Crisis, farming and community

In 2001, the UK was hit by Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) precipitating one of the biggest crises ever to affect the UK farming system. The crisis unfolded as a series of information and communication problems, from government to farmers and from farmers to farmers, with consequences for action in a time of crisis, social support, and the maintenance of community. What happens to a farming community during such a crisis? When the countryside shuts down, and no one can enter or leave the farm, how can information be disseminated? As methods of dealing with the disease change rapidly, as happened in this crisis, how can information be delivered in a timely and coordinated manner? To explore these questions, data have been gathered from reports and writing about the crisis, and from interviews with Cumbrian farmers. Although we will address throughout the discussion the multiple information channels used by farmers, this paper focuses on the role of information and communication technologies (ICTs) during the crisis, notably a community networking initiative known as Pentalk. We conclude with a look at the current role of Pentalk in the farming community, and with discussion of how networks such as these can help during crises in which there are significant needs for information and communication management. I n t r o d u c t i o n In 2001, the UK was hit by Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD), precipitating one of the biggest crises ever to affect the UK farming system. The epidemic cost over £8 billion, led to the slaughter of over 6 million animals, and devastated the livelihoods of thousands of farmers. The crisis unfolded as a series of information and communication problems, from government to farmers and from farmers to farmers, with consequences for action in a time of crisis, social support, and the maintenance of community. Data from government and local sources, interviews with those who suffered through the crisis, and books written about the crisis, draw a picture of confusion, uncertainty, and isolation at the same time that masses of people and resources were brought to bear on the crisis. At the height of the outbreak, 7000 civil servants, 2000 veterinarians, and 2000 troops were active in assessing risk, disseminating information on prevention and cleanup policies, and slaughtering and disposing of animals. The logistical exercise facing the UK Ministry of Agriculture has been described as “bigger and more complex than the UK involvement in the Gulf War” (Hetherington, 2002). Cumbria, in the north west of England and home of the Lake District National Park, was hardest hit, and is the focal region for this paper. Cumbrians suffered 893 outbreaks, the most of any region (next hardest hit was Northumbria with 190 cases), and were affected for the second longest period of time, from 28 February 2001 to a final determination of no more cases 214 days later on 30 September 2001 (the longest time taken to eradicate the disease was recorded in Northumbria by the Newcastle Disease Control Centre with 218 days). In addition to animal slaughter at the infected farms, a further 1934 farms were 42 The Journal of Community Informatics subjected to complete or partial animal slaughter as part of the overall disease control and eradication measures (Cumbria Foot and Mouth Inquiry, 2002). The cull in Cumbria was estimated to be around one million animals, 44% of the UK national total. What happens to a farming community during such a crisis? How can they pull together when measures to prevent the spread of disease restrict movement about the countryside? Farmers were confined to their farms, isolated from contact with others, often unable to leave the household for several weeks. Rules established by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF, later renamed as Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, DEFRA) show the kind of “lockdown” required of any farmer who suspected the disease in their stock: Lock your farm gates and put a ‘Keep out sign’ at the farm entrance Do not allow persons to leave or enter your farm Do not move any stock, crops or anything else off the premises Isolate all animals Ensure that any goods delivered are delivered at the farm gates Ensure suspect animals are not moved on or across a public road If you are a milk producer you should prevent the collection of your milk from your farm, by placing a ‘do not collect’ notice on your farm-gate. (MAFF, 2001) Not only were farmers locked down; the whole countryside was closed to visitors: livestock markets were shut down, community and sporting events cancelled, walking trails and footpaths closed, and access to the countryside denied (Harvey, 2001). Travelers in and out of affected areas crossed disinfectant baths for feet and car tires. But, if the countryside is locked down, and no one can enter or leave the farm, how can information be disseminated? How can a farmer learn that the farm next door has just ‘gone down’ (a term used by the farmers)? As methods of dealing with the disease change rapidly, as happened in this crisis, how can information be delivered in a timely and coordinated manner? Television, telephone, radio, and the Internet each come to mind as immediate ways of communicating, yet which is the authoritative voice? Which is to be trusted? Which can actually reach farmers whose days are spent outside the house, on the land, tending to their animals? Moreover, how do these sources, along with farmers’ needs for information and communication, support the community at a time when geographical place acquires extraordinary relevance, yet conditions prevent face-to-face social interaction around concerns for this place? To explore these questions, data have been gathered from reports and writings about the crisis, interviews with Cumbrian farmers, local media representatives, and the director and coordinators of a community networking initiative known as Pentalk. Although we will address throughout this article the multiple information channels used by farmers, this paper focuses on the role of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and the Pentalk Network during the crisis. The Pentalk network (www.pentalk.org) – named for Penrith, a town situated in the Eden valley in Cumbria – was set up during the crisis as a rapid response scheme to assist farmers and their families in the North West of England. To date, Pentalk has won the North West Regional Award for e-commerce in 2002 and again in 2003, and the Cumbrian Newspapers Countryside Award for best contribution to Rural Technology. Pentalk is a registered charity which draws its financial support from local and national government, and educational, business and charitable sources, under the leadership of Ann Risman. Our initial discourse provides further background on the FMD crisis, its impact, and governments’ initiatives in responding to it. We discuss how these efforts were received by Cumbrian farmers, the information and communication needs they encountered, and how this affected their relation with their community. Then we present the role of Pentalk as a support for farmers and the farming community during the FMD crisis. We conclude with a look at the current role of Pentalk in the farming community, and how such networks can help communities during crises involving major information and communication management issues. D a t a S o u r c e s Crisis, Farming & Community 43 Data for this paper come from a number of publicly available resources, as well as interviews with farmers (see below). The published sources include: • Reports from independent inquiries: notably a report from the Cumbria Foot and Mouth Inquiry (2002), a proceeding which was also transmitted in its entirety by BBC Radio Cumbria (www.bbc.co.uk/cumbria); and a report from the European Parliament Temporary Committee on Foot and Mouth Disease (2002). • The Warmwell independent website (www.warmwell.com) set up at the beginning of the crisis which provides an archive of articles, reports, parliamentary proceedings and commentaries from individuals • Writings about the crisis, notably Caz Graham’s (2002) edited volume Foot and Mouth: Heart and Soul, a collection of personal accounts about experiences in Cumbria during the foot and mouth outbreak • Personal diaries and accounts as reported in local newspapers such as The Cumberland and Westmorland Herald (www.cwherald.com); The Cumberland News (www.cumberalndnews.co.uk), and national newspapers such as The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk), and The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk) • Recordings of local radio reports, such as the BBC Radio Cumbria Nightline phone-in program broadcast during the crisis. These reports are supplemented by interviews conducted in 2003-2004 with 16 Cumbrian farmers from 11 households, the Pentalk director, two farmers who acted as Pentalk coordinators during the time of the crisis, one landowner, and three local radio representatives. Farmers were selected for interview by snowball sampling. The two Pentalk coordinators, one from the Penrith area, one from the Brampton area (in the north of Cumbria) were used as starting points and asked to suggest the names of farmers to contact. Names of farmers suggested included both members and nonmembers of Pentalk. These farmers suggested the names of other farmers who they thought would be willing to be interviewed. Given the sensitivities of the topic, some of these farmers declined to be interviewed, not wishing to re-live the crisis by participating in an interview. Semi-structured interviews were held with the farmers and landowners, focusing on their information needs during the crisis, the use of media and ICTs to receive such information, and discovering the kinds of available informational, emotional and other distributable support. Farmers were asked whether the information they received was timely, accurate, and/or consistent, and how their needs c