 |
Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation |
|| Home || Search || Contact || Publications Eshop || Privacy Statement ||
Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation
February 2002
RIRDC Publication No 01/174 RIRDC Project No MS001-14
Executive Summary of InFoRM 2000
Integrated biosystems and sustainable development Kev Warburton and
Usha Pillai-McGarry
The University of Queensland
Abstract
Integrated biosystems make functional connections between agriculture, aquaculture, food processing, waste management, water use, and fuel generation. They encourage the dynamic flows of material and energy by treating wastes and by-products of one operation as inputs for another. In this way food, fertiliser, animal feed and fuel can be produced with the minimum input of nutrients, water and other resources.
Biosystem integration can help achieve sustainability objectives by:
Sustainability objectives will be best served by the progressive
introduction of carefully planned integrated systems capable of satisfying
food production, fuel and fertiliser needs with near-zero environmental
impacts. To this end, operational initiatives by individual producers and
others will need to be complemented by legislative and government-led incentives,
coordinated research and development, and the incorporation of integrated
biosystem principles in land use planning.
In this paper we consider how integrated biosystems (IB) can advance the sustainability agenda, and foreshadow some of the themes developed later in this volume. The names of contributors are cited in bold font.
Over recent decades, growing problems of resource scarcity and environmental degradation have put pressure on conventional systems of food production and resource management. Responses have included a shift in community concern and a re-evaluation of natural capital and its relationship to our quality of life. In consequence, there is now widespread agreement as to the need for a long-term vision, increased community participation in resource management and a search for viable approaches to ecologically sustainable development.
At the same time, there have been increases in the costs of environmental non-compliance, advances in renewable and other environmentally benign technology, and growing consumer demand for product quality assurance. These are fast making efficient, ”green” approaches to production and resource management economically viable. The pace of change makes it imperative that the assessment of appropriate systems is based on careful analyses of future trends using principles of true cost accounting.
We tend to compartmentalize our thinking and assume that problems of resource use, environmental quality and community self-reliance require independent solutions. But what if a single targeted approach can help to satisfy economic, ecological and social sustainability objectives simultaneously? This is the possibility offered by biosystem integration.
Integrated biosystems make explicit connections between agriculture, aquaculture, food processing, waste management, water use and fuel generation. They are life-support systems based on the dynamic flow of material and energy, where wastes and by-products of one operation become inputs for another. In this way food, fertiliser, animal feed and fuel can be produced with the minimum input of nutrients, water and other resources.
In biosystem integration, the management of wastes and residues is treated as a central design feature.
Thus, in contrast to other production systems where waste disposal and remediation are essentially treated as externalities, sustainable design features are intrinsic to integrated biosystems. Such design features include the following:
These design features make for increased system efficiency. Further,
integrated biosystems take advantage of natural ecological processes, and
as a result some components of such systems can be low technology, requiring
less management, less maintenance and less capital expense (Harris and
Glatz). Integrated biosystems are scalable both in size and in technical
complexity and can be developed in stages, possibly through joint enterprise
arrangements. These features help in the take-up of local farm-based systems.
At the same time, the range of integrated options is very broad, and Doelle's
designs for biorefineries for processing biomass are good examples of how
genetic, biochemical and other forms of biotechnology can be applied to
produce a rich diversity of products.
A single integrated biosystem may produce biogas, microbial protein, mushrooms, compost, animal feed, biogas, ethanol, antibiotics, vitamins and acids.
With its emphasis on holistic, multi-component design, permaculture can contribute valuable insights relevant to biosystem development. The overall design philosophy of permaculture, plus particular design principles such as sector/zonal planning, closed systems and species complementarity (Millington) can be applied when setting up many forms of integrated biosystem. The overall aim of permaculture is to construct a balanced production system that mirrors a real ecosystem. The aim is to minimise the amount of land under cultivation while maximising ecosystem services from the surrounding landscape, and in this respect permaculture systems represent good models of sustainable land use.
