UWA Papers on Agricultural Extension and
Adoption and Diffusion of Innovations in Agriculture

Agricultural extension policy in Australia:
The good, the bad and the misguided

Sally P. Marsh and David J. Pannell

Agricultural and Resource Economics, The University of W.A., Nedlands, 6907

Abstract

Rapid change in the provision of agricultural extension services is occurring in all states of Australia. In most states, policies and practices have increasingly been based on considerations of private/public goods, user pays and cost recovery. In addition, the delivery of extension has been strongly influenced by changing administrative structures (e.g. Funder-Purchaser-Provider) and a change in the paradigm within which the extension community operates. These changes in policy/ideology/paradigm have had major impacts, including a rapid increase in the amount of extension being delivered by the private sector. In this paper we review changes in extension policy and provision and discuss them in the framework of what is known about the adoption and diffusion of agricultural technologies. We conclude that there are positive aspects to the changes and that, for some technologies, they are appropriate for enhancing adoption. However, we have a number of reservations, particularly about their effectiveness in assisting the adoption of complex environmental and farming system technologies.

1. Introduction

Over the last decade, economists’ ideas about public goods, market failure, crowding out and the marginal excess burden of taxation have strongly influenced changes in the role and delivery of government funded agricultural extension. Rapid change is occurring at the Federal level and in all states of Australia. With the possible exception of the state of Queensland, these changes follow, and to some extent mirror, those which have occurred in New Zealand. The changing agricultural extension environment in Australia reflects a world-wide trend towards the privatisation of agricultural extension services (Johnson et al., 1989; Rivera and Gustafson, 1991; Dancey, 1993). This trend appears to be related to factors such as the declining relative importance of agriculture in the economy and budget pressures on governments, as well as the increasing influence of economists’ theories and prescriptions within government. However it is true that some of the changes are not limited to agricultural extension, or even to agriculture. In part, the changes reflect changing views about government’s role in the whole economy.

Agricultural information is increasingly being perceived by policy makers to have ‘private-good’ characteristics. As farming has become more specialised, farmers are requiring more sophisticated and individually-tailored technical, management and marketing information. Information which is of value only within a local region or especially on a single farm lacks most or all of the public-good characteristics historically used by economists to justify government investment in agricultural extension. Without this justification, government investment would be likely to be economically inefficient, and Rivera (1996, p. 152) refers to "the onslaught of conservative ideology emphasising efficiencies over welfare". This refers to the ideological shift by governments to the principle of ‘user-pays’. Carney (1995, p. 521) sees that change in the public sector goes,

well beyond one-off privatisations and entails a far more fundamental alteration of the relationship between the state and the individual, based upon a philosophy of liberalisation and the primacy of efficiency.

However, while increased efficiency is often touted as the reason for privatising public sector services, a desire for a reduction in government spending frequently lies behind this reasoning (Vanclay and Lawrence, 1995; Cary, 1996).

In the expressed desire to have a better (i.e. more relevant, more efficient, better targeted) extension service, governments have revitalised existing systems and, in some cases (e.g. New Zealand and The Netherlands), privatised public extension (Rivera, 1996). Policy changes made in the ‘revitalisation’ of public sector agencies have included regionalisation, implementation of the ‘purchaser-provider’ model, instigation of cost-recovery mechanisms, cost-sharing, and participation of stakeholders in development of initiatives and in other decisions that affect them.

In countries where public sector retrenchment is reasonably advanced, a multitude of alternative services providers and institutional arrangements have appeared (Carney, 1995). Indeed, agricultural extension in many countries in the ‘new extension environment’ has come to encompass a wide range of activities in both the public and private sector. Accordingly, we define agricultural extension broadly to include public and private sector activities relating to technology transfer, education, attitude change, human resource development, and dissemination and collection of information. It includes off-farm as well as on-farm players in agricultural industries.

Provision of agricultural extension in Australia is undergoing dramatic and rapid change. The forces driving change are principally of an ideological nature, including changes in what is regarded as appropriate extension practice, and changes in attitude about what services should be the responsibility of governments. This second of these forces has been confounded with the desire of governments to cutback spending commitments. State departments of agriculture and primary industries have been subject to a process of review and re-structuring that has affected the nature of the services they are prepared to provide and the ways that those services are provided. In this paper we briefly review some of these changes, and comment on them with regard to their influence on the adoption and diffusion of agricultural technologies.

2. Changes to agricultural extension in Australia

Australian agricultural extension has been characterised by a large and effective public sector with a strong emphasis on production-based technology transfer (Cary, 1996). State departments of agriculture have historically been the major providers of agricultural extension services. However, changes in these agencies in recent years have been substantial (Watson, 1996). In most states, cutbacks in allocable funding from state governments have put pressure on state departments of agriculture to review the services they provide. Watson (1996, p. 38) considers that, "In the process, there has been a considerable loss of professionalism and neglect of the traditional roles of departments of agriculture".

It does not necessarily have to be a negative development that "traditional roles" have been neglected. Despite the cutback in services provided by public agencies, they are all still providers of extension services, although in some cases they are moving rapidly towards becoming co-ordinators of extension service providers. State agencies are still generators of information through their research programs, and so have responsibilities for ensuring that dissemination of this information occurs, even if it is not done by them.

A further development, in part caused by changes in state public sector agricultural agencies, has been that the Research and Development Corporations (RDCs) are taking a more pro-active role in extension. The charter for the RDCs as listed in The Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act, 1989, includes a role "to facilitate the dissemination, adoption and commercialisation of the results of research and development". Until recently only relatively small amounts of resources had been allocated specifically to technology transfer, but it has now been specifically recognised and funded as part of the research process (Cary, 1996). Accordingly, the RDCs are playing an increased role in extension by co-ordinating technology transfer initiatives, such as crop monitoring and herd/flock performance measuring systems (e.g. through programs such as Topcrop, Prograze, etc.).

A shift in control of and responsibility for extension activities is becoming evident with this developing role of the RDCs and other nationally-funded programs as co-ordinators and "wholesalers" of information marketing activities.

• Funding bodies are increasing their control and direction of research/extension agendas (i.e. funding demand-driven research and extension that matches the RDCs’ priorities and increasing their accountability requirements).
• Funding bodies are demanding cross-industry and national agendas of research and extension initiatives hence forcing a requirement for better public/private sector liaisons.
• Funding bodies are questioning the infra-structure costs and "in-kind" contribution estimates of state departments of agriculture, universities and the CSIRO, and seeking more private-sector participation in research and extension programs.
• Funding bodies are seeking commercial partners for their research products, reflecting their conviction that successful retailing of research products (i.e. technology transfer) requires commercial partners (Andrews, 1996).

2.1 Changes in the physical operations of state departments of agriculture

The changes that have occurred in public sector agricultural agencies in Australia follow a worldwide trend towards a policy of financial, structural and managerial decentralisation for public sector agencies (Rivera, 1996). These policies have resulted in changes that include:

Regionalisation. By "regionalisation" we mean an explicit policy to move people and resources from cities and urban areas to rural areas. There is evidence of regionalisation policies in some states, but not all states are pursuing it vigorously.

Formation of industry partnerships. All state departments of agriculture are moving towards a "market-driven" or "client-driven" philosophy of service provision. That is, they have explicitly stated objectives of being responsive to the expressed needs of their clients, and some are setting up formal links with industry to attempt to ensure that industry needs are met.

Implementation of the ‘Funder-Purchaser-Provider’ model. Most state departments seem to be moving towards various interpretations of the Funder-Purchaser-Provider (FPP) model as an organisational structure. This model allows for ‘activity-based’ or accrual accounting which is seen by its advocates as being essential to improve accountability. The implementation of the FPP system is being done in different ways, but for most state agencies it means being required to clearly separate and distinguish the agency’s role as a purchaser of services on behalf of the government from its possible role as provider of those services.

Out-sourcing. The adoption of the FPP model has enabled the agencies to engage in ‘out-sourcing’, or the contracting out of services. Agricultural consultants and contract staff are now able to be employed to deliver required extension or research, if it is judged that they can do this more efficiently or effectively. Questions of efficiency aside, a real benefit to governments associated with outsourcing is that it attracts private sector funds into areas that were previously the responsibility of the public sector (Cary, 1996).

