Paper presented at the IASTED International EnvirConference

[duane]

The following NSF paper is kindly reproduced here:

Goricanec, J. L., & Hiley, T. (2006). Sustaining Life - Learning and (more than) Water. Paper presented at the IASTED International Conference Environmentally Sound Technology in Water Resources Management (ESTW), Gabarone, Botswana.

SUSTAINING LIFE - LEARNING AND (MORE THAN) WATER
Jenni Goricanec – PhD Candidate RMIT University, 10:12:09 Melbourne, 3000, Australia &
Director of The Wicked Innovation Practice, jenni.goricanec@rmit.edu.au
Dr. Tricia Hiley – Director of Potential Space, 61 Blooms Road, North Warrandyte,
Australia tricia@potentialspace.com

ABSTRACT
We note with interest that this conference is for
environmentally sound technology in sustainable water
resource use and management. In this paper we will look
at sustainability and appropriate technology in relation to
the nature of learning required to affect the desired
outcomes. We use the particular case of farming in
Australia, where water is a critical component of the
sustainability predicament in which we find ourselves.
In the first section we draw on the use of water, among
other things, in an Australian agricultural setting, where
European land management practices are deeply
embedded as a result of the application of these practices
over the past 150 years. We also provide a series of
images that suggest, are evocative of, our text. In the
second section we link the practices previously discussed
to different types of learning and the implications of those
types. The final section poses emergent questions for
those of us interested in sustainability.
This paper is a ‘work in progress’, an attempt to introduce
and ‘open out’ possibilities of new guiding principles and
to invite ‘learning to learn with others’ moments with
others who are equally interested in environmentally
sound technology in water resources management.

KEY WORDS
Water, learning, sustainability, alternatives, farming,
change

Introduction
In this paper we look at learning in relation to
sustainability, using the particular case of farming in
Australia, where water is a critical component of the
predicament in which we find ourselves.
For us, this paper is less about providing answers and
more about exposing our thinking, including our
questions and about us seeking to confer with decisionmakers,
academics and professionals in the amazing
environment of Botswana, which is 84% desert, yet in the
midst of this desert is the world’s largest inland delta –
The Okavango Delta, as well as the Moremi Game
Reserve. What an amazing conjunction of life and what
an amazing opportunity to discuss water in this context.
In this first section we draw on the use of water, among
other things, in an Australian agricultural setting, where
European land management practices are deeply
embedded as a result of the application of these practices
over the past 150 years. We will also provide images that
suggest, are evocative of, our text. In the second section
we link the practices previously discussed to different
types of learning and the implications of those types. The
final section discusses the potential implications for those
of us interested in sustainability.

AN AUSTRALIAN (MORE THAN) WATER STORY
IN FOUR PHASES

Phase 1 - European farming comes to
Australia
Years ago in Australia, vast tracts of land were
completely cleared of their forests to provide farmland for
newly-arrived Europeans, leaving only a monument to
glorify the enormity of the effort.
The farming and land management practices of many
Australian farmers followed those of their fathers and
grandfathers which were based on age-old European land
management practices. Farmers came to accept the
authority of suppliers and government departments (with
respect to crop yields and treatment and use of water,
weeds, insects, etc) without question.
Farmers used more water than fell on their property and
felt the need to be able to control their water supply. To
this end they irrigated – taking water from rivers and
streams and from bores dug deep into the ground. They
changed streams to form open channels and built dams to
hold water or they relied on the damming of rivers that
were not on their property which delivered water in
channels to ensure security of water supply.
Farmers saw many plants as ‘extraneous’ as well as
potentially ‘invasive’. In this view weeds, having no
purpose, are dangerous to their animals and may ‘take
over’. An eradication approach involving herbicidal
sprays was used. This approach was reinforced by
agricultural chemical suppliers and producers and by
government departments and scientists.
Treeless hills and valleys have a history of decreasing
fertility and increasing subsidence and slippage yet many
farmers consider anyone wishing to recreate treed areas as
troublesome.
To increase fertility, that is to grow more each year,
farmers applied fertilizers.
Insects were dispatched with chemical pesticides.