Because no designs are perfect there should be an openness to change, experimentation and improvement. The relative advantages and efficiencies of different alternatives should be evaluated.
In line with this, Pagan and Greenfield propose that life cycle analyses and cleaner production strategies for assessing and minimising the environmental impacts from production and consumption be used. This would allow a review of the opportunities in an integrated biosystem in order to optimise the interplay of the components and ensure that full use is being made of different parts of the system.
Several authors stress the increases in efficiency that can be achieved by biosystem integration when compared to conventional monocultures. A major concern in contemporary Australia is water conservation, and the multiple use of water is a theme taken up by Peterson, Kumar, McVeigh, Tay and Gooley and Gavine, who illustrate how aquaculture, hydroponics and modern plastic-house technology can be effectively integrated with irrigated agriculture. Models of optimal water use developed in Israel and other countries where water has always been a scarce and expensive resource can be used as reference points for Australian systems (Peterson). Although still in the developmental stage, McVeigh's integrated farm provides encouragement for other producers keen to explore options for low-cost diversification and the production of high-quality fish in an environment where pesticides are conventionally used on crops such as cotton and grain. Tay notes that such integrated, waterefficient solutions can help to solve important environmental problems such as soil and water salinity, ground water contamination, reduced river flows and ecological pollution.
A parallel concern to water management is waste management. Capeness indicates how large-scale vermiculture can be used to process a wide variety of organic wastes, and that new system designs greatly increase the intensity of production while minimising the land area required. Additionally, the vermicompost produced by these systems is almost pure humus. It acts as a rich carbon energy source and contains high densities of beneficial bacteria and useful quantities of non-leachable macronutrients, trace elements and rock minerals. Iker and Monk similarly highlight the role of manures and green matter in conditioning and protecting the soil and reducing disease and pest problems. Iker stresses the advantages of integrating animal husbandry with cropping, so that organic soil quality can be maintained by manuring in areas where all above ground plant matter is removed for silage.
Warburton and Hallman note the high efficiency with which insect larvae can reduce a wide variety of organic materials and convert them to a high-protein food source for livestock or fish. Despite the development of successful insect-based systems overseas, there has been little recognition of their potential in Australia.
In the aquatic environment, the papers by Pearson and Erler describe new developments in biofiltration media and their ability to improve the quality of wastewaters and reduce sludge accumulation. Nutrients are recovered from the water through the provision of substrates for the growth of bacterial and algal films, which are then grazed by finfish, crustaceans or molluscs.
Constructed wetlands are alternative, cheap and highly efficient systems for simultaneously purifying water and capturing nutrients. So far, the opportunities for such systems to generate products with an economic value (such as food, fertiliser and animal feed) have not been seized in Australia (Hallman), but this is likely to change as integrated biosystems become more widespread.
In a global overview of biosystem integration, Foo notes that while traditional IBs tend to be labourintensive, low-input, micro-level systems, the new millenium will bring challenges that will make integrated biosystems relevant solutions at larger dimensions. Global challenges will include the sustainable use of natural resources and biodegradable wastes from cities and farms in the interests of food security and poverty reduction. Integrated biosystems can contribute to solutions through diversification, intensification and urban agriculture. In a similar vein, Ziebarth contends that reliability and intensity of production must complement sustainability. To these ends, Wilson identifies a trend towards the convergence of different technologies - such as aquaculture, agroforestry, hydroponics, probiotics and aeroponics - to create new opportunities in both food production and waste management. Gooley and Gavine contend that, while relevant to subsistence scale enterprise, an integrated systems approach in a developed country like Australia will see the greatest flow of benefits to rural and regional communities through the adoption of industrial scale enterprise.
