Sustainable Animal Agriculture

Ermias Kebreab, Ermias Kebreab

• Publisher: CAB International
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781789244533
• Topic: Tecnología e ingeniería
• Subtopic: Cría de animales

In order to meet increasing global demand for meat and animal by-products increasingly intensive animal production is necessary. Creating a sustainable system in animal agriculture that works in different production environments is a major challenge for animal scientists. This book draws together themes on sustainability that have emerged as the most pressing in recent years. Addressing practical topics such as air quality, manure management, animal feeds, production efficiency, environmental sustainability, biotechnology issues, animal welfare concerns, societal impacts and an analysis of the data used to assess the economic sustainability of farms.

1 Sustainability: a Wicked Problem

H.C. Peterson*
Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics, Michigan State University, Michigan, USA

Introduction

Sustainability is a product attribute that many consumers appear to want today, even if it is a distinctly different characteristic from more traditional product attributes such as freshness and taste. Many large global food corporations as well as many smaller ones have appointed sustainability officers to their senior management in recent years. Among the 50 largest global food and beverages companies, 23 have created or joined various types of multi-stakeholder engagements in pursuit of enhanced sustainability. For all of this activity and interest, sustainability remains an elusive term. It is also not clear how it is achieved or even whether it can be achieved. Yet certain stakeholders have passionate positions on the issue and are willing to exercise veto power over traditional market transactions in its name. For the dairy industry in particular, one need only mention such examples as the demise of rBST, the rise of animal welfare initiatives and opposition to concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Producers in commercial-scale, conventional agriculture often take offence at so-called ‘sustainable agriculture’ that has come to include organic and local but seems to exclude them as ‘non-sustainable’, at least by implication. Sustainability is further used by many as a code word for environmental concerns being the chief criterion in natural resource decision making, in supposed contrast to corporate resource users’ concern for profit to the exclusion of any other criteria.

The purpose of this chapter is to frame sustainability as one type of ‘wicked problem’ that cannot be solved, only managed. The framing is useful for several reasons. First, it helps explain why there are so many varying definitions of sustainability and what useful working definition can be adopted. Second, the passionate discord among relevant stakeholders is to be expected with such problems and cannot be dismissed but rather must be managed. Third, new knowledge is especially critical to managing wicked problems and thus scientists and other knowledge workers are critical to altering the trajectory of food and agriculture systems to be more sustainable. But the role of scientists is dramatically different in the world of wicked problems than in the world of tame ones. Finally, active engagement of all stakeholders in co-creating system innovation is one of the few (if only) ways forward toward sustainability. This engagement demands transdisciplinary scholarship on the part of university scientists if they are to be effective contributors to managing wicked problems.

The Problem with Wicked Problems

A wicked problem (Rittel and Webber, 1973; Conklin, 2006) is a term from the 1970s social planning literature. Such a problem has the essential characteristic that it is not solvable; it can only be managed. The combination of Rittel and Webber (1973) with Conklin (2006) provides a lengthy list of relevant criteria that characterize wicked problems. Four of these criteria are adopted here as an efficient set to define the concept:

• No definitive formulation of the problem exists.

• Its solution is not true or false, but rather better or worse.

• Stakeholders have radically different frames of reference concerning the problem.

• The underlying cause and effect relationships related to the problem are complex, systemic and either unknown or highly uncertain.

Sustainability fits these criteria quite well as the analysis will show. Fuel versus food, climate change, poverty alleviation and even business strategy (Camillus, 2008) are other examples.

No definitive formulation of the problem exists

The concept of sustainability has at least one simplistic and intuitive definition: using a resource today is sustainable if it does not constrain the use of the resource tomorrow. This definition paraphrases the definition in the well-known United Nations (Brundtland) Report ‘Our Common Future’ – sustainable development ‘meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (United Nations, 1987). Consuming non-renewable resources is not sustainable precisely because their use today diminishes their supply for use tomorrow without any reasonable prospect for replenishment. The definition and the example seem very clear. The trouble arises through the realization that by this definition there is probably no use of resources that is sustainable. Human use of resources is always less than 100% efficient, and the finite bounds of the earth suggest that eventually every resource will be exhausted. Any economist takes as given the foundational notion that resources are fundamentally scarce and the study of their efficient use is thus essential. Sustainability as the simple conversion of resources is thus unattainable in a realistic way or undesirable if produced solely by subsistence living. Moving beyond this simple definition leads to an endless debate about what sustainable is or is not. Sustainability has no definitive formulation as to what it means and how it is achieved.

Its solution is not true or false, but rather better or worse

In the place of a definitive formulation, various attempts at a working or implementable definition arise. Today these more workable definitions include:

1. The triple bottom line. Something is sustainable if it can simultaneously achieve economic feasibility, social responsibility or justice, and environmental quality.