Instigation of cost-recovery mechanisms. To varying degrees all state departments are moving towards privatisation (i.e. adopting a "user pays" philosophy), particularly with services seen to have private benefit. A general development is that the public sector is starting to charge for the delivery of information, but not the information itself. Most agencies, however, are still grappling with how and on what basis to recover costs.

Additionally, other changes have occurred. State departments of agriculture and primary industries have been re-structured with various degrees of integration or separation from natural resource management state institutions, and various degrees of separation between research and extension. While Victoria, for example, has just one organisation (Department of Natural Resources and Environment - DNRE), other agencies have kept natural resources or forestry outside the agriculture portfolio. In Tasmania, extension has been completely separated from research, with all research now being undertaken within a separate institution. (This was also the case in South Australia until the recent state election.) Such separation appears to run the risk of researchers becoming remote from current farming problems and the perspectives of farmers. Other agencies have maintained their dual research/extension responsibilities, but have created extension specialists attached to specific programs (e.g. Agriculture NSW).

2.2 Changes in the philosophical approach to extension in state public-sector agencies

There has been a noticeable change in the emphasis of extension activities conducted by state public sector agencies and a developing focus on group-based activities, although most agencies still claim (or concede, depending on their philosophy) that they still do "some" one-to-one extension.

Developing focus on group-based activities

The developing focus on group-based activities for agricultural extension is only partly a response to agency cutbacks. There has been a change in extension ideology away from the "linear model" of technology transfer. The new paradigm is cognisant of what has been termed the agricultural knowledge and information system or AKIS (Röling, 1988). This emphasises the knowledge possessed by all the players in the agricultural industry and community: farmers, departments of agriculture, consultants, agribusiness, rural communities, etc. Under the new paradigm, it is seen as appropriate that farmers should have more control over the information that they need or want and over the way it is delivered. It is held that extension should be "demand-pull" rather than "science-push". Increased use of farmer groups for agricultural extension has been one major change associated with this new paradigm. Extension officers now often act as facilitators rather than as experts in science or technology.

Changing emphasis of extension activities

Government agencies are still very involved in extension, but the focus of their extension has changed somewhat. This has occurred in two ways. Firstly, there has been a withdrawal from areas perceived to be adequately supplied, or having the potential to be adequately supplied by the private sector, partly because of funding restrictions but also because of policy directives to address areas of public rather than private good. Agencies are also withdrawing completely from the provision of some services or charging for ‘private-good’ services in line with their moves towards encouraging the adoption of the ‘user-pays’ philosophy. Tasmania has gone further towards privatisation than any other state. Prescribed rates are charged for one-to-one services at rates the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries considers comparable with those charged by private sector providers.

Secondly, there is a developing emphasis on activities that focus on human resource development. There currently exists a theoretical tension as to whether extension should be ‘person-focused’ or ‘technology-focused’, and a developing emphasis on the former. There is a tendency to treat the two paradigms ("farmers’-needs pull" versus "science-push") as mutually exclusive (Cary, 1993). This tension has spawned an increasing emphasis in extension on the development of human capital resources. Indeed a logical consequence of the increased involvement by producers in extension (e.g. through group-based activities) is the perceived need to address issues other than technology transfer. This is well documented in developing countries where human capital development is an essential part of extension programs with rural people’s groups. Regardless of the funding criteria of the program, rural people’s groups will "make additional claims on a research project’s time to help in group formation, and to address additional issues of local concern" (Bebbington et al., 1994, p. 10).

The growth of extension activities directed towards Landcare and human resource development reflects both the amount of funding for these activities that has become available through the National Landcare Program, and also a change in philosophy about the types of extension services needed by Australian farmers. This attitude change is clearly reflected, for example, in a review of extension policy conducted by the Queensland Department of Primary Industries (1990) and in a workshop on rural extension conducted by NSW Agriculture (Simpson, 1993). The Queensland report indicated that:

given the inevitability of changes to extension philosophy, the changing characteristics of farmers, and the declining relative standing of agriculture as an economic (and social) activity, extension should broaden its focus. It was argued that the welfare of the farming sector and that of rural communities was ‘closely related’, that no one department was responsible for rural community development, that the concerns for agriculture in the 1990s were social (e.g. educational and managerial) rather than technical. (Vanclay & Lawrence, 1995, pp. 135-136)

These concerns have been taken on board by funders of extension programs, even to the extent of RDC funds being used to support programs which emphasise the development of human resource capital as opposed to technology transfer.

2.3 Changes in who delivers and who funds extension

The changes in organisation and emphasis outlined in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 have resulted in a decline in the relative importance of departments of agriculture as providers of agricultural information, and increasing private sector participation in delivery of agricultural extension services. Indeed, a vision for the future of extension services in Australia is "for much greater involvement of the private sector, and for the public extension service to work hand-in-hand with agribusiness" (Sheldrake, 1996, p. 4). In Australia, some of the many players in the new extension environment are:

• farmer organisations,
• co-operatives and groups,
• seed, fertiliser and chemical companies,
• local government,
• marketing boards,
• research and development corporations,
• cooperative research centres, and
• university departments.

Partnerships have been institutionalised within the Cooperative Research Centres, and other formalised partnerships between agribusiness and public sector organisations and quasi-public sector organisations are becoming common. As a result of these developments, the private sector is taking a bigger role in agricultural research and extension, and getting a bigger input into policy and research priorities. Both these developments have previously been identified as being desirable (Prinsley et al., 1994). As a consequence, the private sector is showing an increasing tendency to invest in extension projects, often in conjunction with state or federally funded programs. Agribusiness is putting funds into national and state group extension projects such as Target 10 and Topcrop. Alcoa, BP and Fuji Xerox have sponsored Landcare-orientated extension programs.

A larger and broader role for agribusiness

Agribusiness is playing an increasing role in the provision of extension services to farmers. Companies playing a major role include stock firms (such as SBS Rural IAMA, Elders Ltd. and Wesfarmers Dalgetys) and fertiliser companies (such as Pivot, Incitec and Hiferts). In addition to having a sales merchandising team, these companies also employ specialist agronomists whose responsibilities include trial work and associated extension activities, plus the provision of advice to individual farmers, often, but not always, linked to merchandise sales. Companies producing agricultural chemicals have large merchandising teams and are often involved in on-farm trial work when developing new products.

In some industries where chemical products are particularly important to production (e.g. the cotton industry) these companies take a greater responsibility for on-farm provision of services and advice (Sheldrake, 1996). Some companies (e.g. SBS Rural IAMA) are moving towards providing a total farm service. The change in services provided by agribusiness reflects a desire by both parties (i.e. business and farmers) to find ways of minimising risks in the increasingly market-oriented and deregulated agricultural industry. The new services include access to advice and up-to-date information, guaranteed delivery of products of a specified quality and fixed product prices.

Opportunities for consultant and agribusiness resulting from out-sourcing

As the principles of the Funder-Purchaser-Provider model are implemented and out-sourcing of activities increasingly occurs within the public sector agencies, opportunities for private consultants and agribusiness to deliver government-funded research and extension programs is increasing. They have not been slow to grasp these opportunities. Private consultants in Victoria and NSW are already running Farm Management 500 groups and delivering workshop material in conjunction with the national Property Management Planning program in those states. In WA, private consultants were involved in the planning of the state’s version of Topcrop and will be delivering some of the extension component of the program. This type of development seems certain to happen in all states.

Extension conducted by Cooperative Research Centres

The Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) program was launched by the government in May 1990. CRCs are collaborative research ventures bringing together researchers from universities, the public sector and business. There are currently 15 CRCs which are concerned with agricultural or rural-based manufacturing research. One of the objectives of the CRC program was to encourage the building of effective networks of research facilities, scientists and industry associates, and indeed, the development of funding through CRCs has been instrumental in forcing the development of formal linkages among public institutions and between public institutions and industry.

Although CRCs are primarily research oriented, their programs also have an extension component. Some (e.g. the CRC for Viticulture) have extension (or more strictly, technology transfer) components as a high priority within their activities. Initially, many CRCs assumed that responsibility for the technology transfer component of their research would be adequately undertaken by their department of agriculture collaborators. As the state departments have changed the extent and focus of their extension activities this assumption has sometimes been found wanting. Accordingly, they have looked to other ways of getting the results of their research out, and have utilised their close ties with industry to do this.

