Keeping it real for farming stakeholders in catchment research programmes

Transcription

1 Keeping it real for farming stakeholders in catchment research programmes Phil Jordan 1 and Mark Treacy 2 1. School of Environmental Sciences, University of Ulster, Coleraine, Northern Ireland 2. Agricultural Catchments Programme, Clonakilty, Co. Cork, Republic of Ireland

2 The DPSIR Framework Driving forces Pressures State Response Impact

3 The DPSIR Framework Driving forces Pressures State Response Impact

4

5

6

7 The Nitrates Directive in Ireland Whole territory WFD Programme of Measures for agriculture Restricts nutrient use and timing, stocking rate Cross-compliance issue; 1% inspection rate National investment in yard infrastructure Evaluated at multiple scales; and via water quality response Questioned over suitability for high status water bodies Wall et al. 2011, ES&P

8 The Nitrates Directive in Ireland Catchments evaluation approach based on: Agri-environmental inputs/outputs Investigation of impact metrics fitness-for-purpose Stakeholder attitudes and economics Information, advice and consultation Fealy et al. 2011, SUM

9 The Nitrates Directive in Ireland Phosphorus, phosphorus, phosphorus Soil P management a key element Using selectively in time and space The double dividend message is efficiency

10 How is the message carried? And by whom?

11

12

13 The Timoleague Catchment Map Supplied under licence No from Ordnance Survey Ireland

14 The Timoleague Catchment ~750ha Intensive Grassland Free Draining Soil Type Risk of N (& P) leaching

15 The Timoleague Catchment ~40 Landowners 15 Core Farmers

16 84 % Grassland The Timoleague Catchment Mainly Dairy Farms Intensive (mean stocking rate 201 kg ON/ha) One large suckler farm A number of smaller drystock units

17 The Timoleague Catchment 6% Tillage One large tillage farm Cereals and fodder crops also grown on some dairy farms

18 Farm Management Advice Collect Data My Role Build Farmer Relations Keep farmers informed

19 Influencing Farmers The Big Stick Approach Top-Down Approach Consequences for Not Complying Creates Bad Feeling Long Term Effectiveness???

20 Influencing Farmers The Tempting Carrot Bottom Up Solution I m here to help, not to enforce! Farmers buy in Changes more likely to continue after the programme???

21 Nutrient Management Intensive soil sampling campaign Whole Catchment sampled Max sample 2ha

22 Nutrient Management

23 Nutrient Management Farm P Distribution Morgan s P levels

24 Nutrient Management Nutrient Management Plan drawn up for each farm N, P, K and lime recommendations Soil nutrient status and requirements presented to farmers on personalised farm maps Correct Fertiliser Choice Correct Timing Correct Rates

25 Nutrient Management (per field and landuse)

26 Nutrient Management Fertiliser N & P response trials being established within the catchment

27 Financial Management Teagasc -Profit Monitor Bench marking farm profitability Identifying potential for improvements Provides valuable management information for farmers Helps researchers put a cost on possible future land management changes

28 Financial Management Teagasc -Profit Monitor Bench marking farm profitability Identifying potential for improvements Provides valuable management information for farmers Helps researchers put a cost on possible future land management changes

29 Assisting with Official Paperwork Single Farm Payment Application Derogation Plans Cross Compliance

30 Assisting with Official Paperwork Much of the paperwork centres around nutrient management issues Large penalties for the farmer if errors are made Farmers see this as a high value service Good opportunity to get very accurate information from farmers

31 Other Advisory Services Crop Management Animal Breeding Grassland Management Feed Budgeting Milk Quality

32 Advice and education

33 Inspection

34 Fertilizer use has decreased in Ireland -16% -30% -38% -63% -48% -41% -46% -55% -48% Source: Lalor et al 2010

35 % of Samples in each Soil P Index Soil Fertility Trends phosphorus ( ) 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% % 27% 30% 30% % 25% 29% 32% % 26% 28% 31% % 28% 25% 25% % 30% 25% 22% Soil P Index Source: Teagasc

36 6% 19% 18% 26% TP load TRP load % High soil P Jordan et al STOTEN

37 New layers of uncertainty Lower soil P as a risk Expectations of water quality response High status water bodies New agricultural economics Catchments as benchmarks and barometers for bio-physical and stakeholder response

38 Motivation Motivation to follow opinion/advice when changing farm practices Very motivated 4 Motivated 3 Neither motivated nor unmotivated 2 Not very motivated 1 Not at all motivated n = 403 EPA DEHLG County Council The farm organisations DAFF Non Teagasc consultant Teagasc Adviser Family Other farmers Farming press Farm walks/information events Discussion group Accountant / tax consultant Mean Scores (1 to 5) Cathal Buckley unpublished data

39 Advisor is the effective conduit for stakeholder information and engagement across the science-policy spectrum