The focus of current initiatives involving both central government and the Manawatu-Whanganui regional council is to attempt to change farmers’ management of HEHC. The regional sustainable land use initiative (SLUI) is an example of an agri-environmental scheme that uses whole farm planning as a technology to govern the on-farm practice of farmers. Internationally, the
participation of farmers in similar schemes and the reasons for farmers’ non-adoption or adoption of agri-environmental technologies have not resulted in the level of on-farm change anticipated (Burton, 2004a). Finding explanations as to why farmers do not adopt agri-environmental
technologies, nor act in accordance with agri-environmental expertise, has been the focus of a vast amount of research, internationally.
With the aim of better informing agri-environmental policy, studies have sought explanations by correlating multiple factors internal to the farm business (e.g. Atari, Yiridoe, Smale, & Duinker, 2009; Roth & Botha, 2009), external to the farm business (e.g. Beckmann, et al., 2009), and both internal and external to the farm business (e.g. Barr & Cary, 2000; Pannell, Marshall, Barr, Curtis, Vanclay, & Wilkinson, 2006). Other studies have focussed more on attempting to understand the motivation of farmers and their responses to agri-environmental schemes and technologies (e.g. Cary & Wilkinson, 1997; Farmar-Bowers & Lane, 2009; Greiner & Gregg, 2011; Roth & Botha, 2009).
With specific relevance to SLUI and whole farm plans used by the Manawatu-Whanganui regional council, using decision tree modelling, Roth & Botha (2009) surveyed farmers to ascertain how the regional council could increase the uptake of the whole farm plan programme. A complex mix of five criteria, covering both on- and off-farm considerations, are reported as
1. Farmers’ awareness and concern for the issue posed by soil erosion in the region and on their farm;
2. The degree to which the soil conservation measures included in the programme would address the issue;
3. The degree to which additional soil conservation work was possible on their farms;
4. The perceived benefits of the plan;
5. The perceived practical limitations of implementing the plan (Roth & Botha, 2009, Discussion section, para. 1).
Based on their findings Roth and Botha (2009, Discussion section, para. 4) suggest ‘Significant
selling points’ for the programme that are linked with non-financial, on-farm benefits provided by
the soil conservation work completed, and aspects associated with the programme’s
implementation by the regional council, which included the technical and financial support they provided.
The failure of farm planning to achieve the sustainability outcome hoped for in Australia has been
attributed to the ‘agri-science’ expertise on which whole farm planning is built (Lockie, 2006b). This expertise, Lockie (2006b, p. 33) argues, is ‘committed to a high input model of sustainability
based on existing farming practices’. Although farm planning supposedly provided an opportunity to ‘reorient farm management’ in a way that incorporated the farmer’s personal goals as well as
issues at the level of the farm, immediate area and region, the outcomes of planning across farm
properties were ‘remarkably similar’ (Lockie, 2006b, p. 33). In another study, farmers who had used whole farm planning spent two to three time more on fertiliser and chemicals than farmers who did not (Lockie, 1999; Lockie, 2001 cited in Lockie 2006). This finding inferred for the researchers a failing in whole farm planning as on the farms surveyed there was no difference across all farms in farming practices that had less direct production benefits than the applications of fertiliser and chemicals. However, what this study did not reveal is whether or not those farmers who chose to use whole farm planning were simply more motivated to achieve high levels of production in the farming operation.
What has emerged across studies of farmers and agri-environmental scheme is that simple cause
and effect correlations between factors and farmers’ behaviour and the binary classification of farmers (for example into conventional and organic) cannot capture the complexity of motivation
and factors that come to bear in farmers’ decisions and practice. Little of value, it is argued in this
doctoral research, is offered by studies that conclude farmers’ adoption of agri-environmental technologies can be meaningfully accounted for by a motivation for financial rewards (e.g. Gunningham, 2007; Stobbelaar, Groot, Bishop, Hall, & Pretty, 2009), or because the farmer’s
attitude is, or is not, aligned with the change sought (e.g. Wauters, Bielders, Poesen, Govers, & Mathijs, 2010). As highlighted in New Zealand studies, little is gained also from studies that seek a meaningful explanation, by categorising farmers as conventional and organic, or alternative (Fairweather, Rosin, Hunt, & Campbell, 2009; Lockie, 2006a; Rosin & Campbell, 2009), or conservationists and non-conservationists (Burton & Wilson, 2006).
