SEA Working Paper 97/03
What
we think we know about extension,
and why its not enough for Landcare
Sally P. Marsh and David J. Pannell
Agricultural and Resource Economics, The University of W.A., Nedlands, 6907
Abstract
A great deal of money is being invested by governments, agribusiness and farmers in extension efforts to encourage farmers to adopt practices which will stop continuing land degradation. The Landcare movement in Australia has done a great deal to raise awareness of land degradation issues and show ways in which they can be tackled. However, despite this awareness, the rate of uptake of conservation practices by farmers in general is slow, and less than desired by both governments and committed farmers. In this paper we look at the reasons why Landcare technologies are different from the other innovative technologies that farmers make decisions about using. We contend that adopting Landcare technologies involves difficult and different economic decision problems for farmers. We argue that only by acknowledging and looking realistically at these problems can progress be made in getting Landcare practices widely adopted.
Introduction
A great deal of money is being invested by governments, agribusiness and farmers in extension efforts, through the Landcare movement, to encourage farmers to adopt practices which will reduce or stop land degradation. In previous years, the program was perceived as having been effective in increasing awareness, but as lacking the coordination and resources to achieve widespread change in farming practices and catchment management (Alexander, 1995), and these issues are currently being addressed. However, we believe that the problems facing Landcare go well beyond the need to simply have better coordination of information and more resources.
Despite a high level of awareness by farmers of land degradation issues (Vanclay & Lawrence, 1995), the rate of uptake of conservation practices by farmers in general is slow; much less than desired by both governments and committed farmers. Vanclay and Lawrence (1995, p. 78) claim that farmers do have a ‘landcare ethic’ but "the fact that farmers have appropriate environmental attitudes does not guarantee that they will adopt the necessary practices." We believe that adopting conservation technologies involves difficult and different economic decision problems for farmers, and that Landcare extension alone will be insufficient to achieve the adoption of many conservation technologies. Only by acknowledging and looking realistically at these problems can progress be made in getting Landcare practices widely adopted.
What do we know about the conditions for adoption of an agricultural innovation?
The fundamental challenge facing us in addressing land degradation is to develop a farming system that will be adopted and maintained by farmers. In practice, in a democracy it is not in society’s power to directly select a sustainable integrated farming system, because it is not possible to simply order farmers to adopt the chosen system. Rather we are constrained by the effectiveness of the various tools that can be used to encourage adoption. The farming system that comes into existence will be that which results from farmers’ reaction to the government policies and institutions in place (Hollick, 1990; Pannell, 1997).
There is a wealth of empirical evidence on the factors that influence farmers’ adoption of innovations (e.g. Lindner, 1987; Feder and Umali, 1993, Rogers, 1995), 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 are:
Awareness of the innovation: For any individual, "awareness" means not just being aware that the innovation exists, but being aware that the innovation may potentially be of practical relevance to them.
Perception that it is feasible to trial the innovation: Farmers do 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. If small scale trials are not possible or not enlightening for some reason, the chances of widespread adoption are greatly diminished.
Perception that the innovation is worth trialling: 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.
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".
In the past, most research on the factors which influence adoption and diffusion of innovations has centred around ‘profitable’ production-oriented innovations, and not on complex systems innovations that typify sustainable management systems. Some researchers have argued that the factors influencing the adoption of conservation technologies could be different to those affecting the adoption of production-oriented technologies (Pampel and van Es, 1977; Napier et al., 1984). However, the available empirical evidence does not support this argument at all. Recent Australian research indicates that while a stewardship ethic and personal factors influence perception of environmental problems, it is economic factors which actually promote adoption of conservation technologies. For example, based on a statistical analysis of actual farmer behaviour, Sinden and King (1990) concluded that,
"While the stewardship motivation and personal factors encourage perception and recognition of a problem, economic factors promote actual adoption." (p. 179)
Similarly, Cary and Wilkinson (1997) 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." (p. 20)
What makes the economic decision problems associated with the adoption of conservation technologies different and difficult?