Activities of farmer-controlled groups

Large and small farmer cooperatives and groups exist in all states, and many of these undertake significant extension activities, such as field days, newsletters, seminars, etc. Many of them are associated with specific industries (e.g. marketing cooperatives, deer producers) but others have more wide-ranging interests (e.g. Agriculture Bureaus in South Australia, Kondinin Group). Some of the groups conducting a significant extension role appear to form because of specific problems caused by perceived isolation from services (e.g. Birchip Cropping Demonstration Sites in Victoria), the need for new technologies (e.g. Southern Farming Systems in Victoria), or the need to find ‘like-minded’ people who are committed to a certain practice (e.g. Western Australian No-Tillage Farmers Association).

There has also been an increase in active farmer participation in setting extension policy and priorities through their membership of boards and advisory panels of RDCs and state agencies. Because of government commitment to industry partnerships, well organised farmer groups are well placed to play a role in the development of new initiatives, and many are doing so.

2.4 Changes in how extension is delivered

Developing emphasis on electronic transfer of information

The use of the Internet and CD-ROM to publicise research results and information previously only available in hard copy format (such as AgNotes or RDC publications) is being explored by many organisations. A limited amount of material from CRCs, RDCs, state departments of agriculture and private sector researchers is available to download off the Internet. The amount of this available material will probably grow faster than it can be usefully be exploited, given the access limitations in many parts of rural Australia.

The development of electronic information services appears to have been given a reasonably high priority by state agencies. For example, in South Australia the AgSA 2000: Sustainable Agribusiness project aims to develop information technology as a means of communicating relevant and timely information to all South Australian primary producers in a cost effective way. The Queensland DPI has made a lot of information available through the Internet, and their Long Paddock site on the Internet is highly regarded. In Western Australia, the provision of electronic information has been given a high priority within Agriculture WA’s ‘Management and Distribution of Information’ project. It is likely that within a short time frame there will be a substantial amount of agricultural and environmental software available either free or for trial on the Internet.

Some agencies are putting considerable effort into getting their material available on CD-ROM and floppy disc. The Queensland DPI, Primary Industries and Resources South Australia (PIRSA) and the Victorian DNRE have put a collection of their AgNotes onto CD-ROM, calling them PrimeNotes. Agriculture WA has also been developing material and has recently released both a collection of horticulture notes and sheep management and broadacre cropping notes on CD-ROM. PIRSA has an extensive range of decision tools on disc available for sale (at prices ranging from $55 to $300) to farmers and agribusiness, including gross margins for sheep, beef and dryland cropping enterprises, herbicide database for weed control, and least cost sheep and cattle rations.

Developing emphasis on group-based activities

The number of groups that farmers can, and often need to, participate in is growing rapidly. All state departments of agriculture now focus on farmer groups rather than one-to-one extension. Farmer groups are becoming the major vehicle used by Research and Development Corporations to disseminate the results of research that is being conducted with their funds. There has been a proliferation of groups focussing on both technology transfer issues (such as Target 10, Topcrop, Beefcheque, Right Rotations, best practice groups, etc.) and those dealing more with awareness and management/life skills education (such as Farm Management 500, Property Management Planning in all its guises, Landcare, etc.).

Landcare. Landcare first started as an organised program in Victoria in 1986. The concept of Landcare as a national agricultural agenda is a comparatively recent development in Australian agriculture. The number of voluntary Landcare groups, operating throughout rural (and urban) Australia has exceeded initial expectations. The Federal Government initially hoped that there would be 1200 Landcare groups by the year 2000. This number was exceeded in 1993, and there are now well in excess of 2500 Landcare groups. Overall, approximately 30 percent of Australian farmers are involved in Landcare groups (Alexander, 1995), and percentages are much higher than this in some areas (e.g. Victoria and Western Australia).

Government agencies have played a large role in coordinating and providing extension to Landcare groups through the appointment of Landcare coordinators, who act as technical ‘experts’ and/or facilitators. For example, there are currently approximately 30 Landcare Development Officers listed on Agriculture WA’s staff list. A more recent development has been the appointment of Community Landcare Coordinators by local government authorities. In WA, for example, in addition to the staff employed by Agriculture WA, there are approximately a further 50 people employed (either full time or part time) as Community Landcare Coordinators with funds from local government authorities, local catchment groups or private sector sources.

Many organisations are actively involved with Landcare groups, including farmers’ organisations (e.g. the Victorian Farmers Federation, the Agricultural Bureaus in SA), community groups (e.g. the Australian Conservation Foundation, Men of the Trees in WA) and private companies (e.g. Alcoa, BP and the Fuji Xerox). Some selected catchments have received large injections of private sector capital over a number of years. For example, Alcoa has provided capital for projects and activities in selected catchments in WA since 1989, and the Woady Yaloak catchment in Victoria since 1992, investing a total of $10.5m in Alcoa Landcare projects since 1989. Much of the money has been provided for ‘on ground works’ and this has enabled members of Landcare groups in these catchments to implement plans which might otherwise have been uneconomic for them to do so.

‘Brand-name’ groups. The advent of ‘brand name’ groups (e.g. Target 10, Topcrop, Prograze) is a comparatively new development. However they have been embraced with enthusiasm by the RDCs, who are using them to disseminate the results of their funded research. ‘Brand name’ extension is mostly oriented towards technology transfer and essentially seen by the RDCs as information retailing. Target 10, for example, was originally conceived as a dairy extension project focussing on the benefits to dairy farmers of maximising the consumption of pasture grown on their farms; Topcrop is dedicated to best practice in grain growing enterprises through its crop monitoring packages.

Industry participation in and sponsorship of these extension groups is also sought, and is evident in statements such as: "Central to TOPCROP vision is a partnership in information delivery between private consultants. agribusiness and State departments" (Andrews, 1996, p. E4). This desire for industry partnership has contributed to the need for the development of the ‘brand name’ approach. The name enables the extension program to be promoted and quickly recognised by the community and farmers, with all participating organisations recognised equally behind the project brand. Potential issues arising from this, as the RDCs seek to maintain brand identity and quality of their extension ‘products’, are discussed later in this paper.

Local Best Practice groups. The use of Local Best Practice (LBP) groups as an extension medium in Australia is also relatively new. Local Best Practice groups have achieved a deal of success in Queensland where the Queensland DPI (with Meat Research Corporation support) has been instrumental in fostering best-practice groups with beef producers. Their success is generating interest by both farmers and extension practitioners.

The concept of Local Best Practice is theoretically based on an action learning approach. Action research aims to understand a situation of concern by simultaneously taking action to improve it (Blacket, 1996). Proponents of learning based systems such as this consider that for complex farm management issues (e.g. rotation farming, natural resource and catchment management, understanding business viability), farmers’ inaction is caused more by a lack of shared understanding of the problem, than lack of awareness of scientists’ solutions. In these situations where existing practices are being questioned and ownership of the problem by the stakeholders is crucial, action learning offers a powerful model for achieving this ‘shared understanding’. The emphasis is for participants to first co-learn their way towards relevant problem issues. This ensures that the solutions that are generated will be relevant and effective because all stakeholders are part of the solution process (Blacket, 1996).

Group programs focussing specifically on human capital development. Landcare and other already existing groups have been supported by a national human resources development program initiated by the Commonwealth and State governments, the Property Management Planning Campaign (PMP), which commenced in 1993. Commonwealth funding for this program is provided by the National Landcare Program. Using facilitated workshop-based training sessions, the Campaign aims to improve

the managerial skill levels of Australian farmers and graziers in dealing with the various risks associated with running a farming enterprise and to enable landholders to cope effectively with change. (Nothrop, 1996, p. K1)

The focus of the campaign is on facilitated group education using adult learning principles. In the first four years of the campaign more than 3500 workshops have been conducted nationally. All states are implementing their own versions of PMP according to their perceived needs, using various names to market the program (e.g. Farm$mart, Farmwi$e, Farming for the Future). The program is more formally structured in some states than others. In South Australia and Tasmania participants must enrol in a set series of workshops which have been developed under the PMP banner, whereas in NSW, Victoria and Queensland participants can choose which workshops they wish to take.

It has also been recognised that farmers may need assistance to work effectively in the group environment. Group extension programs, for example, may put producers in a situation where they have to deal with leadership issues and conflict resolution. The Meat Research Corporation (MRC) is currently sponsoring workshops ("Working in Groups") to help farmers learn how to work effectively in a group environment. The use of RDC funds for human capital development of this type is unprecedented in Australia.

