Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
turbulent and surprising' hange (Marshall and Staford Smith, 2010, p270); on the
other hand they are hindering adaptation via strongly mehanistic and top-down ap-
proahes to funding and administrative support. What becomes entrenhed is a sys-
tem whih favours incremental adaptation when what is needed is
transformation
(Marshall and Staford Smith, 2010, p274). In theory, a neoliberalist approah to NRM
should
generate locally-based and locally-owned (devolved) approahes whih have
the capacity to differ across regions according to local factors and different stake-
holder needs. But the historical dominance of the state in funding NRM activities, in
concert with the poor funding received by, and opportunities available to, non-gov-
ernment sectors involved in NRM, militates against the emergence of a more flex-
ible, responsive and collaborative-stakeholder approah at the local level (Marshall
and Stafford Smith, 2010).
So should we 'kill' any state activity in NRM in the hope that new private sector/
community activities will arise, phoenix-like, from current locally-based NRM? No.
In Australia, the Landcare movement and regional cathment management have
shown us many good things. Two critical failings, however, have been parliamentary
short-term thinking and political ineptitude. Basically, there is no consensus about
the likely future efects of climate hange in Australia (indeed, there are still many
climate hange deniers in the ranks of the coalition parties), and there has been a fail-
ure by the current Federal Labour Government to give a clear direction for climate
hange policy. Despite the appearance that federal and state governments are joining
forces in addressing NRM and climate hange, the arrangements thus far have not
proven to be robust and lexible enough to consistently meet the needs of cathment
communities: rather, they are designed to ensure that state interests are prioritized.
It could be argued that unless there is constant, long-term and committed bipartis-
an agreement on what is needed to support farmers' adaptation to climate hange,
the neoliberal agenda will predominate: farmers will be required to expand output
or face the consequence of leaving the land as victims of climate hange and unpre-
dictable markets.
Finally, there is also a poor alignment between adaptation strategies at the gov-
ernment, regional and individual levels (Rohford, 2009). he capacity of local/re-
gional NRM groups to move quikly to the hallenges of climate hange will be im-
peded by the structural constraints of existing forms/priorities/ideologies of govern-
ment. he outcome - at this stage, at least - is conservative, incremental hange that
reinforces the framework of productivism, rather than looking beyond it.
