Agricultural Extension Advisory Services: The Challenge of Implementing a Multifunctional Advisory Programme

Since the turn of the twentieth century, a rapidly changing rural environment has forced agricultural extension services to undergo readjustments and major restructuring in order to remain relevant and valuable to farming communities. A dramatic decline in farm income, a significant increase in part-time farming and the emergence of a new multifunctional type agricultural regime has forced the Irish extension service (Teagasc) to make significant modifications to their organisation, programmes and methods of delivery. One programme indicative of this restructuring is ‘The Options for Farm Families Programme’ which adopts a holistic approach whereby extension advisers transfer knowledge and advice to farmers relevant to their future ‘options’. Drawing from an action evaluation of the Options Programme this paper explores the views and attitudes of programme participants, managers and advisers in relation to its delivery to farm family participants. Although many benefits of the programme are identified, what also becomes apparent are problems of programme awareness and levels of participation; paternalistic delivery methods and prescriptive rather than consultative structures under which the programme operates. Furthermore what emerges is the importance of programme evaluation and the realisation that the willingness of farmers to explore their ‘options’ is very dependent on the way in which knowledge is disseminated to the farm family and the levels of engagement at which the extension advisory service operate.

[1]  D. Vail Women and Small Farm Revival: The Division of Labor and Decision-Making on Maine's Organic Farms , 1981 .

[2]  Chris Garforth,et al.  Improving farmers' access to advice on land management: Lessons from case studies in developed countries. , 2003 .

[3]  D. Korten Community Organization and Rural Development : A Learning Process Approach , 1980 .

[4]  Diana Carney,et al.  Changing public and private roles in agricultural service provision , 1995 .

[5]  Burton E. Swanson,et al.  Improving agricultural extension A reference manual , 1997 .

[6]  Charles J. Maguire From agriculture to rural development: Critical choices for agriculture education , 2000 .

[7]  T. Marsden Constructing The Countryside , 1993 .

[8]  A. Errington The delegation of decisions on the farm , 1986 .

[9]  T. Marsden Constructing The Countryside , 1993 .

[10]  G. Wilson From productivism to post-productivism … and back again? Exploring the (un)changed natural and mental landscapes of European agriculture , 2001 .

[11]  P. Cloke,et al.  Conceptualising Countryside Change : From Post-Fordism to Rural Structured Coherence , 1992 .

[12]  A. V. D. Ban Agricultural development; Opportunities and threats for farmers and implications for extension organisations , 1999 .

[13]  Geoff A. Wilson,et al.  Injecting social psychology theory into conceptualisations of agricultural agency: Towards a post-productivist farmer self-identity? , 2006 .

[14]  I. Bowler,et al.  From agricultural productivism to post-productivism , 1998 .

[15]  Andrew Flynn,et al.  Regulating the new rural spaces: the uneven development of land , 1993 .

[16]  A. W. van den Ban,et al.  Agricultural extension, 2nd ed. , 1996 .

[17]  J. Rigg,et al.  ‘Post-productivist’ agricultural regimes and the South: discordant concepts? , 2003 .

[18]  B. Swanson The Changing Role of Agricultural Extension in a Global Economy , 2006 .

[19]  Clive Potter,et al.  Agricultural multifunctionality in the WTO—legitimate non-trade concern or disguised protectionism? , 2002 .

[20]  B. Swanson,et al.  Developing an Extension Partnership among Public, Private, and Nongovernmental Organizations , 2002 .