SOLINSA - support of learning and innovation networks for sustainable agriculture
Overview of the current state and functioning of the national AKS
ENGLAND
Draft report by the English team
Julie Ingram, Nigel Curry, James Kirwan and Damian Maye
June 2011
1 1. Introduction ...... 3 2. Research methods ...... 3 2.2 Interviews held ...... 4 2.3 Workshop ...... 6 3. Overview of the current state and functioning of the Agricultural Knowledge System ...... 6 3.1 Brief historical context of the AKS ...... 6 3.2 Characterisation of current composition of the AKS and trends ...... 8 3.2.1 Actors involved in AKS ...... 8 3.2.2 Governance of the AKS: main governance forms, policies, legislation, regulation ...... 18 3.2.3 Financial Steering Mechanisms in AKS : funding sources, funding modalities ...... 23 3.2.4 Linkages in AKS : relations within AKS and between AKS actors and the broader Agricultural Innovation System (AIS) ...... 24 3.2.5 Characteristics of knowledge in the AKS and their impact on knowledge consumption ...... 30 4. Agricultural and rural development trends: changes in knowledge needs and demands on AKS ...... 32 4.1 Main societal trends in relation to agriculture and rural development ...... 32 4.1.1 Analysis of societal trends and drivers ...... 32 4.2 Implications of trends for AKS in terms of knowledge supply and demand ... 33 4.2.1 Trends in relation to sustainable agriculture and implications ...... 33 4.2.2 Factors affecting the promotion of innovation in sustainable agriculture: gaps and barriers ...... 34 5. Place of interactive learning and innovation in the AKS ...... 41 5.1 Working methods for effective support of LINSA ...... 41 5.1.1 New knowledge providers and users ...... 41 5.1.2 Networks ...... 41 5.2 Governance mechanisms for effective support of LINSA ...... 43 5.2.1 Research ...... 43 5.2.2 Policy and policy instruments ...... 44 5.2.3 Information and facilitation ...... 46 6. Strong points and weak points in the functioning of the AKS ...... 51
Appendices Appendix 1 Interviews: guidelines and questions Appendix 2 Expert Workshop report Appendix 3 Details on the remit of the main AKS bodies Appendix 4 Societal trends in relation to agriculture and rural development Appendix 5 Drivers and impact on skills and business requirements
2 1. Introduction
This report contributes to Work Package 3 of the SOLINSA project. The aim of the report is to investigate how, and the extent to which, the current organisation of the AKS in England facilitates, impedes or otherwise influences interactive innovation approaches aiming for sustainable agriculture. Specifically it aims to contribute to our understanding of:
• the main agricultural/ rural development trends in their national contexts; • trends in national AKS policies for agriculture, rural development and innovation; • institutional determinants in the AKS that enable of constrain AKS in supporting effective LINSAs; • specific demands of AKS emerging in the national contexts (knowledge needs), and • characteristics, incidence and main fields of action of LINSA in the national context.
Within Working Package 3 an Agricultural Knowledge System (AKS) is defined as a set of public and private organisations dedicated to research, education and extension, and their interaction with knowledge users, traditionally farmers. An AKS thus consists of:
• The actors that are purposefully engaged in knowledge development and knowledge intensive service delivery in agriculture and rural development (it is part of their ‘core- business’), and • The ‘knowledge infrastructure’ in the broader Agricultural Innovation System.
For the purposes of this review our definition of sustainable agriculture is concerned with the need for agricultural practices and related on- and off-farm activities to be economically viable, to meet human needs for food, to be environmentally positive, and to be concerned with quality of life.
2. Research methods
The report draws on a literature review of the English context, 13 expert telephone interviews and data generated from a stakeholder workshop.
2.1 Literature reviewed
There have been few reviews of the operation of the English AKS as a whole: most tend to focus on particular elements such as the farm advisory services. Whilst there has been academic interest in the UK with to respect to the impact of privatisation on the AKS (Winter, 1997), and the new roles and processes within the AKS with the transition to environmental agriculture (Curry and Winter, 2000; Garforth et al., 2003) there has been little recent analysis.
Most of the reports cited here were prepared for government in response to a changing agricultural context. Analysis in the period from 1995 to the mid 2000s focused on the increasing plurality and fragmentation of the AKS and the rural delivery as a whole (Defra 2003). They also highlighted the inadequacy of the system to meet new challenges of firstly a more sustainable post-Foot and Mouth Disease agriculture as identified in the Report of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food (Defra 2002) and secondly impending CAP reform (Cabinet Office 2002). In the same period a number of studies evaluated the
3 effectiveness of farm advisory services, KT and dissemination services for the government (Archer 2001; Garforth et al 2002). A number of coincident studies also evaluated the (cost) effectiveness of different approaches and communication mechanisms within the AKS (eg Dampney et al 2001; ECOTEC 2000).
More recent reviews reflect emerging challenges. European commitments within CAP to provide a Farm Advisory System (FAS) to support cross compliance implementation have resulted in a evaluation and description of the FAS in member countries including the UK (Ade et al 2010). Defra’s targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the farming sector were behind a recent analysis of farm advisory services in England (AEA 2010). While in the policy and research community, growing interest in increasing food productivity through development in bioscience and its effective translation to practice has spawned a number of government strategy documents and reviews which describe the research and innovation landscape in the UK (Royal Society, 2009; Government Office for Science 2010, 2011; the Taylor Review 2010;). Harper Adams University College mapped the AKIS in England when responding to a consultation on BBSRC strategy.
In the skills and education sector a review of land based colleges included coverage of their KT activities (HEFCE 2007) while reviews of advice and training available within farm business advice programmes and Lantra/Skills Sector Council are available ((NAO 2004; NAO 2009) as is the skills assessment report for land based and environmental businesses (Lantra 2011). A recent strategy report ‘Towards a New Professionalism for Food Security and Sustained Environment (NFU et al 2010) provides a recent overview and sets out the skills development needed to assist in increasing productivity and ensuring resilience, innovation and competitiveness. With respect to farm business and the farmers’ competence, skills and entrepreneurship in the context of sustainable agriculture and innovation, there are reviews within the farm diversification literature (Ilbery and Maye 2010; Phelan and Sharpley 2010), a review of recent research into business competence amongst farmers in England (Hill 2007) and a review of farmer entrepreneurship in England undertaken as part of the European project Developing Entrepreneurial Skills of Farmers (McElwee 2005).
There has been little commentary on how the AKS in England currently supports innovative bottom-up approaches, although some of these reports and studies are relevant and a recent report by the Soil Association (2011) provides some insights with respect to organic farming. There have also been a number of academic studies examining approaches to farmer learning including studies of farmer networks (Dwyer et al 2007) and social learning within catchment initiatives in England, some as part of the Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU) programme of the UK Research Councils.
2.2 Interviews held
In total 13 expert interviews (including three pilot interviews) were conducted for this report (Table 1) and one respondent also replied to the interview questions by email. Interviewees were selected from a range of organisations operating in the AKS in England (Table 1).The interview summaries themselves are presented in Appendix 1 and transcripts of the interviews are held in audio format. The core of the questioning was taken from the paper produced by Dirk Roep of 1 March 2011 (Appendix 1) and an opening section was added to seek information about the nature of the organisation being interviewed.
4 A question by question explanation of the interpretation of the interview guidelines into the interview schedule is not presented here, but the questions used, adapted for the English context, were grouped into four sections. These were:
• questions about the organisation being interviewed (termed in the interview a bit about you); • questions about how the organisation perceived the main characteristics of the domestic AKN (termed in the interview a bit about how you see the provision of information to agriculture in England); • questions about the means by which the English AKN disseminated information (termed in the interview a bit about approaches to dissemination), and • questions about the approach of the organisation to dissemination, specifically in relation to sustainable agriculture (termed in the interview a bit about your approach to information for sustainable agriculture ).
The interview schedule is reproduced in Appendix 1. This was piloted with the first organisation in the list below and adjusted as a result of the pilot. The focus for discussion in the interviews was the four main areas of questioning. Because of this, not all interviews covered every question individually.
Table 1 SOLINSA Country review list of interviewees
Organisation type Organisation Interviewee and position Higher education knowledge and Business Development Centre, Simon King, Director information provider Royal Agricultural College, RAC Farmer representative National Farmers' Union, NFU Ceris Jones, Climate change policy advisor Industry representative/levy DairyCo, DC Elizabeth Berry, R&D Manager Duncan Pullar, Director of DairyCo (email respondent) Farmer group/broker Rural Enterprise Solutions c/o Karen Murray, Manager Plymouth University, RES Farmer group – commercial Pasture to Profit, P2P Robert Hassall, General Manager Government (food production) Department of Environment, Mike Wilkinson, Manager Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Sustainable Farming and Food Science LINK Government (environment) Natural England, NE Diane Spence, Delivery Manager Land Management Training and Development Education/skills Farm Skills, FS Sophie Throup, FarmSkills Manager NGOs/voluntary sector -wildlife RSPB Richard Winspear, Senior Agricultural Advisor Land Owner/Landlord National Trust, NT Rob Macklin, National Agriculture and Food Advisor NGOs/voluntary sector - food Sustain Kath Dalmeny, Policy Director network Food Matters, FM Clare Devereux South West Food and Drink, SW Simon Mallet, Regional Skills Manager
5 2.3 Workshop
An expert workshop was held on 2 June which was facilitated by four members of the CCRI team. Following the guidelines issued by Partner 2 (Wageningen) invitations were sent to those people interviewed (see above) as well as representatives from LINSAs. Six people accepted the invitation and attended the workshop and were from the following organisations: Defra, Linking the Environment and Farming (LEAF), Organic Research Centre, Rural Knowledge Exchange Network, NIAB- TAG and the National Farmers Union.
Appendix 2 provides details.
3. Overview of the current state and functioning of the Agricultural Knowledge System
3.1 Brief historical context of the AKS
Up to the late 1980s there was a comprehensive system of agricultural knowledge networks, funded and run by the state in England. Broadly, this comprised the following.
• A series of dedicated research stations and institutes funded by the research councils and the Ministry of Agriculture. • A significant research function housed in Agriculture Faculties of Universities funded by the research councils, the Ministry, Levy boards (for particular agricultural products), and the commercial sector (seeds, fertilisers). • A comprehensive system of education and training , largely funded by the state (with some private provision, for example, the Royal Agricultural College), in Universities (for advanced training) and county-based agricultural colleges (skills based training). • A nation-wide advisory or extension service , the Agricultural Development Advisory Service (ADAS), funded by the state.
This represented a coherent, well integrated or ‘closed’ AKS operating with a single objective - increasing food production. The system was organised primarily within a single government agriculture department operating at all levels of the AKS with very little input from other organisations. Because this original closed system was overwhelmingly state funded, it ensured a degree of conformity to state objectives and thus conformity to the precepts of agricultural policy.
In the late 1980s this system was dismantled in England. The state funded advisory service ADAS was privatized and state funded research went through a period of review and consolidation. The relationship between the research institutes with their sponsoring research council and with government also changed as new rules of competition were introduced and the research institutes began to receive funding from private sector sources as well as several public sources. The Barnes Review in 1986 resulted in MAFF (the Ministry at the time) making a phased withdrawal of funding for near market R&D, leaving the levy bodies to fund such research. A coincident change in agricultural and biological research funding by Research Councils and Government Departments also occurred. As a result the UK’s research infrastructure has transformed in the last two decades, with radical re-organisations both of the landscape as a whole and at the level of individual bodies, including a number of closures and mergers of applied research institutes, and the move of some public sector institutes into the university
6 sector. Thirty research institutes and units have merged into three in the past 30 years (see Figure 1) (FRP, 2009). At the same time more commercially focused facilities were also rationalised (Government Office for Science 2010). The retreat of government from managing agricultural research and extension resulted in a diversification in the sources of agricultural research and extension and opened new opportunities for the private sector. In the education and training parts of the AKS there have been changes and mergers with new roles and responsibilities, new funders and new relationships emerging. Agricultural colleges at county level were merged into HE institutions or new universities or in some cases, closed (Slee 2005; Llewellyn 2010). The Agricultural Training Board was also dismantled and as a result the private sector has been meeting the practical training needs.
The research priorities also changed with a substantial shift in publicly funded R&D away from production-oriented science and technology towards science designed to deal with environmental concerns, animal welfare and food safety. Vertically the AKS became fragmented as the change in status of ADAS meant that the government has struggled to find the mechanisms to connect research on environmental protection and sustainable agriculture to farmers, as the traditional research-extension links and advisory practices become less relevant to end users (Archer, 2001).
Figure 1 Contraction of research institutes (FRP 2009)
7 Horizontal fragmentation resulted with the proliferation of knowledge producers and providers within all sub-systems within the AKS including trade, NGOs, farmer funded organisations, government agencies and research institutes (see Curry 1997; Winter et al. 2001; Garforth et al. 2003). In the farm advisory/extension sector a diverse advisory community emerged to fill the gap left by ADAS and to provide advice on. The number of advisors within NGOs involved in conservation and environmentally responsible farming expanded 1, as did the number of private agricultural consultants (Gasson and Hill 1996; Marshall, 2002; Garforth et al. 2003;) and those offering Farm Business Advice (Defra 2002). Winter et al (2001) noted the complex landscape of delivery and the differentiation by sector and geographically 2. Lord Haskins (Defra 2003) in his review of the rural delivery landscape identified a diverse set of delivery agencies and actors and numerous funding streams and schemes (in some areas over 100 initiatives were identified). Following his review there was restructuring (Slee 2005 calls this bureaucratic unification) of some elements of the AKS framework in England in 2004, with the establishment of Natural England - a new integrated agency in the Defra family - which covers integrated resource management, nature conservation, biodiversity, landscape, access and recreation. Thus, in summary, privatisation of publicly funded extension has resulted in an opening of the AKS in England, with a trend towards an increasing pluralism and fragmentation, the growth and influence of the environmental movement and failure of the traditional research or advisory capacity to meet requirements of increasing agricultural diversity (Winter et al 1995; Winter et al 2001). Also, as Slee (2005) points out, the traditional institutional framework was transformed and the notion that agriculture was a special case worthy of specific institutions was challenged, partly on cost, but more because of the desire to create a less narrow view of agriculture – Slee (2005) argues that agricultural ‘exceptionalism’ has been largely rejected by society. As a result previously strong political links between the farming community and their representatives and government weakened as these actors found themselves no longer aligned towards the same objectives (Winter, 1997).
3.2 Characterisation of current composition of the AKS and trends
3.2.1 Actors involved in AKS
Today the AKS can be characterised as a complex open system, involving a wide range of influences and organisations with plurality and diversity at all levels. The organisations include private, voluntary and public bodies, the latter not necessarily all tied into a single central government department. There is no recent literature documenting the current status of the whole AKS in terms of overall numbers of actors, organisations or trends within the AKS. The following analysis is therefore drawn from a number of reports.