The conservation of environmental resources typically involves costs and benefits occurring beyond a particular site (so-called "externalities"), and costs and benefits which may be incurred by future generations rather than the present generation. In addition, the conservation of environmental resources typically involves high transaction costs, because often cooperative action is required by a large number of geographically disperse agents (e.g. farmers in a catchment). The presence of externalities, long time scales and transaction costs makes it difficult to clearly ascertain what will be the costs and benefits to each individual farmer of changing a particular farm practice. These factors contribute to uncertainty about the economic result to an individual farmers of adopting conservation practices
Additionally, it is particularly difficult for farmers to evaluate trials of conservation farming practices. For a trial to be worthwhile, the results need to be observable. Many degradation processes are slow relative to the time frames used for most management decision making (e.g. dryland salinisation, soil acidification). In evaluating a trial, one requires the degradation to be continued under the old farming system for long enough for differences under the new farming system to become apparent. Historical degradation is not useful for this. Observation commences with the trial of the new system. Obviously, the slower the degradation process, the longer it will take to be convinced about differences in degradation rates. Unfortunately there are additional factors which further delay the confident recognition of any such differences. They include:
These sources of variability are overlaid on the trial and so their impacts are confounded with any effect attributable to the new farming system. Can’t this simply be overcome by telling and showing farmers about the benefits of the new system? In general, this is not sufficient. This is the dilemma facing Landcare extension. Farmers are wary of outside experts telling them what is best for them and often this wariness is well-founded. It is more difficult that most realise to recognise and account correctly for the many subtle and interacting factors that determine the impact of a technology an any individual farmer’s welfare. An obvious example is advice based on biological or physical considerations without adequate attention to economics. We see this as a problem associated with extension featuring demonstration sites on farms or catchment plans which have been implemented with corporate sponsorship.
For the reasons outlined, conservation extension faces special problems. Specifically, it means that:
As well as these difficulties which influence farmers’ perceptions about the value of the practices being recommended, there are other more easily recognisable economic difficulties because:
Can Landcare groups alleviate any of these difficulties?
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. This approach recognises that it is appropriate that farmers should have more control over the information that they need or want and the way it is delivered. Extension should be "demand pull" rather then "science push". Groups are seen as the most appropriate medium to work in under this model of extension , with the extension officer often playing the role of facilitator.
"The demand pull approach is initiated by farmers identifying and defining their problems. ... In the wider and more representative sense of demand pull relevant to agricultural extension, the solutions to problems defined by farmers are likely to be within the province of farmers’ control, rather than requiring more sophisticated research. ... Such an approach can use existing community knowledge with the extension worker adopting the role of helper rather than the role of expert." (Cary, 1993, p. 340)
However we would argue that this approach sometimes seems to be based on the assumption that farmers have the answers already. Reliance on farmers’ local knowledge to solve problems that are new to their experience, such as many environmental problems, is unlikely to be successful (Vanclay and Lawrence, 1995). This problem is further compounded by the long slow process that is associated with evaluating the effects of changed farming systems that we have outlined previously.
It is, of course, appropriate that extension agents should work with Landcare groups. Extension has been found to be most influential at an early stage in the diffusion process (i.e. when the innovation is not widely adopted), because it can potentially provide relevant information when innovations are being evaluated by farmers (Feder and Slade, 1986; Rogers, 1995; Marsh et al., 1996). However, to overcome any problem associated with deficiencies in local knowledge, Landcare groups need to be satisfactorily served by technically well-informed extension agencies in order to ensure that their information and other resource needs are met.
Organisation of farmers into catchment groups does tackle 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. In New Zealand this approach has been taken a step further and the delivery of natural resource conservation programs has been transferred to regional councils. Funding is obtained by levies on regional landholders, thus attempting to better match regional externality costs and benefits.
However, there can be difficulties in overcoming inequities caused by externalities, even when problems are tackled in a catchment framework. This is because of the transaction costs involved, and because the groups may not always involve everyone who needs to be involved. Those who belong may well be those with something to gain , but they may not necessarily be those whose farming practices need to change. The basic problem is that forming groups doesn’t change the underlying incentives sufficiently. Groups are more likely to work well when all members face the same incentives.
