& Resea rch P aper Community Resilience and Contemporary Agri-Ecological Systems: Reconnecting People and Food, and People with People Christine A. King * School of Natural and Rural Systems Management, The University of Queensland (Gatton Campus), Gatton, Queensland, Australia Alternative agricultural systems that emphasize ecological and community resilience provide a bri dge bet wee n traditional agriculture and nat ura l resour ce management. These can be referred to as agri-ecological systems and include systems such as Organic Agri- culture, Biodynamics, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), Permaculture, Farmers Markets and Community Gardens. This pa pe r re port s on current resear ch by the author to explore a range of these systems and how they contribute to agri-ecological and com- munity resilience. For example, resiliency can be seen as a system’s ability to adapt and respond to external impacts on a system, and farmers markets show resiliency to sudden marke t chang es (such as price or consumer preferenc es towar d organ ics, through direct sa le an d the involvementofa ra nge of cons umers an d pr oduc ers offering a br oa d range of organi c pro duc e). Tha t is, this pap er rev iews the se alt ernati ve app roa che s to food pr oduction in re lati on to key concepts from ecological syste ms thinkin g, such as ecol ogical res ili enc e, bio div ers ity an d ho lis m. Mor e spe cifi cal ly, the pap er ex plo res how agr i-e col ogi cal systems contribute to more sustainable and resilient communities, through community development processes such as relationship building, genuine participation, inclusive- ness, resource mobilization and creating space for knowledge sharing. The paper con- clu des by compar ing eco log ica l sys tems mod els to agr i-e col ogi cal sys tems, and sug ges ts how ecological systems theories and concepts might contribute to thinking about the future ofcommunity-based agri-ecological resilience. Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Keywords agri cult ural sys tems ; ecol ogic al sys tems; food sys tems; communit y resi lience; sustainability Sy stems Res earc h and Beh av io ral Sci ence Sy st. Res . 25 , 1 1 1^ 1 24 (2008) PublishedonlineinWi ley In terScie nce (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI :10.1002/sres.854 *Correspondence to: Dr Christine A. King, School of Natural and Rural Systems Management, The University of Queensland (Gatton Campus), Gatton, Queensland, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Rec eiv ed XX XXXXAccepted XX XXXX
Transcript
8/20/2019 King - 2008 Community Resilience and Contemporary Agri-ecological Systems
Community Resilience and ContemporaryAgri-Ecological Systems: ReconnectingPeople and Food, and People with People
Christine A. King*
School of Natural and Rural Systems Management, The University of Queensland (Gatton Campus), Gatton,Queensland, Australia
Alternative agricultural systems that emphasize ecological and community resilienceprovide a bridge between traditional agriculture and natural resource management. Thesecan be referred to as agri-ecological systems and include systems such as Organic Agri-culture, Biodynamics, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), Permaculture, FarmersMarkets and Community Gardens. This paper reports on current research by the author toexplore a range of these systems and how they contribute to agri-ecological and com-munity resilience. For example, resiliency can be seen as a system’s ability to adapt andrespond to external impacts on a system, and farmers markets show resiliency to suddenmarket changes (such as price or consumer preferences toward organics, through directsale and the involvement of a range of consumers and producers offering a broad range of organic produce). That is, this paper reviews these alternative approaches to foodproduction in relation to key concepts from ecological systems thinking, such as ecologicalresilience, biodiversity and holism. More specifically, the paper explores how agri-ecologicalsystems contribute to more sustainable and resilient communities, through communitydevelopment processes such as relationship building, genuine participation, inclusive-ness, resource mobilization and creating space for knowledge sharing. The paper con-cludes by comparing ecological systems models to agri-ecological systems, and suggests howecological systems theories and concepts might contribute to thinking about the future of community-based agri-ecological resilience. Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Keywords agricultural systems; ecological systems; food systems; community resilience;
sustainability
Systems Research and Behavioral ScienceSyst. Res.25, 111 1̂24 (2008)
Published onlineinWiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI:10.1002/sres.854
*Correspondence to: Dr Christine A. King, School of Natural and Rural Systems Management, The University of Queensland (Gatton Campus),Gatton, Queensland, Australia.E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright# 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Received XX XXXX
Accepted XX XXXX
8/20/2019 King - 2008 Community Resilience and Contemporary Agri-ecological Systems
Alternative agricultural systems that emphasizeecological and community resilience provide a bridge between traditional agriculture (e.g. broadscale mono-cropping rotations) and natural
resource management (e.g. maintaining pristineenvironments). These can be referred to asagri-ecological systems and include systems suchas Organic Agriculture, Biodynamics, Com-munity Supported Agriculture (CSA), Permacul-ture, Farmers Markets and Community Gardens.Government agencies, private industries (and tosome extent Universities) primarily focus ontraditional agricultural systems. Where sustain-ability and community health issues are con-sidered, the usual emphasis is on how thesetraditional systems might be adapted or mana-
ged to reduce environmental or health impacts(within the current economic and productionparadigm). Communities however, are taking the
lead in developing agri-ecological systems thataddress today’s environmental and social justiceimperatives. These approaches often requiremore systemic change, as well as a shift froman economic paradigm to an ecological one.Figure 1 provides a conceptual diagram to help
locate agri-ecological systems in relation totraditional agriculture and natural resourcemanagement.
