed to stop resources users doing things. Unfortunately, they also directly attack the values of those resource users, basically saying to them that everything they do (much of which they have learnt from their
4
parents), is wrong. By trampling on their values we are creating fertile ground for those who wish to create conflict for their own ends. We are also greatly reducing the likelihood of a shared and positive outcome. In saying this I should make it clear that a sound regulatory base is essential for good natural resource outcomes. The question to be considered is what level and shape of regulation is necessary to achieve the desired outcome. If regulation alone is not the answer then what is required? While voluntary action has its supporters it would be naive to think that, in a situation where many of the benefits are externalised, all or most individuals will act out of altruism. Obviously there is a mix of mechanisms and regulation must play its part. But it is not the only mechanism. The catch cry and theme of this workshop is “integration”. To achieve the holy grail of integration I believe you must get the planning right. This does not necessarily mean a single plan but is more likely to require multiple planning processes where, through each step of the process, there are appropriate lateral linkages to other activities. A simple enough statement, but in reality a very difficult thing to achieve. To have good planning you need shared knowledge or at least acceptance of the majority of the facts as we know them, shared vision or outcomes and most importantly from my point of view, a shared perspective on scale and timeframes. At present I do not believe these parameters exist and it is a central role of government to provide the leadership to achieve such an environment. While it is easy to focus on the biophysical because we can in most instances measure it, if we are to take a total landscape approach to resource management, we must get on top of the human issues. It is human intervention that causes degradation therefore we need to be able to influence the decisions of those who manage the land. The reality is that private interests manage the vast majority of land. This means for instance that, even though leasehold land accounts for about 72 percent of Queensland’s 1.8 million square kilometres, the day to day decisions are not made by the government. They are made by the individual landholders who are basically trying to maximise their income. It is those decisions we need to influence to improve resource management outcomes. It is this type of situation that leads me to conclude that planning is the key. As I said, this sounds simple enough. But recently within my Resource Management group of DNR I asked the question “how many planning processes do we have?”. I was not surprised when the answer came back – 28! Add to this the planning that is undertaken by other agencies, local government and community groups and its no wonder both agency staff and the community are perplexed and those of us who want to see progress, to put it politely, frustrated. To address this potential gridlock my department and many other natural resource management agencies such as the Murray Darling Basin Commission are attempting to focus more and more on the human dimension. To achieve truly integrated outcomes we need to:
ensure that good science about the biophysical is available and understood by all potential participants – this will be a challenge for our scientists because it may require them to commit
5
themselves without perfect knowledge – a situation which their training does not always promote
ensure that the social and economic issues are a vital part of the information base
provide
provide the participants with sufficient authority to see that they can actually influence the final decision
allow sufficient time – not always an easy thing to do given the drivers from the electoral cycle. A critical part of this process is to allow the stakeholders to be involved well before the process actually starts so that the common understanding of the issue and approach is agreed upon. By way of example, the current fascination in this country with salinity still does not register in Queensland because the problem is yet to emerge in terms of any real impact. If you talk about weeds, which people can see, then you are going to get engagement, but salinity does not rate. Yet our science is ringing alarm bells. We therefore have to allow the time for the community to accept that salinity is a potential problem
ensure that the land management decision makers share the common vision
allow, as much as is practicable, for the community to determine the mix of policy instruments that are to be used to implement the plan
ensure that the Government (as distinct from the public service), as the ultimate representative of the community, clearly articulates the boundaries within which plans are conceived
a
non-threatening
venue
for
all
participants
to
share
views
I have a personal belief that this can only be achieved if authority for natural resource management decision making is shared between government and the local community. Some might say that this is unlikely as it represents a release of power and that politicians are unwilling to do this. Certainly there are examples recently where it might be argued that this clearly the case. On the other hand, I can offer to you the South East Queensland Forest Agreement as an example of a process where the stakeholders delivered the outcome. While the process was incredibly painful for those involved it was not until the government said to the stakeholders “you solve it” that we actually looked like getting a reasonable outcome. All the public service did was facilitate the outcome. The government set a very broad outcome (and in this case defined a timeframe – reasonable but not openended). The community representatives cut the deal. The government then used its final authority to implement the agreed agenda. A clear case of shared as distinct from delegated decision making. This process gives me great heart for our water and vegetation planning processes. Although they are currently very contentious, with plenty of claims and accusations, if all the participants genuinely share a desire for long-term sustainability then an acceptable outcome is achievable. Those of you involved in this debate might ask "how?" In my view it comes back to community based natural resource management. For sometime now DNR has been working with a range of community groups to develop arrangements for the community to have greater and more meaningful input into resource management policy. The matter is yet to be considered by the government but suffice to say it recognises the need to clarify the role of government and the broader community in the natural resource management process. It acknowledges the need to better coordinate the multiple planning processes and ensure community greater shared ownership of both the process and the outcomes. Critically in a state as large and diverse as Queensland, it recognises that the nature of the issues varies and therefore the responses will have to be different.
6
In this context the institutional arrangements will need to vary from region to region – a fundamental difference to some of the view coming from southern Australia where its seems that a "one size fits all" approach is often advocated. While I have emphasised the sharing approach, in reality it would seem for this process to be truly successful governments at all levels are going to have to accept that at least some of their power will need to be released. It may be the twenty something years as public servant that has increased my cynicism, but in the end, this is going to very difficult achieve. There are a number of reasons for this. In the era of new accountability you cannot expect a person to be accountable but not actually be responsible for the decision! There also is the simple matter that most people enter politics to get the power (its certainly not for the money!). Therefore they are unlikely to easily let it go. In these circumstances, apart from the actions I have talked about to this point, I believe we need one other vital ingredient if we are to get whole of property, whole of catchment & whole of state sustainability. That ingredient is the assigning of a value to the environmental attributes in the hands of private individuals. While I am just about de-skilled these days there is enough of the economist left in me to believe that the market can provide a very large part of the solution. By developing values for the environmental attributes, most commonly referred to as the environmental services such as carbon, salinity, biodiversity and nutrient credits, we not only dramatically increase the incentives to not degrade, but in the one action define the type of regulation we need for effective markets and allow us focus on better resource use planning. This is why those of us involved in the original COAG Water Reform Agenda pushed so hard for the better definition of water rights. It was not because we wanted to stop farmers from development – it was in fact the opposite. If producers receive the right signals about their assets they will manage them better. Lifestyle issues aside, landholders in Australia are in the game for profit and I will go to my grave believing that the last thing producers want to do is run down their natural assets. The problem for the environment is that there is a lag in the appearance of the signals of resource stress. We therefore need to replace the physical signs with economic signals. The Queensland Government, like every other jurisdiction, is working on this issue right now. Creating markets in intangibles is not easy and perhaps the most difficult things is to create the exclusivity that is necessary for a market to work. Put simply, this requires some type of limit on the availability of natural assets. While some landholders react with hostility to this concept, markets can not operate effectively without it. If one of the questions to be answered is how much regulation is required I would ultimately answer it by saying that it is sufficient to do three things:
ensure that the fundamental components of the ecosystem are protected
ensure that a user's property rights are defined and protected, and
ensure that effective markets can develop in the environmental attributes so that there real value is taken into account in the decision making process
7
The unfortunate thing in the current debate is that those who are opposing much of the natural resource management reform agenda are doing so on the basis that their property rights are at risk. What they are failing to recognise is that that their rights often only exist on some type of moral basis. These perceived rights are not necessarily well enough defined to be recognised in law and until the reform agenda goes forward, that risk will continue to exist. Interestingly, perhaps the most fundamental environmental unit – land – is bound by a very strict body of law which defines boundaries beyond doubt. The same body of law does not exist for other attributes. Perhaps our efforts should be directed more to this issue. I have a feeling that the problems associated with planning and regulating our resources would decline dramatically and that the common outcome of sustainability would be more likely to be achieved more quickly.
8
Waste Management and Environmental Engineering Paul Greenfield The University of Queensland This paper presents a historical perspective on waste management and environmental engineering, describes the evolution of waste and environmental management philosophies and considers the changing role of environmental engineering in waste management. There are valid public health concerns surrounding waste management (e.g., concerning potable reuse) and these concerns must be addressed comprehensively. Traditional approaches to waste management have tended to be design rich and operationally poor. Typically these approaches have:
Been microscale operations
Had an end-of-pipe focus (e.g., removal of pollutants)
Demonstrated limited understanding of ecosystem or social context issues
Been successful from the public health perspective within the prevailing paradigm and given the defined constraints
However, there has been an evolution of environmental management philosophies, as indicated below: First generation: deny there is a problem. Examples of this philosophy include:
Denying the strong likelihood of a significant anthropogenic influence on global warming, or global warming itself.
Denying evidence that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is showing strong signs of nutrient distress.
A consequence of this attitude in the past is the need to remediate degraded (e.g., salt-affected) land. Second generation: focus on discharge issues to reduce the severity of the problem. Examples of this philosophy include:
Controlling the quality of receiving waters or ambient air by setting permittable discharge concentrations.
Requiring 100% compliance with such regulations.
Best Available Technology or Best Practical Technology approaches (these may require the same levels of technology in very different environments and hence lack flexibility).
An inevitable result of this approach (which is widespread at present) is the introduction of increasingly stringent discharge regulations. Third generation: take a systems approach to environmental management. Examples of this philosophy include:
Waste minimisation
Load-based licensing; tradeable permits.
9
Requirements of this approach are more sophisticated monitoring and acceptance of a range of management mechanisms. This approach also requires that the concept of a threshold effect be discarded, since in practice a threshold simply means that a given effect cannot be detected over the time frame of measurement. Fourth generation: include environmental assets in the accounting framework Examples of this philosophy include:
The development of cleaner production practices (these could be seen as representing both third and fourth generation approaches).
Life cycle analysis.
Appropriate pricing of environmental benefits and costs.
Green accounting practices.
A focus on sustainable development and the "Triple Bottom Line".
We are at an interesting stage in the evolution of environmental engineering strategies. We know we have to reject traditional approaches - for example, conventional benefit-cost analysis has little credibility for environmental management because the political process has never enforced the requirement that some of the benefits should flow to the losers. On the other hand, we are at a very early stage in our quest for sustainable development, and it could be argued that we don't yet know how it can be achieved. Nevertheless we can be encouraged by real signs of a paradigm shift, as the following examples serve to indicate. Example 1: Cotton
First generation: "If it moves, spray it; when it flows, pump it".
Second generation: Integrated Pest Management. controls.
Third generation: Biological control (e.g., baculovirus, GMOs). Reduced water usage through better controls.
Fourth generation: Change the whole approach to irrigation - don't grow cotton in certain regions.
Reduced water usage as a result of price
Example 2: Starch processing
First generation: Discharge to trade waste sewer. ("It's not my problem").
Second generation: Pretreat prior to discharge in order to reduce charges.
Third generation: Recover waste starch and/or energy from starch, so that the starch processing plant is now a key step in energy generation. (This is a monumental shift in approach because integration of the waste treatment process with production makes it more central - there is now more urgency to avoid going "off-spec").
Fourth generation: Redesign the starch extraction process to minimise the use of water. (This stage has not yet been reached with starch but it has in the paper industry).
A typical example of these changes in approach is provided by a starch processing company in Melbourne, which originally discharged its waste to Melbourne's treatment plant. However, after Melbourne Water began to recover the costs of treatment by charging the company in question (at a rate $1.5 million per year), it responded by introducing an on-site anaerobic digester to process waste. Later, the methane produced by the digester was used as an energy source for the plant's operations. The driver in this case was clearly a price signal.
10
With respect to the changing role of environmental engineering in waste management, there are three key technology drivers. These are:
Biotechnology, which uses an understanding of the genetic and metabolic bases of life processes to develop better process management.
Materials technology - especially of membranes, which have reduced in cost and increased in
quality over the last decade, and of nannostructured materials, which can be used to create efficient catalysts and absorbents.
Information technology, which includes new instrumentation, remote monitoring and data
mining. These developments have the ability to revolutionise environmental science, which at present is data-rich and information-poor. Examples of applications of these new technologies include:
The design of industrial bioreactors based on improved understanding and modelling of the microbial processes involved (e.g., links between different functional groups of bacteria).
Improved hydrodynamic modelling involving computational fluid dynamics and high performance computing. This approach has allowed us to use directional aerators to control zones of nitrification and denitrification in wastewater treatment ponds, and so achieve high rates (60-70%) of nitrogen removal. This in turn means that the pond effluent can be discharged to land at a reasonable cost.