3. Are changes in extension policy and delivery consistent with what we know about the adoption and diffusion of agricultural technologies?

It is our belief that agricultural extension should be primarily concerned with effecting change through the adoption of changed practices or new innovations (as opposed to simply facilitating producers to learn, except in cases where this may be the most appropriate way to achieve change). It is worth noting that some extension practitioners would contest this view. In this section we outline what can be determined from the empirical evidence with regard to the adoption and diffusion of agricultural innovations, and discuss the previous sections in the light of this.

3.1 What do we know about the adoption and diffusion of agricultural technologies?

Given that agricultural extension is primarily concerned with achieving change, what do we know about how this is best achieved? There is a wealth of empirical evidence on the factors that influence farmers’ adoption of innovations (e.g. Rogers, 1995; Feder and Umali, 1993; Lindner, 1987; Feder et al., 1985), and it includes some very clear cut messages. Unfortunately, responding to these messages is often not straightforward. We can identify the conditions necessary to achieve adoption of an agricultural innovation, but it remains difficult to meet the conditions. The conditions for adoption of an agricultural innovation are briefly outlined below.

Awareness of the innovation

In this context, "awareness" means not just awareness that an innovation exists, but awareness that it is potentially of practical relevance to the farmer. Reaching this point of awareness is a trigger which prompts the farmer to open his or her ears - to begin noting and collecting information about the innovation in order to inform their decision about whether or not to go the next step of trialing the innovation.

Perception that it is feasible to trial the innovation

There is strong evidence that, the world over, most farmers are "risk averse" (Antle, 1987; Bardsley and Harris, 1987; Binswanger, 1980; Bond and Wonder, 1980; Myers, 1987; Pluske and Fraser, 1996). This is evident from the observation that they will not generally leap into large-scale adoption of a new innovation. Rather, they employ small-scale trials, adjusting the scale either upward towards full adoption or downwards towards disadoption as they gain knowledge and confidence in their perception about its performance.

This trial phase is very important, perhaps the most important phase in determining final adoption or disadoption. If small scale trials are not possible or not enlightening for some reason, the chances of widespread adoption are greatly diminished. This is because farmers will be very unlikely to leap to full-scale adoption due to the real risk that the innovation will prove a full-scale failure. This risk of failure should be viewed as part of the cost of gaining high quality information about the innovation. Clearly, the larger the scale of the trial that is necessary, the larger is the cost of this information, and the less likely the farmer is to make the investment in trialing.

Perception that the innovation is worth trialing

Conducting a trial incurs costs of time, energy, finance and land that could be used productively for other purposes. To be willing to trial an innovation, the farmer’s perceptions of it must be sufficiently positive to believe that there is a reasonable chance of adopting the innovation in the long run. It is not necessary for the innovation to be thought to be better than current practice, because the farmer realises that the results of a trial may revise his or her perceptions upwards. However, it cannot be too much worse or the chance of recovering the cost of the trial through later productivity improvements will be too low.

Perception that the innovation promotes the farmer’s objectives

Lindner (1987) in a wide-ranging review of the adoption and diffusion literature concluded that the objectives of individual farmers figure centrally in the adoption and diffusion process. He found that,

there is compelling empirical support for this emerging consensus that the final decision to adopt or reject is consistent with the producer’s self interest. (p. 148)

"Self interest" in this context is considerably broader that merely "profit". It may, for example, include objectives related to risk, leisure and environmental protection. Nevertheless, profit is a particularly important element of "self interest". Indeed, the available evidence indicates that although the speed of uptake of innovations is influenced by a range of factors (including social and demographic factors), the final level of uptake seems to depend primarily on economic factors (e.g. Marsh et al., 1995). There is also strong evidence that even for innovations oriented towards resource conservation, economic considerations are the most important determinants of actual adoption decisions (Cary and Wilkinson, 1997; Sinden and King, 1990). Much has been made in the Landcare movement of the need to promote an ethic of stewardship among farmers, but based on statistical analysis of actual farmer behaviour Sinden and King (1990, p. 179) concluded that,

While the stewardship motivation and personal factors encourage perception and recognition of a problem, economic factors promote actual adoption.

Similarly, Cary and Wilkinson (1997, p. 20) found that,

Generally, the best way to increase the use of conservation practices to overcome land degradation ... will be to ensure the practices are economically profitable.

The finding that self-interest (broadly defined) drives adoption decisions has strong implications for sustainability-related issues in agriculture, and it is in these areas that much public sector extension activity now occurs. It is likely that some farmers will respond somewhat to perceived social pressures or community expectations, but in aggregate this tendency will be swamped by the pursuit of self-interest. If the existing technologies being promoted are not sufficiently profitable (or more generally beneficial;), we must either develop new technologies, or make the existing technologies more attractive through such means as subsidies, tax concessions or, in the extreme, taxes or legal penalties for non-adoption.

3.2 Are changes in extension policy and delivery likely to increase the likelihood of the conditions for adoption being met?

Group-based extension

Despite the positive attitude to group extension reported in a number of qualitative evaluations, quantitative data supporting the ability of group extension to change practices is still scarce. Vanclay and Lawrence (1995) consider that although there has been a growing commitment to group extension in Australia, this has occurred largely because of the disarray in traditional extension (as government agencies have been subjected to financial constraints and restructuring), rather than any evaluation of the effectiveness of the new models to deliver more desirable outcomes. Woods et al. (1993, p. 67) also express this concern, noting that: "Many claims are made about the effectiveness of groups, however the links are often tenuous and the basis for conclusions not clear."

The lack of quantitative evidence is at least partly due to the fact that documenting quantitative changes and attributing them to extension is inherently difficult (Huffman, 1978; Feder et al., 1987; Marsh et al., 1996). Changes in practices are influenced by a wide range of factors, one of which could potentially be the extension method used.

However, group-based extension done well appears to have many advantages because of its emphasis on adult learning principles and encouragement of producer ‘ownership’ of both problems and solutions. The group approach provides a framework for information delivery that especially enables information relating to a range of factors (e.g. production, environmental, sociological) to be integrated (Woods et al., 1993). Furthermore, it provides a means of consolidating stakeholder views and input from farmers within a cooperative environment. It has also facilitated the entry of rural people other than producers into agricultural issues, particularly in the Landcare program.

The success of such programs as Target 10 and Topcrop illustrates that ‘technology transfer’ does not necessarily equate with a linear model of extension but can occur very effectively within a group approach where there is a considerable degree of producer control. In many instances the participatory process occurring in the ‘brand name’ group situation appears to be working well. Burgess (1996) comments in relation to Target 10 that the collaborative approach has resulted in an expectation of significant consultation with farmers and industry for all planned projects.

Moreover, Cary (1996) considers that Target 10 has conceptually addressed issues associated with public sector delivery of the ‘private good’ information required by farmers who have become increasingly specialised (in this case, dairy farmers). In this extension program, producer-levied funds (through the Dairy RDC funding of Target 10) have been used to employ government agency extension officers to promote technologies to increase dairy production efficiency. The use of producer-levied funds has then ensured the right of producers to be involved in the planning and implementation of the extension program. This reasoning applies equally to other similar ‘brand name’ extension programs.

Groups are proving to be an effective means of extension in many, but not all, situations. There are however still a number of substantial issues that need to be addressed, especially relating to (a) its effectiveness in all situations, (b) its sustainability and (c) its ability to involve all who need to be involved. There are a number of factors which have the potential to limit its effectiveness, as outlined below.

Representativeness. The tendency for farmer groups to leave out some sectors of the community is well documented (e.g. Arnaiz, 1995; Bebbington et al., 1994; Ashby and Sparling, 1994; Vanclay and Lawrence, 1995). Farmers with greater wealth and larger properties are over-represented in group activities. Implementation of practical strategies for involving women in groups still lag behind the recognition of their importance, despite a reasonable amount of documentation from researchers on barriers to participation by women in extension activities (see Kerby et al., 1996, for a summary). As state agencies become more involved with group extension that involves whole farm thinking (e.g. Property Management Planning) the need to address the views, concerns and participation of women will become increasingly important.

