« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
4. The Potential for a Monitor Farm Approach to Deliver Wider Benefits
4.1 Introduction
There is no consensus on the desirability or practicality of using the Monitor Farm for other knowledge transfer purposes despite the interest of some funders that the approach should be more stretching in the issues it covers,. So if the group members do not see the need, benefit or purpose of learning about a wider agenda, trying to impose this on the process could prove unhelpful and potentially undermine the business improvement benefits it has so clearly shown. However there are indications, already pointed out that members do not fully recognise the costs of providing the service and the role of public or other external funding which is likely to be necessary in some form if a programme is continue.
There are indications that if approached with sensitivity and in a way that integrates the wider agenda with the farmers' clear focus on financial and physical improvements, there may be potential for some other dimensions to be included particularly where associated with environmental management. The nature of the evidence we have collected suggests that if funders wished to take this route the individuals appointed for facilitation would also need to be convinced or persuaded of the merits of including other issues, or the approach would be unlikely to succeed.
This concern over the use of the approach for activity not overtly linked to profitability is reflected in studies elsewhere. For example in a New South Wales pilot project addressing water use efficiency on Dairy farms, it was concluded changes were most likely to be adopted if results showed increased profitability and labour efficiency (Armstrong 2006). In a broader New Zealand study of 19 sustainable land management projects it was noted that Monitor Farms focussing on technical/production and economic issues hold environmental issues a distinct secondary status ( MAF 1999). This study also recognised that without monitoring (in their case limited through funding constraints) there were few measures of effectiveness (exacerbated through problems with indicators), and without this demonstration of environmental benefit obtained through monitoring, measuring the impact and securing farmer commitment and ongoing funding would be difficult. However in a Welsh study, farmers seemed marginally more inclined to Monitor Farms having an environmental dimension, although this was still secondary to improving farm and enterprise performance and adding value ( ADAS 2000).
4.2 For Public Sector Objectives
4.2.1 Environmental
Most of the Facilitators felt that if the programme was to focus on environmental management it would be restrictive. Environmental practices are either already carried out by farmers or they would need financial incentives before they would consider undertaking them. Generally most felt, the focus of the programme is more beneficial when placed upon farming rather than the environment.
"Regarding environment management, the farms are already doing it. The environment is only part of the bigger package. Farmers need to think of environment in terms of livestock. You can't isolate a farm and concentrate only on environmental aspects. What is an issue on one farm won't be an issue on other. Only hardcore environmental farmers would be attending specific meetings". (Facilitator)
"The topics should be on farming but if community group request these things, happy to deliver them. When comes to environment unless get paid to do it farmers not interested. Environment specific meetings would get less people attending and this would dilute the impact". (Facilitator)
Never the less three Facilitators saw benefits to environmental management through the use of Monitor Farms.
"Yes they are all [environment was only one issue] applicable. It is a whole process of learning, helping the environment and learning about diversification". (Facilitator)
"We're always talking about environmental issues. The farm is in a CSF area - we looked at manure tankers, injecting, pulling out hedgerows. I got FWAG to do an audit - cost £1200 -they looked at water courses, hedgerows, wetland areas. We used some of the results in soil management plans". (Facilitator)
We look at the environment as a means of sourcing funds - if that means that the land is managed more sympathetically, that's good. (Facilitator)
Where these Facilitators have been overtly integrating the environmental message it has been linked to regulatory issues and funding (and hence overall farm financial performance). Consequently the environmental message has been presented as part of the overall approach and context of improving the farms performance.
The Monitor Farmers themselves appear more supportive. Most of those with Monitor Farms think that the approach provides an opportunity to improve environmental management, although one disagreed, stating the emphasis should be on food production.
"We are here to produce food so I think we should be focusing on the production of beef and sheep. A little bit on other subjects but mainly on beef and sheep". (Monitor Farmer)
Those that could see an opportunity saw this as an integrated package, linking agricultural and environmental practices closely together.
"Yes, it highlights good agricultural and environmental techniques and how they can work hand in hand. This MF has been in environmental schemes since 1997 and has seen the wider benefits on both the farm, and the wildlife that is now there. The MF is a good opportunity to get farmer participation by showing the wider benefits to them". (Monitor Farmer)
"It is something that is touched on during the meetings. Demonstrating best practice is the best way of highlighting the benefits. Also need to discuss how to tap into environmental schemes. The MF programme needs to raise awareness of what is available to farmers be it agricultural or environmental but the way to make it work is by linking the two. It can show how environmental practices can benefit the farmer as well as vice versa". (Monitor Farmer).