Background
The Green Revolution was a turning point interms of how agricultural systems were managedto support livelihoods through food and fibreproduction. From systems that would today be
referred to as organic and locally owned, camesystems that required high technological andchemical inputs that eventually expanded into
Figure 1. Locating agri-ecologcal systems in relation to traditional agriculture and natural resource management
highly industrialized and commercial enter-prises. The Green revolution at the time was seenas an alternative (and superior) way to reducefamine after the Second World War economiccrisis, by increasing agricultural productionthrough the use of chemicals such as pesticides,
herbicides and fertilisers (Coutts, 1997).Although the immediate response to this
alternative was dramatic increases in productionlevels and improved varieties, it did not take longfor people to realize that this was a short-termsolution. The revolution converted rich farmersinto richer agro-industrial entities through accessto bank loans and bulk products purchased atdiscount prices, such as fertilizers, chemicals,irrigation systems and machinery. Poor or smallfarmers, however, were being increasinglysqueezed out of the sector. Environmental degra-
dation was associated with these intensiveagricultural farming enterprises and associatedpractices, destabilizing the ecosystem and carry-ing consequences such as an increased number of insect plagues in crops, soil salinity, soil andwater contamination and loss of biodiversity.Gunderson and Pritchard (2002) describe theways in which loss of ecological resilience (andloss of ecosystem capital) can occur, includingmining, eutrophication, modifying key ecosys-tem relationships and homogenizing temporaland spatial variability, all of which can resultfrom intensive agriculture.
Ecologically, intensive agriculture produced a‘no-win’ dilemma—farmers either had to (i)increase productivity at the cost of long termsustainability (resulting in ecological destructionof the resource base on which their livelihooddepended) or they could try to (ii) maintainecological diversity at the cost of short-termhigher yields that were necessary to keep them infarming. Today, a global agriculture is emerging,defined by market liberalization and a regulatory
regime, supported by most countries around theworld. The markets theoretically are self regulated, operating without (direct) govern-ment interventions such as subsidies, bordercontrol and other market interventions, but it isdifficult to say whether this globalized approachachieves sustainability objectives. For example,globalization has increased financial pressure on
farmers, leaving them with limited resources tocompete with large industry players monopoliz-ing the market or to respond to large market pricefluctuations (McMichael and Lawrence, 2001).
MANAGING SYSTEMS FOR RESILIENCE
The increasing decline in ecosystem capital haspresented urgency for new ways of managingagricultural and natural systems. Particularlyprominent in the natural systems domain, ismanaging systems to increase system resilience.Underlying these different ways of managementare different assumptions about the properties of ecological systems. That is, there are differentperspectives of ecosystem resilience, and eachperspective assumes a different course of action
in management. These can be represented asmodels and three models commonly in use (atleast theoretically) are described below.
Model 1— Engineering Resilience
This definition of resilience focuses on efficiencyand assumes constancy and predictability. Fromthis perspective, systems exist close to a stable orequilibrium steady state, and a system’s resili-ence is measured by resistance to disturbanceand the speed of return to the steady statefollowing a perturbation (King and Powell, 2000).This type of resilience focuses on maintainingefficiency of function and can be aligned with20th-century economic theory (Gunderson andPritchard, 2002). Researchers explore system behaviour near a known stable state (i.e.near-equilibrium behaviour) and operate deduc-tively in the tradition of mathematical theory thatimagines simplified, untouched ecological sys-tems. This model also draws on the engineering
discipline which is motivated to design singleoperating systems (i.e. optimal design).This model is grounded within a positivist
epistemology, where scientists aim to develop anobjective understanding about an ecologicalsystem. An objective understanding implies anumber of assumptions in terms of managing forsustainability. The first assumption is that a
system can be known and one ‘truth’ exists, sug-gesting one best management option. Second,objectivity also suggests that people are separatefrom nature, and often the way people interactwith nature is unsustainable. Third, sustainabil-ity is viewed as something that can be ‘reached’
andis oftengoal describing.Gunderson andPritchard(2002) suggest that this model is ‘certainlyconsistent with the engineer’s desire to make thingswork— and not to intentionally make things thatbreak down or suddenly shift their behaviour; butnature and human society are different’.
Model 2—Ecological Resilience
This model of resilience focuses on persistence,despite changes and unpredictability. In terms of
ecological resilience, it assumes conditions farfrom any stable steady state, where instabilitiescan shift or flip a system into another regime of behaviour to another stability domain (Berkesand Folke, 1998). Resilience is measured by themagnitude of disturbance that can be absorbed before the system is restructured with differentcontrolling variables and processes. This focuseson maintaining existence of function. Research-ers search for alternative stable states, theproperties of the boundaries between states,and the conditions that can cause a system to
move from one stability domain to another. Thismodel has its tradition within applied math-ematics and applied resource ecology, and alignsmore with contemporary economic theory whichhas identified multi-stable states (Gunderson andPritchard, 2002). As with the first model, manage-ment is aimed at achieving system stability, isoften system-prescribing, and therefore can beequated with conventional notions of sustain-ability.
