13. Current Situation
13.1 Background
Agricultural extension in New Zealand changed significantly after the reforms of 1984. Previously regarded as a public service, after 1984 it was privatised. Prior to 1984, the agricultural extension service, formerly known as the Farm Advisory Division and latterly, the Advisory Services Division, saw its role as the provision of technical and farm management advice to all farmers and growers. This was achieved through discussion groups, seminars, articles, radio talks, field trials, field days, as well as direct one-to-one interactions – all provided on a non-chargeable basis. This service was largely based on extending knowledge and technologies available to enhance production and economic gain. Issues of ecological health and the long-term sustainability of the industry and rural communities were not the primary directive of the service, but could be raised and dealt with through involvement in farm business management depending on skills and motivation of individual advisors.
The election of a new government in 1984 saw a change in policy towards liberalising the economy. As Journeaux & Stevens (1997) point out, in the agricultural sector, the reforms included a removal of all subsidies, a removal of concessional finance to producer boards and to farmers, the restructuring of research and development, and the commercialisation of extension. In part, this acknowledged that the private good component of the transfer of research innovations to farmers overlapped significantly with any public good component. Increasingly, private consultants (e.g., Agriculture NZ), producer boards, and retailing organisations, such as fertiliser companies, stock and station firms, veterinarians, provided agricultural extension services. Within this new climate, science also provides some – albeit limited – publicly funded extension in the form of field days, popular articles, etc.
While extension services were being privatised, similar reforms occurred in research and development for the agricultural and horticultural sectors. A series of Crown Research Institutes (CRIs) were set up (those of primary importance to sustainable development extension are Landcare Research, AgResearch, HortResearch, Crop and Food Research and National Institute for Water and Air). The CRIs are designed to act on a commercial basis and seek funding through the Public Good Science Fund (PGSF), and through other central, regional and local government research funds or through private business. While they are obliged to provide evidence of beneficial outcomes of their work to secure PGSF funding, they are not funded to undertake direct extension work. Furthermore, as commercial entities, there is pressure to market intellectual property profitably where possible.
Another important contextual aspect to sustainable development extension has been changes within the field of environmental management. In 1989, local government was restructured, and in 1991 the Resource Management Act (RMA) was passed. The single most influential piece of legislation affecting the management of rural land in New Zealand, the RMA emerged in a climate of changing public perceptions, and international trends favouring the concept of ‘sustainability'. Since these changes, regional councils, in particular, have adopted programmes to support their mandate as resource management agencies, including working directly with farmers and landowners to improve sustainability outcomes. While these agencies are not averse to landowners improving their profitability through better environmental management, this is not the primary goal of their programmes. Other sections of this report will review the parallels between these ongoing activities and the needs of a sustainable development extension approach.
More recently, public attention has turned towards evaluating land-use management not just in terms of production and economics, but also in terms of ecological health. Attention is now focussed on how best to transfer sustainable development information to support constructive behaviour change in terms of sustainable land management. A number of extension-related services have emerged that play a significant role in the transfer of this information. These include services provided by regional council staff, the sustainable agriculture focus farms, some science programmes and agribusiness agencies and boards.
13.2 Current activities
A brief summary of those activities that potentially relate to this broader view of extension is provided below. These activities are organised by different sector, and role. The dissemination of agricultural production/efficiency components (e.g., improved fertilisers, pasture/forage species, animal health products) is not covered here, but their contribution to the potential for sustainability in terms of directly improving economic performance on farms is noted.
13.2.1 Farm and community
The past decade has seen the formation of many groups, in which local people come together to work on issues close to home. Some of the most notable growth has been in ‘care’ groups. Most were set up to deal with one issue, such as pests, but many have gone on to become a local forum for any issue that comes up, such as riparian rights, soils management etc. Some groups have been fostered by different agencies, while others are grass roots initiatives that access resources independently.
These groups have been formed for a number of reasons, and may operate to achieve multiple purposes. These include: realising that some jobs are better achieved by a co-operative effort having the opportunity to come together and learn from each other in a group setting providing a common point for networking with other organisations and institutions such as regional councils initiating a more collaborative effort among a number of different groups for accessing resources for research and development developing guidelines for ‘best practice’ around a particular area.