Figure 2, a map of the AKS, shows the key players in the conventional AKS (research, education, advice and brokerage) in England. Table 2 indicates the role and multiple functions of these bodies. The new rural networks in the AKS are described in 3.2.2. Appendix 3 provides fuller details on the remit of the main AKS bodies.
1 Significantly FWAG, RSPB, National Trust, and LEAF, while contributions from Wildlife Trusts and National Park Authorities (NPA) also increased (Winter 1995; Winter et al. 2001). 2 Some areas received more advice (and funding) due to spatial designations areas such as national parks, Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) and areas designated under the European structural programme.
8 Table 2 Actors in the AKS in England and their function
Organisation type Role and Function Organisations Government Departments Policy and regulation Defra
Government Agencies Policy and regulation Natural England coordinates FAS and delivers Axis 2 RDPE Cross Compliance Advice (FAS, ECSFI) The Environment Agency & Natural England deliver RDPE Catchment Sensitive Farming Research funding and provision Regional Development Agencies deliver Axes 1, 3 and 4 are (until Knowledge/Technology July 2011) and local initiatives Transfer/Exchange , Translation Research Councils Research funding BBSRC, NERC, ESRC
Research council institutes Research provision BBSRC: Institute of Food Research, Institute for Animal Knowledge/Technology Health, Rothamsted Research Transfer/Exchange , Translation and John Innes Centre.
Public Sector Research Research provision Establishments (PSREs) (Institutes) Knowledge/Technology Transfer/Exchange , Translation Private Research Associations Knowledge/Technology Transfer/Exchange , Translation Levy Bodies (AHDB) Research provision BPEX (pigs), DairyCo, EBLEX (beef and lamb), HDC (horticulture), Knowledge/Technology HGCA (cereal and oilseeds) and Transfer/Exchange , Translation Potato Council Higher Education Institutes Education and training Universities, land based colleges, National rural exchanges centres Knowledge/Technology Food chain actors: Merchants, Product manufacture supply and Campden BRI, Livestock Processors, Manufacturers, distribution: seeds, fertilisers, International, Agrovista, Frontier Buyers and Retailers, semen, machinery, feed, ag- McCains, supermarkets, Accreditation organisations, chem, veterinary products etc Multinational Companies Consultancy, Advice, Extension,Brokerage
Research provision
Marketing, Influencing and Opinion Forming
Food quality accreditation
Farmers & rural SMEs Primary production >200,000 agricultural holdings
Product manufacture supply and distribution
9 Use and generation of knowledge Consultancy, Advice, Extension Consultancies and Service Consultancy, Advice, Extension AEA Providers (independent and commercial)
Contractors to Natural England Land manager representative Policy comment CLA, AIC, NFU, AICC bodies Brokerage, Knowledge/Technology Transfer/Exchange , Translation
Marketing, Influencing and Opinion Forming Trade associations Knowledge/Technology NABIM, AIC Transfer/Exchange , Translation
Marketing, Influencing and Opinion Forming Charitable trusts and Farm conservation FWAG, LEAF foundations & NGOs Knowledge/Technology Transfer/Exchange , Translation
Influencing and Opinion Forming
3.2.1.1 Policy makers
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is the lead department for food and farming and has primary responsibility for UK food and agriculture policies with the strategic objective of “ensuring a thriving farming and food sector with an improving net environmental impact and a sustainable, healthy and secure food supply” (Government Office for Science, 2010).
3.2.1.2 Research: Main funders and providers
The food research and innovation landscape in the agri-food sector encompasses a range of Government departments, and other public bodies, including the majority of Research Councils (RCs), the Technology Strategy Board (TSB), the Higher Education Funding Councils, and a diverse industrial base. The public bodies involved are listed in Box 1.
10 BOX 1 Research main actors funders and providers The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) is responsible for the overall direction of UK research, innovation and skills policy, and provides funding through the Research Councils (supporting basic and early stage applied research and postgraduate skills) and the business-focused Technology Strategy Board. It also provides support for the English higher education sector and the Sector Skills Councils.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) contracts research to universities and research organisations to provide an evidence base for its policies. Most of the research projects are commissioned to underpin Defra policy formulation and development, but we also fund major 'Non-R&D' programmes covering our monitoring, testing and surveillance activities. Defra's sustainable farming and food science is delivered within five broad scientific areas: Agriculture and Climate Change; Sustainable Water Management; Resource Efficient and Resilient Food Chain; Sustainable Farming Systems and Biodiversity; Plant Health
The Research Councils are executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies, established to fund basic, strategic and applied research and related postgraduate training. The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) is the lead research council on food, with responsibilities for bioscience research spanning the food chain from basic plant, soil and animal science to food science and human nutrition. Funding is primarily through HEI and research council institutes, but BBSRC also funds industrial collaborative schemes, international collaborations and public engagement which help to add value to the research and increase its impact. A key initiative is the development of a cross-funder road map for research priorities to address food security. BBSRC has six research institutes, four of which are primarily dedicated to food (Institute of Food Research, Institute for Animal Health, Rothamsted Research and John Innes Centre).
The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) research spans the food chain, with a focus on the social sciences and economics. The Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) has responsibility for environmental sciences which intersect agriculture in issues of land and water use, environmental sustainability and the effects of climate change.
Other relevant Non-Departmental Public Bodies include:
The Technology Strategy Board (TSB) assists businesses to develop new products and services based on technology. It also assists in knowledge transfer for the benefit of the UK economy through knowledge transfer partnerships (KTP) and knowledge transfer networks (KTNs). The Research Councils agreed in 2007 to align £120M of their funding with the TSB over the 2008-11 Spending Review period, and food is a key area for support. The TSB Sustainable Agriculture and Food Innovation Platform (SAF IP) will address agricultural productivity (crops and livestock), food processing and waste (from farm-to-fork); and includes technology development, product introduction and good practice. The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) an independent, evidence-based 'Levy Board, helps improve the efficiency and competitiveness of these sectors within the UK. Sector specific activity is delivered under the established divisional brands of BPEX (pigs), DairyCo, EBLEX (beef and lamb), HDC (horticulture), HGCA (cereal and oilseeds) and Potato Council. These sector divisions are responsible for setting and delivering strategies to deploy AHDB levy income for funding near-market research and providing information on advances in research and development. AHDB employs some 450 people (310 of these are levy-funded posts). The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) provides money to universities and colleges for teaching, research, infrastructure and related activities, and therefore funds food and agriculture research and training through general Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) and Full Economic Cost core grant funds, although no specific programmes exist for food.
11 With respect to research providers, the UK has a large and diverse research base. The UK Agri- Food Science Directory (2008), for instance, listed 280 organisations concerned with research in the UK: university departments, government agencies, and other public bodies , research institutes and commercial organisations.
BBSRC funds six research institutes in UK, four of which are primarily dedicated to food (see Box 1). Defra funded research provides evidence for its environmental policies through its agencies and research contracts. The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB), through its six sector bodies (see Box 1), fund and carry out research and provide sector specific knowledge to farmers (levy payers). Independent membership organisations such as NIAB-TAG also carry out near market research, as do the private sector. The UK agri-food sector comprises a large range of companies, including over 6900 food processing companies, involved at varying stages of the food chain “from farm to fork”, and divided between a number of sub-sectors. Many of these carry out or contract research activities (and to some extent KT). The Organic Research Centre is a registered charity which started in 1980 to provide support to the organic food sector. It delivers independent research and development and also performs an advisory function.
In respect of new players and partnerships, the consolidation of state funded research described earlier is continuing. There have also been mergers of scientific organisations. For example, NIAB recently merged with the farmer membership organisation TAG, forming an independent organisation called NIAB-TAG. Following a review in 2005, the levy boards have also been reformed under a single AHDB to form a non-profit making (membership) organisation with component sector levy organisations. Private investment from the retail sector has also brought changes (see section 3.2.3).
3.2.1.3 Education and skills
Higher Education Institutes provide courses in agriculture through universities and land based colleges (See Figure 2). There has been considerable shrinkage in recent years in publicly funded higher education in agriculture and related subjects with mergers and closure of land based colleges and agricultural departments in universities (Slee 2005; Llewellyn 2010). Workshop participants confirmed these trends. Now the UK has only 4 specialist higher education colleges providing land-based subjects (Harper Adams University College, the Royal Agricultural College, the Scottish Agricultural College and Writtle College). There are around 10 university faculties with varying degrees of involvement in production agriculture. Although the land based colleges have gone through a period of falling student numbers and closures, workshops participants through the situation was now more buoyant and applicants from students were rising. The colleges have expanded their curricula to include a range of land based disciplines to meet the divers students of students and the industry.
Lantra is the Skills Sector Council body for the UK, which supports land-based and environmental industries and businesses. According to Lantra there are 500+ training providers who are approved by Lantra in UK throughout all the land based and environmental industries. Lantra manage the RDPE-funded Landskills programme which includes vocational training at local colleges, as well as a variety of short courses for farmers, food processors, and foresters offered
12 by organisations like the English Beef and Lamb Executive, the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group and ADAS.
Training is also provided commercially. For example, two of the interview respondents provide courses: FarmSkills, part of XL Vets, which is a network of 46 veterinary practices across the UK, provides veterinary training courses, while the RAC provides courses in response to farmers’ needs.
3.2.1.4 Advice and consultancy
There is a co-existence of publicly-driven and privately-driven approaches operating as a system of diverse networks and actors, as illustrated in Figure 2. As discussed earlier, following privatisation, a complex system of advisors emerged including conservation, landscape and natural resources and advisors (NGO and charity funded), farm business advisors (private and government’s Business link), private agricultural consultants, commercial agronomists (employed by agro-chemical firms), farm management companies and levy board extension officers providing a range of advice with different levels of interaction with the farmer. A recent survey of farm advice provision confirmed this diversity (see AEA, 2010). Throughout the country, advice is available to farmers through a variety of national, regional and localised initiatives .
For the purposes of description these can be roughly divided into market-oriented advice supporting food production and environmental advice supporting public good functions, although in reality the advisory networks overlap as advisors’ roles have expanded in response to the demand for a broader set of advice (covering regulations and environmental matters, as well as production). This has been coincident with the need for more professionalism and the increase in demand for high quality advice (AEA 2010).
Market-oriented advice
Advisory systems linked to market-oriented activities, i.e. food production operating on a commercial basis. These are delivered by a range of commercial and independent consultants and advisors. A recent survey (AEA 2010) suggests that the size of such advice services varies enormously from single farm consultants operating as independent sole traders through to national-scale large organisations such as the Agricultural Industries Confederation. Approximately half of the advice services investigated in the AEA survey used subcontractors, revealing a network of farm advisors, many delivering advice through a range of services. In the arable sector, for example, crop agronomists and advisors play a very important role in knowledge transfer to land managers. Some of the larger agro-chemical companies (Frontier, Agrovista; Masstock) and farm management companies (Velcourt) employ agronomists, whose job description can span from simply selling agro-chemicals to providing high quality whole farm advice (Marshall, 2002; Ingram and Morris, 2007).
13 Figure 2 AKS in England (modified from Harper Adams 2010) AKS in England
Research: Research: Universities government +15 other UWE Nottingham funded Reading RAC Plus Institutes Harper Newcastle others Commercial Public sector DEFRA research Farmer Potato Council Forestry Commission funded FAS/ECSFI AHDB Levy EBLEX RDAs: RDPE Natural England advisors MLC Companies BPEX HDC Business Link Environment Agency HGCA DairyCo Partnership ADER Fresh Start Conservation Voluntary & Charity Projects Farming Futures advisors Soil Associationsector RSPB Brokers- Knowledge Knowledge users Wildlife Trusts exchange networks Woodland Trust National Trust FWAG Community supported agriculture Independent advisors Land-based Colleges Farmer-led Myerscough Bishop B Commercial advisors Aventis Sparshol initiatives t + 20 others Syngenta LANTRA Food assurance schemes Supermarkets/processors Farmer Agrochemical organisations LEAF Organic suppliers certification NFU CLA Red tractor Food supply chain
There are currently nearly 4000 individuals registered as members on the BASIS Professional Register 3 and this includes approximately 2,500 agronomists. Approximately 250 of these, represented by the membership of the Association of Independent Crop Consultants and the consultants employed by The Arable Group (TAG), can be considered independent. The best estimate of the current position is that approximately 40% of arable land is advised by independent consultants, the remainder being divided approximately evenly between owner managers, agrochemical distributors and manufacturers (Tatchell 2005).
The AHDB undertake farm-level knowledge transfer activity within each sector aiming to improve farm business efficiency and competitiveness. They provide market information to 3 The most widely recognised qualification with Continuing professional development CPD associated is the BASIS registration. The BASIS qualification was set up in 1978 to standardise the advice provided relating to the use and application of pesticides; it has operated as a charity since 1999 (AEA 2010 ).
14 improve supply chain transparency, undertake some marketing promotion activities to help stimulate demand and also work to maintain and develop export markets.
A range of other actors have and use extension skills. A review in 2005 identified 233 people with specialist extension skills specialists (not linked to merchant or manufacturing organisations) who transfer knowledge to arable farms and land managers in England (Tatchell 2005). Table 3 shows their distribution throughout the AKS.
Table 3: A summary of the employer groups of knowledge transfer specialists in arable agriculture in England (source: Tatchell 2005)
Employer Number
Research Institutes 67 University and College Departments 36 Government Agencies 25 Larger Consultancy Companies 55 NGOs 23 Levy Boards 8 Independent Consultants 19 Total 233
The Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) deliver Axes 1, 3 and 4 of England’s Rural Development programme (RDPE). Business Link offers a range of government-funded business advice, guidance, and information to farming and rural businesses.
Public goods advice
In the public sector advice provision has diversified as the government has responded to European and international commitments. Natural England is the key public body managing this advice (see section 3.3) through a range of contracts. Charities, trusts and membership organisations also provide conservation advice to farmers.
The distinction between food production and public good advice is somewhat artificial since there are many overlaps and partnerships between the two. The government, for example, contracts public good advice to commercial firms. There are also several examples of commercial partnerships between advice services and private sector organisations, including, for example, food quality (LEAF-Waitrose) and carbon footprinting (AEA 2010) issues. Until recently (from 1996 – 2006) the independent Organic Research Centre delivered the Organic Conversion Information Service (OCIS) funded by the government (although now funding has been withdrawn as the level of interest from farmers has declined).