Model 3 —Adaptive Capacity Resilience
This model addresses the management of un-stable states or non-equilibrium systems.Non-equilibrium systems are often associatedwith the work of Clarence Holling and hispopular Figure-Eight Model (Holling, 1973;1987). This model represents systems as
dynamic, not static and is said to give a betterrepresentation of complex systems. The modelsuggests that a system moves cyclically between
four domains: conservation, release, exploitationand reorganization (Figure 2). As the system shifts between the different domains, conventionalnotions of sustainability are challenged on twofronts (King and Powell, 2000). First, the degreeof coupling, connectedness or linearity betweenimpacts and the system is shown to be domaindependent. At a second level, the earlierdefinition of sustainability, which speaks of ‘maintaining capital constant and undimin-ished’, is contested. In the Figure-Eight Modelthe degree of stored capital is once again domaindependent. In fact the model suggests that, if therelease of capital from the system is suppressed(by remaining in the conservation domain for anextended period), then its release will havecatastrophic consequences (King and Powell,2000).1
This model is grounded in a constructivistepistemology. From this, understanding is sub- jective and people cannot be separated from
Figure 2. Holling’s Figure-Eight Model of system dyna-mics (Holling, 1987)
1A number of authors have revised Holling’s conceptual Figure-Eight
Model to align it with data based on actual observation, suggestingthat the original model makes the assumption that the amount of biomass before a destructive event and during the renewal of thesystem is equivalent, where in reality this is not often the case. Forexample, Kay (1994) changed the model so that the loop consisting of phases 2 and 3 is larger in size than the loop consisting of phases 1 and4. Hansell and Bass (1998) also revised the model to more accuratelyrepresent the linkages between biodiversity and climate change.Nevertheless, Holling’s original model provides a good conceptualmodel in which to understand the main assumptions behind Model 3and ecosystem dynamics.
nature, but are a part of nature. In fact, there are anumber of case studies which show that if peopleare removed from nature (or uncoupled fromnature) the system is likely to be less sustainable(Russell and Ison, 1993). Sustainability is also aterm that has many meanings and is part of an
on-going process of shared learning. Here,measurement of resilience is undertaken in termsof a coupled system’s capacity to learn (evolve)co-dependently. This third model allows thepossibility of managing a coupled system interms of plasticity, of function, structure andprocess. King and Powell (2000) highlight thatthis model recognizes (i) the need to reduceuncertainty in order for governance to function,(ii) the precautionary principle as the justificationfor action (rather than, as it is sometimes taken to be, a rationale for blocking action) and (iii) there
will be bad decisions with serious, perhapsirreversible consequences. Thus, here the empha-
sis is on maintaining continuing capacity to generate options and scenarios. Research involvesshared identification of and learning about keyvariables, relationships and processes and theopportunities for influencing these variables,relationships and processes.
Table 1 provides a summary of these threemodels of resilience in terms of a range of characteristics and associated assumptions foreach model. The three models imply differentways in which systems can be managed forresilience.
APPLYING THE CONCEPTS OF RESILIENCE TO AGRI-ECOLOGICALSYSTEMS
Due to the social, environmental and healthproblems caused by globalization and conven-
Table 1. Assumptions behind different characteristics of the three models of resilience
tional industrialized agriculture, communities allover the world have been developing alternativeagri-ecological systems that are more sustainable.Below are six systems that are becoming increa-singly popular in Australia. They are presentedhere, to provide a brief overview of each system
and to compare the system’s underlying assump-tions with the models of resilience previouslydiscussed.
Organic Agriculture
Organic agriculture can be simply defined asagricultural systems that rely on ecosystemdevelopment rather than conventional agricul-tural inputs such as synthetic fertilizers andchemicals. The demand for organic produce has
been steadily growing in recent years for threemain reasons, including health, environmentand/or food security. A study by Woodward-Clyde (2000) highlights that there has been anoverall decline in public confidence in modernfarming and processing methods, and an increas-ing consumer awareness of food-borne hazardssuch as pesticides, antibiotics, hormones andartificial ingredients. The expansion of organicsales over the last two decades has increasedworldwide to around US$20 billion and growing20–50% per annum. In Australia the value of
organic production has expanded 10-fold between 1990 and 2000, and is currently valuedat around AUD$250 million, of which about $80million worth is exported (Palaszczuk, 2000). It isexpected that by 2013, 30% of Australian foodwill be organic (GRDC, 2003). In 1999, the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission used thefollowing definition:
‘Organic agriculture is a holistic productionmanagement system which promotes and enhancesagro-ecosystem health, including biodiversity,
biological cycles and soil biological activity. Itemphasizes the use of management practices inpreference to the use of off-farm inputs, taking intoaccount that regional conditions require locallyadapted systems. This is accomplished by using,where possible, agronomic, biological and mechan-ical methods, as opposed to using syntheticmaterials, to fulfil any specific function within
the system’ (FAO/WHO Codex AlimentariusCommission, 2007).
