John Cary, Trevor Webb1 and Neil Barr2 ... IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FOCUS OF R & D. 41 ...... minimises risk (Dunn, Gray & Phillips forthcoming; Rendell,.
The adoption of sustainable practices: Some new insights An analysis of drivers and constraints for the adoption of sustainable practices derived from research
July 2001
John Cary, Trevor Webb1 and Neil Barr2 1Social
Sciences Centre Bureau of Rural Sciences Canberra 2Department of Natural Resources and Environment Victoria
Land & Water Australia Project Reference Number:BRR19
Principal Investigator: Ass/Prof John Cary Social Sciences Centre Bureau of Rural Sciences PO Box E11 KINGSTON ACT 2604
Collaborators: Dr Trevor Webb Social Sciences Centre Bureau of Rural Sciences PO Box E11 KINGSTON ACT 2604 Dr Neil Barr Department of Natural Resources and Environment BENDIGO VIC 3550
Preferred way to cite this report: Cary, J.W., Webb, T. and Barr N.F. (2001) The adoption of sustainable practices: Some new insights. An analysis of drivers and constraints for the adoption of sustainable practices derived from research. Land & Water Australia, Canberra. This report does not represent professional advice given by the Commonwealth or any person acting for the Commonwealth for any particular purpose. It should not be relied on as the basis for any decision to take action or not to take action on any matter which it covers. Readers should make their own further enquiries, and obtain professional advice where appropriate, before making any such decision. The Commonwealth and all persons acting for the Commonwealth in preparing this booklet disclaim all responsibility and liability to any person arising directly or indirectly from any person taking or not taking action based upon the information in this booklet.
Contents CONTENTS
III
LIST OF TABLES
V
LIST OF FIGURES
V
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
INTRODUCTION Project objectives Background The principal issues for sustainable practice adoption
3 3 3 4
SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES Sustainable resource management outcomes
5 6
A FRAMEWORK FOR APPRAISING SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES
7
FORGOTTEN FOCUS – ATTRIBUTES OF SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES How landholders see NRM practices – the key issues The attributes of sustainable agriculture practices Categorising NRM practices A case example: phase farming with dryland lucerne
10 10 10 12 16
LEARNING ABOUT SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES Categorising the learning focus Reasons for learning Styles of learning
19 19 19 20
SOME RECENT AUSTRALIAN FINDINGS ON FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ADOPTION OF SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES Age Education Property size Farm business Stewardship Recent findings regarding attitudes Other characteristics
22 24 25 25 25 25 26 26
MODELING ADOPTION BEHAVIOUR FROM THE 1998-99 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SURVEY Introduction Modelling farmer behaviour Findings Summary
28 28 28 30 34
ATTITUDES AND VALUES AND THE ADOPTION OF SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES Attitudes Beliefs Values A framework of environmental concern Values and the appraisal of sustainable management practices
35 35 35 35 36 37
INTERVENTIONS TO PROMOTE ADOPTION OF NRM PRACTICES Consequences for adoption of sustainable practices
39 40
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FOCUS OF R & D
41
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND COMMUNICATION ACTION PLAN Performance indicators for assessing the effectiveness of adoption of R&D results Communication action plan
43 43 44
iii
REFERENCES
45
APPENDIX A ANALYSIS OF THE 1998-99 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SURVEY Logistic regression Model estimation Results
49 49 49 49
APPENDIX B DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLES USED IN LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSES
63
iv
List of tables Table 1 Characteristics of sustainable practices..................................................................................................................................... 13 Table 2 Solutions’ National Indicators ..................................................................................................................................................... 24 Table 3 Landholder and property characteristics with significant relationships with adoption of best practices ................................. 27 Table 4 Variables explored in analysis of Resource Management Supplementary survey.................................................................. 29 Table 5 Resource management practices investigated.......................................................................................................................... 30 Table 6 Characteristics significantly associated with practice adoption ................................................................................................ 31 Table 7 Factors which are associated with the adoption of sustainable management practices (shaded cells indicate association relationships in predicted direction).................................................................................................................................................. 32 Table A1 Logit regression results for the adoption of controlled flow bores in the pastoral zone. ....................................................... 50 Table A2 Logit regression results for the control of grazing pressure by excluding access to water in the pastoral zone................. 51 Table A3 Logit regression results for the adoption of monitoring pasture and vegetation condition in the pastoral zone.................. 52 Table A4 Logit regression results for the adoption of deep rooted perennial pasture in the wheat-sheep and high rainfall zones (broadacre industries only). .............................................................................................................................................................. 53 Table A5 Logit regression results for the adoption of soil/plant tests to determine fertiliser needs in the wheat-sheep and high rainfall zones (broadacre industries only). ....................................................................................................................................... 54 Table A6 Logit regression results for the establishment of trees and shrubs in the wheat-sheep and high rainfall zones (including dairy industries)................................................................................................................................................................................. 55 Table A7 Logit regression results for the regular monitoring of watertables in the wheat-sheep and high rainfall zones (including dairy industries)................................................................................................................................................................................. 55 Table A8 Logit regression results for the collection of dairy effluent (dairy industry only).................................................................... 56 Table A9 Logit regression results for the pumping of dairy shed effluent onto pasture (dairy industry only). ..................................... 57 Table A10 Logit regression results for laser graded layout on irrigated farms...................................................................................... 57 Table A11 Logit regression results for the use of irrigation scheduling tools on irrigated farms.......................................................... 58 Table A12 Logit regression results for monitoring of pasture and vegetation condition (all farms). .................................................... 59 Table A13 Logit regression results for preservation or enhancement of areas of conservation value (all farms)............................... 60 Table A14 Logit regression results for the exclusion of stock from degraded areas (all farms)........................................................... 61 Table A15 Logit regression results for the percentage of the farm under conservation tillage (all farms)........................................... 61
List of figures Figure 1 Model of Adoption of Sustainable Land Management Practices [Modified from Fenton, Macgregor & Cary (2000)]............ 7 Figure 2 Area of mixed lucerne pasture and adoption of mixed lucerne pasture in the North Central catchment region of Victoria: 1996-99 (Source: ABS)..................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 3 A framework of environmental concern (after Stern et al. 1995). ........................................................................................... 36 Figure 4 Conditions for maximum influence of environmental values or attitudes on individual’s decision to adopt sustainable practices ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 38
v
Executive Summary
The rate of adoption of sustainable practices derived from research depends on practices being economically attractive to adopt.
Effective R&D intervention means designing practices to provide external benefits to make environment-sustaining behaviour more likely. It is the inherent characteristics, or attributes, of practices derived from research which largely determine their rate of adoption by producers. Adoption of recommended sustainable practices depends largely on whether landholders think they are profitable. Sustainable NRM practices which provide economic and other advantages will be adopted more rapidly. Recent low commodity prices in the broadacre industries reduced the attractiveness of adoption of many practices. Landholders generally seek to reduce the risk of adopting a new practice. Sustainable NRM practices which are observable, trialable, and less complex are generally more quickly adopted than NRM practices which are unobservable, untrialable, and complex.
Rational self-interest predominates in human assessment of sustainable practices.
Humans are adaptive in implementing NRM practices rather than simply reactive to information, promotional appeals or exhortations to farm sustainably. The use of sustainable practices will depend on how landholders assess the value of recommended practices and their own and others’ experience with use of such practices. Characteristics of the practices – and their overwhelming influence on adoption – often confound the influence of other factors such as social characteristics.
Linkages between eventual sustainable outcomes and sustainable practices are often distant and uncertain thus reducing incentive to act.
It is often difficult for landholders to see the connection between recommended NRM practices and sustainability. The difficulty, for landholders, of observing linkages between many recommended NRM practices and desired sustainable outcomes reduces positive appraisals of NRM practices by landholders. As a result, they are often lukewarm about NRM practices that are promoted predominantly on the basis of making land use more sustainable.
Think locally and act locally.
There are obvious advantages in being able to promote sustainable practices with more universal or global applicability. However, given Australia’s diverse environment, there are few sustainable practices that meet the test of global applicability. Universally applicable practices are often less likely to have large impacts on reducing local land degradation problems. Increased effort needs to be applied to identify and develop locally applicable sustainable practices and effort made to resist the temptation to promote them beyond localities where their advantage has been established.
Select sustainable practices on the basis of attributes which enhance likelihood of adoption.