13.2.2 Networking and Information
While more generally the province of institutions and science agencies, there are a number of examples where the lead is being taken at the community level:
People with an interest in organic farming have set up web sites and groups to provide information and networking on the topic. (e.g., Organic Pathways).
Groups such as ‘Not Just Gumboots and Scones’ that aims to improve communication to people in rural areas. They have a web site and have provided modems in different communities so that people can access the Internet more easily.
The New Zealand Ecological Restoration Network provides a website with information on ecological restoration work. It appears to be supported mainly by urban groups, but it includes a few rural areas and activities.
Some grass-roots organisations have emerged as information brokers for rural landowners dealing with issues of management (e.g., Hieracium Control Trust, Rural Futures Trust).
Similarly hapu, runanga and iwi organisations, while varying widely in their resource base, similarly act as information brokers for their community. They work in partnership with other organisations to acquire the basis for Iwi management plans or to support local projects aimed at improving the sustainability of their community and land.
13.2.3 Environmental Education
Local schools often do a great deal of environmental education, fostered through the curriculum and extra-curricular activities in partnership with local groups. However, to some extent, this depends on the interests of the teachers and communities in question. For example, some schools are involved in local waste management, environmental monitoring or vegetation restoration.
The majority of territorial and regional authorities put some efforts into environmental education either by supporting schools, providing materials and speakers or by producing information on target ‘campaigns’ (e.g., water conservation).
Similarly REAP, and local divisions of Federated Farmers provide opportunities for one-off discussion groups, seminars and speakers on a range of topics pertaining to rural activities, including sustainable development issues.
| Limits and barriers: Majority of farm groups have a tendency to focus on production, rather than environment. Many community initiatives are more focussed on immediate problem solving, rather than designing new systems. A tendency to receive many different messages and methods about addressing environmental issues from different agency proponents – such as single issue vs. systems approach. (e.g., Dairy Board has one way, local council another, and Federated Farmers yet another.) Still low levels of environmental monitoring – and therefore poor ecological feedback. Lack of access to information. Often low levels of skills and lack of attention to group process and capacity building issues. Evaluation is more likely to be on ‘task’, excluding ‘process’ considerations. |
13.3 Industry
While much industry extension is focussed on maintaining productivity, there is increasing emphasis placed on considering other factors, especially those such animal welfare and environment which are related to market access. Key players in this area include industry sectors (e.g., dairying, sheep and beef, forestry, horticulture), and a range of private consultants. These activities can be grouped under the following headings.
13.3.1 Development of environmental guidelines
A number of industry sectors are taking the initiative to start developing guidelines for environmental best practice for their area (e.g., Dairy Board approach to riparian protection).
13.3.2 Information provision and awareness
There are a number of sector specific magazines around (e.g., Dairy Exporter) that deals with production issues, but also raises awareness of sustainable development issues related to the environmental, animal welfare and social aspects of the industry.
13.3.3 Learning groups
Throughout industry there is an emphasis on the use of learning groups through which land managers and others can come together to share ideas, and explore new options to improve their management of common problems. Good examples of these are the discussion groups run by the dairy industry, and similar initiatives are often found in the sheep and beef industry facilitated through private consultants.
13.3.4 Whole farm planning (including monitoring)
Whole farm planning aims to get farm families and their workers to think about their goals, put in place plans and monitoring systems to move towards them, and actively learn about how to refine these. This broadly works to achieve parallel goals of integrating multiple factors at a farm level.
