comment: the importance of agency in facilitating the transition to a multifunctional countryside

1
Holmes, J.H., 1986. Mulga, gidgee and turkeybush: environmental perception by west Queensland graziers. In: Sattler, P.R. (Ed.), The Mulga Lands. Royal Society of Queensland, Brisbane, pp. 45–49. Holmes, J.H., 1990. Ricardo revisited: submarginal land and non-viable cattle enter- prises in the Northern Territory Gulf District. Journal of Rural Studies 6 (1), 45–65. Holmes, J.H., Day, P., 1995. Identity, lifestyle and survival: value orientations of South Australian pastoralists. The Rangeland Journal 17 (2),193–212. Holmes, J., 2002. Diversity and change in Australia’s rangelands: a post-productivist transition with a difference? Transactions Institute of British Geographers 27, 362–384. Holmes, J., 2006. Impulses towards a multifunctional transition in rural Australia: gaps in the research agenda. Journal of Rural Studies 22, 142–160. Marsden, T., 1998. New rural territories: regulating the differentiated rural spaces. Journal of Rural Studies 14, 107–117. Holmes, J. The multifunctional transition in Australia’s tropical savannas: the emer- gence of consumption, protection and Indigenous values. Geographical Research, in press-a. Holmes, J. Divergent regional trajectories in Australia’s tropical savannas: indicators of a multifunctional rural transition, in press-b. John Holmes Department of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane 4067, Australia E-mail address: [email protected] doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2009.02.001 Comment: The importance of agency in facilitating the transi- tion to a multifunctional countryside We appreciate Holmes’ body of work relating to transitions within the Australian landscape, and welcome the opportunity to engage in a discussion on this topic. The paper to which Holmes refers (Bjørkhaug and Richards, 2008) examined the application of agricultural (rather than landscape) multifunctionality in both Norway and Australia. Of specific focus was how non-tradeable concerns, such as environmental sustainability, faired under these divergent systems. We argued that Norway’s multifunctionality was strong, due to it being embraced at both the policy and actor level, whereas Australia’s could be described as weak. This ‘weak multifunctionality’ that we observed in Australia was due to an emerging bi-lateral (state and federal) policy framework that advocated the importance of environmental values which was rarely embraced by landholders who found themselves trapped on the ‘agricultural treadmill’. The nature of the treadmill is that alternative forms of land use are unthinkable when on-farm investments have been made that support the status quo – to get bigger and/or more efficient. For many of the Australian land- holders interviewed in relation to this study, efficiency in produc- tion was at odds with the values necessary to effect a transition toward multifunctionality. For instance, graziers in Central Queensland were unconvinced of the value of conserving native flora and fauna when economic viability can be better assured through clear felling native forests to increase the productive capacity of the land. Our reference to Holmes’ work was extensive – given his long- term expertise in this area – and given that he is one of the few people to tackle the issue of multifunctionality as it applies to Australia. We wholeheartedly agree with much of his work, but take a different emphasis in some areas. In dealing with the topic of ‘Ideologies, Values, Actors, Power Relations’, Holmes (2002: 372) asserts that, ‘‘.the main power bases of almost all post- productivist interests reside in the main cities’’. We agree with this statement, but also add that the actor’s power at the farm level in resisting such a transition is considerable – highlighted by the extensive literature devoted to identifying ways in which to encourage farmers and graziers to change their practices. Holmes (2002) notes that Indigenous people and pastoralists have often been able to exert their power through land ownership and negotiating rights over mining or native title claims. However, we also note that producers exert their power tacitly by refusing to take on the values of those city-based activists, politicians and policy makers. As such, we have to disagree with Holmes’ critique that, ‘‘.any attempt to label post-productivism as a ‘myth’ by ques- tioning whether attitudinal change has permeated to the grass roots is reliant on a narrow conceptualization of this transition’’ (Holmes, 2002: 380). Whilst we do not support the idea that post-productivism is a myth – we certainly recognise it to be weak in Australia due to producers being unlikely to embrace the non-tradeable elements of it (and therefore multifunctionality) within the current neo-liberal political economy. Likewise, we recognise that wider support for multifunctionality in Norway was attained through farmers embracing the concept within a social democracy with the protectionist support that allowed it to do so. As such, whilst a time/space conceptualization of multifunctional- ity is certainly a great contribution to this area of knowledge, we also maintain that a focus on the degree to which farmers and pastoralists embrace such concepts should also weigh heavily in any analysis. The recent work by Richards and Lawrence (2009) further demonstrates the importance of individual agency when the tran- sition toward new forms of land use are on the agenda. Cell graziers in Central Queensland were one group who rejected the ‘old knowledge’ relating to pastoral management for new techniques that encompassed non-tradeable concerns such as improved animal welfare, biodiversity and vegetation maintenance. Further- more, they negotiated the ‘treadmill’ by joining with other cell graziers and investing off the farm – thus reducing their resource dependency. These graziers highlighted that it was possible to embrace some of the components of multifunctionality and run an economically viable and environmentally sustainable enterprise. To us this suggests the importance of paying attention to agency, that can in some cases, undermine what might otherwise be perceived to be an absolute and constraining structural context. While the treadmill experienced by many primary producers has been found to be constraining, there are other constraints relating to power, resistance and culture that can be understood through a greater focus upon agency (see Richards et al., 2005). References Bjørkhaug, H., Richards, C.A., 2008. Multifunctional agriculture in policy and prac- tice? A comparative analysis of Norway and Australia. Journal of Rural Studies 24, 98–111. Holmes, J., 2002. Diversity and change in Australia’s rangelands: a post-productivist transition with a difference? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 27, 362–384. Richards, C., Lawrence, G., Kelly, N., 2005. Beef production and the environment: is it really ‘hard to be green when you are in the red’? Rural Society 15, 192–209. Richards, C., Lawrence, G., 2009. Adaptation and change in Queensland’s range- lands: cell grazing as an emerging ideology of pastoral-ecology. Land Use Policy, 26, 630–639. Carol Richards School of Social Science, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia Hilde Bjørkhaug Centre for Rural Research, 7491 Trondheim, Norway E-mail address: [email protected] doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2009.02.002 Book reviews / Journal of Rural Studies 25 (2009) 248–249 249