It is more effective, in the first instance, to look for sustainable practices with characteristics influencing more rapid adoption behavior rather than depending on pro-environmental values of landholders or on individual feelings, preferences, and perceptions for improving the land environment.
Social and perceptual factors influence adoption rates of sustainable practices.
Factors related to landholder characteristics that potentially influence capacity to change are: level of farm income, landholder age, landholder participation in training, having a documented farm plan and membership of landcare. There are often interactions between these characteristics; and the relationships with adoption behaviour are not always unequivocal. Personal financial capacity has been observed to be an important component in determining the capacity of landholders to adopt new practices. Landholders’ perceptions of their future financial situation were more often associated with practice adoption than were objectively measured indicators of current financial position. Landholders who feel secure in their financial 1
future are more likely to invest resources in adopting new resource management practices. Pro-environmental or ‘green’ values and attitudes have a relatively minor influence on the adoption of sustainable practices.
Pro-environmental or ‘green’ values and attitudes have a relatively minor influence on the adoption of sustainable practices. The effect of positive attitudes towards the environment is constrained by the influence of prevailing incentives or disincentives to adopt a sustainable practice. Positive attitudes towards the environment act in combination with external incentives or disincentives (such as costs, benefits, convenience, or uncertainty of outcome of a given practice) to determine adoption behaviour. The effect of strongly positive environmental attitudes on sustainable practice adoption tends to be influential when there are no strong external incentives (rewards) or disincentives (punishments) for undertaking the practice. Positive environmental attitudes have little effect on behaviour when external incentives are strongly positive or negative. In such cases it is the external factors which effectively compel or prohibit the behaviour in question. The strength of the external conditions determines the bounds of influence of positive environmental attitudes and values.
Principles which predict likely human behaviour can assist in selecting and promoting sustainable practices.
When assessing the characteristics of potential new sustainable practices, and when seeking to promote the use of such practices, there are a number of human behaviour principles that should be considered. If the ‘behaviour’ associated with the practice cannot be readily seen (ie it is not observable) by the individual and by others it will be ineffective to encourage it. It will be difficult to be monitored, to be seen as rewarded (or penalised, for its absence). As most human behaviour is undertaken to gain a positive consequence or avoid a negative consequence, humans learn more from their successes (which provide positive reinforcement) than they learn from their mistakes. The significant negative consequences of unsustainable consequences will not be experienced until long into the future. Research and development of on-farm sustainable practices needs to identify practices with relatively immediate positive consequences rather than less immediate, diffused, or short-term negative, consequences. Practices that have outcomes that are ‘soon’ and ‘certain’ will have the most powerful drivers for rapid adoption.
2
Introduction Land & Water Australia (LWA) established the Social and Institutional Research Program (SIRP) to ensure that biophysical research and development (R&D) also takes into account social and institutional factors. LWA has identified a considerable gap in understanding the social, economic and institutional factors that are conducive to implementation and adoption of sustainable resource management practices (Mobbs & Dovers 1999). The LWA Strategic R&D Plan places greater emphasis on researching the social, institutional and economic issues which may be constraining the development and adoption of more sustainable natural resource management. The Strategic R&D Plan also seeks to identify opportunities to create a more enabling environment for sustainable natural resource management. This review and analysis of the drivers of, and constraints to, producer adoption of sustainable practices derived from research presents current knowledge on adoption influences, risks and processes as they relate to resource management R&D. We develop some new insights that should ensure more realistic assessments of the likely response of landholders to the problems of sustainable resource use. An important purpose of the project is to increase the effectiveness of future research and the adoption of research results by producers and landholders. The framework proposed by LWA for analysis of the drivers of, and impediments to, the adoption on R&D results includes:
Project objectives The major project objective was to review and analyse the drivers and constraints to adoption of sustainable practices in agriculture derived from research. More specifically the following objectives were to be achieved: • review existing knowledge • identify impediments and drivers for the adoption of sustainable practices from R&D • provide advice and options on strategies for overcoming impediments • key performance indicators for assessing the effectiveness of producer adoption of R&D • prepare a communication action plan for the project.
Background In 2000 the Bureau of Rural Sciences (BRS) completed a review of factors influential in determining individual NRM decisions (Barr & Cary 2000). That review established a number of important findings that provided a basis for the development of this Report:
• how they learn about, and understand, those resources and the management of them
• Encouraging the adoption of more sustainable practices by appealing to farmers’ stewardship ethic or altruism will have only limited impact. The presence of factors like the relative financial benefit or cost of the NRM practice, farm financial capacity, farmer skills and motivation are the necessary determinants as to whether sustainable management practices are likely to be adopted.
• how they actually manage them and incorporate new management approaches arising from research into their practices
• Policies aimed at changing motivation in the absence of meeting the other enabling conditions will achieve little.
• how they are influenced by the wider economic, social, legal, commercial, policy and institutional environment.
• Responses to messages about future threats of land degradation are likely to be limited.
The project embraces an integrated approach to focus on the relationships between developing awareness, values and understanding, acquiring required knowledge and skills, and adopting sustainable natural resource management (NRM) practices as part of integrated management systems.
• Australian research regarding how landholders perceive their environment and the threat of land degradation shows landholders generally underestimate the land degradation problems on their own farm.
• how producers and other land holders perceive and value their natural resources on a property level and wider catchment and regional scales
This project builds on these findings to develop a conceptual approach regarding the relationships between factors that are relevant in any assessment of likely adoption of sustainable practices derived from research and producer initiated and managed R&D.
3
The principal issues for sustainable practice adoption The idea that there is a key to the adoption of sustainable practices is somewhat simplistic and unidimensional. It is implied in assertions such as “We just need to convince them to change”. The assumption is, if sustainable outcomes are to be achieved and appropriate sustainable practices are available, an understanding of human motivation will provide the touchstone to unlock human capacity to change. In fact, land managers differ significantly in different localities in Australia and, for many localities, there are few appropriate sustainable practices that meet criteria which would lead to ready adoption. Many of the desired outcomes of sustainable NRM programs do not come about autonomously. NRM programs present a policy challenge because of the range of constraints that discourage individual uptake of NRM practices. Constraints to change in NRM systems can be assessed from the perspectives of individual landholders, the characteristics of desirable management practices, the socio-economic structure of catchment communities and the broader institutional settings. A significant issue is that economic costs to a landholder of at least some NRM practices (particularly those which provide benefits desired by the wider community) may exceed the on-farm benefits on a short or long-term basis. The lack of immediate financial incentive in a dynamic farm economy may result in many landholders not adopting these practices. Identification of the social and economic factors that constrain the participation of individual land managers recognises that the significant decisions about land and farm management are made by ‘individual farmers, not by catchment groups or regional river management bodies’ (Pannell 2001a). Understanding some, if not all, of the factors that determine individual landholder decisions will ensure more realistic and more effective catchment and regional plans.
4
Sustainable practices Sustainable land management practices are defined here as those which ameliorate unsustainable land use by rectifying biophysical constraints to agricultural production and conserve the resource base (SCARM 1998). The following list of sustainable management practices has been developed from SCARM (1998), Hamblin (1999), SCA (1991), management practice indicators for State of the Environment reporting (Saunders, Margules & Hill 1998) and other sources. It should be recognised that this is an incomplete list of sustainable management practices. Many of these practices were identified in the National Collaborative Project on Indicators for Sustainable Agriculture based on then available ABS and ABARE 1 statistics. Measures of the level of landholder adoption of sustainable management practices available from the current ABARE Australian Resource Management Supplementary surveys are identified with the superscript a.
• use of integrated pest management (reducing pesticide use)
• maintenance of soil cover
Irrigation farms
• establishing and monitoring ground cover targets – monitoring of pasture and vegetation condition a
• irrigation scheduling a
Cropping farms • use of reduced or zero tillage – minimum tillage a • stubble or pasture retention in ploughing – direct drilling a • use of crop or pasture legumes in rotations a • use of contour banks in cropland a • strip cropping a • adjusting crop sequences in response to seasonal conditions
• laser graded layout a
• nutrient balance accounting (soil and plant sampling) • soil and plant tissue tests to determine fertiliser needs
• slashing and burning of pastures
• storage and reuse of drainage water a a
• automated irrigation a
• regular soil testing
Rangelands
• fertilising of pastures
• control grazing pressure by excluding access to water a
• agricultural lands treated with gypsum
• control of water flow from bores a
• agricultural lands treated with lime
• piped water supplies for stock a
• regularly monitor water tables a
• pastoral land stocked at recommended rates
• use of deep-rooted perennial pastures a
• degraded pastoral land converted to less damaging use
• non-commercial tree and shrub planting a
• pastoral land destocked in low feed conditions
• commercial tree and shrub planting (farm forestry) a
Dairy farms
• preserve or enhance areas of conservation value a
• use of effluent disposal systems– collection of dairy effluent (ponds or drainage sump) a
• retention of vegetation along drainage lines a
• pump dairy shed effluent onto pasture a
• protection of land from stock by fencing – exclude stock from degraded areas a
Many of these farming practices are specific to particular environments or to particular farming systems. The SCA (1991) report identified the potential relevance of many of these practices for the sustainable management for 46 agro-ecological regions of Australia.
