Stakeholder expectations for environmental assurance in agriculture: Lessons from the pastoral industry

This paper outlines the expectations of a wide range of stakeholders for environmental assurance in the pastoral industries and agriculture generally. Stakeholders consulted were domestic consumers, rangeland graziers, members of environmental groups, companies within meat and wool supply chains, and agricultural industry, environmental and consumer groups. Most stakeholders were in favour of the application of environmental assurance to agriculture, although supply chains and consumers had less enthusiasm for this than environmental and consumer groups. General public good benefits were more important to environmental and consumer groups, while private benefits were more important to consumers and supply chains. The 'ideal' form of environmental assurance appears to be a management system that provides for continuous improvement in environmental, quality and food safety outcomes, combined with elements of ISO 14024 eco-labelling such as life-cycle assessment, environmental performance criteria, third-party certification, labelling and multi-stakeholder involvement. However, market failure prevents this from being implemented and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. In the short term, members of supply chains (the people that must implement and fund environmental assurance) want this to be kept simple and low cost, to be built into their existing industry standards and to add value to their businesses. As a starting point, several agricultural industry organisations favour the use of a basic management system, combining continuous improvement, risk assessment and industry best management practice programs, which can be built on over time to meet regulator, market and community expectations.

A collaborative design to adaptively manage for landscape sustainability in north Australia: lessons from a decade of cooperative research

Approaches to manage for the sustainable use of natural and cultural resources in a landscape can have many different designs. One design is adaptive collaborative landscape management (ACLM) where research providers and users work closely together on projects to develop resources while adaptively managing to sustain or maintain landscapes in the long term. We propose that collaborative projects are more useful for achieving outcomes than integrative projects where participants merely join their separate contributions. To foster collaborative research projects to adaptively manage landscapes in northern Australia, a Tropical Savannas Cooperative Research Centre (TSCRC) was established in 1995. The TSCRC is a joint venture of major organizations involved in research and land management. This paper is our perspective on the four most important 'lessons learned' after using a ACLM-type approach for over 10 y. We learnt that collaboration (working in combination) not necessarily integration (combining parts into a whole) achieved sustainable outcomes. We found that integration across culturally diverse perspectives seldom achieved sustainable solutions because it devalued the position of the less empowered participants. In addition, positive outcomes were achieved when participants developed trust and respect for each other by embracing and respecting their differences and by sharing unifying concepts such as savanna health. Another lesson learned was that a collaborative organization must act as an honest broker by resisting advocacy of one view point over another. Finally, we recognized the importance of strongly investing in communication and networking so that people could adaptively learn from one another's experiences, understand each other's challenges and respect each other's choices. Our experience confirms the usefulness of the ACLM approach and highlights its role in the process of sustaining healthy landscapes.