15 Table 4 Public goods advice –main actors Programme Actors delivering advice Entry Level Stewardship (ELS) Project Officers deliver the RDPE axis 2 - ELS and HLS, they visit farms and run events and set up agreements with farmers. Axis 2 is delivered by Natural England (NE) England Catchment Sensitive Operates within fifty priority catchments in England. The advice Farming Delivery Initiative provision is managed by Catchment Officers employed directly by (ECSFDI) 4. Natural England or the Environment Agency, who provide advice directly to farmers, run events advices on opportunities for changing practices and applying for capital grants FAS- Cross Compliance Advice Natural England manage FAS and contract to operating bodies. In Programme 5 the UK as a whole there are 13 operating bodies and 49 FTE FAS advisors, while 105 advisors could be mobilised if needed NGOs and charities, eg FWAG, These often have designated regional farm advisors to help with RSBP, GWCT, Allerton Trust, LEAF, the conservation management of farmland and also help deliver National Trust, Wildlife Trusts RDPE through contracts with Natural England Partnerships eg SW Upland Project officers to advice land holders, on a range of land Livestock Initiative, Exmoor Mire management activities Restoration Project
3.2.1.4 New players and rural networks in the AKS
The rural knowledge system has developed in a variety of different ways since privatisation. The shift away from the productivist outlook on agriculture has led to a diversified landscape of formal and newly emerging informal organisations, partnerships and networks. New coalitions of actors are pursuing different, sometimes competing, goals and this has also contributed to the proliferation of new knowledge producers and providers: NGOs, government agencies and research institutes, farmers funded organisations and cooperatives, commercial advisory agencies and consultancy as well as some successful farmers themselves are now new suppliers of information in the agricultural sector. Often these networks have emerged to fulfill a new role, providing, for example, independent research to farmers in the absence of appropriate state funded research or enabling easier access to relevant knowledge in a ‘cluttered’ AKS. A classification of new knowledge and information networks that have emerged is offered below with respect to origins (Table 5), function and scale.
4 The ECSFDI Objectives are: • Increase awareness among rural land managers and stakeholders of the impact of Diffuse Water Pollution from Agriculture (DWPA); • Improves soil and land management practices amongst farmers within Priority Catchments; • Reduces the pollution of water caused by farming within Priority Catchments. 5 The key objectives of the Cross Compliance Programme are: • To ensure a high level of farmer awareness of what Cross Compliance advice is available and how to access it; • To provide farmers with the support and guidance they need to comply with the Statutory Management Requirements (SMRs) and how to keep land in Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) at a time and a place that is convenient to them; • To provide clear best practice guidance on Cross Compliance and signpost to other sources of advice in order to minimise the incidence of cross compliance failures.
16 Origins
A distinction can be made between networks that have emerged around a common issue, connecting people with shared interests (e.g. organic farming, permaculture) and those that are artificially created to distribute/broker knowledge (e.g. enterprise gateways/hubs).
Table 5 Origins of new rural networks
Originated by users : Where there is a clear market demand to know more about innovation in new kinds of rural development and farming practices (for example, courses in sustainable energy, short food chains). Or networks that develop where a common interest emerges such as permaculture and agroforestry Originated by farmer- led Producer/farmer-led research, brokerage, and networking through membership subscription (for example, the Soil Association, British Grassland organisations: Society).
Originated from Networking around independent research centres of various scales that independent research do near-market research and KT (e.g. East Malling Research, NIAB-TAG, centres JSR Farming Group, Kingshay). Originated from rural Farmer-led rural hubs aim to help farm and rural businesses to develop businesses innovative, profitable and market-led enterprises. Originated by business These services themselves might be state services, but their role has advisory services : modified to one of brokering knowledge rather than supplying it. They therefore seek third parties to supply and consume knowledge (e.g. Rural Enterprise Gateway in the south west of England) Originated by knowledge There is a significant state interest in investing in the knowledge policies : economy which has led to policy and funding for setting up knowledge exchanges. In England these usually have been consortia of suppliers rather than consumers of knowledge (e.g. National Rural Knowledge Exchange in England) Originated from business Advisory services have grown out of (particularly) farm businesses diversification : seeking to generate income from the offer of such services (e.g. the Farm Advisory Services team in Kent). Originated from The ‘third leg’ of post school education in England is now termed educational diversification : ‘knowledge transfer’ (the first two being teaching and research) and Universities and Colleges are now selling training onto the rural knowledge market place either at full economic cost or at subsidised rates as a result of core ‘third party’ (usually state) funding (e.g. the Rural Business School in the south west of England, at Duchy College). Originated by the facility A plethora of ‘free at the point of use’ services has become available on of the internet : the internet. These tend to focus on ‘what is currently going on’ rather than what anyone might particularly what to know (e.g. RuSource). In other instances the internet is used as a dissemination mechanism by ‘knowledge agencies’. Originated by An increasingly empowered rural community sector is becoming more communities : fully informed about rural development through processes of mutual learning. The Transition University and various ‘communiversities’ provide examples of this type of knowledge network.
17 Functions and Scale
The functions of these different agricultural and rural networks are as diverse as their origins. Examples are again provided here. These functions might exist singularly or in combination within a number of different knowledge networks.
• To serve the commercial needs of particular agricultural products • To provide ‘non-commercial’ knowledge and advice for example in relation to infrastructural understandings (energy, water, etc.) or environmental imperatives • To inform about policy developments and regulatory requirements • To provide mutual learning fora
Clearly agricultural and rural knowledge networks operate at very different scales, including the virtual, international, national, regional and local. Many organisations too operate at different scales simultaneously, for example through being a local organisation within a national network. As a result advice is available to farmers through a variety of national, regional and localised initiatives (AEA 2010).
3.2.1 Governance of the AKS: main governance forms, policies, legislation, regulation
Defra’s delivery network is complex. It includes executive agencies, non departmental public bodies (Environment Agency, Natural England and Levy Boards) and public corporations, as well as other bodies such as the Forestry Commission and the National Parks Authorities (see Figure 3).
Figure 3 Defra delivery map
18 3.2.2.1 Regional arrangements
The Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) 6 deliver Axes 1, 3 and 4 of RDPE-funded activities. A Programme Monitoring Committee comprising representatives of the delivery bodies, customers and Management Authority oversees the implementation of the Programme. Imminent closure of the RDAs and the creation of Local Enterprise Partnership (LEPs) will have implications for future delivery of the RDPE. From 1 July 2011 Defra will take on the RDA’s responsibilities for delivery of Axes 1 and 3 of the RDPE and thus it will become more centralised.
Axis 2 is delivered by Natural England (NE) through a network of regional offices, and the Forestry Commission. Arrangements for Axis 2 remain unchanged and Natural England will continue to administer the RDPE-funded Environmental Stewardship Scheme and the Energy Crops Scheme and the Forestry Commission will administer the RDPE-funded English Woodland Grant Scheme.
The Environment Agency has offices based on river catchments and ECSFI is delivered at a catchment level. The Levy boards also have a regional approach. DairyCo, for example, has a regional structure of extension officers.
3.2.2.2 Governance of public good advice and programme support
Although there has been a shift to more demand-driven advice, there is still some national steering and coordination, specifically for environmental advice and support which is helping to deliver policy. This is linked to the government’s responsibilities to European and international policy and commitments such as the nitrates directive, WFD, GHG emission reductions from agriculture and CAP instruments such as cross compliance and the RDP. These underpin Defra’s nine objectives 7. Defra and its agencies (e.g. Natural England) coordinate and deliver these activities using National Contracts; National Frameworks and Industry Led Initiatives (eg CFE and VI and livestock roadmaps) (AEA 2010). These are delivered by networks of public and contracted advisors using a range of programmes and initiatives.
Contracts
A national Farm Advisory Service (FAS) was established (as required by the EU) to provide cross compliance advice and help meet targets for implementation of the new entry-level (ELS) and higher-tier (HLS) agri-environment schemes within the RDPE. Natural England manages cross compliance and contracts the running of FAS to an operating body; it also uses a contracts framework to procure training and advisory services related to ELS/HLS and to the ECSFI (see Box 2).
6 Regional development agency (RDA) is a non-departmental public body established for the purpose of development, primarily economic, of the 8 Government Office regions. RDAs are funded by central government including funds from Defra. 7 Climate Change Mitigation; Climate Change Adaptation; Nutrient Management; Water Quality; Soil Quality; Air Quality; Bio-Diversity; Farming competitiveness, performance and resilience and Environmental Stewardship
19 Box 2 Contract delivery of government advice programmes Cross Compliance Advice Programme Implementation of the Farm Advisory System has not, as in other countries, been run as a public extension service, nor linked to the existing system, instead In England, FAS is organised as a separate service facility (Ade et al 2009). The Cross Compliance Contract is managed by Natural England and AEA (previously Momenta) is the operating body (OB) which has run the Cross Compliance Advice Programme since its inception in 2005.
Natural England is in charge of overall coordination between the OB, public agencies and other bodies; this is done through regular steering meetings to decide on the workload and priorities for the coming months. In England Accreditation of OBs is also carried out so that only a limited number of advisors can provide the FAS services. FAS advisory activities tend to focus strictly on the statutory management requirements and the good agricultural and environmental conditions included in the scope of cross- compliance. The setting of SMR & GAEC farmers’ obligations are done at a central level; however, agricultural extension services and advice are devolved to regional regions. In England the target groups is farmers in Nitrogen Vulnerable Zones (NVZ).
Entry Level Stewardship (ELS) and the England Catchment Sensitive Farming Delivery Initiative (ECSFDI). The Farm Advice, Training and Information Framework Contract (FATI) has been established by Natural England to enable the procurement of farm training/advisory services during the period 2010 to 2014. Natural England lets mini-tenders for specific packages of work. These currently relate to ELS and the ECSFDI. The contractors deliver activity, which ranges from one-to-one farm-based training to farm walks and larger events to support farmers in the delivery of Natural England’s objectives for ELS and diffuse water pollution. Advisors are trained through the ELS Training and Information Programme - Defra funded programme. The ECSFDI is a joint-agency venture, managed on the ground by Defra, with advisors being drawn from Natural England and the Environment Agency. It currently operates within fifty priority catchments in England. The advice provision is managed by Catchment Officers (CSFOs) who provide advice directly to farmers. Although the programme is run through a partnership between Defra the Environment Agency and Natural England, it carries its own independent branding. Specialist advice on items like machinery maintenance and pesticide use is delivered by contractors. To support CSFOs in the delivery of advice to land managers and their advisors, a framework agreement was established in November 2006 with 13 specialist advice providers 8.
Voluntary agreements and partnerships
Defra use networks and partnerships with stakeholders from public sector, academics, NGOs and industry to implement policy, including Industry-led Initiatives like the Pesticide Voluntary Initiative and others listed in Table 6.
8 The thirteen contractors who are preferred suppliers under the framework agreement are: ADAS; AEA (Momenta); Herefordshire FWAG; Pang, Kennet and Lambourn FWAG; Promar; Farmacy; DJL Agronomics; SAC; Genix Holdings; Primum; RuralScapes; Cumbria Rural Enterprise Agency; and West Devon BIP.
20 Table 6 Voluntary agreements and partnerships used to deliver policy
Initiative Organisation and partnership The Voluntary Initiative programme Developed as an alternative to a pesticide tax, which had (industry led initiative) been under consideration by the Government, and requires a number of good practice measures to reduce the risk of pollution from pesticides. The Campaign for the Farmed Environment Administered by the National Farmers’ Union (NFU), with (CFE) several other industry stakeholders as partners (CLA, FWAG, LEAF, AIC, GWCT, AICC and CAAV). The Climate Change Task Force National Farmers’ Union, Country Land and Business Association, Agricultural Industries Confederation and supported by Defra through its Climate Change Plan (2010) worked in partnership with the agriculture sector to develop the Agricultural Industry GHG Action Plan. Livestock sector roadmaps Developed by collaborative groups to address sustainability issues within sectors. The Livestock Roadmap developed by DairyCo and EBLEX aims to give guidelines to livestock farmers to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions Farming Futures Communications collaboration between the Agricultural Industries Confederation, the AHDB Research Forum, the Country Land and Business Association, Defra, Forum for the Future, the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group, Linking Farm and the Environment and the NFU. single source for information on climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions for agriculture. It, importantly, includes information specifically aimed at advisors.
Interestingly the interviews (RSPB and NFU) suggested that not many farmers engage with these partnerships and this is because farmers do not tend to get it from partnership like the CFE or Farming Futures, even if it is set up by the CLA and NFU. Instead they get their advice from recognised advisors like land agents and agronomists. At the catchment level, the partnership model has become very popular. For example, Parrett Catchment Partnership has 30 partners and aims to tackle conflicts between land and water management activities throughout the river’s catchment to resolve flooding problems which has EU JAF funding and stakeholder funding. Intermediaries such as trade associations, agricultural producers (for instance feed companies), vets and demonstration farms or ‘Champions’ are also used to promote the initiatively as widely as possible. The variety and extent of partnership working through subcontracts, sponsorship, commercial and non-commercial agreements suggests that this is an established route for a number of organisations wishing to influence farmers. Such partnerships enable consortia to make use of skills not present within their own organisations, to extend their range geographically and to take advantage of alternative and match-funding opportunities (AEA 2010).
3.2.2.3 Policies
21 Defra as the lead department make policy and legislation, and work with others to deliver policies in - areas such as: • the natural environment, biodiversity, plants and animals • sustainable development and the green economy • food, farming and fisheries • animal health and welfare • environmental protection and pollution control • rural communities and issues
According to Defra’s Busines Plan (2011) the structural reform priorities of the coalition are: 1. Support and develop British farming and encourage sustainable food production • Help to enhance the competitiveness and resilience of the whole food chain, including farms and the fish industry, to help ensure a secure, environmentally sustainable and healthy supply of food with improved standards of animal welfare
2. Help to enhance the environment and biodiversity to improve quality of life • Enhance and protect the natural environment, including biodiversity and the marine environment, by reducing pollution, mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, and preventing habitat loss and degradation
3. Support a strong and sustainable green economy, resilient to climate change • Help to create the conditions in which businesses can innovate, invest and grow; encourage businesses, people and communities to manage and use natural resources sustainably and to reduce waste; work to ensure that the UK economy is resilient to climate change; and enhance rural communities
Underpinning rural delivery are two explicit strands in UK government policy, firstly, not to provide support where it is more appropriate for it to come from the private sector and, secondly, to keep regulation to a minimum.
3.2.2.4 Regulation
Although the government intends to keep regulation to a minimum EU legislation has inevitably meant an increase in regulation and red-tape for many land managers (Garforth et al 2002). A recent government Task Force on Farming Regulation report (McDonald et al 2011) recognises this and has recommended stream lining to reduce the burden on farmers with a view to changing from bureaucracy to responsibility and partnership. The government’s and industry’s preference for using partnerships and voluntary initiatives such as VI and CFE and Road Maps (see above) has been considered a successful alternative to regulation.
The Rural Payments Agency (RPA), an Executive Agency of Defra, makes Common Agricultural Policy support payments, traces livestock and carries out inspections and is responsible for the enforcement of the EC Marketing Standards for fresh fruit and vegetables throughout England and Wales. Defra’s Codes for Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water, Soil and Air and Defra’s Code of Practice for Using Plant Protection Products provide guidelines for land
22 managers on meeting regulatory requirements. Regulations are audited under cross compliance and breaches are reported to the RPA.
