The adverse impacts of the intensification of agricultural production are now well documented in New Zealand, Australia, and internationally (e.g. Argent, 2002; Dibden & Cocklin, 2005;
MacLeod & Moller, 2006; Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, 2004), and include accelerated soil erosion on farmed hill country in New Zealand (Mackay, 2008b; MacLeod & Moller, 2006).
Unlike some environmental issues linked to the intensification of agriculture, accelerated soil erosion, as a result of pastoral farming on highly erodible land, has been a recognised issue in New Zealand since the 1880s (McCaskill, 1973; Roche, 1994). In contrast to more recently identified issues, such as fertiliser and effluent contamination of waterways, there is a history of central government, scientist, and farmer involvement in governing HEHC. This history and the policies and events that define it are expanded upon in Chapter Five.
Historically, in New Zealand and elsewhere, major changes to the way governments and agricultural sectors have approached the governing of agricultural lands has occurred in the aftermath of environmental devastation (Barr & Cary 1992 cited in Lockie, 2006b; Mather, 1982; Roche, 1994). Policies established by the United States Government in response to the ‘Dustbowl
era’ were a template for the policies established by the New Zealand Government in the 1930s, following widespread land erosion and flooding (Mather, 1982; McCaskill, 1973; Roche, 1994).
Similarly, Cyclone Bola’s damage to land on the East Coast of the North Island in 1988 led to the
establishment, by the then government, of the East Coast Forestry Programme (Ministry of
15CAP is a policy of the European Union that came into operation in 1962. ‘It is the framework under
which European farmers operate. It sets out a range of farming, environmental and rural development activities as well as controlling EU agricultural markets. It is the single largest common policy across the EU’ (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, 2012, n.p.).
Agriculture and Forestry, 2005a). This programme, similar to those established by the Australian Government to assist farmers suffering the effects of long-term drought (Dibden, et al., 2009), represents a departure by central government from neo-liberal rule. A devastating storm was also a catalyst for the way farming of HEHC in the Manawatu-Whanganui region is governed by both central government and the regional council, and will be described in more detail in the results chapters of this thesis.
The environment and sustainability are a focus of a significant body of scholarly work that explores aspects of New Zealand and Australian agriculture in the neo-liberal and globalised era (e.g. Campbell, 2009; Dibden & Cocklin, 2005; Higgins, et al., 2007; Higgins, Dibden, & Cocklin, 2008; Le Heron & Roche, 1996; MacLeod & Moller, 2006; Rosin, 2008). In 2002, Campbell and Lawrence (2002, pp. 98, 99) assessed the impact of neoliberal reforms on Australian and New Zealand agriculture and concluded:
attempts to form an environmental policy for agriculture have been truncated and subordinated to the overall drive towards neoliberalism, while any vestiges of a rural policy by both countries has been largely abandoned.
Sustainable agriculture this suggests was not an agenda of either the New Zealand or Australian Governments at the time. Scholars imply interconnections between neo-liberalism, globalisation, intensification of agricultural production and environmental degradation (e.g. Campbell & Lawrence, 2002). However, analysis of trends in intensification and diversification in New Zealand agriculture do not support the claim that intensification of agricultural production accelerated after the introduction of neo-liberal reforms in New Zealand (MacLeod & Moller, 2006). The analysis of historical statistics and national indicators by MacLeod and Moller (2006) show accelerated intensification of agriculture was already underway in the 1960s. The complex changes in agricultural production patterns after the reforms are argued by McLeod and Moller (2006) to be the result of a complex of drivers; however, from the statistics and indicators available the specifics of the drivers were unable to be discerned.
A causal link between neo-liberal forms of rule, the intensification of agriculture and
environmental degradation has been now also rejected by New Zealand researchers (Campbell, Rosin, Hunt, & Fairweather, 2012; Haggerty, et al., 2009; Jay, 2004). With reference to their own study of intensive sheep production in Southland, and those of others who have explored the New Zealand case of neo-liberal reforms Haggerty et al. (2009, p. 776, italics as in original) conclude:
What has become grudgingly accepted is that there is no simple causal relationship running from neo-liberal reform to increased intensification of agriculture to generally negative environmental outcomes. Clearly there is a range of other complex relationships co-producing particular environmental outcomes on farms.
