Payments for ecosystem services, Neoliberalisation, and the hybrid governance of land management in Australia

Vaughan Higgins, Jacqui Dibden, Clive Potter, Katie Moon, Chris Cocklin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)
7 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) are seen by many as one of the defining projects of a more neoliberalised approach to environmental governance. In practice, however, many PES schemes are hybrid constructions, depending on a mix of market and non-market policy instruments and the involvement of state as well as non-state actors to achieve changes in environmental practice on the ground. In this paper we provide insights into how and why hybrid forms of governance enable PES schemes to be workable in practice, and the implications of these arrangements for the neoliberalisation of rural environments and subjects. Focusing on the hybrid governance strategies of institutional blending and contextual adaptation, we examine two PES schemes in the State of Queensland, Australia. Conserving native vegetation and protecting the Great Barrier Reef respectively, these programmes have used PES as part of a suite of initiatives to achieve improvements in the environmental practices of beef producers. Our analysis reveals that institutional blending and contextual adaptation were crucial in building trust between landholders, farming organisations and those agencies responsible for delivering schemes; enabling the alignment of PES with existing mechanisms of governing, such as regulation and extension; meeting the outcomes required by government funding agencies, often in a short timeframe; improving the targeting of specific land types or landholders; improving the quantity and quality of funding applications; and overcoming fears about perceived threats to private property rights. While these strategies were important in making each PES scheme workable, the use of non-market instruments of regulation and extension compromised the application of neoliberal policy prescriptions to rural environments. However, we argue also that these same instruments contributed to and reinforced the construction of neoliberal landholder subjectivities.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)463-474
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Rural Studies
Volume36
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2014

Fingerprint

ecosystem service
land management
governance
management
funding
regulation
land type
private property
property rights
barrier reef
right of ownership
targeting
subjectivity
producer
medication
threat
anxiety
market
vegetation

Cite this

Higgins, Vaughan ; Dibden, Jacqui ; Potter, Clive ; Moon, Katie ; Cocklin, Chris. / Payments for ecosystem services, Neoliberalisation, and the hybrid governance of land management in Australia. In: Journal of Rural Studies. 2014 ; Vol. 36. pp. 463-474.
@article{9fac3a7e112f42cb9fb2f1e22ba3031a,
title = "Payments for ecosystem services, Neoliberalisation, and the hybrid governance of land management in Australia",
abstract = "Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) are seen by many as one of the defining projects of a more neoliberalised approach to environmental governance. In practice, however, many PES schemes are hybrid constructions, depending on a mix of market and non-market policy instruments and the involvement of state as well as non-state actors to achieve changes in environmental practice on the ground. In this paper we provide insights into how and why hybrid forms of governance enable PES schemes to be workable in practice, and the implications of these arrangements for the neoliberalisation of rural environments and subjects. Focusing on the hybrid governance strategies of institutional blending and contextual adaptation, we examine two PES schemes in the State of Queensland, Australia. Conserving native vegetation and protecting the Great Barrier Reef respectively, these programmes have used PES as part of a suite of initiatives to achieve improvements in the environmental practices of beef producers. Our analysis reveals that institutional blending and contextual adaptation were crucial in building trust between landholders, farming organisations and those agencies responsible for delivering schemes; enabling the alignment of PES with existing mechanisms of governing, such as regulation and extension; meeting the outcomes required by government funding agencies, often in a short timeframe; improving the targeting of specific land types or landholders; improving the quantity and quality of funding applications; and overcoming fears about perceived threats to private property rights. While these strategies were important in making each PES scheme workable, the use of non-market instruments of regulation and extension compromised the application of neoliberal policy prescriptions to rural environments. However, we argue also that these same instruments contributed to and reinforced the construction of neoliberal landholder subjectivities.",
keywords = "Australia, Great Barrier Reef, Hybrid governance, Neoliberalisation of nature, Payments for Ecosystem Services, Rural natural resource management",
author = "Vaughan Higgins and Jacqui Dibden and Clive Potter and Katie Moon and Chris Cocklin",
note = "Includes bibliographical references.",
year = "2014",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.10.003",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "463--474",
journal = "Journal of Rural Studies",
issn = "0743-0167",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Payments for ecosystem services, Neoliberalisation, and the hybrid governance of land management in Australia. / Higgins, Vaughan; Dibden, Jacqui; Potter, Clive; Moon, Katie; Cocklin, Chris.

