Climate change and rural adaptation "Down Under"

By Geoff Cockfield, Associate Professor at University of Southern Queensland (Australia)

Earlier this month, some Australian news media ran articles about a future in which average temperatures would increase by six degrees. Previously discussed scenarios were generally limited to ‘plus two’ to ‘plus four’ futures. But with the failure of efforts to curtail greenhouse gas emissions, evident in the very modest progress on mitigation from the latest UN climate talks in Doha, and rapid industrialisation in China and India, more dramatic change is being considered.

In Australia the ‘Millennium’ drought of 2002-2009 provided a picture of what such a future might be like, at least for us. Since 1970, rainfall trends have generally conformed to climate change models that suggest less rainfall in the southern and western areas, with some increases in the tropical and sub-tropical areas. If current trends continue, they will contribute to the reshaping of rural areas.

Climate Change Hotspots in Australia
Source: WWF, click on the image to enlarge.

Rural trends in Australia

The demographic trend is to fewer people on farms, in small agriculture-dependent towns and in remote areas, other than where there are mining projects. Higher temperatures, less water for irrigation and large high-tech farms will leave an even more sparsely settled inland. Already, 80 percent of people live within 100 kilometers of the coastline, with 64 percent of those in five major metropolitan areas. Climate change will add to the reasons for people to move.

The ‘long dry’ as well as the wages paid in the burgeoning mining sector accelerated the long-term trends of farm aggregation and the replacement of labor with large-scale machinery, especially in Western Australia where the dry years continued through 2011 and 2012. Farmers are reducing livestock numbers, especially sheep, with some farmers especially affected by having to shoot starving animals during the worst of the drought. The economic effects of the decrease in livestock numbers flow through regional meat processing businesses and contractors such as shearers, accelerating the overall decline of small rural towns.

The hot conditions, which disproportionately affect the elderly, will tend to leave some inland areas as places to work for periods of time, rather than places to live in the long term. Other disadvantages could include greater exposure to mosquito-borne diseases such as Dengue and Ross River fevers, as the tropics ‘expand’ south and the increasing costs of energy and transport as a result of the new national carbon tax (http://www.carbonneutral.com.au/organisations/the-carbon-tax.html).


Threatened water supplies

This coastal and urban migration will place even greater pressure on urban water supplies. During the Millennium drought, the five mainland state governments all developed desalination plants for each of their major cities. These have however, proved costly to build and run. From 2007, the Federal Government promoted the use of recycled water. However, there remains a real resistance to full-contact uses of this water, illustrated by the resounding defeat of a recycling proposal in my home city of Toowoomba in a referendum. The problems of desalination and recycling led some state governments to seek more water from river systems, including those providing most of the water for irrigated crop industries.

Irrigation in the Murray Darling Basin is a source of
contention among conservationists and farmers.
Source: The Guardian

The Millennium drought highlighted long-term conflicts over water, especially around Australia’s most agriculturally important river system, the Murray-Darling Basin. The rice industry, an important exporter in the central Basin areas, was in virtual shutdown for two years because of the shortage of irrigation water. The dry conditions also increased political negotiations to manage water allocations in the Murray-Darling Basin, which crosses four states. The negotiations resulted in a process whereby the Federal Government will ‘buy’ back water licenses, which will reduce irrigated crop production in some areas and further reduce the size of some regional economies.

There are some, including in the Opposition political parties, who argue that there is still scope for an expansion of irrigated agriculture in the northern areas, effectively reconstructing Australian agricultural geography.  However, scientific and economic reviews are cautious given the erratic rainfall, uncertain environmental impacts of development, and the remoteness of suitable sites.

Rural adaptations in Australia

The early signs of climate change are driving various adaptations. There is research on animal and human housing insulation, alternative energy strategies for rural and remote areas, and alternative crops and crop production. Mitigation policies, such as carbon tax provide opportunities for carbon farming, including land management for conservation purposes that will yield income. This may be especially important for Aboriginal communities managing traditional lands. In addition, rural areas will provide the sites for other forms of energy generation, including solar and wind, although there are some local objections to wind farms.

Source: AhramOnline

The prospects for rural leadership on adaptation are somewhat hindered by a reluctance to acknowledge that there is any such problem as climate change. In survey after survey, including in the US, there appears to be higher levels of ‘skepticism’, actually outright disbelief in some cases, of climate change in rural areas and especially amongst farmers. Perhaps this goes with the tendency to political and social conservatism, an anti-green tendency, or the fear of the existential threat of climate change.