As extension continues to be oriented towards farmers in group situations, and these groups feed back into research and extension directions, it will become increasingly important to remember that some types of farmers are less likely to be involved in these groups. Some state departments of agriculture acknowledge that they are now deliberately targeting ‘top’ (i.e. large and wealthy) farmers, and this approach is a understandable commercial decision for private sector providers. The user-pays approach implicitly reinforces this segmentation strategy, biasing extension towards individuals and industries better able to pay (Vanclay and Lawrence, 1995). This tendency has been observed in New Zealand following the commercialisation and then privatisation of public sector extension services (Walker, 1995).

For some situations (e.g. Topcrop groups) it might be acceptable to acknowledge that those most likely to be participating are the ‘20 percent of farmers responsible for 80 percent of the production’, and even target these farmers deliberately. In other cases, more widespread involvement is required for extension objectives to be achieved, notably Landcare and industry protection initiatives (e.g. noxious weeds, farm safety). For these examples non-participation by farmers becomes a crucial consideration.

The ability of groups to address issues. The ability of groups to address issues effectively is limited by the knowledge, perceptions and financial position of members of the group. The group extension approach (as conceptualised in the ‘best practice’ situation) relies upon farmer awareness of their own problems. Indeed, with true ‘bottom-up’ philosophy farmers must be free to make mistakes (Vanclay and Lawrence, 1995). These authors point out that:

Reliance on farmers’ local knowledge to solve problems that are new to their experience, such as environmental problems, is unlikely to be successful. The insidious nature of such problems means that farmers may still not recognise them - even after extensive damage might have occurred. While it is possible that many traditional problems may be solved with new extension methods, new problems, particularly environmental problems, may be best dealt with through a combination of new and traditional extension. The cost implications of this may not appeal to state governments which are in the process of dismantling the older forms of extension. (pp. 125-126)

It appears to the authors that, in Australia, excessive reliance is being placed on farmers’ local knowledge via group-based extension to solve environmental problems which lie beyond the farmers’ experience and, potentially, their technical knowledge. What does this mean for current extension of conservation-oriented farming practices? The organisation of farmers into catchment groups to tackle conservation/environmental issues does address some of the problems associated with externalities. Landcare groups have the potential to overcome some of the local problems associated with equitably allocating costs and benefits between neighbouring landholders, where some landholders incur disproportionate costs of land restorations or receive disproportionate benefits.

The Landcare group approach has proved successful in creating awareness and creating a good deal of acceptance of the ‘landcare ethic’. It enables information and resources to be shared. It also has a strength in that it recognises local knowledge, and enables producers to set their own priorities and strategies. However, it suffers from the disadvantages and limitations which are common to all group extension situations. More worryingly, it seems apparent that governments and funding bodies still believe that Landcare extension through Landcare groups will be sufficient to achieve widespread adoption of conservation practices. It seems clear that unless the practices are actually in the farmers’ own best interests, then this belief is misguided. For large environmental problems, such as salinity, we do not believe that there are currently-known practices which are actually in farmers’ best interests to adopt.

The ability of groups to meet the needs of group members. The continued viability of farmers’ groups depends in part upon their capacity to provide members with goods and services which address their immediate needs. Farmers will leave groups if they perceive that they have learnt all they want to know, or if the pace or range of activities does not suit them (Burgess, 1996; Ainsworth and Sounness, 1997). This is one of the major reasons put forward by producers and extension practitioners for producers having real control of the group agenda, and it is the one of the principles behind the concept of local best practice groups. Groups with strict guidelines and controlling objectives imposed from outside may not be sustainable.

The ability of groups to meet farmers’ needs can be affected by lack of funding and expertise available "on the ground" to help them. Group extension may increase the demands for information and individual extension (Vanclay & Lawrence, 1995). If these needs are unmet through lack of funding or lack of suitable personnel, this limits the potential of the group and threatens its sustainability. This has been identified as a problem for Landcare groups who perceive that they are not given enough money to achieve on ground works (Alexander, 1995). The growth in numbers of groups (especially ‘brand name’ groups) raises questions about the ability of the industry to service them adequately.

The fact that farmer groups need to address and meet the more immediate needs of its members has the potential to conflict with longer term research and extension objectives. If groups have the ability to influence research and policy directions, farmers’ short-term research priorities may tend to divert research from longer-term research with less immediately tangible benefits (Arnaiz, 1995; Ashby and Sparling, 1994). This has implications for environmental and conservation research, as well as for important basic or strategic research which will nourish applied research and development in years to come.

Extension focussing on human resource development

Third world extension experience indicates many benefits from human capital development, especially with regard to group/program sustainability. However, the commitment of RDC funds to programs of this nature is open to question. Cary (1993, p. 344), for example, states that:

Except in cases of special disadvantage, it is more difficult to argue for government support for agricultural adult education in an environment of free, universal primary and secondary education and charging for other forms of technical adult education.

Concerns of a similar vein were made by Gleeson (1997) who commented that the current emphasis on farmer ‘education’ was occurring with minimal liaison with education institutions.

There is little attention given to the contribution that should be made by the TAFE and higher education sectors. Furthermore, agricultural information centres, and such like, seemingly blossom as though there is no regional library service in rural Australia. Farm counsellors are appointed outside of the mainstream financial and personal counselling structures. These are symptoms of a system that too often fails to identify desirable outcomes, who is responsible and which tools should be used to achieve those outcomes. (p. 6)

Those involved with programs such as the MRC’s "Working in Groups" project speak highly of their value. And indeed some reviewers of programs which emphasise technology transfer stress the value of the human resource development that occurred as part of the program. Coutts (1996), for example, argues that the human capital development that occurred was the most valuable part of the MRC’s Prograze program. However, the general difficulties of evaluating extension are compounded for extension which focuses on the development of human resource capital. Lack of benchmarking opportunities often makes evaluation of such programs difficult. Typically, evaluation involves statements about changes in beliefs and attitudes as a result of participation in the program, rather than quantitative measures of changed practices. While not denying the benefits of programs which influence beliefs and attitudes, there is a wealth of literature which attests that achieving actual changes in practices (i.e. the adoption of new technologies or management systems) is largely dependent on profitability, even for conservation technologies (e.g. Lindner, 1987; Sinden & King, 1990; Feder & Umali, 1993; Cary & Wilkinson, 1997).

Many programs are attempting to tighten up benchmarking standards to allow measurable evaluation. However, some programs with high human capital resource development components may still be perceived as beneficial by participants, even if they do not show measurable changes in practices. This could especially be a problem with programs where producer "ownership" is sought and achieved. It is definitely a problem facing Landcare extension now that funds are being used from the National Heritage Trust, and accountability against desired measurable outcomes will be required.

We believe that accountability is important, but is not the be all and end all, as the influence of extension cannot be restricted to directly measurable affects on the adoption process (Huffman, 1978). The contribution to growth in human capital from extension is a valuable component of extension. Thus, Antholt (1994, p. 26) sees a major advantage in beneficiaries being involved in the planning and implementation of an extension program as it "takes the burden off extension management, for whom it is not possible objectively to take into account the qualitative dimensions of the service provided by agents." Nevertheless, accountability is very important in the current political and administrative climate, and it may be very beneficial to increase the resources devoted to rigorous quantitative evaluations focussing on actual behaviour change attributable to extension.

Increasing emphasis on nationally-based programs

In Section 2 we commented that a shift in control of and responsibility for extension activities is becoming evident with the developing role of the RDCs and other nationally-funded programs as co-ordinators and "wholesalers" of information marketing activities. National coordination is being flagged by the RDCs as a way of maintaining control over "extension products" from funded research, reducing duplication of services and overcoming perceived difficulties caused by changes in the role of state agencies that reflect differing political realities in each state. We see a danger in national coordination reflecting top-down priorities and concerns, and feel that it is contrary to an objective of industry ownership. It is also resource-hungry, and benefits may be difficult to achieve in practice.

There is the potential for conflicting objectives and interests to develop between farmers, RDCs, public sector agencies and private sector stakeholders as to how groups are to be used, and evidence that this is already occurring. For example, both the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) and MRC are particular about the goals and aims of Topcrop and Prograze groups respectively, with enforcement through funding decisions. Some farmer groups have preferred to forgo the funding offered in order to maintain their independence and autonomy. There is some conceptual difficulty in coming to terms with an extension philosophy that purports to be "farmer-driven", but only within the confines of imposed "top-down" goals. This could eventually prove a problem for funders as more groups opt out in order to control their own directions.

