What enables and prevents sugarcane growing practice change? A review of publicly available sources for practice change projects

ABSTRACT

The Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan 2017–2022 identified that changes to evaluation practices were an urgent need if ambitious water quality targets were to be realised. To understand if progress had been made, this study synthesised publicly available evidence for ten projects aiming to engage sugarcane growers in practice change. The aims of this study were to identify factors facilitating or preventing practice change in sugarcane growing, drawing on monitoring and evaluation evidence that was publicly available for the ten projects. Twenty-one peer-reviewed articles and government and industry reports were collated and analysed. Thematic analysis identified seven enablers of engagement with practice changes resulting from project participation: government and industry partnerships, effective communication, training and education, grower or community leadership, financial support, return on investment and social factors. This review showed that a lack of enabling factors is a barrier to program adoption and practice change. Additional barriers were lack of availability of alternatives, lack of clear and transparent monitoring and evaluation for projects, lack of trust between stakeholders and competing stakeholder interests.

KEYWORDS:

• Evaluation
• behaviour change
• review
• farmers
• Great Barrier Reef
• water quality

Introduction

The Reef 2050 Long Term Sustainability Plan (Reef 2050 Plan) has served as a joint plan between the Australian and Queensland Governments since 2015. This plan, endorsed by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, serves as a shared blueprint for managing the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) to improve health and resilience. In response to this plan, a considerable number of projects have been implemented with the aim of improving water quality. Some projects have focused on changing farming practice to reduce loads of catchment-sourced stressors, principally nutrients, fine sediment and pesticides which reduce water quality and disrupt the natural balance of Reef ecosystems (Queensland Government 2022). Data collected by project stakeholders has tracked expenditures, detailed farmer engagement with, and uptake of, projects, described project elements and, to a lesser extent, recorded outcomes such as reductions in nitrogen, pesticides and/or sediment run-off to track progress in mitigating the impact of sugarcane farming on the Reef Lagoon. The Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan 2017–2022 (Reef 2050 WQIP) identified that changes in on-ground management, improvements to program design, delivery and evaluation systems were an urgent need. Concerns were expressed in 2017 about the progress made to date towards achieving the water quality targets set in the Reef 2050 Plan. Calls were made for acceleration of approaches to ensure that the intermediate and long-term targets outlined in the Reef 2050 Plan could be met. This study focused on ten sugarcane farming practice change projects. Sugarcane is a major agricultural crop in GBR catchments and a main contributor of nutrient loads in the GBR catchment area (Queensland Government 2022).

Project activities and outputs are expected to deliver water quality outcomes if sugarcane farmers engage sufficiently with projects. For example, engaging farmers to attend workshops, demonstrations and other events is needed to relay information. It is only when sugarcane farmers attend the events delivered by project teams that we can attribute changes in sugarcane farming practices to any one project. Understanding the number of people who have read, understood, and acted upon communications offers a further example of how project outputs can be tracked to measure success – or failure – to engage sugarcane farmers. Engagement in practice change is influenced by the activities and outputs delivered by many stakeholders, e.g. agronomy services, extension services, commercial industry operators and other stakeholders (Rodriguez et al. 2009). For instance, extension service providers and agronomists served as change agents, facilitators and communicators advocating for new farming methods and techniques (James, Estwick, and Bryant 2014). Consequently, factors facilitating or preventing sugarcane farming practice change can be identified.

Monitoring and evaluation are critical to understand how and when change occurs, and if the aims and objectives of programs implemented are successfully met. Project teams are funded to deliver activities and outputs for a timed duration. Evaluation is important as it assists project stakeholders and other interested parties, including investors, to learn more about the factors that support or hinder meeting the intended outcomes (McHugh and Domegan 2017). Monitoring and evaluation, when underpinned by a guiding program logic, offer clear data to understand what works, when, where and why (McHugh and Domegan 2017). When logics are supported by a theory, they deliver a clear understanding of what can reasonably be expected from project activities and outputs. At present, very few farming practice change projects are theoretically guided despite availability of a strong evidence base identifying factors enabling engagement and subsequent behaviour change (Anibaldi et al. 2021). Rigorous monitoring performance in real time ensures that the sets of activities project teams should perform are delivering the intended outcome. First, project teams need farmers to engage with events and materials produced by the project team. Second, through engagement with materials and events produced by project teams, the extent to which farmers modify practice needs to be measured. Program success is achieved when measurable changes in farming practice occur and when targets are met. A considerable amount of on-ground management knowledge and expertise is held by the government, Traditional Owners, community, industry and scientists. Examination of publicly available records of efforts aiming to contribute to the 2050 water quality targets helps identify what is working, and what is not working.