Upload: carol-richards

Post on 21-Oct-2016

216 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

Book reviews / Journal of Rural Studies 25 (2009) 248–249 249

Holmes, J.H., 1986. Mulga, gidgee and turkeybush: environmental perception bywest Queensland graziers. In: Sattler, P.R. (Ed.), The Mulga Lands. Royal Societyof Queensland, Brisbane, pp. 45–49.

Holmes, J.H., 1990. Ricardo revisited: submarginal land and non-viable cattle enter-prises in the Northern Territory Gulf District. Journal of Rural Studies 6 (1), 45–65.

Holmes, J.H., Day, P., 1995. Identity, lifestyle and survival: value orientations ofSouth Australian pastoralists. The Rangeland Journal 17 (2), 193–212.

Holmes, J., 2002. Diversity and change in Australia’s rangelands: a post-productivisttransition with a difference? Transactions Institute of British Geographers 27,362–384.

Holmes, J., 2006. Impulses towards a multifunctional transition in rural Australia:gaps in the research agenda. Journal of Rural Studies 22, 142–160.

Marsden, T., 1998. New rural territories: regulating the differentiated rural spaces.Journal of Rural Studies 14, 107–117.

Holmes, J. The multifunctional transition in Australia’s tropical savannas: the emer-gence of consumption, protection and Indigenous values. GeographicalResearch, in press-a.

Holmes, J. Divergent regional trajectories in Australia’s tropical savannas: indicatorsof a multifunctional rural transition, in press-b.

John HolmesDepartment of Geography,

Planning and Environmental Management,University of Queensland, St Lucia,

Brisbane 4067, AustraliaE-mail address: [email protected]

doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2009.02.001

Comment: The importance of agency in facilitating the transi-tion to a multifunctional countryside

