Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Options for integrating NRM and production extension

Amabel Fulton1 and Sue Kilpatrick2

1 Rural Development Services, 2/111 Warwick St, West Hobart, Tas 7000. www.ruraldevelopmentservices.com Email amabel@bigpond.com
2
Department of Rural Health, University of Tasmania,

Abstract

There is emerging evidence that producers are more likely to adopt appropriate NRM practices if they see a clear relationship to their production practices. The current extension environment presents opportunities for increasing the implementation of environmental outcomes through integration of production and NRM extension. This recognises that:

1. Both NRM and production extension programs are focused on facilitating change with land managers;

2. Land managers view NRM and production issues in a holistic manner;

3. Extension programs in NRM and production have tended to be organised in isolation from one another and to view NRM and production issues in isolation from one another (and not in the way in which land managers consider them); and

4. NRM and production extension programs are usually delivered by extension providers with different perspectives, networks and resources and limited partnerships with one another.

Consideration of the above issues in the design of extension programs can create opportunities for integrating production extension into NRM programs, and vice versa. This paper examines the issue of the integration of NRM and production extension, and the recommends some practical options for

1. production extension to incorporate NRM issues; and for

2. NRM extension to incorporate production issues.

The paper makes recommendations for research on this topic.

Media summary

Partnerships between production and NRM extension could significantly increase the rate and extent of adoption of NRM best practice by Australian land managers.

Introduction

This paper explores and identifies practical options for extension providers to integrate NRM and production extension. There is emerging evidence that producers are more likely to adopt appropriate NRM practices if they see a clear relationship to their production practices.

Therefore, specific objectives are to
a) provide strategies for production extension to incorporate NRM issues;
b) for NRM extension to incorporate production issues; and
c) identify research needed to improve integration of NRM and production extension.

The outcome will be that extension providers will be better equipped to integrate NRM and production issues in their extension practice, leading to improved awareness and uptake of appropriate NRM practices by land managers.

Background

The federal and state governments, and Australia’s rural industries make significant investments in NRM and production extension each year. There is an opportunity to improve environmental outcomes, without additional expenditure, by improving the integration of NRM and production issues within these programs. These improvements can be achieved in the design, delivery and evaluation phases of extension programs. This section describes the background to this opportunity, reflecting on the mission of public investments in R&D and NRM; barriers to land manager’s uptake of NRM; current practice and institutional barriers to the integration of NRM and production extension; and some examples of opportunities available to extension programs.

Public investments in R&D and NRM

The mission of the Rural Research and Development Corporations and the state and federal Governments is to foster economic, social and environmental outcomes for Australia’s rural industries and regions. Historically, the focus has been largely on fostering economic benefits, with programs run on an industry basis to improve productivity, profitability and sustainability (e.g., programs delivered by MLA, AWI, HAL, GRDC and Dairy Australia). During the last decade there has been an introduction of specific extension programs focused on fostering sustainable agriculture (e.g., Landcare, Natural Heritage Trust, and Property Management Planning).

Barrier’s to land manager’s uptake of NRM

There is substantial research evidence that natural resource management practices are implemented where land managers can see potential for production or business benefits. Despite this, most extension about natural resource management has been delivered in isolation from extension on production and business management. Where this has been the case, environmental programs have been limited by their inability to engage a large proportion of commercial producers in their programs. On the other hand, production programs have been limited in their ability to make explicit (and thus encourage) environmental management practices which are embedded within best-practice production systems.

Institutional barriers

In addition, these distinct extension arenas are in the realm of different sectors of the extension system. Natural resource management is largely in the domain of one part of the public sector (NHT, NAP), research and development is the domain of another part to the public sector (the RDCs and State governments), and production and business extension are largely in the domain of the private sector (Marsh and Pannell, 2000; Campbell, 2004). Although FarmBis has made funding available for the private sector to deliver landholder training in natural resource management, only a small proportion of the funds have been used for this purpose, less than 8% of FarmBis participants in 2002-3 did NRM training1. The skills and knowledge of NRM and production issues of those working in the two sectors are different. Linkages between those working in NRM and those working production are weak, and incentives for integration are limited. The irony is that both types of extension program are often targeting the same audience, but they are not doing so in a coordinated or integrated manner.