Large-scale modelling to linking pollutant hydrography to the biological impacts of water quality decline. Current investigations of water quality impacts in Moreton Bay involve a large team of scientists and 18 local councils in an integrated multidisciplinary program. Among the results of the program are those that suggest that extensive Lyngbya (cyanobacterial) blooms can be triggered in part by high iron levels in local waterways, and that humic acids in organic runoff from coastal forests act as chelating agents to make iron more bio-available.
Conclusions Some trends in waste management seem clear:
Prevention is better than cure, and prevention is best achieved by adopting a systems approach involving interdisciplinary, high quality science.
Increasing standards put increasing pressure on costs, but clever technologies can help to reduce those costs.
Increasing community expectations must be matched by good communication systems and full community involvement.
In Australia, environmental engineering challenges for the immediate future include:
Water re-use
Stormwater impacts and treatment
Land developmentand land use impacts
Catchment management
Airshed management
Greenhouse gas reduction.
11
Sustainable Economics and Business Mark Diesendorf
University of Technology, Sydney Introduction A starting point for this paper is the growing evidence that it possible to improve economic performance substantially while at the same time reducing environmental impacts. Our work at the Institute for Sustainable Futures has indicated that in Australia this assertion can be supported across a wide range of sectors, including water, energy and urban transport. However, the widespread development of such win-win situations will require changes to social and institutional processes and structures as well as new ‘hardware’. If present thinking persists, we will continue to find ourselves making trade-offs between the economy and the environment. The good news is that the economy is changing in the direction of sustainability (e.g., in Australia it has shifted from primarily resources to services and light manufacturing) and should be allowed to change further.
Sustainability and sustainable development Sustainability is a contestable concept, like democracy or justice, and in fact contesting it is important in its implementation. It is can be defined as the goal or end-point of a process known as sustainable development (or ecologically sustainable development, ESD). Sustainable development comprises those types of economic and social development that protect and enhance the natural environment and social equity. Here, ‘development’ means the unfolding of human potential and the enhancement of human wellbeing in a broad sense, and ‘social equity’ means equal opportunity. Although sustainability is commonly accepted as involving environmental, economic and social dimensions, it should be recognised that the environment must be the dominant concept, since both society and the economy depend upon it.
Economic approaches to sustainability Economic approaches to sustainability can be illustrated by the following historical figures: 1. Charles Dickens (in the words of Mr Micawber in David Copperfield). “Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen shillings and sixpence, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds and sixpence, result misery”. It should be noted that there are no savings in this ‘sudden death’ concept of sustainability. 2. John Hicks (classical economist). Hicks maintained that it was important to live off income, not off capital, and that we should aim to design an economy that generated a sustainable income. However, Hicks was not an environmentalist and his defined priorities did not include long-term ecological sustainability for the planet as a whole. Nevertheless, his concept of ‘sustainable income’ could become the basis for a useful approach to sustainability. Unfortunately, neoclassical economics has taken a different direction. 3. J.M. Hartwick (neo-classical economist). Hartwick stressed the importance of sustaining consumption (i.e., household expenditure) over a long time period. He believed that this could be achieved by continual linear substitution (e.g., by using profits from one activity to invest in another). This assumption is questionable, given the severe damage to global ecosystems (e.g., soil loss, greenhouse effects) that is caused by many human activities.
12
There are in fact a number of limitations to neo-classical, environmental economics, notably the following:
A neglect of biophysical laws and ecological insights: e.g., conservation of mass and energy; Second Law of Thermodynamics; the fact that humans are totally dependent upon the integrity of pre-human ecological processes and systems).
Treatment of the environment as a set of goods and services that are bought and sold in competitive markets, both real and hypothetical. (It is hard to fit essential open-access resources such as the atmosphere into such a scheme).
A neglect of social institutions other than firms and households.
An anthropocentric, instrumentalist ethical viewpoint that works against ecological sustainability and social equity and ignores the fact that humans can cooperate.
One can question the underlying assumptions about competition - an analogous, though logical outcome of this assumption would be that the four chambers of the heart should independently tender for the job of pumping blood around the body, because competition would improve efficiency! It is also important to recognise that we have no ready substitute for natural systems. For example, in the case of the ‘Biosphere 2’ experiment to recreate a sustainable environment within large, sealed domes in the Arizona desert, humans had to leave because it proved impossible to maintain a stable atmosphere. Furthermore, we have little understanding of the extent to which we can interfere with natural systems before their capacity for self-regulation is significantly impaired. These considerations have led to attempts to formally recognise the value of ecosystem services (e.g., Costanza et al., 1997). Other commentators contend that, because of their necessity, it is more appropriate to assign an infinite value to such services, rather than partial monetary values. Embarking on a quest for sustainability puts us at the boundaries of a huge new area. What tools do we have at our disposal to help us on our way? In particular, what conceptual frameworks and case studies are available to help us integrate our economic, environmental and social priorities? The following offer the potential to construct transdisciplinary theoretical frameworks:
Natural Capitalism (Hawken et al. 1999). This approach embodies the belief that large increases in resource use efficiency can be achieved through redesign. It recommends that we invest in natural capital (i.e., our physical environment) and emulate nature by shifting from linear to cyclic flows of materials. In natural systems nothing is wasted -- all is re-used. Natural Capitalism also urges a shift in emphasis from ‘goods’ (e.g., coal power) to ‘services’ (e.g., a hot shower).
Integrated Least-Cost Planning (= integrated resource planning; e.g., Mackenzie 1996). In its focus on what people actually want, this approach is highly compatible with Natural Capitalism. It proceeds by defining the service requirement (e.g., cold food, removal of wastes, transport needs) and identifying the associated environmental health, social and economic costs and benefits. The aim is then to find the mix of supply-side and demand-side technologies to provide the service at the least cost to society, and then to plan to remove barriers to this optimal mix. This approach helps to provide an appropriately broad perspective for decision-making and overcoming barriers. For example, it turns out that it is generally cheaper (in cents per passenger per kilometre travelled) to travel by heavy rail than by car. However, normally motorists tend not to recognise this, because they neglect the hidden costs of car transport, such as the land that is taken up by car roads and parks.
13
Other potentially useful approaches include:
Systems Theory (e.g., Bossel 1998);
Soft Systems Theory (e.g., Checkland and Scholes 1990);
Multicriteria Analysis (e.g., Bogetoft and Pruzan 1997);
Participatory Action Research (e.g., Whyte 1991);
Grounded Theory (e.g., Glaser 1993);
Ecological Footprint (not the original approach of Wackernagel & Rees 1995, but the improved approach by Lenzen and Murray 2001).
Moving decisively down the path to sustainability will require a broad approach and a wide range of response measures - including pricing, taxes, institutional and organisational change, education and regulation. There is little doubt that a major driver will be future resource scarcity and that this will lead to dramatically higher prices as the global demand for essentials such as fuel increases relative to global supply. Local operations will become more important than global ones as costs of transport go up. Consumer demand will also become more discerning - as indicated by the fact that in at least some countries, the major supermarket chains have greatly expanded their range of organic food options, and this expansion has been accompanied by a significant reduction in the cost of such foods.
References Bogetoft, P. and Pruzan, P. 1997. Planning with multiple criteria: investigation, communication and choice. Copenhagen Business School Press. 368 pp. Bossel, H. 1998. Earth at a crossroads: paths to a sustainable future. Cambridge U.K.: Cambridge University Press. 338 pp. Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. 1990. Soft systems methodology in action. Chichester U.K.: John Wiley. 329 pp. Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., deGroot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton. P. and van den Belt, M. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253-260. Glaser, B.G. 1993. Examples of grounded theory: a reader. Mill Valley, California: Sociology Press. 521 pp. Hawken, P., Lovins, A., and Lovins, L.H. 1999. Natural capitalism: creating the next industrial revolution. Boston: Little, Brown and Co. 396 pp. Lenzen, M. and Murray, S. 2001. A modified ecological footprint method and its application to Australia. Ecological Economics 37: 229-255. Mackenzie, S.H. 1996. Integrated resource planning and management: the ecosystem approach in the Great Lakes basin. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 243 pp. Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W. 1995. Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the earth. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers. Whyte, W.F. (ed.). 1991. Participatory action research. Newbury Park, California: Sage. 247 pp.
14
The Natural Step and Natural Capitalism Andrew Gaines ECOSTEPS Sustainability Training Integrated design in agriculture is vitally significant: it is another step to becoming sustainable. There are many definitions of sustainability. I like this salty one: sustainability is a way of living that won’t self-destruct. There are, of course, many ways of living, representing many different values and aspirations. How can we tell if something is sustainable or not? One useful way is to apply The Natural Step’s Four System Conditions for Sustainability. The Natural Step was developed by Swedish cancer researcher Karl Henrik Robèrt. He saw too many children with cancer coming through his clinic. Their problems weren’t genetic – they were responding to poisons in their environment. It wasn’t enough to try and cure them. If we are serious about children’s health and well-being, we must protect them from being hurt in the first place. We should emphasise prevention. But on what basis? Well, the same conditions that are necessary for the well-being of the cells in children’s bodies are necessary for the well-being of the rest of life. Thinking along these lines led him to a viewpoint that is obvious. If we are going to be sustainable we must redesign our entire global civilisation so that it operates sustainably. Robèrt, in conjunction with his scientific colleagues, achieved a succinct expression of the conditions we must adhere to if we are to be sustainable. These are known as The Four System Conditions for Sustainability. In the sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing… 1. …concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth’s crust 2. …concentrations of substances produced by society 3. …degradation by physical means and, in that society 4. …human needs are met worldwide. System Conditions 1 and 2 relate to the build-up of toxins. Ecosystems can handle flows of common substances like iron or aluminium that they have already adapted to, but they can’t handle excessive flows of uncommon substances like mercury. Similarly there are many man-made compounds that living systems can’t handle at all. If we are to be sustainable we will not allow these to build up in the environment. Condition 3 points out that if we are to be sustainable we must not destroy nature’s ability to renew itself. In other words, if we over-fish to the point where fish can no longer breed, or if we drain marshes and swamps so they can no longer work as oxygenators, water cleansers and breeding grounds, at some point we will have destroyed so much that the ecology will collapse. The fourth System Condition, linking environmental health to the fair use of resources around the world, makes sense when we consider, for example, the connection between the North-South economic imbalance and the cutting of rainforests in the Amazon, or the potential for countries to go to war when water or other resources become dangerously limited. Take together these Four System Conditions form the core of The Natural Step, a framework for redesigning for sustainability.
15
Considering environmental issues in this way enables us to avoid quantitative arguments such as “how much lead is tolerable?”. If some people are highly responsive to lead and others show few symptoms of heavy metal poisoning, what is the acceptable level of lead? Scientists disagree, so some politically acceptable number is finally agreed upon, which means that to a degree we settle for living with the problem. In general, this is not a solution. The people who are highly responsive to environmental toxins still get sick, the rest of us get by with lowered vitality, and the damage to other forms of life continues. We can never resolve the question what is an acceptable level of toxins? But we can resolve a related question: if we allow toxins to continuously build up in the environment, will they ever reach a point where they are harmful? Of course the answer is yes, not because of logic, but because accumulating poisons will indeed eventually have an effect. Once we are clear about this with a given substance we can stop debating and begin the creative task of eliminating the toxin from our industrial processes and food supply. Understanding the Four System Conditions is very valuable. We can look at any object or activity through the lens of the Four System Conditions and notice whether it violates one or more of the conditions. If it does, it is not sustainable in the long run. Protecting the environment – and therefore ourselves – does not mean going back to the Stone Age. I think the real key to becoming sustainable is integrated design. An understanding of integrated design can be expanded by reading Natural Capitalism. Natural Capitalism is a truly great book about integrated design. It may be the most important book of the 20th century. Why? Because the authors show, through hundreds of qualified examples, in every field from agriculture to architecture, and from automobiles to pharmaceutical production, how astute redesign can reduce energy and water requirements dramatically while increasing productivity, quality and profits. Yes, profits. It is always important to mention profits because many people are terrified that if they seriously attempt to adjust to care for the environment they will go broke. But this is not the case – unless you are in the oil business. How is it that business can expect to profit by adjusting to care for the environment? The key is reducing waste. Both agriculture and industry, in ways that often have not been recognised until recently, have been incredibly wasteful. For example, if a farmer uses furrow-and-flood irrigation to water a crop on a fixed schedule, he will inevitable apply water when it is not actually needed and in locations where it can’t be used. This excess water is wasted – it can be as much as two-thirds of the total water use. Monitoring the dampness of soil (and thus only watering when necessary) combined with piping that delivers water directly to the roots, saves all of that. And we get follow-on benefits such as reduced salination, preventing water wars, and leaving more water for healthy river systems. Combining The Natural Step principles with ideas about integrated design stimulates creativity. You identify both problems and productive opportunities that you never saw before. The Natural Step helps us get clear about where we want to go. Natural Capitalism helps us devise strategies to get there.
