LitFuse

Frank Wyatt from Enterprising Partnerships has been pushing me to think about transdisciplinary research as he has been helping the Wine2030 Research Cluster a the University of Adelaide refine its business strategy. I like having these discussions with Frank, partly because we come at these issues from different perspectives.  Being of the X-generation I am naturally cynical, and so have a deep suspicion of the re-badging of old terms to look like something new and important (eg. ‘Program Logic’ in environmental management), or a fixation with new ways of doing things at the expense of common sense (eg. a fixation by science managers on ‘collaboration’, instead of ‘outcomes’). Nevertheless, I agree with Frank that science managers need to keep encouraging researchers to look beyond their traditional areas of specialty to discover and invent new ideas and understanding.

I see researchers becoming more interested in working across disciplines, working collaboratively and solving real world problems, but not for the sake of it, to discover new things and do things previously unimaginable. They still work alone and on narrow fields of intense specialty, because break-throughs are found there also. If trans-disciplinary research is going to become more widely adopted, it needs to demonstrate its value, and there need to be tools individuals can pick up to quickly adopt their current expertise to new problem solving processes.

Mike Seyfang’s blog on design, thinking and science describes nicely how transdisciplinary science is a substantially difference science than traditional science collaboration. It requires new skills. In a podcast linked to on Mike’s blog, Tamath Rainsford argues that for transdisciplinary science to succeed, we need  “specialising generalists”, people who know enough about a discipline to add value to discussions across a number of discipline areas (eg. Wayne Meyer from University of Adelaide can debate eloquently with economics, agronomists, modellers and soil scientists).  She also argues that we need to train scientists with new tools  so that they can more effectively participate in transdisciplinary research, such as soft operations research, systems thinking, heuristics, philosophy, working in teams, communication, risk management, decision making processes.

I have seen scientists training their students in these tools for the last 5-10 years, and the number who are is growing. Hugh Possingham, now at the University of Queensland, trains his students in these tools, as well as games theory. His research group is one of the most successful ecological research teams in Australia.

Mike list some common themes that emerge from his reading and thinking on transdisciplinary research. Mikes learnings are in italic, followed by my comments in normal txt:

• Play – a key ingredient in emergent behaviour, playing around with stuff leads to interesting possibilities and great questions. Who resources this stuff? The challenge fopr me is that I need to grow the business. Play must lead to tangible results reasonably soon, or must not distract (too much) from going to where the resources are
• Expand – pure reductionist thinking and methods have served us well in the scientific method and will continue to do so. While we are busy learning more and more about less and less, we should take time out to expand our horizons from time to time. Agree, but again, who is encouraging, rewarding and resourcing? Is this why large research programs are successful over small, short term projects. They give people the opportunity to experiment and play?
  
• Work at the boundaries – one of the key tenets of Transdisciplinarity is to step outside the comfort zone of a single discipline, go beyond collaboration with other disciplines by working at the boundaries. Warning: will expose one to risk and possibly the need to develop new language. (worth it). I’ve seen some of the most exciting ideas for research invented around a table when two specialists meet for the first time. It is beautiful to watch.
• Embrace Risk – learn to fail cheaply and often. You have described my life.
• Open Co-operation – pass it forward, share. The best minds do this. They are not afraid to give ideas away. Because they know they have too many for one lifetime to resolve.
• Swim up-stream and be counter-cultural. I’m not sure this relates to trans-disciplinary science, but it makes old rebels like Mike and I feel smug saying it.
• Trans-disciplinary does not replace traditional research – is an added component. Let’s be careful about telling over-worked, under-paid scientists that they need to throw away their old models and adopt our new great ideas on how they should be doing research. These are new tools to add to the researchers amoury, along with statistics, gell blocks and coffee.
• Speed the Process of Innovation through prototypes, enabling more breakthrough. I have been slow on the uptake on this. I have been resistant to the idea of investing development funds on research, but perhaps if targeted cleverly, will lead to good returns in terms of new business.

Would love to read responses to these thoughts.

Written by Paul Dalby on 1 October 2009

Mike Seyfang blog’s his excitement that an original video made available under Creative Commons was picked up by Adelaide Now. His post made me think about our view of information and communication. In the age of newspapers, television and radio, information was consumable and disposable and communication was about writing. New media in particular changes our relationship with information – it is now something that stays around, being re-viewed, re-mixed and re-interpreted – it talks back to us. My experience in putting information online as video, audio and text, is that the reader base builds over time, as does the conversation. This means that information I put up a year ago, can bring me new connections and opportunities a year later – as Mike has found.