• protection of waterways from stock by fencing a • animal pest or weed control to control land degradation a
• pest and disease control in pastures 1
While ABARE farm surveys provide more reliable, in-depth information than ABS agricultural census data they are selective in industry coverage and geographic spread.
Not all the NRM practices listed above will, in isolation, lead to sustainable resource management (for example, fertilising of pastures). What might be sustainable on a farm might be unsustainable for rivers etc. Hence, the practices which effectively contribute to sustainability will depend on the context and the locality of their use. If one farmer
5
adopts a ‘sustainable’ practice, it could be totally ineffective if neighboring landholders do not adopt complementary practices.
Sustainable resource management outcomes The use of the sustainable practices listed above are contended to lead to more sustainable resource management. The association is often constrained – it is likely to vary for different localities. The impact of use of a practice may also have long time lags before a more sustainable outcome is achieved. Broader conceptions of sustainable management embrace the need for strategies for sustaining both food security and the need to conserve natural resources. Definitions of sustainable resource management in agriculture are generally concerned with the need for agricultural practices to be economically viable, to meet human needs for food, to be environmentally benign or positive, and to be concerned with quality of life. Since these objectives can be achieved in a number of different ways, sustainable resource management is unlikely to be linked to any particular management practice. Rather, sustainable agriculture is thought of in terms of its adaptability and flexibility over time to respond to the demands for food and fibre, its demands on natural resources for production, and its ability to protect the soil, water and other natural resources. This goal requires an efficient use of technology in a manner conducive to sustainability (Wilson & Tyrchniewicz 1995). Because agriculture is affected by changes in markets and resource decisions in other sectors and regions, such changes often provide additional pressures leading to depletion of local agricultural resource bases. Assessments of the sustainability of a production system involve looking forward, to a future that is often not universally agreed. It is often easier to look backward, and assess the progress of production systems as they evolve from unsustainable states. The process is further complicated because a sustainable state of resource management is not a fixed or ideal steady state, but rather an evolutionary process of attempting to improve the management of systems, through improved understanding and knowledge. The process is not deterministic as the end point is not known in advance (Wilkinson & Cary 2001). Sustainable resource management is often an abstract state – which occurs in the future and may be hard to identify or measure. Sustainable practices (which lead to sustainable states or outcomes) are used as ‘indicators’ or proxies for sustainable management.
6
A framework for appraising sustainable practices The development of a model of conceptual relationships helps to understand the place of sustainable practices that lead to more sustainable outcomes. Additionally it helps to focus on important factors influencing how landholders, or other decision-makers, might perceive these relationships. Any attempt to derive a complete predictive model which encompasses all possible environmental, behavioural, social and economic indicators, and which identifies the inter-relationships amongst possible relevant variables would be counter-productive and lead to confusion given the current state of knowledge and research in this area. Furthermore, given the heterogeneity of resource management situations, the development and application of a generalised predictive model at a national scale, which is meaningful in relation to all farming practices, would require more extensive knowledge and data than is currently available. The model in Figure 1 is a conceptual model rather than a predictive model. Figure 1 shows some broad groups of factors that influence the adoption of NRM practices that
are proposed to bring about more sustainable land management. The characteristics of locality and environment, and the characteristics of specific adoption practices, which are both extremely significant in landholder appraisal of NRM practices are specifically identified. The model also shows that there is usually more than one NRM practice that needs to be embraced to bring about more sustainable land management. Institutional characteristics incorporate the more formal structures that determine the ‘social’ environment in which landholders decide or anticipate decisions regarding adoption of sustainable practices. Institutional characteristics incorporate the regulatory environment, government agency support structures, and government policy reflected in incentive schemes and taxation arrangements. Individual and social characteristics include many factors such as age and education and cognitive factors that are largely instilled and maintained through social processes. No attempt is made here to further elaborate all the elements that might comprise individual and social characteristics.
Adoption of Recommended NRM Practice 1
Locality and Environmental Characteristics Characteristics of Practice j
Institutional Characteristics
NRM Practice j
Sustainable Land Management
Appraisal
Individual and Social Characteristics
NRM Practice n
PROCESSES
OUTPUTS
OUTCOMES
Figure 1 Model of Adoption of Sustainable Land Management Practices [Modified from Fenton, Macgregor & Cary (2000)]
7
The model emphasises that adoption of sustainable NRM practices is not uni-dimensional, consisting of a potentially wide range of practices that are dependent upon appraisals by landholders. These appraisals are mediated by environmental, institutional, individual and social factors prior to any implementation. Central to the model presented in Figure 1 is the appraisal process undertaken by the individual adopter or group of adopters. Appraisal often involves a complicated psychological calculus by an individual to arrive at a decision. Appraisal has the elements of a ‘black box’ – it may be objectively difficult to know the relative influence of the factors that may determine an adoption or non-adoption decision. Social factors such as land manager attitudes and beliefs about specific NRM practices, and about broader natural resource management, will influence adoption of specific practices. Appraisal will also be influenced by land manager attitudes towards those organisations and institutions that may be promoting sustainable land management practices. Differences in appraisal are determined by a range of individual, institutional and contextual variables and by complex interactions amongst these variables. For example, negative attitudes towards the land, as in the belief that the land is ‘rubbish country’, is a component of appraisal which includes beliefs about land and land management which may act as a barrier to the adoption of sustainable land management practices. The existence of this belief may be due to specific individual characteristics, historical relationships between the farmer and those agencies promoting sustainable land management and specific environmental and locality characteristics in which farming occurs. To date there is limited understanding or research on the appraisal component and its relationship to the adoption of sustainable land management practices and, because appraisal is a complex process, there are no existing indicators of appraisal.
Human appraisal as an adaptive system Adaptation in biological usage is the process by which an organism fits itself to its environment. Complex adaptive systems are systems comprised of interacting agents who change their ‘rules of behaviour’ as their experience accumulates (Holland 1995). In a complex adaptive system a major part of the environment of any given adaptive agent (in this case landholders) consists not only of the biophysical environment but of other adaptive agents including institutions (Figure 1). The focus of an adaptive system is on improvement rather than optimisation (or the attainment of some equilibrium). The other focus of an adaptive system in areas such as evolutionary systems theory is the idea of an iterating process of stimulus and response (or learning). Human behaviour is characterised by continuous human learning and complex responses to stimuli that rarely produce observable constancy. This is because most human
behaviour occurs in environments where humans interact and respond – by actively changing environmental states – rather than simply reacting to them. This process can be described as reflexivity. Reflexivity emphasises the uncertainties involved in seeking to achieve more sustainable resource management (uncertainties which are generally inadequately acknowledged). Soros (2000), who has applied the concept of reflexivity to explain the failure of equilibrium theory in describing human behaviour in financial markets, provides a simple description of reflexivity: . . . our understanding of the world in which we live is inherently imperfect. We are part of a world we seek to understand, and our imperfect understanding plays an active role in shaping the events in which we participate. There is a two-way interaction between our understanding and these events that introduces an element of uncertainty into both. It ensures that we cannot base our decisions on (perfect) knowledge and that our actions are liable to have unintended consequences. The two effects feed on each other. I call this twoway feedback mechanism reflexivity . . .(p. xxii)
Another way of describing reflexivity is that thinking participants seek to understand the situation in which they participate and, as well, they participate in the situation that they seek to understand (Soros 2000, p. 7). Figure 1 is an example of an adaptive behavioural system which has been kept as simple as possible. Solid lines indicate more certain associations; broken lines indicate associations about which less is likely to be known, or where the association may be problematic or intermittent. Single arrows indicate a likely one-way or recursive relationship; double arrows indicate a likely two-way or nonrecursive (reflexive) relationship. There are important reflexive, or feedback, loops between appraisal and the adoption of given sustainable practices. Landholders assess such practices for potential adoption and any adoption of a practice either by the landholder, or by others who’s experience can be observed by the landholder, will influence how the appraising landholder subsequently views (appraises) the adoption of that practice and related practices. More importantly, there are few feedback loops between ultimate states of sustainable land management and NRM practices because there are usually long time lags from the implementation of an NRM practice to the outcome of a ‘sustainable state’. Thus landholders cannot be readily assured with reasonable feedback from their own observations that a practice produces a desired ultimate outcome. The process of appraisal deliberately subsumes the complex and differing human motivations that may influence NRM behaviour. The ability to choose one’s motivations distinguishes humans from other animals. As a
8
consequence there can be no certainty about human motivations (Soros 2000).
