Dr. Johnson was asked to address the following questions in his presentation (View his slide presentation):
|
I will begin by making what may be viewed as critical and possibly controversial distinctions in terminology. Some might say the distinctions are semantic. But I believe they are important to the evolving discussion of environmental management systems and policy. Environmental management systems are about process and results. They are not about specific sets of best management or other practices. There is an evolving understanding that environmental management has moved beyond best practices or a "practice based" approach. It is about documented processes and it is about meeting targeted results. The practice based approach and best management practices emerged as a politically convenient or policy shortcut. They emerged within the USDA, which was (and is ) heavily accountable to agricultural interest groups who were (and perhaps even now are ) not willing to admit that they were a part of the nonpoint source environmental problem. The idea was to develop a shortcut approach, a set of practices, that if adopted would somehow meet the environmental responsibilities of agriculture.
It is increasingly clear that the practices approach and the associated best management practices delivery system are not working. What is wrong with the practice based approach? What is causing this change in concept about environmental management systems and policy? It is that the scope of the practices approach is too narrow. Applications of specialized practices are not easily linked to results. And, systems approaches involve processes that are much more comprehensive than a simple set of prescribed or voluntarily applied practices. For example, the "process based approach" embraces education to change attitudes, training and the definitions of environmental issues within meaningful contexts-not just fields and whole farms, but for sets of farms, watersheds and other areas that have a clear link to the outcomes that are the targets of the processes. Community and other organizations are natural participants in the process approach to environmental management. The processes lead to results. Thus, the new approach to environmental management might be appropriately termed "process or results based."
Results and process based environmental management systems are more practical and more closely linked to problem solving. They involve documented processes and a focus on the results of the application of environmental management systems. They have a scope that is rationalized in terms of the environmental problem at hand. Very often this is not a field or a "whole farm," but an area or a watershed. They have credibility because they involve standardized documentation of processes, third party assessment and can be evaluated for meeting particular targets. Moreover, they have the very attractive attribute of including the farmers, local community leaders and others involved as an integral part of the definition of the problem and the associated management strategy. These farmers and the others involved in the locality appropriate environmental management system are the best problem solvers and know the most about the local conditions. All of this means that the issues or problems can be addressed more efficiently and at lower "cost."
Why the Land Grants?Why can the Land Grant System be an effective partner in this new approach to environmental management? First, the Land Grant System is becoming more engaged in environmental management because of the great opportunity to be of service to agriculture and rural communities. Implementing process and results oriented approaches like the ISO 14001, watershed, and community based systems requires education and training as well as the specialized research capacities resident within the Land Grants. Moreover the Land Grants have local points of presence throughout the nation. This local presence is quite consistent with the process and results based approaches where there is necessarily a high level of participation of the stakeholders involved in achieving the goals of the interventions. With this change we also need to develop a better understanding of the standards and the appropriate, and perhaps more efficient scope for the design of the management systems. Again, the research, extension and local presence of the Land Grant System makes it particularly well suited to partnering in the process of improving the environmental performance of agriculture.
This conference appears to have an excessive focus on individual farms and the implementation of farm based environmental management systems. It may be much more efficient and less costly to address the environmental problems within watershed or other better biogeophysically and administratively defined contexts. Clearly, there are added degrees of freedom in systems that address problems in larger contexts. And, as we think of multi-farm arrangements, and about participants other than farmers in the management systems, other skills than those of engineers come into play as a part of the process or results based approach. This is again the niche of the Land Grant System and their demonstrated success in using of multidiscipline approaches to problem solving and associated education, research and training. For example, there is a major role for developing innovative institutional mechanisms that can assure the cooperation that is necessary for success in environmental management strategies that are of community or watershed scope.
In a real sense, the whole approach to environmental management is at a crossroads. This conference and IFAFS project and several other initiatives among the farm and commodity associations, including what we call our "barnyard coalition," all are saying in one way or another that we cannot continue down the road defined by the practice based approach to environmental management. To continue with the practice based approach is to invite an unnecessary participation of the government inside the "factory." Permitted whole farm systems that are based on sets of practices will necessarily involve a great amount of specific regulatory control. When we examine the history of the point source regulation, it is clear that keeping the government out of the factory was a major issue. This issue was addressed by very sophisticated legal council retained by those covered by the point source regulations. There are important lessons to be learned by agriculture and other nonpoint source polluters from the debate on point source management.
First, agriculture will have to accept and understand that it is an important part of the nonpoint source problem. This will make agricultural leaders an essential part of the solution. Process or results based approaches to environmental management systems will have to be adopted. No longer will farmers and others be able to use the simple practice based approach. This does not say that good technical assistance is not essential in the understanding of relationships between processes and results. However, to continue to argue that a government prescribed practice or combination of practices will effectively solve a major environmental management problem requires a jump in logic that is going to continue to be questioned. The simpler approach is to develop credible and participatory processes that are targeted to the achievement of specific results.
The change will require a change of culture within the organizations that are a part of the national environmental management system, USDA and USEPA. We have a national environmental management system based on practices not results. We have an environmental management bureaucracy and culture in agriculture, and particularly within USDA, that is out of step with the modern approaches to environmental management. These agencies need to get out of the practices box. Agricultural interest groups, the quality management associations, farmers and environmentalists are more and more coming to understand the difference between practice based and process or results based approaches to environmental management. The federal regulatory and technical assistance groups are in a sense holding back this transition in environmental management strategy, not leading it.
ConclusionsThe Land Grant Systems will be heavily involved in the new environmental management system because they are efficient, relatively low cost, multidisciplinary, locally based, educational organizations. There will be an essential educational element as we transition from practice to a process or results based environmental management system.
Multi-functionality is another aspect of the new environmental management approach that the Land Grant System is well positioned to support. This is a European term reflecting the multiple benefits that we look for from agriculture and the natural resource base in rural communities. The natural resource base for rural communities must be looked to for more than growing crops and livestock. Comprehensive process or results based environmental management strategies can embrace diversified uses of these natural resources that are more consistent with rural development. Attributes that differentiate rural communities are valuable, and can be a part of the local management equation. Again, the Land Grant System can add value to the development and implementation of these multifunctional and larger in scale process or results based environmental strategies.
This conference will provide a great opportunity to explore the fundamental changes that are underway in approaches to environmental management. The modern approaches to environmental management fit very nicely with the resources available within the Land Grant System, and the tradition of merging science and practice - science based problem solving in response to the issues and priorities of constituents. The modern term is that the Land Grants are by design "engaged" institutions. This term, engagement, grossly parallels the emerging approach to environmental management. It is participatory, it brings the best in science, it is problem oriented, it is community or locally based, it is efficient and customized to local conditions, it involves processes that can be understood and communicated, it is results based. Perhaps most important it is an approach that includes compatible incentives for the stakeholders in agriculture, the environment and local communities.
The time is at hand to articulate and further develop the new approach to environmental management. The weaknesses of the practice based approach are increasingly apparent. More "one size fits all" practices and a larger government role to enforce the practice based approach is not the answer. We have pushed the practice based rope to the end. Much has been learned about environmental science as practices have been developed and studied. But, it is time to apply these results using the science that is available on management systems and process. This combination of the old and the new along with the focus on results holds great promise for a competitive agriculture, an improved environment, and the emergence of place based strategies in which natural resources are a key element in the development of rural communities.
Return to previous page