This makes me think more carefully about the purpose of putting information online. What is “news” and what is “content”. In fact, if I make information available in the way Mike is suggesting, “news” is “content”, so must be carefully constructed so that it makes sense as consumable news and as long term content that has value years from now.

Barry Brook’s blog “Brave New Climate” is a case in point. It is a mix of news and content, but the news remains of interest in the context of the rest of the blog-posts. Over time, he has build up a valuable library of content, and his army of readers and commenters grows at an ever increasing rate.

It also reminds me that communication is about listening as well as talking/writing. By seeing Adelaide Now re-interpret Mike’s original videos, he gets to listen to how others perceive his original content. Too often organisations lock their material down making it difficult for others to re-interpret. Does this mean they are not interested in listening?

Written by Paul Dalby on 17 September 2009

Darren Willis from Natural Logic presents the Adaptive Flows Management Framework developed for the Upper South East Salinity and Flood Management Program. Darren presented this at the Living Laboratories workshop on developing a research prospectus for the Fleurieu Swamps in South Australia. A copy of the Powerpoint presentation can be downloaded here. More information on the workshop can be found here.

Written by Paul Dalby on 16 September 2009

On this blog, there have been a number of posts about the plight of the Coorong, a terminal estuarine system at the end of the Murray River along the coast of South Australia.

In July 2007, I posted a link to presentations by Professor David Paton at the University of Adelaide on the “Death of the Coorong“.  David Paton, the leading expert on the Coorong, described the horrible decline of birds, plants, fish and invertebrates in the Coorong system, as a result of years of man-made and natural drought conditions. It should be noted that 90% of waterbirds in the Murray Darling Basin used to live in the Lower Lakes and Coorong. David Paton said the result of continued inaction is likely to be the extinction of some species in the Coorong, and perhaps the compete extinction of the Fairy Tern globally. His student, Dan Rogers presented research on waterbirds in the Coorong in November 2007.  Dan argued for an integrated management system to support policy decisions on managing the Coorong.

In May 2008, I pointed to a series of videos available for download from Catalyst describing the problems of acid sulphate soils and low flows in the Coorong and Lower Lakes. In one of the videos, Mike Young from the University of Adelaide, proposes a different water sharing model for the River Murray that would give the environment a larger share of the water in the system at low flows. In March 2008, I had interviewed Mike Young on the challenges facing the River Murray system and he proposed two key steps to create a “Future-proofed Murray Darling Basin“

1. Replace the current entitlement and allocation regime with a robust one that can be confidently explained as one that will work no matter what the climate scenarios in the future

2. Implement the resultant change in a just a fair manner.

This has not happened yet, and given the pace of reform nationally, is unlikely to happen for some time yet, if at all. This is a complex problem, and it is difficult to trade off the needs of different users of water in the River system, especially when you are not always sure who really needs what water and when.

In a piece of positive news, a recent study by scientists on the Coorong have identified an important number – 300GL. This is the amount of water that needs to flow out at the end of the Murray River to maintain the health of the River. This number is based on an impressive, interdisciplinary and integrated research program called CLLAMMecology, but it gives a simple piece of advice to government. You need 300GL of water flowing out the bottom of the River to maintain the health of the Coorong. The Coorong is a Ramsar wetland, and government has a responsibility to the global community to protect this habitat which supports bird populations that migrate to countries across the northern hemisphere. I suspect 300GL of water out of the bottom of the system will deliver a whole range of other environmental benefits upstream as well. 300GL would be 2% of diversions in an ‘average’ year, and 5% of diversions in years more typical of the last five. Setting such a target would meet Mike Young’s principle of  “entitlement and allocation regime…that can be confidently explained ….that will work no matter what the climate scenarios in the future “.

You can download podcasts and videos from the CLLAMMecology study presentations here.

You can register for the Litfuse feed on your i-tunes or mp3 player: http://feeds.litfuse.com.au/litfuse

Written by Paul Dalby on 22 July 2009

The Clever Green Conference & Showcase, 15 and 16 February 2010, has been announced by the South Australian Government. The intention of the Conference is to Showcase green technologies, market opportunities and innovation for environmental sustainabilit.