What can’t Landcare groups do
No amount of extension or Landcare group activity can make farmers adopt a changed farming system if they don’t perceive it is in their best interests to do so. It may help farmers decide that it is in their best interests to do so, but for the reasons we have discussed this can be difficult or at least slow.
"In situations of high interest rates, with future discounting entering into the calculations, it is likely that many soil conservation techniques and management practices are not economic. Except where land degradation reduces the capital value of the land or yields, land degradation is an externality to the economic situation of farmers. In situations of conflicting technical information, unpredictable markets and uncertain return from investment in soil conservation, it may be economically rational for farmers to avoid widespread adoption of soil conservation technology." (Vanclay and Lawrence, 1995, pp. 88-89)
Economists would argue that the widespread adoption of conservation farming systems will require serious consideration of appropriate economic incentives. One example of this would be to put processes in place to encourage farm values to reflect their environmental condition. For example, the Australian Farm Journal (August 1997) carried a report of a project in NSW (funded by the National Australia Bank, the Grains Research and Development Corporation and the Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation) to put a dollar value on soil productivity. The benefits of doing this are based on the premise that land valuations should reflect the result of a scientific soil analysis to protect buyers against declining productivity and reward sellers who have improved their land. A more radical proposal is put forward by Schapper (1997), who argues that agricultural land should be assessed against appropriate government-determined environmental standards each and every time ownership is transferred. The transfer would be dependent on the standards being attained, or the costs of bringing the land back to the required standard recouped from the sale price of the property.
Conclusion
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.
To reiterate our main point, the problem of land degradation in Australia is too important to be left to the Landcare movement alone. Extension of a landcare ethic and moral suasion through group pressure will not necessarily translate into the widespread adoption of conservation technologies. Serious consideration of the on-farm economic realities of conservation technologies will need to be tackled by governments and researchers before this will occur.
References
Alexander, H., 1995, A Framework for Change: The State of the Community Landcare Movement in Australia, The National Landcare Facilitator Project, Annual Report, Canberra.
Australian Farm Journal, August 1997, pp. 80-81.
Cary, J.W., 1993, "Changing Foundations for Government Support of Agricultural Extension in Economically Developed Countries", Sociologia Ruralis 23: 336-347.
Cary, J.W. & Wilkinson, R.L., 1997, "Perceived Profitability and Farmers’ Conservation Behaviour", Journal of Agricultural Economics 48: 13-21.
Feder, G. and Slade, R.H., 1986, "Methodological Issues in the Evaluation of Extension Impact", In: G.E. Jones (ed), Investing in Rural Extension: Strategies and Goals, Elsevier, London.
Feder, G. and Umali, D.L., 1993, "The Adoption of Agricultural Innovations, A Review", Technological Forecasting and Social Change 43: 215-239.
Hollick, M., 1990, "Land conservation policies and farmer decision making", Australian Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 3: 6-13.
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.
Napier, T.L., Thraen, C.S., Gore, A. and Goe, W.R., 1984, "Factor Affecting Adoption of Conventional and Conservation Tillage Practices in Ohio", Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, May-June, 205-209.
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.
Pampel, F. and van Es, J.C., 1977, "Environmental Quality and Issues of Adoption Research", Rural Sociology, 42: 57-71.
Pannell, D.J., 1997, "Balancing economics and sustainability in building an integrated agricultural system", In: R. Hobbs, D. Saunders and R. Lambeck (eds), An Integrated Approach to a Sustainable Future, (in press).
Rogers, E.M., 1995, Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York.
Schapper, H.P., 1997, "Western Australia’s agriculture and pastoralism in cultural and ecological perspective", In: S. Lockie and F. Vanclay, Critical Landcare, Centre for Rural Social Research, Wagga Wagga, NSW.
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.
Vanclay, F. and Lawrence, G., 1995, The Environmental Imperative: Eco-Social Concerns for Australian Agriculture, Central Queensland University Press, Rockhampton, Queensland.
Citation: Marsh, S.P. and Pannell, D.J. (1997). What we think we know about extension, and why its not enough for Landcare. Paper presented at Western Australian Landcare Conference, Geraldton, September 1997.
The SEA News index is at http://welcome.to/seanews