Sustainable outcomes and NRM outputs The problem of the usually long time lag from the implementation of an NRM practice to the outcome of a sustainable state can be thought of as being represented by different levels of abstraction – the desired sustainable state is more difficult to observe (and to measure). This ‘end’ state can be considered an outcome. The means of approaching the end state is easier to observe (and to measure) and can be labeled an output. This acknowledges that states can be observed (and measured) at different levels of abstraction. Usually, the less abstract the state the easier is its measurement. Typically, outcomes will be represented by biophysical and ecological attributes that characterise sustainable systems. Outputs, such as appropriate vegetation cover, are posited to lead to desired outcomes. NRM practices are typically directed to producing outputs that subsequently lead to desired outcomes (Figure 1). Additionally, we can identify processes which (often more tenuously) contribute to outcomes. Processes include behaviours (eg participation in landcare) that contribute to desired outcomes, and also include attitudes and social learning, which are clearly social in nature. It should be noted that the distinctions between these categories may not always be clear-cut. Understanding some, if not all, of the factors that determine individual landholder decisions will ensure more realistic and more effective catchment and regional plans. In the next section we consider the factors which influence landholder capacity to change to more sustainable resource management practices.
9
Forgotten focus – attributes of sustainable practices Sustainable practices have not been tried and found wanting, rather many have been found difficult and not tried.
(apologies to G.K. Chesterton)
How landholders see NRM practices – the key issues In order to understand the key influences determining whether sustainable land management practices are adopted it is necessary to understand both the nature of NRM practices and, more particularly, how landholders see particular NRM practices. Normally, adoption of a given sustainable practice is determined to a large degree by a landholder’s perceived self-interest. Profitability of a practice is an important element of self-interest, even for practices intended to improve land and resource conservation (Cary & Wilkinson 1997; Riley 1999; Drake, Bergstrom & Svedsater 1999; Marsh & Pannell 2000; Curtis et al. 2000). For different localities a particular natural resource management practice varies in terms of its relative profitability and appropriateness for a given farm situation. In other words, a given practice will have different profitability and differing attractiveness to farmers in different regions or localities (Barr & Cary 2000). This will largely reflect different technical, soil, climatic endowments and, probably, the 2 level of land degradation in different localities (Cary 2000). But it may also reflect that a management technology (such as a modified deep-rooted perennial) may be developed and elaborated for one area but not for another. Many practices to ameliorate salinity, for example, are not universally applicable and hence have different profitability in different localities. Additionally, the economic environment for a given farm activity (which influences on-farm implementation of recommended management practices) will in turn be influenced by both local conditions (drought or good seasons) and the external marketplace (expressed in product and commodity prices). Many broadacre farm businesses do not produce sufficient surpluses to allow for reasonable living standards, investments in the farm 2
Perversly, the value of some sustainable management practices is likely to be greater in situations where other factor endowments are high and likely to be less in situations of land degradation where one or other factor endowments are likely to be low.
business and investment in resource protection and the environment. In some regions current adjustment patterns are only slowly creating aggregated businesses more capable of generating appropriate surpluses.
The attributes of sustainable agriculture practices Rogers has summarised the results of the many adoption and diffusion studies conducted in the 1950s, 60s and 70s (Rogers 1962; Rogers & Shoemaker 1971; Rogers 1983). The general conclusions provide a means of analysing environmental innovations and exploring the reasons for the difficulties of promoting certain forms of sustainable agriculture. The importance of innovation characteristics was highlighted in major review of innovation adoption in Australian agriculture by Guerin and Guerin (1994). Important attributes influencing the rate of adoption of NRM practices are the relative advantage, the complexity, the compatibility, the trialability and the observability of a given practice (see Barr & Cary 2000). These attributes together with two other attributes – locality differentials in relative advantage and risk characteristics of a practice – are considered below.
Relative Advantage Relative advantage is normally interpreted in terms of financial advantage to the farm business or the adopter. The perceived financial advantages of environmental innovations (where they exist) have consistently been shown to be one of the best indicators of their subsequent adoption. There is little evidence to suggest that sustainable practices are any different to other agricultural practices in this respect. The nature of limited interaction of pro-environmental attitudes or stewardship values overriding, or compensating for, deficiencies in relative financial advantage of an NRM practice will be developed later in this review. In a review of the history of environmental innovations on Australian farms, Barr and Cary (1992) concluded that the clear lesson was that environmental innovations that were believed to be profitable were usually readily adopted. Innovations with a net financial cost were rarely adopted. The most studied adoption of an environmental innovation is the progress of conservation cropping on the US corn belt. In a review of Ohio research Carboni and Napier (1993) concluded economic factors were the greatest predictors of adoption.
10
Locality differentials in relative advantage Frequently it is assumed that the relative advantage of an environment-enhancing practice, if positive, is of the same order of magnitude in different localities. Generally, this is unlikely to be the case. While little empirical evidence for improved resource management practices has yet been collected in Australia to support this common sense assumption, the early work of Griliches (1957, 1960) on the diffusion of the productive innovation of hybrid corn is clearly indicative. Griliches contended that the differences in rates of adoption of hybrid corn for different American states were largely explained by the relative advantage possessed by different geographic regions for growing corn. This reflected productivity of soils, consequential differential profitability of the crop, and differential possession of harvesting and handling resources. As a consequence, hybrid corn was ‘an innovation which was more profitable in the “good” areas than in the “poor” areas’ (Griliches 1960, p. 280). These geographical differences in relative advantage, and consequent differences in rates of adoption, when expressed as diffusion curves (for the same ‘innovation’) have different shapes and, more importantly, different slopes or rates of diffusion (see Cary 2000; Barr & Cary 2000). The important conclusion for the adoption of NRM practices is that the appropriateness and relative advantage of given NRM practices will vary in geographic space to a very large extent.
Risk The motivation of human behaviour is more complex than being simply profit driven. While there is much research demonstrating relationships between beliefs about profitability and adoption behaviour this is mediated by a great variation in attitudes towards business profit and a consideration of the risks that characterise much Australian agriculture. There is strong evidence that many Australian farmers are motivated by the balance between the need for profit and a satisfaction with a comfortable living which minimises risk (Dunn, Gray & Phillips forthcoming; Rendell, O’Callaghan & Clark 1996). Different attitudes to income needs, risk perception, dynastic expectations and cultural expectations of farming mean there are quite distinct groups of farmers. Many farms trade off profit maximisation for risk reduction (Howden et al. 1997; Marks & O’Keefe 1996; Reeve & Black 1993). For many farm operators relative advantage may be strongly moderated by minimisation of complexity and minimisation of risk. As a consequence the differing risk implications of different sustainable practices will be an important consideration in their adoption.
Complexity Sometimes innovations which appear simple may in fact imply significant and complex changes to the farm production system. Such innovations are less likely to be
adopted. Complexity increases the risk of failure; and it introduces increased costs in gaining knowledge (Vanclay & Lawrence 1995). Integrated pest management is an innovation that is constrained by the management complexity of its practise. Farmers often explain non-adoption of integrated pest management as being based upon concerns about its ease of use, speed and reliability (Bodnaruk & Frank 1997). Another example of this complexity characteristic is the planting of dryland lucerne. This is promoted in many catchment plans across Australia as a means of reducing watertable recharge. What appears to be a simple change to a system can imply major restructuring of the farm system. The complexity of adopting the sustainable practice of dryland lucerne and phase farming is explored as a case example later in this section.