2. The three Ps – Profit, People and Planet. This is just another version of the simultaneous criteria for achieving better economic, social and environmental outcomes.

The justification for using such definitions arises from the notion that a balanced set of decision criteria among economic, social and environmental ends changes the trajectory of resource use toward greater sustainability. Sustainability becomes a matter of better or worse rather than true or false – meeting the second criterion of a wicked problem. However, decision makers (public or private) are not given much content by these definitions as to how one achieves the triple bottom line or 3P value enhancement. Progress is a matter of altering trajectories along three paths into the future rather than a tangible single thing to be attained. Attainment is even more muddled by the extent to which the bundle and mix of resources used across time changes – the stone age gives way to the iron age and then to steel, steam gives way to electricity, analogue communication gives way to digital. The constraints on resource use are continually changing with time and thus the ‘solution’ to sustainability is forever in flux.

Stakeholders have radically different frames of reference concerning the problem

Now add to the mix multiple perspectives, values and frames of reference from the stakeholders who care about sustainability. Business stakeholders will strongly opt for economic gain and profit first; environmentalists for environment and planet; and social advocates for social and people-oriented outcomes, including justice, fairness and caring. Each stakeholder group has incentive to define sustainable by its own vocabulary consistent with its own end goals. Furthermore, they will each be driven to act on their own agenda – promoting their view of the problem and its ‘solution’ while working to veto the actions of the other stakeholders as those actions are strongly believed to be in error. Many agricultural production situations come to mind. Manure odour problems are an example – the livestock producer views odour as part of the normal process of agriculture and defines its presence as necessary to production; suburban neighbours in response act to create ordinances that limit (or eliminate) odour, threatening the producer economically.

Part of understanding the consequences of wicked problems is that the range of stakeholders can become quite large. These stakeholders may include non-governmental organizations (NGOs) advocating solutions (e.g. Greenpeace, World Wildlife Federation), governmental bodies having a say in regulation and third-party certifiers acting as arbiters in the process. Knowledge institutions (e.g. universities and think tanks) may also play a role in defining the problem or various options for solution. The key takeaway is that the context in which a wicked problem occurs creates the set of stakeholders, and this set may go well beyond the traditional notion of supply chain customers and suppliers. If a stakeholder group can take action to enable or veto efforts related to the problem, then they are at the decision making table whether other stakeholders want them to be or not.

The underlying cause and effect relationships related to the problem are complex, systemic and either unknown or highly uncertain

This is the fourth and final criteria for a wicked problem. Could anyone meaningfully challenge the following statement: the agriculture-food-bio system that has emerged globally is highly complex; it is a system with multiple interrelated input, output and feedback loops; and, for all that is known from food and agricultural sciences (natural and social), there remain many uncertainties and unknowns about cause-and-effect relationships? This context of system complex ambiguity heightens the impacts of the other three criteria. Stakeholder value judgments cannot always be addressed with clear ‘facts’ about the system; what constitutes ‘better or worse’ can even be debated, let alone ‘true’ or ‘false’; and, no definitive definition exists for sustainability to guide the resolution of ambiguity about the system.

Consider this claim that is often made (explicitly or implicitly) about ‘sustainable agriculture’: ‘Small, local, organic production is sustainable while conventional agriculture is not.’ Without taking sides, an objective appraiser sees many unresolved system complexities on both sides of this statement. From an environmental perspective, conventional agriculture has substantial sustainability issues based on its intensive use of limited inputs and concentration of potential pollutants. At the same time, conventional agriculture’s economic and social (affordable food for the many) impacts have been positive for feeding dramatic increases in global population. But the social impacts are uneven – many hungry people remain in the world while obesity has become a growing health concern. In contrast, small-scale local production can be managed to lower input intensity and to enhance local consumer appeal, but the economic viability of many of these farms remains marginal. Even if this model were superior in some sustainability dimensions, scaling up this model to feed the world would mean finding millions of new farmers to replace the commercial scale farms of today – a substantially new challenge to social and economic sustainability. The complex ambiguity of the system suggests that all stakeholders should carefully weigh their charges and countercharges about what is sustainable.

Sustainability fits all four criteria for a wicked problem quite well. A summary of the analysis is provided in Table 1.1. Further, it becomes rather obvious why wicked problems cannot be solved – they have no closed-form definition, their ‘solution’ can only be thought of in relative terms, stakeholders will be in conflict over solutions and actions, and the system is not understood well enough to effect entirely purposeful change. In a world that wants simple, implementable solutions, sustainability is unsolvable in any conventional sense. What does one do then with a wicked problem such as sustainability?