Today, it is generally accepted in the wider com-munity that food grown organically is healthier,not only because it does not contain chemical
residues, but because it may also be higher innutritional value (e.g. Goldstein, 2000; King andPahl, 2003) and promote ecosystem diversity. Astudy by Bengtsson et al. (2005) comparedorganic and conventional farms by analyzingpublished reports and concluded that organicfarming usually increases species richness onaverage 30% and also abundance of organisms by50%. Although organic agriculture is gainingacceptance, it has been criticized for not necess-arily being a more sustainable option or holisticenterprise, where the elimination of chemicals
has led to an increase in other practices thatcontribute to environmental degradation (e.g.increased mechanization). For example, in Aus-tralia, research has showed generally loweryields on organic farms stemming from low-phosphorous soils, having several implicationsfor sustainability such as reducing energyefficiency and the ability of a system to respondin a flexible manner to problems such as drylandsalinity (Davidson, 2005). However, organicagriculture does keep redefining itself, and in2005 the International Federation of Organic
Agriculture Movement (IFOAM) defined organicagriculture as a whole system approach based upon aset of processes resulting in a sustainable ecosystem,safe food, good nutrition, animal welfare and social justice. Davidson (2005) suggests that organicproduction today is more than a system of production that includes or excludes certaininputs (Davidson, 2005).
Biodynamics
Biodynamics has its foundations in Anthroposo-phy, a spiritual movement created by Rudolf Steiner. Anthroposophy was designed as a‘spiritual science’ to renew and transform humanactivity and society through increasing humancognitive capacity, based on a reunion of science,art and religion (Lorand, 2001). Central to an
understanding of anthroposophy is the evol-utionary concept: that all of life is in a process of change, transformation and metamorphosis.Lorand (2001) describes successful biodynamicsas a true daughter movement of anthroposophywith identical goals and methods, simply applied to
agriculture, however, suggests that we have hiddenthese realities about biodynamics to avoid beingseen as fanatical. Advocates of biodynamics see itas a more purposeful process than organics,suggesting that although organic agriculturerightly wants to halt the devastation caused byhumans; organic agriculture has no cure for the ailingEarth (Wildfeuer, 1995).
Wildfeuer (1995) describes biodynamics asa science of life-forces, a recognition of the basicprinciples at work in nature, and an approach toagriculture which takes these principles into account
to bring about balance and healing. Comparing biodynamics to conventional and organicagricultural systems, biodynamics is an ongoingpath of knowledge rather than an assemblage of methods and techniques. Some of the basic prin-ciples of biodynamics reported by Wildfeuerinclude (i) the broadening of our perspective onagriculture, (ii) careful observation of thedynamics (e.g. seasons and soil types) andlanguage of nature, (iii) applying an under-standing of cosmic rhythms to agriculturalpractices (e.g. sowing, cultivating), (iv) recog-nition of the interconnections between plant lifeand soil life (e.g. building up of humus throughcomposting), (v) chemically free production thataims for quality (that stimulates human vitality),(vi) the use of biodynamic preparations in thefield based on seasonal rhythms and life forces(e.g. enhancing the capacity for a plant to receivelight), (vii) a self-sufficient farm that seeks topreserve, recycle, produce what is needed andprovide learning opportunities to imitate nature(viii) an economics based on the knowledge of
farming bringing together producers and con-sumers for mutual benefit (e.g. CSA). Wildfeuer(1995) provides some insights into Rudolf Steiner’s motivations and grounding for biody-namic systems:
‘Yet it was wonderfully significant; you could learn far more from peasants than from the Uni-
versity . . .. It was a kind of cultural philosophy. I’ve often thought that was a scathing indictment of university learning from one who had seen the bestuniversities in the world! Yet, to go back to anearlier stage of development was never a goal forRudolf Steiner. Always he sought to develop, out of
an older form, something entirely new. He did notcontemplate a return to the feudal system out of which the peasantry came, nor did he wish to ignorethe gains of agricultural science or a scientificeducation. He wanted farmers, scientists andcommercial interests to form new relationshipsand for farmers to develop new faculties of consciousness. Perhaps most importantly, he didnot think that food grown on increasinglyimpoverished soil could provide the inner suste-nance that is needed for spiritual activity’.
Community Supported Agriculture
CSA is a recent idea that originated in Japan andSwitzerland around the 1960s, which is based ona partnership between farmers and consumerswho share the risks and benefits in foodproduction (Hawkins et al., 2003). Through thisprocess, consumers expect to benefit by receivingsafe food and farmers benefit through feasibleways of commercialization. Consumers make anarrangement to support the farm during theseason assuming the operational costs and risks,and purchase the crop at reasonable prices. In thesame way, farmers offer good quality, healthyand environmentally friendly produce followingsustainability principles (and are generallyorganic).