If you are interested in connecting to researchers and innovators in cleantech industries such as renewable energy, recycled materials, water treatment and energy efficiency, you can register to participate in the Linkfest session of the Conference, by contacting me on paul@pauldalby.com

If you are interested in attending and / or would like to receive updates on this event, please register your details online at: www.southaustralia.biz/clevergreen
For more information, please contact 08 8303 2498 or  DTEDCleverGreen@state.sa.gov.au

Written by Paul Dalby on 15 July 2009

The Victorian Government has just released a report “Inquiry into Improving Access to Victorian Public Sector Information and Data“.

The terms of rerference for the inquiry were to

“consider and report to Parliament on the potential application of open content and open source licensing to Victorian Government information”, in particular:

“report on the potential economic benefits and costs to Victoria of maximising access to and use of Government information for
commercial and/or non-commercial purposes….consider whether the use of open source and open content licensing models, including Creative Commons, would enhance the discovery, access and use of Government information… report on the use of information and communication technology to support discovery, access and use of Government information …identify likely risks, impediments and restrictions to open content and open source licensing of Government information”

The Committee has proposed three key recommendations for access to and re-use of Government information.

1) that the Victorian Government develop an Information Management Framework … The default position of the framework should be that all information produced by Victorian Government departments from now on be made available at no or marginal cost.

2) that the Victorian Government make use of the Creative Commons licensing model … for up to 85 per cent of government information and data…. Remaining Victorian Government PSI should either not be released, or released under licences tailored specifically for restricted materials.

3) that the Victorian Government establish an on-line directory, where the public can search for and obtain information… held by the Victorian Government. …people will be able to download information and data directly, or make contact with people in the Victorian Government to discuss access conditions.

The Victoria Government has been a bit of a leader is putting its government data in an online environment, with initiatives such as the Victorian Water Resources Data Warehouse and Victorian Resources Online.

The Federal Government is also getting interested in what can be loosely called “Open Government”, in my view thanks to the terrific effort that Kate Lundy is doing to raise the issues and encourage the debate. The Government has recently announced a taskforce to explore Open Government. There is a small amount of funding available from this taskforce:

“The taskforce won’t just be dishing out advice, but will be distributing funds from a $2.45 million pool to support the development of web 2.0 tools and applications which enable engagement between the government and community or support use of government information. The grants will either be in the form of funding for pilots and projects or in the form of prizes for innovative applications…. Those hoping to obtain funds don’t apply directly, but participate in competitions seeking ideas and designs for consideration.”

Government data belongs to the community and citizens in my view, and like the Victorian Government, I believe “The default position… should be that all information produced…. from now on be made available at no or marginal cost”

Written by Paul Dalby on 24 June 2009

This is a blog-post based on an article about ‘water neutrality’ in the journal Conservation Letters.  The article references the term water neutrality as an idea proposed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002.  The concept is similar to the idea of carbon credits in that it seeks to create a cap on resource use. If someone takes water out of the system, they should take steps to make sure water is put back into the system from another source. Private water users balance their water account through both demand- and supply-side interventions.

The paper describes a scheme in South Africa which sets out to harness private sector investment in water security, “by allowing investors to balance quantitatively their water account based on sound scientific rationale.”

A three-step process is established:

1. reviewing water usage,

2. implementing a reduction strategy,

3. replenish of water to hydrological systems.

In South Africa, private water users can invest in removing weedy plants in the watershed that have a high water demand. By removing these weeds, private water users can “put back” water into the system that is  equivalent to their own water usage. Such a model opens up other clever ideas and will create a market for people who might sell water that they have been able to ‘create’ to those who wish to expand their water use. The trial presents an operational model for the promotion of a water-neutral market in South Africa.

In Australia, rural water users can trade water licenses across a 1 million km2  in the Murray Darling Basin, albeit in an environment where too many water licenses were handed out in the first place. Farmers trade water between each other. As water becomes scarce, some farmers are willing to pay a higher price for water, which attracts other farmers to sell or lease their water. Water trade also occurs between the city and the rural areas – that is, water utilities in the city are able to buy water licenses from farmers further back up the catchment. Another way water is sourced from the watershed is to shut down wetlands – removing their water so that the wetland system dies out, replaced by a terrestrial ecosystem. All of these decisions are made centrally by government and water utilities. Could Australia set up a system that allowed individuals and entrepreneurs to both find water savings and sell them, not just in the watershed, but in cities themselves? Professor Mike Young, Executive Director of the Environment Institute at the University of Adelaide has suggested the concept of water neutrality for cities using a different set of language to describe the same thing – a cap on water use in urban areas.