Yet rural people are good at adaptation, being so exposed to natural events and volatile markets and perhaps the incremental nature of climate change will encourage innovation and adaptation that is couched in terms of addressing the existing issues that afflict rural areas.

• Do you see the same issues and dilemmas in the US, or at least in some regions?
• How do you think the US political system is coping with water conflicts?

Geoff Cockfield is Associate Professor in politics and economics at the University of Southern Queensland. His research areas include rural policy, climate change adaptation and natural resources management. Before working in a university, he worked in agriculture and in rural journalism.

Alternative Energy in the Land of Oil: Who Benefits?

By Adam Blair, Research Assistant, Cornell University’s Community and Regional Development Institute (CaRDI)

As my car crawled west along Interstate 20 in West Texas, the arid October landscape seemed to stretch outward in a quiet perpetuity, punctuated only by the occasional intersection. It was my first time in the Lone Star State, and the magnitude of the Texas plain weighed down on the vehicle in a way that made me feel like a speck on a map. The vacant horizon left nothing but my odometer as a point of reference.

As I approached Abilene that first afternoon, I encountered towering masses of steel sprouting from the ground, their unnatural appearance invoking a sense of disbelief.

This rural landscape that has supported cotton and cattle since the early 19th Century and petroleum since the 20th continues its legacy as a natural resource-dependent economy with the rapid development of commercial wind energy. Now home to thousands of wind turbines generating enough electricity to power over 2.7 million homes, Texas leads the nation in the expansion of this energy source.

But while the industry is creating jobs, boosting local tax revenues, and providing supplemental income to struggling farmers, I found that this burgeoning enterprise has been largely immune from broader questions concerning long-term community and economic impacts. As a student of city and regional planning, I wondered how, and to what extent, local communities were capturing the wealth generated by the wind energy industry. It was also unclear to me how the benefits derived from wind development—monetary or otherwise—were redistributed amongst local populations.

To begin to answer these and other questions for a Rural Futures Lab case study, I first took the time to understand the important rural-urban linkages that support the energy sector of the U.S. Embodied by the string of electrical transmission lines stretching from the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex to the communities west of the Brazos River—the very route I had just driven—the concept is one familiar to many rural policymakers.

Linkages between rural industries and urban consumers have existed for centuries in the United States, encouraged and even directed to a large degree by the construction of the transcontinental railroads of the mid-19th century and the Interstate Highway System of the mid-20th. And as the nation continues its trend of urbanization, the reliance on rural America’s bounty will become even more prevalent. In a foundation paper authored for the Rural Futures Lab in June 2011, my colleagues and I explored this trend in more detail. We predict that an increasing remoteness of energy generation, driven in part by a transition to more land-intensive, renewable forms of energy, will have profound impacts on rural communities.

My interviews with West Texans confirmed many of the concerns we raised in our report, but also highlighted many of the opportunities discussed in Susan Lurie and Michael Hibbard’s recent blog post on the new natural resource economy (NNRE). For instance, while wind development has been embraced by many landowners, the following comment from a West Texas resident demonstrates just one of many difficulties in achieving the balance between natural resource production and protection described under NNRE: “…you’ll find a lot of places in Central Texas that have chosen not to take wind turbines. Some of them call it eye pollution. They get down there and like the rocky areas and like the clear skies and don’t want to see ’em.”

Equally insightful was my conversation with a small business owner in West Texas. He recognized the importance of using tax revenues generated by the wind energy industry to “improve the quality of life” and consequently mitigate some of the negative boom-bust effects discussed in our foundation paper. However, he noted the difficulty in convincing public officials to do anything but provide tax abatements to lure new, outside firms instead of supporting existing small business in the region.

Of course, only history will tell whether Texas’ newest experiment in rural economic development will result in a windfall or washout for local residents and communities. To ensure equitable benefits, it is imperative that new wealth is captured and reinvested in a way that will improve the quality of life for everyone, for this, one rancher reminds us, “is [the] best thing that can happen to a rural community.”