Biodigesters commonly feature in integrated system designs, and play an important role in converting organic wastes to biofuel, reclaimed water and relatively pathogen-free fertiliser. Tay and Mathew note that in Australia biodigester technology has a long history, but is currently used only in largescale operations. However, with the advent of new environmental protection legislation, farm automation and diversification into on-farm value adding of farm produce, there is likely to be increasing demand for smaller units to service average-sized piggery, feedlot, dairy and poultry operations.
The fact that the Australian electricity supply industry is becoming increasingly disaggregated and privatised, leading to questions regarding its commitment to power security and upgrading of the grid may encourage this trend. Under these circumstances, higher standards of local self-sufficiency may be in order (Zimmerman 2000; Harris and Glatz). Integrated biosystems can enhance local economies in a range of ways - for example, by minimising the need to import chemical fertilisers (Capeness; Iker) or foreign oil (Doelle); by allowing farmers to diversify into additional value-added areas (McVeigh); by helping to meet potential new markets for tradeable emissions such as salt and nutrients (Gooley and Gavine); and by creating jobs in new sectors (McKinnon et al. 2000; Harris and Glatz; Wilson). Doelle makes the point that Australia could reap significant economic and social benefits by investing in IB-compatible technologies such as ethanol production, that are already the basis of important industries in other countries. An important consideration is the fact that the costs of essential resources like fuel and water are projected to rise very significantly in coming years, and the Australian economy is already shifting in response to such pressures (Diesendorf). There is a need for more strategic support (e.g., in the form of tax concessions) to encourage practitioners to take up more sustainable practices in cases when the capital outlay is excessive relative to current levels of return (Iker).
Harris and Glatz and Kumar note that there can be no one "ideal" integrated biosystem, as each application will have different constraints, abilities and aims. At the same time, model or example systems can be used as starting points for site-specific applications so that each system suits local conditions, resource availability, the enterprise mix and the individuals concerned. This will avoid pushing up input costs by excessive demand and depressing the value of outputs by oversupply.
Hallman describes how IB principles can be applied, at different spatial scales, to the design of human settlements. Activities at the macro scale include the planning of sustainable communities (e.g., as nodal developments around cities), while those at the micro level include the design of eco-efficient houses. At both levels the guiding principles are the same - circular flow and closed loop ecosystems.
Biosystem principles lie at the heart of designs for self-contained communities where recycling of grey water and domestic wastes is coupled with renewable energy use in order to grow food and increase resource economy - these technologies are already crucial in ecologically sensitive locations such as barrier reef islands.
In terms of social development, Burkett echoes the need to meld macro and micro approaches. The macro level Integrated Rural Development (IRD) approach to the sustainable development of rural communities emphasises the connections between sectors such as agriculture, forestry, local industry, waste management, social services, education and tourism, such that the interconnections between the pressures facing rural communities can be explored and addressed. At the same time, micro principles of system integration can be applied to enhance the macro approaches of IRD - these principles can be applied not only within individual farms but also in making links between agricultural, ecological, social, communal, political and economic systems within and between communities.
In the context of integrated catchment management, a biosystem approach can increase options for land use planning by placing the emphasis more on the functional integration of complementary activities (e.g., by using vermiculture to process wastes from dairy/pig/fish farming, or by combining cane/grain growing with fuel generation), rather than merely on the balanced coexistence of existing practices. Biosystem integration offers a context within which producers and other practitioners with different skills can combine complementary expertise, equipment and other infrastructure to their mutual advantage. Such developments also stimulate a search for the scale at which system efficiencies and economic returns can be optimised. Integration can be facilitated by the formation of local cooperatives and clusters, which help to unite communities in a common purpose. Initiatives such as these help to build community by encouraging communication, social exchange and sharing (Hallman). It has been argued that prerequisites of sustainability include a strongly democratic civil society as well as the development of economic and ecological alternatives such as green cities, clean production and biologically diversified forms of agriculture (O'Connor 1994).