Compatibility Compatibility refers to the extent to which a new idea fits in with existing knowledge and existing social practice. If a new idea fits easily into an existing system it will be adopted more quickly. There are usually two ‘systems’ against which the compatibility of a practice will be judged – the current system of farming on a given property and the social system embracing a farming community or broader cultural beliefs and values. An apparent example of a sustainability innovation failing this test can be seen in the low adoption of perennial pasture sowing amongst a substantial core of wool producers in the Western District of Victoria. Pasture renovation in this region can be profitable if combined with an increase in stocking rate. Local culture has held that higher stocking rates are incompatible with the region’s reputation as a producer of fine wool. This opposition is documented as early as the 1920s when subterranean clover was first promoted in the district (Barr & Cary 1992). These beliefs are now complemented by beliefs that improved perennial pastures and higher stocking rates are ecologically unsustainable (Marks & O’Keefe 1996). The promotion of pasture improvement has often been incompatible with the values of this cultural group. For many broadacre farmers beliefs about ‘good farming’ tend to encompass matters such as tidiness, having fences and gates well maintained and having good looking crops or stock (Nassauer 1995). Profitability and sustainable farming practices are less commonly seen as being indicative of good farming (Dunn, Gray & Phillips forthcoming; Phillips forthcoming; Wilkinson 1996; Wilkinson & Cary 1992). While these cultural values may be causing increasing frustration in industry bodies and the agribusiness sector (Clancy 1999), there is evidence that Australian agriculture is undergoing a period of detraditionalisation in which traditional agricultural occupational identities are being replaced by more complex and diverse cultures (Bryant 1999; Dunn, Gray & Phillips forthcoming). Current research gives little indication of the
11
impact of detraditionalisation upon changes in farm management practice.
Trialability Innovations which can be trialed on a small scale prior to full implementation are more likely to be adopted. Trialing enables decisions about the utility of an innovation with minimal risk. Typically, farmers can easily assess a new crop variety by sowing one paddock to the new variety before deciding upon more extensive adoption. The successful promotion of conservation cropping practices which is dependent upon major machinery changes has been encouraged by providing hire trash combines, thus allowing trialing without significant investment in machinery. In contrast, dryland salinity control is clearly not amenable to trialing. Because the benefits of salinity control may not be achievable for up to 50 years, a trial process will delay more extensive salinity control for a century. Trialability is in turn dependent upon observability.
Observability NRM practices whose advantages are observable are more likely to be adopted. Traditionally, new variety or crop is often quite visible to passing observers and this visibility has been used to advantage. Irrigation watertable control is not normally an observable achievement. The development of well flags (to indicate water levels) as part of water-table watch was an innovative method of making watertable levels visible to the passing observer. Many Landcare programs have attempted to locate demonstrations along major roads to enhance visibility.
• Risk – refers to uncertainty about likely benefits or costs associated with a sustainable practice, uncertainty about the effectiveness of the practice, uncertainty as to when the benefits might be realised and uncertainty regarding the social acceptability of the practice. • Complexity – implies that a practice comprises more than one or two simple elements and that its elements interact with each other and, in sometimes complicated ways, with elements of the farming system into which it is to be incorporated. • Compatibility – the extent to which a practice fits in with existing farm practices, or with existing knowledge or existing social practice. • Trialability – where practices can be implemented on a small, or pilot, scale decisions can be more easily made about the value of a new practice without the risks associated with full implementation. • Observability – practices whose impact or advantage is easily observable, or whose outcome is quickly realised, are more likely to be adopted.
Categorising NRM practices An inventory of recommended NRM practices is presented below (Table 1). The management practices in this inventory are categorised in terms of attributes that have been found to be important in determining whether management practices are readily adopted or not. Such an approach provides a method for assessing likely adoptability in given farm situations and provides a conceptualisation and categorisation of relevant NRM practices. The appropriateness and relative advantage of given NRM practices will vary in geographic space to a very large extent. In Table 1 the sustainable practices listed above are scored on their level of possession of the following attributes: • Geographic applicability– refers to relative appropriateness of a practice, in terms of whether it is effective or adapted to only specific localities or, more universally, across many localities. • Relative Advantage – the financial advantage or other convenience or personal advantage to the farm business or the adopter. 12
Protection of land from stock by fencing (exclude stock from degraded areas) a
Retention of vegetation along drainage lines
a
Preserve, enhance areas of conservation value
a
Commercial tree and shrub planting (farm forestry)
Non-commercial tree and shrub planting a
Use of deep-rooted perennial pastures a
Regularly monitor water tables a
Agricultural lands treated with lime
Agricultural lands treated with gypsum
Fertilising of pastures
Regular soil testing
a
Establishing and monitoring ground cover targets (monitoring of pasture and vegetation condition) a Nutrient balance accounting (soil and plant sampling) Soil and plant tissue tests to determine fertiliser needsa
Maintenance of soil cover
(Ideal rating)
Sustainable practice
Table 1 Characteristics of sustainable practices
Lo
Lo
Lo
M
M
Lo
M – Hi
Hi
M
M
M
M
Lo
Lo
Lo
Lo (locality)
Lo
M
M (locality)
Lo
Lo
Hi-M (locality)
M
Lo
Lo
M
M
Hi (temporal)
(Hi)
Relative advantage
Hi
Hi
(Hi)
Geographic applicability
Lo
Lo
Lo
Hi
Lo
M-Hi
Lo
M-Hi
M-Hi
M
Lo
Lo
Lo
Lo
Lo
(Lo)
Risk
M
M
M
M
Lo
M-Hi
Lo
Lo
Lo
Lo
Lo
Hi
Hi
M-Hi
M-Hi (locality)
(Lo)
Complexity
M
M-Lo
Lo
Lo
M-Hi
M (locality)
Lo
Hi
Hi
Hi
M
M
M
M
M
(Hi)
Compatibility
Hi
M
M
Lo
Hi
M
Hi
M
M
Hi
Lo
Lo
Lo
M
M
(Hi)
Trialability
Hi
M-Hi
M-Hi
Hi
Hi
Lo
M
M
M
Hi-M
Lo
Lo
Lo
M-Lo
M-Lo
(Hi)`
Observability
a a
Irrigation farms
Automated irrigation a
Storage and reuse of drainage water a
Laser graded layout a
Irrigation scheduling
a
Adjusting crop sequences in response to seasonal conditions
Strip cropping
a
Use of contour banks in cropland
a
Stubble or pasture retention in ploughing (direct drilling) a Use of crop or pasture legumes in rotations a
Use of reduced or zero tillage (minimum tillage) a
Cropping farms
Slashing and burning of pastures
Use of integrated pest management (reducing pesticide use)
Pest and disease control in pastures
Animal pest or weed control to control land degradation
Protection of waterways from stock by fencing
(Ideal rating)
Sustainable practice
M
M
Hi
M
Hi
M
M-Lo
M-Hi
M-Hi
M
M-Hi
M-Lo
M-Hi
Hi M
M
M
M-Lo
M-Lo
M-Hi (locality)
M
Lo
(Hi)
Relative advantage
M
Hi
Lo
Lo
M
Hi
Lo
(Hi)
Geographic applicability
M-Hi
M
Lo-M
Lo
M
M-Lo
M-Lo
M-Hi
M
M
M-Hi
M
M
M-Hi
(Lo)
Risk
Hi
M
M
M-Hi
M
M-Hi
M-Lo
M-Hi
M
Lo
Hi
M
M
Lo
(Lo)
Complexity
M-Lo
M
M-Lo
M-Lo
M-Lo
M-Lo
M-Hi
M
M-Hi
M
M
M-Hi
M-Hi
M
(Hi)
Compatibility
Lo
M-Lo
M
M-Lo
M-Lo
M-Lo
M
Hi-M
Hi
Hi-M
M-Lo
M-Lo
M
Hi
(Hi)
Trialability
14
Hi
M
Hi
Lo
Lo
M-Hi
M-Lo
M
M
Hi
M-Lo
M
M
Hi
(Hi)`
Observability
Rangelands
M-Lo
M
Lo
M
M-Hi
Lo
M
M
Lo
Lo
(Lo)
Risk
Lo = Low
M = Medium
Hi = High
Lo
M
Hi-M
M
M
Lo
Lo
M-Hi
(Lo)
Complexity
Some measure of the level of landholder adoption of the practice available from the ABARE Australian Resource Management Supplementary survey.
