RECASTING ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE AS A MANAGEMENT MODEL - THE VALUE OF ADEPT SCALING

This paper identifies the significance of scale considerations as appl ied to agricultural resource management. Scaling is the act of definin g the spatiotemporal level or levels of interest when attempting probl em solving. A goal commonly proposed by the diverse interests working toward an alternative agriculture is sustainability. To date, advocate s of sustainability have failed to scale meaningfully both their criti que of conventional agriculture and the alternatives they represent. B ecause sustainability is inherently sensitive to changes in analytic c ontext (i.e., is scale-relative), in the absence of explicit scaling, sustainability is unworkable as a measure of system performance. The i mportance of scale as applied to the concept of sustainability in hier archical systems has been noted (Lowrance et al., 1986; Am. J. Altern. Agric., 1: 169-173), however, the implications of this finding have n ot been confronted in the subsequent literature. Going beyond Lowrance et al. (1986), this paper describes the error that accompanies improp erly scaled assessment of agricultural sustainability, and identifies two important considerations that emerge through explicit scaling: (1) the necessity of consistent and timely integration of local informati on into upper-level decision-making, and (2) the necessity of recogniz ing the scalar level of the downside of resource allocation trade-offs and addressing them accordingly. The first of these considerations su ggests the need for agricultural systems that are resilient to collaps e from unpredictable and potentially fundamental disturbance. Through incorporation of local information, it is possible to maintain coheren t strategies aimed at upper-level objectives (e.g., biodiversity conse rvation) while supporting the integrity of lower-level sub-systems (e. g., community economic vitality). The second consideration that arises from explicit scaling indicates the value of developing systems which are buffered against political paralysis caused by negative impacts o f resource allocation decisions. Victims, or losers, result from alloc ation and reallocation functions. These individuals and/or institution s must be addressed. Recent enthusiasm regarding win-win scenarios in many cases is buoyed by scaling error. Explicit recognition of the imp lications of necessary trade-offs, both positive and negative, promote s the development of mechanisms to support losers. Failure to confront the fact that losers are consistently produced exaggerates the negati ve impact they have on system performance. We define holistic manageme nt as identifying, assimilating, and acting on information in a manner consonant with the contextual spatiotemporal scale of the problem at hand. The fundamental challenge facing agriculture is integration of m ultiple considerations across levels in the system. Explicitly scaled analysis and action in a holistic setting is proposed as a means by wh ich alternative agriculture can respond to this challenge.