Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Tehnocratic responses to climate hange are the same options that have resulted
in the further intensiication of farming. hey conform to - rather than hallenge
- the existing system of productivism. It should also be remembered that any fun-
damental alteration to existing production regimes can be diicult to ahieve when
farmers are in debt - as most of Australia's primary producers are. The banks can
dictate how loaned funds can be spent - and this is not, usually, for radical altera-
tions to the productivist format - leaving the intensification of current production as
a favoured bank requirement (Lawrence
et al
., 2007).
In the case study region of the MDB, it has been predicted that 'adaptation' to
climate hange will include the movement away from irrigated pastures, rice pro-
duction and irrigated wheat towards higher-return products of fruits, vegetables and
cotton. hese later crops will require increases in the application of fertilizers and
pesticides. Some areas of wheat production will hange to pastoralism, but this will
mean soils will be exposed to hard-hoofed animals that will potentially increase soil
degradation.
In the MDB, some irrigators have responded to climate hange by seeking to pur-
hase new water entitlements, while others have sought to improve efficiency of on-
farm water use by investing in pipes, centre pivots and so forth. However, the water
market is not yet on a firm footing: some farmers remain uncertain of the benefits
they will gain from additional water; others question whether water access in their
district will be 'rationalized', with the whole district being disconnected from the ir-
rigation water supply (Rohford, 2009). Basically, if many farmers sell their licences,
this makes the supply system more expensive and therefore potentially unviable for
others who want to continue using irrigation water. Farmers are confused by the sig-
nals from government and are unclear about the best course for individual on-farm
adaptation. Rohford (2009) makes the perceptive, but cynical, point that, in suh cir-
cumstances, most farmers are currently adapting to
policy
hange, rather than to
cli-
mate
hange. As he implies, the two might not be compatible.
In relation to wider governance structures, the Australian government is pur-
suing a devolved neoliberal approah to community actions on climate hange -
via collaborative partnerships and hybrid governance structures (participatory NRM
Basin associations) - while centralizing control of funding (Lawrence, 2005; Mar-
shall and Stafford Smith, 2010). It has been pointed out, however, that the two ele-
ments here are in tension. On the one hand, the government wants the NRM (Natur-
al Resource Management) bodies to be adaptive systems that can deal with 'abrupt,
