Farmers believe they should receive payment for measures leading to improvement in water quality, either as payment for environmental performance or through grant schemes according to new research published today (Monday, June 17) .
The research, carried out by the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), examined farmers’ “willingness to comply with specific Agricultural Sustainability Support and Advisory Programme (ASSAP) advice”.
The programme is a free and confidential advisory service for farmers operating within 190 Priority Areas for Action (PAAs) identified under the River Basin Action Plan.
According to the ESRI the key objective of the research project was “to gauge farmers’ willingness to mitigate the risks of water pollution in line with ASSAP advice” via an online survey.
The result of this survey – which targeted farmers engaged with ASSAP advisors – asked farmers about what they would do in nine scenarios that could potentially arise on their farms.
According to the ESRI the survey was completed by 162 of the 1663 farmers who were invited to participate which is a response rate of 10%, researchers said that “comparatively low response rates are not uncommon in farmer surveys”.
Water quality
The ESRI report: Farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and intentions towards water quality and pollution risk mitigation actions showed that there was a “high willingness” to implement ASSAP advice, with a 75% priority implementation rate across the different scenarios
One of these included silage effluent leaking from a pit and ultimately draining into a stream and all farmers “indicated a willingness to fix the problem”, but one quarter of the respondents indicated it would take them a month or longer before addressing the problem.
The ESRI report stated: “The willingness to implement, or willingness to implement in a timely manner, varies across types of mitigation.
“In scenarios comprising a risk of diffuse pollution where mitigation actions are more difficult to verify, the average stated compliance rate of ASSAP advice is almost 100%”.
Across the nine scenarios posed, the most common reason given by farmers for willingness to implement ASSAP advice was that “it’s a high environmental risk and needs attention”.
“A concern about cross-compliance issues also motivates farmers’ intentions, which demonstrates that the risk of the financial penalty clearly influences farmers’ decisions,” the ESRI added.
However the new report also highlighted that only one in two farmers believe that water pollution is a relevant issue in their local area.
The ESRI outlined: “Almost two in three farmers believe that they are already doing enough to protect water quality.
“Considering that the ASSAP programme specifically operates in water catchments where agricultural pressure on water quality has been identified, such a relatively low level of acknowledgement that agriculture is a leading source of nutrient loads in local water catchments is a concern.”
According to the institute the “overwhelming viewpoint” among farmers is that they should receive payment for measures leading to improvement in water quality.
The ESRI also highlighted that this approach “contrasts with the philosophy of the ASSAP programme, which is a voluntary advice scheme without any associated financial payments”.
“If beliefs on financial payments are strongly held, i.e., that some type of payment is necessary, it raises a concern about the extent to which farmers will fully engage with the ASSAP programme and thereby adjust practices to deliver improvements in water quality,” the research report details.