When we look at land degradation at all these levels, it starts to make sense that it’s so widespread throughout the region. In Central America in general, for example, we often find a deep social, economic and political paradigm of exploitation - a strong culture of consumption and economic inequality based on exploiting natural resources and people to accumulate wealth and power. If we go to the deepest, fourth layer, we’ll find the mental models which make those structural issues seem normal. Furthermore, national policies are designed to attract local and foreign investment by handing over control over natural resources (like soil, water, biodiversity, forests, etc.) without any conditions on their sustainable use and management.
Consistent underinvestment in agricultural research, education and extension services hampers the flow of knowledge and the spread of better land-use practices. The patterns of land degradation are influenced by insecure land tenure (as farmers without secure legal rights to land are less likely to make long-term investments in preserving it), along with the widespread use of inappropriate farming practices, such as the burning and deforestation of hillsides to clear land for agriculture. The third layer of the iceberg contains the structures that hold these patterns in place. We are now in the second layer of the iceberg, as we recognize that the degradation we found is happening on many farms and has been going on over time: It is a pattern. Land degradation is considered an event in this first layer, the tip of the iceberg.īut this is not happening just on one farm: Many farms in the region have been suffering from land degradation for a long time, and the global trend is actually rising. The Land Degradation “Iceberg” in Central Americaįor example, if we traveled to a random location in rural Central America, we would likely end up on degraded farmland, where we would see farmers struggling to make ends meet. How does this model help us understand the root causes of the problems we see around us? And finally, the lowest layer consists of the mental models, including mindsets, values and assumptions, that shape the system and keep its structures in place.Below that are the systemic structures, such as rules, institutions and practices, that influence the patterns of events.Below that are the patterns of events happening over time.The visible part sticking out of the water represents the events we see happening, which may be positive or negative.The systems thinking “iceberg” has four layers: Just as the 90% of an iceberg that remains submerged is responsible for the 10% we see above water, there are deeper systems-level issues that form the root causes behind the most persistent development challenges. Following the iceberg model’s analogy, these events are the tip of an iceberg: If we cut it off by addressing only those issues, the iceberg’s buoyancy will take over and a “tip” emerges again, as the same problem reappears. Below, we’ll explore this model and discuss how it has impacted our efforts to support land restoration and improve agri-food systems.Ī key principle in systems thinking, as applied to the development sector, is that the “events” that we perceive as development challenges are actually the result of underlying systemic causes. The iceberg model helped us to recognize the systemic root causes of land degradation, and to identify what it takes to restore lands at a large scale. These are practices that curb erosion and improve soil structure and fertility to allow increased farm productivity and improve water and food security.
To help guide this work, we applied an emblematic system thinking tool, the iceberg model, to the case of scaling land restoration practices in Central America.
In exploring the implications of this new way of thinking, we’ve asked ourselves what “agri-food system change” really involves, and what that means for scaling innovations in a systems context.
For example, in our line of work at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), we speak less of “agriculture” and more of “agri-food systems,” in which production and consumption are connected and limited to our planetary boundaries. Since then, we have observed a surge in the use of words like “systems thinking” and “transformation” in the development sector. We proposed some strategies to develop a more systemic and problem-driven approach to scaling successful initiatives, but we also recognized that the widespread application of such approaches was an exception rather than a rule. We called for a massive break with the linear and technology-driven way of providing solutions for global problems. Two years ago, we wrote a NextBillion article on why so many promising innovations are so hard to scale to a level where they have a significant impact on the Sustainable Development Goals.
0 kommentar(er)
