Participatory on-farm resarch and demonstration in UK arable cropping
(United Kingdom)
Description
To find and demonstrate ways of better managing the land.
Aims / objectives: Objectives: to improve soil management, reduce soil erosion; to reduce water pollution; to enable farmer to maintain the economic viability of his operations; to disseminate project results; to engage with stakeholders; to encourage farmers to adopt the technology.
Methods: Presentation of technical and economic data; frequent discussions and field visits with farmers and their advisors, use of all dissemination options (opendays, presentations, agricultural press, radio, television).
Stages of implementation: Consultation bewteen project members and land manager on management practice; regular project meetings; collaboration with other organisations.
Role of stakeholders: Use of project experience to solve problems and set up appropriate trials, communication with various stakeholders.
Location
Location: Leicestershire and Somerset, United Kingdom
Geo-reference of selected sites
Initiation date: 2003
Year of termination: 2006
Type of Approach
-
traditional/ indigenous
-
recent local initiative/ innovative
-
project/ programme based
.
In field discussion between land manager and SWC specialists.
Approach aims and enabling environment
Main aims / objectives of the approach
The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (soil quality, water quality, speed and cost of crop establishment, biodiversity)
To find and demonstrate ways of better managing the land. To demonstrate the viability and effectiveness of conservation oriented arable land management systems in protecting soil resources, improving catchment water quality and promoting biodiversity. To provide demonstrations of best practice in soil management for local farmers To provide practical field solutions to demonstrate sustainable farming practices to policy makers To demonstrate how information can be disseminated successfully at the local, regional, national and EU level via workshops, field visits, publications and the Internet.
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Social: Insufficient awareness of environmental benefits of SWC and incoming regulation (eg CAP reform, Water Framework Directive), low level of confidence to try new techniques, getting farmers to own their (erosion) problem. Technical: link changes in soil management with effects on water quality and biodiversity
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
-
Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights helped a little the approach implementation: The Allerton Trust's objectives are to be economically viable while practising good environmental management
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
-
Social/ cultural/ religious norms and values: traditional conservatism, perceptions, pride in a 'tidy' field
Treatment through the SLM Approach: discussion and demonstration
-
Availability/ access to financial resources and services: purchasing of appropriate equipment
Treatment through the SLM Approach: sourcing finance and creating business structure to justify expense; use of cost-benefit analysis information
-
Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: dealing with trash and weed management; conflicting advice from many sources
Treatment through the SLM Approach: sharing risks and responsibility; input of expertise
Participation and roles of stakeholders involved
Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
| What stakeholders / implementing bodies were involved in the Approach? |
Specify stakeholders |
Describe roles of stakeholders |
| local land users/ local communities |
Working land users were mainly men (This is a single farm but the farmer now co-farms with a neighbour) |
|
| SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers |
|
|
| teachers/ school children/ students |
|
|
| NGO |
One national non-goverment (SMI) |
|
| national government (planners, decision-makers) |
|
|
| international organization |
|
|
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology
Decisions were taken by
-
land users alone (self-initiative)
-
mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists
-
all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach
-
mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
-
SLM specialists alone
-
politicians/ leaders
Decisions were made based on
-
evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
-
research findings
-
personal experience and opinions (undocumented)
Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management
The following activities or services have been part of the approach
-
Capacity building/ training
-
Advisory service
-
Institution strengthening (organizational development)
-
Monitoring and evaluation
-
Research
Capacity building/ training
Training was provided to the following stakeholders
-
land users
-
field staff/ advisers
-
politicians/decision makers (1), agronomists (2),
Form of training
-
on-the-job
-
farmer-to-farmer
-
demonstration areas
-
public meetings
-
courses
-
public meetings (1)
Monitoring and evaluation
bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations
technical aspects were regular monitored through measurements
economic / production aspects were regular monitored through measurements
no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored through measurements
management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored through measurements
There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation
Research
Research treated the following topics
-
sociology
-
economics / marketing
-
ecology
-
technology
Yields and gross margins; effects on biodiversity especially birds; rate of technology uptake
Research was carried out on-farm
Financing and external material support
Annual budget in USD for the SLM component
-
< 2,000
-
2,000-10,000
-
10,000-100,000
-
100,000-1,000,000
-
> 1,000,000
Precise annual budget: n.a.
Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (EU-LIFE Environment/Syngenta): 100.0%
The following services or incentives have been provided to land users
-
Financial/ material support provided to land users
-
Subsidies for specific inputs
-
Credit
-
Other incentives or instruments
Impact analysis and concluding statements
Impacts of the Approach
No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
Soil and water management improved indirectly through the adoption of non-inversion tillage driven by the need to improve farm economics
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
Conclusions and lessons learnt
Strengths: land user's view
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
-
improved motivation (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: continued support, technical advice and recognition of farmer's achievement)
-
improved education and awareness (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: continued support, technical advice and recognition of farmer's achievement)
-
greater confidence
-
improved problem solving capabilities
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
-
dependent on personalities I.e. with a more conservative farmer, this approach would be unsuccessful
References
Date of documentation: Jan. 12, 2009
Last update: Junie 25, 2017
Resource persons
-
Ceris A. Jones (cjones@agronomica.org) - SLM specialist
Full description in the WOCAT database
Documentation was faciliated by