Figure 1
The image above is intended to show the separateness of
the components of farming in this approach, each dealt
with more or less independently of each other. Evidence
of these approaches can be found in the State of the
Environment Report [1] and it is described in Mitchell
[2].
The farmer in our story grew up in this environment,
where there was an increasing dependency on technology
and ‘external’ inputs to properties.
Phase 2 - Best Practice European Farming in
Australia
In 1974, Peter Andrews, an Australian horse breeder who
lived on Australian farms all his life, purchased a property
which, despite its proud history of producing winning
horses, was relatively inexpensive as there was a problem
with salinity. On the farm he used techniques
contemporary to that period: irrigation for water,
fertilizers for crop yield, chemical herbicides for weeds,
chemical pesticides for insects. However, within those
techniques, there were attempts to improve to what would
be considered ‘best practice’ in each area.
Irrigation: Farmers were experimenting with reducing
the amount of water used, managing when the water was
added to fields and crops and how water was added. For
example drip systems were being tried rather than sprays,
though even in 2006 we still see long-line aerial spraying
done.
Fertility: The need to grow more and better crops meant
that there was a change of the types and amount of
fertilizers used and when and how fertilizers are used.
Weeds: Chemical control of weeds was still seen as
essential but changes were being made at the ‘best
practice’ end to the types and amount of herbicides used
and when and how they were used.
Insects: Similar approaches were taken for insect
infestations with the development/improvement effort
focused on what, when and how rather than whether.
Peter Andrews used the best of these practices to
ameliorate his salinity problem. At this time at Peter’s
property, Tarwyn Park, the improvements were ‘variables
of application’ within the ‘mainstream’ practice. The
trend of dependency on technology and ‘external’ inputs
was being reinforced. The image below is intended to
show the expansion of each of the individual areas as
improvements are made and each is getting closer to the
others.
Figure 2
Phase 3 - An Australian Farmer Develops an
Innovation
As a horse breeder Peter wanted to produce winning
horses but over time he found that things were getting
worse on his property. That is, salinity continued to
increase and fertility decreased.
At some point, in complete frustration, he made the
choice to break the cycle of irrigating, fertilizing,
herbicides and pesticides and began experimenting with
other approaches.
He began what was to become a long-term research
project ~~~
~~~ He looked back into his history, into the Aboriginal
understanding of the land and water, into the history of
land management, into the history of the early Australian
explorers, into the history of Tarwyn Park ~~~ He also
looked at his horses, contemporary science, at the land
forms on his property, the soil, the water course on his
property ~~~ Over a period of thirty years, Peter Andrews
has gradually grown to understand the connections
between water, weeds and fertility, along with a whole
range of other elements in this environment (e.g. horses,
birds, forestry, soils, insects) ~~~ He recognized that
there must be the equivalent of the function of the freeze
and thaw of the European landscape in the Australian
landscape and he reconnected the components from the
modified landscape to provide the equivalent of a heart
bypass in the land ~~~ He re-established something
similar to the original stream form in the landscape of pre-
European settlement, something the early explorers called
the Chain of Ponds, reducing evaporation and irrigating
“naturally” ~~~ This involved reintroducing ‘leaky’ weirs
and growing rushes and other plants in the water course
~~~ He used weed species to bring back fertility and to
bring back chemicals from deep within the ground ~~~
To make nutrients available, he slashed and mulched the
weed species ~~~ He also experimented with some
introduced European weeds which elsewhere are seen as a
significant nuisance (e.g. willows in the water course) to
cope with the damage done on stream edges by the
introduction of hard-hoofed animals, to stabilize the soil
and allow the native casuarinas to re-establish themselves
in the cool, damp bases of the willows ~~~ Inedible plants
and insects were no longer seen as foes so chemical use
was eliminated completely ~~~ His approach emerged
over time, as he experimented, with an increasing host of
things interconnecting in his approach ~~~ Tarwyn Park
became ‘a labyrinth of lagoons, lakes and hidden channels
with glimpses of biodiversity of plant and animal life’
~~~ The phrase ‘Natural Sequence Farming’ [3, 4] was
coined by Peter Andrews to describe these techniques.
