Values Behind Sustainability

How about - Landcare Smart farming Farming for the future Farm stewardship Sustainable land management All sort of variations in branding are available. The important thing is that the desired sustainable behaviours are identified, adopted and sustained. Talking about ecologically sustainable farming is often too big a picture for practical people. Yeah yeah, lets be sustainable, but what is it I need to do? Then if I believe the outcomes are worthwhile, its easy enough to do, others are doing it and expect me to follow suit and the barriers are outweighed by the benefits then I will do it. Once I have done it, I will continue to do it because its the way that I work, its the right way to work, its got to be right because I am doing it. My experience is that farmers who see themselves as land managers and therefore responsible for all the values of a property (habitat, vegetation, wildlife, cultural heritage, agriculture) find the concept of sustainability an easy one to grasp and pursue through their property planning and management practices. Farmers who grow for others, and see themselves only in the production sense, and have less control over their practices because meeting the company production requirements is paramount find this concept more difficult. Perhaps just talking to people as land managers rather than farm hands would help support a paradigm shift and behaviour change. We have many farmers contracted to international buying companies. These companies have a very high level of control over what the farmer does, when he does it, how much he will produce and how much he will be paid for it. In many cases this results in maximum usage of the land, often at great cost in a sustainability sense. It can however also work to the advantage of sustainable practices if the company insists on specific sustainable practices being undertaken to qualify a farmer to sell to the company. And this requirement is of course often driven by consumer demands for greener produce. We have worked with around 100 onion producers in a trial project where the buyer required a range of practices so that the produce could be promoted in the retail market as having been produced on environmentally sustainable farms. We provided assessment and management advice to farmers about their native plant and animal species and habitat management. (others looked at chemical use, Occupational health, waste management and so on) In doing this it was identified that a number of the farms had previously unrecognised significant remnant vegetation, populations of threatened and endangered wildlife species and so on. When farmers were given this information they were without exception pleased to get the information, excited about having these other values identified and keen to implement the environmental management practices recommended. The farmers committed in writing to undertaking the written management recommendations. The buying-company then committed to paying a per tonne premium/incentive for farmers who made those commitments, which in 12 months time were audited by the buyer for compliance. There are many CBSM messages in the story, but one of importance I think is that the advice and support given was for specific actions/behaviours not for an amorphous concept of sustainability.

Regards
Andrew Smith

Manager
Community Partnerships
Resource Management & Conservation Division
Department of Primary Industries and Water
Building partnerships for a sustainable environment
Email: [email protected]
Postal: GPO Box 44, HOBART 7001 Tasmania

Wow - great posting! Thanks.

I like the distinctions very much. I am working with several family farms right now - several with large animal herds - and although they are very conservative folks, they truly do care about the environment and the future of farming for their families. They need solutions, and the ability to get fairly paid for their products in today's very competitive farming world.

George F. Hoguet
Director,
Mid-Atlantic Operations
NativeEnergy, LLC
21-31 W. State Street, Unit 29B
Media, PA 19063
(610)566-1332
www.nativeenergy.com

Nancy,

Yes, I have similar problems here in Montana, where "plan" is a definite four letter word. An article that touches on this is "Reaching Beyond the Choir: Message Development Notes" by Josh Baldi, WA Env. Council, 1/96. It's old but still has relevant points. You can access this article at www.rivernetwork.org. There are many "red flag" words I try to avoid. "Common Sense" and "Responsible" are two terms that seem more palatable around here. Also "fair" and "appropriate" and "shared responsibility" all go over better. Instead of "growth management," use "local control." The people here are very independent and don't want to be told what to do.

Good luck, I'm pulling for you!
Patti Mason

Education & Outreach Specialist/
Watershed Coordinator
Flathead Conservation District 133
Interstate Lane Kalispell, MT 59901
406-752-4220
[email protected]

We have just finished writing a guide for small business to enhance the pull towards sustainable manufacturing. It was obvious to us that this terminology was a no go. In developing the guide we let small business direct what the title was, what the cover should look like, the flow of content, the informal conversational nature of the guide etc. Sustainability is also a word that we found had no resonance with small business. Rather productivity has better resonance. As for planning? Small business does not plan like governments or big business. Planning is a past time that small business does not have the time to engage in, AS large entities do. They do plan, but it is a different approach and is not the same as 'strategic' planning. As many small businesses operate as households, their opinion/knowledge tends to emulate that held by the public.