In more general terms, integration also encourages a better awareness of relationships between the biophysical and socioeconomic environments and factors that constrain or enhance the viability of sustainable options. Such awareness is crucial to the development of informed policy with respect to the integrated sector, and is best be fostered through multidisciplinary programs involving specialists who share an holistic perspective. Ultimately, the selection of the correct technology for an integrated biosystem requires a careful study of economic viability, government policy, regulatory direction and market opportunity (Spencer 2000).
Spencer's paper indicates that IB developments have to be integrated into a broader framework of natural resource management. Both regulation and planning are available as instruments to facilitate these processes by alleviating constraints and maximising opportunities, but regardless of the type of mechanism, decision-making has to be underpinned by community acceptance. The most effective moves towards sustainability will be those that recognise that resource use, environmental protection and quality of life are interconnected issues that demand to be considered within a common, holistic framework. Several aspects of biosystem integration are consistent with the achievement of key sustainability objectives such as ecological integrity, liveability and equity.
In the interests of intergenerational equity, new legislation that places a greater emphasis on preventative action means that (a) waste streams will have to be treated as resources to be recycled or reused, and (b) waste production will have to be reduced or prevented through the efficient design of entire industrial processes (Wright and Clague 2000). Similarly, with respect to the liveability of the physical environment, integrated planning legislation (e.g., the Integrated Planning Act, Queensland 1997) requires the specification both of desired environmental outcomes and quantitative performance indicators with respect to measures of carrying capacity (Wright and Clague 2000). To date, land use planners have not complied well with this requirement (Wright and Clague 2000).
Through its accent on sustainable design, biosystem integration lends itself to the definition of clear performance indicators and measures of efficiency. Some indicators of the sustainability of integrated biosystems include species diversity, bioresource recycling, natural resource systems capacity and economic efficiency (Lightfoot et al. 1996).
In terms of achieving the objective of ecological integrity, the similarities between integrated biosystems and natural ecosystems help to define a common framework within which appropriate approaches to production and natural resource management can be developed. Indeed, large-scale natural ecosystems (e.g., lakes, forests, and grasslands) as well as smaller-scale mesocosms (e.g., soils, digesters, and ponds) can form vital components of integrated biosystems. There is a growing awareness of the cost-effective services provided by properly functioning natural ecosystems (e.g., water purification, nutrient cycling, soil enhancement, pollination, carbon sequestration, nitrogenfixing), and of the need for improved awareness of ecosystem processes and their potential economic benefits (Daily 1997; Cork and Shelton 2000).
Unlike conventional production systems, integrated biosystems are intrinsically diverse and emphasise polyculture and mixed farming rather than monoculture. In this respect they more closely emulate natural ecosystems. Natural ecosystems can be highly diverse (i.e., contain many species) and complex (i.e., exhibit many connections between species in the food web). However, in such systems the component species and sub-systems are not connected at random, and the stability of the system as a whole (i.e., its capacity to resist environmental stress) depends on the sub-systems being loosely coupled (Kikkawa 1986). The same is true of integrated biosystems, where high overall diversity and strategic links between component activities help to maintain relatively stable yields from the system as a whole and thus minimise economic risk.
Natural ecosystems have inspired a wide range of models for balanced and diverse production systems (e.g., permaculture designs). The integrated biosystem approach increases the usefulness of component species - e.g., by using legumes and water ferns to fix atmospheric nitrogen for use in the system as a whole, and by utilising duckweed and other floating aquatic plants to convert dissolved nutrients to protein-rich feed for fish, livestock and humans. It is worth noting that while some such species (e.g., water hyacinth and Salvinia) are normally regarded as "pest" organisms in natural waterways, their aggressive growth can make them a positive asset in an integrated biosystem context.
More imaginative use could be made of native Australian species (Ziebarth), and this is an area requiring further research.
