1,721,025 research outputs found
What's social about natural resources and why do we need to theorise it?
No full text[Extract] For decades, social scientists have struggled for recognition as valid contributors to natural resource management (NRM). Overshadowed by the seemingly obvious importance of soils, hydrology, agronomy, biology, ecology and a host of other apparently 'natural' dimensions of NRM, the social dimensions of NRM have all too often been ignored. So, how much have things changed? Since the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987 (WCED, 1987) there has been growing international recognition of the relationships between what we understand as natural and social resources (or between environments and people). The WCED argued that sustainable use of natural resources was impossible in the absence of equity, justice and social and economic development. Environmental issues were thus also social, trade and economic issues. While it would be misleading to trace widespread change to a single report or event, it is nevertheless evident that, as we begin the new century, NRM policy statements from governments, non-government organisations and multilateral organisations alike embrace components of a new 'language' of partnerships, capacity building, institutional support, public participation, community initiatives, environmental health, community health, social capital, international cooperation, education, and a host of concepts and ideas once foreign to the natural sciences
Governance, 'local' knowledge and the adoption of sustainable farming practices
No full text[Extract] This chapter is concerned with the attempts of state agencies and their representatives to promote more productive and sustainable relationships between farmers and 'natural' environments. We argue that while it is important to recognise the direct attempts to regulate agricultural environments and farm management practices, there is much to be gained from an analysis of the more subtle ways in which agencies attempt to influence how people think about the environment and understand their place within it, as well as their responses to what they 'know' about that environment. This chapter focuses upon the relationships between power, knowledge, and the symbolic and material construction of agricultural environments. In doing so it draws heavily on Foucault's analysis of governmental rationalities and the ways in which these are used to coordinate 'action at a distance' amongst otherwise disparate actors. Thus, for example, Miller and Rose (1990) argue that modem government occurs not just via direct 'political' forms of intervention or force, but through mechanisms which allow calculations and strategies at one place to be linked to action at another. In relation to Australian ·agriculture, this theoretical approach has been most extensively used, to date, in the analysis of changes to state policy and activity associated with the National Landcare Programme (see Lockie, 1999; Martin and Woodhill, 1995)
Governance, 'local' knowledge and the adoption of sustainable farming practices
No full text[Extract] This chapter is concerned with the attempts of state agencies and their representatives to promote more productive and sustainable relationships between farmers and 'natural' environments. We argue that while it is important to recognise the direct attempts to regulate agricultural environments and farm management practices, there is much to be gained from an analysis of the more subtle ways in which agencies attempt to influence how people think about the environment and understand their place within it, as well as their responses to what they 'know' about that environment. This chapter focuses upon the relationships between power, knowledge, and the symbolic and material construction of agricultural environments. In doing so it draws heavily on Foucault's analysis of governmental rationalities and the ways in which these are used to coordinate 'action at a distance' amongst otherwise disparate actors. Thus, for example, Miller and Rose (1990) argue that modem government occurs not just via direct 'political' forms of intervention or force, but through mechanisms which allow calculations and strategies at one place to be linked to action at another. In relation to Australian ·agriculture, this theoretical approach has been most extensively used, to date, in the analysis of changes to state policy and activity associated with the National Landcare Programme (see Lockie, 1999; Martin and Woodhill, 1995)
What's social about natural resources and why do we need to theorise it?
No full text[Extract] For decades, social scientists have struggled for recognition as valid contributors to natural resource management (NRM). Overshadowed by the seemingly obvious importance of soils, hydrology, agronomy, biology, ecology and a host of other apparently 'natural' dimensions of NRM, the social dimensions of NRM have all too often been ignored. So, how much have things changed? Since the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987 (WCED, 1987) there has been growing international recognition of the relationships between what we understand as natural and social resources (or between environments and people). The WCED argued that sustainable use of natural resources was impossible in the absence of equity, justice and social and economic development. Environmental issues were thus also social, trade and economic issues. While it would be misleading to trace widespread change to a single report or event, it is nevertheless evident that, as we begin the new century, NRM policy statements from governments, non-government organisations and multilateral organisations alike embrace components of a new 'language' of partnerships, capacity building, institutional support, public participation, community initiatives, environmental health, community health, social capital, international cooperation, education, and a host of concepts and ideas once foreign to the natural sciences
Adapting standards: the case of environmental management systems in Australia
Full text linkPrivate standards and certification schemes provide an increasingly significant site of study for scholars interested in the restructuring of the agrifood sector. In the last ten years there has been a burgeoning literature
on standards and certification schemes, focusing particularly on organic (Guthman, 2004), fair trade (Renard, 2005) and retailer-led schemes (Campbell et al, 2006; Hatanaka et al, 2005). The rise of private standards
schemes has tended to be conceptualized as part of a broader global shift from public to private forms of governance as large international supermarket chains in particular, and to a lesser extent actors such as civil society organizations and social activists, exert increasing control over agri-food supply chains (Burch and Lawrence, 2007; Fulponi, 2006; Henson and Reardon, 2005) including the production practices of processors and producer-farmers (Hendrickson and James, 2005). This relates to the more general influence of what Cashore (2002, p. 504) terms 'Non-State Market-Driven' forms of governance that 'derive their policy-making authority not from the state, but from the manipulation of global markets and attention to customer preferences'.