The CSA movement was born in the Biody-namic movement and is spreading rapidly. CSAsreflect the culture of the community they serve,the capabilities of the CSA and the farmers who
manage it. Therefore CSAs are not likely to be thesame and tend to be dynamic as communityneeds vary and change over time. However, wecan categorize the CSAs into four different types,namely (i) farmer managed, (ii) shareholder/subscriber, (iii) farmer cooperative and (iv)farmer/shareholder cooperative (Wilkinson,2001).
The supportive relationship between farmersand the community helps to create an on-goinglearning relationship which increases consu-mers’ awareness about the implications of producing food that meets certain criteria (e.g.seasonality, choices in management practices,
cost of production) and increases farmers aware-ness about consumers’ preferences. That is, therelationship enables purposeful feedback andadaptation. The CSA itself (as an organization)has the potential to serve a range of otherfunctions, such as exploring alternatives anddistributing information to all its stakeholdersabout a range of issues such as innovations infood technology, environmental impacts of different food production systems and how toimprove their management system throughsourcing information about other CSAs (Diaz
Vera, 2005). In addition, advanced agreementscan help improve the economic viability of smallscale organic producers and encourage conven-tional farmers to try and test other moresustainable options over the season.
Permaculture
Permaculture is a design system which aims tocreate sustainable food, resource and communitysystems by following nature’s patterns. The word‘permaculture’, was coined by Australians BillMollison and David Holmgren during the 1970s,who started to develop ideas that they hopedcould be used to create stable agriculturalsystems (Mollison, 1988). Although they coinedthe term ‘Permaculture’, they were inspired by anumber of earlier people and concepts (e.g.Odum’s work focused on system ecology; Yeo-man’s observation based approach to land useand keyline design, 1973, Permanent Agriculture
of Franklin King, 1937; Pattern language of Christopher Alexander).The permaculture concept has evolved over
time and is difficult to define. Today permacul-ture can best be described as an ethical designsystem applicable to food production and landuse, as well as community building (Holmgren,2006).
Central to permaculture is its ‘inter-disciplinarity’ where disciplines such as ecology,landscape planning, architecture and agrofores-try are integrated both conceptually and practi-cally, to help people create an approach and wayof living that is both productive and sustainable.
It is inter-disciplinary (as opposed to multi-disciplinary) because its focus is on the relation-ships between the disciplines; the whole becom-ing greater than the sum of its parts. In addition, akey aspect of Permaculture is the development of a person’s capacity to recognize universalpatterns and principles (through critical aware-ness and observation) of natural system andapply these in practice in their own context.Holmgren (2006) provides a more currentdefinition of permaculture, which reflects theexpansion of focus implicit in Mollison and
Holmgren’s earlier book (i.e. Permaculture One)where the aim of permaculture is ‘consciouslydesigned landscapes which mimic the patterns andrelationships found in nature while yielding anabundance of food, fibre and energy for provision of local needs’. Its underlying processes are high-lighted in the following description by Perma-culture International (2006):
Permaculture (permanent agriculture) is theconscious design and maintenance of agricultu-rally productive ecosystems which have thediversity, stability and resilience of naturalecosystems. It is the harmonious integration of landscape and people providing their food, energy,shelter and other material and non-material needsin a sustainable way. Without permanent agri-culture there is no possibility of a stable socialorder. Permaculture design is a system of assembling conceptual, material and strategiccomponents in a pattern which functions to benefitlife in all its forms. The philosophy behindpermaculture is one of working with, rather than
against, nature; of protracted and thoughtfulobservation rather than protracted and thoughtlessaction; of looking at systems in all their functions,rather than asking only one yield of them; andallowing systems to demonstrate their ownevolutions. From a philosophy of cooperation withnature and each other, of caring for the earth andpeople, permaculture presents an approach to
designing environments which have the diversity,stability and resilience of natural ecosystems, toregenerate damaged land and preserve environ-ments which are still intact.
Permaculture is a broad-based and holistic
approach that has many applications. At theheart of permaculture design and practice is afundamental set of ‘core values’ including Earth-care (Earth is the source of all life and we are apart of the Earth, not apart from it); Peoplecare(supporting each other and developing healthysocieties); and Fairshares (or placing limits toconsumption and ensuring equitable use). Per-maculture is however, human centric. It has itsorigins in the search for an alternative foodproduction system where people could breaktheir reliance on industrialized agriculture. In
this context, it stressed the importance of low-inputs and diversity as opposed to high-inputs(e.g. fossil fuel technology) and monocropping.This resulted in an increasing number of smallscale market and home gardens for foodproduction. To reduce inputs, permaculturehas a basic principle of adding value to a cropin alternative ways such as mixed cropping formultiple outputs or exchanging crops for labour(e.g. LETS scheme). Importantly, it seeks toaddress problems that include the economicquestion of how to either make money fromgrowing crops or exchanging crops. Each finaldesign therefore should include economic con-siderations as well as giving equal weight tomaintaining ecological balance.