Defra’s Whole Farm Approach provides one point of access (an information hub) for regulatory information and forms. It is coordinated by Defra, with inputs from other industry bodies (Animal Health Agency, English Heritage, Environment Agency, Food Standards Agency, Health & Safety Executive, National Farmers Union, Natural England, Rural Payments Agency and Gangmasters Licensing Authority). The aim of the WFA is “ to lighten the regulatory burden, reduce the number of duplicate requests for information, and offer innovative and efficient ways of working online ”. This is primarily an online service, and so it does not have a large network of advisors delivering advice on-farm. The WFA’s budget was recently reduced from £12 million/year to £8 million/year.
3.2.3 Financial steering sources: funding sources, funding modalities
3.2.3.1 Research Funding
As indicated above the BBSRC and Defra (Box 1) are the main funders of agri-food research activities. In the public sector the Government spend on agri-food research in 2008/09 was estimated as £415m. BBSRC is the highest funder, given its responsibility for underpinning and strategic research in agriculture and food. The Technology Strategy Board has made a commitment of £10m per annum towards a Sustainable Agriculture and Food Innovation Platform, with co-funding from Defra and BBSRC.
The ‘levy boards’ fund near market research. AHDB is wholly funded by a statutory levy (a parafiscal tax) paid by producers, growers and processors and AHDB is responsible for the collection of all levies. There are also a number of commercial subsidiaries within the AHDB group. Collectively, taking both the levy-funded and commercial operations plus grants, AHDB has an income in excess of £50 million. DairyCo for example is funded by levy (0.06p per litre) and covers GB. The annual spend is about £7 million.
There are a number of public –private collaborative research programmes. Defra provides match funds to support research and innovation within the agri-food sector, for example the Sustainable Agriculture and Food Innovation Platform and Farming and Food Science LINK programmes. Organisations throughout the food chain including retailers, processors, and input suppliers are all involved to some extent in knowledge production and dissemination. However according to the Government Office for Science (2010) spend by the private sector on research is low overall in Europe, with Research and Development (R&D) accounting for only 0.24% of total food industry expenditure across the EU15 in 2004. The UK food processing sector encompasses a small number of very large food companies and numerous smaller firms. The 21 largest UK food producer and processor companies spend an average of 1.4 % of sales on R&D, although the majority of spending is from one large company. There are examples of private investment in research by retailers for example Waitrose has seed funded the Centre of Excellence for UK Farming and Food Supply (CEUKF) an initiative set up by two founding partner institutes (IBERS at Aberystwyth University and NIAB-TAG based in Cambridge).
23 3.2.3.2 Advisory services funding
Centralised funding includes national programmes funded by Central Government through public funds and from European funds such as the RDPE. There is also funding for advice through public sector bodies at a regional and local level. Input into advice from the private sector comes from retail, agricultural chemicals and utilities companies.
National farm advice services (FAS) are funded through the RDPE 9 including the Cross Compliance Advice Programme (Grant In Aid funded from Defra), some elements of the England Catchment Sensitive Farming Delivery Initiative (ECSFDI) and Environmental Stewardship Training and Information Programme (ETIP). FAS group events are free to users, as is the literature produced to support compliance with statutory requirements. With respect to cost at present there is no comprehensive assessment of what member sates have invested in setting- up and running the FAS (Ade et al 2010).
Axis 1 RDP funding is currently managed by the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) (these regional funding arrangements are subject to change following recent announcements regarding the future of RDAs). The RDPE also funds the Energy Crops Scheme and the Forestry Commission distributes RDPE funds through the English Woodland Grant Scheme, which offers funding to establish and maintain woodland.
Natural England is funded by Defra through Grant In Aid. It also receives co-financing funding (for instance, CAP funds) from the European Union via the Exchequer for administering delivery of various Defra / EU schemes including advice. For instance, voluntary modulation spent on Axis 2 measures are co-financed at an EU:national ratio of 60:40. The total core grant allocated to Natural England for 2008/09 was £219m (of which £175m was grant in aid). Additional income received from Defra over and above the core grant was £18.4m.
Table 7 Funding for extension
Providing extension Public provision Private provision
FAS contracts with Online delivery eg Whole Public finance providers coordinated Farm Approach through Natural England Financing extension Consultancies, agro- Cost-recovery by chemical companies, Private finance government agents merchants ect advice package
1.1.1 Linkages in AKS : relations within AKS and between AKS actors and the broader Agricultural Innovation System (AIS)
9 The Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE) is a £3.9bn programme of funding
24 3.2.4.1 Vertical linkages: Research translation
As discussed, vertically, the relationship between the different levels in the English AKS became weak and fragmented after privatisation (Winter et al., 2001), with inadequate mechanisms for the delivery of research outputs (either as new knowledge or new technologies) to farmers through demonstration or via advisors, trainers and educationalists. There is a sense that this fragmentation has detrimentally affected the flow of knowledge in both sustainable agriculture and commercial contexts.
With respect to sustainable agriculture, some areas are thought to have weaker mechanisms, for example the Soil Association (2011) has identified weak knowledge transfer (KT) within the organic farming sector in England compared to its European neighbours. The Sustain interview respondent argued that research with a sustainable ethos tends to be more ad hoc and diffuse, pursued by enthusiasts. Linkages between research and practice often stem from research activities funded by Defra whereby research contractors have to demonstrate a knowledge exchange component. This issue is discussed further in section 4.2.2
However at the same time achieving effective KT within conventional agricultural sectors has been a concern as, it is argued, this has been compounded by a shift in publicly funded R&D away from production-oriented science and technology towards science designed to deal with concerns over environmental issues, animal welfare and food safety, which hold little attraction for commercial application (Winter et al., 2001). Today there is still a prevailing assumption that many producers are not benefiting from the wealth of scientific research undertaken and that improved KT activities will help translate science and improve productivity and other kinds of performance. This has been raised as a particular concern in the light of emerging food security challenges. Reports on the innovation of new technologies and their translation to farmers in different sectors, for example, the Cross-Government Strategy for Food Research and Innovation (Government Office for Science 2010), Taylor Review (2010) 10 and the NFU’s campaign Why Science Matters NFU (2008) all call on decision-makers to recognise the importance of productive and efficient farming as a goal for scientific R&D. The weaknesses of KT has become a refrain for those who advocate self sufficiency in UK food production (eg The Commercial Farmers Group, 2008).
With respect to UK’s land-based college network, whilst the consultation on the BBSRC Strategy gives due regard to the strength of the college network, the response from one college, Harper Adams, argues that there remains an untapped potential of this network to support technical translation and connection of researchers with users (Harper Adams, 2010). This potential was also recognised in the 2007 HEFCE Review of Provision for Land-based Studies.
The consolidation of public research organisations involved in agriculture and food research and KT some feel this has weakened the government’s research capacity and research in the context of food production (Food Research Partnership FRP 2009). Consequences of the consolidation and reorganisation of the research infrastructure have included the loss of long-standing expertise and scientific support staff, and uncertainty over the distribution of responsibilities 10 Carried out for the Conservative party, this is concerned with the effective use of agricultural science and has made a number of recommendations which are currently being reviewed by the coalition government
25 and information (Tatchell 2005). There is also a sense that in the arable sector the emergence of molecular genetics and the use of model plant systems has resulted in a shift away from whole organism research and field-based experimentation resulting in the generation of a different form of knowledge to that produced previously which had more relevance to practical farming (Tatchell 2005).
A number of observers have commented on the disconnection of the ‘knowledge/R&D supply chain’ in the land-based industries (Harper Adams, 2010). This observation concerns the perception that different parts of the public sector operate too separately, because of their distinct forms of core funding. Promotion of better communication and cooperation among the different research communities in Research Council, Government and institutes, and universities is thought to be critical.
There have been calls for funding of research to be more coherent, with less fragmentation and a shift from solely short-term funding horizons to some longer-term and more strategic support frameworks, which monitor change and identify trends. In the absence of long-term strategies on the part of funders and providers alike, there is recognition that research will tend to focus on more immediate objectives linked to individual projects. There is awareness that a risk that long-term research and policy goals will be compromised and that capability to research, monitor and provide emergency response in areas like animal health and welfare, sustainable farming and land use will be eroded. This is something which the Government Office for Science strategy wishes to address (Government Office for Science 2010).
In contrast to publicly funded research, commercial research carried out within highly integrated food supply chains such as poultry, wheat and horticulture is market-led and the outcomes are translated quickly to producers. In some sectors there is close working between universities and private bodies. For example, as a group, FS are well linked with university Veterinary departments and because of their professional and vocational nature much of their research is sector driven.
The perspective of all interview respondents was that knowledge generation is a complex issue. The RAC felt that ‘Blue Skies’ university research did not necessarily have a short term market but offered considerable potential long term value. More applied research did need to be disseminated and it was in this area that some uncertainties lay. Defra felt that outside of ‘Blue Skies’ science, much ‘public’ research was concerned with developing non-market issues such as environmental impact, which in turn informed policy. This does not necessarily disseminate quickly to farmers. DC, as one of the levy boards, stressed that there are different categories of research which are near or far from the market and not all research outputs are suitable for or designed to be taken on by farmers hence you need interpreters like DairyCo. There is a belief that fundamental research is needed to underpin applied research (e.g. bio-ethanol production needs a mix, you cannot just go straight to applied research) and that there is probably not enough awareness that fundamental research often takes a long time. P2P said that in the commercial world, as in the dairy industry, advances in nutrition, fertility, genetics have been key drivers in increasing production and farmers have tapped into these.
NFU suggested that there is now a realisation that food production research and KT has been under funded, current interest is just redressing the balance. They felt that most of Defra spending on agricultural research over the past years although significant was mostly on
26 ancillary aspects (environment) rather than on food production. However Sustain felt that the proportion of knowledge generation (research) which was about increasing output, was not necessarily good practice in sustainable development terms.
The levy boards have a role in applied research, but some felt their role currently is confused, although farmers do listen to the levy boards, as ultimately, they are paying for the service. It was felt that DairyCo were doing a good job but that they had to be ‘all things to all people’. Previously the research they carried out did not always reflect farmers’ needs but they have changed and become more effective. Research is becoming more demand driven according to the interviewees. SW felt universities and research institutes are having to be more market oriented in providing people the things that they want. It was suggested that there are more ‘commercial’ sources of funding for research now (such as GWR in the SW) that require market relevance before funds are released.
Linkage mechanisms
A diverse range of linkage mechanisms are used to connect the AKS vertically. Online portals enable widespread dissemination, for example for national coverage Defra uses online services, the Whole Farm Approach is an online resource helping farmers access information on regulation and other areas of advice. The farming press is also used by public and private AKS actors to reach a wide audience. FAS contractors use group events (see Box 3 for an example ), the private sector offer farm visits from consultants and agronomists which farmers pay for, while charities and trusts offer farm walks, demonstration farms and farm visits with a range of payment options. The importance of on-farm advice has been identified in many UK contexts (Junti and Potter 2000; Ingram 2008; AEA 2010) and emphasised by the RSPB respondent. The levy sectors, each of which has a KT team, use a number of mechanisms including demonstration farms, publications, newsletters, webs sites and in some cases (eg DairyCo) extension officers.
Training events are provided by a number of bodies. A number of farmers and advisors attend to obtain CPD points. FS note that in their market the short one or two day courses seem more valuable to farmers than longer qualification-based courses. For farm training FS is exploring the potential of on line learning, but this is inhibited by slow broadband and limited internet access, although it is an option for the future.
BOX 3 Delivering FAS in England In England small group advice on the farm as has been the sole approach used to deliver FAS services, as distinct from the other member states who have used on-farm one-to-one advice. Drop-in clinic/open days, workshops and farm walks have been used to enhance exchanges between farmers, or to focus on specific problematic SMR. The topic depends largely on the geographic area, covering sector specific and general requirements of cross compliance. The audience is targeted using Defra statistics with approx. 1000 mailshots for each farm walk (25 farmers) as well as through the cross compliance website and press articles. These small groups mobilise up to 40 farmers each and are advertised to farmers. The advice is free to farmers. In the England there were 212 small groups organised in 2008 allowing almost 8,000 (out of 106.500 number of farmes receiving direct payments in 2007) farmers to be advised. Since the FAS implementation (2005), a total of 1,114 small groups have been organised totalling 36,857 farmers reached. This represents an outreach of almost 35%.
27 State initiated approaches to communication and implementation have become more participatory recently and aim to involve stakeholders. One example is the Defra funded Demonstration Test Catchments which aim to employ participatory knowledge exchange mechanisms to engage land owners in helping to reduce diffuse pollution from agriculture. Farmer participation in monitoring water quality has also been piloted (Entec 2010).
The role of member organisations in linkage is also important. For example in education Landex represents land based member colleges and work with their staff to enhance the quality of teaching and learning. It acts to maintain and enhance dialogue with industry, government departments, funding bodies and other agencies and organisations including close contacts with: Lantra: Learning and Skills Council; Learning and Skills Improvement Service, DEFRA, etc.
3.2.4.2 Horizontal linkages Policy level At this level there are number of cross-sector or Cross government strategies eg AgriSkills Strategy and the Strategy for Food Research and Innovation. Within Research As already noted the research and innovation ‘landscape’ is horizontally diverse. Communication horizontally within the research community in terms of partnership working has been described as difficult because of different funding streams, complex nature of the knowledge landscape, and the difficulty of identifying the motivations and associated resources that might promote more partnership within such a complex picture. Harper Adams (2010) argues that effective consortia and partnerships require specific funding in order to release staff time, and to validate collaboration as an activity. Currently there is no BBSRC funding to promote such institutional collaboration across the rural knowledge/R&D supply chain. There are however cross research council linkages and the research councils are working together through cross-government programmes focused on major global challenges, such as food security and climate change. The programmes include non-Council partners (for example, 21 partners in the case of Living With Environmental Change) and involve interdisciplinary research and policy partnerships with Government departments. Within training According to FS co-ordination across the farmer skills and training market does occur; however, this tends to take place outside of government itself even though some government funding does go into it. There is a need for some central pulling together Within Advice As noted earlier, privatisation resulted in horizontal fragmentation with the proliferation of advisors and the development of diverse and complex advice landscape. Within the public arena, Defra recognises that the fragmented nature of all its advice streams (developed to deliver its nine key objectives described earlier) can act as barrier to uptake. The range of advice provided is believed to be high quality, however the fragmented advisory landscape has been a concern to stakeholders and there is a potential for increasing synergies and consistency to deliver a range of policy outcomes. There is recognition that an integrated
28 approach to tackling environmental issues alongside the business needs of farmers may better meet the needs of farmers and provide improved value for money. Research suggests that perceived contradictions in government policy (competitiveness, food security and environmental sustainability) can lead to confusion and can act as a barrier to uptake of improved farm management practices. In response, Defra has instigated the Integrated Advice Project in an attempt to integrate its advice streams (Adas et al 2011).