This can be done on a group basis, or individually. Examples of the former involve collaboration and partnerships between agencies such as the Monitor Farm Programme between the Meat Research Development Council, the ANZ trading bank, and Agriculture New Zealand; and the sustainable agriculture focus farms involving MAF Policy, local government, CRIs, agribusiness and local farmers and growers. Often too, whole-farm planning is supported on a one-to-one basis by industry consultants and private consultants.
| Limits and barriers: A tendency to focus on production, rather than environment. Often a need (politically dictated by constituents) to put sector views and concerns ahead of wider community involvement. |
13.4 Science
In 1992, the Research Division of MAF, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR), the Forestry Research Institute (FRI), and the research section of the Meteorological Service were split up into 10 CRIs. While all PGSF programmes have a ‘technological learning’ component, the main thrust of research programmes is to deliver science. More recently FRST has outlined a need for science to demonstrate how it contributes to outcomes on the ground. Added to this list should be the research arms of industry (e.g., Dairy Research Centre, Wool Research Organisation of New Zealand (WRONZ)). The main activities of science in relation to extension can be outlined as follows.
13.4.1 Dissemination of results
The traditional range of technology transfer mechanisms for science includes research papers, contract reports and popular articles. Beyond this, science staff are still often involved in presenting at field days and industry-based seminars.
In some cases (e.g., Landcare Research biological control of weeds) personnel have established a role, largely funded by clients such as regional councils, to run workshops and training sessions based on newly emerged technology.
More recently there is evidence of a growing trend towards the use of the Internet as another potential mechanism to bring research results together, and make them more easily accessible.
13.4.2 Involvement of stakeholders in research
Often science programme staff will engage in some form of consultation with end-users, before they begin research.
Advisory groups made up of end-user representatives are the most common form of stakeholder involvement in the research. Often these operate at a relatively high level, and are formed from industry experts familiar with science. There are emerging examples of more community-based reference groups operating which provide a safe environment in which scientists can gain an understanding of where their research fits into the wider context (e.g., Landcare Research’s Integrated Catchment Management Motueka programme).
In more isolated cases, staff are involved in exchanges and secondments within agencies likely to make use of research programme information. A move to involve wider audiences and multiple stakeholders in interpreting science information (‘making sense of science’ workshops) is a relatively new innovation.
| Limits and barriers: Traditional technology transfer methods are inappropriate for complex questions of sustainable development. Efforts to monitor the contribution of science information to improving the sustainable management of productive lands have been minimal. Information presented to audiences is generally the most recent. The vast history of research and understanding developed around issues of sustainable land management remains fragmented, documented in research publications only, and largely inaccessible and uncommunicated to many end-users. The concept of collaborative research with multiple stakeholders, and integration of public and local (including traditional) knowledge is still emerging. |
13.5 National Agencies
At a national level, beyond setting policies that determine the direction and resource commitment towards sustainable development extension, there are a number of agencies performing a variety of roles.
13.5.1 Publications
A number of national-level agencies, including MfE and MAF have regularly supported sustainable development outreach to communities through publications and the media.
13.5.2 Promoting collaboration and sustainable management
MAF and MfE also contribute heavily towards promoting community-based collaboration and sustainable management through the Sustainable Management Fund and the Sustainable Farming Fund. The purpose of the Sustainable Farming Fund (SMF) is ‘to support community-driven programmes aimed at improving financial and environmental performance of the land-based sectors.’ (http://www.maf.govt.nz). Through this fund MAF are acknowledging the interdependence between financially viable land-based businesses, sustainable rural environments and thriving rural communities.
The objectives of the MFE Sustainable Management Fund are ‘to make a positive difference to the environment by: building partnerships and encouraging community involvement; promoting the innovative use of existing information to encourage positive behavioural changes and improved environmental management; providing models and examples that can be adapted and used by other people; stimulating environmental action that would not otherwise occur’ (http://www.mfe.govt.nz).
Although neither fund has had the sole purpose of achieving sustainable development extension, these funds allow for creative partnership initiatives to get over the hurdle of start-up costs for grass-roots participation in issues of sustainability. They are not designed for long-term commitment towards particular programmes of action.
13.5.3 Forums for discussion
A number of agencies and institutions, including MAF, MfE and Federated Farmers, all provide one-off forums for debate on emergent and important issues regarding rural enterprises and issues of sustainability. Often too, these will be initiated in response to a crisis.