L. E. Johannson, B.E.S. (Hons), M.Sc.,
FRSA President

Hi Nancy -

I understand what you're saying about having to tread lightly around the "s" word with some audiences. Sometimes it helps to address the benefits to people's children. The Washington Department of Ecology uses this as the working definition of sustainability: "meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" In other words, you take care of your land now so your grandchildren and their grandchildren can have good land, too. You don't eat the seed corn. Washington State University's Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources might also have some useful material: http://csanr.wsu.edu/

Hope this helps.
Mariann Cook Andrews

Hazardous Waste & Toxic Reduction
Dept. of Ecology
(360) 407-6740
FAX (360) 407-6715
[email protected]

Nancy-

Although I'm not sure I have a good answer for this, I suspect that focusing on values is exactly what is needed for these separate camps to come to a greater understanding. The SARE program generally refers to an agriculture that is "profitable, environmentally sound and good for people and communities." Most producers would agree that a sound agriculture should strive to recognize these values. The debate usually derives from the production practices adopted to achieve these ends, and varying interpretations of how the ends should be balanced. The Kellogg Foundation has done some work on this (http://www.wkkf.org/default.aspx?tabid=90&CID=19&ItemID=5000195&NID=61& LanguageID=0), but mostly on consumer perceptions of food systems. The Minnesota Project has done some work on framing values of sustainability for producers (see http://www.mnproject.org/csp/Ag%20Framing%20Tool_3%20final%20June%2019.p df). The SARE program has some excellent resources available that present a wide range of producer interpretations of the tenants of sustainability, see http://www.sare.org/publications/naf.htm and http://www.sare.org/publications/highlights.htm. SARE also has a number of publications available on a range of sustainable production techniques that are available for free to agricultural educators to promote adoption of these techniques. See http://www.sare.org/publications/index.htm#bulletins. Focusing on profitability is one way of framing this conversation to appeal to appeal to a wider audience. This is a fascinating topic- it would be great to see more work done on this.

Regards,
Sean McGovern

Sustainable Agriculture Network/
USDA SARE
1372 Norris Drive Columbus, Ohio 43224
Phone: 614/306-6422
Fax: 614/268-7544
http://www.sare.org
[email protected]

Perhaps the issue isn't the word in itself. People will begin to dislike any term that becomes associated with something negative in their minds. I think rather than repackaging the same negatively perceived concepts in new terminology perhaps it would be best to address the reasons the concepts are viewed negatively. If the farmers feel under attack by sustainability promoters couldn't it be perceived as a "sneak attack" to change the term without addressing the issue? Perhaps some time should be taken to focus with those who dislike the term and find out how to resolve the issue. Isn't that what social marketing is all about? Thanks, John McGee Environmental Scientist II Adopt-A-Pond Program Coordinator 601 E Kennedy Blvd, 23rd Floor Tampa, FL 33602 (813) 307-1785 [email protected]

Dear Marian, I suppose terms like "sustainable retreat" don't work at all then? Many would agree the idea of "retreat" instead of "development" is needed, concurring with James Lovelock's books, but in what terms do you couch such a message to engage "the punter" (as we call the average Joe here in New South Wales) and invite rethinking/changed lifestyle choices in our communities? Glen

Nature evolves. Maybe sustainable "evolution" or during times of rapid change sustainable revolution? :-) Jeff

