Philosophy vs Practice
Many academics, researchers and some policy advisors refer to sustainable agriculture as an ethic; a philosophy, a way of doing things in an ever-changing world. They argue that it is not easily defined and that indeed to do so may be counter-productive (Pretty, 1995; Campbell, 1995).
While the term sustainable agriculture now holds significant currency for agricultural researchers in particular, it remains only vaguely defined for practitioners (Lockeretze, 1990). O’Riordan (1988) stated that the vagueness of the term, and its scope for varied and seemingly legitimate interpretation by different parties, appear to make it all but useless as an operational guide. This view is shared by others, for example, Smith (1996).
Spedding (1996) likens sustainability to an umbrella concept; like truth, beauty and efficiency -appealing to people who are trying to express in a word ideas about ‘better in the long term’. He argues that the only two legitimate uses of the term relate to physical and biological sustainability.
MAF has taken the view that sustainable agriculture must integrate environmental concerns with economic, social, and cultural concerns; and that policies must aim to achieve government’s outcomes for sustainable land management, while at the same time reconciling the different concerns (MAF, 1993).
The definition adopted by MAF is that "sustainable agriculture" is the use of practices and systems which maintain or enhance:
- ability of people and communities to provide for their social and cultural wellbeing;
- economic viability of agriculture;
- natural resource base of agriculture;
- ecosystems influenced by agricultural activities; and
- quality and safety of food and fibre.
Whilst arguments over definition may interest some, they are not particularly useful to individual farmers and orchard (land) managers who must make management decisions - often without adequate information - but all with implications for sustainable agriculture.
A reluctance, or inability, to be able to provide practical "what to do" and "how to do it" guidance in the area of sustainable agriculture has a number of practical consequences:
- it has a tendency to reinforce continuation of past and current practices (not all of which may be desirable);
- by not being able to define sustainability, the debate often turns to defining what is not sustainable (and not everything is). This is a psychological turn-off to changing behaviour and practices and can result in a "bunker" mentality; and
- it limits the amount of learning possible by individuals and communities, and therefore the progress towards more sustainable practices.
There is therefore a balance needed between philosophy and clear information on (best) practices. Experience has shown that the participatory development and utilisation of best management practices is critical to industry progress. Recent examples of such processes include (to name a few):
- of the Waikato Sustainable Agriculture Manual;
- Users Code of Practice;
- development of the Fertiliser Users Code of Practice;
- of Best Management Practices guidelines for the management of dairy farms, and particularly effluentdisposal, by the Dairying and the Environment Committee;
- of the Ontario Farm Plan system to Southland by the Southland Sustainable Land Management Group.
Contact for Enquiries
MAF Information Services
Pastoral House
25 The Terrace
PO Box 2526
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
Fax: +64 4 894 0721
Contact this person