Peter Andrews saw himself as a ‘natural scientist’ and his
work as an experiment in sustainable farming aiming at
producing ‘winning’ horses. He continues to experiment
with his farming techniques to this day. Peter has also
recognized a different way of knowing the properties that
he works with.
Many scientists have seen this work and have provided
scientific support to the ideas developed. For example
Professor Wilhelm Ripl in [5] and Dr. David Mitchell in
[2] as well as the environmental consultant and former
chairman of UNEP in Australia Robert Vincin is quoted
in the Australian Farm Journal article ‘Unconventional
Water Management that Really Works’ saying that
“Andrew’s concepts can not only reverse the nation’s
environmental problems, they can do it in much quicker
time than anyone would think possible.”[6] More recently
on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s
documentary Of Droughts and Flooding Rains, Dr John
Williams former CSIRO Head of Land and Water,
wetland ecologist Dr David Mitchell, land ecologist
Professor David Goldney, environmental scientists Dr
Annabelle Keene and Dr Richard Bush, Czech scientist
and land and water expert Jan Pokorny, as well as water
and landscape ecologist Professor Wilhelm Ripl from
Germany publicly supported Peter Andrew’s work. Ripl
in particular said that “his methods make sense and it
might be time to take him seriously.” [7, 8]
In the image below we begin to see the overlapping
concerns of farmers, and the need to deal with the whole
as well as the parts for this new approach to work
effectively.
Figure 3
Phase 4 - Attempts to ‘mainstream’ the
innovation
Peter Andrews was awarded the title “best land and water
manager in the world” in 1996 at the 2nd International
Ecological Engineering Conference in Beijing for his
work at Tarwyn Park [9] but as Peter Andrews realized
the enormous benefits to his particular property, his
interest broadened. He recognized the links between his
own experience and broader Australian and global
challenges of sustainability.
He has now experienced his approach reduce the effects
of salinity and return fertility to the land (he talks of the
possibility of one third of the previously planted land
producing five times the yield of conventional farming)
by increasing the biodiversity (of plants, animals, insects,
birds etc) on the properties where Natural Sequence
Farming practice has been applied.
And yet, in much of Australia, the practices of early
European farming and best practice European farming are
still prevalent. At the same time there is an increasing use
by individual farmers and some local councils of Peter
Andrew’s Natural Sequence Farming practice and other
more ‘connected’ approaches (such as Permaculture [10]
and mulching, as well as The River Maker approach of
Rajendra Singh in India [11]). But Peter believes, and
ample research supports his belief, that there is an
urgency that requires us to change more systemically [12],
[13],[14] and also that continuing down the current track
is unsustainable and is impacting on climate (as there are
increasing hot spots and fires caused by the practices of
early and best practice European farming) [15], [16], [5].
He has worked, over many years, with a range of people
and organizations (including developing demonstration
sites at Baramul and Tarwin Park, among others) to try to
‘spread the word’ about the benefits of Natural Sequence
Farming. He is interested in getting the principles he uses
more widely accepted and ‘mainstreamed’ in farming
practice in Australia but is finding it excruciatingly
difficult. We will return to this difficulty later in the paper
but for now we will look back on this story to see what we
might learn and how it might be relevant to this
conference. The image below is intended to show what
we think is necessary to bring NSF into the mainstream –
the whole context within which NSF must operate must
be brought into the picture (shown as a background) and
NSF must be allowed to be modified for the context
(shown as stretching and squeezing the five blobs), while
keeping the inherent principles and relationships in tact.
A sense of connectedness, of time and space…
Whilst to many reading this story it may not sound like
the ‘water story’ we have called it, to Peter Andrews and
to us it is indeed a story of the understanding of water and
the part it plays in a farm’s livelihood. Australia is the
world’s driest continent yet many Australian farms use
practices straight from much wetter European countries
where there has, at least historically, been an ample
supply of water. Peter has shifted his thinking from water
as but one of the ‘inputs’ in the farming process, to water
and its life and its flow through his land being integral to
the survival and sustainability of his property … and
beyond. This is a return to thinking and practice about
water that is similar to that of indigenous cultures. He has
also re-connected many of the ‘parts’ in ways consistent
with pre-European settlement, while other ‘parts’ have
been connected in different ways because of the
introduction of European animals (willows to counteract
the effects of hard-hoofed animals), but his practice is less
like connection of parts and more like understanding the
whole.
