Suchergebnisse

Bovine tuberculosis (bTB) is an epidemiologically, politically, and socially complex disease. Across multiple international contexts, policy makers have struggled to balance the competing demands of wildlife and agricultural interests in their efforts to create workable and effective disease management strategies. This paper draws comparative lessons between the cases of Michigan in the USA and the UK to exemplify some of the challenges of developing an effective strategy for the long-term control of endemic disease, particularly reflecting on efforts to "responsibilise" cattle producers and engage them in proactive activities to mitigate transmission risks on their own farms. Using qualitative data derived from 22 stakeholder interviews, it is argued that the management of bTB in Michigan has important lessons for the UK on the role of human dimensions in influencing the direction of disease control. The management of endemic bTB relies on the actions of individuals to minimise risk and, in contrast to the predominantly voluntary approach pursued in the UK, Michigan has shifted the emphasis towards obtaining producer support for wildlife risk mitigation and biosecurity via a mix of regulatory, fiscal, and social interventions. Whilst the scale of the bTB challenge differs between these two contexts, analysis of the different ideological bases for selecting management approaches offers interesting insights on the role of negotiated outcomes in attempts to adaptively manage a disease that is characterised by complexity and uncertainty.

AbstractExotic livestock disease outbreaks have the capacity to significantly impact individual livestock keepers, as well as devastate an entire industry sector. However, there has been limited research undertaken to understand how farmers think about and carry out exotic livestock disease control practices within the social sciences. Drawing on aspects of Social Identity Theory and Self‐Categorisation Theory, this article explores how the 'good farmer' identity concept influences farmers' exotic livestock disease control practices. Using findings from an in‐depth, large‐scale qualitative study with animal keepers and veterinarians, the article identifies three context specific and at times conflicting 'good farmer' identities. Additionally, a defensive component is noted whereby farmers suggest an inability to carry out their role as a 'good farmer' due to government failings, poor practice undertaken by 'bad farmers', as well as the uncontrollable nature of exotic disease.

Relatively little is known about the perceived influence of different compensation systems on animal keepers' management of exotic livestock disease. This paper aims to address this research gap by drawing on interviews with 61 animal keepers and 21 veterinarians, as well as a series of nine animal keeper focus groups across five different livestock sectors in England. The perceived influence of current compensation systems on disease control behaviour was explored and alternative compensation systems that respectively reward positive practices and penalise poor practices were presented in the form of scenarios, alongside a third system that considered the option of a cost sharing levy system between industry and government. The results indicate that animal keepers consider themselves to be influenced by a range of non-financial factors e.g. feelings of responsibility, reputation, and animal welfare concerns, in the context of their exotic disease management practices. The majority of animal keepers were unaware of the current compensation systems in place for exotic diseases, and were therefore not consciously influenced by financial recompense. Concerns were raised about linking compensation to disease management behaviour due to auditing difficulties. A cost sharing levy system would likely raise awareness of exotic disease and compensation among animal keepers, but differentiation of payments based upon individual farm-level risk assessments was called for by participants as a strategy to promote positive disease management practices.

AbstractPoor mental health is an important and increasingly prevalent issue facing the farming industry. The adaptability of what we, in this article, describe as 'landscapes of support' for farming mental health is important to allow support systems to adapt successfully in times of crisis. The term 'landscapes of support' refers to the range of support sources available to farmers, including government, third sector bodies and farming/community groups. This article seeks to understand the factors influencing the adaptability of these landscapes of support, especially at a time of crisis. Using a case study of the UK, we undertook a literature review, interviews with 22 mental health support providers and an online survey of people within landscapes of support (93) and farmers themselves (207). We also held an end‐of‐project workshop. Using an adapted three‐point framework to assess adaptability, we found that support‐giving organisations adapted during the pandemic using a range of interventions (e.g., enhanced digital offering, use of media), but implementation was affected by organisational challenges (e.g., limited digital training, funding shortfalls, staff trauma) and operational constraints (e.g., lack of capacity, rural digital divide, tension between providers, stigma). We discuss how landscapes of support for farming mental health can be made more sustainable to deal with future shocks.

1. Agriculture around the world needs to become more environmentally sustainable to limit further environmental degradation and impacts of climate change. 2. Many governments try to achieve this through enrolling farmers in agri-environment schemes (AES) that encourage them to undertake conservation activities. 3. Studies show that AES can suffer from low uptake, meaning their environmental objectives remain unattained. To succeed for people and nature, policy-makers are increasingly adopting multi-actor approaches in the "co-design" of AES to make them more attractive and inclusive of a full range of stakeholders, including 'harder to reach' farmers. 4. To address why some land managers (principally farmers) may be harder to reach in the context of co-designing England's new Environmental Land Management (ELM) approach, we undertook a quick scoping review of the literature, conducted 23 first-round and 24 second-round interviews with key informants, and held a workshop with 11 practitioners. 5. We outline why farming stakeholders may be harder to reach and how policy-makers can adjust the engagement process to make co-design more inclusive. 6. Based on the results, we make recommendations that could help policy-makers to design better, more inclusive AES that would attract greater uptake and increase their chances of success.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Ireland is responsible for the ecological monitoring and assessment of 37 hydrometric areas covering 46 river catchments and over 13,000 km of river channel nationwide. The national river monitoring program commenced in 1971 and has developed further since 2007 into the National Rivers Water Framework Directive (WFD) Monitoring Program following the implementation of the WFD across the European Union. The monitoring program is designed to obtain sufficiently representative information to assess ecological quality for each water body assessed. Consequently, macroinvertebrate data have been collected at over 2,900 river survey stations on a minimum 3-year cycle to fulfil these requirements. While the EPA has collected these data for water quality assessments we recognize that the data have value beyond this one purpose. We provide a summary of how these 10,987 data records, covering the years 2007 to 2018, have been collected and used to deepen understanding of water quality, biodiversity and general ecological health of Ireland's river network.

Plant diseases threaten both food security and the botanical diversity of natural ecosystems. Substantial research effort is focused on pathogen detection and control, with detailed risk management available for many plant diseases. Risk can be assessed using analytical techniques that account for disease pressure both spatially and temporally. We suggest that such technical assessments of disease risk may not provide an adequate guide to the strategies undertaken by growers and government to manage plant disease. Instead, risk-management strategies need to account more fully for intuitive and normative responses that act to balance conflicting interests between stakeholder organizations concerned with plant diseases within the managed and natural environments. Modes of effective engagement between policy makers and stakeholders are explored in the paper, together with an assessment of such engagement in two case studies of contemporary non-indigenous diseases in one food and in one non-food sector. Finally, a model is proposed for greater integration of stakeholders in policy decisions.