Re-mapping regulatory space: The new governance of Australian dairying (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of Rural Studies, 2007
In the last fifteen years, agri-environmental programmes in Australia have been underpinned by a neoliberal regime of governing which seeks to foster participation and 'bottom-up' change at the regional level at the same time as encouraging farmers to become entrepreneurial and improve their productivity and environmental performance without government interference. However, while experiencing a degree of success in terms of farmer involvement, considerable tensions are evident in such programmes. Drawing on an 'analytics of governmentality', this paper argues that while current agri-environmental programmes enable authorities to combine often competing and contradictory imperatives under the rubric of single political problems -what has been termed hybrid forms of governing -it also contributes to the continuing failure of these programmes to achieve their desired effects. As a consequence, neoliberal forms of governing tend to be characterised by experimentation with a range of governmental technologies in order to make programmes workable in practice. We explore two different types of technologiesstandards schemes and direct government regulation -that have emerged in recent years, and how these have sought to address the limitations evident in 'participatory' programmes. The paper concludes by arguing that while these initiatives seek to encourage farmer compliance in seemingly divergent ways, their capacity to be workable, and have broader effects, in practice will depend upon their capacity to manage the competing imperatives of environmental degradation, capital accumulation and private property rights.
Taking Stock: Farmers' reflections on the deregulation of Australian dairying
Australian Geographer, 2002
On 1 July 2000 signi cant changes to the regulation of Australian dairying came into effect. These changes eliminated subsidies to milk producers and removed barriers to the inter-State trade of dairy products. Victoria's dairy industry group was a powerful proponent of deregulation, because of the comparative advantage that the State's farmers have in production relative to Australia's other milk producers. However, the deregulation of the dairy industry was contested stridently by many stakeholders, particularly farmers and their representative groups in States other than Victoria. Even within Victoria some farmers were equivocal and some were opposed to the regulatory changes. This paper draws on interviews with informants in the Victorian dairy sector to reveal responses to the regulatory changes. The interviews indicate that opinion was divided before deregulation and remains so. The debate was largely between those who saw the regulatory changes as 'inevitable', some of whom thought it would be a 'good thing' and others who accepted, grudgingly, that it was simply going to happen, and those who thought there had to be alternatives that would avoid the expected adverse consequences.
Journal of Rural Studies, 2009
The liberalisation of agricultural trade is strongly contested as an international policy project. In the context of the current World Trade Organisation (WTO) Doha trade round, concerns revolve around the implications of freer trade for rural livelihoods and environments. Analysis of this complex and morally charged issue offers important insights into the nature of resistance to the neoliberal agenda. This resistance has been expressed in terms of perceived threats to the ‘multifunctionality’ of agriculture and its ability to provide public environmental and social benefits. We focus specifically on Australia and the European Union (EU), key players in the WTO process but diametrically opposed in their embrace of, or resistance to, agricultural neoliberalisation. While the EU has sought to maintain trade barriers in order to protect both marginal areas and the market advantages derived from a heavily-subsidised, productivist agriculture, Australia relies on ‘competitive productivism’ – unsubsidised, highly productive agriculture – to win markets. There is nevertheless evidence that the compatibility of market rule with agri-environmental (and, to a lesser extent, social) sustainability is being contested in both Australia and the EU, particularly at the regional scale. The nature and terms of this contestation are different, however, given the radically divergent macro-economic and socio-political contexts in which it is being framed. The debate about the socio-environmental implications of market opening within the agriculturally protectionist environment of the EU is largely anticipatory and risk-averting, while in the already market-exposed Australian context it is increasingly compensatory and harm-minimising. In this paper, we argue that neoliberalisation as a policy agenda is reshaped in different states and regions through processes of resistance and accommodation arising from particular geographical, historical, political and institutional contexts, and as a response to crises.