Figure 4
Notice that the context of choosing or decision-making
shifts in each phase of the story. By understanding the
context differently, and shifting his way of knowing Peter
Andrews broadened his set of choices. Also, each of the
phases of this Australian water story is still being played
out in the Australian landscape. That is we still have the
early European-style farming; the improvements in
irrigation (by dripping rather than spraying), in the use of
fertilizers, the treatment of weed and insect infestation; as
well as the Natural Sequence Farmers, the
permaculturalists, the organic farmers, the mulchers; and
the attempts to mainstream innovative practices; all in
play at once and together.
Time is an important feature of this story. Gregory
Bateson, the renowned anthropologist, notes that “in the
process of learning humans need to sample from the
world in order to see changes in the process”. [17] This is
not a story of this year’s crop but a story for the future,
connected to the past, a story that is played out over many
years. Peter Andrews experimented with his ideas over
many years (he sampled the world, under different
conditions – in drought, in flood) and included history
(his own, that of the land and of the water), as well as the
likely future if things continued as they were, in his
thinking. He recognized errors or limitations in his current
thinking and made changes accordingly.
Peter Andrews has developed his ideas over time, he has
built a new sense of the Australian landscape, a new sort
of organization of the water world from ‘one input among
many, dealt with separately’ to interconnected thinking.
His communication has developed over the years that he
has been working with these ideas. He sees himself as
continually experimenting as a ‘natural scientist’, using
heuristic processes and inhabiting his research. [18]
Learning for Sustainability
In the Call for Papers the purpose of this conference is
described as “to act as an interdisciplinary forum for
decision-makers, academics, and professionals interested
in the development and application of technology in
ensuring the sustainable use and management of our
water resources.”
Sustainability, as described by the World Commission on
Environment and Development in 1987 [19] in Our
Common Future (often known as the Brundtland Report
after the head of the Committee), is economic, social and
environmental development: “that meets the needs of
present generations without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs”. The report
also goes on to speak of sustainability “as not a fixed state
of harmony, but rather a process of change…”
Much as Heraclitus said, to use an ancient water
metaphor, “into the same river no man can step twice”,
the river changes (at minimum it is not the same water) as
does the man (he changes in the process of stepping in
and out) - the world flows, everything changes. Bateson
says that change itself denotes process [17] and that
processes are themselves subject to “change”. The process
may speed up, it may slow down, or it may undergo other
types of change such that we shall now say it is a different
process. Such change may well describe learning.
We have used the generative process of abduction in
making the connections between the story and the
learning model of Bateson. Bateson speaks of abduction
as describing some event or thing and then looking around
the world for other cases to fit the same rules that we
devised for our description. “We can look at the anatomy
of a frog and then look around to find other instances of
the same abstract relations recurring in other creatures,
including, in this case, ourselves. This lateral extension of
abstract components of description is called
abduction…the very possibility of abstraction is
uncanny…metaphor, dream,…the whole of science, …
are instances or aggregates of instances of abduction”.[17]
In his description of learning Bateson begins by looking at
the very simplest of ‘learning’, that is, where there is
specificity of response, and then moves on to describe
different classes of learning – Learning I through III.
These are described and linked to Our Australian Water
(and more) Story in the text below:
Following others’ lead…
Zero Learning is defined by Bateson as “specificity of
response, which right or wrong is not subject to
correction”.
We can see this type of learning in the first phase of our
story, where farmers respond to the situation that they
found themselves in, with responses that had been framed
in other places, e.g. Europe and by their predecessors,
fathers and grandfathers.
Improvement within existing alternatives…
Learning I is described by Bateson as “Change in
specificity of response, by correction of errors of choice
within a set of alternatives.” Here, we are ‘detecting and
correcting errors’ within the system as it occurs.
