Extensive beef and sheep farmers are more likely to engage with water quality initiatives than intensive dairy farmers, new research has found.

The WaterMARKE project involving researchers from Teagasc and the University of Galway, found this is because agri-environmental schemes incentivise technological changes, and are based on the income forgone and costs incurred model.

These schemes also do not incorporate transaction costs (hassle and training) or the loss of productive land, according to the project.

Researchers attempted to address this cost barrier in the Farming for Water EIP in 2023 which paid farmers to undertake measures when the financial cost is high and the social or environmental benefit is also high.

However, with this method the average payment per farm is likely to be less than the typical agri-environmental scheme payment for similar measures.

Costs

Researchers found that farmers and landowners are more likely to accept measures that incur lower costs and have a more immediate visible effect, such as drainage ditch remediation.

The report said the most cost-effective solutions vary across farms and different environmental situations, meaning that an inflexible approach may result in higher costs for some farmers.

In addition, unless the cost of losing productive land is sufficiently factored into payments for water quality measures, affected farmers are less likely to engage.

These constraints may make it difficult to adequately reward farmers for adopting the right measures in the right places.

Professor at the University of Galway Cathal O’Donoghue said that there needs to be system-wide efforts to adopt water quality measures to make a meaningful change.

“All the actors across Government departments, researchers, co-operatives, advisers, farmers and farming organisations need to continue to think differently and allocate time for reflexive thinking to allow for wider participation, along with the further development of trust and innovation across the innovation system.”

Behaviour

Farmers and advisers are facing knowledge and technical challenges, as well as administrative burdens that carry compliance and psychological costs, according to the report.

Interviews showed that advisers require better supports to prioritise pro-environmental water quality advice.

The research also highlighted the role of trust in successful knowledge sharing and improving farmers behaviour towards these schemes.

Farmers with strong behavioural drivers to adopt specific measures are those who are aware of a measure, believe they are able to undertake it, believe others would approve, and live in areas where others have implemented it.

Other factors that lead to greater adoption include large farm size, previous participation in agri-environmental schemes, having a point source pollution issue, and having an agricultural education.

Noel Meehan, head of the Teagasc water quality knowledge transfer department said there are obstacles for advisory services when providing advice and support to farmers in adopting these measures.

“The research shows that advisers also need training and upskilling in the provision of water quality advice, something that the Better Farming for Water campaign is working to achieve with both Teagasc and private advisers.”

Research

The project was funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Agriculture.

Researchers also worked with the Agricultural Sustainability Support and Advisory Programme (ASSAP) to investigate how farmers and advisers engage with water quality improvement measures.

The findings of the project will be used to develop policies and supports for both farmers and advisers that incorporate behavioural drivers, to ensure the use of appropriate farming practices and mitigation actions that lead to positive water quality outcomes.