Chapter Five Conclusions And Recommendations
5.1 This research has demonstrated that the Guide has clearly met its aim of being an easy-to-read reference guide that is used as one of the key reference sources for farmers for environmental information. It is unlikely that it will ever be perceived to be as important, or used as frequently, as the Cross Compliance Notes, due to the requirement for farmers meet 'Cross Compliance' legislation to receive payments and subsidies. However, as a general guide to environmental good practice it appears to be a success with 67% of farmers indicating they were aware of the Guide, 37% indicating they use the Guide, 24% preferring the Guide, and the Guide being used, on average, almost 6 times per year by farmers. These figures are all only greater for SEERAD's Cross Compliance Notes for Guidance.
5.2 The research findings from telephone interviews and focus group research suggest that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to produce a document, in terms of depth, breadth, conciseness, language and presentation that will please all farmers all of the time. Some farmers will always prefer in-depth, detailed reference sources, whereas many others will require a quick easy-to-read document - in many cases farmers do not set aside a huge amount of time to read documentation unless they have to - so it would appear to be important that there is a range of sources of information available for farmers to refer to if required. Indeed, the key reasons given for farmers not using the Guide were predominantly related to them feeling that they know the legislation well already, or did not have enough time to access this type of information.
5.3 Farmers (in general) prefer to receive information in hard copy, and rarely use the internet for accessing this type of information, and as a result hard copy is the best route for dissemination of information to farmers. Receiving information by post also acts as a cue for farmers to explore any changes that may have occurred.
5.4 For farmers, the role of all documentation appears to be secondary to direct contact with unions, farmer networks and representatives from organisations such as SEERAD, SAC, SEPA and agronomists etc. For contractors, the key route for information is through their associations. However, this importance on routes other than documentation should not remove the importance of SEERAD / SAPG in providing documents such as the Guide to reassure or act as a resource to farmers to ensuring their practice is in line with legislation and to cross refer to when advice is received or activities questioned. Despite the limited time many farmers have to read all of the documentation, without the accurate, easy-to-read and access, and up-to-date information provided by the Guide and other documents, agricultural workers would not have an information base to contrast against information from their other sources, and many farmers would not like to have this form of information removed from circulation. Farmers in the focus groups noted a need for the continued distribution of the Guide.
Recommendations
5.5 Based on the findings presented in this report we propose a number of recommendations for the Guide. These are presented as follows:
Dissemination and understanding of issues contained in the Guide
5.6 It is recommended that the SAPG review issues that may be the cause of (relatively) high perceptions by owners of small farms that the Guide is not relevant to them. The reasons behind this were not able to be explored in depth through this research and may merit further consideration. These findings do, however, highlight that there may be merit in promoting the use of the Guide through current activities that enable farmers to come into personal contact with advisors and other trusted people - such as local SEERAD officers, union representatives and at farmers' meetings etc - to best promote use of the Guide. Given the high reliance on networks and word of mouth for farmers to pick up on key changes to legislation, disseminating the importance of the Guide and any changes through these routes would appear to be the most appropriate.
5.7 The majority of farmers indicated that they were happy to receive any updates as single sheets to be inserted into the Guide, and would rather not use the internet as a source for these.
5.8 Based on the findings from the research, if a full re-design or re-issue of the Guide is to take place we recommend the following actions:
Design and layout
5.9 The boxes used in each section of the Guide should be revised (or at least a 'cont/.' added to each page where appropriate). This will ensure that readers are clear when sections finish, and will be of particular importance if the loose-leaf format is to be maintained.
5.10 There would be merit in inserting a key to colour coding at the start of each section (rather than simply at the front of the Guide) to act as a reminder to users of the meaning of the colours. Again this is of key importance if the loose-leaf format is to be maintained as sections may be taken out and removed.
5.11 Many farmers indicated that the design of the Guide into different sections has resulted in repetition (as many items of legislation apply to a number of activities). Due to the technical nature of this, it is beyond the remit of this research to detail exactly how this could be achieved, but there may be some merit in exploring the possibility of including a 'general' section at the front of the Guide to avoid repetition throughout, but reference would have to be made to this in each section.
Content
5.12 The comments from farmers relating to the use of overly simple or 'patronising' language in the Guide means that language, tone and content should be reviewed to ensure that recommendations maintain simple clear messages, but are less likely to be construed as basic or patronising by farmers. The removal of duplication between sections, if possible, would also help to make the document potentially less irritating to the reader.
Format
5.13 The loose-leaf paper format was popular with users and should be maintained. Farmers are unlikely to start to use the internet in significant numbers in the near future to access this type of information and almost all prefer to have hard copies of documents.
5.14 The requirement to produce the Guide on 'waterproof' paper is unnecessary. The vast majority of farmers do not take documents out on the farm with them and as a result a more standard grade of paper would be sufficient for use on the Guide.