Sustainability and Relevance
John M. Gerber, Director
University of Massachusetts
Extension
Amherst, MA 01002
Presented in Portland, ME on September 30, 1999
9th National Extension Wildlife, Fisheries, and
Aquaculture Conference
I applaud
the organizers of the conference for choosing to focus on sustainability. The title of my presentation in the program
is Maintaining Extension's Relevance: Changing Issues and Changing
Clientele. I will try to touch on
the ideas of relevance and change, within the overarching context of
sustainability. But please be
forewarned - my ideas are not necessarily those of other Extension Directors or
Land Grant leaders. I try to tell my
truth, as I know it today. This
presentation consists of my current thinking on sustainability, three levels of
relevancy (relevancy to the public, relevancy to our constituents, and
relevancy to ourselves), and concludes with some thinking on change. Lets begin with sustainability.
RELEVANCY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Although the term
sustainability is often overused and sometimes abused by politicians, academic
leaders and corporation public relations representatives, for me sustainability
remains a vision worthy to serve. That
is of course, if we are talking about
sustainability of something of lasting value, like the planet, humanity, or our
capacity as a society to love and care for each other. If on the other hand our focus today is
simply on sustaining a 20th century organization which provides us
with employment, than I'm in the wrong place.
Organizations like ours will survive and thrive if they serve their
mission and care for their people. If
we begin acting in ways we think will sustain the organization itself, blowing
with the ever-changing political winds, we loose focus on the mission and go
into decline. Personally, I'm not
worried about the long term sustainability of the organization called
Cooperative Extension. I contend that
either Extension will survive or some other organization that does the same
type of work will arise. There is a
basic societal need for knowledge and wisdom, but the form in which it is
created and shared may change. If
Cooperative Extension disappears, some other institution will take its place.
My focus today is on sustainability
of the earth, humanity, and the ideals which I cherish, like community, wisdom,
service and love. Of course, I hope
Extension will be one of the organizations that participates in the generation
of knowledge and wisdom in the next millennium. As a director, I try to speak out on how Extension must change in
order to survive and thrive. In
Massachusetts I work toward that end.
But today, I intend to talk about something bigger than any organization
or institution.
Many of us have been
thrashing around with definitions and understandings of sustainability since we
were introduced to LISA in the early 1980's. My own experience with
sustainability is in the agricultural arena, but I believe those of you working
in wildlife, fisheries and aquaculture will be able to relate your experiences
to some of mine. LISA, the Low Input
Sustainable Agriculture program of the USDA was an honest attempt to bring
attention to the non-sustainability of our current agricultural production
system which exploits and degrades soil, water and people. And it worked. LISA did get the attention of those of us working in
agriculture. But in doing so, it
unnerved a powerful political voice.
LISA, which was clearly focused on lowering inputs of non-renewable
resources and ecological toxins had to be changed. Lowering inputs was not an acceptable strategy. And while I must admit that simply reducing
inputs is a limited strategy, it is surely one of those that must be
considered. But that was not why LISA had
to change.
Land Grant scientists and
chemical industry voices led a battle against the low input strategy using the
political tactics of derision and ridicule.
They voiced loud criticism of many of the flaws of LISA and also criticized
many attributes that were not part of LISA but were constructed in their own
minds to discredit the call for agricultural sustainability. It was all too easy to set up "straw
men" and then burn them in effigy.
Much like the response of agricultural science to Rachel Carson=s Silent
Spring a decade earlier, it was a sad spectacle of public educators
attempting to sustain their own world view at the expense of an honest public
discourse. It was an embarrassing
moment for the land grant university.
I share this view of recent
history today to give you some context for my own thinking on both
sustainability and relevance. This is
not the official party line of either USDA or the land grant system. Nevertheless, I believe that unless we
create a richer understanding of sustainability through honest, scholarly and
sometimes controversial dialogue, we will remain vulnerable to the manipulation
of opinion by greedy corporations and arrogant academics.
Many of us who have thought
about sustainability have come to accept economic viability, ecological
integrity, and social justice as three principle attributes of a sustainable
system. I suspect you can find a way to
apply these concepts in your own fields.
I like these ideas and generally support this perspective, but this
description doesn't tell us much about how to achieve sustainability. Recently I've been attracted to the
principle of sustainability developed by scientists in Sweden called The
Natural Step. While the direct
translation of the name of this concept from Swedish may not be particularly
useful in English, the concept itself is sound and worth your
consideration.
According to the Natural
Step, the basic systems conditions, or rules by which human society must work
if it is serious about sustainability are:
1. Substances from the
earth=s crust must not systematically increase in the ecosphere. That is, fossil fuels, metals and other
minerals must not be extracted at rates faster than their slow redeposit and
reintegration into the earths crust.
