Advisers and policymakers need to respect and trust farmers’ diverse knowledge when seeking to introduce new management practices and technologies, a Teagasc seminar was told last week.
In a wide-ranging presentation Prof Frank Vanclay from Groningen University told the seminar – titled ‘Social principles for agricultural extension to assist in sustainability transitions’ – that a “top-down” approach was not an effective way to secure on-farm change.
“Farmers need to feel valued, and far too much of extension [advisory] culture [worldwide] has treated farmers with contempt,” Vanclay maintained.
“We need to be much more accepting and understanding of the situation that farmers are in, and to show more respect,” he argued.
Vanclay told the seminar that the diverse local knowledge which farmers hold is vital for the locally-specific approaches needed to manage farmland appropriately, in delivering environmental and biodiversity benefits to all of society.
A one-size-fits-all approach does not work, as acknowledged by newer policies, he contended.
Good, familiar relationships between advisers and farmers – and between farmers themselves in discussion groups – are also vital in supporting those involved in farming to inform and take up new practices.
Australian-born Vanclay said that in his dealings with farmers in his home country, the first thing they wanted to know was whether they could “trust this person [the adviser]”.
“You have to realise, actually how much money is at stake in what farmers do. These can be capital intensive operations, or involve a delicate balance with off-farm income,” he pointed out.
He said farmers were effectively “gambling in a way” when they changed their farm management practices on the word of a farm adviser.
Demo farms
Farmers were also invariably sceptical of results from demonstration farms that too often “presume constancy”, he said.
“Experimental farms and demonstration farms are all very well, and they might prove something in a scientific way, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it will lead to a trust by farmers,” Vanclay explained.
“Because farmers will say they [the researchers] are not gambling with their own money. It’s not their own money that they are putting up here, and how many things did they do before they came to this successful outcome anyway,” he added.
Vanclay’s presentation was based on 27 principles, originally published in 2004, which were developed from personal reflection on 20 years of research and experience mainly in Australia.
The paper contains an updated commentary reflecting the contemporary European context, provided by Teagasc sociologist Áine Macken-Walsh who has worked in Irish and European rural projects for over 20 years.
Among the principles that Macken-Walsh claims should inform how policy and advisory services interact with farmers are:
A recognition of farmer diversity and that farmers are not a homogeneous group, and differ in terms of age, gender, education, and economic status. Policy should be tailored to reflect the social diversity of farming populations, ensuring that the needs and circumstances of different groups are understood and addressed.It is important to consider the role of women and youth in family farming, Macken-Walsh said. Men, women and youth bring different resources and knowledge to the table and they could have more significant, complementary roles in enhancing the sustainability of the family farm business and associated businesses.Farmers should be actively engaged in decision-making processes regarding their farms and the future of agriculture. Policy should support programmes that dedicate sufficient time, flexibility, resources and pre-planning to empower farmers to make informed decisions about their farming practices, rather than imposing top-down solutions.
Advisers and policymakers need to respect and trust farmers’ diverse knowledge when seeking to introduce new management practices and technologies, a Teagasc seminar was told last week.
In a wide-ranging presentation Prof Frank Vanclay from Groningen University told the seminar – titled ‘Social principles for agricultural extension to assist in sustainability transitions’ – that a “top-down” approach was not an effective way to secure on-farm change.
“Farmers need to feel valued, and far too much of extension [advisory] culture [worldwide] has treated farmers with contempt,” Vanclay maintained.
“We need to be much more accepting and understanding of the situation that farmers are in, and to show more respect,” he argued.
Vanclay told the seminar that the diverse local knowledge which farmers hold is vital for the locally-specific approaches needed to manage farmland appropriately, in delivering environmental and biodiversity benefits to all of society.
A one-size-fits-all approach does not work, as acknowledged by newer policies, he contended.
Good, familiar relationships between advisers and farmers – and between farmers themselves in discussion groups – are also vital in supporting those involved in farming to inform and take up new practices.
Australian-born Vanclay said that in his dealings with farmers in his home country, the first thing they wanted to know was whether they could “trust this person [the adviser]”.
“You have to realise, actually how much money is at stake in what farmers do. These can be capital intensive operations, or involve a delicate balance with off-farm income,” he pointed out.
He said farmers were effectively “gambling in a way” when they changed their farm management practices on the word of a farm adviser.
Demo farms
Farmers were also invariably sceptical of results from demonstration farms that too often “presume constancy”, he said.
“Experimental farms and demonstration farms are all very well, and they might prove something in a scientific way, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it will lead to a trust by farmers,” Vanclay explained.
“Because farmers will say they [the researchers] are not gambling with their own money. It’s not their own money that they are putting up here, and how many things did they do before they came to this successful outcome anyway,” he added.
Vanclay’s presentation was based on 27 principles, originally published in 2004, which were developed from personal reflection on 20 years of research and experience mainly in Australia.
The paper contains an updated commentary reflecting the contemporary European context, provided by Teagasc sociologist Áine Macken-Walsh who has worked in Irish and European rural projects for over 20 years.
Among the principles that Macken-Walsh claims should inform how policy and advisory services interact with farmers are:
A recognition of farmer diversity and that farmers are not a homogeneous group, and differ in terms of age, gender, education, and economic status. Policy should be tailored to reflect the social diversity of farming populations, ensuring that the needs and circumstances of different groups are understood and addressed.It is important to consider the role of women and youth in family farming, Macken-Walsh said. Men, women and youth bring different resources and knowledge to the table and they could have more significant, complementary roles in enhancing the sustainability of the family farm business and associated businesses.Farmers should be actively engaged in decision-making processes regarding their farms and the future of agriculture. Policy should support programmes that dedicate sufficient time, flexibility, resources and pre-planning to empower farmers to make informed decisions about their farming practices, rather than imposing top-down solutions. 
SHARING OPTIONS