Within the FAS there are arrangements to ensure linkages through specialised panels. In England, regular (at least biannual) meetings are organised through a special panel between the key bodies involved to report on progress and discuss priorities. This Panel includes AEA (the consortium contractor), Defra, Natural England and the inspection bodies. AEA is tasked with ensuring there is coordination with the events of other agencies and within its members.
The recent review carried out by AEA (2010) found that communications between advice programme was poor and recommended that a common portal or interface be established. It was noted in the interviews that organisations operating in the AKS do not integrate their advice with other advice streams, the NT for example operates in a ‘closed system’ although acknowledge it would benefit from interacting with other initiatives. P2P acknowledge that they are very focused and do not consider other advice or regulation streams. This also was apparent from other organisations that specialise and do not operate in the wider context.
Brokers These new actors in the AKS in England function as mediators or gateways between farmers with a specific knowledge demand and the many sources of information. As noted in Table 5 these are often new knowledge networks, examples include Country Rural Hubs which are often established by rural farmes or businesses and draw money from RDAs. In addition there are National Rural Knowledge Exchange in England– 14 university consortia developed National Rural Portal, 22 Centres of Excellence in work between Universities, Business and the Community, were funded by HEFCE in 2004 to put rural businesses and organisations in touch with university and college services and promoted networks with rural development bodies for successful knowledge transfer in the land-based and rural sectors. Funding has stopped but an online service - the National Rural Directory, has been retained. There are also numerous on line brokers such as RuSource, which act as sources of information. A number of organisations also provide online portals of information, actors such as the NFU provide a brokerage service but emphasise that they providers of information, not advice.
In the interviews, according to the SW respondent, Rural Enterprise Solutions at Plymouth University is a good example of a sub-regional hub for the filtering and passing on of information to rural businesses. The Rural Enterprise Gateway had been successful before it. However, it was pointed out that all of these ‘brokers’ or intermediaries are subject to the vulnerabilities of short term funding. Also that, it is only ‘engaged’ farmers that make active use of these kinds of facilities, something the NFU respondent also noted about the portal Farming Futures . There is therefore, SW argued, a real need for ‘intermediaries’, a need to align different information sources and people with different information values for example, the renewable energy people, the soil association and the NFU all give slightly different messages and these need harmonising for the information consumer, the farmer. SW believe that the information gateway needs narrowing as the diverse set of origins of information is a real problem for most people including information brokers because it is often difficult to judge its impartiality and
29 reliability. A national system would collate this, filter it and distribute it wisely, a process that does not operate currently. Universities and research establishments still provide the information but what is lacking is the resource to organise and prioritise this information and indeed quality assure it. SW therefore felt that information brokerage role is critical but is missing at the moment. These issues are discussed further in section 4.
Garforth et al (2003) recommended that the government (Defra) should not try to bring advice under one roof and manage the whole information system, but instead to play an important brokerage role. This includes identifying market failures and gaps in public goods and public interest provision which can be plugged in various ways - including contracting private sector providers. The recent AES (2010) review suggested that knowledge management system as a central portal for government advice across all the regions would be a useful tool.
3.2.5 Characteristics of knowledge in the AKS and their impact on knowledge consumption
The consequences of the changes in the AKS are summarised in Box 4. All of these characteristics have led, in England at least, to a degree of animosity amongst knowledge consumers. They are less clear about where to go in search of knowledge and information, less able to afford it when it has to be paid for at point of use, less sure about which information is of greatest importance to them and invariably unclear about the quality of advice being offered or the standards of the organisations offering it. Quite a lot of supply was impermanent – the market would not support the number of suppliers or funding initiatives to set up new supply functions was for fixed time period. This ‘crowded’, and for the knowledge consumer, ‘confused’ market place is sometimes termed an ‘information fog’.
Box 4 Characteristics of knowledge in the current AKS Diffusion Rural knowledge has been generated and transmitted by a much larger number and type of organisation. This has been confusing to knowledge consumers. Diversity and plurality have led to duplication, lack of coherence and poor communication between actors/institutions at the same level.
Laissez faire -ness As the rural knowledge market became deregulated from the late 1980s, there was much more opportunity to enter into the supply side of the knowledge market. Ease of entry and exit meant that a greater number of suppliers entered the market (some only temporarily), and the quality of the knowledge product became more uncertain. There was no uniform or comprehensive quality assurance in the unregulated market.
Commoditisation Agricultural/rural knowledge has become a market commodity, based on ability to pay rather than need. Some suggest that this weakens the ability to develop knowledge systems that necessarily conform to policy, which has significant non-market elements. It also limits knowledge to the market functions of rural economies and societies and leads to an under-provision of non-market knowledge.
Broadening : With the development of a laissez faire market in rural knowledge, the knowledge offer broadened (from agricultural to rural, for example) and this made the conformity of rural knowledge to the pursuit of the achievement of state policy harder to secure. Land managers were expected to contribute to a complex range of functions including diversifying the rural economy and delivering environmental quality; with knowledge providers responding to this.
30 Concerns expressed about the uncertain quality of information were shared by a number of interviewees. The RAC felt that the dissemination process was complicated by its ‘ unregulated’ nature where the quality of information was becoming increasingly hard to gauge with confidence. Loss of trust in suppliers where claims for their products are not borne out by performance is also a barrier to uptake, and leads to a lack of independent quality control in agricultural knowledge markets according to P2P who said there are ‘too many people trying to sell stuff with their own interests at heart’. With respect to the quality of farm advice some however assert that paying for it improves the quality of knowledge, as paying means being more discerning and more demanding, thus competition becomes based on quality. Concerns were expressed at the workshop about the quality of organic advice which is unregulated and no longer provided by advisors working for the Organic Research Centre due to withdrawal of funding for OCIS. The Curry report (Defra 2002) described the services such as the Farm Business Advice as well as being fragmented were also of variable quality.
Like other interviewees NFU felt there were too many advice streams and that a more integrated approach was needed. Defra’s new IAP was welcomed but it was felt that it was disappointing in that it was focused on training rather than advice integration. NFU and NT agreed that farmers receive a plethora of information and that it is difficult for farmers to know what the important things are. Farmers have to find a balance between all the demands and run a business, so they will prioritise information that supports the business side. NE agreed that for customers it is difficult to penetrate the services that are on offer, as it is quite a ‘cluttered delivery field’. NT also pointed out that there is ‘initiative overload’, and that there is little sense of using information from past projects and always a focus on new projects. NT said ‘We need to be smarter at existing information and linking it together - there is a need to integrate and streamline’. This was one of the key outcomes from a recent review of advice (AEA 2010).
It is argued in the literature however that, while integration of advice is favoured, it should not be pursued at expense of diversity Garforth et al (2003); as land managers need different types of information at different times with differing degrees of detail and prescription, diversity of services and means of delivery is a positive feature. There is a view that with the individuality of farmers and their practices, a pluralistic array of providers is exactly what is needed. Garforth et al. (2003) concluded from a review of sixteen case studies (mostly from UK), that the current needs of both governments and land managers can be met by a diverse mixture of private and public sector provision. Several of the interviews, although they recognized a fragmented landscape of information, agreed that this was not necessarily bad since individuals could find advice tailored o their own needs. Garforth et al (2003) state that in the debate in England about provision of advisory services, integration can be said to cover the need for:
• synergy between business oriented advice and environmentally oriented advice; • improved links and continuity between research, advice and training; • diminished fragmentation in geographic coverage and content of services; • seamless delivery of the various government advice programmes – for example planning advice, conservation advice and farm business advice.
With respect to the commoditisation of knowledge, a number of the interviewees are aware that markets will drive information demands from farmers. The RAC and FS operate fully in the marketplace: it exists to make money. It delivers the advice that people ask for and spends some time trying to identify what this is. It is unlikely that RAC and FS would put courses on in
31 sustainable agriculture specifically if there is no market demand or funding for them. FS say they are market responsive rather than sustainable agriculture champions Funding comes from either government if RAC wants the training doing, or from the client. This can be difficult as farmers are reluctant to pay full costs and are often too busy for training. In RAC’s view on-farm advice is now too expensive to be worth doing. FM are also oriented towards the marketplace, providing information to consumers although they are also involved in the supply side (urban/peri-urban). SW help food processers with advice downstream of food producers largely because farmers seem to be able to get information through other sources. P2P and FS are also oriented towards the market, both offering advice to farmers operating in a competitive environment eg the dairy industry.
According to the literature expropriation of knowledge by technical elites is a feature of the new AKS. Slee (2005) argues that the process of quasi privatisation has resulted in the privatisation of knowledge and encouraged a dependency culture. This concern has also been expressed in recent workshops attended by one of the report authors (Adas et al 2011). Slee (2005) also offers the view that an overly productivist view of sectoral adjustment needs in farming has done little to benefit farmers and a great deal to benefit input advisors and processors because supply increases put downward pressure on primary producers’ prices. Farmers developed alternative practices and innovations is therefore arguably not in the industry’s interest as it would break these dependencies/cycles.
2. Agricultural and rural development trends: changes in knowledge needs and demands on AKS
2.1 Main societal trends in relation to agriculture and rural development
4.1.1 Analysis of societal trends and drivers
A number of reports have evaluated drivers for change in agriculture and rural development In the UK and globally, most notably the Final Report of the Foresight Global Food and Farming Futures project (Government Office for Science, 2011). This project identified the following key drivers: global population increases; changes in the size and nature of per capita demand; future governance of the food system at both national and international levels; climate change; competition for key resources; and changes in values and ethical stances of consumers. With respect to the agricultural skills sector, eight drivers for change were identified in a survey of employers in the land based and environmental industries across the rural economy in UK: economic conditions, labour supply, climate change/low carbon economy, food safety and security, animal health and welfare, energy, fuel and security, health and safety, and technological development (Lantra 2011). The report went on to look at the impact on skills and business requirements in the sector. These are reproduced in Appendix 4. With respect to social trends the CCRI team assessed these by reflecting on the question “what changes in or to society are likely to have an impact on the kinds of knowledge that a sustainable agriculture will need (see Appendix 5 and the discussion below).
32 2.2 Implications of trends for AKS in terms of knowledge supply and demand
4.2.1 Trends in relation to sustainable agriculture and implications
The interviewees commented on past trends in the agricultural industry and their impacts. A number highlighted restructuring in the farming industry in response to a number of drivers, the outcome of which has been a decrease in small farms and the increase in larger more commercial ones over the last 20 years. A further trend identified by the CCRI team was an ageing farming population. These trends have changed the extent and structure of the demand for KT. The NFU respondent interviewed for this study thought that farmers have been growing more aware of the market and are trying to become more competitive.
According to Garforth et al (2003), farmers’ changing requirements for information in a more competitive and restructured industry has also had an impact on how advice is provided. Farmers need to compete and in terms of advice provision there has been a shift in emphasis from supply driven to demand driven systems, with recognition that farmers are at the centre of their own information management system and need information adapted to their own needs. In a sense these trends suggest farmers have become more powerful and in control of knowledge acquisition. Land managers also require a higher level of specialised knowledge to manage their businesses effectively, particularly as farms are increasingly producing for a market. This therefore requires greater attention to detail. In the interviews the NFU felt it was strange that England had no public extension systems unlike other European countries, but accepted that a specialist private service was fulfilling a need, as did the Defra interviewee who thought this was acceptable and effective in a quickly changing knowledge environment.
The growing power of food retailers was noted by the CCRI team and the impact of this issue on farm gate prices and quality control was explored by respondents. From DC’s perspective, there have been restrictions on milk quality and a lot more focus on sustainability and a change in market demands. The development of alternative food systems was noted by the CCRI team and a number of respondents also highlighted this trend. FM recognised that a strong alternative food network had developed over the last 15 to 20 years, but that there was a dichotomy with these sorts of developments and traditional farms, with implications for advice.
With relation to the AKS and knowledge requirements there was a general belief that the internet had had a wide impact, with farmers now in a position to undertake their own research and not rely on specialists. The NT respondent was cautious about this development, however, saying that the internet can give a false sense of information. The workshop confirmed that new media sources of advice were favoured by some farmers who had little time to attend events. DC recognised an increasing awareness of research and activities in other countries (accessed through the internet and global food companies) from North America, New Zealand and Ireland. The NFU noted an increasing reliance on IT and farmers’ acceptance of it as a means of getting information.
For the future of the English AKS, RAC thought that farming was likely to become more collaborative, increasing the capacity for information consumption for farm groups. From NT’s viewpoint they see many future demands, including the need for more productivity from a very finite area of land, with lots of competition for resources, as well as trying to make agriculture
33 multi-functional. As a result, they argued that the advisory services will have to improve significantly to achieve better environmental performance and agricultural productivity . FM was of the opinion that there will continue to be an increase in ‘hobby’ farming, populated by those more keen to take on new information to develop their hobby.
However, the workshop participants thought that a more competitive industry would lead to more business-oriented farms and less lifestyle farms. In the future FM would hope to see more partnerships between landowners and small farmers who want to farm sustainably and on a smaller scale. With respect to conventional production, the CCRI team felt that development of sustainable intensification , a response to food security concerns, will encourage producers to increase and intensify production but in a manner that is resource efficient. There will be emphasis on using biotechnologies to increase agricultural productivity, including increased discussions about the potential for genetic modification.
The NE respondent pointed out that with impending reform of the CAP and a new RDPE, help and advice will be needed to ensure that any change is implemented as effectively as possible. The next CAP may include a lot about low-carbon farming and farmers at present may not truly appreciate the impact that this development is going to have. In NE’s opinion such a big change in policy would mean a need for advice, possibly state-funded advice, or using a different model of the state-funded element managing contracts delivered by local, credible advisors. The CCRI team also noted that continuing reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy will be significant, particularly in relation to the balance between food production, more broadly based rural development and environmental considerations (and their regulatory basis).
4.2.2 Factors affecting the promotion of innovation in sustainable agriculture: gaps and barriers
4.2.2.1 Policy ambition
In the interviews the Sustain representative was frustrated by the lack of serious policy ambition demonstrated by the UK government for sustainable agriculture. It was felt that England was lagging behind much of the rest of Europe in this respect. Sustain sees barriers in not applying public policy principles for sustainable agriculture right through the food chain. Public food procurement, for example, should reflect sustainable food production principles. This would give farmers an incentive to learn more about it. RSPB pointed out that the objectives Defra have for agriculture and the environmental delivery of agriculture are not joined up and are often contradictory. For them, the biggest hurdle is that Defra’s environmental objectives have to be matched with smart incentives and/or regulations in terms of making the best use of the incentives so that the best environmental outcomes can be achieved.
4.2.2.2 Different approaches to sustainability
The respondents all expressed different views on sustainable agriculture and where it fitted in their delivery. Sustain and NT stated that sustainability principles are embedded, or are part of their underlying rationale. RSPB and NE approaches are also underpinned by sustainable farming. RAC and FS in contrast respond to the market place with their courses and thought it unlikely they would deliver courses on sustainability as no one was willing to pay for these. The
34 Defra respondent (LINK) expressed a principal focus on food production rather than sustainable production in particular but pointed out that they fostered practices that were financially sustainable (pointing again to the importance of market viability). Those providing near market research like Defra (LINK), the NFU and P2P conflate profitable farming with sustainable farming and see the two issues as inseparable. Their approach is one of sustainable intensification but from the standpoint that the business remains sustainable.