On a different tack, monitoring and evaluation of out-sourced activities and private sector input into national extension programs presents challenges to public sector agencies and funding bodies respectively. These include difficulties associated with evaluating the relative efficiencies of public and private sector delivery, difficulties associated with monitoring programs where funding decisions are nationally-based and monitoring is regionally-based, and the tendency for vested interests to maintain a funded service, especially where evaluation is done by the deliverer of the service.

Organisational changes within public sector agencies contributing to the weakening of research/extension linkages

Interdependence between extension and research is well known and recognised. Lack of institutional coordination and cooperation has also long been noted, particularly in developing countries (Evenson 1986; Antholt, 1994). Evenson (1986) concluded that where there are poor linkages between research and extension programs, the results of research are not turned into productivity gains by extension services. Some Australian state departments now seem to be deliberately weakening these links. Tasmania has separate institutions for research and extension, and in South Australia, the research institution, SARDI, has only recently been rejoined with PIRSA. These changes are significant, and although it is too early to evaluate the results of these moves, some are alarmed at the risk of the research institutions retreating into academic orientations and cultures. It would be a particular tragedy if this were to occur in Australia given that close linkages were a traditional strength of our agricultural research and extension. Once lost, the linkages will not be easily re-established.

Even in other states, factors such as the reduction in one-to-one extension and reduced experience and expertise of public sector extension agents, coupled with constraints on researchers imposed by the Funder-Purchaser-Provider system and other new institutional arrangements seem certain to reduce the direct contact between farmers and public sector researchers. Another factor contributing to weak research/extension links is the lack of processes to obtain private sector feedback to public sector researchers. As the private sector takes increasing responsibility for production-oriented extension delivery it will become more important for them to have input into research priorities. Barriers to obtaining this input, such as the costs to the private sector of engaging with the public sector, will need to be addressed.

Issues arising from the increase in the numbers of extension service providers

The sheer number of alternative providers offering services provides a challenge to farmers and other clients wishing to use or even be aware of available options, and raises issues of information coordination and information availability. Information will be more fragmented as research is carried out by more organisations and intellectual property rights are sought. This presents two challenges.

The difficulty of preventing information fragmentation and research duplication in this research environment.

The need to control the amount of information in order to prevent an "information explosion" where information providers over supply their produce in a market where there is no quality control and inadequate signals from consumer to supplier.

The need for data-base collection and coordination will become increasingly important, and recognition of this is promoting calls by RDCs for national coordination of information collection and dissemination.

Lindner (1993) identified the relatively low level of free exchange of scientific information between private sector organisations as having the potential to reduce the efficiency of private sector research, compared with research conducted by the public sector. The free exchange of information between private and public sectors is now being affected by the rapidly growing emphasis on protection of intellectual property rights. Historically, effective extension information to farmers has depended on the free dissemination of information amongst farmers. As farmers are required to pay for information they could become less willing to share it. If this is true, it provides a powerful argument for free public provision of agricultural information (Baxter et al., 1989).

Privatisation/commercialisation of extension services

In Australia, extension services are currently funded and delivered in many different ways. There is currently a trend towards an increase in extension services delivered by the private sector with either public or private sector funding (or a mix of both). In the prevailing political climate, there is every indication that this will continue and that there will be further growth in the private sector.

The changes now taking place in government agencies which are pulling extension towards commercialisation appear a threat to the capacity of governments to deliver extension outcomes in important areas of public good (e.g. Landcare and the environment). This is occurring at the same time as a philosophical shift is being articulated whereby government sees itself less responsible for services which can be adequately delivered by the private sector. The tension, or indeed direct contradiction, between these two changes does not appear to have aroused much comment, much less any proposals for resolution.

In the long run it may come to be a concern that the shift from public to private funding of extension reduces agencies’ capacities to implement those desired government policies which are not of a commercial nature. This has already happened in New Zealand where the government has realised that commercialisation has greatly reduced its ability to direct and influence either the direction or speed of change. Since 1991 they have required policy departments to undertake "facilitation programmes" in support of the key government objectives such as economic growth, improved management of the environment, and social cohesion.

The policy shift towards encouragement of private sector extension provision partly reflects a quest for increased efficiency of the extension system. As Cary (1996, p. 18) observes:

Efficient markets quickly resolve questions of supply and demand by swapping information between users and suppliers of extension services about what services are required and what might be supplied, as well as feedback about service provision.

The arguments for public extension are based on the premise that agricultural information is a public good (or a mix of public and private good that is difficult to separate) and/or that it is socially desirable to provide that information as if it were a public good (Cary, 1996). Reasons put forward to support the latter position include social equity (Vanclay and Lawrence, 1995), and the need "for better management of common property natural resources and to provide for farmers who lack access to educational or management services" (Cary, 1996, p. 18). Consequently, it has been argued that the private sector should provide services in areas where the service is a private good and the public sector should provide services which are clearly public goods.

Use of the public/private good ‘decision rule’ is currently influencing the change in emphasis of publicly funded extension from production-oriented extension to conservation/environmental-oriented extension. Recognition of the externalities associated with conservation farming and the government desire to promote sustainable land use is increasing the availability of public funds for Landcare extension. For the government this means that:

it is likely that the short or medium term economic returns to government investment in conservation and restoration of rural environmental resources will be less than an equivalent investment in technology transfer related to production services. Hence public good investment in resource conservation will depend on public or government commitment to the "public good". (Cary, 1996, p. 20)

For public sector extension services it could mean that they are left mainly providing services in areas where there are special difficulties. For understandable reasons, it is much more difficult to achieve success in sustainability-oriented extension than productivity-oriented extension. Furthermore, the lack of quantifiable results from sustainability-oriented extension is difficult to accommodate within the accountability models being implemented by public sector agencies.

We see a number of problems arising from policies that relegate publicly funded extension services exclusively to areas which are designated to be concerned with information seen to have public good characteristics. These include:

the difficulties associated with achieving success in these areas. There is a danger that too much knowledge and capability will be lost from the public sector if they are left with only the public good areas.

the difficulties in determining whether services are delivering public or private goods. Much agricultural information is a mix of public and private good that is difficult to separate. Incidences of market failure are likely to be location or industry specific, rather than associated with particular types of information per se.

The increasing commercialisation of extension raises a number of further questions. These include concerns that extension may be biased towards individuals and industries better able to pay, concerns that industry may become too interventionist, and concerns about the corporatisation of Landcare. These examples are simply the result of the commercial realities of industry involvement. If agricultural extension is to become totally or even largely dependent on a ‘commercial imperative’ then there will certainly be examples where the directions pursued are not economically efficient from the point of view of society as a whole, or are contrary to other goals related to social welfare or the environment.

Electronic delivery of information

A number of recent reviews explore and document the practical limitations of the Internet as a significant information tool for rural Australia (Buckeridge, 1996; Easdown, 1996; Groves, 1996). Existing rural telecommunications infrastructure is recognised as limiting the ability of rural Australia to use online services effectively. The long term effects of deregulation (in effect as from the 1^st July 1997) on rural telecommunications is unclear. Some commentators believe that deregulation will provide opportunities for a range of new carriers and service providers who may offer services tailored to the needs of rural and remote areas (Crellin, 1996). However, this is more likely to occur in larger rural centres typical of the eastern states than areas with much smaller population centres such as the eastern wheatbelt in WA or eastern Queensland. It does seem apparent that costs associated with the use of online services in rural Australia will vary considerably, as will the quality of service provided.

The National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) Farmwide OnLine pilot project has been valuable as an evaluation of current service provision and its ease of use. Only 58 percent of the participants in the pilot trial were able to connect to electronic information services at speeds over 14,400 bps. Pilot participants used their online service for an average of 7 hours per month, primarily for email and accessing the Web. They nominated that they would like to be able to access weather, commodity prices and technical, production type information through online services. The pilot trial has provided an opportunity for some providers of faxed and hard copy information to try electronic delivery as a medium. The project deliberately set about obtaining information providers in the marketing area to overcome this already identified information deficiency (Da Rin & Groves, 1996). The NFF also considers that the pilot trial showed that training (in the use of electronic information services) and follow-up support was essential. The support lines provided as part of the trial were relied upon enormously and were very successful (Simpson, 1997).