M-Lo
M-Hi
Lo
M
M-Lo
M-Lo
M
(Hi)
Relative advantage
Hi
Hi
M
Hi
Hi
Hi
M
(Hi)
Geographic applicability
(Comments in brackets refer to locality or temporal constraints on expression of attribute.)
a
Use of effluent disposal systems (collection of effluent; ponds or drainage sump) a Pump dairy shed effluent onto pasture a
Dairy farms
Pastoral land destocked in low feed conditions
Degraded pastoral land converted to less damaging use
Pastoral land stocked at recommended rates
Piped water supplies for stocka
Controlled of water flow from bores
a
Control grazing pressure by excluding access to water a
(Ideal rating)
Sustainable practice
M
M
Hi
M
Hi
Hi
Hi
M
(Hi)
Compatibility
Hi
M
M-Lo
M-Lo
M-Lo
M
Hi
M-Lo
(Hi)
Trialability
15
Hi
Hi
M
M
M-Hi
Hi
Hi
M-Hi
(Hi)`
Observability
Observations on the characteristics of sustainable practices The following features and conclusions regarding sustainable practices and their attributes can be identified: • There is no one sustainable practice which optimally comprises all the attributes by being widely applicable, having high relative advantage to the landholder, low complexity, high compatibility, high trialability and observability, and low risk. • Very few sustainable practices have widespread or universal geographic applicability. As a consequence, the identification, development and promotion of relevant sustainable practices needs to be locality or catchment specific. • The sustainable practices with wider geographic applicability (such as deep-rooted perennials) often provide only moderate relative advantage to the landholder. The relative advantage will be different in different localities. • The level of relative advantage is rarely independent of commodity prices. The relative advantage of many sustainable practices (such as deep-rooted perennials) will be temporally dependent on the value of rural commodities produced as a result of using the practice. Low commodity prices in the broadacre industries have reduced the relative advantage of many sustainable practices. • The relative advantage and risk attributes are the least mutable in terms of feasible policy interventions. Where relative advantage is low and risk is high, attempts to achieve wide-scale adoption will require large levels of external subsidy or insurance intervention. It will be more feasible to promote those sustainable practices which have higher relative advantage (and preferably lower risk) and to use policy interventions (such as extension and education programs) to overcome or ameliorate complexity and low compatibility and observability.
A case example: phase farming with dryland lucerne The watertable under the Murray Darling riverine plains has been rising since the last century. The long term solution for much of the plains is to develop a system of farming based on a productive and profitable, deep-rooted perennial crop. The most appropriate commercial plant is lucerne. Dryland lucerne has been known of for many years, yet only a few farmers grow significant areas of lucerne (Ransom & Barr 1993; Whittet 1929). The use of lucerne, a deep-rooted perennial species, is an example of an apparently simple sustainable management practice that has not been widely adopted. In most
circumstances of land degradation lucerne has a medium to low relative advantage, reflecting low prices for pastoral commodities (see Curtis et al. 2000). Lucerne is relatively complex to introduce into a pastoral management system, and there are considerable risks in its successful establishment. Farmers sowing lucerne do not have a guarantee they will successfully produce a crop of lucerne. The chance of failure is greater than most other pasture species. One way to minimise the financial risk of establishing lucerne, and to make up for time a paddock may be out of production, is to sow lucerne with a faster growing crop such as safflower. Farmers following this strategy may have to learn to grow new crops which are more compatible with lucerne (Barker 1992). Lucerne requires rotational grazing management. The majority of farms are currently managed with a regime of set stocking. Wool-producing farms typically run three flocks: ewes, weaners and wethers. Some run an additional flock of maiden ewes. Under the four-paddock rotation system, such a farm would need 12 or 16 paddocks. For farms previously ‘set-stocked’ this implies additional expensive fencing and more dams and reticulation to provide watering points in each paddock. Fencing at this intensity is likely to impede the easy management of cropping activity on the farm. Lucerne pasture is more productive than normal pasture, but wool producers will not make money merely by growing more pasture. There are complex ramifications in the farm system. More sheep will be required to utilise the extra pasture (Ransom 1992). The increased flock size will require extra capital, more work in sheep handling and an increased workload of rotational grazing. Higher sheep densities in paddocks may mean a greater need for control of intestinal parasites and increased use of veterinary chemicals or greater attention to rotational grazing systems to minimise parasite infestation (Coffey 1992). One means of maximising the benefit of lucerne is to abandon lambing in autumn in favour of spring lambing. This may mean a need to further re-arrange the farm timetable. Shearing will probably be moved to after the harvest season and before sowing. The risk of grass seed contamination will be higher. Grazing rotation strategies to minimise this risk will be needed. To maximise the benefits of prime lamb production, the farmer will often need to develop new marketing skills and develop relationships with export abattoirs. These changes have to be worked in with the continuing cropping enterprise. Lucerne can imply major changes in crop management. How does the farmer combine the new grazing rotation with the crop rotation side of the business? Whereas an annual pasture may have been grazed for a couple of years before cropping, there are good reasons to maintain a lucerne paddock for its full eight-year life after successful establishment. Consequently, the farmer may have to crop paddocks elsewhere on the farm for a longer period before putting them back into pasture. Forestalling 16
the depletion of soil nitrogen will inevitably mean introducing grain legumes into a rotation system that was predominantly based on wheat and pasture. This will require improved cropping skills, marketing skills and probably investment in cropping machinery. Lucerne will also introduce greater risk into cropping systems. The environmental advantage of lucerne is its ability to remove water from the soil profile to reduce recharge of the watertable. Traditional long fallow crop systems were successful in minimising risk by conserving soil moisture before a crop phase. Entering a crop phase after drying the soil moisture may increase crop production risk if the following season’s rainfall is below average. Currently in southern Australia climate forecasters are unable to provide useful forecasts to guide phase farming decision-making. Finally, a farmer considering integrating lucerne into the farming system may need to borrow capital in the early stages of the project. A bank is likely to require a business plan to analyse the financial implications of the plan before agreeing to the provision of loan finance.
The adoption of dryland lucerne in central Victoria Dryland lucerne has been promoted as a farming system for over a decade and the adoption of this system has been relatively well monitored. There has been a significant increase in the adoption dryland lucerne during this period. However, the rate of adoption is mediated by a number of factors which lead to the conclusion that full adoption is unlikely to be attained. In 1991 Agriculture Victoria conducted a survey of dryland lucerne adoption in north central Victoria. Using very conservative assumptions about the non-respondents, the investigators concluded that the area of lucerne had increased from 4.2 percent of farmland in 1984 to 7.6 percent in 1991. A segmentation analysis revealed adoption was limited to a small number of producers, but that there was a very high latent interest in growing dryland lucerne. • Established lucerne growers. This group consisted of six farmers who had a history of good lucerne establishment, management and a very positive attitude to lucerne. The established lucerne growers had on average 43 percent of their farm under lucerne. Fifty per cent of the lucerne in the catchment will be found on this relatively small percentage of farms. Farm sizes were higher than average. • Lucerne planners. This group of 29 farmers believed lucerne had a major role in their future farming plans and believed the practical problems associated with lucerne could be overcome.
• Deterred growers. This group of 31 farmers had little lucerne on their farms. They would like to have a larger area, but believed there were too many practical problems to make this a worthwhile goal. • Disinterested. This group consisted of 24 farmers who mostly believed there was little place for lucerne on their farms. This group were also less likely to be members of landcare type groups. Farm sizes were smaller than average. This segmentation revealed the importance of finding easily adoptable solutions to the technical and management challenges posed by the integration of dryland lucerne into the then traditional cropping/annual pasture mixed farming system used in the district. Lucerne is relatively complex to introduce into a pastoral management system, and there are considerable risks in its successful adoption. The risks and concerns revealed by the survey and informal interviewing were considered previously and are listed below: • • • • • •
establishment failure lucerne requires rotational grazing management heavier stocking densities significant changes to farm management systems competition with cropping program drought risk management.