In the second phase of the story we see an example of
this. Within the context of the alternatives articulated in
early European farming (irrigation, weed control,
fertilizers), variations were being tested. For example:
variations of irrigation such as time of day, dripping
rather spraying.
A new set of alternatives is articulated…
Learning II is “change in the process of Learning I, e.g. a
corrective change in the set of alternatives from which
choice is made, or it is change in how the sequence of
experience is punctuated.” In Learning II we inquire into
the very ‘guiding principles’ upon which we based our
previous actions and improvements. [20]
Peter Andrews makes a paradigm shift [21] in his thinking
by connecting to a range of other, previously considered
extraneous, data (history of the explorers, history of his
property, he considers the role of weeds, particularly in
relation to introduced animals, he looks at Europe and the
‘freeze and thaw’ and wonders about the means by which
storage can happen in the Australian landscape) and
experiments with a different set of responses (introduces
leaky weirs, allows the water level to be higher than the
surrounding land, introduces willows, allows weeds to
grow, challenges the regulation, the bureaucracy and the
‘common knowledge’ and doesn’t kill insects).
He begins to look beyond the specifics to a bigger
context. His biggest ‘impact’ has been on the properties
that he has worked on – Tarwyn Park and Baramul and
with a small number of other ‘Demonstration Sites’. He
does not believe that this is enough to make a difference
with the level of impact toward a sustainable future that
he now desires.
New guiding principles are developing…
Learning III is described by Bateson as “change in the
process of Learning II e.g. a corrective change in the
system of sets of alternatives from which choice is made.”
Here we inquire into the basis of the guiding principles,
the systemic origins which made certain choices possible.
[22]
The question of mainstreaming Natural Sequence
Farming in the fourth phase and ways to get to potential
responses probably fit within Learning III. Peter Andrews
is searching for connections in this frame.
There are a number of potential shifts in the system of sets
that could be considered in relation to ‘mainstreaming’
Natural Sequence Farming:
• We could consider the ways of engaging a range of
others and how to ‘Learn to Learn with Others’ [23].
For example, we reconsider how we undertake
participative processes. A big question here is “which
others would we include”? There are a broad range of
Stakeholders and interested parties and data that we
could draw on.
• There is the question of scale and place, the localglobal
nexus. We need a more wholesale scale as
well as at the farm scale: for example regional, East
of the Great Dividing Range or Australia-wide, or
globally (sometimes ideas are picked up elsewhere
before they are picked up in the place where they
were generated).
• We could consider the system-within-it’senvironment
(for example the farm or an agricultural
community in its environment) and think about
changing the environment within which we are trying
to make the change happen – enabling activeadaptive
planning [24] approaches.
• There is also the nature of time – the Long View
versus the contracted view of shareholder return and
growth. How do these sequences fit in the current
practices of the farming community and the ‘actornetwork’
[25-27] of the farming community
(suppliers, bureaucrats, investment etc)?
Conclusion
This paper is a ‘work in progress’, an attempt to ‘open
out’ the possibilities and invite ‘learning to learn’
moments with others who are equally interested in
environmentally sound technology in water resources
management. We would like to leave you with some
questions that have arisen for us out of developing this
paper and also our engagement with the work of Peter
Andrews:
• How do we ensure “the sustainable use and
management of our water resources”?
• Are the contemporary ways of thinking about water
(as one of many inputs into farming or indeed urban
development) reasonable in ensuring the sustainable
use and management of our (water) resources?
• Is ensuring the sustainable use and management of
our water resources the best question to be asking?
Should we be considering the sustainable use and
management of our resources (combined)? How
would we go about doing this?
• How do we shift our thinking? Do we need everyone
to shift? If not who does need to shift?
• Investment in technology supports certain types of
responses. For example, the building of dams and
irrigation systems supports farmers in their use of
water and their dependency on continuous supply. It
is very difficult for individual farmers to ‘see’ beyond
the system that has been set up to support them. Also
there is no suggestion that dams and irrigation are
always bad – ‘horses for courses’. In the story of
Peter Andrews he really steps beyond the support of
industry, governments etc. We may need to think
through the whole system of farming and support for
farmers.