Apart from access, questions remain about the quality of material available on the Internet. Da Rin and Groves (1996) investigated 206 Web sites to assess the quality and quantity of information relevant to Australian farm business operators. They found that the depth of content offered was highly variable, with many sites providing only a small amount of the information that they have available through other, more traditional, publications. They found a wide range of content, which they judged to be of highest quality for environmental and technical issues, but deficient in other areas, particularly marketing and trade information.

It appears certain that electronic information services will be used for conveying some types of extension information to farmers. For access to general information and exposure to ideas it is an appropriate medium. Although there is still little marketing information on the Web it also seems an appropriate medium for this type of information that needs to be current and regularly updated. Information areas such as this will become de-personalised as electronic communication becomes cheaper. For other types of information it appears to be less useful. For example, it would seem a less appropriate medium for agronomic information which is usually quite locally specific. We also note that many farmers live with longer periods of solitude than most of us in non-farming occupations. If only for this reason, they are likely to resist technologies which reduce the level of human contact, as they appear to have done previously for other "high-tech" approaches to extension.

4. Conclusions - the good, the bad and the misguided

The good

There are many strengths associated with group-based extension. In particular it contributes to the type of awareness that helps farmers learn about the potential relevance of changed farming systems or new innovations. It also allows farmers to work though the practical adaptation problems that are often associated with new systems and innovations with support from their peers and also relevant industry expertise. That is to say, it provides support for trialing.

The required involvement of producers (and agribusiness)in the planning and implementation of extension programs is a very positive development. The involvement of producers in programs in this way ensures that projects are effective and relevant: i.e. the factors that contribute to producer "self interest" achieve a high priority.. If programs are not useful/profitable from the producers’ point of view, producer involvement will soon cease.

Increased private sector involvement in extension of productivity-oriented innovations seems beneficial in some respects. In principle at least it should free up public-sector resources to focus on less tractable extension problems.

The bad

We contend that there is an over-reliance on group-based extension. The disadvantages of group-based extension, particularly issues of non-participation, make it inappropriate for areas where widespread involvement is required for extension objectives to be achieved, notably Landcare and industry protection initiatives. For farmers, the current and developing extension environment means a plethora of groups, often with high participation costs and possibly a low pay-off, or at least one which can be difficult to determine. This is also a potential problem facing agencies who are required to provide services to many groups with overlapping goals. The effectiveness of group-based extension could be threatened by the existence of many groups, with too few that are genuinely worthwhile and productive.

We are concerned that a number of factors are contributing to a weakening of research/extension linkages. These include separate institutional arrangements for agricultural research and extension, organisational changes within state agencies which are reducing contact between researchers and producers, and lack of processes for feedback from the private to the public sector. Overall, we consider there is sufficient formal and anecdotal evidence to indicate that creating separate institutions for research and extension is likely to be a poorly functioning arrangement in the medium to long term. We believe this issue is vital, as even the best extension cannot compensate for irrelevant or ineffective research.

We consider that significant questions about information coordination and availability need to be addressed in the increasingly competitive environment. Free exchange of scientific information is being affected by increased competition between the sectors and by the demands to protect intellectual property rights. This affects awareness of innovations at the most basic level. Little is known as to whether free exchange of information between farmers is being affected in the new commercialised environment.

It appears that across Australia, the total level of resources devoted to extension delivery in the public sector has fallen little, if at all. However, there have been big changes in the type of extension, consistent with the move towards government provision of public goods. We see a number of potential problems arising from these changes.

• Privatisation of funding may result in loss of control of the extension. Government may suffer a reduced capacity to promote its key objectives such as the environment, and social cohesion. This could potentially lead to an increased need to regulate private sector activities.
• Privatisation of delivery may result in the public sector suffering loss of farmer interest/respect and loss of good extension staff, so that achievement of public-good outcomes is made more difficult.
• It is difficult to clearly identify public goods, since most goods and services have a mixture of public and private good characteristics.
• There is also a lack of understanding by most people of the distinction between private and public goods, and the rationale for withdrawing public funds from provision of private goods, so that correct identification of public goods is even more difficult.
  

Rather than splitting services between the sectors on the basis of public/private goods, it could be more healthy for both sectors to be involved in providing both public and private goods. Conventional arguments about the inefficiencies associated with public sector services crowding out the private sector need not apply to many areas of rural research and extension (Lindner, 1993).

The misguided

The current focus on the electronic delivery of information to rural Australia may be somewhat misguided, especially if it means that less information is available via conventional means. There are serious deficiencies in the telecommunications infrastructure currently available to much of rural Australia, as well illustrated by the NFF’s Farmwide Online project. It is also relevant to consider whether there is any reason to expect that farmers will make any greater use of the Web than the limited use they currently make of personal computers. Given current levels of STD charges and farmers’ lifestyle goals it would seem unlikely. STD charges, however, are likely to fall, and farmers’ lifestyle goals may change as farmers become more business oriented and better educated.

Although there are many activities occurring in this area at present, similar flurries of activity have been observed several times before in the "high-tech" delivery of information (e.g. expert systems, simulation models). In all previous cases, the technologies have failed to gain a permanent foothold in practical farm management. It remains to be seen whether CD-ROMs and the World Wide Web will be different, but the historical evidence with other technologies should temper expectations based on the current enthusiasm. It may well be that most farmers continue to prefer more traditional vehicles for information delivery.

We have reservations about the move towards nationally coordinated extension programs. Although some degree of national coordination appears essential for the effective collation of information, we consider that there is a danger that national coordination will attempt to impose "top-down" priorities and concerns, and sits uneasily with an objective of industry/producer ownership. It also makes effective monitoring more difficult.

We consider that it is, at best, extremely uncertain as to how effective extension activities emphasising human capital development will be in achieving measurable changes in practice.

We are dismayed that Government and funding bodies appear to still believe that Landcare extension through Landcare groups will be sufficient to achieve widespread adoption of conservation practices. In particular we are concerned that there is an over-reliance in the belief that farmers can solve these difficult and complex problems themselves through group-based processes, even when it is apparent that in some situations no technology exists to solve the problem.

Even where there exist solutions which are technically and economically effective in the long term, we believe that a key impediment to the uptake of some important conservation innovations is likely to be deep uncertainty about the technology/system and the very slow rate of reduction of this uncertainty even if farmers trial the technology/system. This problem is probably not solvable by more scientific research. It relates to the capacity of farmers to learn about the system and its behaviour, due to its inherent complexity and slow-acting nature.

Widespread adoption of conservation technologies will largely depend on whether farmers perceive it is profitable over the long run for them to do so. Perceptions can be (and are often) changed by showing producers demonstration sites, but unless these sites demonstrate outcomes which are achievable in real farming situations, they will not have a lasting impact on adoption. Once farmers have personal experience with a system, their decisions will be heavily influenced by that experience.

5. Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the funding support of the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.

References

Ainsworth, P. & Sounness, C., 1996, Topcrop Victoria: Strategic Assessment, Agriculture Victoria.

Alexander, H., 1995, A Framework for Change: The State of the Community Landcare Movement in Australia, The National Landcare Facilitator Project, Annual Report, Canberra.

Andrews, R., 1996, "Information Marketing: Who are the Retailers?", paper delivered to the AAAC 1996 Annual Conference Consulting Opportunities in the New Extension Environment, Canberra, Aug 1996.

Antholt, C.H., 1994, "Getting Ready for the Twenty-First Century: Technological Change and Institutional Modernization in Agriculture", World Bank Technical Paper No 217, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Antle, J.M., 1987, "Econometric estimation of producers’ risk attitudes", American Journal of Agricultural Economics 69: 509-522.

Arnaiz, M.E.O., 1995, "Farmers’ Organisations in the Technology Change Process: An Annotated Bibliography", Network Paper 53, Overseas Development Institute, Regent’s Park, London, U.K.

Ashby, J.A. & Sparling, L., 1994, "Institutionalising Participatory Client-Driven Research and Technology Development in Agriculture", Network Paper 49, Overseas Development Institute, Regent’s Park, London, U.K.

Bardsley, P. and Harris, M., 1987, "An approach to the econometric estimation of attitudes to risk in agriculture", Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics 31:112-126.

Baxter, M., Slade, R. and Howell, J., 1989, "Aid and Agricultural Extension: Evidence from the World Bank and Other Donors", World Bank Technical Paper 87, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Bebbington, A.J., Merrill-Sands, D & Farrington, J, 1994, "Farmer and Community Organisations in Agricultural Research and Extension: Functions, Impacts and Questions", Network Paper 47, Overseas Development Institute, Regent’s Park, London, U.K.

