Conflict Between Intergenerational Family

CONFLICT BETWEEN INTERGENERATIONAL FAMILY FARMERS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING PROCESSES: An “Economic versus Environment” Proposition or Different Ways of Knowing? A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geography in the University of Canterbury By Lynda Weastell University of Canterbury 2020 For Roderick Murchison & All the Intergenerational Family Farmers of Canterbury ii Abstract: Since European settlement, farming has shaped New Zealand economically, socially and environmentally, often in commodity ‘boom and bust’ cycles with significant environmental impacts. Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Jan Wright (2013, p.7) describes New Zealand’s current dairy boom as “a classic economic versus the environment dilemma.” But this image of farming as an ‘economic versus environment’ proposition does not accord with my knowledge of non- indigenous intergenerational family farming in Canterbury, New Zealand, nor with the place- attachment relationships of non-indigenous intergenerational family farmers documented in some social science literature. From the early 1970s, Transactive Planning Theory was premised on an understanding that conflict between planners and clients (people-in-place) is the product of different epistemologies or ways of knowing. More recently, Indigenous Planning literature suggests conflict in planning or resource management can reflect deeper ontological schisms between people or differences in worldviews. However, such explanations lead to a second question: if conflict between planners and resource users is grounded in epistemological or more significant ontological differences, how can they be reconciled? This research explores whether conflict between non-indigenous intergenerational family farmers and environmental planning processes in Canterbury, New Zealand is an ‘economic versus environment’ proposition or conflict between alternative environmental management systems underpinned by different ways of knowing. Also it explores whether and how such conflict can be recognised and reconciled. There is, of course, an intergenerational attachment to land in Canterbury much older than that of non-indigenous intergenerational family farmers; being that of Ngāi Tahu whānui. This study is not, in any way, an attempt to silence that relationship nor to argue that the research cohort has a place-attachment relationship akin to indigeneity. Rather, it is to explore and articulate non-indigenous intergenerational family farming culture in its own terms, and to explore conflict between that cultural knowledge and environmental planning processes. Researching within a critical hermeneutic framework using enactive research, oral narratives of the farming life-stories of 52 intergenerational family farmers were created. These oral narratives and a further 30 written narratives are critically analysed to interpret and articulate non-indigenous intergenerational family farming culture and associated environmental management systems. In addition, the experiences of the 52 farming families with environmental planning processes for managing conservation sites on-farm and the effects of farming activities on freshwater in Canterbury are analysed in two case studies. As part of those case studies, participants were asked how they would address those issues if they could ‘hold the planner’s pen.’ This thesis argues for multiple ways of knowing and practicing farming in Canterbury of which non- indigenous intergenerational family farming is one form, with distinctive characteristics, motivators and ethics. Secondly, it argues that non-indigenous intergenerational family farming knowledge is embedded: it is cultural knowledge of place which is motivated by and adaptive to environmental issues. Thirdly, it argues that conflict between non-indigenous intergenerational family farmers and iii environmental planning processes in Canterbury is not usually an ‘economic versus environment’ proposition but is grounded in different ways of knowing farming and environmental management. Those differences are largely epistemological but are becoming irreconcilable because the contemporary environmental planning process in New Zealand is losing awareness of its ideological foundations in Neo-liberalist and Rational Planning Theories. This study argues for reconfiguration of the planning process using a Place-attachment Planning Model with intergenerational people-in-place and their place-specific, experiential knowledge at its core, supported rather than supplanted by Western science and planning paradigms. Acknowledgments: Researching and articulating the story of non-indigenous intergenerational family farming in Canterbury is no small task. I wish to acknowledge everyone who has helped keep both PhD and author going through three years of drought, the Hurunui-Kaikoura Earthquake, family illness, and, in the last few weeks, a global pandemic. It has been a long and at times bumpy road. I wish to acknowledge receipt of the Roper Scholarship in Science from the University of Canterbury to support this PhD. Also I wish to acknowledge the support of staff and colleagues in the School of Geography (now Earth and Environment). Research cannot be undertaken without data and I am forever grateful to the 52 participant families who gave so generously of their time and their stories, along with all the other farming families in Canterbury who offered to be involved – I had so many more willing participants than I could manage. Also thank you to those families who have penned their farming life-stories over the years, stories which gave me a rich pool of written narratives from which to choose. I wish to thank my friends and colleagues within Ngāi Tahu whānui, North Canterbury Province of Federated Farmers of NZ Inc, Environment Canterbury, Hurunui District Council, and the family-farming community throughout Canterbury and beyond, who have shown so much interest in and support for this thesis. At last when I am greeted with, “Is it finished yet?” The answer is, “yes.” An enormous thank you to my supervisory team, Professor Eric Pawson and Dr Kelly Dombroski for all their support, questions and challenges. I wish to make particular mention of my Senior Supervisor Eric Pawson who now has supervised two of my theses – albeit 20 years apart, and who kept on supervising this thesis into his retirement. Eric, your teaching has been very influential throughout my career and I am humbled that I am your last PhD student. (I hope it will be a good note on which to finish!) Thank you also to Mr Winton Dalley for reading my thesis for clarity and Mrs Marion Weastell for proof-reading. Finally, I wish to acknowledge my wonderful clan of Murchison lads: my husband Jock Murchison for being the sounding board for many paragraphs and for keeping me honest on the meaning of different terms of ‘country’; and my sons Johnny and Roderick for being so understanding and self-sufficient over the last few months. Just like farming, it has been long hours, hard work, and at times down right difficult: to borrow from farmer-poet Jim Morris (Rewards, undated), “My recompense – the love of it!” iv Table of Contents: 1. Introduction 1.1 Setting the Scene ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 New Zealand’s Environmental Planning Process ................................................................................ 4 1.3 Emergence of a Thesis Topic .............................................................................................................. 7 1.4 Research Questions and Thesis Structure ……………………………………………………………………………………..11 2. The Argument in Context 2.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………15 Part One – Theoretical Context 2.2 Social Science Research Frameworks & Approaches……………………………………………………………………….15 2.3 Planning Theory……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..20 2.4 Indigenous Planning and TEK………………………………………………………………………………………………………….27 Part Two – The New Zealand Context 2.5 Environmental Planning in New Zealand……………………………………………………………………………………….32 2.6 Farming-Environment Relationships in New Zealand…………………………………………………………………....35 2.7 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………45 3. Methodology 3.1 Establishing a Research Framework……………………………………………………………………………………………..49 3.2 Critical Hermeneutics and Enactive Research Using Narratives…………………………………………………….50 3.3 Creating Data……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….52 3.4 Critical Narrative & Discourse Analyses…………………………………………………………………………………………58 3.4 Credibility and Reflexivity……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..63 4. Relationship to the Family Farm 4.1 Introduction to Intergenerational Family Farm as Place………………………………………………………………..66 4.2 Farmer-Farm Relationship as Place-Attachment…………………………………………………………………………….70 4.3 Describing the Family Farm as Place……………………………………………………………………………………………...82 4.4 Conclusions and Reflections………………………………………………………………………………………………………….90 5. Farming as Being in Place 5.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….92 5.2 Farming as an Economic Activity…………………………………………………………………………………………………..95 5.3 Farming as Environmental Management……………………………………………………………………………………….99 5.4 Socio-Cultural Values in Farming…………………………………………………………………………………………………..108 5.5 Conclusions and Reflections………………………………………………………………………………………………………….111 v 6. Farmer

Load more