2. Substances produced by
society must not systematically increase in the ecosphere. That is, substances must not be produced at
a faster pace than they can be reintegrated into the cycles of nature or
deposited into the Earth's crust.
3. The physical basis for
productivity and diversity of nature must not be systematically diminished. That is, we cannot extract and use fossil
fuels and geological water, or allow depletion of soil and biological diversity
at rates faster than they are regenerated or replenished.
4. We must provide fair
and efficient use of resources with respect to meeting basic human needs. That is, basic human needs must be met
in the most fair and resource-efficient methods possible or a population will
destroy its own environment in an effort to survive in the short run.
Whether you ascribe to these
concepts of sustainability or not, I believe it is critical that we couch our
discussion of relevancy within the larger context of a true public good such as
long term sustainability. The fourth
system condition of The Natural Step is one way to think about public
good. And for me, sustainability of the
earth, humanity and the ideals mentioned earlier is the ultimate public
good. If we evaluated our current
practices in wildlife and fisheries management and aquacultural systems, I
suspect we would fail several of the sustainability tests suggested by The
Natural Step system.
RELEVANCY AND THE PUBLIC GOOD
I share this picture of
sustainability with you today so that you clearly understand my biases. I have been a critic of the land grant
university and an academic administrator in the system for about 10 years. I also want to make it clear that I admire
and respect many of the land grant scientists and educators who truly are
devoted to serving the public good.
There are many. But the vocal
defenders of current practices, particularly those used to manage natural
resources in exploitive ways, deplete natural fisheries stocks, and destroy
wildlife habitat that is key to biodiversity, do not have my respect. There is no excuse in my mind for a public
scientist or educator to defend management practices which result in the
accumulation of natural toxins (in violation of system condition;
1), human-made toxins (in
violation of system condition
2), or sacrifice the long
term productive capacity of the soil and water (in violation of system
condition
3) or the people (in
violation of system condition
4) of this planet.
There is no excuse for
public science to support practices which trade short term profit for the long
term capacity of managed ecosystems to support our children. We can do better.
I want to be clear that I am
not saying that economic viability is unimportant. Short term profit is necessary for businesses to survive, but
short term profitability is not enough. Sacrificing the future for the sake of
the present is irresponsible. Public
science should seek to develop practices and systems which serve both the
public good and the best interests of our constituents. Therein lies the relevancy. But most of us seem much too easily
convinced that we must choose either private or public good as our primary
goal. I don't believe we can afford to
choose. I contend that we must serve
both.
At the University of
Massachusetts we have spent the past 7 years in various stages of strategic
planning and marketing. For these
purposes, I define marketing not as promotion or "spin-doctoring" of
our own personal wants and desires, but as truly listening to the needs of our
primary partners and doing our best to provide the kind of research and
education products that serve their needs in ways consistent with our public
mission. If we do not address the most
critical short and long term needs of the farmers, foresters, wildlife managers
and others we claim to serve, we will not be relevant to anybody. We do not farm, fish or manage wildlife or
natural resources. Unless we are able
to work with those who do, we will be irrelevant academicians. If we serve the needs of these special
interest groups in ways that are not in the best interest of the larger public,
we will violate our mission and sacrifice our relevancy in this way. We must be relevant to both our primary partners
and the public good.
I believe that a clear
understanding of how the land grant organization serves American citizens,
those today and those yet to be born, is key to the future of the
institution. Most people agree that the
system has an obligation to serve the public.
But we have difficulty talking about "who is the public ‑‑
and what is the public good?" I
suggest that many of the current research and extension programs are designed
not to serve "the public" but to serve particular publics, or special
interest groups. I propose that there
are interests, common to all people which we might call "basic human
needs" such as: affordable and nutritionally adequate food; adequate
clothing and shelter; a healthy, livable environment free of violence;
opportunities to provide for one's livelihood; and accessible educational
opportunities.
RELEVANCY AND TRADITIONAL CONSTITUENTS
Serving the public good does
not necessarily mean directly serving the public through educational programs
such as home horticulture. Nor does it
mean abandoning our traditional constituents.
I believe universities must work with the managers in agriculture,
forestry and fisheries among others, to address new and emerging issues
effectively. While we can surely expand
and diversify our constituency base, we cannot afford to abandon those we have
traditionally served. Rather, we must
work ever harder to be relevant to their needs today and those in the
future. Recent USDA requirements to
enhance our stakeholder engagement processes is a critical step toward this end. Of course, many of us have been involved in
stakeholder engagement for some time.
UMass Extension, for example, currently has over 1000 citizens of the
Commonwealth serving on one or more of our many advisory committees. Our major challenge has been to ensure a
diversity of voices on those committees so that we don't become captured by our
own constituency into serving their immediate short term needs at the expense
of the public good. At the same time,
our engagement with stakeholders must become more meaningful. Weak rules of engagement will not improve
our likelihood of serving the needs of primary stakeholders or the public. I support recommendations made by the Consortium
for Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education that stakeholder engagement
standards include:
1. Fairness: Basic
fairness requires equal access to the process by all citizens.