References Hawken, P., Lovins, A. & Lovins, L.H. (1999). Natural Capitalism: creating the next industrial revolution. Little, Brown & Co., New York, USA. Natrass, B., Altomare, M. & Naijrass, B. (1999). The Natural Step for Business: wealth, ecology and the evolutionary corporation. New Society Publishers, Canada.
16
Sustainability and integration: a farmer's perspective Paul Ziebarth Chairman, Queensland Fruit and Vegetable Growers I would like to offer some thoughts on sustainability as a farmer and farm leader whose key job it is to manage change in agriculture. I'm a specialist vegetable farmer from the Lockyer Valley and my family has been there for five generations. We now consider ourselves eco-farmers and our challenge is to develop an ecologically sustainable farming system that will produce and market credible highly valued products. We are currently wrestling with the challenges of developing a multi-use water system and are asking questions such as: "How can we take waste water and integrate that with a truly organic nutrient source, and what are the implications for soil health and water use efficiency?” From a conventional environmentalist perspective, we horticulturalists are viewed as the ultimate environmental vandals because we have totally destroyed the national landscape – we’ve bulldozed almost every single tree, ripped up the soil and introduced monocultures. However, from a farmer’s perspective we are magnificent. We think we are the ultimate custodians of the land – we look after it, care for it, improve it, and hand it on to the next generation. I think we need to consider carefully where we really sit. We need an objective view of sustainability and how to measure it. The topic of sustainability is receiving a lot of attention, but I would like to add a different dimension. I think we need to look at sustainability as part of a trilogy. In terms of food production, we need to consider sustainability, reliability and intensity simultaneously. To take an extreme example, huntergather systems are the most sustainable. Here, there are no inputs - you go into the forest with a sharp stick, you take what you need, and you don’t leave your footprints. But the problem for Australia is that our land could only support 500,000 people as hunter-gathers: our population of about 19 million would be clearly unsustainable. From a production perspective, the nearest thing to a sustainable production system is cattle hunting in the northern territory. Here, you hunt cattle once a year, take what you want and let the rest go. There are very few inputs and the animals look after themselves. It’s a very low intensity system. However, this system is not very reliable. Because there are no inputs, there is no control. If it doesn’t rain, the cattle die. Reliable food production systems capable of feeding large populations require that you add inputs and raise intensity, which can create all sorts of challenges for sustainability. So in the future we shall need to create types of sustainable systems other than low input, low intensity, low productivity farming. One can argue about numbers and time-frames, but the essential point is that by the year 2040 our population is going to peak at about 8.5 billion people. In order to feed those people we are going to have to treble the amount of food that the world produces from its current agricultural land. Given that we have got as much as we can from out of improvement techniques such as conventional plant breeding, high yield fertilisers and plant protection, we have a major challenge on our hands. Science has been honoured with preventing massive third world famine, but its role in protecting the environment hasn’t been recognised at all. If agriculture had not trebled yields in the last forty years, we would have ploughed down 10-12 million square miles of wilderness to support low yielding agricultural production systems, with disastrous results in terms of salinisation, erosion etc. To reiterate, sustainability, reliability and intensity must be considered together. The horticultural industry in Queensland includes 3,500 enterprises that turn over a billion dollars. We grow 140 different commodities. Nationally horticulture is worth 5.5 billion dollars. In this State we have 25,000 jobs directly on farms plus a flow-on factor of 5 to 1 in the wider community. And we do all of this in Queensland on 3% of the main irrigated agricultural land. All of the horticultural land in Australia would fit quite comfortably fit into the Australian Capital Territory. So the footprint that horticulture leaves on Australia is very small.
17
There is a common perception that agriculturists are still in the Dark Ages and not sympathetic to sustainable development. As I noted above, we are often perceived as environmental vandals. However, I think we’re a lot better than that. For example, two years ago fruit and vegetable growers developed a Farm Care Code of Practice, which has been recognised as the best code of environmental practice in the country and has even gained some credibility internationally. And more recently we have established a strategic link with the Environment Protection Authority so as to integrate sound farming practices with sound environmental practices. Several of our farmers now carry out environmental life cycle assessments and the fruit and vegetable industry is a partner in the Greenhouse Challenge. Approximately 140 farmers are moving to develop environmental management systems and several of them are working towards ISO 14000 accreditation. The challenge for industry is that we really have to drive the agenda in terms of our relationship with the environment. If we don’t, then somebody will do it for us because society in general is becoming very environmentally aware. For example, at present there are big environmental debates over issue such as tree clearing, water management, the National Heritage Trust and use of the Great Barrier Reef. Our problem is that farmers are responsible for about 86% of the land mass but represent only about 3% of the voting population. That creates a real dilemma because non-rural people, who have an overwhelming influence on policy formation, have largely lost contact with the country. Several years ago most people had at least one relative that lived in rural Australia. We don’t have that any more. And because we are a very affluent country, we can afford to be fussy. Consumers are sending mixed messages about what they really want: while they are often fussy about the environment they are also motivated by self-interest. They want a clean environment but may not be prepared to pay much for it. Part of the challenge for agriculture is to develop new technologies to replace some of the old ones that we don’t want. As we proceed we have to be environmentally aware and serious about maintaining environmental standards. For example, while I have the utmost respect for organic growers, motivated as they often are by very high ideals and values, there are some that still do little for the environmental cause - while they focus on the non-use of certain chemicals they may mine the soil, burn carbon fuel, and ignore biodiversity and water use efficiency. A lot of our sustainability problems derive from the fact that we have totally inappropriate land uses. We are growing and raising organisms that are unsuited to the Australian environment. Why don’t we look more closely at animals that evolved here, and farm them? I realise that Australians have a problem with eating their national emblem - we'd rather eat a cow than a kangaroo. But cows originally had to be domesticated, so why don't we domesticate our native animals? Instead of trying to use unsustainable systems to grow cattle and sheep, why don't we redefine our approach to farming? Why can’t a farmer make a living selling black cockatoos raised in a 2,500 hectare aviary? Finally, we talk about integrated farming systems but we don’t do integrated research. Research is currently based on reductionist science. We reduce a problem or situation into its basic parts. We research that and do good work, develop good technology, but the mistake we make is that we don’t put it back together again. We don’t build the system. And we have a really dysfunctional extension system that sprays 40 bits of unintegrated technology and knowledge at a new farmer who is trying to develop an environmentally friendly production system. We expend a lot of money, effort and skill on making scientific advances, but the application and adoption of those findings is dreadful. So the researchers wonder why farmers aren't using their work and the farmers don't realise what has been done. How do we capture the good science and the right research, but build them into systems that people can actually use and adopt? If we don't solve this problem, in another ten years we may still be focussing on isolated opportunities for sustainable development and as an industry we won't have advanced very far at all.
18
Integrated systems and rural community development: possibilities for partnership. Ingrid Burkett University of Queensland Introduction This paper examines how concepts embedded in the practice and theory of integrated biosystems can be effectively aligned with the principles and practices of community development. It is argued that there is great potential for strengthening links between biophysical sciences and social sciences in relation to system integration, such that innovative approaches to building sustainable rural communities can be developed. The development of linkages between integrated biosystems and community development could contribute to addressing future problems and potentials of rural communities in ways which “make…islands of success more widespread” (Pretty et al., 1995). Both locally and internationally rural communities currently exist in an environment that is characterised by economic, social, ecological and political pressures. In Australia questions are repeatedly and increasingly frequently being asked about how we address the challenges of ‘the bush’ and create viable rural landscapes. Globalisation, trade liberalisation, rural-urban migration, regional unemployment and environmental degradation are signaling the need for integrated approaches to address the increasingly difficult development challenges faced by rural communities. This paper suggests that ‘system integration’ could provide a macro framework for developing such approaches. In development practice and social science theory, frameworks of rural development which emphasise systemic or integrative methods of analysis and action are not new, although they are being revived in ‘new’ forms. Historically, notions of Integrated Rural Development (IRD) emerged in the 1970s, when development policies (mostly in what was then known as the ‘third world’) sought to integrate an increase in agricultural production with improved health, education, sanitation and other social services in rural areas. These approaches were heavily critiqued – not because they were deemed to be founded on incorrect principles, but because the practices which were used to implement them were ‘top-down’, economically unsustainable, and did not take account of differences between local community's needs and contexts. In short what was missing from these approaches was recognition of what Robert Chambers (1997) refers to as the “LCDDU” principle of rural development – that it is “Local, Complex, Diverse, Dynamic and Unpredictable”. Recently, IRD has once again emerged as representing a framework for exploring approaches to sustainable development of rural communities, often with a focus of “stimulating economic regeneration within peripheral rural regions” through “bringing together interrelated problems and resources” (Day, 1998). These approaches have emphasised the connections between such sectors as agriculture, forestry, local industry, waste management, social services, education and tourism, such that the interconnections between the pressures facing rural communities can be explored and addressed. What is recognised in commentaries about this ‘new’ IRD is the need for further exploration of how connections between these different sectors can contribute in real ways to sustainability and increased self-sufficiency of rural communities. After drawing links between the underlying principles of integrated biosystems (IBS) and community development (CD), this paper examines three case studies which demonstrate how IBS and CD can effectively be aligned in practice, and together, contribute to an IRD approach which is not only consistent with Chamber’s (1997) “LCDDU” principles, but which could effectively contribute to building environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable rural communities.
19
A principled linkage: connecting integrated biosystems with community development At the level of principles, there are a number of interesting links between integrated biosystems and community development.
Both focus on how reliance on high inputs of external resources – whether that be biological resources or social resources – can make systems inefficient, ineffective, dependent and ultimately, unsustainable.
Like integrated biosystem approaches which seek to focus on “site specific management systems for whole farms” (Pretty, 1998), community development seeks to focus on the unique local contexts in which communities exist, and to develop the “total human condition of rural places” (Keane, in Day, 1998);
Both can take time to bring about improved ‘yields’ – whether these be crop yields or ‘social yields’ such as increased social capital or ‘healthy’ local social institutions;
Both challenge current dominant models – in the case of integrated biosystems the challenges are related to dominant models of industrial agriculture which focus on high-input systems; and in the case of community development, the challenges are related to dominant models of development which focus on external solutions for local community issues;
Integrated agriculture has been falsely accused of advocating a return to “low technology, ‘backward’ or ‘traditional’ agricultural practices” (Pretty, 1995), which would not generate enough food to feed to world’s growing population; community development has been falsely accused of seeking a return to a nostalgic vision of village life that never was, and of thereby advocating a stance to development which is anti-growth and anti-technology (Burkett, 2000).
Just as the use of integrated biosystem approaches to food production and waste management can contribute to more sustainable agricultural systems, I would contend that the use of community development approaches to rural development could underpin the development of more sustainable and stronger local economies and communities. Table One illustrates the alignment of community development with integrated, sustainable agriculture at the level of principles. In order to demonstrate, through the use of case studies, how community development can be linked with integrated biosystems to foster practices of integrated rural development, it is necessary to explore a little further what CD actually is, and how CD workers approach rural development.
20
Table One. Comparing the principles of integrated, sustainable agriculture and community development Principles of Integrated, Sustainable Agriculture (source, Shepherd, 1998;43-46) 1. Search for effective, productive and economic low external input systems, characterised by internal recycling of energy and nutrients and a high degree of selfsufficiency by comparison with industrial farming.
Principles of Sustainable Community Development
1.
Focus on creation of effective and productive, low external input social systems and institutions. Emphasis on cooperation, re-use and re-cycling of human energy, efficient use of human resources through creation of effective social structures to support development of high level of self-sufficiency, whether that relates to financial sustainability (eg. development of community-based banking), food production (eg. development of regionally-reliant food systems), or social support structures (eg. structures which sustain individual and community well-being).