A planned approach to IB development will ensure that the potential of IB is maximised in a context of appropriate land use (Ziebarth) and the optimal use of locally produced materials. For example, the establishment of biorefineries requires knowledge of land and biomass availability, crop biodiversity, maintenance of soil fertility crop yields, local population growth and demand, and the production of livestock and animal manures (Doelle). Intelligent planning will also help to bring producers and consumers closer together so as to improve resource use efficiency, protect valuable agricultural land and reduce storage, preservation, packaging and transport costs - thereby aiding local self-sufficiency and food security (Lines-Kelly). Community models that satisfy the requirements of both land and community development already exist - for example, in the form of mixed enterprise farms that blend activities such as market gardening, nursery operations, livestock farming, flower and bush tucker production, farm tourism and art and craft production (Mitchell and Rooney).
In ways such as these, the integrated biosystem approach can provide sustainable methodologies to help realise the vision articulated in regional plans. By way of example, the SE Queensland plan envisages discrete human scale urban areas framed by green open space; the clustering of mutually supportive economic activity; urban form that is well defined, integrated and efficient in its use of land and energy; protection of natural assets such as air, water, forests, landscapes and biodiversity; a focus on waste minimisation and environmentally responsible technologies; and ongoing participation and commitment by all sectors of the community (QDLGP 1998).
Australian agriculture is currently struggling with problems of declining terms of trade, environmental deterioration, declining rural populations and ageing workforces. Solutions to these problems that are based solely on expanding the output of conventional production systems will be ultimately limited by competition for natural resources, declining soil fertility and rising fuel prices. However, there is significant scope for alternative integrated solutions and by increasing the unit value of enterprises.
This can be done by producing high quality speciality items and satisfying niche markets (e.g., organic products; sheep cheeses; free range eggs; fine wool; locally branded cheeses, wines, olives; emus, deer, alpacas).
Tourism is often associated with successful boutique industries such as those listed above, and is Australia's fourth largest earner of foreign exchange dollars. Niche tourists want to see agricultural production, National Parks, wildlife and endangered species, Aboriginal culture, homesteads and outback towns. There is a huge potential for rural-based eco-tours and homestead visits. Most wild places are on private property (National parks and reserves only cover 5% of the landmass). Niche tourism can therefore play an integrating role by providing benefits for enhancing the landscape, addressing resource degradation and supporting production activities. These benefits can be tapped with minimal changes to current practice and with the multiple use of resources (George Wilson, pers.comm.) Biosystem integration encourages holistic, systems-level thinking in which the dynamics of interconnection and interdependence are as important as the components that are connected. Thus, it helps to raise awareness of flows and transfer processes and develop a conceptual framework for effective resource management. It also promotes flexibility, adaptability and openness to new possibilities and experimentation. These are essential if innovative design solutions are to be found.
Harris and Glatz suggest that the current mindset of separate enterprises and single use / discarding of resources needs to change, and Pagan appeals for holistic approaches to the twin challenges of minimising environmental impacts and maximising utility. Greenfield notes that there has been a progressive move away from neglectful or "end-of-pipe" approaches to waste management, and towards newer approaches based on whole-system analysis and an appreciation of environmental assets. He observes that improved understanding based on the modelling of complex processes can only be achieved through collaborative multidisciplinary research programs. Ziebarth contends that more integrated, less reductionist research programs would greatly improve the quality of extension services aimed at the farming community. As indicated by Roberts (1995), a lack of systems research has been identified as the key obstacle to adopting alternative farming practices, and as the major step necessary to develop sustainable agriculture.
As a basis for more holistic approaches, Diesendorf notes that conceptual frameworks for sustainable businesses are evolving in the form of ecological economics, "natural capitalism", sustainable development studies and related transdisciplinary fields. Such frameworks are most powerful when they integrate environmental, economic and social aspects (the "triple bottom line"). Diesendorf also signals the need to develop (among other things) new organisational structures and operations in spheres ranging from the business to nation to international agreements.