2. Transparency: All
aspects of the stakeholder process should be in the open and on the public
record.
3. Accountability:
Those who take the time to provide input and recommendations should be
given the basic courtesy of reviewing the written record of any meeting they
participated in for accuracy as well as some type of timely reporting as to how
the stakeholder input was utilized, and if any specific recommendations were
rejected, the reasons why.
4. Balanced Representation:
Each institution should be required to demonstrate a good faith effort
to solicit input from, and active engagement with, traditionally under‑served
or under‑represented constituencies.
5. Comprehensive and Meaningful Role: Stakeholder input should be sought on a
variety of different levels, including but not limited to:
* advice on priority setting
and program development
* input on both immediate
needs and long‑term goals
* participation in relevancy
and portfolio reviews
* guidance on monitoring,
evaluation, and oversight systems employed to track performance and results
* counsel on emerging
technologies, and recommendations for public education and discussion about the
mission and directions of the institution.
I believe Extension can
serve both the special interests of our immediate constituencies and the public
good if we continue to use the many means available to maintain communication
and build partnership-based relationships with diverse interest groups. But that too is not enough. I believe we must work at the intersection
of issues which serve the public good, benefit our immediate constituents, and
elicit our own professions and passions.
I believe we must be relevant to ourselves by being consistent with our
own personal values.
RELEVANCY AND PERSONAL VALUES
The so-called "value-free"
university must be more laden with values.
When I am clear on my personal values and my actions are consistent with
those values, I know that I am not only more effective in my work but I find
more satisfaction in my life. Some of
the personal values I choose to profess and try to act upon are; truth over
objectivity, public service over selfishness, scholarship over politics, and
compassion over competition. When my
actions have become inconsistent with my personal values, I have gotten
sick. I want to share a set of personal
values and a belief system that I believe is related to the issue of
sustainability.
For the past 2 years I've
been privileged to participate in a group of activists and scholars who have
put their values in a public forum.
Last month we sponsored a 2-day workshop in Moscow, Idaho and Pullman,
Washington, in the heart of the dry land wheat growing area of the Palouse, at
which we expressed our own beliefs about sustainability and asked others to
join us in a public dialogue about the future of agriculture. I believe those of you working in fisheries,
wildlife management and aquaculture will also find value in these ideas.
During these workshops, we
presented a set of beliefs we had developed a year earlier. It is called the Declaration of
Interdependence and it states;
"We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these
are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Thus begins
the Declaration of Independence, the first premise of American democracy,
signed by the Founding Fathers on July 4, 1776, to establish independence from
tyrannical foreign rule. While honoring
the wisdom of the founding documents, we recognize that they have fallen short
of providing essential protection against a modern form of tyranny not
envisioned in the 18th Century: the tyranny of unbridled market competition,
combined with rapidly expanding corporate control of production, marketing, and
political power. This new form of tyranny often undermines the Right of humans
to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Further, conventional economic analysis, being inherently devoid
of ethics and compassion, often supports and directs public policy and private
actions detrimental to these Rights.
Specifically, we hold these truths to be self-evident:
·
that the Earth and all
its components (both living and non-living things, including Air, Water, Fire
and Earth) and all species have inherent worth apart from their current or
anticipated future market value;
·
that humans as an
integral part of Earth, and Earth as a living entity, are worthy of respect and
protection from exploitative actions motivated by unlimited greed and financial
self-interest;
·
that in community relationships
based on love, respect for life, and
stewardship of Earth rests the
primary source of true abundance, beyond short-term material gain;
·
that all things on and
in the Earth are interconnected, and that this interdependency is eternal and universal,
transcending time and space;
·
that according to
universal laws of Nature, the quality and sustainability of human life depends
on harmonious, interdependent relationships among people, and between people
and their natural and social environments.
Humanity's struggle for independence and prosperity
has not benefited all persons equally. While many have attained freedom and
material prosperity, hundreds of millions chronically lack essential
freedoms, the bare necessities of
survival, and hope of a decent quality of life. Humanity's struggle has often
created dis-harmony with Nature and among people. Where resources essential to future generations are depleted or
degraded, and where equitable access is denied, both the current and future
quality of life for all humanity is jeopardized and Earth itself is
imperiled.
Humanity lacks the wisdom to anticipate which
resources will become critically limiting in the future, and which seemingly
benign technologies and institutions will later prove to be destructive to the
environment, harmful to human health, and contrary to community values and
norms. Therefore, we should follow the
Precautionary Principle of taking steps to prevent unknown harm, and the
Seventh Generation Principle traditionally practiced by many Native Americans,
seeking to leave for future generations opportunities better than those we
inherited from our ancestors.