The degree of interest in lucerne was demonstrated by the high degree of enthusiasm for an increased area of lucerne. It was estimated that 36 per cent of the region was suitable for dryland lucerne. Farmers indicated that they would like to see 25 per cent of farm area under lucerne if particular technical and management problems could be overcome. Even at the existing sowing rates, it was estimated the area of lucerne would rise to 11 per cent with no change in the current establishment success rate. Improvements in the establishment success rate to that obtained by the more experienced farmers would see the area of lucerne increase to 17 per cent of the farm area. A follow up survey in 1996 revealed some contradictory results (Oxley 1997). The overall adoption rate for dryland lucerne increased significantly. The number of farmers sowing more than 5 per cent of their farm area to lucerne rose from 27 per cent to 48 per cent. The average establishment success rate rose from 36 per cent to 60 per cent. However, there was no change in the total area of lucerne in the catchment. While more and more farmers had been sowing lucerne, farmers with existing paddocks of lucerne had been converting them to cropping in response to the more attractive returns from cropping. The obviously successful extension effort to promote the benefits of dryland lucerne had merely managed to maintain the existing area of dryland lucerne. Since the 1996 survey, there has been a steady increase in the area of lucerne sown in the North Central region (see Figure 2), reflecting a gradual improvement in the relative 17
underlining the difficulties of evaluating the adoption outcomes of an extension program based upon data from a short time period.
350
50000 48000 46000 44000 42000 40000 38000 36000 34000 32000 30000
300 250 200
No. of farmers
Pasture mix area (ha)
returns to livestock enterprises, particular prime lambs, in comparison to returns to cropping enterprises (Karunaratne & Barr 2001). The benefits of the lucerne extension program of the previous decade are still being reaped,
150 100 1996
1997
1998
1999
Mixture of lucerne and other pasture area Farmers reporting mixture of lucerne and other pasture
Figure 2 Area of mixed lucerne pasture and adoption of mixed lucerne pasture in the North Central catchment region of Victoria: 1996-99 (Source: ABS) A key conclusion is that dryland lucerne will not be adopted when its comparative advantage is less than that provided by cropping. Cropping has been a more profitable enterprise for the past decade. The need or desire to generate income has overridden any salinity control benefits. Over the past decade many farmers in north central Victoria have gained the necessary managerial skills to give them confidence in growing dryland lucerne. There has also been a recognition of its recharge benefits. This has been potentially a very positive story in the promotion of a sustainable agricultural practice. However, while the current relativity of cropping and grazing gross margins prevails, there is a very strong constraint on the extent to which lucerne can be expected to be adopted. The main motivation for adopting dryland lucerne is its potential for improving the profitability of grazing enterprises. This same profitability motivation will ensure that the needs of the cropping program will generally take precedence over recharge control objectives.
18
Learning about sustainable practices As is the case in most occupational groupings, there is a wide range of abilities and knowledge among farmers. There is also a wide range of formal education and knowledge about sustainable farm practices. These factors suggest that to encourage better understanding and implementation of sustainable management practices it is more important to focus on how farmers might learn about using these practices rather than to rely on exiting formal levels of education.
Categorising the learning focus Kilpatrick et al. (1999) recently carried out a major research project exploring how farmers’ learning for management and marketing can be improved. The research, funded by the Rural Industries Research and Development Fund (RIRDC), was motivated by the perception of experts that farmers did not participate in training, particularly in marketing and management, to their best advantage. Building upon previous research into the learning needs and styles of Australian farmers (eg Kilpatrick 1997; Kilpatrick & Williamson 1996; Reeve & Black 1998; Synapse Consulting Pty Ltd 1998), Kilpatrick et al. (1999) conducted two separate studies. The first was a national study involving qualitative interviews with 85 representatives of ‘farm management teams’ (the couple or group involved in on-farm management decisions) in five states. The second study was a Western Australia study involving interviews with a random sample of 197 farmers from eight agricultural regions of the south west. Kilpatrick (1996) highlighted the important role that 3 education and training play in assisting farmers to make changes in their farming practice. However not all farm managers learn in the same manner. Farm managers often differ in the learning sources they accessed, the manner in which information was available to them, and their motivations for learning. Kilpatrick et al. (1999) investigated both learning-for-change and on-going learning. On the basis of one specific change (learning-for-change) that the farm management team had implemented, and previous research, four learning pattern groups were developed. These were:
• Local focused The local focussed group seeks 4 information and advice only from local experts and local farmers. They do not participate in training, except for attendance at field days. • People focused Such farm businesses consult two or more people and use no more than one other learning source when making changes (eg training, media and observation). • Outward looking These farm businesses use a variety of sources, usually including one of training, media and observation in addition to one-on-one learning from other farmers, experts or agricultural associations/organisations. • Extensive networking These farm businesses consult a wide range of sources when learning for change, typically more than four sources including experts, training, other farmers, media, agricultural associations/organisations, and observations (Kilpatrick et al. 1999:33). Outward looking farm business dominated the national study sample (40%) followed by people focussed (23.5%), local focussed (18.8%) and extensive networking (17.7%) (Kilpatrick et al. 1999). While these categories were established on the basis of learning about farm management, they seem equally appropriate for the process of learning about more sustainable management practices. Farm management teams were also categorised according to their farm management skills. Three levels were developed with the farm businesses that exhibited higher levels of management skills and experience given Level A, and lower levels given Level C (Kilpatrick et al. 1999:29). There were no significant differences between the learning pattern and management category. However there were no Level A farm business that were local focused and no Level C farm businesses that were extensive networking in learning focus.
Reasons for learning Traditionally there has been a low level of formal education among Australia’s farmers, however levels of education have increased from 23 per cent with post-school
3
Education and training ‘includes all organised education and training activities, both non-formal and formal. . . . field days, farmer-directed groups, seminars, conferences and workshops, and non-accredited courses as well as formal education and training, all are included as education and training activities’ (Kilpatrick et al. 1999:xi).
4
An expert ‘includes those who have specialised information and skills of use to the farm business. Examples are government extension officers, accountants, buyers of farm product, company field officers, researchers, lawyers, rural counsellors, suppliers of inputs (such as rural merchants) and private farm consultants’ (Kilpatrick et al. 1999:xi). 19
qualifications in 1983 to 32 per cent in 1995. Though this is still less than the 49 per cent of the Australian labour force that has post-school qualifications (Synapse Consulting 1998). Importantly, those farmers with higher levels of formal education are more likely to seek out and participate in further education and training. However there is mixed evidence concerning the link between formal farmer education and good farm management (Bamberry, Dunn & Lamont 1997; Kilpatrick et al. 1999). Though Gould, Saupe and Kleme (1989) report that better educated farmers were more likely to adopt conservation practices and Reeve and Black (1993) found that they had more favourable attitudes towards using outside expertise in conservation practices. The motivations given by farmers for their learning were as follows: • improved farm business efficiency (52.9%) • improved farm business viability (29.4%) • acquisition of marketing information and skills (23.5%) • compliance with legal requirements (15.3%) • learning to better manage risk (14.1%) • environmental awareness (10.6%)
• fear of being exposed to new knowledge and skills (Kilpatrick & Rosenblatt 1998). Typically, farmers choose learning sources according to the need; thus other farmers were often sought out for background information and for information on practical issues related to farming, extension officers and consultants for detailed technical advice, and family and employees for support during change. Farmers learning to make a specific management change used a variety of sources (6 types) with experts being the most frequently accessed in learning-for-change situations. Of the experts that were sources for learning by farmers, government consultants were the expert source most often used (Kilpatrick et al. 1999). Experts were the most frequently used type of learning source for all learning pattern types, except for the extensive networkers where they were equal first with training. The manner in which experts were perceived was contrasted between farm management Levels A and B, where experts were perceived as a resource to aide decision-making about some change, and management Level C where experts were seen as decision-makers. Kilpatrick et al. (1999) differentiated between four types of change:
• personal development (7.1%) (Kilpatrick et al. 1999)
• starting a new enterprise
Importantly, environmental management motivates only a relative minority of farmers to learn, in contrast to business efficiency and viability.
• other strategic change • record keeping • tactical or technical changes.
