AFMA Conference Nairobi, Kenya. November 2012

Transcription

1 AFMA Conference Nairobi, Kenya. November 2012 Dr Graham Tate MN Building, Nursery Street, City Campus North, Wolverhampton WV1 1AD

2 2

3 3

4

5 Farming, the Environment Entrepreneurship in the Shropshire Hills Dr Graham Tate MN Building, Nursery Street, City Campus North, Wolverhampton WV1 1AD

6 November 2012 Context Failed EU Budget meeting of the 27 EU states last week; UK Prime Minister s declared aim to curtail EU budget; UK economy struggling to emerge from longest ever post-war recession; 4bn (6.5bn$US) Single Farm Payment paid to c.100,000 UK Farmers (Nix, 2012) 6

7 Presentation overview Longitudinal v sectional studies Phase /7-Quantitative Phase Quantitative Phase Qualitative 7

8 8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 Shropshire Hills ESA Objectives-MAFF (1998) To maintain landscape quality and wildlife conservation value of open moorland and permanent grassland. To enhance the wildlife conservation value and landscape quality of heather and other seminatural vegetation. To maintain and enhance landscape quality through management of characteristic landscape elements. To maintain and enhance archaeological and historic features. 17

18 Typology by McElwee (2008) Type I: Farmer as farmer-traditional land-based economic activity Type II: Farmer as entrepreneur-innovative, opportunity orientated. Changing, flexible and diverse economic activities Type III: Farmer as contractor-ownership of specific skills/expertise and experience coupled with possible ownership of plant Type IV: Rural entrepreneur, not farmer Ownership of farm, land or business. 18

19 Overview of developments in SHESA 1990 onwards Emphasis on environmental preservation in EU regulation 2078/92 Rural Development Regulation 1257/1999 England Rural Development Plan Foot and Mouth Disease 2001 Single Farm Payment, ELS and HLS 2005 Rural Development Plan for England 2007 onwards 19

20 Table 2: Attractive Aspects of Farm Work and Farm Management Attractive aspect Independence and an open air life Participants (n=20) Non-participants (n=22) Working with stock Variety of tasks 7 15 Totals

21 Objectives of the 2008 re-survey 1. To contact the original sample of 42 farms surveyed in the 1997 investigation to ascertain changes that have been made in both their farm and non-farm enterprises over the past 11 years; 2. To relate these changes, where appropriate, to participation or non-participation in the SHESA or to changes in farm support or other policy issues over the 11 year period. 21

22 Re-survey characteristics 40 contacts made from the 1997 sample of 42 with 33 willing and able to assist Of the had been SHESA participants in A further 10 had joined leaving 8 hard core who wished to preserve autonomy No involvement with ERDP or RDPE Two wives had gone to work part time and three in farmhouse B&B 22

23 Further Fieldwork-Pilot Survey April 2009 Re-focus the study away from the reaction to farming policy development and toward income earning activity generally Low level of pluriactivity and diversification revealed in previous research-what if we extend the period back to 1986? Introduce the more formal taxonomy of McElwee (2008) into the classification 23

24 Farming size and intensity matrix (Tate 2001b) Quadrant A-the top right-larger more intensive farms; Quadrant B-the lower right-larger more extensive farms; Quadrant C-the lower left-smaller more extensive farms; Quadrant D-the top left-smaller more intensive farms. 24

25 Figure 1-Farming Intensity and Farm Size-42 Farms from the SHESA Tate (2001b) 25

26 26

27 Farm Number 35-This was a relatively larger and more intensively managed farm in Quadrant A of the farm size and intensity grid. This was a three generation farming family, the grandparents being retired but living independently in one of the farm houses. The son V who ran the farm himself had three sons: 27

28 We are very busy with all the stock that we carry and with Mum and Dad getting on a bit and my three boys all with jobs in town that s enough for me. I get some help from C (his wife) and the boys at harvest and lambing and that s about it really. 28

29 Farm Number 39-This was an extensively managed all grass livestock farm of 37 Ha with cattle and sheep placing it in Quadrant C of the farm size and intensity grid. 29

30 Well we have three grown up children and they could all see early on that there was no way they could all get an income from this little place. Our eldest, T left home to work in a supermarket. He s married now and has his own off-licence in Shrewsbury. Our daughter M got married and started a family, she lives in the village and then our youngest C went into the building trade. He uses this place as a site and keeps materials, tools and vehicles here, specially if he is working locally. 30

31 Discussion and Conclusion Environmental implications from the loss of cattle on 7 farms FMD and decline in livestock incomes had not led to a significant migration towards either diversification or pluriactivity April 2009 pilot led to a longer period being employed in the investigation, now 23 years. 31

32 As a result Farm 39 indicated that a family member had started a business and used an area of the farm as the base for this. The classification provided for Type IV activity by the son on a Type I farm. 1 -Advantage of longer period longitudinal studies particularly over cross-sectional work 32

33 2 -Careful consideration of the unit of analysis-particular importance of family evolution in rural areas with business development 3-Although the enterprise literature suggests that these businesses are well placed for ecopreneurship type activities, some researchers have found more encouraging results with incomers 33

34 4-the considerable emphasis noted in the research on physical production and the intrinsic motivation derived from this, less so with business/management aspects Gasson and Errington (1998): Decisions are taken by entrepreneurs, but the family is not an entrepreneur. 34

35 35

36 Thank you for listening! 36