2.
2.
Community members become planners, implementors and evaluators of development processes. Emphasis on partnerships and co-development, and valuing of local, indigenous knowledge systems and indigenous social sytems/institutions. Emphasis on integrated, holistic knowledge systems – the local people are the development experts. A process of social learning rather than applying prescribed practices.
3.
Efforts at enhancement of social and cultural diversity within social structures and institutions – enhancing participation of women, marginalised people and groups, and ensuring that a broad range of people participate in and support the systems. Ensuring that human resources are also conserved – such that the work and effort is evenly spread amongst community members rather than located with a limited number of individuals – makes the system more effective and sustainable.
3.
Greater involvement of farmers in design and implementation of integrated farming systems and the valuing of indigenous knowledge about agriculture and natural resource management. Rejection of compartmentalised scientific research and preference for holistically derived knowledge, linking academics and practitioners, scientists and farmers. A process of social learning rather than applying prescribed practices. Conservation of resources and enhancement of bio-diversity is an integral component of farming systems, rather than being a technically driven bolt-on activity.
Community Development and Endogenous Development Community development (CD) is based on the principles of ‘endogenous development’, that is, the: “priority is to look, first, at what natural and social resources are available in rural areas – agriculture, people, natural resources and wildlife – and then to ask: can anything be done differently that results in the more productive use of these available resources without causing damage to natural and social capital?” (Pretty, 1998)
Or, in other words, that: “the well-being of a local economy (at any sub-national scale, from a region down to a village and its hinterland) can best be animated by basing development action on the resources – physical, human and intangible that are indigenous to that locality” (Ray, 1999)
The dominant models used to address rural development are not based on endogenous development principles or practices. Rather, they are based on exogenous development approaches – approaches premised on the notion that the key to enhancing rural development is to maximise external inputs such as government funding, mobile capital (ie. attracting business and industry), and human capital (ie. attracting tourists and ‘migrants’ to regional areas). Such approaches see the role of agriculture in rural economic development as decreasing, and therefore suggest that there is an increasing need to
21
invest in alternatives to agriculture in rural sectors. The result is that local authorities offer incentives for industries and businesses to relocate; encourage the development of tourism in regional areas; and lobby national governments for increased funding for large infrastructure projects. Certainly, this has resulted in short-term gains for many rural communities in Australia and elsewhere, but as Table Two highlights, this has not been without its problems. The two major issues are: it is usually already more ‘prosperous’ communities who gain most benefits from exogenous development; and that reliance on high levels of external input (especially in terms of finances and attraction of industry) results in dependency, instability, and ultimately, lack of sustainability. The corollary of these difficulties is that exogenous development is most problematic for marginalised communities (those communities which are non-coastal, remote, inaccessible, in more difficult environments and with sparse populations) which are already most disadvantaged in terms of service provision and ‘attractiveness’ for business development. Compounding this problematic feature of exogenous development is the fact that in such models, ‘experts’ from outside the actual communities are often the drivers of the processes that are imposed on communities to ‘improve’ their economic and social well being. This leads to two negative consequences; first, that often the unique characteristics of particular localities (in terms of environments, demographics, cultures, and existing social infrastructures) are not taken into consideration and what occurs is a mono-solution to what is interpreted as ‘the rural problem’. Secondly, such processes can actually exacerbate the disadvantages of more peripheral rural areas, increasing the likelihood that they become (or remain) “poor, depopulated, disorganised, dependent, marginal and apathetic” (Bassand, in Day, 1998).
22
Table Two. Exogenous and Endogenous Development Approaches – A Comparison Exogenous Development
Endogenous Development
Aim: “attract external capital, technologies or institutions into rural areas in order to promote change” (Pretty, 1998)
Aim: “…to look, first, at what natural and social resources are available in rural areas…and then to ask: can anything be done differently that results in the more productive use of these available resources without causing damage to natural and social capital” (Pretty, 1998)
Development processes centred on maximising external investments and capital. Local areas should focus on attracting external investments in the form of capital investment and government funding.
Development processes should maximise creative use of existing internal community resources and minimise reliance on external resources. Focus on building selfreliance.
Development processes seek to modernise regions such that they can attract maximum external capital investment. Emphasis on external funding to improve infrastructure and provision of services in rural communities. Seeking external solutions to internal problems: “..we are waiting for the government to solve our problems; we need a change in exchange or interest rates to give us more money” (Pretty, 1998).
Development processes centred on local resources: physical, human and intangible – creation of employment opportunities ‘from within’, using locally owned / managed resources. Participation of local people in development processes is key to success. Other key elements – cooperation, education and awareness raising.
Advantages: may result in higher social ‘yields’ in the short term – eg. sudden rises in employment levels when a new industry moves into town; Have brought advantages to infrastructure of many rural communities.
Advantages: Development of higher social ‘yields’ can be highly effective, efficient and sustainable; Encourage diverse, locally developed solutions to issues and problems; Builds on existing local social organisations and systems; Linkages between different systems within the community are emphasised; Reduction of external resource inputs: more efficient in the long term.
Problems: Hidden costs of the advantages are often not readily acknowledged; Reliant on external, specialist and expert interpretation of local issues, which are often different from internal interpretation of issues – ie. negation of local knowledge; High external inputs are generally capital intensive – expensive to initiate and maintain and often remain dependent on ongoing external capital support; First movers benefit, ie. already ‘prosperous’ rural communities are likely to reap further benefits, marginal, poorer communities are less likely to benefit; competition between localities often creates parochial divisions; businesses gain benefits often at the cost of local communities; Dependency of local communities on external forces and institutions – now particularly evident in terms of globalisation; Decreased capacity of local communities to cope with environmental and economic changes Decline of social capital and local institutions for social capacity building. Encourage mono-solutions: one solution fits all rural communities – denies the diversity within systems.
23
Problems: advances in development can remain localised and small-scale; Higher ‘social yields’ may take a long time; Can be co-opted and become a justification for withdrawal of external resources; “In a time of economic crisis for many rural communities it is easy to…see the talk of ‘empowerment’, ‘community-based approaches’ and ‘bottom-up’ as hollow, a clever means for the state to shift responsibility for land degradation to a community level without allocating commensurate resources” (Campbell, 1996). Requires more complex locally specific analysis of issues – but this has also been shown to generate more effective, locally owned and sustainable solutions to problems and issues.
Integrated, endogenous development As explored above, endogenous development represents an approach to development that emphasises the importance of localised, participatory analyses and actions. What is also important in endogenous approaches to development is that such development is integrated – that is, that approaches to development seek to integrate all elements of rural communities rather than focussing only or singularly on one dimension – as is illustrated in the figure below.
Business and Industry Agriculture
Cultural Environment
Social infrastructure Natural Resources Political infrastructure
Figure One. Integrated rural development methodologies are complex and cross-disciplinary boundaries.
Addressing the complexity of rural development demands methods of development practice which seek to be multidisciplinary and cross-disciplinary and which emphasise a complex and integrated approach to rural development. This, in itself, is somewhat countercultural – as Chambers (1983;41) highlighted almost two decades ago (though he also reiterated this in a more recent book – Chambers, 1993): “Disciplinary academics and practicing professionals meet, listen to and argue with those of similar backgrounds. A soils scientist finds his (sic) fellows among other soils scientists, or physical or perhaps biological scientists, but scarcely among sociologists; a political scientist meets and discusses with other political scientists, or other social scientists, but scarcely with research agronomists. It is not strange that there should be little overlap in their views of the problems of rural development. All have been conditioned to focus on a few aspects to the implicit exclusion of others; and members of each specialised group reinforce each others’ narrow vision”
Though there have, since this time, been efforts at incorporating more complex analyses into approaches to rural development (through, for example, stakeholder analyses, Farming Systems Development (FSD) and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) (see Shepherd, 1998; Chambers, 1995)), such efforts still tend to be rather limited in terms of actual cross-disciplinary interest, and consequently, there “is still plenty of scope for further holistic methodological development” (Shepherd, 1998).
24
Further, genuinely interdisciplinary analyses and approaches are still not orthodox practice. There remains a tendency to ‘bolt on’ perspectives of other disciplines rather than engage in genuinely multidisciplinary work in rural development. As a social scientist interested in inter-disciplinary rural development practice, I have encountered difficulties from without and with-in my disciplinary area. From outside my discipline area I have encountered some interactions which demonstrate that it is often (though not always) still the case, as Chambers (1993) argues, that “the ‘harder’ professions set the style and the main agenda”, and that “the professions concerned with people tend to come later”, and their ‘value’ is questioned – “they are rather a nuisance. Their contributions often appear negative. They often explain why things should not be done, or should be done more slowly. They raise objections and slow down disbursements and implementation”.
From within social science, if it is accepted that interest in rural development practice is a valid academic pursuit (which is not always the case – see Lawrence, 1996;xiii) then there is an implicit expectation that the interest will centre on the social dimensions of rural development, rather than being focussed on the pursuit of integrated, interdisciplinary analyses and action. In other words, it is the case in social science too that “normal is narrow” and that “professions are inbred and look inwards” (Chambers, 1993). It is probably not surprising then that, as Röling (1996) argues: “…despite the urgency of the problem, the development of an operational social science to complement technical disciplines is comparatively slow. Complex problems require multiple perspectives…Current approaches are dominated by technical and economic perspectives but lack an effective complementary social perspective”.
Despite the barriers to engaging in multi- and inter- disciplinary work on integrated approaches to rural development, there is a growing body of literature which is seeking to do just this – both in Australia and internationally. This is emerging from both a sociological perspective (see for example, Vanclay and Lawrence, 1995; Campbell, 1996; Lawrence, Vanclay and Furze, 1992), and from an agricultural/bioscience perspective. Indeed there have recently been some very fine attempts to integrate dimensions of sustainability in rural areas – such as Pretty’s (1998) integration of sustainable agriculture, localised food systems and rural community development (see also, Rodriguez et al., 1998). It is clear from these analyses that the development of ‘sustainable agriculture’ is not enough in itself to create stronger local rural economies and communities. What is required is not only the integration of agriculture, aquaculture, food processing, water use and fuel generation, but an integrative and wholistic approach to rural development which links sustainable agricultural development, with economic development and social development. As Rosset (2000) argues: “…sustainable land use should be an opportunity to improve the quality of the environment, including its physical (increased soil fertility, better quality air and water), biological (healthier and more diverse animal, plant, and human populations), and social, economic and institutional (greater social equity, cohesion, peace/stability, well-being) components”.
In effect, what is required is the development of integrated bio-social-systems approaches to rural development – the linking of sustainable agriculture with sustainable economic and community development. In the second part of this paper then, I examine three case studies in which such integrated approaches have been adopted. They all centre on the use of integrated approaches to food production or waste management, but my focus will not be on the technical aspects of these systems. Rather, I will illustrate how principles of integrated, endogenous development have been utilised to link such approaches to broader community development processes – in effect, how integrated biosystems can be become part of the development of stronger local communities. Each of the case studies focuses on a particular aspect of developing a more wholistic, integrated approach to rural development. I have had some direct involvement either with the work or the NGOs involved in two of these case studies (cases one and three), and learnt of the third one through my involvement with the NGO who
25
coordinated the work. I present them, not as definitive case studies which demonstrate ‘answers’, but as examples of how integrated food production and waste systems can become part of endogenous development processes which aim to build sustainable local communities. How technical capacity building can contribute to building social capacity: using a community development approach in the construction of an integrated waste-management system. All around the world it is currently very fashionable to speak of encouraging ‘local participation’ of people in rural development, whether that be in terms of technical projects or social development programs (see for example, Burkey, 1993; Haverkort et al., 1991; Oakley et al., 1991). Yet in many rural development projects “participation has remained at a very idealistic and ideological level” (Shepherd, 1998), and as a consequence, actual participation of stakeholders – particularly marginalised members of communities – has often remained a feature of report rhetoric rather than being a lived reality. Ensuring actual participation of people in development processes is difficult yet important – as Campbell (1996) highlights: “Involving the community can be time-consuming and frustrating, and it is scary for people, who are not naturally disposed to dealing with people and/or have not had relevant training. … Seen through the prism of technocratic institutional cultures, involving a range of stakeholders in an ill-defined, openended facilitation process is tedious, its outcomes are often intangible and its cost/benefits debatable. But the complexities of developing new ways of using the land which meet environmental, social and economic objectives mean that genuine stakeholder participation in generating, using and exchanging knowledge, in decision-making, and in resource use negotiation, simply cannot be side-stepped or fudged” (Campbell, 1996).
