Disjointed advocacy leading to ag industry disengagement

Advocacy, lobby and research, development and extension groups need to increase farmer engagement, and more producers need to have input.

“It’s up to us to get involved to lead the charge of change. The world is run by those who show up so we need more to show up,” he said.

A disconnect between his local dairy discussion group and those in the industry advocating and making decisions encouraged Mr Meade to investigate agricultural organisations in the world that Australia could learn from. The 2017 Nuffield Scholar visited 25 bodies across six countries and cross-checked claims with local farmers.

He found more physical promotion, including increased investment in local field officers, was at the frontline of improving engagement. And Australia’s large number of agricultural groups was diminishing its ability to impact the big decisions.

Mr Meade said in all the countries he visited, advocacy groups work together under one national and commodity banner.

“When they identify an issue they work together on it and it brings better clout -  we are disjointed in Australia,” he said.

He added that it was the same for research and development organisations, who share a lot of resources and information regardless of the commodity focus, as many needs crossed over.

Grassroot branches and committees were the past, present and future of ag bodies, Mr Meade found, and farmer-led objectives and assessment – as well as farmer elected leaders - were crucial.

“If you can have strategic plans, objectives, set from the grassroots level…when you come to me and want to renew the levy or renew my membership, you show me those results that have been set by us and assessed by us, and I would be much more likely to do so,” he said.

“People are more likely to want to belong to an organisation if they feel like they can make a difference, (they need) clear identifiable pathways for contribution from the bottom up, and that includes, I believe, voting rights for members at local and entry level, for state and federal decision makers.”

A physical presence was another key to improved engagement and two way communication, Mr Meade said, as many groups had an “over-reliance” on written communication, including social media.

“It is the laziest (way) and far from the most effective. Ag organisations can improve this by building their database of information and start having more relevant short, sharp, targeted information going to the farmer,” he said. 

“Certainly the farmers I met appreciate the extra effort made by ag organisations to see or speak to them directly. They were more likely to actively and positively interact with them, and of course, like we all know, it’s hard to say no to someone when you are looking at them in the eye.”

When it came to membership models, Mr Meade said simplicity was the best, with a flat fee across all members.

And incorporating non-farming members, such as rural professionals and local residents, was successful for organisations such as the Nation Farmers Union UK.

“Rural professionals (are) able to help sell their message… And rural professionals were quite happy to contribute to an organisation that they knew they also survived off,” he said.