« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Appendix 4: Summary of Qualitative Research
Role and Effectiveness of Scottish Monitor Farms
Funders Interviews - Summary
- First of all, could you give me a little bit of background about your organisation and your role? (confirm how long person has had some responsibility for funding into the programme)
QMS are the major funder after the Scottish Government. Funding comes from the QMS R&D budget and is the largest out of 25 projects they run. The Knowledge Transfer Manager for QMS spends around 25% of his time on the Monitor Farm programme activity.
- How /why did your organisation get involved with the Monitor Farm project? (Interviewer: need to establish reasons for funding programme)
QMS the largest funder became involved in the MF programme from the start following an approach by SAC who had contacted the SG to request funds to copy or emulate in some way, the NZ Monitor Farm model. The NFU were also asked to support the proposals.
QMS on going funding was committed by their R&D committee following the experience of the first pilots which were seen to work well. The decisions in QMS were strongly influenced by farmer members on the R&D committee who had seen how well the approach had worked in New Zealand, and the need for QMS to deliver rapid turn round assistance for the industry following on from the economic hardship caused by Foot and Mouth Disease, a need to get the livestock sector back on its feet.
Other funders have also become involved as the programme has been seen to assist in further their objectives. Some of these have approached QMS and or SG for example SOPA, for other the approach came from QMS looking for supporting funds for example Highland Council, Scottish Enterprise. In the case of others for example HGCA they were carrying out similar activity in England using DEFRA's Agricultural development Scheme but were unable to do this in Scotland, they approached the programme managers to become directly involved in the programme. Similarly MDC had been active in England and were looking for innovative ways to engage with farmers.
For the non-agriculturally oriented funders the objectives fit the broader objectives for rural development and economic (Highland Council and Scottish Enterprise). In the case of Scottish Enterprise this is the aim of improving business performance, underpinned by the objectives set out in Smart Success Scotland and Forward Strategy for Agriculture. Highland council already had an Agricultural Development Initiative aimed at group activity when approached by QMS, because farming is a key part of the Highland Economy. They could see how their limited funds could lever in additional money and the key member of staff had personal experience of similar projects in Australia.
- Confirm level of funding they provide? (if possible. We have list centrally but figures appear very rounded need to cross check if we can.) How is this managed? (how is/was it decided, is its use monitored in any way?)
In addition to the programme funds QMS provide, additional money from core levy funds is also provided to foster good relations and additional small sums to pay one of promotional materials. The QMS R&D committee have the overall responsibility for the budget.
As the principle funder in the current programme QMS manage the funds going towards the livestock oriented farms. Other funders transfer funds on invoice to QMS who then manage the funds for each farm. The contracted Facilitators for each farm are paid in 5 instalments.
Scottish Enterprise contribute to the 4 livestock projects and in addition they contribute to slightly less to the 2 HGCA lead projects, HGCA manage these farms and funds which are used to hire the facilitators. In addition 50% of the HGCA lead projects are funded in kind through contributions of staff time, and HGCA paying out of pocket expenses for their staff providing in kind time.
Highland Council and SOPA fund at a lower level for one farm each. In the case of Highland Council considerably larger sums are put into the Rural Leadership and Planning to Succeed Projects which are focused at the agricultural industry and have synergy with the MF project..
- What do you think of the Monitor Farms programme overall?
The overall consensus is that the MFs are a very positive thing. QMS have found that average attendance started at 24 and is now 31. More people finding time to come and. "Demand is there".
It is really good thing… fantastic.
The principle is very good…..it allows farmers decide the agenda, this brings ownership of the programme
It is important that farmers drive the agenda
The impression is that focus is provided and encourages the community group and gets messages taken up.
Very good - likes the innovative concepts. This is different - wonderful.
The Monitor Farm programme has been good.
Anecdotal feedback has been positive.
Impressed with farmers enthusiasm
The farm is the focus - members see and believe it
It is successful and of value.
One funder found the emphasis on technical matters in the reports they have seen less helpful, really wanting a greater focus on business information.
Others were unsure how far the benefits had reached the community group and beyond the community group.
Funders more directly involved found added value in empowering staff to talk to other groups
Concern was expressed that "we all compete for a small audience" for example "Scots Exec/ SEEFA have an environmental farm next door".
More collaboration is needed with other programmes.
One funder voiced that they really need to see harder economic benefits such as increased gross margins or decreases in costs as well as the technical information and another:
It is a balance between focus, intensity and breadth.
- What do you think of the structure of the programme and individual elements? (such as meetings/talks by experts etc)
The funders generally were not close to the detail of the events and structure but the consensus for those who have been involved was that the overall approach was working well. Two interviewees reported that the 6 meetings a year and two open days over the three year programme life (that are open to non-community group members as well) seems about right. Those programmes running for while have shown and increase in average attendance and the view was "that farmers could always vote with their feet" if that was not the case.
The network of contacts held by SAC as Facilitators was seen by one respondent to be useful for accessing experts etc.
The opportunity for farmers to "take time out" to learn is seen as appositive point.
A major funder noted that the programme needs improving to get more attendees, and that they are "not totally convinced they are very effective" fearing they are perhaps too detailed and the press could be used more to promote and disseminate the programme, the use of the press was raised as good point by another.
The different approach being tried on the arable MF with 6 business groups associated with the 2 farms is of interest to some to see if this works differently.
Facilitators need guidance to ensure they progress step by step through the plan and do not deviate to their own approach/specialism.
- What has worked well/not so well?
Work well
"Profiling a good farm"
The selection process is working well with the 15th farm having just been selected, and related to that " the farmers selected the farmer" and that " it is very practical and the farmers drive it them selves", and it works well to " leave it to the farmers to decide what they wish to cover".