Further, it is clear that interactive participation, where people participate in all stages of the development process, from planning to action and reflection (Pretty, 1998) actually results in greater effectiveness and higher levels of sustainability (see particularly Narayan, 1993). The first case study that I wish to present takes the inclusion of participation to a new level. The participation of people in a water-supply and integrated waste management project in this example actually constituted a primary goal of the project. Projected outcomes for the whole community go a long way beyond participation in the technical aspects of designing and building the water supply and sanitation system.
Case Study I: Water-supply and integrated waste management project in East Timor This situation involves an indigenous East Timorese NGO working with a remote hamlet in mountainous country whose residents had identified problems accessing safe water supplies and disposing safely of their waste, with the result that the health of villagers was low and infant mortality much higher than surrounding areas. Furthermore, the poor soils in the area meant that food production was limited – particularly given the unavailability of fertilizers due to cost and political barriers. Long-term consultation with the community has resulted in plans to build locally maintainable water supply infrastructure and composting toilets which will eventually provide some compost material for use in agriculture. The NGO has been working with the community for a period of three years, and the project is continuing. What was particularly interesting in this project was the way in which the technical dimensions of building the water supply and waste-management system was integrated with social capacity building dimensions of rural community development. Although the project received external funding for the cost of non-locally available materials such as concrete, pipes and sand, most other materials were locally produced. All labour required for the development of the systems was locally supplied from residents of the hamlet – both men and women were involved, and children and young people attended and participated in training and maintenance workshops. The system was designed, implemented and maintained by the local people in conjunction with the community worker from the NGO.
26
Interestingly, for the first 18months of the project no technical work was begun. It was the policy of the NGO that no technical works begin until the social foundations had been laid which would ensure the sustainability of any infrastructure that was eventually built. A worker was based permanently in the hamlet during this period, and his work focused on building the social capacity and social institutions necessary for the villagers to be involved in designing, implementing and maintaining a water supply and waste-management system. This involved a number of stages of work. First, it involved an analysis of the existing local social systems and local institutions of village management. Secondly, it involved linking with these systems and institutions in such a way that the social fabric of the community would not be radically altered – ie. that the project would enhance rather than replace existing social infrastructure – whilst at the same time identifying and integrating groups marginalised within this traditional fabric (eg. women, poorest people). Thirdly, it involved working with the villagers to build upon these systems and institutions in such a way that they could engage in the design, implementation and maintenance of the physical infrastructure. This involved particularly residents organising management structures which could support the physical infrastructure – such as user groups, maintenance rosters, training groups, working bees and so on. Finally, it involved working with the villagers to identify local sources of materials for the building of the systems, local knowledge which would enhance the design of the system, and local wisdom about the nature of natural systems (such as conditions in the wet season) which could enhance the sustainability of the system over time. Due to the impact of the crisis which engulfed East Timor after the vote for independence, this process was severely interrupted and is only now beginning to be re-established. It is too early to evaluate exactly how effective the process has been, but there are a number of elements which have already been identified by members of the community and NGO workers as representing important ‘achievements’ or ‘outcomes’: 1. Villagers have participated in and managed initial phases of the technical work, including building containing structures to channel water from the source to piping infrastructure; identifying and agreeing upon sites for building water access tanks and composting toilets; and sourcing local renewable materials for the building of water cleansing systems. 2. Villagers have used the enhanced social institutions developed over the course of the social capacity building phase of the project to initiate other projects and programs concerning their village, thus indicating the transferability of social capacity to other dimensions of rural development within contexts; 3. Village leaders have shared their learnings from the project with networks beyond the one hamlet involved in the particular project – creating possibilities for broader sharing of ‘results’. This case study illustrates how the integration of technical and social capacity building can strengthen not only the results obtained within a defined project, or within one dimension of rural development, but can enhance rural development in a whole village system. Integrating realms of development: an integrated rural development project in Thailand A number of commentators have recently highlighted the indirect social and economic benefits which can be gained from sustainable land use and agriculture – for example, Campbell (1996) argues that though Landcare began with a focus on land degradation issues: “Landcare groups tend to broaden their concerns, initially from a sole land degradation issue (say salinity) to a range of degradation issues, then to a more positive focus on developing a more sustainable
27
farming system, which then leads to the integration of social and economic concerns into group activities”.
Pretty (1995) also highlights how sustainable, integrated agriculture can have broader benefits: “There is less need for expansion into non-agricultural area, so ensuring that valuable wild plant and animal species are not lost. There is reduced contamination and pollution of the environment, so reducing the costs incurred by farming households, consumers of food and national economies as a whole. There is less likelihood of the breakdown of rural culture. There is local regeneration, often with the reversal of migration patterns as the demand for labour grows within communities. And, psychologically, there is a greater sense of hopefulness towards the future”.
The second case study demonstrates how an integrated agriculture-aquaculture system not only contributed benefits to social, economic and environmental development in a particular group of villages in rural Thailand, but actually resulted from a complex, integrated analysis by the villagers of what factors were influencing the environmental, social and economic issues they were confronting. What is illustrated in this case study is, in effect, how an integrated biosystem can be one part of a much larger, integrated rural development process.
Case Study II: Integrated Agriculture-Aquaculture Project in rural Thailand This project was implemented through a partnership between a community-based organisation in Northern Thailand, and an Australian development NGO. The project centred on a number of villages in a catchment area surrounded by forest that was being illegally logged by both villagers and external corporations, resulting in deforestation, increased erosion and exacerbation of drought conditions in the area. There was also a range of social issues effecting the villages – including high rates of ruralurban migration amongst the younger population, increasing income disparities amongst villagers and resultant breakdowns in community cohesion. The project began when some of the villagers associated with a small community-based organisation involved in sustainable agriculture, identified the relationship between their decreasing agricultural yields and the degradation of the land caused by the illegal logging operations in the forests around the villages. And then continued to map the interconnections between various factors influencing the life of their villages. Figure One illustrates the mapped out interconnections between the issues facing the villages.
28
Extra income for villagers participating in logging Deforestation Extensive logging - primarily illegal Severe drought and erosion Silting and water contamination Increased exposure to AIDS Decreased yields Decreased income Increasing economic inequalities
Increased rural-urban migration - particularly of youth
Increased malnutrition
Increased borrowing Increased debt Increased social division & decreased community cohesion
Employed people send home large amounts money
Figure One. Complex of Issues and Problems in villages in Northern Thailand
29
Figure Two illustrates how action concerning this dimension of the problems surrounding the villages led not only to the development of an integrated agriculture-aquaculture project, but also to a variety of initiatives aimed at addressing the complex environmental, social and economic concerns of the villages.
Development of alternative employment for villagers in illegal logging
Link with other forest groups in province – lobbying government for increased forest protection
Establishment of CO to address conservation issues – forest and agriculture Establishment of integrated agriculture-acquaculture system – villager designed and developed (rice-fish)
Increased income, Increased availability of food.
Participatory action research to establish extent of damage
Establishment of savings group and microcredit initiatives
Farmers realise relationship between deforestation, drought, erosion and decreased yield
Reforestation project
Increased local opportunities for young people Investment in social development projects – eg. AIDS support centre; employment initiatives
? Possibility of reducing rates of AIDS contraction
? Possibility of reducing ruralurban migration
Figure Two. Complex Intervention: Toward endogenous integrated rural development
30
Integrating Rural and Urban Development: Integrated Farming and Community Supported Agriculture A concerning aspect of rural development in Australia is the increasing tensions between ‘bush’ and ‘city’ – a divide which led one government minister to comment recently that Australia is now comprised of two separate societies, one urban, the other, rural. Media portrayals of the situation in rural Australia often fuels this divide, with environmental degradation increasingly ‘blamed’ on rural areas, and the depiction of rural social problems as draining government funds. What is often missed in analyses about the problems of rural communities, is the interconnections between rural and urban development. Indeed, one could go so far as to say that people in urban communities actually need to engage in a great deal of learning about how their consumption habits and unsustainable resource use is integrally linked to pressures on rural environments and communities. This is particularly the case given what Falvey (1998) sees as the: “increasing separation of urban population from food production which worldwide has reduced knowledge of food production while increasing concern for environmental care”.
Integrated approaches to sustainable rural development thus need not only to integrate processes at the local rural level, but also to integrate analysis and practice across urban and rural contexts. In terms of agricultural sustainability, this implies that: “Sustainability ought to mean…more than just agricultural activities that are environmentally neutral or positive; it implies the capacity for activities to spread beyond the project in both space and time” (Rodriguez et al., 1998)
The final case study I wish to present centres on an attempt to integrate an urban-rural analysis of the environmental, economic and social impacts of modern industrial food production which is, according to some commentators now a “truly global food system” focussing on “distance and durability” as key features of food products (Lezberg and Kloppenburg, 1996). It illustrates a model of cooperation between farmers and consumers which originated in Japan and Europe, and which is now increasingly popular in the United States, and is emerging (though in different forms) in parts of Australia. “Community Supported Agriculture” is the generic name given to a diversity of such initiatives which provide a forum for enacting the belief that “in the arena of food production and processing, farmers and consumers need to collectively determine appropriate production techniques” that are environmentally and economically sustainable, and which enhance social relationships both between farmers and consumers, and amongst consumers (Lezberg and Kloppenburg, 1996). The practices which have emerged from such forums are varied, ranging from direct farmer-consumer marketing and farmers markets; subscription farming; development of farming cooperatives or collective farm management (such as those initiated by David Brunckhorst around the New England region of NSW); and farmer-consumer cooperatives which aim to link consumers in various ways directly with farmers (such as the example provided below) (for examples see, Pretty, 1998; Greer, 1999). There is plenty of scope for the development of such initiatives in Australia, though they must evolve out of the particular conditions facing rural communities and farmers in Australia, rather than be developed as a copy of overseas examples where more densely populated rural areas and smaller distances are the norm.
31
Case Study III: An Urban Initiative to Support Integrated Food Production This action learning project grew out of a learning circle initiated by an urban-based development education NGO in Brisbane. The learning circle focussed on developing understandings of how sustainability, poverty and technology were linked – it was a program focussed on a collection of readings, videos and sets of suggested discussion questions. The group involved twelve people who previously did not know each other, and who met over a period of ten weeks to engage in the discussions and learnings. After the completion of the set program, the members of the learning circle decided to keep meeting to discuss the possibilities of engaging in actions concerning what had been learnt during the course of the ten weeks. One of the major modules of the readings had focussed on food production, and this was chosen as the area around which the group would focus it’s first action. The group members were predominantly low-income people (a high number of students and unemployed people); ranged in age from 22 to 58; lived in inner suburbs of Brisbane; and the group had a fairly even gender balance. They identified the following concerns about food production and consumption within their own lives:
A disconnection from the food they bought, and an increasing concern regarding its safety and nutritional value;
An interest in purchasing organic food, but difficulties enacting this because of the extra expense of organic food purchased at specified organic produce stores, or in supermarkets;
A concern regarding the dominance of major supermarket chains in the sale of food, and a desire to initiate community-based food distribution operations which de-commodified food and enhanced social relationships between people.
As a result of these concerns, the group formed a food cooperative, and initially purchased organic food (fruit and vegetables, eggs, nuts, grains, dried products and organic cleaners) in bulk from a distributor. The group then met once a week to distribute the food and products amongst themselves (following a communal meal). Although the group increased in size during the period when this was the model which the group adopted (to a group of twenty people), a number of difficulties arose concerning this chosen model:
There was a growing recognition of the fact that much of the organic produce was grown at large distances from Brisbane, and a concern by group members that sustainable food production should also mean ‘local’ food production;
That distributors were still making large profits from the produce sold, and that group members were concerned at what was considered an unfair distribution of income between distributors and actual growers;
There was also a concern that the members of the group still did not really have a ‘connection’ to the food, as the growers and producers were still anonymous in the process and therefore, the members were still not convinced that they were supporting sustainable, organic and integrated production.