If integrated biosystems can indeed help to achieve sustainability objectives, what can be done to develop and promote the uptake of viable models and options? Gooley and Peterson contend that moves toward biosystem integration will require institutional change and a fundamental paradigm shift by stakeholder agencies and individuals. They will also require coordination between industries and sectors, supported by Government/industry partnership-based investments in infrastructure, training, marketing, policy development, R&D and extension. Kumar stresses the importance of developing a national strategy for promoting and establishing biosystem integration and providing clear guidance to the stakeholders concerned. In some cases, a degree of diversification of operations, and an increase in overall profit, can be achieved without great cost because existing infrastructure can be used with little modification and without disrupting other activities. Such possibilities have driven recent developments in the integration of aquaculture and irrigated farming in Australia (Gooley 2000; McKinnon et al. 2000). However, if the full potential of biosystem integration to achieve sustainability objectives is to be exploited, it will be important to move towards the progressive introduction of “purpose-built” integrated multi-component systems capable of satisfying food production, fuel and fertiliser needs with near-zero environmental impact. To this end, operational initiatives by individual producers and other practitioners will need to be supported by: coordinated, regional, multidisciplinary research and development programs, including feasibility studies, foresighting and sustainable economic trend analyses; the inclusion of integrated biosystem principles as key elements in land use planning and integrated catchment management; and legislative and government-led incentives to encourage the development, adoption and public awareness of integrated biosystem designs.
References
Cork, S.J. and Shelton, D. 2000. The nature and value of Australia's ecosystem services: a framework for sustainable environmental solutions. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Queensland Environment Conference. Environmental Engineering Society: Brisbane. 447 pp.
Dailey, G.E. 1997. Nature's services - societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press: Washington.
Gooley, G. 2000. R&D plan for integrated agri-aquaculture systems 1999-2004. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Publication No. 99/153. 29 pp.
Kikkawa, J. 1996. Complexity, diversity and stability. In: Kikkawa, J. and Anderson, D.J. (eds.).
Community ecology: pattern and process. Blackwell: Melbourne. 432 pp.
Lightfoot, C., Prein, M. and Ofori, J.K. 1996. The potential impact of integrated agriculture-aquaculture systems on sustainable farming. In: Prein, M., Ofori, J.K. and Lightfoot, C. (eds.). Research for the future development of aquaculture in Ghana. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 42. 94 pp.
McKinnon, L., Gooley, G., Ingram, B., De Silva, S. and Gasior, R. 2000. Directions for integrated aquaculture in Victoria. In: Kumar, M.S. (ed.) Proceedings of National Workshop on Wastewater Treatment and Integrated Aquaculture Production, 17-19 Sept. 1999. SARDI: Henley Beach. 191 pp.
O'Connor, J. 1994. Is sustainable capitalism possible? In: O'Connor, M. (ed.) Is capitalism sustainable? Political economy and the politics of ecology. Guilford Press: New York.. 283 pp.
Queensland Department of Local Government and Planning. 1998. South East Queensland Regional Framework for Growth Management (SEQ2001). QDLGP. 125 pp.
Roberts, B. 1995. The quest for sustainable agriculture and land use. University of New South Wales Press, Sydney. 245 pp.
Spencer, P. 2000. The wastewater treatment industry - technologies and policies for integrated biosystems. In: Kumar, M.S. (ed.) Proceedings of National Workshop on Wastewater Treatment and Integrated Aquaculture Production, 17-19 Sept. 1999. SARDI: Henley Beach. 191 pp.
Wright, I and Clague, S. 2000. Sustainability - the 21st century agenda: future directions in environmental law and policy. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Queensland Environment Conference. Environmental Engineering Society: Brisbane. 447 pp.
Zimmerman, L. 2000. The role of the biomass to energy industry in economic and ecological sustainability. In: Kumar, M. (ed.) Proceedings of the National Workshop on Wastewater Treatment and Integrated Aquaculture. SARDI, Henley Beach, Australia. 191 pp.
|
