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: j.holmes@uq.edu.au

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: hilde.bjorkhaug@bygdeforskning.no

doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2009.02.002