Because of these concerns, the group decided to initiate a direct relationship with an organic grower on the outskirts of Brisbane, who agreed to provide a range of organic vegetables and fruits to the group in exchange for a guarantee that the members would pay the same rate as was being paid for the produce at the market (ie. the farmer would benefit from an increased income because there were no distributors involved). The group negotiated with the farmer as to what could be grown in different seasons, and what crops could be effectively companion planted to enhance yields and reduce inputs. The group also developed a roster through which each member of the group would collect the produce at least once every six months, spending the day with the farmer to harvest the produce.
32
Although the group disbanded after six months of this relationship beginning (due to the urban-rural migration of five of the most prominent members(!!); and financial hardships experienced by the grower involved), there were many learnings from the process. Most importantly, the members of the group have maintained an interest in the links between urban living and rural development, and the interconnectedness of urban and rural sustainability. A number of the members have gone on to form other food cooperatives based on the principles of community supported agriculture and permaculture, and continue to be involved in exploring possibilities for sustainable and socially integrated food production and consumption.
Conclusion: Two core ideas lie at the heart of what I have presented in this paper: 1. That, at the level of principles, there are commonalities of approach between integrated systems methodologies and community development methodologies; 2. That these principles could form the basis of ‘new’ integrated rural development methodologies that see sustainability as having biological, social, economic and political dimensions. Three case studies illustrated different dimensions of how the two methods (IBS and CD) could be used in such integrated rural development processes. In conclusion I wish to draw attention to a number of broad learnings from the three case studies and the preceding discussions concerning endogenous development processes, and link them with literature concerning both IBS and rural CD. In addition, I would like to signal some areas which require both further attention, and further exploration such that effective, integrated bio-social systems can be developed. Each of the case studies illustrated the social context of an implemented integrated biosystem, and demonstrated the interconnections between such systems and their broader social and economic functions in communities. A number of conclusions can be drawn from these illustrations:
Focus on integrating the social and technical dimensions of sustainability can improve not only the sustainability and long-term viability of individual projects, but can actually contribute to the creation of “enhanced social mechanisms for building resilience” (Folke et al., in Coop and Brunckhorst, 1999) thereby developing stronger local economies and communities.
There is a need to further explore how certain kinds of social relationships are embedded in our systems of resource use and management, and thereby recognise that: “when people change the way they use their resources – land, water, plants, and animals – they are liable to alter their social relationships as well” (Gabriel, 1991). Thus, a change in resource use which emphasises the importance of integrated systems changes not only the relationship between farmer and resources, but has the potential to impact on the nature of social relationships also – generating social capital in addition to natural capital (Pretty, 1998).
Integration of methods such as CD (which focus on mobilisation of communities to define and address their needs) could assist in addressing concerns such as that raised by Rose (1999) when he recommended that in order to progress the uptake of integrated waste-management systems: “research should be directed toward the development of methods to mobilise local community groups in self-help sanitation schemes centred on key technologies”. This further indicates that sustainability is multidimensional, requiring multidimensional and multidisciplinary approaches and methods, and that addressing sustainability requires greater degrees of cooperation and a recognition of the interconnected nature of rural social development, agricultural sustainability and ecological sustainability (Vanclay and Lawrence, 1995). Further, if sustainable agriculture is to succeed, what is needed is “the full participation and collective action of rural people and land
33
managers” (Pretty, 1995). Mobilising communities to engage in collective action to enhance sustainable resource management, production and consumption is a most challenging, complex task - one which needs integrated approaches which recognise that sustainability is a North-South issue, one which involves rural and urban interactions, one which is the responsibility of both producer and consumer, and one which is increasingly important not just for individual farmers and landholders, but to whole communities, locally and globally.
In an age in which things ‘global’ seem to be emphasised, integrated rural development needs to focus on the potentials and benefits of encouraging local approaches to creating ecologically, economically, and socially sustainable systems: -
“there is increasing evidence that local-level institutions learn and develop the capability to respond to environmental feedbacks faster than do centralised agencies” (Coop and Brunckhorst, 1999);
-
“What is also required (for the success of sustainable agriculture) will be increased attention to community-based action through local institutions (Pretty, 1995);
-
What is needed is “an alternative conceptualisation of food security that is based on sustainable, self-reliant, local/regional food production…founded on the regional reinvestment of capital and local job creation, the strength of community institutions, and direct democratic participation in the local food economy” (Lezberg and Kloppenburg, 1996).
Care needs to be taken to ensure that integrated rural development practice recognises that sustainability is a contextually based social learning process rather than a set of techniques to be applied universally. This is a learning which is key both in terms of the diffusion of technologies and of methods of social organisation –as Pretty (1995) highlights: “If …resource conserving technologies and social organisations…are forced on rural people, then they too will go the way of ‘modern’ agricultural technologies. The emerging danger is that agricultural professionals, in promoting new technologies that are low cost, sustainable and productive, will forget the diverse conditions and needs of rural people”.
Finally, there is a need for more opportunities to dialogue across disciplines about notions of sustainability, such that genuine integrated approaches can emerge at the levels of analysis and practice, and such that Chambers (1993) assertion that “disciplines, professions and departments are so organised and interlocked that gaps between them have low priority and low status”, can begin to be reversed.
Integrated rural development that emphasises ecological, economic and social sustainability is a complex business. It should not be idealised nor based on nostalgic, unrealistic notions that reflect neither the difficulties nor the complexities of change – whether that be technological change or social change. Perhaps it may be apt to conclude with a passage from Bertrolt Brecht – a piece which translates as ‘common understanding’ – which could gives a clue as to how to further develop a partnership between integrated systems and community development: “…it takes a lot of things to change the world: Anger and tenacity. Science and indignation. The quick initiative, the long reflection. The cold patience and the infinite perseverance. The understanding of the particular case and the understanding of the ensemble: Only the lessons of reality can teach us to transform reality”
34
References Burkett, I. (2000). The Challenges of Building ‘real’ and ‘virtual’ human communities in the 21st Century, The Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, UNESCO, forthcoming. Burkey, S. (1993). People First: A Guide to Self-Reliant, Participatory Rural Development, Zed Books, London. Campbell, C. (1996). Land Literacy in Australia: Landcare and other New Approaches to Inquiry and Learning for Sustainability, in A. Budelman (ed), Agricultural R&D at the Crossroads: Merging Systems Research and Social Actor Approaches, Royal Tropical Institute, The Netherlands, pp. 169-184 Chambers, R. (1983). Rural Development: Putting the Last First, Longman, Harlow, Essex, England. Chambers, R. (1997). Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last, Intermediate Technology Publications, London. Coop, P. and Brunckhorst, D. (1999). Triumph of the commons: age-old participatory practices provide lessons for institutional reform in the rural sector. Australian Journal of Environmental Management 6: 69-77. Day, G. (1998). Working with the Grain? Towards Sustainable Rural and Community Development. Journal of Rural Studies 14:89-105. Falvey, L. (1998). Food Production and Natural Resource Management. Australian Journal of Environmental Management 5: 9-15. Gabriel, T. (1991). The Human Factor in Rural Development. Belhaven Press, London Greer, L. (1999). Community Supported Agriculture, Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas, available at: http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/csa.html#origins Haverkort, B., van der Kamp, J., and Waters-Bayer, A. (eds) (1991). Joining Farmers’ Experiments: Experiences in Participatory Technology Development. Intermediate Technology Publications, London. Lawrence, G., Vanclay, F., and Furze, B. (eds) (1992). Agriculture, Environment and Society: Contemporary Issues for Australia. Macmillan Press, South Melbourne. Lezberg, S. and Kloppenburg, J. (1996). That We All Might Eat: Regionally-Reliant Food Systems for the 21st Century. Development (Society for International Development) 4: 28-33 Narayan, D. (1993). Focus on Participation: Evidence from 121 Rural Water Supply Projects, UNDP-World Bank Water Supply and Sanitation Program, World Bank, Washington DC Oakley, P. et al. (1991). Projects with People: The Practice of Participation in Rural Development, International Labour Office, Geneva. Pretty, J. (1995). Regenerating Agriculture: Politics and Practice for Sustainability and Self-Reliance, Earthscan Publications, London. Pretty, J. (1998). The Living Land: Agriculture, Food and Community Regeneration in Rural Europe, Earthscan Publications, London. Pretty, J., Guijt, I., Scoones, I., and Thompson, J. (1995). Regenerating Agriculture: The Agroecology of LowExternal Input and Community-Based Development, in Kirkby, J., O’Keefe, P., and Timberlake, L., The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Development, Earthscan Publications, London, pp125-145. Ray, C. (1999). Endogenous Development in the Era of Reflexive Modernity, Journal of Rural Studies 15: 257267. Rodriguez, L., Tohomas, J.,, Preston, R., and Van Lai, N. (1998). Integrated Farming Systems for Efficient use of Local Resources, in E. Foo, and R. Senta, (eds) Integrated Bio-Systems in Zero Emissions
35
Applications: Proceedings of the Internet Conference on Integrated Bio-systems, available at: http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs Röling, N. (1996). Creating Human Platforms to Manage Natural Resources: First Results of a Research Programme, in A. Budelman, (ed) Agricultural R&D at the Crossroads: Merging Systems Research and Social Actor Approaches, Royal Tropical Institute, The Netherlands, pp. 149-158 Rose, G. (1999). Community-Based Technologies for Domestic Wastewater Treatment and Reuse: Options for Urban Agriculture, IDRC Research Programs: Cities Feeding People: Report 27, available at: http://www.idrc.ca/cfp/rep27_e.html
Rossett, P. (2000). The Multiple Functions and Benefits of Small Farm Agriculture in the Context of Global Trade Negotiations, Development (Society for International Development) 43: 77-82. Shepherd, A. (1998). Sustainable Rural Development, Macmillan Press, London. Vanclay, F. and Lawrence, G. (1995). The Environmental Imperative: Eco-Social Concerns for Australian Agriculture, CQU Press, Rockhampton.
36
Integrated Bio-Systems: A Global Perspective Jacky Foo
Integrated Bio-Systems Network Introduction
The holistic approach to utilise a resource fully is not a new concept or a new practice. It is common sense. In the ancient Egyptian painting of about 2000 BC that was found from the Tomb of Thebaine, it seems to present an integrated bio-system for pond aquaculture and where nutrients in pond water were used for cultivation of flowers, vegetables and fruits. Other early civilisations such as those in Mexico and China have also developed integrated farming systems that are unique to their regions. The Chinampa system (Foo, 2000) at one time provided food and flowers to Mexico city. Integrated bio-systems are still widely practised in China where there exists numerous types of systems of different sizes for the production of food, fuel, biofertiliser and fibre (Ruddle et al. 1983, Ruddle & Zhong 1988, Li, 1993, Wang, 1998). What is new with the approach in today;s application is the incorporation of new technologies and a better understand especially on the material and nutrient flows of such integrated bio-systems. "Integrare" is the latin verb that means to make whole and to complete by adding parts or to combine parts into a whole. To the biologists, an integrated biosystem would contain at least two biological activities or subsystems and a generic focus is balancing the flow of materials and how nutrients from one sub-system can be used for food production in another.