While this literature is significant in drawing attention to the shifting power relations within agri-food supply chains from producers and processors to supermarkets, it gives little attention to how standards are implemented and adapted, and the role of state agencies, sub-state or regional authorities and producers in this process. Drawing upon insights from the literature on governmentality, this chapter examines the different ways in which a private standards scheme - environmental management systems (EMS), based on the international standard ISO14001- has been implemented at a national, regional and industry level in Australian agriculture. We argue that the application of EMS has depended on alliances between a diverse range of agencies and actors - both public and private. Moreover, making EMS work at an industry and regional level has involved the adaptation of this standards scheme so that it accords with sectoral and local priorities rather than striving to meet the full requirements of the international ISO14001 standard. Prior to elaborating our argument, it is necessary to explore briefly the merits and limitations
of the existing literature on agri-food standards, and the ways in which a governmentality perspective might assist in addressing existing gaps in knowledge
(Re)assembling neoliberal logics in the service of climate justice: Fuzziness and perverse consequences in the fossil fuel divestment assemblage
No full textSocially motivated divestment from the fossil fuel industry is occurring at a rapid rate. Banks, pension funds, universities, and philanthropic organizations around the world are divesting vast amounts of capital. Based on empirical data from face-to-face interviews with key divestment actors in the UK and Australia, this chapter explores the entanglements between the divestment and neoliberal assemblages. By approaching this topic through the analytical frame of assemblage, we highlight the perverse consequences arising from the mobilization of the responsible citizen subject through free market mechanisms. That is, whilst the divestment movement achieves its aims in disrupting flows of capital around the fossil fuel industry, it unwittingly reproduces neoliberalizing logics by reinforcing a shift away from the state as the key corporate regulator
Mapping the Dynamics of New Forms of Technological Governance in Agriculture: Methodological Considerations
No full textIncreasing Food Production Sustainably in a Changing Climate : Understanding the Pressures and Potential
No full textAustralian agriculture is faced with the dilemma of increasing food production for a growing domestic and world population while decreasing environmental impacts and supporting the social and economic future of regional communities. The challenge for farmers is compounded by declining rates of productivity growth which have been linked to changes in climate and decreasing investment in agricultural research. The answer must lie in understanding the ecological functionality of landscapes and matching management of agricultural systems and use of natural resources to landscape capacity in a changing climate. A simplified mixed grain and livestock farm case study is used to illustrate the challenges of assessing the potential for shifts in land allocation between commodities to achieve sustainable intensification of nutrition production. This study highlights the risks associated with overly-simplistic solutions and the need for increased investment in research to inform the development of practical strategies for increasing food production in Australian agro-ecosystems while managing the impacts of climate change and addressing climate change mitigation policies
Trade liberalisation and Australian biosecurity: Opportunities and challenges under the ‘shared responsibility’ approach
No full textMega-free trade agreements such as the TPP bring Australia into new, major trade partnerships that encompass almost a billion of the world’s population and 40% of global GDP. Despite the opportunities for Australia’s export market, little is known about the potential challenges these FTAs present for national and sub-national biosecurity governance. Australia’s ‘shared responsibility’ approach, devolves responsibility for biosecurity to key stakeholders, such as producers. Is this adequate in a new trade environment?\ud
\ud
<a href="http://www.farminstitute.org.au/publications-1/farm-policy-journals/2016-spring-can-australia-s-biosecurity-standards-survive-in-a-free-trade-era/fpj1303b-richards-c-higgins-v-2016-trade-liberalisation-and-australian-biosecurity-opportunities-and">Article number: FPJ1303B</a
- …