Managing Wicked Problems

The literature on wicked problems suggests that while they cannot be solved, they can be managed. The trajectories of the system outcomes – profit, people, planet – can be altered in the short-run to create improved outcomes in the long run. The key is to understand what to manage and how to manage it. (For ease of exposition, the 3P or Profit–Planet–People working definition of sustainability is adopted for the remainder of the chapter.)

The four criteria – no definitive formulation, better or worse trajectories for system outcomes, conflicting stakeholders, and system ambiguity – give insights into managing wicked problems. First, two sets of outcomes need to be managed in the situation:

• System outcomes. System components – profit, people and planet – need to be moved in desired directions; their trajectories need to change for the better.

• Process outcomes. Relevant stakeholders need to engage in the process, and they need to participate in such a way that they enable system change on the positive side while not exercising their vetoes on the negative.

Consider what happens when one or the other of these two outcomes is not properly managed. In the one instance, potential options to improve the system outcomes will fail to be implemented if the process results in stalemate or dissolution with the offended stakeholders exercising their veto, e.g. taking the debate public in a publicity war or seeking governmental prohibit in law or regulation. In the other instance, solely focusing on process outcomes can devolve into endless process (either unresolved debating or overly polite avoidance of issues that truly divide) with no action taken to improve the system. System and process outcomes must be achieved together if the wicked problem is to be managed.

Any project or process designed to manage a wicked problem would need to begin with establishing goals for both types of outcome. On the systems side, the goals should clearly indicate what movements in profit, people and planet are targeted in the system. On the process side, the goals should specify who is at the table and how they will engage together.

Table 1.1. Sustainability as a wicked problem. Source: Peterson (2011).

Criteria for a wicked problem	Sustainability
No definitive formulation of the problem exists.	Ideal definition lacks specificity and is reduced to slogan or tagline such as triple bottom line (economic, social and environmental) performance.
Its solution is not true or false, but rather better or worse.	One can never know whether sustainability has been achieved. Only progress in its trajectory can be predicted.
Stakeholders have radically different frames of reference concerning the problem, and are often passionate in their position on the problem.	Businesses strongly favour economic outcomes. Environmental groups strongly favour environmental outcomes. Social justice groups strongly favour social outcomes, such as fair wages and equitable access.
System components and cause/effect relationships are uncertain or radically changing.	Many claims are made about what is sustainable (such as local food systems are sustainable while global food systems are not) with unclear knowledge of what system characteristics assure or even promote sustainability.

Even if this simultaneity of system and process outcomes is a necessary condition for managing wicked problems, it is not a sufficient condition. The roles of new knowledge and innovation management are argued to be the other two necessary conditions. New knowledge and innovation management are critical to resolving (at least to the extent needed for change) stakeholder conflicts and system ambiguity – the other two major concerns arising from the four criteria of a wicked problem.

The Role of New Knowledge

The next step in the analysis begins with an exploration of the meaning of knowledge in this context. The knowledge management literature is especially useful here, particularly the classic work by Takeuchi and Nonaka (2000). Based on this literature, knowledge is about beliefs and commitments, action toward some end, and meaning that is context-specific and relational. In this sense, knowledge is justified true belief on which an individual or individuals are willing to act. This concept of knowledge is more Eastern than classic Western, which defines knowledge as truth in some objective, abstract sense. It is relevant to wicked problems because it better explains the relationship that each stakeholder has with existing knowledge that they bring to a situation. Each set of stakeholders view their knowledge as true – justified true belief – and will take action (to enable or to veto). Existing knowledge can be further divided into: (i) tacit knowledge, which is justified by being embedded in experience and specific context arising from practice; and (ii) explicit knowledge, which is justified by formal documentation and testing (Takeuchi and Nonaka, 2000). Scientific knowledge is an excellent example of explicit knowledge while the knowledge of a long-term, experienced dairy farmer is a classic example of tacit knowledge. Note how the justification of true belief differs between the two types of knowledge.

The existing knowledge that each stakeholder brings to the management of a wicked problem sets up the process for failure. Existing knowledge is deficient to support the management process in two respects. This first deficiency with existing knowledge is the issue knowledge legitimacy. Each set of stakeholders will suspect the knowledge being brought by the other stakeholders because of issues arising from trust, transparency and credibility of sources. On the one hand, each set of stakeholders would likely claim that its explicit knowledge is enough in itself to solve the dilemma – the problem is in fact not wicked. Each stakeholder asks the others to accept their solution, and the problem is solved. Invoking ‘good science’ (the ultimate authoritative explicit knowledge in the western world) is an example of this approach. There is much anecdotal evi...