4.2.2.3 Appropriate advisory services
In the context of sustainable agriculture, following the 2001 FMD outbreak and the reform of the CAP in 2002, there was concern that arrangements for advisory services for land managers were inadequate to the task of ensuring farmers have access to advice that will enable them to make decisions compatible with policies for sustainable agriculture, nor to meet the challenges of a reformed CAP (Cabinet Office 2002; Defra 2002). Although Winter et al (2001) found that there was an improvement in farmers’ awareness of environmental and associated issues from 1995 to 2001 11 there was still evidently a gap in provision and understanding in the agri- environment context. Since then a new FAS has been introduced, as described above, however, there is little evidence in the literature of whether this is helping to support a transition to more sustainable agriculture.
Research carried out in the UK in areas such as organic farming and minimum tillage have shown that support for these alternative innovative practices from formal research, advisory and policy community was initially weak (Padel 2000). In the case of minimum tillage, the advisory community has been unsupportive and sometimes critical. It has been argued too that the advisory community has lacked the appropriate technical knowledge to support farmers’ transition to reduced tillage (Davies and Finney, 2002; Ingram 2010). Consequently the main thrust of support for organic farming and reduced tillage has been from the farmers themselves, at least in the early stages of development. For specialist activities such as organic farming, some specialist advisors are available through Elm Farm Research Centre and through consultants like Abacus Organic Associates, independent consultants who work together on a co-operative basis.
In the interviews FM agreed with the above perspective, saying that non conventional farmers are not catered for well by Defra and get more of their information from the NGO sector (e.g. the Soil Association, Elm Farm and networks created around these organisations). However, Sustain felt that farmers who were committed to sustainable agriculture were well networked with each other and with organisations that provided information of relevance to them. They also interact with institutions as standards are set by various certification processes. With respect to data on advice on non-conventional farming (innovations) a recent survey found that there are relatively low levels of advice relating to energy efficiency, particularly of farm vehicles, machinery and processes, carbon storage through new woodland planting and slowing peat degradation, energy crops, carbon calculator tools and carbon footprinting (AEA 2010). However, the report concluded that some elements of GHG emissions advice were well catered 11 Attributed to an increasing emphasis on quality assurance schemes, a rise in demand for organic food and a rise demand for local foods ; the Agenda 2000 CAP reform and the emergence of the Rural Development Regulation as the second pillar of the CAP; the government’s commitment to an increased spend on agri-environmental schemes within the RDR
35 for and recommended that if carbon mitigation advice was to be provided it should be integrated into current advice programmes.
One concern raised by RSPB, however, was that farmers are being asked to consider a range of environmental objectives and often the information is not very well thought through. For example, farmers are been told to consider climate change mitigation but there is little supporting scientific evidence about the best mitigation options. There have also been questions around making the advice and the programmes such as LES effective. RSPB said that with ELS farmers got a range of choices but no one explains to them how to use the options. They have since tried to put in place an ELS training and events programme but the interviewee was not convinced about the effectiveness of the training provided. Lobley et al (2011) found that farmer participation in bespoke group training events can fill knowledge gaps, equip farmers with a range of management skills, improve confidence and engender a more professionalised approach to agri-environmental management.
The NE respondent however reported that there is now a bigger advice package around ELS. Although it is voluntary and non-competitive, they recognise that they do need to provide advice to ensure that they have got the best environmental outcomes, and that farmers are choosing the most appropriate options'. There is a different mode of delivery between HLS and ELS. It was asserted that NE do not just offer advice to farmers, they offer advice through a range of programmes to agents and external advisers, because they see that as absolutely critical in building up awareness of the importance of, not just the schemes themselves, but the importance of sustainable farming.
4.2.2.4 Making advice appropriate to the farm business
According to respondents, the main barrier to dissemination of messages about sustainable agriculture in general is that most farmers cannot see why they should, or need to, adopt sustainable principles. SW felt that there is a great exhortation from government but there needs to be a stronger message to farmers as to why they should take part in sustainable agriculture. This does not appear to be clear enough to them yet; nor whether the state will fund income foregone if they adopt it. NE pointed out that there has probably been a lack of hard evidence which shows that sustainable agricultural practices are in farmers’ commercial interests. Interviewee and workshop participants argued that if this could be provided it would motivate farmers. NE identified a lack of technology transfer or research application through demonstration to the farming community. Previously experimental husbandry farms allowed farmers to see the application of the research and development. Defra feels that there are barriers if farmers cannot see demonstrable outcomes to the information provided (this is a particular problem in respect of environmental information).
Currently any environmental advice is delivered against a backdrop of economically driven advice from agronomists and consultants who have a different agenda making, as RSPB noted, environmental advice ‘a lost leader’. Most farmers from an arable farming perspective will listen to their agronomist but the environmental advice from an agronomist may not be towards the best environmental delivery but steered more towards helping the farmer get the best financial outcome. It is estimated that 75% of ELS agreements were not filled in by the farmer but by their land agent or agronomist. These intermediaries have a very significant role and influence.
36 NFU and P2P emphasise the importance of linking sustainable information to business and market information. SW agreed and argued that many farmers and food processors are quite disengaged in terms of new information. NE sees the lack of interest in sustainable agriculture as a barrier, unlike interest in increasing food production. NT and FM regard the critical barrier to adopting the best environmental measures to be economic - price and price volatility. Farmers are trying to make a living, even if they might be sympathetic to sustainable principles, economic motivations override others. It was also felt (NT) that a lot of people have become dependent on conventional agriculture and there needs to be a change of mindset. However, FM said that knowledge providers are having to focus more on economic sustainability at the moment, in terms of how advice was delivered. They felt that this approach - maximising production as the starting point was negative, as sustainable messages are always very much ‘bolted on’ rather than being an integral element of the whole picture. NE agreed that it is a very difficult environment at the moment as engaging with sustainable agriculture is voluntary. Unless there is some regulatory requirement or incentive then it is going to be demanding for advisors to actually influence that change. In complex situations or where change is needed (i.e. forthcoming CAP reform) it was felt that to influence that then advice needs to be delivered in a co-ordinated way, as a free service.
Materials reviewed for this report suggest farmers’ access advice for three key reasons: access to grants and incentives; information on regulations and compliance; and business efficiency. This suggests that any messages about carbon mitigation should be hung on these ‘hooks’.
4.2.2.5 Trust and credibility
The decline in the relationship between farmers and the government, a common theme in the farming press, is a further barrier to farmer engagement, as farmers feel overburdened with regulation and red tape and, at the same time, under-rewarded. A recent report by the Agricultural Christian Fellowship (2011:3) describes extensive “buy out” 12 from government aims together with mistrust, and little opportunity for feedback from farm experience to government. The reasons …include an impoverished conception of agricultural extension work, a simple failure to recognise the importance of relationships where transactions must occur, the increasing role of regulation, the frequent exhaustion of farmers and the fragmented structure of Defra and its agencies’. The report draws on research carried out as part of the NALMI 13 and suggests that whereas in the past government support had been influential in substantially changing farmers’ land management, now a general decline in trust led to defensive relationships, which has caused a delay in farmers’ transition to more sustainable land management. Key to this change was a decline in the social networks that once existed between farmers and staff working for the
12 Buy-Out is defined as “farmers deeply internalised hostility to the government’s governance of agricultural and rural policies. “Buy-Out” results from (and subsequently increases) physical, social and emotional distance between the farmer and government agencies. It is characterised by professional disrespect for the standards of service received and, as a consequence, results in agendas for the farm that diverge from government policy”. (Hall and Pretty, 2008:409) 13 The Norfolk Arable Land Management Initiative (NALMI) a Countryside Agency initiative , worked with 31 arable and mixed farmers of all ages. In gauging the responses of this group of farmers to initiatives aimed at converting them to more sustainable farming methods, the researchers investigated their relationships with government personnel from the early 1970s through to 2005.
37 government (Hall and Pretty, 2008). Pretty (2009) argues that the reduced connectedness and linking of social capital contributed to the havoc in the FMD crisis.
The NE respondent also noted that one of the problems with government advisors is a potential lack of credibility; that there is always a perception that there is a hidden reason behind the advice being given by government advisors. Another associated issue is lack of continuity due to short-term funding and frequent change of staff. Customers value continuity and part of that is someone that they trust and has credibility. AEA (2010) raised issues of branding, noting that cross compliance advice is branded as free and independent and is perceived more positively by farmers compared to the ECSFI which is branded as NE and seen as being a government initiative. AEA (2010) suggest that perceptions of advice sources differ (Table 8).
Sustain noted the development of a number of locally tailored KT initiatives which are engendering much local enthusiasm. This suggests that scale as well as nature of delivery is important for engagement.
Table 8 Perceptions of different advice sources (AEA 2010)
38 4.2.3.6 Advisor skills, expertise and capacity
There has been debate in the literature about the nature and extent of advisors’ skills with respect to sustainable agriculture. Although there were concerns about advisor competence, there are indications that advisors are becoming better equipped to deliver advice on environmental issues (Marshall 2002; Ingram and Morris 2007). Winter et al (2001) suggest that the open AKS is beneficial to the overall skill-set as it encourages environmental NGOs to become involved in the AKS bringing their own specialist expertise but it also exposed them to the realities of practical farming and land management enabling them to straddle the gap between environmentally sensitive farming and conventional farming.
In the arable sector there is a perceived shortage of individuals in several specialist areas, including those involved in research activities and the generalist agronomist who needs to access specialist independent knowledge to keep up-to date and to respond to specific problems (Tachell 2005). In the past there were Regional Specialists (40 ADAS specialists) doing applied research and development (R&D) and KT in each of agronomy, entomology, mechanisation, plant pathology and soil science. Much of this experience has been lost and now specialists have much less contact with farmers.
However, NE argued that currently there are lots of specialists in the AKS, but not many generalists and that breadth of advice on the ground from experienced advisors is missing. The importance of generalists, who can understand the whole farming context, rather than only focus on very specific issues, was stressed. NE said what is needed is someone with the right skills and competencies who understand customer needs, understands the farm, the farm business and local needs. They can thus deliver advice in the context of that farm business. Part of this requires, FM argued, an appreciation of farmers’ working contexts, especially the fact that they are short of time. FM said that small-scale farmers working for the local market are too pressed for time and resources to facilitate ad hoc networks for sharing and collaborationthese need to be enabled by other organisations. NE agreed about the time issue, also saying that farmers’ businesses are very complex and that advisors need to appreciate that. NE felt that a lot of private consultants more than appreciate that, but was not sure whether the state sector recognised the critical importance of being flexible in terms of when you work with farmers. NE also said that timeliness of advice is important- bringing that advice to the farmer as and when it is appropriate in the farming calendar year.
NE argued that you need a number of generalists who can direct farmers to specialists who are relevant, that there should be a first-stop shop (not a one-stop shop) which could refer farmers to the sources of advice that are relevant to them. NE explains that farmers are filtering information within the context of their own ‘silo’. So what farmers are looking for is a business person, someone to put that information about a wide range of subjects within the context of the farm business. Initially they want someone to look at it in a more strategic way and examine all the options that are available within the context of the business. The provision of advice is therefore multilayered. P2P complained that the old establishment (i.e. consultants who turn up at the farm with a laptop to work out the feed budget), are not looking at the overall farm business. DC agreed that from the providers’ point of view understanding what the farmer wants, where he wants to be and how he digests information is difficult. Some farmers are
39 happy to stay as they are, some want to get bigger. Providers sometimes tend to decide what farmers need without listening to them. The range of farmers and motivations makes it difficult to find a ‘one size fits all’ package. In this respect DC said that understanding farmers’ different needs and segmenting them into groups, which can have information pitched to them at the right level and in the right way, is a good approach.
4.2.3.7 Farmers skills
With respect to skills and learning in the farming community, there is recognition that new skills are needed to meet future challenges in agriculture which require more than technical understanding but also professionalism especially with respect to business development and market awareness (Slee 2005; NFU et al 2010; Lantra 2011). Others have questioned whether there are sufficient skills to meet the scientific challenges of food security (Llewellyn, 2005). Looking at skills in the farming industry, NT identified the need for fresh blood and fresh thinking. The small turnover of entrants into farming was noted as hampering change. NFU said that graduate students who have travelled can be the most innovative. NT thought that academic institutions could develop more sustainable agricultural modules. The main barriers to disseminating all kinds of information effectively to farmers were felt by the RAC to be, as well as cost, farm succession, which has a tradition of ‘in-family’ only knowledge transfer. It was argued that this can lead to ‘we’ll do it like we’ve always done it’ mentality.
Llewellyn (2010) describes a shortfall in people equipped with the necessary skills to manage increasingly complex and volatile business environments, whilst also being able to successfully implement agri-food scientific and technological advances. He argues that there is a need to invest but there is uncertainty over a rapidly changing funding climate for higher education. He suggests that greater and more innovative collaboration between education and industry will be needed, to break down barriers to learning, invest in CPD for current employees and ensure that industry can encourage current students to pursue a career within the sector.
4.2.3.8 The hard to reach
From the farmers’ point of view some will pay for direct advice on business, finance and farm management, seeing this as an essential business cost. Many are also members of representative organisations and receive advice as part of their membership, as well as benefiting from research and advice from levy boards. However, many will not be able to pay, or have never engaged with advice. The NFU respondent felt that these disenfranchised farmers are the hard to reach. They are not ‘on the radar’ of levy board extension officers, RDP project officers or FWAG. NFU accepted that this was the same in the free public extension era as well, with some farmers not using ADAS advice available at that time. In this respect NT felt there is too much reliance on technology, with only 50% of farmers using a computer. It is the other 50% where knowledge transfer arguably most needs to be done. This accords with views in the workshop that segmentation of farmers is necessary with respect to different communication strategies.
40 3. The place of interactive learning and innovation in the AKS
5.1 Working methods for effective support of LINSA
5.1.1 New knowledge providers and users Although there are concerns about the lack of coherence and inadequate lines of communication between the large numbers of actors involved in a more ‘open’ knowledge system, it is believed that there are positive outcomes as well, and that there may be opportunities for a cross-fertilisation of ideas across networks. It is argued that involvement of many agencies and actors, including an active voluntary and Non-governmental Organisation (NGO) sector, and interaction between agencies can provide the flexibility and space for adaptability, creativity, and for networking and alliances which were denied under a more rigid closed system (Garforth et al 2003). This was agreed in the workshop where it was suggested that new networks and alliances brought in new contacts and new knowledge.