Farmers Markets
Farmers markets are becoming increasinglypopular, with now more than 80 farmers markets
across Australia. Research presented at the 2ndNational Australian Farmers’ Markets Confer-ence, held at Albury–Wodonga in August 2005showed that farmers markets are now producingmore than $80 million worth of economic benefitacross the host communities in Australia(Organic Gardener, 2005/2006). The Global tradewatch website (2006) highlights the benefits of
farmers’ markets in Australia suggesting thatthey are:
a real alternative to export markets which force Australian farmers to over produce, overusechemical inputs and which pay them lower and
lower prices. At a farmers’ market, farmers from alocal area sell their food direct to the public. Buying food from a farmers’ market means that is locallyproduced, and the money goes straight to the personwho grew it. It guarantees farmers a decent income,encourages face to face interaction, creates com-munities and avoids destructive efforts of the globaltrading system. (Global Trade Watch— Farmers Markets in Australia (www.tradewatchoz.org/localfood/)).
Farmers’ markets not only show benefits forfarmers and purchasers at the markets, but there
are also advantages for local retailers, processorsand restaurant owners (RIRDC, 2006—NewGeneration Farmers’ Markets in Rural Commu-nities which was launched at the 2nd AustralianFarmers’ Market Association Conference) show-ing the ability for farmers’ markets to impact andenhance wider systems. This report waslaunched by Senator Colbeck at the Conference,who stated that markets cultivate direct interactionbetween growers and consumers, creating fertile ground for new product innovation (OrganicGardener, 2005/2006). The report also foundthat farmers’ markets (i) are complementary toexisting businesses, (ii) effectively showcase localproduce and help educate customers about localfood, (iii) provide and opportunity for radicalchange in production and marketing, (iv) pro-vide a forum for communities interested in freshfood, its source, and ideas for new products, (v)provide an opportunity for business andpersonal growth, (vi) require a high level of passion, imagination, perseverance and skill bythe market manager to be successful (RIRDC,
2006).Farmers’ Markets enhance consumer interestin local produce and this can lead to a willingness by urban communities to support the localfarming community. They show potential inreconnecting urban consumers with food, as wellas people from the rural community. In thissense, Farmers’ Markets help to break down the
well-known ‘rural–urban divide’. In Australia,the concept of farmers’ markets has moved intoe-business, producing the on-line farmers marketwebsite. This site tries to connect people withfood and people with people (i.e. consumers andproducers) through a virtual community, by
providing local farm directories to access locallygrown food and products, and promotingregional food groups that supply a variety of different foods from their regions.
Community Gardens
Community Gardens are becoming more andmore prominent in Australia. The AustralianCommunity Gardens Network (2006) websiteprovides a useful historical account of com-
munity gardens in Australia, stating that com-munity gardens have their origin in the 1970s, atime that was characterized by increasing con-cern over environmental conditions, greaterleisure time and changing recreational activities(Australian Community Gardens network, 2006).In the mid 1990s, in response to the growingnumber of community gardens, the AustralianCommunity Gardens Network was established.Gelsi (1999) compares the number of communitygardens in Australia, with other industrializedcountries, suggesting that Agricultural activitywithin cities, compared to formal rural agricul-ture, is minuscule. They account for this by themarked economic, social and cultural differen-tiation between city and country in Australia.Although the number of community gardensrecorded in 1996 was 38, this number has beengrowing at an ever increasing rate over the lastdecade.
Reported benefits of community gardens arediverse, including physical and psychologicalwell being, providing community spaces for
learning and shared decision making, relation-ship building, and community development(Australian City Farms and Community GardensNetwork, 2006). Curran (1993) found that com-munity garden organizers and community gar-deners have different opinions about the benefitsof community gardening. This research showedthat community organizers believed that com-
munity gardens improved the environment, benefited the wider community and led topolitical empowerment. Community gardeners,however, emphasized personal and psychologi-cal benefits, but never environmental benefits orpolitical effects. What these two groups did agree
on, however, were the beneficial effects onincome and food consumption.
Crabtree (1999) draws on ecological theory tohighlight the use of permaculture in communitygardens. Two concepts are seen as particularlyimportant, including the role of edges and therole of replication. Crabtree (1999) explains howcommunity gardens enhance resilience by using(i) ‘edges’ within both physical design (e.g.keyholes, spirals) and social organization (e.g.enhancing areas of communication) and (ii)‘replication’ at the physical and social levels,
where it is desirable to have each required functionfulfilled by numerous components and eachcomponent fulfilling multiple functions. Inaddition, she suggests that such concepts createspace for education and community development.In terms of community development, Gelsi (1999)illustrates that community gardening has ‘shownitself to have potential as an effective tool for civilsociety . . . as places where people come together, grow fresh food, improve local environments and contribute tohumane, liveable cities’. Wider system benefits arealso illustrated in a quote by Gelsi (1999):
‘Community gardening may seem another of many‘‘leisure’’ activities for very few people, and thus of little relevance to problems that perturb govern-ments and policy makers. But, when viewed withinthe broader context of the development of capitalistsocial relations, the culture of consumption and therise of environmentalism, community gardeningmay be one way in which small groups of people tryto redefine consumption by addressing those social,ecological and moral issues ignored by theconsumer ideology of ‘‘more is better’’’.
