Farming Systems Design 2007 - International Environmental ...

Farming Systems Design 2007
Field-farm scale design and improvement
CRITICAL REFLECTION ON MODELLING SUPPORT IN LAND-USE
DECISION-MAKING
P. Carberry 1 , W. Rossing 2 , B. Sterk 3 , M. Howden 1
1
CSIRO Agricultural Sustainability Initiative, Australia, peter.carberry@csiro.au; mark.howden@csiro.au
2
Biological Farming Systems, Wageningen Uni and Research, The Netherlands, walter.rossing@wur.nl
3
Plant Production Systems, Wageningen Uni and Research, The Netherlands, barbara.sterk@wur.nl
Introduction
Over the past 30 years, there has been a consistent rationale to justify much of the research
undertaken in the field of agricultural systems analysis. Such rationale proposes that decisionmakers,
whether farmers, policy-makers, or other stakeholders, struggle with the complexity and
uncertainty inherent in agricultural systems and would welcome access to technologies which
lessen this burden. Consequently, it is argued that the management of land, whether at the field,
farm or regional scale, can benefit from science knowledge and models. However, the adoption by
farmer and policy clients of Decision Support Systems (DSS) derived from science models has
been a disappointment to many developers and a number of assumptions underpinning this
rationale have been challenged and solutions proposed (van Ittersum et al., 1998; McCown et al.,
2002; Parker et al., 2002; Walker, 2002; Rossing et al., 2007).
A brief foray into the literature reveals that the nexus between science and policy is a field of
significant study and that the troubled relationship between science-based decision support and
political decision-making in agricultural land use is more often the typical situation than not at the
broader science-policy interface (Hoppe, 2005). The objective of this paper is to try to discern
possible intervention approaches using systems models into the agricultural policy domain.
Different science intervention models for POR
A number of approaches can be identified as having been employed by researchers in agricultural
land use studies in engaging in policy-oriented research using their systems modelling tools.
Based on the work of Hoppe (2001) we have represented these approaches as five diagrammatic
models based around the interface between two spheres representing the science sphere
occupied by researchers and the policy domains staffed by analysts and advisers (Figure 1). Type
A symbolizes the likely traditional status quo in agriculture land use studies whereby science
operates within its own sphere, aimed at creating knowledge and tools, whilst policy operates in a
separate sphere with analysts (many science trained) generating policy advice for political
decision-makers. The link between the two is via the large arrow, signifying that analysts go
looking for knowledge and tools from the science sphere on a needs basis and bring what they
want back into their sphere for use.
The history of development of agricultural decision support systems has largely operated with
scientists designing and developing DSS tools for expected use by decision makers, either at the
farm or policy scale. Type B represents a common, though maybe extreme view of DSS tools
developed in the science sphere and passed over to decision-makers (dotted arrow) with
expectations of uptake. Relative to the investment in tool and methodology development, little
effort is usually placed in fostering such adoption or evaluating impacts. Types A and B are modes
of operation that largely maintain divergence between the science and policy spheres and much of
the past efforts in agricultural systems analysis can be readily categorised to fall within such
schema. However, governments and research funders are increasingly demanding more costeffective
outcomes from shrinking public-good funding for research. We can identify three
additional models whereby science intervention in the policy sphere has been attempted using
systems analysis tools in land management studies.
We all know of prominent scientists who have become embroiled within the political sphere. They
have not simply engaged with politicians, they have worked to become part of the political
establishment and in doing so have been able to have science heard in political debates. Type C
- 2 -