The pest specific system of interest

This scenario represents the attitude of extreme proponents of the pest paradigms who are concerned about the health of ecosystems, and the decline or extinction of native plants and animals. I note here that I use the term “extreme” to mean only those pest proponents who place such concern on the ecological impacts of goats that their design goal is total goat eradication, irrespective of the social consequences for goat producers, were they to be successful. As discussed in Chapter 7, these proponents are alarmed by the changes in the landscape over the last 200 years as a result of pastoralism, changing fire regimes and other disturbances since European colonisation of the land.

This SSoI corresponds to the ‘kill em’ all’ scenario, and the lowest section of the Goldilocks diagram, as shown in Figure 8.2.

Figure 8.2: The pest, or ‘kill ‘em all’ scenario

Figure 8.3 shows that in the pest scenario, social processes would be unsustainable because the conservation of biodiversity is rated higher than the wellbeing of producers.

Figure 8.3: The scenario represents the lowest part of the goldilocks diagram In this scenario, the value set for tolerable impact (I) of goats is absolute zero, which is to have no wild goats at all. Ecological processes would then be sustainable, at least in regards to the pressure of impacts arising from goats. However, the lower threshold (Imin)

at which both social and ecological processes are sustainable would have been breached and thus the social process of a viable goat industry collapses.

The pest SSoI diagram and its tables are presented in Figure 8.4 and Tables 8.1 and 8.2.

Figure 8.4: The pest specific system of interest

Social processes unsustainable Goat industry collapses 0 Imin= PminC Imax = K -d K Iglobal= P C d

Social-ecological processes unsustainable Goats grazing pressure deplete resources Social-ecological processes sustainable but at risk Goat numbers high as harvesting is opportunistic and some

releases intentional

A safe and equitable operating zone Social-ecological processes sustainable

Goat harvesting as the environmental management tool of choice

Rangelands dynamics and uncertainties

Strength of belief that goats are pest Level of institutions'

enthusiasm for goat eradication Health of rangeland ecosystems Level of goat producers' wellbeing - + + + + - + 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R1 R3 R2 B1

Table 8.1: State-change processes of the pest SSoI

Link Processes represented by the links (flows)

L1 Positive: Believing goats are pests leads to a process of strengthening enthusiasm for goat eradication

L2 Positive: Extent of policy and experiences gained by institutions focusing on goat eradication reinforces the belief goats are pests

L3 Negative: Extent and effectiveness of goat eradication policies negatively affects goat producers’ socio-economic wellbeing

L4 Negative: Level of producer wellbeing would erode the belief in pests if it were to increase; however, for pest proponents this is not the focus and they

prioritise health of ecosystems.

L5 Positive: The group holding this worldview believes goat control, including at least localised eradication, would improve the health of the rangeland

ecosystem

L6 Positive: An increasingly healthy rangeland as a result of institutional arrangements strengthens the belief that goats are indeed pests

L7 Positive: A healthy rangeland could, in principle, benefit goat producers by making more resources available to them if they were still benefiting from goats. In the mindset of the pest proponents however, this is irrelevant. Therefore, L7 is a weak link (dashed)

Table 8.2: Feedback loops of the pest paradigm

Loop Links Description

Social effect (R1) 1–2 R1 is a social reinforcing loop increasing the amount of regulation to control goat numbers and the belief this is prudent, or at least until a level at which the program is successful enough to not need to grow stronger

Human wellbeing effects (R3)

1–3–4 R3 is a reinforcing loop that would probably drive producer wellbeing and the industry downwards. This is of no concern to at least some holders of this worldview; some would probably think it a desirable outcome

Environmental effects (R2)

1–5–6 R2 is a reinforcing loop as goat numbers fall lower and lower and the rangeland grows stronger, until eventually goats are exterminated entirely

Coeffects 1–5–7–4 B1 is a balancing loop that would moderate goat eradication efforts if it were strong enough. However, the effect of weakness of B2 is that goat production is no longer feasible, so this loop is ineffective

In this paradigm, feedback loops R1 and R2 are dominant, while B1 and R3 (at least unintentionally) are weak and unable to balance the system. Proponents believe that eradicating goats would eventually lead to an improvement in the health of the rangelands (L5), which in turn strengthens their belief in the pest paradigm, which strengthens their extent of eradication (L6). The stronger and more extreme the belief that goats are pests, the greater the focus and enthusiasm of institutions and individuals under this paradigm on eradication. As R1 and R2 (being the design goals of the advocates of this SSoI) go ever upwards, R3 goes ever downwards until there is 100% certainty that goats are pests and 100% goat-impact related environmental health restored.

L7 indicates that healthier rangelands should improve the wellbeing of pastoralists in general, including goat producers. Chapter 7 discussed the theory of landscape function and demonstrated that a functional rangeland does improve both conservation and production if well managed (Ludwig and Tongway, 1997). While feedback loop B1 should be able to balance the system, the intent of some pest proponents on eradicating goats makes goat producers’ wellbeing irrelevant. Should this eradication happen, goat producers would have no goats to use the presumed abundant resources, unless they switch to other livestock or exit pastoralism altogether, in which case the system would have flipped into a new domain. This success, and the presumably consequent recovery of resources, might also further strengthen the strong stigma around goats. Thus, link L7 is a dashed link, which means it is weak in the context of this belief system.

As discussed in chapter 7, pastoralists are limited in what they can do on their properties, even under the new Crown Land Management Act 2016 (NSW DI, 2018). Although this domain change might be in favour of some conservationists’ agenda, it is difficult to enact. Likewise, the reduction in producers’ wellbeing should reduce the belief that goats are pests, but this does not happen under this paradigm. Therefore, feedback loop R3 is also weak and unable to balance the system (i.e., to reduce the extent of eradication, because the other feedback loops, especially R2, are more powerful and dominate the system).