David Holmgren in his book 'Permaculture: Principles & Pathways to Sustainability', uses the term 'Energy descent' to describe the journey towards a sustainable future. Much of the arguements in his book draw from Howard Odum's work on EMERGY analysis. Whilst 'energy descent' may not sound particularly attractive or marketable, it is fairly unambiguous for those that have difficulty grasping the concept of 'sustainability'. I understand that the word sustainability has fallen in & out of favour with environmental activists, govt workers, etc over the last 10 years; and it has been picked up by corporates as a multifaceted rug to pull over most peoples' eyes. Some say that we should continue to use the word sustainability as it is the only word that we have, and we are beginning to get people to understand it amongst the wider public. However, everyone's definition of Sustainability is different, and unfortunately I don't feel that we have many good examples of what 'sustainable' is in the world. Probably most of us on the list don't really know what a 'sustainable' society would involve - I can't say for sure that my (imaginary) mud brick, solar passive, wind & solar powered house is truly sustainable. It is certainly more sustinable than the conventional alternative, but is it long term sustainable for everyone to live like that, globally? For the Aussies (& any others) that have read Tim Flannery's 'The Future Eaters', it is evident that despite a low impact lifestyle, the Aboriginal residents of Australia were, 'future eating' their resource base (albeit over a very, very long time). By today's standards Aboriginal groups are the one of the ultimate sustainable examples. However few amongst us in the sustainability field would argue to the public (although we may believe it ourselves) that we must live in such a lightfooted fashion. This argument doesn't really have a right or wrong answer - some of us will use the 'S' word, some of us won't. As we know from CBSM some words & techniques work in certain contexts, but not in others. My point is that we need to understand that the concept of sustaiability is ambiguous, and largely undefined in a long term context (how many future generations do they mean in bruntland's definition of Sustainability?). We should be even more careful of trying to beat the public about the head with the S word when we can't even point out any concrete examples for people to imitate. [The exception is of course the natural world where the natural balances keep things in check!] Personally I have taken up Holmgren's notion of 'energy descent' as energy networks & the quantity we use for everything we do has, in my experience, been easier for people to grasp than 'sustainability'.

Below is the definition of sustainabiltiy that we use. I've found for some groups that "stewardship" is a more acceptable term. I"ve also found that "future generations" becomes more relevant when we substitute "grandchildren and great grandchildren." Definition of sustainability: Meeting our current needs in ways that enable future generations to also meet their needs. Sustainable solutions ask us to: Think broadly and long-term. Integrate economic, environmental and social (community) needs. Kathy Shinn Information and Outreach Oregon Department of Energy 625 Marion St. NE Salem, Oregon 97301-3737 503-373-1033 Fax 503-373-7806 E-mail: [email protected] www.energy.state.or.us

Good dialogue. I'm wondering if there has been any lessons learned in dealing with language between fishermen and declining fisheries. These groups have clearly had to learn how to practice more "sustainable harvests" so that they can have fish for the future. There have certainly been clashes, but it feels as though fishermen in general have come to understand the principles. Perhaps it just isn't in the news as it once was.

There was a program in Belize a few years ago. Also Iceland's reconfiguration of its fishing industry is a good study. L. E. Johannson B.E.S., (Hons) M.Sc., FRSA