"Environment is key to what they're doing. He's in environmental schemes, Monitor Farm has to fit in with managing wildlife, birds. Also grassland selection needs to reflect that it shouldn't need re-ploughing every 3 years, to suit birds also". (Monitor Farmer)
However others were less certain:
"Most farmers are in an environmental scheme anyway. This is not really a monitor farm specific. If you're looking at 300 cattle - no time to do anything else." (Monitor Farmer)
"Not a lot of interest in this in the MF approach. Farmers tend to join schemes but don't understand why they're doing it. He had a sub group looking at diversification. But if you sit at a desk it doesn't work. MF approach could help, but do not pigeon hole it to be about environment or diversification - it's an evolutionary thing. (Monitor Farmer)
In the Community Group workshops, a few felt environmental issues should be built into the programme, but others feel improving farm profits should come first as addressing environmental issues may reduce profitability. There is a perceived conflict between improving farm profitability and improving the environment. This perceived conflict was also recognised by MAF 1999, and Armstrong 2006.
One group was aware of an initiative run by SEPA/ SAC with a focus on the environment. Some commented that there should be more joined up thinking between environmental issues and farm practices. None seemed to be against inclusion of environmental management but this is not seen as a standalone issue and needs ultimately to help increase or be linked to farm profitability.
It is clear then that the current context for introducing an environmental component is not strong as the environmental agenda for some at least, is not considered to be important to their concept of good farming. CCRI/ MLURI 2007, gives some insights that will need to be accounted for if the Monitor Farm programme is to include a greater environmental dimension. In their study into promoting environmental behaviour they emphasise:
- The need to acknowledge that if individuals are convinced that the response is a group response, the perceived effectiveness of the action will be enhanced. This they point out, requires a favourable social environment where the environment is discussed as matter of course and becomes a norm.
- That different farming styles or cultures will respond differently and need environmental messages adapting in relation to their accepted concept of what constitutes good farming.
- That solutions need to be developed in partnership with farmers who must be involved in both identifying the problems and the solutions.
Although CCRI/ MLURI point out that this is likely to require a long term process, the characteristics of the Monitor Farm approach should lend itself to integrating these and other aspects going forward.
4.2.2 Diversification
As in the ADAS 2000 study, there was less enthusiasm from any of the sources for the use of the Monitor Farm approach for encouraging farm diversification.
The reasons for this centre on the nature of diversification, which is so much dependent on the location of the farm, the personality and objectives of the farmer and his family and the availability of time and or money to invest in change of direction. One of the farms had tried to introduce the subject but it does not have the demonstration and visible quality that most farm enterprises do and in any event does not have the universal appeal for most of the group members.
Clearly the values and beliefs of the Community Group members are important. In the case of Diversification some see this very negatively and that this should not be the focus as "we are a farming industry" and that "if we are farming profitably we should not need to diversify".
Other concerns were that they had enough difficulty addressing the farming issues they wanted, let alone adding a different dimension.
4.2.3 Social Sustainability
It seems clear from the evidence that the social networking dimension is an important aspect for the farmers and others involved in the programme. The benefit of the group decision making and discussion is difficult to quantify. However, the nature of the comments from all stakeholders are such that this is seen as a clear benefit, although it would be hard to justify the Monitor Farm approach for these reasons alone.
Although the evidence from this study was equivocal, other studies do report wider aspects of social sustainability from this approach. MacCalman et al 2002, noted that using non-institutional host farmers broadened the audience and reached a wider range of back grounds and abilities, and both Mc Roberts 2007 and Angell et al 2004 found distinct differences between those who attended these activities and those who did not. However neither study considered the nature of the chosen host farms in this context. Despite this Bailey et al 2005, noted the intensity of the interactions obtained through the group approach. It is anticipated that such relationships will foster other business and socially related activity. Our evidence did provide some indication that this was beginning to happen.
"There has been a definite change. They group have got to know each other better, they socialise more, some have started to work for each other (on each others farms and selling stock/grain)". (Facilitator)
"Yes, we have a strong network of farmers with good prospering businesses. The links are good within the region - other regions are not so strong". (Monitor Farmer)
All Community Groups felt that the Monitor Farm programme should continue and indeed all who took part in the research felt that they did get something out of it. There is evidence suggesting that the process has replaced other forms of informal communication between farmers which they have less opportunity to take part in.
If the monitor farm wasn't there, don't know if you would learn so much. It used to be if you were going to a sale, you'd have the banter. The monitor farm is the only place you can sit and talk to people. (Community Group)
The involvement of 'industry owned' and other partners in the funding and delivery of the programme is also a positive aspect of the programme, identified by stakeholders. In addition, levy bodies new to the programme have already seen the opportunities for extending the approach elsewhere. Kelly et al 2004 also noted a similar dimension with a joint industry Monitor Farm advisory programme creating more "positive synergies between the advisory organisation, farmers and industry partners".
« Previous | Contents | Next »