The resource, or ‘free for all’ specific system of interest

Scenario 2 represents the system’s behaviour under the resource paradigm. The proponents here are goat producers and the industry in general, which view goats as a free-to-harvest resource that are available and needed in the rangelands, given the challenges faced by pastoralists, especially during droughts.

The resource SSoI corresponds to the lower-left quadrant in the scenario matrix, and the third section of the Goldilocks diagram (see Figure 8.5).

Figure 8.5: The resource ‘free for all’ scenario

Figure 8.6: The scenario represents the third domain in the Goldilocks diagram In this domain, native plants and animals are at a disadvantage, but producers and industry are doing well. Here, impact (I) is the sum of each individual grazer trying to maximize their personal gains. Thus, this is an example of the Tragedy of the Commons system archetype. It is a highly risky situation, because the system spends too much time above Imax, which is the buffer zone, and is at risk of crossing the rangelands capacity to carry goats (K); further, these thresholds are dynamic and not easy to determine given the uncertainties around the rangelands, particularly regarding rainfall. Any time K is crossed, there is also the risk of an Overshoot and Collapse archetype, whereby the system might also flip in and out of the next domain (e.g., during droughts and between landscape pulses), a situation from which it may well not recover (see chapter 9 for more details on this scenario).

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

The resource SSoI and its tables are represented in Figure 8.7 and Tables 8.4 and 8.5.

Figure 8.7: State changes of the resource specific system of interest Table 8.4: State-change processes of the resource SSoI

Link Processes represented by the links

L1 Positive: Believing goats are a resource leads to a process of strengthening goat production regulations

L2 Positive: Extent of regulations and experiences gained by institutions focusing on goat production reinforces the belief goats are resources

L3 Positive: Extent of goat production regulations positively affects producers’ socio-economic wellbeing

L4 Positive: Proponents of this belief learn from experience and improved wellbeing of producers, which strengthens the resource belief

L5 Negative: Some practices of the group holding this belief, such as releasing underweight goats after harvesting back into the wild, and their focus on their socio-economic wellbeing rather than health of the environment have negative impacts on the rangelands ecosystems services and function

Strength of belief that goats are resource Level of institutions' focus on goat production Health of rangeland ecosystems Level of goat producer wellbeing + + + + + + - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R1 R2 B1 B2

L6 Positive: Healthy rangeland ecosystems would strengthen the resource belief, but proponents of this paradigm are driven by commercial purposes only, which is why L6 is a weak link (dashed)

L7 Positive: Proponents of this belief think that the rangelands should be able to benefit goat producers, which reinforces the belief that goats are a resource. They employ a ‘she’ll-be-right’ attitude. In reality, rangelands are degrading and continuously changing under pressure from overgrazing by all herbivores, including goats, and natural events such as droughts. By ignoring these facts, or delaying action against them, this group is taking a considerable risk because landscape recovery after degradation can take a long time (hence the delay sign on L7)

Table 8.5: Feedback loops of the resource paradigm

Loop Links Description

Social effect (R1) 1–2 R1 is a social reinforcing loop increasing the amount of goat production and the belief that this is a reasonable and justified practice, or at least until a level at which the market is saturated enough to not need strengthening Human wellbeing effects

(R2)

1–3–4 R2 is a reinforcing loop driving producer wellbeing ever higher, until the market reaches saturation and the needs of every consumer of goat meat are met, which is not possible currently or if prices fall

Environmental effects (B1) 1–5–6 B1 is a balancing loop; in theory, degraded rangelands should decrease the belief in resource and lead to removing goats regardless of

commercial benefits to protect ecosystems. In reality, this is not happening, as the resource proponents prioritise their economic wellbeing over environment, particularly in light of some practices like intentional releases. Therefore, the loop is weak and cannot counteract R1 and R2 Coeffects (B2) 1–5–7–4 B2 is an oscillating balancing loop; degradation

of ecosystems due to opportunistic production- oriented harvesting risks of tipping the system

into overshoot and collapse. Therefore, B2 is driven by the strength of R1 and R2 making the system inherently vulnerable to the risk of this collapse.

In this scenario, feedback loops R1 and R2 are dominant, while B1 and B2 are too weak to balance the system. B2 is an oscillating feedback loop. The delay between rangeland health and wellbeing of producers is sometimes overlooked. Following droughts, rangelands take time to recover, sometimes up to several decades (Stafford Smith and Cribb, 2009). During this time, goats might move in and out of economic favour, and the landscape may improve (when they are in favour and market is up) and decline (when they are out of favour and the market is down). It is risky to ignore these delays and employ a ‘she’ll-be-right’ attitude because, as indicated above, the system sits above the buffer zone (Imax) and can potentially flip above the ‘overshoot and collapse’ threshold (K) (see Figure 2.2). The current favourable prices and increased uptake of goats mean that pressure on the landscape is lower, however it is when prices go down, and goat harvesting goes lower or is ceased all together that the system risks to go into an overshoot and collapse situation.