The diversity of land-based businesses and activities has also grown bringing in new actors and organisations on the supply side of food production e.g. organic farming, local/community food production and marketing, food assurance, animal welfare, diversified crops such as energy and pharmaceutical crops, and on farm energy production. This has attracted new knowledge users and diversified the knowledge using community based on the land. Some of these new entrants into food production have a higher receptivity to training, information and networking than other more traditional farmers, both by virtue of their backgrounds in respect of the use of information to develop businesses and because of the ‘innovative’ nature of their production intentions (see Box 5). The RES respondent noted that in the SW there has been a rise in entrepreneurial businesses accompanied by growth in the region of a specialty food sector with a significant number of bases plus large number of SMESs and micro businesses taping into local markets.
5.1.2 Networks
Literature concerning farmer networks (whether facilitated by an outsider or not) in England has revealed that these can be effective for communication and support although social ties between farmers have weakened over the last two decades as they become more tied to the farm, due to labour restructuring etc (Dwyer et al 2007). Farmer collective action with respect to producer groups or environmental management has also increased (Mill et al 2008; Franks and Gloin?), although there is little literature on how learning and innovation emerges within these groups in England. However, Slee (2005) points out that a large proportion of rural business activities in the south west are started by newcomers suggesting that networks of rural economic actors may be relatively weakly developed. He also suggests that there may be weak institutional capacity to support economic initiatives and argues that the bureaucratic unification that followed the Haskins review (Defra 2002) was not sufficient to bring about change. What is needed is a spirit of learning and innovation or a ‘cultural shift’ (Slee 2005).
In the interviews the ‘ co-production’ of knowledge through networks was felt by the RAC to be on the increase. There are many local farmers’ groups developing co-learning and they are often
41 driven by strong local personalities rather than policies or funding. P2P described dairy discussion groups of farmers who trusted each other and shared financial data. The groups attract farmers who are keen to progress. P2P felt that the discussion group approach used in NZ had a lot of strengths. P2P found the groups to be dynamic. However, to achieve stability and continuity by keeping farmers in the network P2P must provide up-to-date information to prevent ‘staleness’. The key to the discussion groups model is good facilitation and ideally they should include about 12 farmers. NT agreed that using farmers to talk to each other is hugely beneficial as they need to see good examples and talk about practicalities and unseen impacts/outcomes. Sustain feels that much of its knowledge dissemination comes through networks and member organisations such as the Soil Association and Climate Friendly Food.
DC agreed that farmer networks are, and always have been, important for farmer learning. In the past they would focus around auction markets or farmers clubs. Now they are more specialised, including for example, grazing groups and, for some more progressive farmers, benchmarking groups. DC and others help groups to form. One good example is the British Grassland Society who have very effectvegrazing groups and DC work very well with them. There are also buying groups and they are very good at benchmarking. In these networks farmers can compare and benefit from peer pressure, they can try out ideas and they have a social aspect to them.
FS agreed that networks are growing. FS works with a number of networks who have formed to develop discussions groups, co-learning and the like. They think this is a good idea and represents a gradual cultural shift. Such collaboration offers, it was argued, a lot of potential beyond just training. It is a significant recent change in the farm sector. FS is developing a Foundation Degree with Harper Adams that is done on-farm rather than in the classroom, and this requires a high degree of farmer co-operation – to share their farms as learning spaces.
NE thought that influencing change through increasing the knowledge of the farmer who can then share that knowledge across the network is a key approach. It was felt that once a farmer is introduced into a scheme, it is critically important that the farmer or ideally a group of likeminded farmers are then taken through the steps of best practice. This includes clarifying what a farmer can expect to achieve in year one, year two, year three and so on. As the interview explained, this process builds up a reserve of knowledge which is shared across the community. There is a wide range of farming groups and networks that have become established and NE, like DC, has tried wherever possible to tap into these networks.
NFU felt that networks had a place but were only part of a much wider portfolio of advice mechanisms that farmers use. Farmers all have their personal preferences and a range of motivations. As DC commented, ‘You need a mix of both otherwise you risk not developing new knowledge. Knowledge sharing is vital but top down new ideas are also important. Would discussion groups have invented Genomics ?’ The Defra respondent, however, felt that amongst younger farmers in particular, that information was not shared at all where it was felt to be commercially sensitive. NFU agreed that groups can be professionally sensitive, competitive, and have personal pride. There are, in other words, some sensitivities about networking. DC also acknowledged that not many farmers participate in dairy groups. FM felt farmers tend to organise themselves collectively more in order to share resources, and that any sharing of knowledge was then incidental. Defra felt that farmers still relied on each other for much of
42 their information, often picked up anecdotally, but noted that they also use the agricultural press for general information and consultants for specific information .
The RAC felt that ‘bottom up’ approaches were a recent departure in respect of knowledge co- production, but could enhance value added through local farmer co-operation. Again, personalities are a strong influence here. Defra felt that bottom up approaches that were retailer or niche market driven tended to be successful because they attracted premium prices. They were exploring the possibilities of some short term grants to fund ‘animators’ for local food production co-operation. According to NE there are some good examples in the West Midlands of so-called 'rural hubs' in which farmers have come together to share information and seek advice and information of common interest.
The workshop confirmed these comments although said that the nature of the networks is variable- they can be diffuse (discussion groups on the internet, for example) or tight knit based and around neighbours or friendship groups. Some cluster around agronomists and consultants, although the latter invite outside speakers so expand the networks. There is recognition that participatory methods and facilitation of networks are valuable mechanisms for communicating with farmers and other actors. There are, however, limited ways of funding these activities and limited funds too to support bottom up activities. A business case for RDPE funding needs to be based on a good business model –often beyond the capacity for a group of farmers to develop. Actors such as RES help to develop networks. The groups are self selecting but RES recognise the need for some top-down groups as well because policy changes means that access to information about policy requirements is needed. There was general agreement among all respondents that often strong personalities drive the more successful initiatives and networks.
5.2 Governance mechanisms for effective support of LINSA
5.2.1 Research
With respect to research there is a sense that lack of investment in agricultural research and knowledge transfer in both public and private sectors is the main barrier to innovation. The NFU (2010), responding to a House of Lords inquiry into innovation in EU Agriculture, suggests that while there are some examples of companies driving innovation in areas such as biodiversity or lower carbon emissions, that they need the right climate and clear signals from government. They argue that it will be harder to transfer knowledge about farm management practices compared to products or technologies but that it is vital that practices are picked up commercially as management ultimately will improve productivity.
The NFU, however, cite many examples of innovations in agriculture and horticulture being used. These include precision farming (e.g. satellite guided machinery for field operations), conservation tillage, on-farm bio energy equipment (e.g. biomass boilers, combined heat and power units, anaerobic digesters). as well as photovoltaic cells and wind turbines on land and buildings . They also list the use of new crop varieties and livestock breeds as ‘innovations’. They state that as well as the levy boards, there are several farmer-led organisations and independent research centres of various scales that do near-market research and knowledge/technology transfer to farmers.
43 The Levy Board Review (2005) also argues that there is low priority placed on innovation in industry and policy innovation and that industry sectors need to find new products and new uses and applications for old innovations. Levy payers believe that innovation and new product development, for example, are very important. As part of this, they see scientific R&D projects aimed at transferring to levy payers the information/action required to improve yields, reduce costs, and/or reduce risks as particularly important; the promotion of best practice and benchmarking schemes are also considered important, alongside support for innovation and new product development. Many of these ‘innovations’ are about improving and enhancing the economic performance/viability of farm businesses.
5.2.2 Policy and policy instruments
Defra’s objectives within the new coalition government are to create wealth, enhance environmental quality and enable UK business and the economy to be more resilient to environmental change. The Technology Strategy Board as the government’s leading body for innovation, has been set up to help achieve this. An emphasis on addressing future challenges (climate change, resource degradation and fuel and food security) in the context of competitiveness of British business and the UK economy would suggest that there is potential for market–led innovation. There is a recognisation that knowledge is central to this and the TSB funded Environmental Sustainability Knowledge Transfer Network ‘s (KTN) role is to catalyse and develop the uptake of innovation through facilitation of knowledge exchange between the knowledge base, business and the government. This will, principally be achieved by facilitating effective transfer of knowledge between the knowledge base, business and Government (Miller 2011).
The government’s strategy for non-food crops seeks to increase commercial opportunities, stimulate innovation, cut waste, reduce environmental damage, and protect natural resources. The associated action plan covers areas such as tackling climate change, funding more scientific research and increasing the use of sustainable products (Defra and DTI 2004). The Department for Energy and Climate Change also funds The National Centre for Bioreneweable Energy Fuels and Materials, a not-for-profit company. The Centre undertakes commercial work for a wide range of organisations (including agricultural) and has three tiers of paid membership for businesses and individuals.
However, despite these policies, the lack of incentives for some innovative techniques and practices has been seen as a barrier to their development. For example, to date there has been little development of agricultural anaerobic digestion (AD) plants in the UK. There are currently only 15 to 20 on-farm systems operational, with less than 0.1% of UK livestock manure treated by AD. There are a handful of centralised systems, with more under development. However, the AD industry is now expected to grow rapidly, given the enhanced support for electricity generation since April 2009 (a double allowance of tradeable Renewables Obligation Certificates), the potential income from gate fees for wastes, and the availability of (limited) capital grant support from the RDPE and other funding sources. These incentives all enhance the economic viability of farm-based AD. The NFU 14 believe that the energy supply potential of AD 14 The NFU recommends that the government sets a national target of 1000 farm-based AD plants (typically 500 kW), and around 200 larger waste-linked AD facilities (typically 1.5 MW) by 2020.
44 located on farms is significant and could be implemented in a number of different ways, including a multi-farm cooperative with typically three or four farms within a locality supplying farm-based inputs to a digester optimally sited on one of the farms and sharing the resulting digestate. NFU HQ advisors have been working with Defra, WRAP and the Environment Agency to facilitate a regulatory framework on Environmental Permitting and use of digestate that promotes on-farm AD.
AEA consider that there are areas with high potential for GHG mitigation that would require high relative investment from individual farmers. For elements such as Anaerobic Digestion, business planning and advice and capital grants to incentivise uptake would be required. It may be necessary to support the development and growth of the AD industry via capital grants for plant and machinery because capital expenditure involved in any AD project given the lack of standardised equipment currently available in England. The Bio-Energy Capital Grants Scheme (BECGS) which was run by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has supported community bio-energy projects. Pig, poultry and horticulture producers to join the Climate Change Levy Rebate Scheme which enables producers to claim a rebate in return for meeting energy saving targets.
In their Response to the House of Lords Select Committee Inquiry on Non-Food Crops, the Royal Society (2008) found few incentives - either from taxation or subsidies - that promote long-term development of potentially important non-food crops. They recommended increased co- ordination and availability of research funding in order to take advantage of this developing area. At present in the UK they argue that there is insufficient funding, in particular a commitment to long-term funding, to promote development. A similar view was taken of government support for biofuels; a Royal Society working group concluded that, unless biofuel development is supported by appropriate policies and economic instruments, then there is a risk that the UK may become locked into inefficient biofuel supply chains that potentially create harmful environmental and social impacts (Royal Society 2008). Foxon et al (2005) elaborate on these drivers, barriers and systems failure for new and renewable energy technologies in general in the UK. RDPE funding is available to support sustainable agriculture initiatives. For example, Ader (Agricultural Development Information) is a support network for new and existing businesses in the South East region and Yorkshire Forward has invested in Farexchange - a collaborative farm diversification project to develop better value-added supply chains for farmers, food processors, manufacturers, distributors and retailers in Yorkshire and Humberside. SWARM has been implemented in the south west of England with a range of support mechanisms including direct grant funding to large scale projects (see Box 5). The Cornwall Development Company, using EU convergence programme money, supports the Clear about Carbon initiative which aims to facilitate low carbon and renewable energy developments in the county.
There is also increasing interest in using RDE Axis 2 funds for cooperative environmental management amongst land managers. Examples of the latter include collective agri- environment schemes on commons and in the New Forest. Natural England manages the Energy Crops Scheme which offers grants (50% of all eligible costs incurred) to farmers in England for establishing miscanthus and short rotation coppice for their own energy use or to supply power stations.
45 The workshop discussed the need for a business case to be made for funding (through the RDPE) for development of an innovation, or associated networks but the point was made that if something is truly new, than it might be difficult to assess the future potential. An innovation usually needs somebody who believes in it (and has the means to carry on developing it) before it will become an innovation that is likely to spread and bring wider benefits.
5.2.3 Information and facilitation
With respect to advice there is recognition that intermediaries can play an important role. NE acknowledge the role of farm advisors and provide bespoke training to advisors to ensure that they are not just advising farmers on how to fill in their ELS application forms, but know how to identify the most favourable features on the farm from an environmental perspective and then match those features with the options that are available. They select their external consultants on a competitive basis and aim to ensure quality of advice is of a high standard. Information through online portals greatly increases access to support. Examples include the National Centre for Bioreneweable Energy Fuels and Materials, which operates an online Anaerobic Digestion portal on anaerobic digestion, biogas and digestate, while the Biomass Energy Centre hosts an online one stop shop to provide information to anyone in the UK with an interest in biomass derived solid, liquid and gaseous fuels and associated conversion technologies. However RES pointed out that this was not really meeting farmers’ needs. Although previous governments have promoted AD they felt that there was real lack of non commercial technical information; it was all driven by the technical providers who are not impartial. RES, as a broker, were able to provide information from many sources and ran vents that explained AD ‘warts and all’.
Many organisations support the transition to sustainable agriculture by facilitating exchange of information and acting as gateways for information, including the various brokers mentioned in section 3. Many are membership organisations, such as the Permaculture Association. Some will advocate policy change, such as Sustain and the Soil Association. Consumer-oriented food networks are supported by a range of sources. Farmers in producer or marketing groups might be facilitated by an independent person or assisted by a retailer. Food Assurance Schemes such as the LEAF Marque support producers by offering accreditation and standard setting. Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) initiatives are supported by their members and other actors such as local authorities. Partnership projects like the Lottery funded Making Local Food Work (with The Soil Association as a partner) or the Brighton & Hove Food Partnership also provide information and can direct people towards funding and networking opportunities.
Although Business Link has been criticised in some areas as not helping farmers because they can only offer generic business advice, some regions have developed a dedicated team of rural advisors on the BL team which has raised the BL profile and provides appropriate farm business advice.
46 BOX 5 South West Agricultural Resource Management initiative (SWARM)
The initiative is made up of four elements:
• Soils for Profit (S4P) is an advisory programme delivered in partnership by Natural England and the Environment Agency and focuses on improving soil efficiency. • Resource Efficiency for Farmers (R4F) is an advisory programme delivered by Business Link to improve the water and energy efficiency on farms. Participating farms receive grant funding of 40 per cent on energy saving equipment. • The Small Capital Grant scheme is designed to complement S4P and R4F by providing grant funding for some of the equipment that might be recommended by one (or both) of the advisory visits. • SWARM Innovation Fund is designed to encourage new technology and ideas in the field of managing on farm resources.
