Improving Farmers’ Access to Advice on Land Management: Lessons from Case Studies in Developed Countries

Governments which have privatised their advisory services still try to influence farmers’ land use and land management decisions in order to achieve policy objectives. At the same time farmers and other managers of rural land need access to increasingly complex and varied information and advice when making land use and business decisions. This paper reviews the range of ways in which advisory services are provided in developed countries. Research findings • Governments have a legitimate need to influence land use in the wider public and environmental interest. But design and delivery of advisory services must be based on a coherent understanding of how and why land managers make decisions, particularly those that involve substantial or complex change in management strategy. • Land managers benefit from having an array of diverse services and providers, but may require professional support to identify those most appropriate to their circumstances. • Electronic information and communication technologies (ICTs) can provide cost-effective interactive tools to complement advisory schemes. However the internet is not yet a cost-effective way of distributing information widely: for most land managers it is not a natural choice of information source. • Land managers develop new knowledge through a learning process, not by simple ‘knowledge transfer’. Clients value schemes which facilitate learning, confidence building and motivation. This is particularly so where major changes in land use strategy are being considered or promoted, where new skills are required in order to put a desired strategy into effect, and where collective agreement or action is needed. Policy implications • Governments should continue to fund advisory services which contribute to policy goals by supporting private sector providers. • Government should not attempt to over-manage advisory services: integration of services should not be at the expense of diversity. • Government should continue to fund the provision of services because of the significant market failures experienced in both the supply of, and the demand for, advice and information. • However, there should be a presumption against growing a public sector capability for delivering advice and information: government funding is more efficiently used to support a diverse set of programmes and services in the private (commercial as well as not-for-profit) sector. • Wherever possible, governments should avoid prescribing ‘acceptable’ decisions and behaviour for land managers, in favour of the development of local solutions and strategies.