Club of bologna proceedings

2. Decisio
n-
making and requirements for
system analysis in agriculture
Generally speaking, any anthropic interv
en
tion
on 
the agro
-
ecological sys tem is decided on 
the 
basis of a goal or set of goals, with given

---

1 8
priorities and conditions, and the pool of common 
knowledge ( 
Fig. 1
). Goals and conditions can 
vary widely among decision-makers. It is worth 
distinguishing between individual operators 
(farmers) and public administrators, who often 
have very different points of view, capacity and 
freedom of intervention. The latter have in mind 
social, macroeconomic, environmental goals (e.g. 
hydrogeological, erosion, pollution, eutrofication 
problems); they can apply conditions, constraints, 
incentives etc. to individual operators. These, by 
contrast, pursue a set of priorities, the economic 
ones usually prevailing. In general most practical 
interventions in agriculture are dictated by the 
needs of the individual operators within the ambits 
of material and non-material constraints (including 
those imposed by the authorities) and as suggested 
by systematic (extension services, advertizing, 
mass media), or uncertain (e.g. meteorological 
events, market price variations etc.) external 
inputs. Increasing economic competition and 
market globalization demand more freedom in 
decisions, more flexibility from equipment and 
work programmes, as well as a set of rules to fo- 
llow in the case of unfavourable events and a 
damping system to face fluctuating results. Any 
decision to be taken implies an adequate 
knowledge of the system on which to operate. In 
practice the available knowledge far from satisfies 
the need for rationality of decisions and this is 
especially true for tillage problems (one of the 
least rationalized agronomic practices). Usually 
much has still to be done to suit the many 
suggested tillage and cropping management 
packages to the real conditions, where many 
parameters are not adequately known and inputs 
(especially meteorological ones) occur 
unexpectedly (say a rainy period at time of 
seeding) or are e xpected on a probability basis 
(future weather patterns). 
After the results of a given tillage operation or 
set of interventions are examined, the decision- 
makers involved (both individual and public) 
evaluate whether and to what extent the 
proposed goal (say profit or simply yield) has 
set of interventions are examined, the decision- 
makers involved (both individual and public) 
evaluate whether and to what extent the 
proposed goal (say profit or simply yield) has 
been reached; they also appraise any side-effects 
(e.g. quality traits, by-products), both unexpected or 
expected with a given probability (e.g. interactions with 
meteorological events); often a side-effect is not easily 
detected or might become evident after a long time e.g. 
decades (long-term change in fertility; erosion damage; 
environmental pollution). Note (a) the possible contrast 
between the judgement of individual and public decision -
makers and (b) the possible surprise after detection of 
favourable or unfavourable side-effects (this has often been 
the case for environmental effects or long-term soil fertility 
variations). As a rule e xamination of the results leads to 
improved knowledge (learning process), a revision of 
decision criteria and eventually modification of goals. 
Compared to what has been said above, the usual 
recommendations for "best farm management" appear 
too generalized and do not adequately help to face events, 
costs and risks, nor are they flexible and sufficiently site 
and condition specific. 
In any case a decision-maker, especially at the farm level, 
aims at fundamentally non-material
(1)
goals (