Increased investment in integrated approaches

The recent emergence of major extension programs focused on integration of NRM and production issues is counter to this past approach. Examples of these programs include Land Water and Wool; Sustainable Grazing Systems; Grain and Graze; Edge Network Natural Resource Management courses; and each industry’s specific Environmental Management System program. These new programs integrating NRM and production issues are part of a broader policy movement towards better environmental outcomes for rural Australia. However, as all rural RDCs and governments have a mandate to deliver environmental outcomes, there exists a significant opportunity for the improved performance of existing and future programs through their better integration of NRM and production extension. This increased effectiveness can be achieved without significant investment in new programs, rather by leveraging existing investment in the delivery of existing programs.

Methods

The literature on NRM and production extension was reviewed. Based on this, an assessment of the current practices, limitations and opportunities for NRM extension and for production extension was examined for each of the extension program design phases. The results are based on the literature and the experience of the researchers. The next stage of the research will involve the rigorous exploration and testing of these assessments.

Results

The review of the literature revealed that the research has largely looked at NRM and production extension in isolation. In addition, it has focused on the nature of the receiver of NRM extension (farmers), rather than the characteristics and actions of the extension provider. This focus has accompanied the development of NRM extension in Australia. There is currently an interest in taking the next step in NRM extension, and also in ensuring production extension programs deliver environmental outcomes. Topics that are not currently being researched within the realm of natural resource management and agricultural extension include:

• Relationships between NRM and production extension providers

• Perspectives of NRM of production extension providers

• Perspectives of production of NRM extension providers

• Current and possible strategies for integrating NRM and production extension

• Possible benefits from integrating NRM and production extension, both in terms of cost of extension delivery, and extent of adoption of outcomes.

Each stage of the extension program cycle – design, delivery, evaluation and re-design – provides an opportunity for integrating production and NRM extension. Evidence from the literature, and from the experience of extension providers, points to strategies which could increase effectiveness without large investment.

Tables 1, 2 and 3 demonstrate that the current extension environment presents opportunities for increasing the implementation of environmental outcomes through integration of production and NRM extension.

Table 1 The design phase of NRM and production extension

Extension program design phase

 

NRM programs

Production programs

Current practice

• Involvements of predominantly environmentally focused stakeholders

• Involvement of predominantly production focused stakeholders

Limitations

• Poor definition of economic and management implications of environmental change

• Poor understanding of barriers to adoption by non-environmentally focused stakeholders

• Poor definition of environmental consequences of production changes

• Lack of definition of environmental benefits of production changes

Opportunities

• Greater involvement of production focused stakeholders

• Assessment of economic and management implications of recommended changes

• Greater involvement of environment focused stakeholders

• Clarification of the environmental consequences and benefits of recommended production changes

Table 2 The extension delivery phase of NRM and production extension

Extension program delivery phase

 

NRM programs

Production programs

Current practice

• Promotion of programs to existing environmentally focused land managers

• Promotion of programs to production focused land mangers

Limitations

• Programs not considered relevant by production focused land managers

• Programs not considered relevant by environmentally focused land managers

Opportunities

• Link activities with those of production programs in the same region

• Promote economic and management benefits

• Link activities with those of environmental programs in the same region

• Promote environmental benefits

Table 3 The extension evaluation phase of NRM and production extension

Extension program evaluation phase

 

NRM programs

Production programs

Current practice

• Evaluation of environmental impact on involved stakeholders at end of program

• Evaluation of production impact on involved stakeholders at end of program

Limitations

• Lack of feedback on why program is not impacting on non-participants

• Lack of feedback on economic and management impact

• Feedback not received throughout program progress

• Lack of feedback on why program is not impacting on non-participants

• Lack of feedback on environmental impact

• Feedb

• ack not received throughout program progress

Opportunities

• Evaluate impact on target audience, rather than participants only

• Evaluate economic and management impact, as well as environmental

• Use evaluation throughout the program to provide feedback and inform on-going design

• Evaluate impact on target audience, rather than participants only

• Evaluation environmental impact, as well as production impact

• Use evaluation throughout the program to provide feedback and inform on-going design

Summary

The results suggest that:

1. Both NRM and production extension programs are focused on facilitating change with land managers

2. Land managers view NRM and production issues in a holistic manner

3. Extension programs in NRM and production have viewed NRM and production issues in isolation from one another (and not in the way in which land managers consider them)

4. NRM and production extension programs are usually delivered by extension providers with different perspectives, networks and resources and limited partnerships with one another

Consideration of the above issues in the design of extension programs can create opportunities for integrating production extension into NRM programs, and vice versa.

1 Kilpatrick, S. & Guenther, J. (2003) FarmBis Annual Industry Survey. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext Page