5.2.4 Examples of LINSAs in UK, their function , governance and support
Support can come in a number of forms and from a range of sources, including government, national parks, partnerships, charities, trusts and private organisations. There are a range of groups with diverse means of support, as shown below in Table 9. Often small networks of farmers once they reach a critical threshold can interact with agencies and receive funding and support. A good example of this is the Pontbren farmer group in Wales (see Mills et al 2008). Also, as noted above, agencies and levy boards tap into existing networks. These are recognised as an effective way of reaching a large number of farmers. RES provided an example of a group of 12-15 organic farmers who are concerned about access to highest level of knowledge, a consultant works with them and they have a group leader who is passionate, open minded and a good leader. They run events for farmers and aim to raise awareness about land management practices. This has sprung out of requirement of some to meet regulations several are in NVZs. They are traditional farmers but are open minded and listen to newcomers. They have no funding but RES has introduced them to specialists from research institutes and helped them run events . Table 9 lists some examples of Learning and Innovation Networks for Sustainable Agriculture (LINSAs) in England.
47 Table 9 Examples of LINSAs in UK, their function , governance and support
Group type Governance & support Function Example Farmer discussion Self-organized and Learn from each other The North Devon Dairy groups funded sometimes by, Discussion Group is for example, Business funded by Business Link Link’s Rural Enterprise Gateway (REG) service
Farmer membership Learn from each other 100 clubs RAC club supported British Grassland Society Farmer and agronomist Agronomist-led Learn from each other discussion groups Farmer cooperatives Can be supported by Selling and buying Birds Eye pea farmer co- funds e.g. Objective 1 groups, machine sharing operative funding in Cornwall Farmer environmental Self-organised, with Landscape/catchment Pontbren Farmer Group co-operative support from funding protection, tree planting agencies Tamar Organic farmers Self-organized and Soil and water support from RES protection FWAG & LEAF farmer Facilitated and set up by Learn from each other groups NGOs, Farmer Organised Farmer –led groups; To make abstraction East Anglian region Abstraction Groups group action allows licenses easier for FOAGs. (FOAGs) stronger voice producers County-based Rural Farmer-led with funds Helps farmers and rural Warwickshire rural hub hubs. from RDAs businesses Food producer groups Livestock Producer Selling and marketing Dolaucothi lamb - groups, supported by tenant farmers on the estate, retailer or National Trust estate independent facilitator (Agrisgôp assisted) Dairy groups Consultant or extension Help each other Pasture to Profit dairy officer supported improve business groups supported by profitability Livestock International Low Till group Farmer –led, support Help each other Eg Soil Management from agrochemical and implement minimum Initiative MI machinery companies tillage and researchers Commoners and grazing Manage common land associations and AES landscape application Transition farms and Soil Association Soil Association Low C low carbon farming promotes low carbon farming initiative farming and connects farmers Water harvesting –SW Environment Agency water and commercially driven Permaculture Demonstration using Local food networks Association Learning Permaculture
48 And Network Association’s from the Demonstration (LAND) Big Lottery Fund’s Local Food scheme Community Supported Partnerships like Community food Stroud Community Agriculture (CSA) Making Local Food production Agriculture Work support and give guidance Agroforestry Elm Farm Research Centre Bio-renewables, Advice from National Farm-based AD Novel crops Centre plus commercial cooperatives organisations. Incentives plus RDPE grants Community micro Favourable feed-in energy tariffs Abacus Organic Independent Associates consultants who work together on a co- operative basis.
49 50 6. Strong points and weak points in the functioning of the AKS
6.1 AKS in relation to LINSA: Innovation Systems Performance Matrix (see Appendix 2 for details of this analysis)
Farmers Government Universities Research institutes Advisory services Education Farmers Unions Value chain actors Bodies (inputs/processing/ retail/consumers) Effectiveness of (+) It can create a social (+) Government (+) Universities (+) BBSRC and NERC (+) The AHDB has (+) Full time (+) Farmers unions (+) Sustainability and food the knowledge network can facilitate are being now insist on impacts developed a education in are increasingly quality are now becoming system for (+) It provides opportunities for ‘networks’ and required and impact plans for central role in agricultural subject working with other ‘selling points’ and learning people to find information in ‘networks of (through their funded work. C Knowledge is becoming more organisations in therefore commercially their own time networks’. funding) to be and NERC. Transfer. squarely vocational. networks: NFU with rational to adopt. (+) The farming sector has an (+) Food security is increasingly (-) Quality of advice (-) There is a lack (-) Teaching loads AHDB, BBSRC, Rural (-) Commercial objectives ageing population and older in the public eye strategically from some institutes of trust between are becoming Hubs and so on. always will override farmers are more sympathetic placing farming relevant. can be variable. some farmers and greater (-) Farmers unions sustainable ones where to environmental high on the (+) Funding (-) Funding models some advisory are not well linked to they are not consonant. considerations political agenda. structures pull are more complex services. food consumers. (-) Providers are often not well (-) Government together trusted by farmers bodies have less interdisciplinary (-) The terminology of both access an control teams. policy and ‘science’ are not over information (-) funding is well understood by farmers. providers. increasingly (-) The most relevant (-) Government short term and information often can be hard funding for therefore less to find. knowledge and strategic. (-) information is becoming information is (-) IP issues increasingly expensive for the increasingly short keep some farmer. term. knowledge out of the public domain. (-) Academics are required to make academic publications a higher priority than knowledge transfer.
The role of policy, (+) Use regulatory compliance (-) There is a single (-) Student fees (-)Funding for R&D is (-) Funding for (-) Complexity and (+) Work on (+) Regulation can be regulation and as a ‘hook’ for engagement issue attitude to will reduce not sufficient, R&D is not bureaucracy of voluntary initiatives positive in terms of legislation (+) Voluntary measures can be regulation research – especially given sufficient, funding improving food safety, for used as a stepping stone before university staff policy and regulatory especially given (-) example.
51 going to compulsory will be required challenges facing policy and (+) Future use of GM? regulations to spend more agriculture and the regulatory (-) Too much red tape – time teaching food chain. challenges facing (-) Future use of GM? strangles innovation agriculture and the (-) Further changes in the CAP food chain. are imminent. They will have a huge influence. When first announced farmers are usually slow to react. (-) There is a single issue attitude to regulation (+) Land is a finite resource; (+) Raise status of (+) GM know- (+)GM know-how (+) (+) Participatory (+) Raise the profile (+) New food culture offers let’s value it more farming (in how could be could be beneficial? processes are of the industry – opportunities for farming (+) Rising input costs may society) beneficial? (-) Need to important opportunity to and new innovations prompt change (possibly) (-) Disciplinary develop ways to (+) Paying for reinvent farming (+) Food and farming is (-) Unrealistic stereotyping of (-) Not enough (-) Too much culture and communicate information makes it given the recent now more in the farmers political desire to emphasis on organisation – makes wider notion of more valued emphasis on farming media/public attentions (-) Cultural resistance to support radical peer reviewed inter-disciplinary sustainability, and food and related (+) Legislation about change thinking (i.e., journal outputs working more beyond (-) media coverage health and agricultural (-) Many value systems pertain tendency to play and not enough difficult despite need profits/economics (+) Opportunity to sustainability can help to simultaneously safe and not be emphasis on (-) Need to target promote a system of sell sustainable products (-) Empty phrases too easily get seen to support extension-type more than just the production that (+) Use the media to ignored certain systems). work, even with farmer – so the promotes promote farming (-) The language used to talk about herdsman, tractor sustainability at its (-) There is a narrow view communicate with farmers can ‘impact’. driver, etc. core of the farming industry be unhelpful (e.g. ecosystem (-) advisors have (e.g., male dominated, services) and a barrier to inflexible mindsets (-) white) that is not helpful farmer interest / engagement and are less willing (+) new food cultures (-) There is a productivist logic or able to advice enable new networks and which is very difficult to break on innovative new actors into the AKS (+) more buying and marketing practices groups which enable more (-) advisors collaboration and networking respond to market signals so tend to provide near- market advice Levels of (-) single crop focus (-) Policies are not (-) Expert knowledge (+) big networking integration (-) some elements of food integrated is valued over organisations enable loops –not well integrated experiential expansive networks (+)more buying and marketing knowledge (-) supermarkets guard groups which open people up (+)research councils their knowledge/ to new interactions want interaction and competitively integration (+) TSB and EU want
52 interdisciplinary research
Capacity for (-) rural broadband (-)horticulture and (-)is advice (-)education is a (+)need to direct learning (-) some farmers are ‘hard to poultry are ‘closed’ commercially ‘marketplace’ people to good and reach’ knowledge systems neutral? reliable existing (-) difficult language (-) advisers need information (-) need to include the workers to market their specialists of contractors advice towards (+) use of trade (-) contraction in crop choices narrowness press/case studies to by region communicate (+) IT enables Internet sources benefits of learning/knowledge transfer (+) professionalism of farmers. Link knowledge and innovation to CPD schemes (-) targeting the hard to reach. More flexible/’bite-sized’ approach is needed. Agri-skills forum objective Operating in the (+) motivation to engage (+) openings for (-) funding (+) scope for new and market place and (-) level of control top quality constraints/constrain innovative products e.g. how it influences (+) CAP move to area payments ecology s new initiatives probiotics learning (-) CAP move to area payments research (-) funding (-) from businesses to lifestyles (-) market constraints put limits (+) from lifestyles to businesses orientation on remit systems innovation (+) opportunity in non-food and bio refining
53 7. Conclusions: conditions present or absent for effective LINSA support
7.1 Overview
Conditions include the barriers and opportunities which are generic to innovation in general in the farming and research community (such as funding, risk, etc) which are overlain by the additional barriers of innovation in the context of sustainable agriculture - which has its own set of barriers and opportunities.
7.2 Conditions present for effective LINSA support
• Farmers are becoming more discerning and business-minded. They are market-led and able to draw on a diverse range of advice services available according to their own personal preferences. A generation of farmers are now used to paying for advice and valuing it. The internet is widely used and rural actors favour it and other media as flexible learning aids.
• There is evidence of more networking amongst farmers and rural actors. The nature of the networks is variable- they can be diffuse (e.g. discussion groups on the internet) or tight knit and based around neighbours or friendship groups.
• New rural actors and networks, new partnerships and collaborations allow new routes of communication and expose people to new knowledge, ideas and new networks.
• New actors bring new insights, experience, use different sources of information and are often more receptive and willing to engage with messages about sustainable agriculture.
• There are examples of RDPE Axis 2 funding, delivered through the RDAs, providing options for innovation.
• Increased exposure to information about environmentally sensitive farming (both voluntary initiatives and regulatory requirements) means it has become a more acceptable and ‘normalised’ part of farming. Axis 2 (especially the AES measure) has been a key instrument for the government, with >60% of farmers in the entry level scheme (ELS). This means that a large number of farmers have been exposed to new sources of information about the environment and farming. Bodies such as FWAG and LEAF have become more ‘mainstreamed’ into the farming community and accepted as credible sources of advice.
• Increased regulation and AES has made a generation of farmers and advisors more aware of their responsibilities in terms of maintaining and protecting the environment. Advisors have also responded by increasing their portfolio of advice.
• Growing consumer interest in food sources, the way it is produced, animal welfare etc , has impacted production through accreditation, assurance schemes, governments or retailers. Increased interest in alternative food networks and community supported agriculture has enabled new actors to engage in production and supply.
• Increases in fertiliser and fuel costs mean many farmers are looking to reduce input use (chemical and energy) and thus provide a win-win situation in which farmers can both save
54 money and be more sustainable – this gives government a ‘hook’ to hang sustainable messages on, although if commodity prices continue to rise this effect is not so pronounced
• Expansion of brokerage services, facilitated by internet portals, has increased access for rural actors and worked as a first stop shop for many.
• New KE approaches, including more recognition within government of the need for facilitation for networking and participatory working. There is also more use of contracted providers, who are often more trusted by farmers, to deliver non-commercial advice.
7.3 Conditions absent for effective LINSA support
• Knowledge has become a commodity. Many knowledge providers (advisors, trainers) provide market/business related advice as people are willing to pay for this. They are rarely paid to provide sustainable agriculture advice.
• Although there are initiatives to encourage public-private collaboration in research through the newly formed government TSB, there are concerns about the IP associated with the knowledge generated as commercial companies want to protect their investment in knowledge. Within tightly integrated supply chains, such as horticulture and poultry, knowledge is guarded throughout the supply chain.
• With many suppliers knowledge is unregulated with the result that quality becomes a concern.
• Absence of general advice or reliable and independent first stop shop advice for rural actors was raised as a concern in both the interviews and the workshop. There is sense that there are too many specialists but few generalists that farmers could call on in the first instance to given a whole farm appraisal.
• There has been a disconnection between knowledge providers and knowledge users. The traditional mechanisms (e.g. state experimental/demonstration farms) have been eroded. There is also poor understanding of the needs of knowledge users by knowledge providers.
• Some advisors are judged to be ill equipped for future challenges as farmers will be expected to provide more functions (ecosystem services) on the farm. This includes the challenge of low carbon farming, adaptation to reduced water supplies and on-farm energy production.
• Farmers’ skills are mixed. Skill levels can be segmented into different groups with respect to advice provision (e.g. learning styles, sector, willingness, ability) but traditionally they are viewed as not entrepreneurial and risk averse. The latter is heightened by exposer to a number of uncertainties and risks, such as volatile commodity prices, rising input costs, weather and policy changes. This is aligned with a cultural attitude or mind set and can be associated with an older farming population.
55 • Innovation research and KT has been underfunded and a low priority. There is a need for longer term strategies and funding for research into innovative technologies and practices (e.g. novel crops).
• Too many short term KE initiatives are funded, which gives the perception of poor coordination and high staff turnover, with a resultant lack of longer-term vision. This also leads to a lack of credibility and trust with respect to state-funded advice. There is not enough use of knowledge that is already there (i.e. poor institutional memory).
• There are too many sources of knowledge and too many providers, which is confusing for users. There is a need for more integration of knowledge service provision.
• The government also issues mixed messages when it comes to agriculture - a paradox between market-led and sustainable agriculture messages.
• Economic motivations will override most advice to the extent that sustainable agriculture advice can seem irrelevant. Farmers employ agronomists/consultants and rely on and value their advice, but very often this is oriented towards making the business more successful and is therefore overly focused on economic viability. A rise in commodity prices may lead farmers to chase profits even more than in recent years increasing the challenge of getting farmers to think more holistically about sustainable agriculture.
• Understandings of sustainable agriculture are different according to who you speak to in the rural community. For farmers and many of their information and knowledge providers it is all about the business remaining profitable.
• Absence of clear policy messages, funding or incentives for innovation in areas such as farm energy and non-food crops is a barrier to adoption.
• Although there is recognition that participatory methods, facilitation of networks etc are valuable mechanisms for communicating with farmers and other actors, there are limited ways of funding these activities. Equally, there are limited funds to support bottom up activities despite recognition of their potential learning and innovation benefits.
56