Farmers’ decisions and practice relating to agri-environmental schemes (and specifically farm plans) have been shown to be shaped at a minimum by a multiplicity of financial and non-
financial dimensions (Atari, et al., 2009; Robinson, 2006). Environmental values were found to be similarly held by conventional and non-conventional farmers surveyed in a New Zealand study (Fairweather, et al., 2009), differences between farmers in different agricultural sectors, such as those between sheep, beef and dairying, have been identified (Campbell, et al., 2012) both in New Zealand and in the United Kingdom’s regionally specific farming cultures (Burton, 2004b). Other studies now also confirm the heterogeneity of farmers (Campbell, et al., 2012; Fairweather, et al., 2009), a finding that would come as no surprise to anyone who has been involved for any length of time in the New Zealand farming sector.
In contrast with those studies that relate farmers motivations for undertaking environmental management with financial rewards, evidence from New Zealand and Australia supports the idea that farmers value social rewards. These studies suggest that greater social recognition of farmers positive roles in environmental management would constitute a motivational incentive for improved land management by farmers (Cocklin, et al., 2006; Fairweather, et al., 2009; Rhodes, Willis, Smith, & McCann, 2003).
Farmers are reported by Morris (2006, p. 117) to ‘constitute their identities as farmers in contrasting ways to those constructed by the policy knowledge culture of agri-environmental
scheme’ a point highlighted by other authors also (e.g. Burgess, et al., 2000; Burton, 2004b). The mismatch between the conception of farmers that informs agricultural and agri-environmental policy and farmers self-concepts and attitudes is illustrated by Burton and Wilson (2006). They challenge the accuracy of the conceptualisation of farmers moving from a post-productivist mind set and practice to a multifunctional one, as being useful for informing policy initiatives in the United Kingdom. Instead, they argue that post-productivism describes patterns at the macro- structural level but does not capture the multiple dimensions of farmers’ practice and thinking on- farm (Burton & Wilson, 2006).
The lack of effectiveness of voluntary agri-environmental schemes has been attributed, in some studies, to the prescriptive and means-based nature of the schemes (Burton, Kuczera, & Schwarz, 2008; Burton & Wilson, 2006; Hodge, 2001; Riley, 2008; Ward, Lowe, Seymour, & Clark, 1995). The schemes outline the specifications farmers are required to undertake, and rely on subsidies to
encourage the uptake of particular practices, such as fencing off conservation areas, or harvesting on a particular date (Burton, et al., 2008). As a result, it is argued that farmers have not fully engaged with (or internalised) the principles and ethos of the schemes and that real change has not taken place. This is argued to be because the schemes and associated subsidies do not require farmers to bring to bear their farming expertise or knowledge to this aspect of on-farm practice (Burton & Wilson, 2006) and ‘there is no incentive to act entrepreneurially, to introduce original
ideas, to innovate or to be willing to take risks’ (Hodge, 2001, p. 101).
Burton (2004b, p. 196) presents a rationale for considering how technologies contribute to farmers social/cultural rewards:
The reasons for the general failure of voluntary attempts to change the role of the farmer are often presented as either economic factors such as anticipated low returns or high establishment costs, structural factors such as the location of the farm relative to markets, or a perceived lack of skill on the part of the farmer to adopt the new practices. It is becoming increasingly evident that farmers may also resist change on the basis of an anticipated loss of identity or social/cultural rewards traditionally conferred through
existing commercial agricultural behaviour. Clear examples of this challenge to the ‘good farmer’ identity are emerging from empirical studies of farmer response to government schemes.
Farming activities that contribute to a farmer’s identity and social/cultural rewards are argued to
be those that require a level of farming skill and expertise that can be observed by other farmers in the outcome of the activity (Burton, et al., 2008; Burton & Paragahawewa, 2011). The link
between what farmers value and the visual dimension of productive farming is expanded upon by Burton (2012, p. 66):
‘farmers’ aesthetic landscape preference is closely tied with their understanding and practice of production activities, and...this connection has deep cultural and historical roots .. the cultural meaning of being a farmer is heavily embedded in the landscape itself.
