B. Smit
University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
1. This paper draws on research supported by the Canadian research granting councils (Social Science and Humanities Research Council, Natural Science and Engineering Research Council, and Medical Research Council); and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.
The paper comments on a research proposal on the application of agro-ecosystem health. It is argued that both agricultural sustainability and agro-ecosystem health concepts provide broad frameworks for considering multiple dimensions of broadly defined agricultural systems and the interventions among those dimensions with the aim of improving their condition in the future. Neither provides a universally applicable suite of indictors nor a specific analytical methodology. Either approach may be used so long as stakeholders are involved in the characterisation of system dynamics, and in the identification of needs, potential interventions and likely implications.
My comments focus on the draft research proposal 'Enhanced Human Well-being through Improved Livestock and Natural Resource Management in the East African Highlands' distributed by ILRI prior to this Workshop (ILRI 1998). My intent is to share lessons from recent work dealing with agricultural sustainability and agro-ecosystem health. In particular, I draw on the inter-disciplinary project report in Smit et al (1998) which defines and illustrates applications of agro-ecosystem health.
My understanding of the broad issue this research proposal intends to address is summarised in Figure 1. The focus is on production systems or farming systems in the East African highlands region. These crop–livestock systems have evolved over a very long period of time, and currently operate under distinctive biophysical and socio-economic conditions. These constraints include the terrain, soil and climatic resources which provide both opportunities for, and limits to production. The systems are increasingly stressed by the growing population. The macro-economic environment is also important as farming systems are sensitive to such conditions as markets, commodity prices and input costs. The political, institutional and cultural environments represent powerful constraints on the characteristics of farming systems through land tenure and ownership, infrastructure, established cultural practices, and so on.
The characteristics of production systems which are of particular interest to the research proposal (ILRI 1998) can be seen as 'outcomes' of the production processes (Figure 1). One area of concern is environmental degradation, notably soil erosion and low and/or declining fertility. Also of concern is the productivity of the farming systems, where low productivity is understood to be associated with resource conditions, degradation, and management practices.
A distinctive feature of the research proposal is that the prime interest is not with productivity in its own right (as is commonly the case in agricultural research), but with human welfare, or well-being, which is seen to be related to productivity, the farm management systems, and environmental degradation (Figure 1). Human welfare reflects concerns over malnutrition and poverty, and can be defined according to physiological, social and economic attributes of individuals, families and communities.
Figure 1. Production, resources management and human health in East African highlands: A summary of the issues as outlined in ILRI (1998).
Production systems, and their forces of change and their responses, can be specified at various spatial scales (e.g. field, farm, community, region, nation, etc), and at different temporal scales. The elements of Figure 1, including what is considered a constraint or a system variable, depend upon these spatial and temporal scales. Of course, Figure 1 is a gross simplification, with many disaggregations and feedbacks not specified.
Given the scope of the issue indicated in Figure 1, the research questions in the proposal deal with the sustainability of these systems. How can sustainability be measured? Can the agro-ecosystem health paradigm do a better job than the concept of sustainability in documenting change in environmental condition and human welfare in a holistic fashion, in identifying the processes and system characteristics which seem to be associated with improvements or deteriorations in human well-being, and in assessing the implications (or impacts) of policies or technologies which might be (or have been) developed and adopted in an effort to improve resource management and human well-being? (Figure 1). The research proposal also indicates that these should all be done with local participation. In order to do all this there is interest in conceptual or organisational frameworks.
One of the basic hypotheses in the research proposal is that the agro-ecosystem health paradigm will provide a superior conceptual framework than agricultural sustainability, which has remained 'without much empirical content because of the lack of a comprehensive definition and analytical methodology' (ILRI 1998). Of course, it is possible to distinguish between the two concepts, but for the practical purposes of this research proposal they are fundamentally similar, essentially synonymous (this comparison is developed in more detail in Smit and Smithers (1994a)).
Once the term 'agro' is appended to 'ecosystem' we have explicitly included human components, such that 'agro-ecosystem' is fundamentally equivalent to a broad definition of 'agriculture', which includes ecological and human components. Sustainable agriculture has been defined in many ways (Smit and Brklacich 1989; Cai and Smit 1994; Smit and Smithers 1994b), but most cover the same essential features. Consider two representative definitions:
agri-food systems that are economically viable, meet society's need for safe and nutritious foods, while conserving natural resources and the quality of the environment for future generations (SCC 1992),
and
agricultural system that can indefinitely meet demands for food and fibre at socially acceptable economic and environmental costs (Crosson 1992).