Figure 1: A schematic diagram on the material flow in an integrated biosystem
37
In Nature, there are many integrated biological systems that are often complexly interlinked with one another. Examples of such systems, like those on the food chains for different animals, are commonly presented to primary school students. Natural food production systems are limited by their low productivity per unit land or water space. These systems are now less attractive as there is an increasing demand to produce more food or resources from a unit space. The failure to control human population has already led to disastrous consequences in many countries. In India, as an example, the human population between 1940 to 2000 increased from 400 million to more than 1200 million. Correspondingly, food grain production rose 4 times from 50 million tons to 200 million tonnes between 1950 and 2000. However, consumption on a per capita basis increased only slightly to 435 gm cereals per day from 400 gm in 1950 (Khosla, 2000). By 2025, 50 % of the world's population are predicted to be living in cities and this will further aggravate the food and resource situation as the major portion of the world's population will be consumers rather than producers. Many countries already know that they need to produce or import 2 or 3 times more food in order to cope with their local needs in the future. To an industrialist and a farmer, integrated biosystems make it possible to generate new products by using by-products produced from a factory or a farm. Agro-food processing industries and marketing of crop produce often use only a small fraction of the primary biomass generated. A major part is crop residue or industrial by-products or wastes that need to be disposed of. As environmental pressures and costs in incineration or landfilling increases, there is a need to change from the linear model for production and waste management to a more integrated approach that can generate income or make savings. At the same time it should also contribute to sustainable development in a more environmentally sound manner. This challenge is now paving the way to the revival of traditional practices and new opportunities to apply the integrated bio-systems approach for household, commercial and large scale bio-systems. The Integrated Bio-Systems Approach The Integrated Bio-Systems (IBS) approach follows three basic principles. The first principle is to use all biological organic materials and wastes instead of throwing them away. The second principle is to obtain at least two products from a waste. The third principle is to close the loop for the material and nutrient flows to achieve total use of a resource and zero waste disposal. The IBS approach has many benefits and potentials but it also has limitations. IBS principles were originally developed from situations where natural resources were limited and when the full use of resources is crucially interlinked with human survival. So low-input and subsistence farming systems often used the IBS approach with livestock-crop integration or in livestock-aquaculture integration. These practices may just involve recycling of nutrients by direct use of wastes as animal feed or application of manure on crop fields or in fish ponds. Today, IBS principles are also used to solve problems related to waste management and to inprove inductrial productivity. Integrated bio-systems currently use a rather limited number of biological technologies for converting wastes into biofertilisers, energy, food and animal feed. The commonly used ones are composting, vermiculture, and anaerobic digestion and they are crucial processes that make nutrients readily available to plants or to stablise wastes. There is a need to improve the efficiency of these technologies, and in some cases even to simplify them further. One such improvement is the use of polyethylene to construct biogas digesters. The cultivation of insect larvae, ensilaging and microbial protein enrichment of plant material or agro-industrial wastes are a few potential technologies that can be rapidly incorporated into some integrated bio-systems. The IBS approach has only been applied recently by industry for utilisation and management of agroindustrial wastes. One such application is by breweries, e.g. in Fiji, (Foo, 1995), Samoa (Foo & Dalhammar, 2000) and Namibia (Foo, 1998) where brewery spent grainis also used for mushroom cultivation, yeast in feeds and treated waste water for aquaculture. Detailed information from other
38
types of industries that use the IBS approach is however still lacking. The IBS approach can enhance sustainability of industries through savings by reducing the cost for disposal of wastes and via income generation from new value-added products from wastes. The use of agro-industrial by-products has become an interesting area for future business opportunities as the price of raw materials and products derived from petroleum. At the national level, policy makers are attracted to the IBS approach because it provides employment and reduces pollution at the same time. There are many case studies using the IBS approach in agriculture and aquaculture with a lesser number in industry, forestry and human habitat. This paper provides a global perspective of some interesting integrated bio-systems for small and large scale operations. They are: 1. the pig-biogas-duckweed-cassava IBS in Vietnam 2. brewery wastes-duck-insect larvae-aquatic plants-earthworm IBS in Samoa 3. compost toilet and graywater garden system in Fiji 4. the St. Petersburg Eco-house, Russia 5. Pozo Verde Farm in Colombia 6. Sewage-duckweed-fish-banana IBS in Bangladesh 7. Rice-Flower-fish IBS in China
Example 1: Pig-Biogas-Duckweed-Cassava IBS in Vietnam
Figure 2: Livestock-biogas-duckweed-cassava IBS in Vietnam
This example is unique because it requires only 108 m2 of land and achieves zero waste disposal. The schematic chart (Figure 2) shows an integrated livestock-biodigester-duckweed-cassava biosystem (Rodríguez, Preston & Nguyen, 1998). The pig sub-system can raise 4 Mong Cai sows. Each sow is fed with basal feed (400 g/day boiled whole soya bean seed with added lime and salt and 500 g/day
39
water spinach) with sugar palm juice and any other vegetation or root crop that is available. Manure is fed to a 3m3 plastic biogas digester to produce biogas (used for boiling soya bean) and the effluent goes into eight duckweed ponds of 7m2 each (total 56 m2). Duckweed yield (fresh weight) is 100 g/m2/day with about 6% of dry matter and 35% crude protein or about 5.6 Kg of wet weight of duckweed is available daily. Live weight gains of pigs ranged from 350-450 g/day. The cassava trees are heavily fertilised with sludge from the duckweed ponds and can produce about 1 kg of leaves/m² every 2 months. This amounts to an annual yield of up to 60 tonnes leaves/ha (Preston et al., 1998). The dry matter content is around 25% and the protein content of the dry matter is 25% (Nguyen & Rodriguez. 1998). Cassava leaf can contain a high content of HCN and is ensiled anaerobically with 5% of molasses using a plastic bag (Nguyen et al 1998) for 6 weeks and then fed directly to the pigs. The system has been demonstrated to be more profitable and provides better nutrition to the family than a sugar production system for sugar palm. This crop system often leads to deforestation because firewood is needed to concentrate the juice. In the IBS system, except for the plastic and PVC pipes for the digester, all other construction materials (bamboo, roofing materials) needed are locally available at the site.
Photo 1: Livestock-plastic biodigesterDuckweed system in UTA-Vietnam. Picture by Lylian Rodriguez
Photo 2: Biogas-Duckweed-Cassava in UTA-Vietnam. Picture by Lylian Rodriguez
Photo 3 : A mixture of Duckweed-Rice Bran feed to laying hens in UTA-Vietnam. Picture by Lylian Rodriguez
Photo 4: Farmer taking the sap from the sugar palm. Picture by Khieu Borin
40
Example 2 : Use of Agro-Industrial wastes at a household level in Samoa Breweries and vegetable oil industries generate high-protein residues and pressed cakes that can be used directly as animal feed rations. Yet in some locations such as in Apia, Samoa, these residues are not fully used and are dumped. Brewery spent grains is given away free of charge while coconut meal is sold at US$ 2.00 per bag (using recycled 40kg-flour bag) at the factory sites. This example demonstrates that fresh and stale brewery spent grains and yeast can be used as duck feed and to grow insect larvae. Duck manure is washed into ponds to grow aquatic plants (Salvinia and duckweed (Leng, 1999)) and mosquito fish. Feed residues are buried into the ground to grow earthworms which are dug out periodically to feed the ducks.
Figure 3: Schematic diagram of IBS for raising ducks using agro-industrial wastes.
The project started in July 2000 and so data on the material flow are not available yet. There is the potential to produce 3-5 kg (fresh weight) of aquatic plants per day from about 100 m2 pond area. The project will provide information for its economical operation at a household level for 20 ducks. Plans to develop a large scale operation have been made.
Photo 5 : Picture of ducks of integrated bio-system in Samoa. Copyright: IBSnet, 2000
Photo 6 : Picture showing play-pond in front with duckweed pond on the back right and Salvinia - mosquito fish pond on the left background. Copyright: IBSnet, 2000
41
Example 3 : Compost Toilet and Graywater Garden System in Fiji The compost toilet and washgarden system is used by the Lalati eco-resort on the island of Beqa in Fiji. It is an example of an on-site zero sewage discharge system with a strategy in creating beautiful gardens while preventing pollution with ecological integrity. The system has a micro-flush toilet and the flushwater is led into a modified rollaway trash container serving as the composter. The composter is fitted with a hanging net to catch solids and allows flushwater to flow into a concrete trench filled to stones with a top soil. Different varieties of broad-leaved gingers and canna lilies are used in this case to absorb and transpire the water into the air. Lalati Eco-Resort has won an award for this system from the WHO for best eco-tourism practices. The system below is designed for warm countries and offer an appropriate solution with ecological integration to provide a better sanitation where central sewage treatment plants are lacking.
Photo 7 : General view showing washwater garden and bungalow at Lalati eco-resort. Below the vertical vent/exhaust chimney is the composter for the compost toilet. Photo: Sustainable Strategies and Affiliates
Photo 8 : Composter of toilet system with a hanging net to hold and separate solids from liquid. Liquid flows through pipe on right into wastwater garden. Photo: Sustainable Strategies and Affiliates
42
Photo 9 : Washgarden protected by transparent Lexan roof from rain and with different varieties of broadleaved gingers and canna lilies to absorb and transpire water from concrete 1 m deep and 1.5. m wide trench. Photo: Sustainable Strategies and Affiliates
Example 4 : The St Petersburg's EcoHouse The Eco-house in St. Petersburg is an example of sustainable urban community development (Yemelin & Mehlmann, 2000). Among the massive standard apartment blocks in the Moskovsky district of St. Petersburg, Russia, an average nine-stories building was chosen as the site. It has 267 apartments with 500 residents (60% senior citizens) in cramped apartments built in 1966. It had 1700 m2 of flat roof and 600 m2 unusable wet basement that was infested with rats and breeding mosquitoes. After 3 years, 50 people from 25 apartments are now involved in the project to (a) separate inorganic garbage, including selling some for recycling (b) process in-house organic waste into compost, using worm culture in the basement (c) produce organic food, flowers, tuff grass and plantlets on the roof-top. Monthly the vermiculture sub-system processes 200 kg of food garbage in winter and 300 kg in summer. The roof-top garden is 25 m above ground and has better air quality. As access to the rooftop is controlled, theft is nil. Two greenhouses are constructed between chimney stacks to use the heat to extend growing period in spring and autumn. Food grown on the roof-top represents a significant savings especially for the elderly. Products for sale are: currant berry bushes grown from cuttings, flowers, tuff grass and biohumus product of worm composting. There are many positive sociopsychological effects of the project, such as empowerment of residents, bettering of psychological climate especially with the senior citizens.
Photo 11 : Vermi-composting in the basement Photo: Valentin Yemelin
Photo 12 : Harvesting Tomatoes from the roof-top greenhouse Photo: Valentin Yemelin
Photo 13 : Watering roof-top lawn/nursery with plantlets Photo: Valentin Yemelin
Photo 14 : Inside view of roof-top greenhouse Photo: Valentin Yemelin
43
Example 5 : Pozo Verde Farm in Colombia This is an example of a large IBS farm. Pozo Verde Farm is a livestock farm of 50 ha in size, of which 2 ha is used for building space and the rest for forage (42 ha of sugar cane, taro, grass, forage trees, aquatic plants) with an additional 5 ha of wetlands. It buys ingredients and formulated feed for the sows, growing and fattening pigs and broilers. All manure (920 tons/yr) is used in the farm (Figure 4, Table 1) to produce energy (19,200 m3 biogas), vermi-compost (160 tons), feed additives (52.6 tons as chicken manure) and forage (6,323 tons) for cattle and pigs.
Figure 4: Integrated Bio-System at Pozo Verde Farm, Colombia.(Chara, J.D. et. al. 2000).
44
Table 1 : Material flow at the Pozo Verde Farm, Colombia (modified after Chara, J.D. et al. 2000) SUBSYSTEM
Pigs 73 breeding sows 595 growing & fattening
INPUTS (purchased or produced in Farm) Formulated feed: 384 ton Aquatic plants:109 ton Giant taro: 5.6 ton
166 Dual Purpose Cattle
Chicken litter: 52.6 ton Pizamo foliage: 46 ton Star grass: 5,920 ton Sugarcane tops:340 ton 52 Buffaloes Molasses : 23.2 ton Vinaza : 15.5 tons Rice bran: 6.9 tons Calcium Carbonate: 0.7 Poultry (29,000 broilers kept Formulated feed: in 41 day cycles) 579 ton Forage production Biodigester effluent: (42 hectares and 1 ha pond) 15,000 m3 Chicken litter:450 ton Earthworm compost: 80 ton Earthworms Cattle dung: 230 ton (300 m2 area) Buffalo dung: 37 ton Wastewater Wastewater:13,360 m3 Decontamination Pig manure: 48.1 ton systems (4 digesters with total 178 m3 digester volume, 1 ha pond)
PRODUCTS (To the market)
BYPRODUCTS (To other subsystems)
Pork meat: 107.4 ton
Wastewater: 10,477m3 Pig manure: 48.1 ton Manure: 230 ton Wastewater: 2,883 m3 Manure: 37 ton Animal draught: 657 Kwh
Milk: 159,200 litres. Weaned calves: 6.25 ton Milk: 13,600 Cheese: 2.2 ton "Kumis": 4,160 liters Six trained draught buffaloes Broilers: 303 ton
Worm compost: 80 ton
Chicken litter: 600 ton Foliage biomass: 6,323 ton
Worm compost: 80 ton digester effluent: 15,000 m3 Biogás: 19,200 m3 aquatic plants: 109 tons
Example 6 : Sewage-Duckweed-Fish-Banana IBS in Bangladesh The Mirzapur Farm Complex (Iqbal, 1999) is more than 11 hectares in size and uses chemical fertiliser to grow duckweed to raise fish. The sewage-duckweed-fish-banana integrated biosystem is a special unit (2.5 ha) that uses nutrients from sewage to grow duckweed instead of commercial fertilisers. Community waste water of 2000-3000 inhabitants from a school, residences and a hospital (125-270 m3 / day) flows into a 0.2 ha duckweed covered sedimentation pond (retention time=16-7 days). Wastewater is then pumped into a 500 m plug-flow lagoon (width=12.6 -13 m, depth=0.4 m at inflow point, 0.9 m at outflow point, retention time=about 20 days). Duckweed is manually harvested to feed fish that is raised on 3 ponds of 0.2 ha each. Duckweed harvest average 650 kg ww/ha/day (Feb93-Mar94) while in the wet season it is 1000-1200 kg/ha/day. This is extrapolated to about 17 tons (dw)/ha/yr. Stocking of carps (18,000-20,000 fish/ha) is done in July and harvested after 10-12 months. The feed is duckweed (60% dw), and mustard oil cake (40% dw). Fish yield in 1994 was 10.58 t/ha/yr (FCR=2.8) and in 1995 - 12.62 t/ha/yr (FCR=3.3). 60 % harvest is sold to the hospital while the remainder is sold at local market. Bananas is grown on the dikes and yield about 100 tons per year.
