Salmon, sensors, and translation : the agency of Big Data in environmental governance

This paper explores the emerging role of Big Data in environmental governance. We focus on the case of salmon aquaculture management from 2011 to 2017 in Macquarie Harbour, Australia, and compare this with the foundational case that inspired the development of the concept of ‘translation’ in actor-network theory, that of scallop domestication in St Brieuc Bay, France, in the 1970s. A key difference is the salience of environmental data in the contemporary case. Recent dramatic events in the environmental governance of Macquarie Harbour have been driven by increasing spatial and temporal resolution of environmental monitoring, including real-time data collection from sensors mounted on the fish themselves. The resulting environmental data now takes centre stage in increasingly heated debates over how the harbour should be managed: overturning long-held assumptions about environmental interactions, inducing changes in regulatory practices and institutions, fracturing historical alliances and shaping the on-going legitimacy of the industry. Environmental Big Data is now a key actor within the networks that constitute and enact environmental governance. Given its new and unpredictable agency, control over access to data is likely to become critical in future power struggles over environmental resources and their governance. © The Author(s) 2018

Sensing reality? New monitoring technologies for global sustainability standards

In the 1990s, civil society organizations partnered with business to “green” global supply chains by setting up formal sustainability standard-setting organizations (SSOs) in sectors including organic food, fair trade, forestry, and fisheries. Although SSOs have withstood the long-standing allegations that they are unnecessary, costly, nondemocratic, and trade-distorting, they must now respond to a new challenge, arising from recent developments in technology. Conceived in the pre-Internet era, SSOs are discovering that verification systems that utilize annual, expert-led, low-tech field audits are under pressure from new information and communication technologies that collect, aggregate, interpret, and display open-source “Big Data” in almost real time. Drawing on the concept of governmentality and on interviews with experts in sustainability certification and natural capital accounting, we argue that while these technological developments offer many positive opportunities, they also enable competing alternatives to the prevailing “truth” or governing rationality about what is happening “on the ground,” which is of critical existential importance to SSOs as guarantors of trust in claims about sustainable production. While SSOs are not helpless in the face of this challenge, we conclude that they will need to do more than take incremental action: rather, they should respond actively to the disintermediation challenge from new virtual monitoring technologies if they are to remain relevant in the coming decade

Sensing reality? New monitoring technologies for global sustainability standards

In the 1990s, civil society organizations partnered with business to “green” global supply chains by setting up formal sustainability standard-setting organizations (SSOs) in secwtors including organic food, fair trade, forestry, and fisheries. Although SSOs have withstood the long-standing allegations that they are unnecessary, costly, nondemocratic, and trade-distorting, they must now respond to a new challenge, arising from recent developments in technology. Conceived in the pre-Internet era, SSOs are discovering that verification systems that utilize annual, expert-led, low-tech field audits are under pressure from new information and communication technologies that collect, aggregate, interpret, and display open-source “Big Data” in almost real time. Drawing on the concept of governmentality and on interviews with experts in sustainability certification and natural capital accounting, we argue that while these technological developments offer many positive opportunities, they also enable competing alternatives to the prevailing “truth” or governing rationality about what is happening “on the ground,” which is of critical existential importance to SSOs as guarantors of trust in claims about sustainable production. While SSOs are not helpless in the face of this challenge, we conclude that they will need to do more than take incremental action: rather, they should respond actively to the disintermediation challenge from new virtual monitoring technologies if they are to remain relevant in the coming decade. © 2017 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Comparing sustainability claims with assurance in organic agriculture standards

© 2019, © 2019 Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand Inc. Voluntary organic standard-setting organisations (SSOs) depend upon public trust in the truth claims implied by their labels: that the product in question has been produced using organic methods. They create and maintain this trust through assurance frameworks based on third-party verification of compliance with organic standards. It is therefore potentially problematic if an SSO makes additional claims that are not capable of being supported by their assurance frameworks. We investigate the claims made about the sustainability of organic agriculture by three voluntary organic SSOs, compared with assurance provisions within their standards. The analysis covers Australia, which has 53 per cent of the world\u27s certified organic farmland; and is extended internationally by including the IFOAM standard, with which a further 49 organic standards are affiliated worldwide. We find that while these standards generally contain principles and requirements that support sustainability claims, they lack well-specified means of verification in most cases other than the ‘core’ claims to exclude synthetic chemical inputs and genetically modified organisms. This assurance gap creates the risk of a consumer backlash. We discuss two ways to mitigate this risk: by strengthening verification within standards; and/or by employing new agricultural information and communication technologies to support claims outside the certification process

Carbon accounting for negative emissions technologies

Negative emissions technologies (NETs) are an essential part of most scenarios for achieving the Paris Agreement goal of limiting warming to below 2°C and for all scenarios that limit warming to 1.5 °C. The deployment of these technologies requires carbon accounting methods for a range of different purposes, such as determining the effectiveness of specific technologies or incentivising NETs. Although the need for carbon accounting methods is discussed within the literature on NETs, there does not appear to be a clear understanding of the range of different accounting challenges. Based on a systematic literature review this study identifies five distinct accounting issues related to NETs: 1. estimating total system-wide change in emissions/removals; 2. non-permanence; 3. non-equivalence of ‘no overshoot’ and ‘overshoot and removal’; 4. accounting for incentives for NETs; and 5. the temporal distribution of emissions/removals. Solutions to these accounting challenges are proposed, or alternatively, areas for further research and the development of solutions are highlighted. One key recommendation is that carbon accounting methods should follow a ‘reality principle’ to report emissions and removals when and where they actually occur, and an important overall conclusion is that it is essential to use the correct accounting method for its appropriate purpose. For example, consequential methods that take account of total system-wide changes in emissions/removals should be used if the purpose is to inform decisions on the deployment or incentivisation of NETs. Attributional methods, however, should be used if the purpose is to construct static descriptions of possible net zero worlds

Is operationalising natural capital risk assessment practicable?

Financial institutions are indirectly exposed to risks associated with the impacts and dependencies on natural capital and ecosystem services of the companies that they invest in, lend to, and insure. This is particularly true for banks lending to agriculture: a sector with both significant impacts and critical dependencies on natural capital. Bank lending is a vital source of new finance for the sector, which is essential to achieve sustainable intensification targets. Yet current credit decision-making practice is still based on conventional financial and management indicators, lacking any systematic assessment of natural capital risks, especially those associated with dependencies. Operationalising natural capital risk assessment requires practicable indicators and data to evaluate the most material natural capital risks for a given sub-sector and geography, but it is unclear to what extent these are available. We assess the practicability of natural capital dependency risk indicators and data sources for a critical case study of Australian sheep production. We find that at least moderately practicable indicators and data sources are available to assess the 11 major dependency risks that are material for this industry. Challenges remain in determining risk thresholds for most indicators, and quantifying risk impacts on profitability. © 2021 Elsevier B.V