The Department of Conservation (DOC) though its regional and area offices, has regular opportunities for dialogue between the local community and Department staff. Over the 15 years of its existence, DOC has had a relatively minimalist approach to community outreach, concentrating on conservation and parks interpretation. However, all regions operate with the support of community conservation boards, which are expected to channel and debate DOC operations and policy and the interests of the wider community. These are forums for discussion, but these are not promoted or constructed as forums of learning (see comments earlier on constructing appropriate learning opportunities).
13.5.4 Networking, information sharing and supporting ‘learning groups’
Recently, DOC has employed community relations staff specifically to improve their local level networking capacity and to investigate the role DOC can play in supporting communities interested in conservation work on, and beyond, conservation lands. This complements work of the National QE II Trust that facilitates management of forest fragments on private land (an approach often favoured by landowners due to the perceived flexibility of the arrangement and the retention of ownership and control).
The Landcare Trust has a strong remit to promote networking between community ‘care groups’ and to assist with their development. Furthermore they provide advice and facilitation capacity through the start-up and on-going phases of community group development.
The Animal Health Board (AHB) is the designated pest management agency for the control of bovine tuberculosis. They are a national body with a strong role in supporting rural ‘learning groups’ grappling with the challenge of pest control. In the past, pest control was largely undertaken by government agencies. However, given the level of Tb incidence, and the difficulties of multi-species vector control, there is a clear need to complement the AHB’s official control efforts with complementary farmer effort. To this end, the AHB has facilitated the formation of farmer vector control groups throughout New Zealand. There are currently (February 2000) 148 Local Initiative Programme (LIP) Groups involving over 3000 farmers and run by a growing team of LIP Group Facilitators. The AHB has also explored options for improving the effectiveness of these community-based efforts at pest control. While their LIPs has much in common with regional council care-groups, it differs from sustainable development extension in its constrained remit – dealing only with specific pests and their control.
13.5.5 Training
Agencies such as MfE also contribute significantly to national training opportunities, which may include training designed to increase the skills of those seeking to facilitate and manage participatory approaches, through to gaining improved understanding of statutory obligations.
| Limits and barriers: Despite the parallels in a number of areas there is a lack of co-ordination of efforts. An integrated, if not unified, approach to the issue of providing information and capacity to address issues of sustainable development would overcome the difficulty that agencies and local government alike struggle with – the lack of a remit to address all aspects of sustainable development – productivity, community and environment. National funds such as the SMF/SFF offer start-up funding only, their requirement of communities to secure matching funding and their withdrawal after three years can result in a stop/start approach to community-based initiatives, with much energy being diverted to securing future funding. While SMF/SFF initiatives clearly promote community-based initiatives there is a lack of strategic direction in terms of building capacity to ensure ongoing progress and a consequential lack of monitoring in this area. The care-group/ learning-group initiatives promoted by AHB and others are constrained in remit and are generally expected to pick up available technology rather than explore wide-ranging options for problem solution. Forums for discussion and debate can vary in the extent to which they challenge existing viewpoints (depending on the skill of their construction and facilitation). Their value is also limited by their being a one-off rather than a systematic learning opportunity. |
13.6 Local Government
Undoubtedly the sector that has made the greatest efforts to pick up the mantle of responsibility for environmental education and extension has been local government. A number of regional councils, and some unitary or territorial authorities have instigated programmes of community outreach varying from media releases, information dissemination and field days through to support of the care initiatives (mentioned in the section on farm and community).
The basis for this effort has been the role of regional councils in particular, as the primary environmental management agencies responsible for devising, and promoting sustainable management of regional natural resources - a task which all agree is only possible by securing the co-operation of their constituent communities.
13.6.1 Co-ordination
One of the potential roles for local government (fulfilled to a greater or lesser extent across the range of local bodies) is to act as information broker and co-ordinator for the vast range of opportunities for communities to participate in sustainable development activities and learning. In all regions there are different grants, subsidies, covenanting options, resource providers and voluntary groups available to support landowners in taking action to improve the sustainability of their properties. One of the greatest challenges to landowners can simply be to uncover the options available to them.