Binswanger, H.P., 1980, "Attitudes towards risk: experimental measurement in rural India", American Journal of Agricultural Economics 62: 395-407.

Blacket, D.S., 1996, "When Adoption Theory Fails", Proceedings of the 8^th Australian Agronomy Conference, Toowoomba, Queensland, pp. 104-107.

Bond, G. and Wonder, B., 1980, "Risk attitudes amongst Australian farmers", Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics 24:16-34.

Buckeridge, R., 1996, Rural Australia Online, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Barton, ACT.

Burgess, A., 1996, Dairy Extension in Victoria - Achievements and Vision", in Australasia Pacific Extension Network Conference Proceedings Beyond Technology Transfer, University of Melbourne, 5-6 Dec 1996, pp. 37-39.

Carney, D., 1995, "The changing public role in services to agriculture: a framework for analysis", Food Policy 20: 521-528.

Cary, J.W., 1993, "Changing Foundations for Government Support of Agricultural Extension in Economically Developed Countries", Sociologia Ruralis 23: 336-347.

Cary, J., 1996, "Issues in public and private technology transfer: The cases of Australia and New Zealand", Unpublished paper.

Cary, J.W. & Wilkinson, R.L., 1997, "Perceived Profitability and Farmers’ Conservation Behaviour", Journal of Agricultural Economics 48: 13-21.

Coutts, J.A., 1996, "Extension Education - Lessons from the field", in Australasia Pacific Extension Network Conference Proceedings Beyond Technology Transfer, University of Melbourne, 5-6 Dec 1996, pp. 11-17.

Crellin, I., 1996, "The Australian Telecentres Program: Access to Education, Training and Extension Through the Electronic Media", Learning OnLine: Bright Stars for New Horizons, AIAS Occasional Publication No 101, AIAS, Carlton, Vic, pp. J1-J5.

Da Rin, J. & Groves, J., "What’s on the Web Now for Farmers? Content Analysis of 206 World Wide Web Sites for Australian Farm Businesses", Learning OnLine: Bright Stars for New Horizons, AIAS Occasional Publication No 101, AIAS, Carlton, Vic, pp. F1-F23.

Dancey, R.J., 1993, "The Evolution of Agricultural Extension in England and Wales - Presidential Address", Journal of Agricultural Economics 44: 375-393.

Easdown, W., 1996, "The Role of the Internet in Rural Communities - Research and Development Opportunities for the Rural Extension Centre", University of Queensland, Gatton.

Evenson, R.E., 1986, "The Economics of Extension", in Jones, G.E. (Ed) Investing in Rural Extension: Strategies and Goals, Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London.

Feder, G., Just, R. and Zilberman, D., 1985, "Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A survey", Economic Development and Cultural Change 33: 255-298.

Feder, G., Lau, L.J. and Slade, R.H., 1987, "Does Agricultural Extension Pay? The Training and Visit System in Northwest India", American Journal of Agricultural Economics 69: 677-686.

Feder, G. and Umali, D.L., 1993, "The Adoption of Agricultural Innovations, A Review", Technological Forecasting and Social Change 43: 215-239.

Gleeson, T., 1997, "The Role of Public Sector Extension", paper presented to a RIRDC-sponsored workshop, Australian National University, Canberra, 17-18 Sept 1997.

Groves, J., 1996, Policy Issues in Putting Rural Australia OnLine, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Barton, ACT.

Huffman, W.E., 1978, "Assessing returns to agricultural extension", American Journal of Agricultural Economics 60: 969-975.

Huffman, W.E. and Evenson, R.E., 1993, Science for Agriculture: A Long term Perspective, Iowa State University Press, Ames.

Johnson, R.W.M., Schroder, W.R. & Taylor, N.W., 1989, "Deregulation and the New Zealand Agricultural Sector: A Review", Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics 57: 47-74.

Kerby, J., McClure, L, Westley, A. & Young, M., 1996, Valuing Women as Customers, Technical Report 248, Primary Industries South Australia.

Lindner, R.K., 1987, "Adoption and Diffusion of Technology: An Overview", in Technological Change in Postharvest Handling and Transportation of Grains in the Humid Tropics, Eds. Champ, B.R., Highley, E. and Remenyi, J.V., ACIAR, Proc. No 19, 144-151.

Lindner, R.K., 1993, "Privatising the Production of Knowledge: Promise and Pitfalls for Agricultural Extension", Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics 37: 205-225.

Marsh, S.P., Pannell, D.J. & Lindner, R.K., 1995, "The Adoption of Lupins in Western Australia: Did Extension Make a Difference?", Paper presented at the 39th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural Economics Society, University of Western Australia, February 14-16, 1995.

Marsh, S.P., Pannell, D.J. & Lindner, R.K., 1996, "Agricultural Extension and the Rate of Adoption of Innovations: A Case Study of the Adoption and Diffusion of Lupins in Western Australia", Final report for RIRDC Project UWA-11A, University of Western Australia.

Myers, R.J., 1989, "Econometric testing for risk averse behaviour in agriculture", Applied Economics 21: 541-552.

Nothrop, L., 1996, "The National Property Management Planning Campaign and Accreditation of Facilitators", paper delivered to the AAAC 1996 Annual Conference Consulting Opportunities in the New Extension Environment, Canberra, Aug 1996.

Prinsley, R., Dore, J., Marks, N., McGuckian, N. & Thompson, P., 1994, The Role of the Private Sector in Extension - A report to the Research and Development Corporations, RIRDC Occasional Paper No 94/3.

Pluske, J. and Fraser, R., 1996, "Can producers place valid and reliable valuations of wool price-risk information?", Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics 63: 284-291.

Queensland Department of Primary Industries, 1990, QDPI Extension Policy Review, Queensland Government, Brisbane.

Rivera, W.M., 1996, "Agricultural extension in transition worldwide: structural, financial and managerial strategies for improving agricultural extension", Public Administration and Development 16: 151-161.

Rivera, W.M. & Gustafson, D.J. (Eds.), 1991, Agricultural Extension: Worldwide Institutional Evolution and Forces for Change, Amsterdam, Elsevier.

Rogers, E.M., 1995, Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York.

Röling, N.G., 1988, Extension Science, Information Systems in Agricultural Development, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Sheldrake, R., 1996, "Opportunities for Private Consulting in Research and Extension in NSW", paper delivered to the AAAC 1996 Annual Conference Consulting Opportunities in the New Extension Environment, Canberra, Aug 1996.

Sinden, J.A. and King, D.A., 1990, "Adoption of Soil Conservation Measures in Manilla Shire, New South Wales", Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics 58: 179-192.

Simpson, I., 1993, Rural Extension - a change in emphasis, Proceedings of the workshop Defining/redefining extension practice, Orange, NSW.

Simpson, R., 1997, "Excerpts from a paper delivered to Gatton Agricultural College, Dalby", Unpublished paper.

Vanclay, F. and Lawrence, G., 1995, The Environmental Imperative: Eco-Social Concerns for Australian Agriculture, Central Queensland University Press, Rockhampton, Queensland.

Walker, A.B., 1995, "Some New Zealand Observations on the Two-way Street of Public and Private Extension", paper presented to the Diary Horizons Conference, Melbourne, Nov 1995.

Watson, A.S., 1996, The Economics of Charging for Research, Dairy Research and Development Corporation, Glen Iris.

Woods, E., Moll, G., Coutts, J., Clark, R & Ivin, C., 1993, Information Exchange. A report commissioned by Australia’s rural research and development corporations, Land & Water Resources Research & Development Corporation, Canberra, ACT.

Citation: Marsh, S.P. and Pannell, D.J. (1998). Agricultural extension policy in Australia: The good, the bad and the misguided. Contributed paper to the 42^nd Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, University of New England, NSW, Jan 19-21, 1998.

Marsh, S.P. and Pannell, D.J. (2000). Agricultural extension policy in Australia: The good, the bad and the misguided. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 44(4): 605-627.

The SEA News index is at http://welcome.to/seanews

Adoption, diffusion and extension papers, UWA

Copyright © Sally P. Marsh and David J. Pannell, 1998
Last revised: May 21, 2003.