Local institutions and farmer participation in agri-environmental schemes

• Published in: Journal of rural studies Vol. 37; pp. 10 - 19
• Main Authors: Taylor, B.M., Van Grieken, M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier Ltd 01.02.2015
• Subjects: AES; Agricultural policy; Agriculture; Central Government; Decentralization; Farmers; Farms; Governance; Participation; Payments; Policy Implementation; Productivity; Risk; Water quality; Decentralization; Participation; Risk; Agriculture; Water quality; AES
• ISSN: 0743-0167; 1873-1392
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.11.011

Minimizing environmental harm from diffuse water quality impacts from farms is a longstanding problem in agricultural policy. Agri-environmental schemes are programs that apply information-based strategies coupled with financial payments to incentivize farmers to adopt less damaging farming practices. Gaining farmer participation in these programs is often problematic due to the complexity of scheme design and implementation, program rules or conflicting goals of policy-makers and farmers. This study examines the influence of local institutions associated with farming subcultures (such as co-operative harvesting groups or practice norms) and, the “localized” institutions that are introduced to facilitate scheme delivery under decentralized governance (such as regional extension networks). Using the case of the Australian Government's ‘Reef Rescue’ program, the study draws on focus group interviews with sugarcane growers and agricultural extension officers. The analysis explores how farmers perceive the sponsors and goals of these schemes, their own participation, and any risks and benefits they associate with that participation. Some of the main risks of participation included: possible disruption to local economic cooperation amongst farmers that relied on continuation of shared farming practices; inequitable financial burdens of participation; lost farm productivity; and, interference of central governments in their farm business. The study finds that farmer participation in these national environmental programs is mediated by both local and imported institutions. Together, these institutions buffer the culturally and politically unpalatable aspects of the scheme and increase the financial and cultural gains for farmers. •AES implementation involves importing institutions into local farming contexts.•Imported institutions create risks to farmer subcultures and may inhibit participation.•Intermediaries play a vital role in mediating that institutional risk for farmers.•Targeting contractors and harvesting groups may also increase AES participation.