The market, nature and farmers’ own subjectivities are recognised as components of the ‘complex of relationships’ co-producing environmental outcomes in New Zealand agriculture (Campbell, et al., 2012; Haggerty, et al., 2009). Also argued by Jay (2004) is the influence of changes in broader society’s attitudes towards the environment on farming practices of New Zealand farmers.
The involvement of national/federal government in governing the impact of agriculture on the environment varies across countries and has resulted, Lockie (2006b) contends, in a range of approaches, and new and novel arrangements between the state, farmers and non-government
actors. This variation is identified as contingent, among other factors, on the country’s agricultural
trading policies and neo-liberal agenda commitment (Aerni, 2009; Aerni, Rae, & Lehmann, 2009). In New Zealand, it is argued, central government facilitates sustainable agriculture through
‘the promotion of technological innovation and rural entrepreneurship, strict biosecurity control as well as incentives to adopt sustainable farming practices’ (Aerni, 2009, p. 1874).
The underlying premise of the agri-environmental policies included in the CAP, Hodge (2001, p. 101) argued, is ‘that farmers hold the property rights to alter the environment and thus should be
given incentives to change practices’. However, Lockie (2006b) argues that these policies assume that agricultural and environmental production are in opposition to each other and that farmers are not inherently involved in environmental practice; and therefore, governments need to subsidise
farmers’ practices in this area. He describes the Australian approach as distinct from the
European:
In contrast with European measures, the assumption [in Australia] is not that agricultural and environmental production stand in necessary opposition but, quite the opposite, that environmental degradation occurs because of the failure of markets to recognise the fundamental dependence of agriculture on environmental protection. The emphasis of policy, consequently, shifts from the payment of subsidies for the preservation of environmental and social values to the provision of information, planning assistance, capacity-building opportunities and market-based incentives to assist in the internalisation of environmental and social costs (Lockie, 2006b, p. 24).
As illustrated by Lockie (2006b), agriculture’s impact on the environment is referred to by some scholars as (using discourse consistent with a neo-liberal perspective) a failure by the market (and the technologies of government utilised by the market) to adequately manage the externalities16 of agricultural production (e.g. Buttel, 2003; Pahl, 2007). With a focus on Australian meat and wool producers, Pahl (2007) concludes that the international market failed because consumers were not willing to pay enough for environmentally assured meat and wool products, in order to cover the full costs to the producer of producing environmentally assured produce. The failure of this
16Externalities are ‘reductions in the welfare of others that are not accounted for in the price system or
simplistic assessment becomes clear when consideration is given to how the market could be made not to fail. As Pahl points out, it is unreasonable to expect all other nations in the market ―
with such a vast diversity of living standards, agricultural practices, costs and supports ― to ‘fall into line with Australia’s expectations for Australian agriculture’ (Pahl, 2007, p. 243). Although
Pahl’s (2007) research perspective differs from Lockie ‘s (2006b), both their findings reinforce the complex (within country context) that is created by the exposure of national agricultural industries and farmers to the international market place. This complexity according to Higgins et al. (2008, p. 1778) poses ‘intractable dilemmas’ for central/federal governments in ‘meeting the
contradictory demands of market and public pressures to tackle environmental problems’.
The provision of agri-environmental schemes (an example of a technology of government) has been obligatory for member states of the European Union since 1992 (Beckmann, et al., 2009), and agri-environmental schemes have also been part of the rural governance landscape in Australia. A characteristic of agri-environmental governance in Australia, identified by Higgins and Lockie (2002), is the hybrid nature of rule. Agri-environmental schemes are hybrid, according to the authors, because the schemes encourage competitive productivism and entrepreneurship among farmers, while also seeking social responsibility in terms of environmental management (Higgins & Lockie, 2002; Lockie & Higgins, 2007). What this means is that while on the one hand, individual farmers are encouraged to act independently of government intervention, in order to improve their productivity and profitability and compete in the world market place, on the other hand, they are expected to make decisions based on the broader social and environmental costs and benefits of their actions (Lockie & Higgins, 2007). The hybrid nature of these programmes are argued by Lockie and Higgins (2007) to contribute to the lack of success of agri-
environmental programmes in Australia. Even when farming is profitable the authors argue that there remains:
a fundamental contradiction between the definition of sustainability as an outcome of the economically efficient allocation of resources, and the attribution of responsibility to address environmental degradation to individuals with limited scope to capture sufficient benefits from environmental works to justify expenditure on them (Lockie & Higgins, 2007, p. 5).