In: Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 36, 10.2014, p. 463-474.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Payments for ecosystem services, Neoliberalisation, and the hybrid governance of land management in Australia

AU - Higgins, Vaughan

AU - Dibden, Jacqui

AU - Potter, Clive

AU - Moon, Katie

AU - Cocklin, Chris

N1 - Includes bibliographical references.

PY - 2014/10

Y1 - 2014/10

N2 - Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) are seen by many as one of the defining projects of a more neoliberalised approach to environmental governance. In practice, however, many PES schemes are hybrid constructions, depending on a mix of market and non-market policy instruments and the involvement of state as well as non-state actors to achieve changes in environmental practice on the ground. In this paper we provide insights into how and why hybrid forms of governance enable PES schemes to be workable in practice, and the implications of these arrangements for the neoliberalisation of rural environments and subjects. Focusing on the hybrid governance strategies of institutional blending and contextual adaptation, we examine two PES schemes in the State of Queensland, Australia. Conserving native vegetation and protecting the Great Barrier Reef respectively, these programmes have used PES as part of a suite of initiatives to achieve improvements in the environmental practices of beef producers. Our analysis reveals that institutional blending and contextual adaptation were crucial in building trust between landholders, farming organisations and those agencies responsible for delivering schemes; enabling the alignment of PES with existing mechanisms of governing, such as regulation and extension; meeting the outcomes required by government funding agencies, often in a short timeframe; improving the targeting of specific land types or landholders; improving the quantity and quality of funding applications; and overcoming fears about perceived threats to private property rights. While these strategies were important in making each PES scheme workable, the use of non-market instruments of regulation and extension compromised the application of neoliberal policy prescriptions to rural environments. However, we argue also that these same instruments contributed to and reinforced the construction of neoliberal landholder subjectivities.

AB - Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) are seen by many as one of the defining projects of a more neoliberalised approach to environmental governance. In practice, however, many PES schemes are hybrid constructions, depending on a mix of market and non-market policy instruments and the involvement of state as well as non-state actors to achieve changes in environmental practice on the ground. In this paper we provide insights into how and why hybrid forms of governance enable PES schemes to be workable in practice, and the implications of these arrangements for the neoliberalisation of rural environments and subjects. Focusing on the hybrid governance strategies of institutional blending and contextual adaptation, we examine two PES schemes in the State of Queensland, Australia. Conserving native vegetation and protecting the Great Barrier Reef respectively, these programmes have used PES as part of a suite of initiatives to achieve improvements in the environmental practices of beef producers. Our analysis reveals that institutional blending and contextual adaptation were crucial in building trust between landholders, farming organisations and those agencies responsible for delivering schemes; enabling the alignment of PES with existing mechanisms of governing, such as regulation and extension; meeting the outcomes required by government funding agencies, often in a short timeframe; improving the targeting of specific land types or landholders; improving the quantity and quality of funding applications; and overcoming fears about perceived threats to private property rights. While these strategies were important in making each PES scheme workable, the use of non-market instruments of regulation and extension compromised the application of neoliberal policy prescriptions to rural environments. However, we argue also that these same instruments contributed to and reinforced the construction of neoliberal landholder subjectivities.

KW - Australia

KW - Great Barrier Reef

KW - Hybrid governance

KW - Neoliberalisation of nature

KW - Payments for Ecosystem Services

KW - Rural natural resource management

U2 - 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.10.003

DO - 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.10.003

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 463

EP - 474

JO - Journal of Rural Studies

JF - Journal of Rural Studies

SN - 0743-0167

ER -