13.6.2 Support for community based sustainable development initiatives
Support for ‘care’ or other group initiatives in many cases forms a substantial part of this regional council outreach approach. In some councils entire units or departments are dedicated to this work. In others, units with policy and management remits also undertake support for ‘care’ initiatives as a means to further those remits.
Ritchie (1997) notes the following advantages for regional councils in undertaking sustainable land management through care initiatives:
Care groups offer significant advantages over individual action for sustainable resource management. They can channel interest and enthusiasm, mobilise resources and allow information to be applied to practical local situations, and create a climate for concerted neighbourhood action.
Care is potentially an important method to address issues which cannot be regulated or enforced but which require changes in farm management.
13.6.3 Holistic planning
Some councils also support farmers who are facing increasing pressure to show their production is environmentally sustainable. This is being driven by both New Zealand regulations such as the Resource Management Act and market requirements (international and national). Simply going round the farm and looking for environmental problems to fix is not enough to show that you are farming sustainably. In itself this does not guarantee to buyers and regulators that you have appropriate management systems to deal with the problem. Good sustainable development is more than just fixing problems. It is about putting in place the means to ensure that you see the problems in context and deal with them systematically.
One example of this is the Bay of Plenty region Environmental Plan programme. This scheme began in 1993, and the idea is to have as many properties as possible in the region with environmental plans or sustainable management. This approach is sponsored by a number of organisations including DOC. Setting up a programme of environmental works with landowners is seen as an alternative and pro-active approach to regulations. This approach has features in common with initiatives such as that currently being set up for dairy farmers by the Dairy Board.
One example of such a systematic approach to environmental management on farms is the ENVIRO-AG Farm Environmental Certification scheme. This approach has been developed over the past four years by the North Otago Sustainable Land Management Group (NOSLaM). ENVIRO-AG is a total quality management process that helps farmers to objectively assess the environmental impact of their farm activities, develop suitable management practices and monitoring methods, and then prove their compliance. It is not an accreditation scheme in itself. Rather it provides a process for addressing environmental issues on the farm and putting in place a programme to deal with them. NOSLaM is supported by the Otago Regional Council, and has received financial support from the government and the Otago Community Trust.
13.6.4 Environmental Education
The majority of territorial and regional authorities put some efforts into environmental education either by supporting schools, providing materials and speakers or by producing information on target ‘campaigns’ (e.g., water conservation) for the general public.
| Limits and barriers: Extension/ education/ resource-care is generally isolated as a tool for voluntary change rather than an underpinning approach integral to the success of all policy approaches (regulation, economic incentives or disincentives, or property rights mechanisms). Regional councils are responsible for the sustainable management of natural resources. As such, they must tread warily where environmental management crosses with production or development of that resource. This makes it difficult for programmes such as resource care initiatives to deal holistically with community needs for economic well-being as well as stewardship of natural resources. Councils have commented on the extent to which they are data rich and information poor, adding that science knowledge is most commonly utilised by councils and the community as protagonists arguing for and against various policies. Council approaches to sustainable development extension rarely integrate science and community knowledge. Furthermore, science is not usefully added to the pool of general knowledge to help shape people’s views on environmental problems and possible solutions. Councils frequently have the philosophy of addressing environmental problems through brokering an adaptive management process but as yet lack the skills, committed resources, clearly defined roles or knowledge of possible approaches to carry this out. There is little evidence that councils are monitoring the effectiveness of their resource-care policies or education initiatives on the basis of social capital, i.e., the extent to which communities have the capacity for managing contested and complex information and participation in multi-stakeholder initiatives. While care initiatives commonly result in landowners viewing their land from a different perspective or taking a greater interest in changing management ‘around the edges,’ there is currently no evidence to suggest that comprehensive land-use planning will be carried out by care groups without the input of intensive advice, incentives or financial resources (Ritchie 1997). Often there is a lack of time for more long-term process issues, because there is the need to ‘tick-off’ and account for short-term tasks. |
Contact for Enquiries
Rural Affairs Coordinator
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 4 894 0675
Fax: +64 4 4 894 0745
Contact this person
