The barriers to farmer uptake of new information on sustainable land management
Figure 1a & b shows a generalised diagram of the farm business and some of the outside influences, or potential influences on it. From our discussions with farmers it is clear that much potentially useful information is not getting into the farmer decision making process. Essentially there is a barrier surrounding the farmer and the farm business that providers must be able to pass through by having relevant, timely etc. information, or the farmer must have the skills, knowledge, access points etc. to be able to reach out and pull in verified new resources.
Our farmer group identified that from their view some of the key reasons that the barrier occurs is:
- Few or no perceived benefits to the farm or the business from new products or processes
- Information not available in an understandable form or from a trusted source
- Much research not seen as relevant; lack of farmer involvement in research developments
- Feeling that there is an ‘overload’ of information and don’t know what opportunity or information to follow up to make a significant difference to their enterprise.
- Information not available when required
- Want facts that fit into a farm system framework
- If the only benefits are long term, but costs of an action or expenditure are short term, (e.g., environmental monitoring) it can be hard to make that a priority (e.g., environmental monitoring vs. alternative on-farm business investments)
- Cost of new technology (e.g., computer software) often can’t be justified financially
- Farm families being lumbered with the expectations of others, such as impractical and unrealistic conservation goals and landscape criteria in District Plans; demands for public access for recreation etc.
- Farmers not being prepared to invest time or $$ in something new unless they believe that their sources of information are trustworthy and credible.
Wilkinson and Parminter (1988) also note that new information is most likely to be useful in decision making if it is complementary to farmer knowledge, and not competitive. They note that farmers in their survey who used soil tests to make decisions about fertiliser application still used their informal monitoring of the farm as much as those who didn’t do soil tests, but users of the tests relied less on their past practices.
Decision-making in the Farm Business
Barriers to Incorporating New Information into
Farm Decision-Making
Figure 1b
Complementary knowledge adds to the knowledge that is available, whereas competitive knowledge displaces existing knowledge. People prefer to make decisions in situations where they can use what they know and in which their hard won knowledge framework can make a difference. They don’t want their already acquired knowledge to become redundant (Kaplan, 1997).
Having extra information does not necessarily lead to better or easier decision-making. In fact where new information competes with existing information, there can be efficiencies in dealing with this. Many of those who have studied ‘agricultural extension’ in recent times (e.g. Pretty, 1995; Clark and Timms, 1998 ) note the importance of farmer to farmer knowledge sharing networks and the likely benefits that could be achieved if learning and information systems can be designed to use these. This fits with our farmer group’s need for new information to come via a trusted or respected source if it is to be absorbed or adopted.
Information Providers
To be successful, providers of best management practices information need to recognise that unless changes can be grounded in the farm business they will not take place.
The way in which external organisations relate to each other and to farmers will have a major influence on whether land management can become sustainable. Traditionally agencies working in both developed and developing countries have ignored and so repressed local farmer knowledge and initiative. (Pretty,1995) Achieving productive sustainable land management will require agencies, as well as land managers, to adopt new ways of working. This includes more multi-disciplinary and multi-agency approaches and better participation with farming communities in research and extension activities. Helen Hughes notes (in Elliott and Anderson, 1995) that "the authors have identified some resistance on the part of both central and local governments to enter into co-operative arrangements. … the goal of sustainable management is achievable, but it requires support from all stakeholders – landholders, financial institutions, service industries and governments."
It seems that research institutions and government agencies find it difficult to learn from farmers and rural communities. Some reasons include:
- Institutions are often hierarchical and bureaucratic; staff tend to look inward to managers rather than outward to clients.
- Researchers are mostly specialists who see only a narrow view of the world. This approach is encouraged as their performance is often measured by the output of published scientific papers. Multi-disciplinary work generally receives less acceptance and recognition by peers and in promotion processes
- Institutions often get misleading feedback from the real world. (E.g., in field visits they often speak to rural leaders and articulate people.)
Farmers often judge new technologies in a different way to researchers and government agencies. Their criteria for evaluating and making choices are frequently so different that they may reject a product ranked highly by researchers, but may embrace another that is less favoured by researchers.
Participation
There are many ways that the term "participation" is interpreted and used.
Pretty (1995) defines 7 clear types, ranging from passive participation, where people are involved merely by being told what is happening, to self-mobilisation, where people take initiatives independent of external institutions.
Farmers are increasingly aware that participation can be defined in many ways, and are increasing sceptical about the value to them of involvement in passive and consultative participation exercises. Currently, farmers who have put a lot of time into research projects feel used, as they do not consider that their input is well-accepted, and they rarely receive payment for their participation which is often time-consuming and not only for the benefit of themselves or their particular property. Note that land managers have particular expertise based on a combination of their skills, experience and educational qualifications. Often, institutions do not give this expertise the recognition that it deserves.
If farmers do not have the opportunity be involved in development of new technologies they often only have 2 choices – accept or reject; even if they can see opportunities for uptake if modifications could be made. Participation builds community capacity and knowledge.
Contact for Enquiries
MAF Information Services
Pastoral House
25 The Terrace
PO Box 2526
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
Fax: +64 4 894 0721
Contact this person
