Planning for a Sustainable Future: The Case of the North American Great
Plains
(Home |
Contents)
Defining Sustainability Concerns and Issues for the North American Great Plains: Challenges and Opportunities
Governor Ben Nelson, Senator Bob Kerrey, Robert Slater, and Molly Olson set the stage for us as we began this symposium. In Session 2 (Region at Risk), economic and social stressors were outlined for the Great Plains, as well as the implications of global environmental change and government policies as stressors. Case studies from both countries highlighted sustainable development practices.
All of this is important, because it provides information about some of the key issues and concerns on the Great Plains and what type of initiatives are being developed to further the sustainability of the Great Plains.
This chapter will change directions slightly, and focus on the concerns of the citizens of the Great Plains. Through the surveys distributed with the conference registration information, participants told us about their concerns on the Great Plains. This chapter will also discuss other issues that have come through multistakeholder discussion groups in Canada and the United States. It is important to understand what the stakeholders of the Great Plains are concerned about - this should be one of the key drivers of research and policies.
We will focus on two main themes in this chapter. The first will be a discussion of the survey, its objectives, and the results. This will be followed by a more detailed look at some of the highlighted issues. This chapter will focus on the results of the multistakeholder discussion groups and will conclude with a discussion of the implications of these results and what they mean to us.
To arrive at a sustainable future for the Great Plains, it is important that we remember to examine all sides of the issues - otherwise the recommendations will not be sustainable. During the planning of this symposium, we felt that one of the best ways to determine the important concerns on the Great Plains was to ask people directly. The survey had three important objectives: the first was to determine what people felt were important issues in their state or province and the Great Plains. The second was to provide decision makers and researchers with information about the perceived concerns of the Great Plains (and thus a better understanding of the needs of stakeholders) as they plan their new agendas. The people living in the communities tend to be closer to the issues than researchers and policy makers. Third, the survey was designed to help us plan for recommendations coming out of our workshops. These recommendations represent our response to the needs of the Great Plains, and the information from the survey is critical to understanding those individual concerns. (For the complete text of this survey, see Appendix A.)
Recently at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), we were discussing what makes an ecosystem. And the question came up whether the Great Plains of North America was a single ecosystem or a combination of several smaller ones. As the conversation progressed, it was pointed out that there should be a scientific basis for the answer, as well as some shared concerns throughout. Although we do not have a definitive answer about whether it is a single ecosystem, we can conclude that the issues facing the Great Plains as a whole were very similar. As we come to understand different parts of the Plains, much of this can be translated to other areas within the region.
Figure 1 displays the concerns outlined in the survey - small rural communities, agriculture productivity, water resources, and the preservation of biodiversity; average responses are also included. The level of concern is based on a scale of 1 to 4, with 4 being the greatest.
Figure 1. Concerns of the Great Plains
The five series graphed represent an average value for different areas of the Great Plains. What is interesting in this figure is how close the five regions are in terms of average level of response. Of the four concerns outlined, agriculture productivity rated the highest concern at 3.5; water resources and biodiversity are just under 2.5. Rural communities were of the least concern at 2.25, but this was still a concern.
Figure 2 indicates the distribution of the responses. Essentially, these are normal distributions, which implies that we can take the average as representative of the concerns for the area as a whole. But they also show how the response broke down in terms of levels of concern. What is interesting to note is that all responses to agriculture productivity viewed it as somewhat concerned or higher.
Figure 2. Concerns of the Great Plains - distribution of responses
Taking a closer look at agriculture productivity, we can see how it relates to the four stressors covered in the survey (Figure 3). The results indicate that government policy is the most influential stressor on agriculture productivity. This could be attributed to perceptions about government being too involved in agriculture or the reverse, not involved enough (this will be discussed below). Economic stressors were perceived to be the next most important, followed by the environment and, finally, societal stressors. It is not surprising that societal stressors are of least concern since agriculture production has moved from a labor-intensive to a capital-intensive activity.