Hi Everyone, Some thoughts on sustainability and related terminology: Sustainable is sensible. We live in a sound-bite world, and if people want to know more they'll go deeper. Otherwise, most people have common sense and they will get the message if it is simple, positive and repeated. Think of all the old sayings we still use. 'An apple a day keeps the doctor away' and 'look before you leap' come to mind. The most memorable sayings for me are like these: they rhyme or they are alliterative, using paired consonants at the beginnings of words: Sustainable and Sensible. -- Sustainable and sensible energy policy is clean like solar, not dirty and dangerous like coal. Anybody still driving a Hummer? I bet most of their neighbors think they're crazy, or at least poor decision makers. Hummers are dumb, and getting dumber every day that passes with gas at these rates. Many of us know gas is going to get a lot more expensive as the resource runs out. Sustainable transportation that conserves and uses oil efficiently is sensible. Spending everything you've got as fast as you can is not good common sense. -- Sustainable and sensible farming practices are those that take utmost care of the land upon which everything depends. We know that 50 years of playing with poisons has caused a whole range of serious problems affecting us all. Now they're doing it again with GMOs. These scientists are smart, but not sensible. -- Preserving habitat that has sustained itself through eons is sensible, whereas killing off another species to build another shopping center ignores the awesome nature of nature. Whether you believe God made this garden or it was evolution plus the right ingredients, our bodies need a healthy environment and our spirits need nature. And on and on... Terre Related to this discussion is an earlier comment about sustainability being a dirty word among some of the farmers in the poster's area. I want to recommend a couple of award-winning documentaries that show how sustainable agriculture is saving family farms. It's hard to argue with sensible farming practices that result in keeping small farmers on their land and out of the unemployment line. So if you don't want to use the word 'sustainable' you can say 'sensible' instead. It is the core values that matter really, not the terminology. We're lucky here on California's central coast to have a great resource in HopeDance, a 10+ year progressive newspaper that covers sensible and sustainable solutions. Bob Banner, the founder/editor whose day job is washing windows, also sets up screenings for an amazing variety of films. He shows them at libraries and all over, including outside against the walls of buildings, provided there's a local coffeeshop nearby and room for 60 people to pull up their lawn chairs. http://www.hopedance.org/ Check out trailers for "The Real Dirt on Farmer John". It's just hilarious and a great story, as well as an interesting look at one family's farming history near Chicago and how the owner is keeping the farm vital. I wouldn't recommend this film to someone who might think a sustainable farmer who eats dirt and wears a feather boa with his overalls is not sensible. But everyone interested in sustainable agriculture will be heartened and uplifted by this film. http://www.therealdirt.net/ THE REAL DIRT ON FARMER JOHN is the award-winning true story of third-generation American farmer John Petersons heros journey of success, tribulation, failure and rebirth, through his childhood in the 50s, the tumultuous 60s, the hippie-influenced 70s, and the farm-crisis 80s, culminating in his transformation-based creation of a biodynamic, organic CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) farm serving 1500 families in the Chicago area with weekly fresh produce. "Broken Limbs" is about apple-growing farm families in Washington going down before the giants and global competition, and those who have stayed in business through sustainable agricultural practices. I've copied Bob's description of the film below, in case you get a chance to see it. http://www.brokenlimbs.org/ Wenatchee, Washington prospered for nearly a century as the Apple Capital of the World. But the good times have vanished. Apple orchardists by the thousands are going out of business. After his own father receives a threatening letter from the bank, filmmaker Guy Evans sets out on a journey to find out what went wrong here in this natural Garden of Eden. Evans witnesses small farmers struggling to compete against the Goliaths that populate todays global economy. The future looks grim for the Apple Capital until Evans happens upon an entirely new breed of farmer, practitioners of sustainable agriculture. Broken Limbs poetically explores these hopeful stirrings. BROKEN LIMBS explores the hopeful stirrings within agriculture, and outlines ways in which any individual can play a role in saving Americas farmers. Told from a hometown perspective, the film presents the stories of farmers attempting to create this new model for agriculture and emerging, more sustainable solutions to the crises of recent years solutions applicable not just to apples and not just to farming, but to nearly any sector of the American economy troubled by the effects of consolidation and globalization. 57mins. "Broken Limbs is a very accurate and moving description of what is happening to agriculture in America." - Fred Kirschenmann, Director, Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University, organic farmer Broken Limbs presents a refreshing look at ways that farmers can survive and even thrive without becoming bogged down in discussing the often depressing outlook for the future of the family farm." Educational Media Reviews Online Awards: The Chris Statuette, Columbus International Film & Video Festival Honorable Mention, Rural Route Film Festival Hazel Wolf Environmental Film Festival The Conscientious Projector Film Festival Siskiyou Environmental Film Festival Vermont International Film Festival Finger Lakes Environmental Film Festival Port Townsend Film Festival Marin Environmental Film Festival Environmental Media Awards Wild & Scenic Environmental Film Festival Our Island, Our World Film Festival, Salt Spring Island, Canada

This is a useful, accessible definition. I also like an equivalent which I heard presented to a group of high school students in a workshop last fall: "Enough - for all - forever". On a blackboard/flipchart this can also be written as: All Enough 4 Ever Well, the visual loses something in the translation to electronic text! They actually wrote the Enough and 4 rather large (tall), with the All and Ever stacked to the right. The image made for an engaging shorthand image, and the slogan itself provided openings for lots of discussion. Bob Isenberger Masters in Environmental Studies candidate York University Toronto, Ontario

The folk wisdom of sustainability, such as the story of killing the goose that lays the golden egg, foolishly hoping to extract a sudden windfall of gold, should have traction with most audiences. For those immersed in economic terms, the basic message is that, to maintain wealth, it is wisest to use the earnings/yield of your capital and not to gamble with the capital. The essentials of life on earth are the epitome of capital worth conserving. Bill Carter Water Quality Monitoring & Assessment MC 165 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality P.O. Box 13087 Austin, TX 78711-3087 Phone: 512-239-6771 Fax: 512-239-4410 [email protected]