‘Tidy’ farming and ‘straight lines’ are a widely recognised example of a farming convention associated with ‘good farming’ that is the source of resistance among farmers of the less ‘tidy’
organic production systems (Burton, 2004b; Burton & Paragahawewa, 2011), including those in New Zealand (Egoz, Bowring, & Perkins, 2001).
Farmers in Australia have a strong preference for voluntary and education-based tools ahead of regulation, in relation to supporting sustainable land management (Cocklin, Mautner, & Dibden, 2007). This preference, it is argued, is aligned with farmers’ strong desire for independence and for being in control of their own destiny (Cocklin, et al., 2007; Higgins, et al., 2012; Leviston, Price, & Bates, 2011; Robinson, 2006). There is evidence also that New Zealand farmers are similarly opposed to regulation. The strongest opposition to Environmental Management Systems
and Quality Assurance schemes expressed by the farmers surveyed as part of the ARGOS17 project in New Zealand, came from farmers who considered the schemes as a form of regulation of their autonomous practice and (as such) a challenge to their standing as farmers (Rosin, et al., 2007).
This perspective is strongly supported by research that shows the relative success of schemes in which farmers have been actively involved in the instigation and ongoing management of the
scheme, and where the specifics of the scheme’s application were worked through at the
individual farm level (e.g. Robinson, 2006). The advantage of governing mechanisms, tailored to individual farm circumstances were highlighted in a study in Canada. A growing interest from
farmers to the Environmental Farm Plan scheme was attributed to a ‘renewed interest in generating ecological goods and services’ by farmers but also because
the effectiveness of uniform beneficial management practices in mitigating the negative environmental impacts from agriculture is limited by inherent heterogeneities in agricultural production systems (Yiridoe, Atari, Gordon, & Smale, 2010, p. 1104) The importance of the relationship between farmers and the officials promoting and overseeing the scheme is also highlighted (Robinson, 2006). Morris (2006) argues that experts, who are outsiders to farmers’ knowledge-cultures, may not be the best people to be designing agri-
environmental schemes or working with farmers to adopt these schemes. Improved environmental outcomes on farms, it is argued, rest on achieving improved communication and negotiation between farmers and people from outside farming (Burgess, et al., 2000; Tsouvalis, et al., 2000). Confirming this, credible intermediaries were identified as important in translating and assisting farmers to interpret and span the boundary between their tacit farming knowledge and expert farmer decision support systems in Australia (Eastwood, Chapman, & Paine, 2012). The authors concluded:
Linkages between users and retailers were impeded by the limited ability of each party to step outside their domain of expertise. The network of practice required translators to act as boundary spanners in bridging explicit and tacit knowledge domains. These individuals can prove effective not only because they can translate between farming practice and [decision support systems] knowledge, but because they also have a high degree of credibility with farmers (Eastwood, et al., 2012, p. 17).
The large body of literature that has focussed on understanding why farmers do not act in accordance with scientific knowledge-based technologies has been criticised for its failure to
value or recognise the legitimate status of farmers’ knowledge (Morris, 2006; Riley, 2008; Tsouvalis, et al., 2000). As argued in Chapter Two, a line of research accepted as constructive in
17 ARGOS: Agricultural Research Group on Sustainability is a New Zealand research consortium with a
mandate to examine the environmental, social and economic sustainability of New Zealand farming systems (ARGOS, 2012).
this thesis is that which recognises and gives legitimate status to the experiential-based tacit knowledge of farmers as a knowledge-culture (e.g. Riley, 2008; Tsouvalis, et al., 2000).
Farmers were shown to resist the policy knowledge culture of agri-environmental scheme with reference to their practical and experiential knowledge of managing the land (Morris, 2006; Riley, 2008). However, the farmers, in contesting agri-environmental schemes, Morris (2006) reports, drew on other knowledge, including that anchored in the productivity agenda of the neo-liberal
project. Farmers’ scepticism about scientists and policy-makers, Riley (2008, p. 1291) concludes,
is because their knowledge (compared with the farmers’ ‘longstanding, durable and certain’) is considered by farmers to be ‘uncertain and transient’. However, although there was evidence of a
contest between farmers knowledge culture and that of those outside of farming, exchange (porosity) and a re-negotiation of knowledge-culture through interaction was evident, also (Morris, 2006).