Figure 3. Stressors on agricultural productivity
Water has always been a concern on the Great Plains. Floods and droughts have had an impact on agriculture as well as the availability of clean water for Great Plains inhabitants for recreation and consumption purposes. The survey results have indicated that economic, environment, and government stressors have a role in the water resources issue (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Stressors on water resources
Water is one of the most sought-after resources because of its importance to society and agriculture as well as other industries on the Plains. And because it is important to all of these areas, it becomes an important issue for government in terms of allocation and protection of the resource.
The preservation of biodiversity has become an increasing concern on the Great Plains. What is interesting here is that Figure 5 (showing the concerns about biodiversity) is very similar to Figure 4, with the exception of social stressors, which have been shown to increase. Some of the driving concerns here come from an increasing demand for food on a global basis, encroaching urbanization, and some of the past economic and government incentives to increase agricultural land. These are just some examples; this list is by no means exclusive.
Figure 5. Stressors on biodiversity
The stressors on the rural communities show a different pattern because they are not as related to agriculture as originally thought. Figure 6 shows that it is important to deal with economic and social issues before environment becomes a major concern to citizens.
Figure 6. Stressors on rural communities
Perhaps one of the biggest stressors on rural communities comes from motorized transportation. In the days of the horse and buggy, services were located within 10 miles of each other. Motorized transportation has enabled people to travel these distances in relatively short periods of time. Now people are heading to larger service centers that can meet all their needs and bypassing the smaller communities. This has led to rural depopulation because the small communities can no longer support their own services.
In the past, government has tried to protect these smaller communities, but it has become increasingly difficult through the current policy regimes and the economic forces they are working against.
Respondents were also asked to comment on other concerns and issues that they considered important. Soil and air quality were mentioned as natural resources of concern in the Great Plains. Soil quality is of particular importance because it ties in very closely with agriculture productivity. Air quality is a concern that relates more to societal concerns in terms of airborne pollutants from industry and odors from some agricultural activities.
Perhaps one of the more interesting concerns raised by the survey was the issue of citizen civil awareness and education. This is particularly important because for people to realize goals of sustainable development, they require complete information about their decisions. It was also aptly pointed out that human resources are an important concern of the Great Plains. In particular, this relates to rural depopulation and the skills of the people remaining within the community.
The lack of value-added raises a very interesting question about the development of the rural communities and citizen awareness and education, as well some of the government policies on both sides of the border with respect to exports. This is a concern that relates to rural communities as well as the productivity of agriculture and the skills of the individual.
Local attitude was identified as a stressor by survey respondents. This is very important on the Great Plains because it determines what happens at the grassroots level. Local attitude can be negative, but it can also have a very positive influence. It is here that new innovations (in terms of agriculture productivity) and new ideas are created; local attitude also determines how we look at our resources.
One example of positive local attitude is Country Lane Candles, a small company in southern Manitoba. Before developing the business, the owners had taken a good look at the resources and opportunities available to them. They came up with the idea of using what was considered waste streams from some of the other industries in the area and channeled it into a lucrative business opportunity. They use corn stalks to heat a boiler that is fed water from a nearby creek. This heated water is used to melt beeswax, which is then converted into designer candles. The boiler is also used to heat the homes of the owners.
This has created an employment opportunity for local residents, and value-added into commodities that were once considered waste or were exported in their raw form. Although this is a small company that has found its niche market, it does provide us with a good example of how local attitudes convert challenges into opportunities.
We would like to reiterate some of the key stressors within the Great Plains that were outlined earlier, as well as some of the stressors that have been identified through the multistakeholder discussion groups. We will pull them together to show how they relate to each other. They are very difficult to look at in isolation, partly because the economic, environmental, and social issues all play an important role in sustainable development. Like a three-legged stool, without one of these elements, the whole process becomes very unstable. Government is also included in this because it plays an overarching role in all three of these areas.
Economic stressors have already been indicated as some of the most critical stressors on the Great Plains. Agriculture is the major activity on the Great Plains, and effects on agriculture have effects on the region. Low world farm commodity prices have reduced the profitability of agriculture right across the Great Plains. On top of this stress, the input costs have been increasing, further reducing the margins for farmers.