• What does an interdisciplinary forum ‘look’ and
‘feel’ like? How do we experience it? What is the
nature of the threshold ‘inter’ the ‘disciplines’? How
do we hear the voices of those who think differently
from us? Are we aware of the assumptions on which
our ‘discipline’ creates its alternatives? How might
we recognise our own learning moments as we are
experiencing them?

References

[1] 1. Australian Government, State of the
Environment Report. 2001, Australian Government,
Department of Environment and Heritage,
http://www.deh.gov.au/land/index.html: Canberra.
[2] 2. Mitchell, D.S., A System for Sustainable
Productive Management of Australian Landscapes. AU
Aust, 2000.
[3] 3. NSF, Natural Sequence Farming. 2005,
www.naturalsequencefarming.com.au.
[4] 4. Andrews, P. and D.S. Mitchell, Natural
Sequence Farming: a cost effective practical means of
safe-guarding water resources for economic development
and environmental sustainability of Australian farmlands.
unknown: Barramul Stud, Widden Valley.
[5] 5. Ripl, W., Management of water cycle and energy
flow for ecosystem control: the energy-transport-reaction
(ETR) model. Ecological Modelling, 1995. 78(1-2): p. 61-
76.
[6] 6. Cawood, M., Unconventional water management
that really works. Australian Farm Journal, 1994.
September 1994: p. 74- 77.
[7] 7. Jones, C., Of Droughts and Flooding Rains -
Part 1, in Australian Story. 2005, ABC: Australia.
[8] 8. Jones, C., Of Droughts and Flooding Rains -
Part 2, in Australian Story. 2005, ABC: Australia.
[9] 9. Ryan, J., Best land, water manager in world,
in?? 1996.
[10] 10. Holmgren, D., Permaculture: Principles &
Pathways Beyond Sustainability. 2002, Hepburn, Victoria,
Australia: Holmgren Design Services.
[11] 11. Tata, P., The River Maker. New Scientist, 2002.
7 September 2002.
[12] 12. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Board,
Living Beyond Our Means: Natural Assests and Human
Well-Being.2005,
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/products.aspx.
[13] 13. Flannery, T.F., The Future Eaters: An ecological
history of the Australasian lands and people. 1994,
Chatswood, Australia: Reed Books. 423.
[14] 14. Flannery, T., The Weather Makers: The history
and future impact of climate change. 2005, Melbourne
Australia: Text Publishing.
[15] 15. Landcare, Andrews acts now as Nature calls
'time'. Acres Australia, unknown. 4(2): p. 22 - 24.
[16] 16. Sheehan, P., A ravaged country is a ...?, in The
Sydney Morning Herald. 2003: Sydney.
[17] 17. Bateson, G., Mind and Nature: a necessary
unity. 1979, London: Wildwood House Limited.
[18] 18. Moustakas, C., Heuristic Research: Design,
Methodology, and Applications. 1990, Newbury Park,
London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
[19] 19. World Commission on Environment and
Development, Our Common Future, Brundtland Report,
Editor. 1987.
[20] 20. Argyris, C. and D. Schon, Theory In Practice:
Increasing Professional Effectiveness. 1974, San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[21] 21. Kuhn, T.S., The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions. 1996, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[22] 22. Argyris, C., Knowledge for Action: A Guide to
Overcoming Barriers to Organisational Change. 1993,
New York: Jossey-Bass.
[23] 23. Hiley, T., Disturbing the sounds of silence -
hearing other voices. Management Decisions, 2004.
42(3/4): p. 552-564.
[24] 24. Emery, F.E. and E.L. Trist, Toward a Social
Ecology. 1973, New York: Plenum Press.
[25] 25. Callon, M., Some elements in a sociology of
translation: Domestification of the scallops and fishermen
of St. Brieuc Bay, in Action and Belief, J. Law, Editor.
1986, Routledge and Kegan Paul: London. p. 196-233.
[26] 26. Law, J. and J. Hassard, Actor Network Theory
and after. 1999, Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
[27] 27. Latour, B., Pandora's Hope - Essays on the
Reality of Science Studies. 1999, Cambridge, Mass:
Harvard University Press