Multifunctional agriculture in policy and practice? A comparative analysis of Norway and Australia

Ideals of productivist agriculture in the Western world have faded as the unintended consequences of intensive agriculture and pastoralism have contributed to rural decline and environmental problems. In Norway and Australia, there has been an increasing acceptance of the equal importance of social and environmental sustainability as well as economic sustainability. Alongside this shift is a belief that primary production needs to move away from an intensive, productivist-based agriculture to one that may be defined as post-productivist. In this paper, we argue that the dualism of productivism and post-productivism as concepts on agricultural policy regimes are too simplistic and discuss whether multifunctional agriculture is a better concept for a comparison of rural primary production at two extreme points of the scale, the market-oriented, liberalistic Australian agriculture and the market-protected small-scale Norwegian agriculture. We argue that multifunctionality in Australia rates relatively weakly as an ideology or policy and even less as a discourse or practice and hence is situated toward a ‘weak’ end of a continuum of a level of multifunctional agriculture. In Norwegian agriculture, multifunctional agriculture has thrived within a protectionist setting with the support of the public, the state and agricultural actors. In this sense it is very clearly a policy, practice and discourse that aims to preserve and conserve rural spaces, the cultural landscape, the farming way of life and food safety. Norway is as such situated toward a ‘strong’ end of a continuum of a level of multifunctional agriculture.

The importance of agency in facilitating the transition to a multifunctional countryside

We appreciate Holmes' body of work relating to transitions within the Australian landscape, and welcome the opportunity to engage in a discussion on this topic. The paper to which Holmes refers (Bjørkhaug and Richards, 2008) examined the application of agricultural (rather than landscape) multifunctionality in both Norway and Australia. Of specific focus was how non-tradeable concerns, such as environmental sustainability, faired under these divergent systems. We argued that Norway's multifunctionality was strong, due to it being embraced at both the policy and actor level, whereas Australia's could be described as weak. This ‘weak multifunctionality’ that we observed in Australia was due to an emerging bi-lateral (state and federal) policy framework that advocated the importance of environmental values which was rarely embraced by landholders who found themselves trapped on the ‘agricultural treadmill’. The nature of the treadmill is that alternative forms of land use are unthinkable when on-farm investments have been made that support the status quo – to get bigger and/or more efficient. For many of the Australian landholders interviewed in relation to this study, efficiency in production was at odds with the values necessary to effect a transition toward multifunctionality. For instance, graziers in Central Queensland were unconvinced of the value of conserving native flora and fauna when economic viability can be better assured through clear felling native forests to increase the productive capacity of the land.