But economic stressors do not just affect agriculture. Rural communities and the environment have also been adversely affected. Changing technology, for example, has led to reduced employment opportunities in agriculture at the primary production level, as well as in small rural communities because of the transportation issues mentioned earlier. At the same time, however, it has the potential to increase employment opportunities within the community. This can be illustrated by the computerization of small bakeries that can now compete with larger bakeries while being able to offer a more diverse range of products. Another example of this potential is improved communication technologies, which have allowed facilities located within small towns the opportunity to perform jobs such as data entry for larger companies located in large urban centers.
The agricultural community (on both sides of the border) has received support from the government, but as the economic realities begin to set in, this support is becoming less available.
Some of the important stressors that have been identified in the multistakeholder discussions, as well as this symposium, are degrading soil and water quality, which have an obvious effect on agriculture productivity and society; changing climatic conditions; and declining biological diversity of the region, which can have effects on the flora and fauna which we do not fully understand.
Societal stressors have become increasingly important on the Great Plains. Land use allocation, for example, has raised equity issues between commercial and recreational uses. This also includes non-farming communities. For example, large livestock operations such as hogs might be located in municipalities or counties whose inhabitants find the operations offensive.
Another issue that has been discussed in some detail already is employment opportunities. On the other side of the transportation issue, raised earlier, citizens must now travel greater distances to fulfill their social and shopping needs.
The role of government in the Great Plains is one that still has to be worked out for many people. There are perceptions that market forces can move the Plains toward a sustainable future and that government does not have to be involved. There are also views that to reach sustainable development of the Plains requires government policy and programs that direct decision makers in reaching the goals of sustainable development. This raises three government stressors that have come out of some of the discussions across the Plains. The first is that the policy design should include the views of all stakeholders. Second, we must recognize that sustainable development is a moving target. We should also recognize that the policies and programs should change as needs change. By looking at these two factors, conflicts between different levels of government - the third factor - can be reduced as the effects on all stakeholders are considered.
Although this was a quick review of the stressors on the Great Plains, some key points should be outlined. As the stressors were discussed, some issues were recurring. This is important because it demonstrates that there are links between all of the stressors that were discussed during the course of this symposium. Another lesson that we should take away from this symposium is a further knowledge of the issues on the Great Plains as seen by individuals. And it is these issues that we should start to work into our research agendas. In many cases, this has already started to happen.
As we look at the diverse range of people participating in this symposium, it could be pointed out that we recognize that to reach a sustainable future for the Great Plains requires a multistakeholder approach, since no one group holds all the answers. There are groups who believe that to reach sustainable development requires tradeoffs between economics, the environment, and society. By definition, sustainable development suggests that by reviewing the three areas in conjunction, an optimal solution can be achieved. We must remember that we do not have all the answers, that a sustainable future for the Great Plains will require a moving target, and that sustainable development requires economics, society, and the environment to be included in the decision-making process.
About the Authors
Allen Tyrchniewicz is an associate with the Great Plains Project at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) in Winnipeg, Manitoba. He is co-author of an IISD report, Sustainable Development for the Great Plains: Policy Analysis. Before joining IISD, Mr. Tyrchniewicz spent three years with the Transport Institute as a research associate researching trade practices and agribusiness logistics. He also worked on several soil conservation projects during his five years with the Soil Science Department at the University of Manitoba. He serves on the steering committee for the prairie chapter of the State of the Environment.
Stephen Ragone is a principal of S. E. Ragone and Associates. Before starting his consulting firm, Dr. Ragone was employed by the U.S. Geological Survey, where he held technical, managerial, and policy-level positions. He served as assistant director for research from 1990 to 1995. Dr. Ragone has published reports on geochemical processes occurring during deep-well injection of tertiary-treated sewage and on the causes of nitrate pollution in ground water. His recent publications have described interdisciplinary approaches to understanding the effects of human-induced and natural stresses on environmental systems.