Styles of learning Farmers draw upon a wide range of sources in their learning, and changes to farm management are typically influenced by a number of sources (Phillips 1985). Informal interaction with others and social networks are very important in farmer learning. Such interactions provide opportunities for farmers to compare views on how information could be applied to their own situations and to test each other’s values and attitudes towards making changes as a result of the information (Kilpatrick et al. 1999). People were cited as the most important sources (of support and information) for both learning-for-change and on-going learning. Informal sources of learning were preferred by farmers as they tended to have a: • preference for independence • familiarity with highly contextual learning mode • lack of confidence in working in training settings • preference for information from known sources
Farmers sought access to different learning opportunities for different types of change. Training was most frequently sought for record keeping changes, while experts (primarily government consultants) dominated other types of change. Other farmers were also a frequently used source of learning for tactical and technical changes as they were seen as having good local knowledge. Education and training, including field days, seminars, farmer-directed groups, and both accredited and nonaccredited courses, were also important sources of learning for some sections of the farming community. Field days and accredited courses were useful to approximately 75 per cent of farmers (Kilpatrick et al. 1999). Farmers with no post-school qualifications were most likely to draw upon field days, whilst those with agricultural qualifications drew upon accredited and non-accredited courses (Kilpatrick et al. 1999). When considering a specific change in farm management, non-accredited courses followed by accredited courses and field days were the most frequently used (Kilpatrick et al. 1999). Those farmers who identified environmental management as a motivation for learning drew upon two or three learning sources. In all cases these always included a farmerdirected group (such as community landcare). Community 20
landcare and other similar groups have been highlighted as an important source of information concerning sustainable farming practices (Cary & Webb 2000). Recent studies have highlighted the role that women play in Australian agriculture (Alston 1995; RIRDC/DPIE 1998), and learning for increased adoption of conservation practices on farms should be cognisant of the roles that women play in agriculture. The learning styles generally preferred by men and women may be different (Kilpatrick et al. 1999). Recent initiatives of the Women in Rural Industries Section of AFFA have highlighted the advantages of specifically targeting rural women in education and information programs (Webb 2000a, 2000b).
21
Some recent Australian findings on factors associated with the adoption of sustainable practices In recent years there have been a number of major reviews and studies that have explored the social aspects of adoption of best practices in Australian agriculture (eg. Fenton, MacGregor & Cary 2000; Barr & Cary 2000; Guerin & Guerin 1994; Reeve & Black 1993). Two more recent studies warrant further exploration. The first is a study carried out by Curtis et al. (2000) in the Goulburn Broken catchment of Victoria, the second is a benchmarking study carried out by Solutions Marketing and Research (1999) to monitor the achievement of goals in AFFA’s Agriculture – Advancing Australia (AAA) policy package, hereafter termed the ‘Solutions’ study.
The Solutions research involved a telephone survey of a representative sample of 2,043 Australian agricultural producers and a separate study utilising in-depth interviews with a non-probability sample of key community people. Here only the producer survey is discussed. Data were collected on producer behaviour (by measuring reported current usage and likely adoption within two years), producer skill (by measuring producer confidence in their current expertise to meet their needs now and in two years), producer awareness, knowledge and usage of AAA initiatives, producer attitudes, and demographic data (Solutions 1999).
The Curtis et al. (2000) study was in response to the realisation that the adoption of best practices in the Goulburn Broken Catchment was slower than is required to arrest dryland salinity. Using a mail survey Curtis et al. (2000) explored the key social factors affecting adoption of best practices among a random sample of rural properties 5 covering the 14 land management units of the catchment. Four hundred and eighty landholders completed the survey, which explored the relationships between the use, and nonuse, of best practices and a range of landholder, business and property characteristics. The practices explored in the survey were:
Solutions developed a series of five national indicators, linked to the goals of AAA, each comprising a series of between five and ten individual measures. Table 2 gives the five indicators and a general description of the types of measures that comprise each indicator. The current utilisation score is the average score across all measures for an indicator, and the score on a measure represents the percentage of respondents that respond positively to that measure. The maximum possible indicator score is 100 per cent, which means that ALL respondents were utilising ALL monitoring measures within an indicator.
• area sown to introduced perennial pastures • area of changed grazing/fertiliser regimes to encourage native perennial pastures • area of remaining native bush and waterways fenced • area of trees planted • number of ground water pumps installed • area of high density/intensive grazing. Curtis et al. ( 2000) found that the lack of financial capacity (level of net farm income) was a major constraint to adoption. Landholder age was not seen as a constraint to adoption, while property size, and its links to financial capacity, was likely to be a major influence on the area over which best practice was implemented. There is a more detailed discussion of the characteristics of those landholders who have adopted best practices below.
5
The natural resource management indicator comprises a number of measures of NRM behaviour; however most of these are not measures of direct on-ground conservation practice. Two measures of sustainable practice are included, these are: • action to reduce soil erosion in the past two years • the strategic planting of trees in the past two years (Solutions 1999). As an additional monitoring indicator of capacity for change and adoption of innovation, the adoption of new agronomic practices was recorded. This was a self-elicited response from which the following practices were identified: • minimum till/no tillage • new/improved/alternative water conservation/irrigation • farming resource conservation techniques/holistic management. While the Solutions research is limited in its selection of best practices, and other NRM measures, its representativeness and the development of a longitudinal
A land management unit is a area of land with common geological and hydrogeological characteristics. The impacts of salinity, its causes and downstream impacts, and the options for control are common to each land management unit (Curtis et al. 2000). 22
6
data set make it an important source of data on agricultural producer’s NRM behaviour and capacity to adopt innovations.
6
The Solutions survey has been repeated in 2000, and will be conducted again in 2002. 23
Table 2 Solutions’ National Indicators Indicator
Description
Current Utilisation Score
Skill Level
Strategic planning for future
Existence and contents of a yearly farm plan, succession plan and involvement in co-operative planning
46
40
Natural resource management
Comprising a range of NRM measures including fire insurance and prevention strategies, noxious weed control, land/water resource plan, tree planting, landcare activity, and climate monitoring
70
68
Financial self reliance
Monitoring the financial performance of farm activities, internal and external financial comparison of activities, superannuation, off-farm investments, and presence of retirement plan
59
54
Market competitiveness
Calculation of production costs, knowledge and investigation of marketing opportunities (domestic and export) and buyer specifications, QA systems, investigation of new on- and off-farm activities
26
28
Capacity for change and adoption of innovation
Attendance at field days, training activities, use of soil testing and advisers, and adoption of innovations, new technologies
62
72
(Source: Solutions 1999)
As indicated in the above table, producers scored highest on Solution’s NRM indicator. The strong performance is linked to the widespread adoption of key measures included in the indicator such as fire insurance (92% of respondents), control of noxious weeds (90%), land and water resource management plan (89%), fire prevention strategies (80%) and activity in landcare (80%). There were lower levels of adoption of the two best practices, with 63 per cent of respondents taking action to reduce soil erosion and 61 per cent planting trees in the two past years (Solutions 1999). For self-reported agronomic practices, 7 per cent identified their adoption of minimum tillage/no till, 3 per cent new/improved/alternative water conservation/irrigation, and 2 per cent farming resource conservation techniques/holistic management over the past two years. The first two practices are best practices that are sector specific and this explains in part the much lower overall levels of adoption. Adoption of minimum tillage/no till was at 24 per cent for cereal growers, while 10 per cent of cotton growers had adopted some water conservation. Furthermore these practices are self-reported and the categories were generated after the survey had been carried out. This is in contrast to the items in the indicators that were known to the respondents. Both Curtis et al. (2000) and Solutions (1999) record a range of farmer, farm business, property and other characteristics that may be linked to the self-reported NRM behaviour. The following deals with the major characteristics of those individuals who adopt best practices.
Age Younger farmers tend be more aware of land degradation on their farms. It is also hypothesised that age is likely have an impact upon the adoption of best practice in agriculture. In particular, the aging rural population linked with increasing out-migration from rural areas (Haberkorn et al. 1999) suggests a reduction in family farm succession, which in turn may lead to a reduced willingness to invest in best practice (Curtis et al. 2000). However there appears to be no clear correlation between age and best practice adoption. Curtis et al. (2000) found no significant 7 relationship between adoption and age , and thus the aging of the rural population was not considered a major constraint to adoption. However they found that younger farmers were more likely to have prepared farm management plans and budgets. Considering the composite NRM behaviour indicator that Solutions (1999) develop there was no significant relationship between age cohorts and their scores on the indicator (_2=1.446, df=5, p=0.919). However at the level of the two best practices there were significant age effects for both tree planting 7
Curtis et al. (2000) performed both bivariate and multivariate tests for relationships. In the discussion of Curtis et al.’s work only significant multivariate tests are reported. Where there is no significant relationship, a significant bivariate relationships may exist, for example in the case of age there were significant but very weak correlations between age and the area sown to introduced perennial pastures, and the area of native bush and waterways fenced. 24
(_2=78.608, df=5, p