SUMMARY
The examples of alternative agri-ecological sys-tems above can be compared with the threemodels of resilience. Table 2 illustrates each systemand corresponding resilience model. As each of the
systems may have characteristics that could sitwithin more than one model, the predominantmodel is presented. That is, the model and itsunderlying assumptions which show most sim-ilarity to a particularly system (in its ‘ideal’ sense)is presented, although it is understood that thereare variations of the different systems in ‘reality’.The table also highlights some key processes in
each system that contribute to both ecological andcommunity resilience.
CONCLUSIONS
Communities are taking a lead role in developingagri-ecological systems that address today’senvironmental and social justice imperatives.
Table 2. The predominant resilience model for each agri-ecological system and how each system contributes to ecological andcommunity resilience
Agri-ecologicalsystem
Predominantresilience model
Contribution toecological resilience
Contribution tocommunity resilience
Conventional
agriculture
I High input and low
output over time(negative contribution)
Reduced community
health and well being(negative contribution)
Organics II Low input and highoutput over time
Community health andwell being
Biodiversity
Biodynamics III Low input and highoutput over time
Enhanced adaptive capacityand consciousness
Biodiversity Self-sufficiency
Adaptive capacity Deliberate learning
CSAs II Shared risk and pre-seasonagreements enables farmers
to try more sustainable options
Creating networks acrossrural–urban interface
Co-learning
Permaculture III Self-sufficiency and produceexchange reduces demand forless sustainable options
Maintaining networks forexchange
Enhances biodiversity Self-sufficiency
Deliberate learning
Small business niche marketopportunities
Farmers markets II Reduced risk and higher pricesenables farmers to carry out more
sustainable practices
Creating networks acrossrural–urban interface
Fast feedback mechanisms forchanging market demands
Co-learning
Small business niche marketopportunities
Community gardens III Self-sufficiency and produceexchange reduces demand for lesssustainable options
Enhancing space (edge) forcommunication, informationsharing, deliberate co-learning;
There are many similarities between ecological(model II) and adaptive capacity (model III)resilience models developed through exploringthe resilience of persistent natural ecosystems andalternative agri-ecological systems developed bycommunities through relationship building and
collective learning, as well as learning with theenvironment. Resilience models also showpromise in helping guide the design of alterna-tive agri-ecological systems that are an alterna-tive to conventional agriculture.
One common question asked by researchers of more sustainable agricultural systems is ‘whichsystem is best?’ Some key findings from Gun-derson and Pritchard (2002) who draw upon theirunderstanding of adaptive capacity resiliencehelp to address this question. They highlight thefollowing:
When a system has shifted into an undesirablestability domain, the management alternativesare to (i) restore the system to a desirabledomain, (ii) allow the system to return to adesirable domain on its own, or (iii) adapt tothe changed system because changes areirreversible;
Resilience is maintained by focusing on (i)keystone structuring processes that crossscales, (ii) source of renewal and reformation,and (iii) multiple sources of capital and skills.
No single mechanism can guarantee mainten-ance of resilience;
In ecological systems, resilience lies in therequisite variety of functional groups andaccumulated capital that provides sourcesfor recovery. Resilience within a system isgenerated by destroying and renewing sys-tems at smaller, faster scales;
Ecological resilience is re-established by theprocesses that contribute to system ‘memory’,those involved in regeneration and renewalthat connect that systems’ present to its past
and to it neighbours; Resource systems that have been sustained
over long periods of time increase resilience bymanaging processes at multiple scales;
In economic systems, multiple technologiesadd resilience in the face of shifts in demandand factor prices and availability; and
It is linkages and connectivity across time andamong people that helps navigate transitionsthrough periods of uncertainty to restoreresilience.
These key findings provide some guidance forfuture strategies in designing, managingand scaling-up of alternative agri-ecological systems. Forexample, it would seem that to allow for futureunpredictability and surprise, no one system is‘best’; and a variety of agri-ecological systemsthat enable diversity of function at multiplescales would enhance ecological and communityresilience. From a constructivist perspective, wewould perhaps progress into reconnectingpeople with food, and people with people andleave the notion of a ‘best’ system behind. That is,
there needs to be a deliberate intention tofacilitate systemic ways of approaching thechange needed and this may lie in communitiesimagining novel human (activity) systems whichtake organic/biodynamic/permaculture/CSAsand whatever else ‘concepts’ and ‘practices’and build and learn their way towards resilient(rather than stable or optimal) linkages.