Therefore, We Declare Our Interdependence with all
things, all peoples and the Earth, of which humanity is an integral part. All
decisions must be made wisely, in view of this interdependence.
The dominant economic paradigm, postulating unlimited
greed and financial self-interest as the basis for allocating income and
wealth, must no longer be allowed to miss-direct public policy or to justify
socially, ecologically, and economically harmful behavior of firms and
individuals. We challenge the
profession of economics to re-invent its paradigm in ways that will become
consistent with the first premise of democracy -- that all humans have an
unalienable Right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Economics can
and should begin to promote sustainable human well-being and long-term
stewardship of Earth.
We acknowledge and embrace our responsibility for
ourselves, for each other, and for the stewardship of Earth. We invite all
people to join us in dedicating our lives and fortunes to the goal of
sustaining the ecological integrity of the Earth, and attaining prosperity and
quality of life for all.
The Looking Glass group's
Declaration of Interdependence is a call for changing the focus on the issues
we address. In agriculture, this means
shifting from a short-term profitability production focus to a long-term
profitability sustainability focus. As
experts in the areas of aquaculture, fisheries and wildlife, I'd ask you to
think about how the Declaration makes sense or perhaps doesn't in your own
field. In any case, we must bring our
personal passions to our work.
CHANGE: CLIENTELE, ISSUES
AND US
The title of my talk today
included the words "changing issues and changing clientele." Lets begin with clientele. First, I prefer the word constituent or
partner to clientele, which for me describes a dependency relationship rather
than one of co-learner. If by "changing
clientele" we mean that they are changing themselves, I agree. If we mean that we must abandon our
traditional constituents, I do not agree.
We must work with farmers and other natural resource and wildlife
managers for example, in new ways since they are changing and so is the world
in which they work. We must understand
that all of us are faced with multiple conflicting demands from many new
interest groups and we should acknowledge these interests, even when they seem
to threaten our primary constituents.
That is part of our commitment to the public good. We might also expand our base of
constituents if funding is available.
But lets not ever abandon our traditional clientele.
And what about issues? In a desire to appear relevant, Cooperative
Extension seems to be continually restructuring its portfolio of program
activities. We constantly reorganize
and rename ourselves, and in doing so confuse our constituents and frustrate
our staff. I suggest that if we focus
on a long term and comprehensive societal need such as sustainability, our
specific tactics could then evolve within relatively stable long term
strategies. Personally, I don't see changing
issues and changing clientele as a major problem. I say we stick with the partner who brought us to the dance. Of course, we need to be ready to learn new
dance steps and try new music. My
concern is that while the rest of the world has moved on, we still want to
dance to the old music. For me, the
problem of change is us. We like the
idea of change, but rarely do we embrace changes when it means that we must do
the changing.
To build an institutional
commitment to change - a love of change - we've got to create an environment in
which individuals feel secure enough to take risks. This means that we must tell the truth as best we understand it
today, and expect others to disagree.
Telling your truth isn't always a well-received activity. University Deans and Extension Directors
generally dislike controversy. But that
is exactly where Cooperative Extension must be. If there is a controversy in an area in which we have some
experience, we should be in the middle of it.
Sometimes that means we must speak out on issues which may anger our
traditional clientele. In fact, that
may be the best way to serve them. I
contend that a better response to Rachel Carson's claim that there was DDT in
places where it should not be found would have been "hmmm, lets have a
look." Instead we in the land
grant system generally defended agriculture and lost public credibility.
If we defend our traditional
clientele when their practices are not serving the public good, we may are not
serving their long-term best interest either.
Deans and Directors who do not support and encourage staff engagement in
controversial issues are not working in the best interests of the staff member,
the clientele, the public, or the institution.
To be relevant, we must be willing to get involved. One of my concerns about the future of
Cooperative Extension and the land grant system today is our failure to speak
out when we think something is not right.
Of course if we do speak out, there is a chance that on occasion we will
be wrong. We need to be willing to
acknowledge when we are wrong. I've
spent a good part of my academic career being wrong. I may be wrong today.
Nevertheless, I know that
when I am true to my values I sleep better at night. When I sacrifice my ideals our of fear, I do not. I meet too many academics today who began
their careers with grand ideals and a strong social commitments who have been
beaten down by a system more concerned with selfishness than service. I find this sad. But at the same time there are many who have rediscovered their
ideals and commitments and are willing to speak out with courage and humility
to work on issues of worth. And you can
join them. I encourage you to begin by
telling the truth about what you know to be true today.
As the Red Queen told Alice "Always
speak the truth -- think before you speak C and write it down afterwards." And when you do, please send me a copy.
Presented as a keynote
address at the 9th National Extension Wildlife, Fisheries, and
Aquaculture Conference, Portland, ME.
September 30, 1999.