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

    21 Citations (Scopus)

    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. Focussing 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 - 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{58b70a6395d84ce7878bd43ab50a17f9,
    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. Focussing 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 = "Hybrid governance, Neoliberalisation of nature, Payments for Ecosystem Services, Rural natural resource management, Great Barrier Reef., Australia",
    author = "Vaughan Higgins and Jacqui Dibden and Clive Potter and Katie MOON and Chris Cocklin",
    year = "2014",
    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 Limited",

    }

    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, 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

    PY - 2014

    Y1 - 2014

    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. Focussing 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. Focussing 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 - Hybrid governance

    KW - Neoliberalisation of nature

    KW - Payments for Ecosystem Services

    KW - Rural natural resource management

    KW - Great Barrier Reef.

    KW - Australia

    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 -