Implementing and maintaining neoliberal agriculture in Australia: Part II
2005
This article argues that the maintenance and justification of market liberal agriculture has been built upon three dominant characteristics within the Australian agricultural policy discourse. First, econometric modelling has been employed to build anticipations of future imminent wealth arising from the implementation of these policies.
Amidst heightened policy interest in the future of agriculture, there is an emerging new focus on the topic of the farm workforce in Australia. Will agricultural industries have the people -both farm business owners and employees -that they need? While government and industry are focused on the sustainability of production, farm workforce dynamics also intersect with wider economic and social processes in rural communities, an issue of ongoing concern for rural studies scholars. Here we examine currently emerging policy and action on farm workforce issues from a governance perspective, using the dairy industry in the Australian state of Victoria as a case study. Drawing on both governmentality and political science approaches, we explore workforce governance through three overlapping studies: policy-making, farmers' lived experiences and industry-led collective action. Across the three studies we ask, first, what is revealed about neo-liberal agricultural industry governance and, second, what possibilities the new focus on workforce creates for rural communities concerned about social and economic sustainability. We argue that the farm workforce as a policy object crystallizes the tension between the strongly individualizing discourse of neo-liberalism and the pursuit of public policy objectives framed at the collective scale. If the neo-liberalizing project is understood as a work in progress, then the issue of the farm workforce can be seen as another dilemma to be worked through. In this the roles of collective agents and spaces in both agricultural industries and in communities are critical, making the farm workforce a terrain for innovation in which rural communities can negotiate their interests afresh.
Agriculture and Human Values
Rural Australia has been experiencing dramatic agricultural restructuring. A major contributor to this in some areas is periurban and rural residential developments, and amenity/lifestyle developments, including those associated with the inflow of urban middle-class groups into rural areas. These processes are intertwined with neoliberal trends in agri-food governance, and have complex effects on farming. However, there is a lack of farm-level studies that explore how professional farmers have been interacting and co-existing with urban/suburban development while also undertaking agricultural intensification and innovation. This study aims to examine how residential and amenity/lifestyle developments have unfolded in the Illawarra region, New South Wales, and come to influence and interact with local dairy farmers who are also managing the consequences of industry restructuring particularly from 2000. Based on semi-structured interviews, this study shows that with their proximity to Sydney, Illawarra dairy farms are influenced by deregulated planning systems, large-scale residential development, amenity driven demand for rural land, and the amenity/lifestyle economy. These processes bring farmers commercial opportunities and drive farmers to form new social and economic relationships with land buyers and investors. However, it has been increasingly difficult for farmers to acquire land for farming locally. They are also subjected to the expectations and demands of new landholders, including in relation to farm externalities and animal welfare. Farmers have to transform their production systems to fit into this context. The above factors together generate a form of multifunctional rural space.
Geoforum, 2008
Private standards and certification schemes are widely acknowledged as playing an increasingly important role in agri-environmental governance. While much of the existing research concludes that these mechanisms consolidate the global extension of neoliberalism – enhancing the power of corporate actors to the detriment of smaller producers – we argue that this overlooks the complex ways in which standards are used by governments and farmers in the governing of farming practices. Focusing specifically on a process standard – Environmental Management Systems (EMS) – promoted by the Australian government as a way of verifying the ‘clean and green’ status of agricultural exports, we examine how one regional group of producers has sought to use EMS standards in practice. Our analysis of a case study in the state of Victoria appears to confirm that EMS was a successful instrument for the extension of neoliberal governance, reinforcing the production of neoliberal subjectivities and practices amongst farmer participants and enabling the government to compensate for gaps in environmental provision. However, it would be a mistake to interpret the development of this EMS scheme as an example of naïve farmers manipulated by the state. In practice, farmers used the opportunities provided by government funding to undertake actions which expressed their own agri-environmental values and practices. Establishment of an EMS and associated eco-label enabled producers to demonstrate and extend their capacity to act as good environmental stewards. Our research highlights how the local application of environmental standards negotiates and shapes, rather than simply contributes to, neoliberal rule.