In both of these, agricultural sustainability is defined with respect to
societal needs or demands for food, including nutrition, and hence implying human health
economic viability, referring to the maintenance of production systems, and
environmental quality, addressing the condition of biophysical resources.
Definitions of sustainability also note the maintenance of these features over time ('future generations' or 'indefinitely'). Definitions of agro-ecosystem health cover essentially the same features. Waltner-Toews (1994) and Smit and Smithers (1994b) describe agro-ecosystem health as incorporating
human well-being
economic performance, and
ecological condition.
In fact, the essence of the agro-ecosystem health (AESH) perspective is that it recognises the existence of, and interrelationships among, these several domains of agricultural systems (economic, human and ecological), and that the overall 'health' of the system is a function of the condition, of and interdependencies among, these components.
A simple conceptualisation of agro-ecosystem health is given in Figure 2 (from Smit and Smithers 1994b). The diagram indicates three main dimensions, which interact (hence overlapping sets), which manifest at different scales (hence the different sizes of sets), and which can be employed in numerous applications, including a) using indicators to compare
systems or document changes in AESH, b) identifying and specifying relationships among dimensions to understand dynamics and determinants of AESH, and c) assessing responses in AESH to stresses, both those associated with external environments (such as climatic variations or macro-economic conditions) and those reflecting interventions or policies.
Figure 2. Agro-ecosystem health: A sample diagramatic representation.
The conceptual foundations of these two paradigms, AESH and agricultural sustainability (AS), are fundamentally synonymous. Both are explicitly evaluative of the overall conditions of rural environments, economies, and peoples. It is noteworthy that the goals of CGIAR also mirror these components
increase food security
alleviate poverty, and
protect environmental quality.
In other respects as well, AESH and AS are very similar. Both are applicable at different spatial and temporal scales (Smit and Smithers 1994a). For both, considerable effort has been expended in developing indicators, and similar kinds of indicators (often very long lists) have been proposed. Indicators can take a wide variety of forms, including state and functional indicators, diagnostic and early warning indicators (see Smit et al 1998). There are also many examples of particular empirical studies employing indicators, especially of sustainable agriculture (see Smit and Smithers 1994a), but also for agro-ecosystem health (see Smit et al 1998).
However, neither of these frameworks can supply a single, comprehensive measurable indicator which can adequately capture the scope of these systems. Nor do either of them provide a specific set of analytical steps to document change, assess responses, or evaluate interventions in these systems. The noteworthy contribution of the agro-ecosystem health concept is a metaphor, providing a broad framework which facilitates the consideration of multiple dimensions and the interactions among them.
What is the route by which a metaphor or concept can be applied to something so that researchers or practitioners can use in the field? For example, there is the interest in indicators, or measurable properties which indicate the health of an agro-ecosystem. For indicators, which represent only one element of any analysis, three distinct approaches have been tried (Smit et al 1998).
This approach, of which several versions have been proposed, aims to define a set of very generic 'criteria', essentially from first principles, which will be applicable to all dimensions. Thus, we get such 'holistic indicators' as integrity, efficiency, resilience, effectiveness, response capability, balance, richness, transformation ability, self-regulatory capacity, flexibility, stability, and so on (Figure 3). A particular appeal of this approach is the expectation that the selected criteria will lead to measurable equivalent indicators on each of the dimensions. An example of this approach is given in Table 1 of the research proposal (ILRI 1998), which also illustrates the limitations of the approach. There is no logical or systematic basis for selecting the criteria. Because they aim to be holistic and generic they tend to be similar to the (supposedly more holistic and generic) concepts of health or sustainability, and the definitions often appear tautologous or imprecise (Smit et al 1998). For example, Table 1 gives 'effective land use' as an indicator of 'integrity', yet there is another category called 'effectiveness'.
Figure 3. A conceptual framework for agro-ecosystem health.
This holistic approach adds another level of concepts which seem to confuse as much as clarify, which are difficult to apply in practice, and which are probably not necessary anyway.
In this approach, the indicators of the various dimensions of agro-ecosystem health are supplied by scientists and practitioners in each of the disciplines involved. Indicators developed via this route tend to reflect the variables which are conventionally analysed in the various disciplines. Thus, economists provide indicators such as gross margins, benefit–cost ratios, or net income. Sociologists will list measures of household and community structure, power relations, equity, gender roles, and so on. From the human health and nutrition fields come indicators of morbidity, longevity, other physiological features and measures of nutritional status or functionality. From the geophysical and biological sciences come equally long lists of ecosystem variables which have been of theoretical interest or have been used before.