Conclusion
The governing of sustainable agriculture in New Zealand is a limited but emerging body of theory to which this research will contribute. This chapter has reviewed and brought together a mix of literature that will inform the critical analysis of how the farming of HEHC in the Manawatu- Whanganui region is governed and the reasons it is governed in this way.
In this research it is taken as given that New Zealand agriculture is governed, in part, through a neo-liberal and globalised form of rule that literature suggests is embedded in complex ways within New Zealand agriculture, through the expertise and knowledge cultures that inform agriculture and government policy, and the identities and rationalities of central government and farmers. The literature reviewed suggests that the implications of this form of rule on agri- environmental governance will be evident in the different mentalities and hybrid variants of rule and technologies of government, which reflect (but are not limited to) neo-liberal and globalised rule. The specific form of rule will reflect the history, geography, politics, and institutions that characterise the context in which the governing occurs. The diversity of types of rule of agriculture that have evolved following the initiation of neo-liberal reforms has received some limited attention. Although, market driven technologies of government of agriculture have been researched in New Zealand, little research has explored how agriculture is governed beyond these mechanisms. By focussing on the governing of an aspect of farming this research directs attention to technologies of governing that include but are not limited to those that are market driven. This aspect has particular pertinence given the studies that have been completed illustrate that market driven mechanisms have had minimal impact on shaping farmers’ practices in New Zealand.
A criticism directed at the governmentality literature (as outlined in Chapter Two) is the focus on top–down governing and macro-level constructions of government. This failing is also evident in the normative and empirical literature reviewed in this chapter with its focus on the governing of agriculture by the state and the market. However, a number of authors emphasise the place farmer subjectivities, public opinion, and broader societal change have in shaping farming. The failure of conceptualisations of macro-level agricultural reforms and change to capture accurately the diverse and dynamic character of the micro-level changes that are occurring in farming is a consistent theme that emerges in this literature. The relative scarcity of empirical studies that attempt to acknowledge and incorporate farming practices and rationalities of rule that shape farming practice define this literature.
Conceptualisations of the macro-level rationalities of rule for farming inherent in policies of government have been articulated and explored extensively in relation to the United Kingdom, to a lesser extent in relation to Australia, and even less in relation to New Zealand. The policy developments reflect a mainly normative discourse that represents agriculture as moving from a productivist to a multifunctional form. The conceptualisations relevant to the United Kingdom inform but do not completely accord with the types of reforms and change evident in Australian and New Zealand agricultural change. As yet the application and exploration of these
conceptualisations to New Zealand agriculture is limited. However, the literature would suggest that the macro-level governing of farming in the Manawatu-Whanganui by central government and, potentially, by the regional council can be meaningfully considered with reference to these conceptualisations. Neo-productivism also is proposed as having potential relevance to the forms of rule for agriculture in New Zealand.
As will become apparent in this research the role of sub-national government (in this case the regional council) is of increasing importance in governing agriculture in New Zealand. Research and theory relevant to this dimension of governing is scarce in the literature reviewed in this chapter. This research should therefore contribute to extending the development of governing theory in this area.
A feature of the literature reviewed is the limited extent to which empirical research on farm level change has been considered and compared with the conceptualisations of agricultural policy and macro-level change. Empirical research on how government policy is reflected in real change has been undertaken but only to a limited extent. Resistance, however, is acknowledged as an integral aspect of governing and is evident in the discourses and conceptualisations of agricultural policy and rural change as well as in the responses (or not) of farmers to macro-level policy and
The agricultural extension literature that attempts to convey the dynamic and complex dimensions
that come to bear on farmers’ decisions as simple cause and effect relationships between factors
and farmer behaviour and motivation is rejected. Instead, this chapter contends that farmer knowledge-cultures and the idea of resistance, expertise and identity, are meaningful ways to articulate how farming, as a stable entity of government, governs sustainable agriculture in New Zealand. The knowledge-culture concept is advanced in this chapter as being a constructive and meaningful way to account for and articulate the legitimate and stable knowledge of farmers as a constitutive entity of government shaping the farming of HEHC in the Manawatu-Whanganui region.
This thesis now moves to outline the research design used in this research. A single qualitative case study was completed of the farming of HEHC in the Manawatu-Whanganui region. The question the case seeks to answer is how and for what reason is the farming of this land governed.