Motivation, stewardship ethic and adoption
The final part of the topic deals with what can be learnt from such evaluations, and how they can serve policy purpose.
Changes in attitudes and motivations are important but they do not always lead to a change in behaviour and action. Rhoda Bennett writes about a farmer with a strong stewardship ethic who had not fertilised his land for 10 years with productivity levels only going down marginally for many years, before finally falling off significantly. For the farmer it was a rude awakening. Now he is trying to build up the nutrient level. The question here is: was the behaviour due to lack of knowledge, financial or other constraints or other reasons? She draws the following conclusion:
"In summary, the public visibility of soil management outcomes, the existence of peer and purchaser pressure, and an innate sense of being "custodians of the land" combine to generate motivation in farmers to manage the soil in a sustainable manner. This positive motivation however, may be constrained by economic, external risk and uncertainty factors; finance, physical and environmental understanding of the effects of soil management practices." (Bennett, 1998).
J. Berryman shows, citing case studies, that the assumption that favourable attitudes towards an environmental issue will lead to adoption of practices to mitigate the issue does not always hold. Australian research also has shown that favourable attitudes regarding erosion control doesn't always lead to action. Research has shown that socio-economic, and financial factors and other constraints greatly influence
Work by Vanclay in Australia shows similar results (see Vanclay, 1992). "Farmers fail to recognise the early warning signs of land degradation because most media and extension literature usually present dramatic images of severe forms of land degradation." (Vanclay, 1992: p118). Because these farmers often think that they are okay and even though they have favourable attitudes towards sustainable land management practices, they won't do it on their farms. Therefore what is needed is not an increase in awareness but an increase in farmer's knowledge of the land degradation process. Regular use by farmers of soil testing kits is likely to lead to the early detection of land degradation and the adoption of soil conservation technology and more appropriate land management practices. To bring about such practices may be one of the advantages of SLM groups where peer pressure and sharing of knowledge and experience could bring this about.
Even when the group has a goal and this goal has been achieved, it is important to look at the second aspect of the evaluation (as mentioned earlier) and ask how this programme has contributed to sustainable land management. Sustainable land management requires a holistic inclusive approach. That also means that the evaluation cannot be solely in terms of biophysical or financial outcomes. The effects of SBCPs may be much wider in terms of wider community awareness, an increase in social cohesion etc.
The final part of the evaluation encompasses two questions:
- can voluntary action alone achieve the sustainable land management outcomes society desires; and
- do the results give evidence that SBCPs are a cost effective way of achieving sustainable land management.
The result of an evaluation which asks the following questions:
- how well have the groups achieved the goals they set for themselves
- how well do these goals fit into the sustainable land management strategy the government likes to achieve
- how much progress has been made by the actions of this group in achieving aspects of that strategy,
should help to answer the questions posed above. We feel it is not our task in this section to try to answer them. However, the literature suggests that voluntary agreements alone will not be enough to bring about sustainable land management practices. We can give many reasons such as the constraints faced by farmers which even with the "right" attitude will not bring about changes in behaviour and hence the desirable outcomes. The fact that sustainable management of resources also involves effects off the farm, (or desires for change by society) the achievement of which will put very little extra money in the farmers' pocket.
Regulation on the whole does not have a very successful history in changing behaviour. However, if we understand regulations to include incentives and disincentives, then we can see the possibility for a mix of approaches, voluntary and regulatory or incentive programmes which will be successful to bring about sustainable land management.
Answering our second question, we would say that in many cases voluntary programmes are probably cost-effective. There is evidence around to prove this. However, successful voluntary programmes are often based in certain situations, when certain issues are tackled and when certain people or `champions' are present. This will not always be so and therefore voluntary programmes cannot be seen as a panacea for achieving sustainable land management. It is simply one of the tools, and it is hoped that this research will shed some light on these questions too.
Conclusion
In this section, we hope to have shown that we understand the framework for evaluating SLM groups. Also we have discussed that it may be impossible to gather all the information needed to do a full evaluation. One key reason for this is that the literature suggests (Glenn and Pannell, 1998) that often the costs of monitoring sustainability indicators in agriculture is not offset by the benefits. Therefore members of the SLM groups are unlikely to have the required information for a full evaluation.
Another important point to come form the literature is that if Government is to become involved in supporting such groups it should become involved in the project and design a monitoring and evaluation programme. Leaving the onus on those involved in the projects may not lead to a necessary minimum set of sustainability indicators, not because of unwillingness but simply because the value of monitoring to those involved is nil or minimal.
| © MAF 1999 |  |
|
| MAFnet Help | Important Disclaimer |
Contact for Enquiries
Manager
North Island Regions
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Hamilton
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 7 957 8313
Contact this person