This approach certainly generates an ample smorgasbord of indicators. The weaknesses of this approach are that the lists are impractically long, there are no established principles for selecting from among the many possibilities (they may all be 'scientifically valid'), and they often are not readily understood by the people in the agro-ecosystems.
The essence of this approach (also called stakeholder-derived) is that the indicators are identified with the active participation of the people who live in the agro-ecosystem. A variety of methods are available for this kind of participatory approach, in which the researchers necessarily play at least a facilitatory role, but where the indicators are certainly meaningful to local people as well as to the analysts.
Although this approach is not refined in Smit et al (1998), the experiences there and elsewhere suggest that it has several benefits. These include a practical and efficient way of selecting key indicators, allowing researchers to learn about communities' priorities and alternative measurements (sometimes supplied directly by residents), and promotion of people's involvement in (and 'ownership of') both analysis of agro-ecosystems and any management initiatives to improve their health.
Whatever you choose to call your framework, it would appear that you already have one which is consistent with the model of agro-ecosystem health. The key components, closely interconnected, are
the crop–livestock production system, whose productivity (a subset of agro-ecosystem health) you seek to improve
the biophysical environments, which provide constraints on, and opportunities for, production, and which are subject to degradation, and whose quality or condition (a subset of agro-ecosystem health) you seek to maintain or improve
the human communities which are both dependent upon the other two components and greatly influence them, and whose condition or well-being (according to economic, nutritional, physiological elements, all representing subsets of agro-ecosystem health) you seek to improve.
It would seem that there is no need or utility to attempt to develop holistic criteria for agro-ecosystem health from first principles. To illustrate a practical approach to a composite view of health, consider an individual person such as myself. My health is the composite of the condition of my skeletal structure, cardio-vascular functioning, mental condition, psychological state, ability to perform tasks, and so on. On some of these I am in better shape than others. These attributes are not independent, but they are measurable separately, and when looked at together define my overall health. Given the three broad components of agro-ecosystem health of interest in the East African highlands, a practical approach to identifying a manageable set of indicators with the participation of local people would seem appropriate.
Of course, the challenge is a lot more than just identifying indicators of the health of the highlands agro-ecosystem. As apparent in Figure 1, there is a need to document changes in the health indicators of the components of the agro-ecosystems, and identify and describe the interrelationships among and within components so that changes can be better understood, so that the role of external forces can be assessed, and so that the likely effects of interventions can be ascertained. This type of systems analysis will necessarily involve a mix of research methods, including observation and learning from the 'field' (especially of human decision-making), theory and models, and experiences from elsewhere. This scholarship needs to be both relevant and rigorous.
The key features of both the agricultural sustainability and the agro-ecosystem health concepts are that they provide broad frameworks for considering multiple dimensions of broadly-defined agricultural systems (and the interactions among those dimensions), with the aim of improving their condition in the future. Neither provides a universally applicable suite of indicators nor a specific analytical methodology.
The East African Highlands Initiative, by defining its scope across production, biophysical and human health dimensions, is entirely consistent with these frameworks. The movement towards more involvement of stakeholders in the characterisation of system dynamics and in the identification of needs, potential interventions and likely implications is also consistent with recent lessons in the agro-ecosystem health field.
Cai Y. and Smit B. 1994. Sustainability in agriculture: A general review. Agriculture, ecosystems and environment 49:299–307.
Crosson P. 1992. Sustainable agriculture. Resources 106:143–156.
ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute). 1998. Enhanced human well-being through improved livestock and natural resource management in the East African Highlands. Research Proposal submitted to IDRC. ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya.
SCC (Science Council of Canada). 1992. Sustainable agriculture: The research challenge. SCC, Ottawa, Canada.
Smit B. and Brklacich M. 1989. Sustainable development and analysis of rural systems. Journal of rural studies 5:405–414.
Smit B. and Smithers J. 1994a. Sustainable agriculture: Interpretations, analyses and prospects. Canadian journal of regional science 16(3):499–524.
Smit B. and Smithers J. 1994b. Sustainable agriculture and agro-ecosystem health. In: Nielsen N.O. (ed), Agroecosystem health. Proceedings of an international workshop. University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada. pp. 31–38.
Smit B., Waltner-Toews D., Rapport D., Wall E., Wichert G., Gwyn E. and Wandel J. 1998. Agro-ecosystem health: Analysis and assessment. University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada.
Waltner-Toews D. 1994. Ecosystem health: A framework for implementing sustainability in agriculture. In: Nielsen N.O. (ed), Agroecosystem health. Proceedings of an international workshop. University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada. pp. 8–23.
Waltner-Toews D. and Nielsen N.O. 1995. Assessing Agroecosystem health. (unpublished