The New Natural Resource Economy and Rural Economic Development

By Susan Lurie (Oregon State University) and Michael Hibbard (University of Oregon)

 

 

Photo: Susan Lurie – 2012

 

A couple of years ago, while our research team was working on a project in Grant County in deep rural east-central Oregon (read our report or journal article), we had the opportunity to sit in on an “economic summit” for the county. The local extension agent pointed out that the two industries that formed the historic economic base of the county—timber and cattle—were both in long-term, permanent decline.

As a consequence, Grant County—like many resource dependent rural communities—is struggling with loss of jobs and local businesses and wealth, and generally declining community vitality. The problems are mainly due to forces beyond their control, such as globalization and economic restructuring, the dominance of the industrialized commodity production model, and changing societal demands for agricultural and natural resource products.

As we listened to the audience discussion of the presentation, we were struck by something. Everyone present had an abiding commitment to Grant County and was deeply worried about the future of the community. They also had a strong love for rural and small town life, especially as it related to making a living off the land.

A significant segment of the audience saw the only hope for the community in a return to traditional uses of natural resources. That last sentiment was not new to us, of course. What was new to the discussion was the significant fraction of the audience who were interested in considering alternative possibilities for natural resource management. They saw that there may be ways to make a living from natural resources based on emerging markets for products that reflect increasing societal expectations that natural capital should be managed and utilized in a more sustainable manner.

Photo: Country Natural Beef  

As researchers, we decided to look more closely into what this “new” natural resource economy (NNRE) comprises as a complement to traditional uses. We wondered whether it might help create a way for rural communities to think about economic development in response to contemporary economic and social realities.

Problems of Natural Resource-based Economies

The industrialized approach to agriculture and natural resource management—which includes specialization, standardization, and consolidation in pursuit of increased efficiency—has disconnected rural communities from the larger economy. At the same time, societal demands for protection and enhancement of rural communities’ key assets (their natural resources) has led to more stringent regulations affecting production.

Some rural communities with high amenity values have developed alternative economies as sites for tourism and retirement. For most communities, however, the decoupling from the larger economy has been an intractable socio-economic problem, and rural communities continue to lag behind urban areas.

How the New Natural Resource Economy (NNRE) is Different

The NNRE may offer a way out of the dilemma by reframing natural resources as assets to be managed for the long term. It emphasizes a multifunctional landscape that balances agricultural and natural resource production with amenities for recreation and cultural activities and protective natural services such as air and water purification, biodiversity, and flood and erosion control. Activities and businesses comprising the NNRE may not be new; what is new is accounting for them collectively as an emerging economic sector in its own right that can help diversify rural economies and increase local resilience and economic autonomy.

As we probed these ideas it quickly became apparent that the predicament is not limited to the U.S. Most developed countries are facing similar challenges and a variety of policy responses have emerged. To shed light on the U.S. situation, Oregon seemed a good place to start: many rural Oregon communities are struggling with economic change and the rural development grapevine gave us reason to believe there is quite a bit of NNRE activity at work, informally and without any overarching state or local strategy.

Preliminary Research

To get a sense of what types of enterprises currently comprise Oregon’s NNRE and what institutional challenges they face, we conducted a survey and three in-depth case studies of Oregon rural communities. Details of the study and policy issues identified can be found at the Rural Futures Lab website.

In summary, we found that some communities are engaged in NNRE economic development, although it is not typically identified as such. It was also clear that there is generally low or no understanding of how to define and develop a local or regional NNRE strategy in order to overcome existing barriers and foster institutional changes to help rural communities.

As research and action moves forward, it will be important to continue identifying institutional barriers that must be changed in order to encourage and nurture rural NNRE entrepreneurialism. We would like to search for answers to questions about the NNRE such as:

• What other challenges are NNRE enterprises encountering, and what steps can be taken to remove those barriers?
• What examples exist in different contexts that would help rural communities looking for innovative ways of building more sustainable futures?

As we continue to refine our understanding of the NNRE, comparative studies and examples of practicable NNRE economic development policies and programs will help create a framework that can be adapted to local circumstances in order to help the NNRE flourish and, with it, rural communities. 

 

 

Susan Lurie is a faculty research associate in the Policy Research Program at the Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon State University.

Michael Hibbard is Professor Emeritus, Department of Planning, Public Policy & Management, and Director, Institute for Policy Research & Innovation, at the University of Oregon.

Visit the RUPRI Rural Futures Lab here.