"The need for Facilitator who is not too well aligned to the group thinking"
Not so well
Others experience was less confident of the degree of involvement of the community group.
Close proximity to an environmental farm.
"Need for wider range of specialists and trying to use more non- SAC advisers"
There is question that if facilitated from elsewhere (i.e. not SAC) it might have a different outcome.
Need for an independent chairman from the Community group who can direct the Facilitator and Monitor Farmers to ensure a better programme.
Need to avoid discussions drifting away to general issues and not focussing on organic.
- How do you think things could have been done better?
Avoiding clashes with other initiatives requires more joined up thinking.
Need to be able to measure better the benefits MF achieves.
Delegation of about one third of the budget for one MF to the management committee to direct spend, for example on soil analysis or fee paid experts - so in this way increase ownership and involvement.
Now programme has been viewed as successful there is more freedom to try different formats.
Set up time is bit too long, needs faster decision making process, the group can be more involved in addressing issues.
Need for more focus on Marketing and Risk Management.
Could community have eyes opened to the wider rural development agenda, and if used properly could use the concept for diversification and environmental issues.
Acknowledgement of funders was originally ( PHASE I) not good, no has improved.
Not sure what benchmarking is done and how the improvements achieved are measured and how this may be fed back to the funders. Currently the focus has been on technical achievements.
- Do you believe the programme is achieving/ has achieved its objectives? Any examples? (Interviewer - refer to some specific objectives if possible)
The consensus was that the objectives are generally being achieved, and that in general terms funders' objectives are being achieved. However for some funders there were questions as to the effect on profits or business performance, and for one whether the objectives set were the "right ones".
The issues mentioned focused on the slow progression of change,and measuring the degree of change is hard, and the changes farmers make are subtle.
Further benefits are that the approach fosters strategic thinking and that involvement here has led to a similar project in the SW England with Milk Link direct support from the Facilitator in setting it up. They are also getting demand from others.
One funder is also interested in whether the concept would translate to England.
Do you think the programme provides/has provided value for money?
There was a universal view that the programme provides value for money and in relation to the level of funds committed. There was concern expressed that the impression was good but economic figures showing success were needed.
"Very much so, it definitely provides VFM and is worth the money".
- There are currently 12 Monitor Farms in Scotland. Do you think the process should be rolled out further? Why/why not?
Funders involved for some time see the potential for more farms, and this was echoed by one new to the process. Others who are fresh to the programme reserve judgement to see how their current commitment progresses.
There is demand being expressed to core funders and others do not see finding suitable farms a problem although HGCA think 3 arable would be sufficient. Creating a demand led approach through promoting or inviting responses from groups of farmers is a way of developing the programme further.
Opportunities for involving processors and Milk buyers to assist with funding were identified by MDC, but the independence of MDC and government funds was seen as good as it does not enhance a company position. Involvement of private sector companies like these are seen as way of developing supply chain efficiency and adding value to milk contracts.
Aligning the agendas of funders is also important for example one levy body could not secure support from one council whose interest was focused on other rural issues.
- What level of funding do you think may be needed in the future? And how might this best be achieved?
Funders such as QMS, MDC, SOPA, consider more funding would enable more farms to be built into the programme. The level of funds per farm was not widely mentioned although one felt that the current level per farm could be increased a little.
The is a need for flexibility and the potential for RDP funds was raised by QMS. SOPA felt it would be better if the level of levy and government funding to help organic farmers was at a level similar to non-organic - i.e. pro rata for their percentage of levy funding.
Smaller funders can see the programme as expensive in relation to the level of project funding they usually support, and the balance depends on competition with other rural projects they wish to fund and the comparative perceived economic and other benefits.
Other possible funding perhaps from the Banks was mentioned be one.
- What role do they see your organisation taking in the future?
QMS see their lead role continuing for livestock farms with this common link seen as strength, with their aim to provide an independent management role.
MDC see the opportunity to support 2-3 dairy MF farms and for them to add value disseminating other research and the farms providing a base to implement trial R&D results.
Some funders see opportunities to transfer experience from this programme. HGCA see is might be possible to form a NE England group on similar lines. For SE part of their remit through their Rural Group is dissemination of best practice to their strategic partners e.g. ONE North East although overall they do not see a bigger role.
HGCA see benefit in the cross fertilisation of experiences in England and Scotland with the Monitor Farms adopting the Arable Business Groups approach eventually.
SOPA are waiting to see the outcome of the first round.
- Do you think farmers themselves should contribute to the funding? How do you see this being managed in the future? And at what level might it be?
The levy bodies were not happy with raising funds directly as farmers see the levy money as their contribution. In additional framers also contribute in kind. It was also seen as more difficult to manage, and could raise unrealistic expectations. Another funder also sees SRDP money as framers money from voluntary modulation in similar way.
However MDC could see after an initial free experience, farmers may wish to contribute in cash or in kind, and HGCA may charge attendees for meals to help ensure attendance.
Farmers view direct funding as something which could switch them off, and funders were wary of this.
The need to be able to demonstrate VFM and financial benefit was mentioned by some.
- Do you have any other comments on the Monitor Farms approach to facilitating changes on farms in Scotland?
SOPA see this as a good forum for discussion and are grateful for the support of QMS and SG.
QMS see benefits from a MF conference, farm start up manual and the challenge being to keep it fresh. They are thankful for the support given by others. MDC are already looking at future work with QMS.
Initial set up time was a slight concern of HGCA, relationships with partners, Facilitators and farmers are good.
One smaller funder sees their involvement as part of their overall activity in support of rural businesses and although fully supportive but are keen to see the programme get "out of the box" and bring in the wider public sector rural agenda.
« Previous | Contents | Next »