BARRIERS TO ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDED FERTILISER PRACTICES BY SUGARCANE GROWERS IN THE WET TROPICS

THE DOMINANT SCIENTIFIC paradigm holds sugarcane growers’ cultivation practices responsible for the greatest amount of soil and nutrient run-off flowing from the Wet Tropics coast to the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) lagoon. Strong encouragement from governmental agencies, coupled with proposed gains from reduced costs and increased levels of sugar content after reducing fertiliser use, led to marked reduction in the use of N and P fertiliser. However sugarcane growers have been reluctant to further alter their fertiliser practices to suit environmental targets—a situation that puzzles Reef Protection scientists. This qualitative study involved 82 in-depth interviews during 2007–2010 with sugar industry representatives in the Wet Tropics region and other stakeholders interested in the industry’s environmental performance. Participants’ values, interests and beliefs were interrogated regarding their actions and views on fertiliser usage. Ecological Modernisation Theory (EMT) provided a conceptual framing for understanding each industry sector response to the recommended environmental practice. Through this EMT lens important economic, social and environmental issues emerged that suggested that the proposed benefits of the scientific innovation were fraught with problems. Moreover, knowledge disputes about the validity and contested nature of the dominant science became an important component of the analysis, especially as these highlighted the power relations of different stakeholders. Foucault’s notion of the knowledge/power nexus and associated debates about eco-governmentality provided an additional framing of the governance of the sugar industry. This combined analysis of growers’ reasons for not always adopting recommended fertiliser practices provided insights into the problems associated with the reliance urban bureaucrats place on scientific expertise to inform natural resource management (NRM) policy without consulting rural peoples’ knowledge. Granting more credence for rural people’s knowledge would lead to more sustainable NRM policy that ultimately affects the livelihoods of farmers, and better ways of working with farmers on issues of environmental management.