Conventional industrialized agricultural sys-tems have persisted over the past 150 years. Thisresilience has been heavily grounded in aneconomic paradigm and a resilience that has
been maintained (and buffered) through regula-tions, subsidies, trade negotiations, policies andother ‘blockages’. These systems are contributinghowever, to an ever increasing loss in ecosystemresilience. Perhaps an understanding of thedifferent models of resilience will help designstrategies to breakdown, transform and renewthese conventional systems. That is, a knowledgeof resilient systems may not only provide ways of moving forward and transformation—but pro-vide processes to strategically deconstruct cur-rent conventional systems and the political
institutions in which they are nested.Capra (1997) provides a conceptual framework
for the link between ecological communities andhuman communities. He calls for a people to be‘ecoliterate’ and states that being ecoliteratemeans understanding the principles of organiz-ation of ecological communities (i.e. ecosystems)
and using those principles for creating sustain-able human communities. Community-basedagri-ecological systems seem to provide oppor-tunities to reconnect people with people andpeople with food, opening up spaces for‘ecoliteracy’ to develop through shared and
reflective learning.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author acknowledges the valuable com-ments provided by Professor Nadarajah Sriskan-darajah (Dept. of Urban and Rural Development,SLU) who helped to focus and make improve-ments to the paper.
REFERENCES
Australian Community Gardens Network. 2006. www.communitygarden.org.au
Bengtsson J, Ahnstrom J, Weibull A. 2005. The effectsof organic agriculture on biodiversity and abun-dance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology42: 261–269.
Berkes F, Folke C. 1998. Linking Social and EcologicalSystems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms
for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press:Cambridge, UK.
Capra F. 1997. The Web of Life: A New Synthesis of Mind
and Matter. Flamingo: London.Coutts J. 1997. Changes in Extension—an AustralianPerspective, The coming of age of extension, Con-
ference Proceedings (Volume 1) The Australasian PacificNetwork Conference: Managing change – buildingknowledge and skills, November, 1997, Albury.
Crabtree LA. 1999. Sustainability as Seen from a Veg-etable Garden. Macquarie University thesis, New SouthWales http://www.thirdangel.com/sustainability/
Curran JA. 1993. We Grow People: Community Gar-dening Programs as Solutions to the Problems of Low Income Neighbourhoods. Unpublished paper.Rutgers University.
Davidson S. 2005. Going Organic. Ecos, Oct-Nov, 2005.Diaz Vera JS. 2005. Values and Beliefs of FoodConnect
(CSA) Stakeholders. Master Thesis ( for partial fulfill-ment of Master of Agribusiness). School of Natural andRural Systems Management. The University of Queensland.
Gelsi EJ. 1999. Gardening in the Street: Sociality,Production And Consumption in Northey StreetCity Farm. University of Queensland thesis www.cityfarmer.org/brisbane.html.
Global Trade Watch. 2006. Farmers Markets in Australiawww.tradewatchoz.org/localfood/
GRDC. 2003. Organic Produce—Full Reports. Grains
Research and Development Coorporation http://www.rirdc.gov.au/fullreports/org.html
Gunderson LH, Pritchard L. 2002. Resilience and theBehaviour of Large-Scale Systems. Island Press:Washington.
Hansell R, Bass B. 1998. Holling’s Figure-Eight Model:a technical re-evaluation in relation to climatechange and biodiversity. Monitoring and Assessment49: 157–168.
Hawkins T, Davies D, Lyons K, Thompson V. 2003.Towards a Community Supported Agriculture. Friendsof the Earth: Brisbane, Australia.
Holling CS. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecologicalsystems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4:
1–23.Holling CS. 1987. Simplifying the complex: The para-digms of ecological function and structure. European
Journal of Operational Research 30: 139–146.Holmgren D. (2006). What is Permaculture? Permacul-
ture International Website http://www.permacul-tureinternational.org/whatispermaculture.htm
Kay JJ. 1994. The Ecosystem Approach, Ecosystems asComplex Systems and State of the EnvironmentReporting. North American Commission forEnvironmental Cooperation, State of the NorthAmerican Ecosystem Meeting, Montreal, 8–10December, 1994.
King CA, Pahl L. 2003. What is the ‘Ideal’ Environ-
mental Certification System? Perspectives fromIndustry, Conservation and Consumer Groups. Pro-ceedings of the Australian Farming Systems Conference.Toowoomba, Australia, September 2003.
King CA, Powell N. 2000. Informing ParticipatoryAction Research (PAR) with the principles of eco-logical systems. Proceedings of the 5th Action Learning,
Action Research and Process Management ( ALARPM)Conference, Ballarat, 2000.
Lorand A. 2001. The biodynamic movement: the com-plexity of being both esoteric and exoteric. Biody-namics 234: (March/April).
McMichael P, Lawrence G. 2001. Globalising agricul-ture: structures of constraint for Australian farming.In Rurality Bites The Social and Environmental Trans-
Palaszczuk H. 2000. Organic Food Focus for Queens-land Farmers. Queensland media Statement fromthe Queensland Minister for Primary Industriesand Rural Communities, 2 July.
