There is growing recognition that agricultural biosecurity requires broadening of responsibility beyond governments. In Australia, this has led to the implementation of a shared responsibility approach that disperses biosecurity activity across public and private actors. Drawing on a qualitative study of 89 participants, we investigate scale challenges that emerged from participant reports of working within a shared responsibility framework and introduce the concept of scale work to reflect the strategies actors developed to navigate these challenges. In doing so, we address two questions: What scale challenges are constructed by participants engaging in biosecurity work within a shared responsibility framework? What forms of scale work do biosecurity actors engage in to negotiate these challenges? Participants identified jurisdictional and role scale challenges as arising from conflicting regulatory frameworks and ambiguities surrounding roles and responsibilities, both of which have the potential to undermine shared biosecurity efforts. Rather than viewing these tensions as evidence of policy failure, we argue that they are a natural consequence of multi-actor governance arrangements that actors negotiate through scale work such as workarounds and coalition building. These examples reflect two forms of scale work: adaptive scale work to align conflicting regulatory frameworks, and integrative scale work to align actors across scales to facilitate collaborative approaches to biosecurity. In examining scale work, we argue that the shared responsibility approach to biosecurity in Australia is sustained through trust-based relational practices and rendered workable through actors' continual efforts to negotiate the scale challenges that arise within such governance arrangements.
This paper draws on online survey responses from 111 UK beef and sheep farmers to provide an insight into engagement with the net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) target. First, we explore whether they consider the net zero target into their decision-making, and second, identify the motivations, perceived barriers, and behavioural controls influencing adoption of GHG mitigation and sequestration practices. Most respondents believed net zero was achievable and expressed some knowledge of required actions. However, consideration of net zero in routine decision-making remained limited. Behaviour also varied by farm characteristics: hill, smaller farms, and those with direct processor or retailer supply contracts, or had completed a carbon audit were more likely to consider net zero in decisions. Many farmers had implemented, and expressed willingness to adopt mitigation measures, largely motivated by productivity and economic benefits. For sequestration, measures to enhance soil carbon were popular, while afforestation was not. Several distinct characteristics were associated with a greater willingness to adopt GHG mitigation and sequestration measures. These included larger farm size, lowland farms, cattle-based enterprises, and completion of a carbon audit. Awareness of the net zero target did not significantly influence willingness to adopt. Strikingly, the majority of respondents were not aware of any co-benefits of implementing GHG emission mitigation measures, despite numerous potential positive outcomes for farm businesses. We recommend that communication of these co-benefits are prioritised in future knowledge exchange, and policy/advisory strategies should avoid framing net zero at the sector-level as a singular goal and instead embed mitigation measures within broader strategies for resilient and profitable farming systems.
