Harmonising devolved responsibility for biosecurity governance: The challenge of competing institutional logics

Abstract

Harmonisation of disease management practices across global space and the devolution of responsibility to a broader range of actors are two increasingly important approaches for ordering biosecurity governance. While these forms of ordering have been examined individually, the social science biosecurity literature provides limited insights into how they interact and interfere with one another, and the consequences for biosecurity implementation. This paper draws upon an institutional logics approach to examine the different and competing logics through which government agencies, industry bodies and farming enterprises engage in biosecurity. It focuses specifically on the ways in which these logics pose challenges for harmonisation of biosecurity as well as create alternative spaces of negotiation for making life safe. Through the analysis of policy documents and semi-structured interviews with government and industry stakeholders, as well as with beef producers, we identify three institutional logics being the neoliberal, productivist and agrarian logics. We argue that the existence of multiple logics poses significant challenges for efforts to achieve improved harmonisation of biosecurity in an environment of devolved responsibility to industry, farming bodies and producers. In this context, greater emphasis by stakeholders on the productivist logic holds the most potential for improving biosecurity implementation in that it works with existing agricultural circulations and flows, and with producers' herd health practices.

Devolved Responsibility and On‐Farm Biosecurity: Practices of Biosecure Farming Care in Livestock Production

“…(), this study found that such views are reflective of an agrarian institutional logic in which governments are argued to have a ‘moral responsibility to support farmers and family farming’ (Higgins et al . , p. 1143). Despite biosecurity being viewed as a government responsibility, farmers also questioned the capacity of governments to address biosecurity threats in the event of an outbreak, a contradiction identified also by Heffernan et al .…”

“…A more recent study by Higgins et al . (), also found that producers attribute responsibility for biosecurity to external agents, and particularly government. Building on the work of Heffernan et al .…”

“…; Higgins et al . ). However, other research complicates these arguments by demonstrating that many farmers have a high concern for disease threats and believe that they are doing all they reasonably can to minimise disease risk (Nöremark et al .…”

“…; Higgins et al . ), limited research has focused on what farmers already know and do to prevent and manage animal health problems, particularly in relation to care in farming (Singleton ; Singleton and Law ; Krzywoszynska ). By investigating farmer practices in the theoretical context of care , we are able to develop an understanding of how farmers care for both their farm and animals as an essential element of biosecurity practice.…”

Geography matters: farmer perceptions of a voluntary TB risk‐based trading system

“…Recognising geographical differences in terms of farmer perceptions of bTB risk is important if we think about the wider ‘institutional logic’ that drives market-based instruments (Higgins and others 2016). This logic is essentially a neoliberal agenda that encourages farmers to take more responsibility and to share some of the cost to control bTB through market-incentivised schemes (Maye and others 2014, Enticott 2016).…”