We appreciate Holmes’ body of work relating to transitionswithin the Australian landscape, and welcome the opportunityto engage in a discussion on this topic. The paper to which Holmesrefers (Bjørkhaug and Richards, 2008) examined the application ofagricultural (rather than landscape) multifunctionality in bothNorway and Australia. Of specific focus was how non-tradeableconcerns, such as environmental sustainability, faired under thesedivergent systems. We argued that Norway’s multifunctionalitywas strong, due to it being embraced at both the policy and actorlevel, whereas Australia’s could be described as weak. This ‘weakmultifunctionality’ that we observed in Australia was due to anemerging bi-lateral (state and federal) policy framework thatadvocated the importance of environmental values which wasrarely embraced by landholders who found themselves trappedon the ‘agricultural treadmill’. The nature of the treadmill is thatalternative forms of land use are unthinkable when on-farminvestments have been made that support the status quo – toget bigger and/or more efficient. For many of the Australian land-holders interviewed in relation to this study, efficiency in produc-tion was at odds with the values necessary to effect a transitiontoward multifunctionality. For instance, graziers in CentralQueensland were unconvinced of the value of conserving nativeflora and fauna when economic viability can be better assuredthrough clear felling native forests to increase the productivecapacity of the land.

Our reference to Holmes’ work was extensive – given his long-term expertise in this area – and given that he is one of the fewpeople to tackle the issue of multifunctionality as it applies toAustralia. We wholeheartedly agree with much of his work, buttake a different emphasis in some areas. In dealing with the topicof ‘Ideologies, Values, Actors, Power Relations’, Holmes (2002:372) asserts that, ‘‘.the main power bases of almost all post-productivist interests reside in the main cities’’. We agree withthis statement, but also add that the actor’s power at the farm levelin resisting such a transition is considerable – highlighted by the

extensive literature devoted to identifying ways in which toencourage farmers and graziers to change their practices.

Holmes (2002) notes that Indigenous people and pastoralistshave often been able to exert their power through land ownershipand negotiating rights over mining or native title claims. However,we also note that producers exert their power tacitly by refusing totake on the values of those city-based activists, politicians andpolicy makers. As such, we have to disagree with Holmes’ critiquethat, ‘‘.any attempt to label post-productivism as a ‘myth’ by ques-tioning whether attitudinal change has permeated to the grassroots is reliant on a narrow conceptualization of this transition’’(Holmes, 2002: 380). Whilst we do not support the idea thatpost-productivism is a myth – we certainly recognise it to beweak in Australia due to producers being unlikely to embrace thenon-tradeable elements of it (and therefore multifunctionality)within the current neo-liberal political economy. Likewise, werecognise that wider support for multifunctionality in Norwaywas attained through farmers embracing the concept within a socialdemocracy with the protectionist support that allowed it to do so.As such, whilst a time/space conceptualization of multifunctional-ity is certainly a great contribution to this area of knowledge, wealso maintain that a focus on the degree to which farmers andpastoralists embrace such concepts should also weigh heavily inany analysis.

The recent work by Richards and Lawrence (2009) furtherdemonstrates the importance of individual agency when the tran-sition toward new forms of land use are on the agenda. Cell graziersin Central Queensland were one group who rejected the ‘oldknowledge’ relating to pastoral management for new techniquesthat encompassed non-tradeable concerns such as improvedanimal welfare, biodiversity and vegetation maintenance. Further-more, they negotiated the ‘treadmill’ by joining with other cellgraziers and investing off the farm – thus reducing their resourcedependency. These graziers highlighted that it was possible toembrace some of the components of multifunctionality and runan economically viable and environmentally sustainable enterprise.To us this suggests the importance of paying attention to agency,that can in some cases, undermine what might otherwise beperceived to be an absolute and constraining structural context.While the treadmill experienced by many primary producers hasbeen found to be constraining, there are other constraints relatingto power, resistance and culture that can be understood througha greater focus upon agency (see Richards et al., 2005).

References

Bjørkhaug, H., Richards, C.A., 2008. Multifunctional agriculture in policy and prac-tice? A comparative analysis of Norway and Australia. Journal of Rural Studies24, 98–111.

Holmes, J., 2002. Diversity and change in Australia’s rangelands: a post-productivisttransition with a difference? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers27, 362–384.

Richards, C., Lawrence, G., Kelly, N., 2005. Beef production and the environment: isit really ‘hard to be green when you are in the red’? Rural Society 15, 192–209.

Richards, C., Lawrence, G., 2009. Adaptation and change in Queensland’s range-lands: cell grazing as an emerging ideology of pastoral-ecology. Land Use Policy,26, 630–639.

Carol RichardsSchool of Social Science, University of Queensland, St Lucia,

Queensland 4072, Australia

Hilde BjørkhaugCentre for Rural Research, 7491 Trondheim, Norway

E-mail address: [email protected]

doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2009.02.002