Who are Advisory Services Leaving Out? A Critical Reflection on ‘Hard to Reach’ Farmers

Although the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union has broadened its objectives to integrate social issues, several hard-to-reach groups of farmers and workers continue to be ignored by advisory services and associated policies. Connecting with these groups has a strong potential to increase the economic and social cohesion of European agricultures. We interviewed over 1,000 farmers across Europe and identified features of these groups that are often overlooked by advisory services. We critically reflected on the social cohorts omitted from advisory services and how they could be better reached; they include farm labourers, new entrants or ‘career changers’, and later adopters. We clarify the different types of advisors in the advisory landscape, distinguishing between those who are linked to or independent from sales of inputs or technologies. We make concrete recommendations about how to engage advisors with hard-to-reach groups, with approaches suited to different national contexts of Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS); thus contributing to the ‘AKIS dimension of National Strategic Plans of the next Common Agricultural Policy, 2023–2027. We argue for the more effective use of advances in the social sciences through a better understanding of advice as social interaction which can bolster the inclusiveness of public policies.     

What Can We Learn from Droppers and Non-adopters About the Role of Advice in Agricultural Innovation?

In this article we assess the diversity of sources of advice identified by 678 adopters, 295 non-adopters and 107 droppers (or dis-adopters, who have ceased or reduced the use) of agricultural innovations across 13 European countries. For most innovations, the volume and composition of advisory supports (e.g. public advisory services, farm business organisations, NGOs, research and development sector, other farmers), at the whole farm level were similar between adopters, non-adopters and droppers. However, there were significant differences in relation to specific innovations. Farmers adopting digital technologies, soil-improving cropping systems, and common management of natural resources identified more diverse sources when assessing innovations, suggesting that more diverse advisory support supported successful implementation. For new on-farm activities, non-adopters had more varied sources of advice than adopters. This demonstrates that non-adoption can be a well-informed decision. Droppers typically identified fewer sources of advice on an innovation than adopters, particularly in the later stages of the innovation process, suggesting that lack of advice impeded successful implementation. The findings suggest that public funding for advisory services could usefully target emergent gaps: to support the provision of up-to-date advice on topics to farmers who have difficulty accessing advice, and to prevent unnecessary dropping by supporting the implementation of innovations.