45
Figure 5 : Diagram showing overview of Sewage-duckweed-fish-banana integrated bio-system. (Sascha Iqbal. 1999)
Photo 15 : Plug-flow lagoon for cultivation of duckweed. Photo: Gregory Rose (1999)
Photo 17 : Harvesting Fish Photo: Gregory Rose (1999)
Photo 16 : Harvesting duckweed. Photo: Gregory Rose (1999)
Table 2 : Typical wastewater parameters of a duckweed-covered plug flow lagoon during dry/winter season in Bangladesh. (Sascha Iqbal, 1999)
Parameter
Loading rate (kg/ha/day)
BOD5
48-60
Kjeldahl-N Total P
4.2 0.8
o-PO43-
---
NH4+
---
NO3-
---
Influent (mg/l)
Effluent (mg/l)
125 (80-160) 10.5 1.95 0.95 (0.5-2.5) 8 (3-20) 0.03 (0.05-1)
5 (8) 2.7 0.4 0.05 (0.05-1) 0.03 (0.1-1) 0.05 (0.05-1)
46
Reduction in concentration (%) 96 (90-95) 74 77 95 (90-95) 99 (90-99) ---
The values in paratheses are based on a 4-year monitoring (from 1990). Influent data was corrected for dilution effect caused by groundwater supply. Concentration of NH4+ and NO3- are expressed in mg N/l. The concentration of o-PO43- is given in mg P/l. Values were corrected for a leakage-free lagoon. Faecal coliforms in the influent occur at 45,700 cfu/ml while the effluent contains less than 100 cfu/ml. This is within the maximum WHO standard for wastewater discharge. Kabir 1995, Islam et al 1996 and Edwards et al 1987 considered the water quality as safe. Krishnan & Smith (1987) reported acceptable levels of heavy metals and pesticides but as duckweed can tolerate and accumulate high concentrations of heavy metals and organic compounds, monitoring of heavy metal content in the influent is advised. Example 7 : Rice-Flower-fish IBS in China The application of surface aquaponics has developed in China since 1989 (Song et al 1991, Song et al 1996) because of decreasing area of arable land and to fully use inland water surface. In 1996 the area of pond culture alone was 1.96 million ha in China with the fish production of 8.11 million tons (Chinese Agricultural Almanac 1997). Eutrophication in fishponds and deterioration of the water quality of fishponds is resulting in increased occurrence of fish diseases and fish mortality. Discharge of nutrient rich pond water further accelerates eutrophication in rivers or lakes. The strategy with the application of surface aquaponics is to clean the pond water by absorbing the nutrients and at the same time generate products of economic value. Rice and flower cultivation have proved to be economically useful crops. The integration of crop-aquaculture using less than 25 % coverage of the water surface is beneficial. Rice yield reached 7.92 t/ha and to the fish yield of 5,638 kg/ha and at the same time a higher water quality of pond water can be obtained.
Photo 18 : Cultivation of rice on floating bed in lake in a rice-fish integrated bio-system Photo: Kangmin Li (2000)
Photo 19 : Flowers and sedge grass on floating beds Photo: Kangmin Li (2000)
Photo 20 : Canna and money plant on floating beds Photo: Kangmin Li (2000)
Photo 21 : Comparison of the water from outside and inside the test area Photo: Kangmin Li (2000)
47
Conclusion The 21st century has inherited many major and global concerns related to increasing population and diminishing fossil energy, water and land resources, and pollution. All these have multiple effects on sustainable development and maintaining the quality of life in the future. The integrated biosystems approach holds the promise to alleviate the problems in many ways, as shown in the examples provided above. The IBS approach can reduce the need for fossil fuel (Mansson & Foo, 1998; Kranert & Hillebrecht, 2000). Biogas technology will play a unique role as it provides energy, nutrients and better sanitation. Where large amounts of biogas are generated, it can provide electricity to the grid or to local communities and industries. The increase in fossil oil prices will favour the application of biogas technology. Another major concern is how to increase food production with less land, water, energy and chemical fertilizers. The integrated bio-systems on small farms are still traditional but are crucial in sustaining livelihoods using low-inputs intensive farming systems. There is therefore the potential for research to improve productivity by understanding nutrient flows, and for the adoption of tested models by farmers. A few large farms, industries and municipalities have used the IBS approach successfully but little notice has been given by others who could also adopt and use them. So there is a need to increase public awareness on economic and environmental aspects in their use. A major concern of the 21st century will be environmental pollution from solid wastes and wastewaters from mega-cities, intensive animal farms and industries. Again, the integrated biosystems approach will have a multipurpose role in sustainable environmental protection as it cleans the environment and can generate products of economic value at the same time.
References Bakker, N. et al . 2000. Growing Cities, Growing Food - Urban agriculture on the policy agenda. Deutsche Stiftung fur internationale Entwicklung (DSE), Zentralstelle fur Ernährung und Landwirtschaft, Feldfing. Germany. Email:
[email protected] Chara, Julián David; Pulido, Elkin Dario; & Cuellar, Piedad. 2000. Material Flow in "Pozo Verde" Integrated Farm in Cauca Valley Province, Colombia. http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ic-mfa/chara . In: Foo, E.L. Della Senta, T. and Sakamoto, K. (Eds). 2000. Material Flow Analysis of Integrated Bio-Systems. Proceedings of the Internet Conference on Material Flow Analysis of Integrated Bio-Systems, March-Oct 2000. http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ic-mfa Chinese Agricultural Almanac, 1997. Edwards, P. C. Polprasert & K.L. Wee. 1987. Resource recovery and health aspects of sanitation. AIT Research Report no. 205, pp 324. Foo, E.L. 1995. UNU/IAS Integrated Bio-system Project at Montfort Boys Town, Suva, Fiji. http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ibs/info/fiji Foo, E.L. 1998. IBS at Tunweni Brewery, Tsumeb, Namibia. http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ibs/info/namibia Foo, E.L. (1999). Proceedings of the Electronic Seminar on "Community-Based Technologies for Domestic Wastewater Treatment and Reuse: options for urban agriculture" presented by Mr. Gregory D. Rose, (4-29 Oct. 1999). http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ibs/ibsnet/e-sem-rose.html Foo, E.L. 2000. Chinampa Integrated Bio-System in Mexico. http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ibs/info/mexico
48
Foo, E.L. and Dalhammar, 2000. Biotechnological approach in the utilisation and treatment of wastes from a brewery via an integrated bio-system. http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ibs/info/samoa/sida-kth Foo, E.L. & Della Senta, T. (eds). 1998.Integrated Bio-Systems in Zero Emissions Applications. Proceedings of the Internet Conference on Integrated Bio-Systems. http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs ICLARM and GTZ. 1991. The context of small-scale integrated agriculture-aquaculture systems in Africa: a case study of Malawi. ICLARM Stud. Rev. 18. 302 p. ISBN 971-1022-65-6. Iqbal, Sascha. 1999. Duckweed Aquaculture: Potentials, possibilities and limitations for combined wastewater treatment and aniumal feed production in developing countries. SANDEC Report No.6/99. Document contact: EAWAG/SANDEC, Ueberlandstrasse 133, CH-8600 Duebendorf, Switzerland. email:
[email protected] Islam, M.S., et al. 1996. Faecal contamination of a fish culture farm where duckweed, grown in hospital wastewater are used as fish feed. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Sci Conf. ASCON V. Dhaka, Bangladesh. pp. 49. Kabir, M.S. 1995. The duckweed-based sewage treatment and fish culture with special reference to Vibrio cholerae 0139. M.Sc. thesis. Dept fo Microbiology, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh. pp. 1-84. Khosla, Ashok. 2000. Lecture presented at the Seminar on "The Value of Facts in the World of Change". Organized by the Biofocus Foundation, Stockholm. Kranert M. & Hillebrecht Kai. 2000. Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Wastes - Process Parameters and Balances in Practice. In: Foo E.L., Della Senta T., Sakamota K. 2000. Material Flow Analysis of Integrated Bio-Systems. http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ic-mfa/ Krishnan, S.B. & J.E: Smith. 1987. Public health issues of aquatic systems used for wastewater treatment. In: Aquatic plants for water treatment and resource recovery. Eds: Reddy K.R: & W.H. Smith. Magnolia, Orlando, FL. pp. 855-878. Leng, R.A. 1999. Duckweed - A tiny aquatic plant with enormous potential for agriculture and environment. FAO-UTA Publication. Li, Wenhua. 1993. Integrated farming systems in China. Veröffentlichungen des Geobotanischen Institutes der ETH, Zurich. 88 pages. Mansson T. & Foo, E.L. 1998. Swedish efforts in integrating bio-fuels as alternative fuels for transportation in buses, lorries and cars. In: Eds: Eng-Leong Foo & Tarcisio Della Senta. Integrated Bio-Systems in Zero Emissions Applications. Proceedings of the Internet Conference on Integrated Biosystems. http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/mansson Mehlmann, M. & Yemelin, V. 2000. The St Petersburg EcoHouse – an example of sustainable urban community development. Status report, April 2000. http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ibs/info/russia see also http://spb.ecology.net.ru/ecohouse/ or http://geocities.com/RainForest/Andes/2803/ Nguyen, Van Lai and Rodriguez, Lylian. 1998 Digestion and N metabolism in Mong Cai and Large White pigs having free access to sugar cane juice or ensiled cassava root supplemented with duckweed or ensiled cassava leaves Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 10, Number 2 Preston, T R, Rodríguez L , Nguyen Van Lai and Le Ha Chau 1998 El follaje de la yuca (Manihot esculenta Cranz) como fuente de proteína para la producción animal en sistemas agroforestales., Articulo presentado en La conferencia electrónica de FAO "Agroforestería Para La Producción Animal En Latinoamérica" April to Sept .In Spanish. Rodríguez J. L., Thomas R Preston and Nguyen Van Lai. 1998. Integrated farming systems for efficient use of local resources. http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/rodriguez/ In: Editors: Eng-Leong Foo & Tarcisio Della Senta. Integrated Bio-Systems in Zero Emissions Applications. Proceedings of the Internet Conference on Integrated Bio-Systems. http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/
49
Ruddle K., Furtado J.I., Zhong G.F., and Deng H.Z.. 1983. The mulberry dike carp pond resource system of the Zhujiang (Pearl River) Delta, P.R. of China. 1. Environmental context and system overview. Applied Geography. 3,45-62. Ruddle, K. & Zhong G.F. 1988. Integrated agriculture-aquaculture in South China. Cambridge Univ Press. 3-68. Song Xiangfu, et al. 2000. Study of Agriculture-Aquaculture Ecological Economic System With Nutrient Flow Analysis. In: Foo, E.L. Della Senta, T. and Sakamoto, K. (Eds). 2000. Material Flow Analysis of Integrated BioSystems. Proceedings of the Internet Conference on Material Flow Analysis of Integrated Bio-Systems. http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ic-mfa/song Song Xiangfu, et al. 1991. Study on rice cultivation on floating-beds in natural waters. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 1991,24 (4): 8-13 Sustainable Strategies and Affiliates, 50 Beharrell Street, Concord, Massachusetts USA 01742-2973 E-mail: David Del Porto
