Engaging in sustainable farm

management:

sharing understanding and reshaping

agendas

Janet Dwyer & Jane Mills

Outline

• Challenges for sustainable farming

• Conceptual framework – key factors for policy

success, promoting positive change

• Evidence from recent research: what matters,

what has influence, and how?

• Summary – new understandings, new

agendas: how can policies do better?

Environmental challenges

• Climate change – increased

vulnerability to heat, drought and

disease; more flood risk and

intense weather damage; soil

erosion; scope to build carbon

• Biodiversity decline – diffuse /

multiple actions & pressures

• Water - quality and quantity

concerns, protecting hydrological

cycles, rational input use

• Continuing land-take for housing,

infrastructure

• Buoyant demand for leisure

Increasing global

food demand Growing competition for energy

from fossil fuels, uncertain supplies

& price trends

Need to ‘mainstream’ sustainable practice,

maintain production but increase resource efficiency,

hand-in-hand with environmental management:

New demands to accommodate: energy generation,

carbon storage, flood regulation, lower N and P use

Key points

• Embed sustainability in all business

management

– building upon cross-compliance, voluntary

action and the legacy of past schemes

– reflecting on successes and problems

• Retain capacity to respond to change

– Uncertain / risky volatile markets & climate

– No-one has all the answers – diverse

options, for resilience

Evidence from Research

• 2-year study for Defra on encouraging

positive farmer behaviour for environment

(led by CCRI with Macaulay; Dwyer et al,

2007)

• Understanding farmer attitudes to

environmental management (Defra 2012-

13) - 60 in-depth case study farmers (Mills

et al, 2013)

• Evaluation of many different approaches (CFE, cross-compliance, ES, collaborative groups,

regional projects)

Original framework -

key factors for achieving

changeSuccessfully engaging

farmers

Farmers’ willingness to

changeFarmers’ capacity to

change

Sustained and high

quality

management

Recognising heterogeneity

‘Hard to reach’ /

disengaged?

Member of RSPB

but – perceived

difficulties?

Capacity to

implement but not

willing?

Negative

attitude?Not engaged –

concerns

about outside

interference?

Might withdraw

from AE once

funding ceases?

Capacity

Engaged

Willingness

Capacity

Engaged

Willingness

Influences on Willingness

Societal level influence

Community-

level influence

Farm level influence

Complex inter-relationship of influences

Personal belief / moral norms

(Self-expectations based on internalised

values)

“I’ve always been conscious of the wildlife around me.

My father was a big believer in that we’re only farming

for a very short period of time, so we’re only

borrowing the land … and when you borrow anything

you always put it back as good or better as when you

got it. That’s deep inside me with everything I do… “

Implications for Engagement

• Difficult to change individual personal beliefs and moral

norms as part of self identify.

• Good for approaches to focus on community and

societal level influences

Community level: Social norms

(influence of significant others on

decision-making)

Implications for Engagement

• Advice delivered in groups

positive social norm

increase in perceived efficacy of action

Who is in the farmers’ network?

Whom do they trust? Working

in partnership - CFE

“It is easier to have the margin because on

the other side of the ditch the land belongs to

an ecological trust and they have trees and

fancy grass and bird boxes and I thought it

might look like I was doing my bit as well”.

“Over the years farmers have had a lot

of bad publicity and rightly so.., in those

days we were burning straw and if you

lost a hedge, I mean we put firebreaks

in, but no one said much about it “.

• Societal influence important in changing

willingness – does society want it?

• Is positive farmer behaviour recognised by

society?

Feedback identity verification

Implications for Engagement

Summary: messages for policy

1. A variety of approaches is needed; personal

interaction will improve targeting & design

2. Values and ‘social norms’ matter, as well as

pragmatic / economic factors – policy should

act at all levels, and be aware of interactions

3. A ‘value-action link’ is critical: farmers

enabled to see the benefit of their actions; to

believe they can make a difference; working

together with others as respected partners

Everyone’s talking

about partnerships…

- but our biggest

funding schemes are

largely centralist,

expert-defined, thinly

staffed, vulnerable to

short-term policy

imperatives….

How can policy improve?

• Risk-sharing: give more medium-term certainty,

continuity in staff & resources (foster trusted,

respectful relationships)

• Avoid audit-led, distanced policy design

(bureaucratic, inflexible, inefficient) - work at local

level, integrate goals, share agendas

• Foster ‘learning communities’ between officials,

scientists, farmers, NGOs - allowing experiments,

developing ideas, evolving visions

• Better outreach to the disengaged – more

personal contact, quick wins, better feedback

Planning,

Linking,

Discussing,

Learning,

Scoping

Investing,

Realising

© Pontbren

Thank you!

jdwyer@glos.ac.uk

jmills@glos.ac.uk

www.ccri.ac.uk