The water neutrality concept could be expanded to allow individual companies, local councils, and government agencies to find new water sources and trade them back into the system. This would require the water network to be opened up to third party suppliers who may be able to supply water from water recycling schemes, local, small scale desalination plants and rainwater harvesting (with quality assurance and the core infrastructure provided by government for an access fee).

In an environment where we have reached the limit of the water resource for human consumption in many areas across the globe, we need to create new institutional frameworks to allow economic growth to continue under conditions of resource constraint. The water neutrality concept, or establishing a cap on net water extractions from a watershed, is an example of a policy setting that allows us to protect our resource base, but encourages everyone to find better and more efficient ways of utilising the available resource.

Written by Paul Dalby on 21 June 2009

I’m resyndicating a blog post by Tim Kelly on Barry Brook’s “Brave New Climate” blog about Australia’s renewable energy policy. To quote the gist of Tim’s point:

“From June 9, 2009 when a householder is seduced into signing across Solar Credits associated with their small scale Solar, Wind or Hydro generation schemes, they will continue to reduce their emissions yet for every deemed megawatt hour (MWh) created, they will displace 5 MWh of accredited Renewable Energy already required under Australian Law. They will be causing a net 4 MWh to be continued to be produced from fossil fuel sources and therefore will cause more greenhouse gas emissions and do more harm to the environment than doing nothing.”

This is the sort of outcome only a cross-agency government committee can come up with. There is enormous goodwill in the Australian population to contribute to lowering carbon emissions. The current policy is either cynically taking advantage of that goodwill, or the committee has become so bound up in the complex issues it has to address, that it has invented a camel when it meant to invent a horse.

A different approach would be to replace the GST with a carbon tax. This could be cost neutral to the Australian economy (in terms of net tax collected – there would obviously be significant costs in shifting policies over), would not unfairly disadvantage our exporters (no carbon tax on exports) and would encourage Australians to buy and manufacture low carbon products. Over time, one would expect that the economy would shift to a lower carbon economy – which would mean the price of carbon would have to rise to maintain the taxation base to the government. There is some brief discussion about this idea here and here.

Written by Paul Dalby on 14 June 2009

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has just released results from a survey of agricultural land management practices undertaken in 2007/08.

54% of Australia’s total land area was managed by agricultural businesses – Tasmania the smallest  (23%)  Queensland the largest (82%). Grazing land accounted for 87% of land managed by agricultural businesses, 8% for cropping and 2% was set aside for conservation.

The most common land management practices undertaken were surface water management (74%), application of fertiliser (62%) and monitoring ground cover in paddocks (54%).

66% of all agricultural businesses reported having native vegetation on their properties, more than half reported rivers or creeks and wetlands were reported by 10% of all agricultural businesses. About half of all agricultural businesses that had such ecological assets on their property reported that they were protecting them.

Nationally 17 million hectares was prepared using zero-till compared with 9 million hectares prepared using one or more cultivation passes. Of all agricultural businesses managing crop residue, the main crop residue management practices undertaken were to leave stubble intact (43%), removal of crop residue by baling or heavy grazing (34%) and ploughing crop residue into the soil (33%). These management practices were used on 90% of all land managed for crop residue in 2007-08.

Of agricultural businesses grazing livestock on crops or pasture, 69% monitor the amount of ground cover in paddocks and 57% of these have established a minimum ground cover level target. By far the most common method undertaken by agricultural businesses for monitoring ground cover was visual estimates, with 96% reporting using this method. This proportion was generally reflected in all states except the Northern Territory where 17% reported using photo monitoring standards (comparison with photos of known ground cover levels) to monitor ground cover.

Is the glass half full or half empty?

On the one hand, this survey does suggest the billions of dollars spent on natural resource management and engagement of farmers in conservation has has an impact, but there are still half of all agricultural businesses in Australia who do not see that protecting ecological assets is part of their business and a similar proportion who are leaving their soils at risk to erosion. While I could not find a comparable earlier survey by the ABS, when I think back to the 1980’s, this survey suggests that there has been a major shift towards improvements in agricultural land management practices. However, there is still plenty of room for improvement. Failure to protect natural resources now such as soil, native vegetation and water will disadvantage the ability of future generations to enjoy the productive benefits of Australia’s agricultural lands.

Do we need to invent a “Landcare” for the 21st Century that picks up the other 50% of landholders and taps into the latest in science and technology? Is the current dry period across southern Australia an impediment to change, or a catalyst?

Written by Paul Dalby on 12 June 2009