This article aimed to understand factors that can enable or prevent sugarcane farming practice change to enhance water quality benefitting the GBR. Consideration is given to both how farmers engage with projects and what changes occurred as a result of active participation within a funded project. This article provides a synthesis of publicly available sources for ten sugarcane growing practice change projects (Rundle-Thiele et al. 2021). Through reviewing a range of publicly available documents, this article also considered the extent that information on outcomes achieved across a range of government funded projects is publicly available. In doing so, this study contributes to a key deliverable identified in the Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan, namely ‘capturing on-ground management knowledge and expertise to provide guidance for program designers and managers’ (39).

Method

The study focussed on ten government-funded sugarcane growing practice change projects that had been conducted with the aim of enhancing water quality to contribute to the Reef 2050 Long Term Sustainability Plan (Rundle-Thiele et al. 2021). Peer-reviewed articles and government and industry reports that are publicly available were collected using Google Scholar. Google Scholar can capture peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed literature that is openly available for all to access, unlike other scholarly databases which are closed platforms that are only accessible to the scientific community and paying subscribers. This evidence review sought to identify what information could be accessed by any stakeholder with an interest in understanding how sugarcane management practices and land use could be changed. Google Scholar permits researchers to search across many disciplines and sources, namely reports, articles, theses, books, abstracts, and court opinions, from academic publishers, professional societies, online repositories, universities and other websites, which can add substantial depth to the analysis (Hopewell, Clarke, and Mallett 2005). Additionally, Google Scholar is commonly used to detect relevant outputs that are not captured in systematic literature review processes which are typically focused on collating peer-reviewed scientific literature (McHugh and Domegan 2010; Petticrew and Roberts 2005). Capturing the knowledge published in grey literature contributes in-depth analyses from a practitioner standpoint, helping to build an understanding on project effectiveness and factors facilitating and preventing growing practice change.

A broad set of search terms was chosen to capture publicly available materials for the ten selected sugarcane practice change focussed projects, which were specified in Rundle-Thiele et al. (2021) and were published prior to September 2020 (RP 161, RP 20, RP 167, Reef Trust 3, Project Uplift, Project Catalyst, Project 25, CQ 161, Repeated Reverse Tenders, Smartcane BMP). Searches were conducted using each project name separately (see Table 1 for project descriptions and search results). Examples of documents retrieved as a result of searches performed included factsheets, case studies, evaluation reports, project websites, conference and open access journal papers.

Table 1. Project details and search results.

Project name	Details	Year	Funding body	Search results
RP 20 and 161: Complete Nutrient Management Planning for Cane Farming	This project sought to determine if 6ES was enough to grow a profitable crop of cane. The project started as RP20 and was later expanded to a wider group of growers under the project number RP161. The project involved extension service providers who gave practice change advice for a subsidised fee to farmers.	2011–2022	Queensland Government Reef Water Quality Program and the Australian Government’s Reef Trust, in partnership with Farmacist and Sugar Research Australia (SRA).	71
Reef Trust Investment Strategy Phase III	To provide funding to improve management practices for sugarcane farmers, reduce erosion in grazing lands and improve water quality in grains, diary and horticulture industries.	2015–2019	Australian Government	5
Project Uplift Farming Systems Initiative	Project Uplift is part of Reef Trust phase V and aimed to work with farming groups to transition to new and more efficient farming systems leading to BMP accreditation for 36 farming groups involved.	2016–2022	MSF Sugar, Sugar Research Australia, participating sugarcane farmers and Australian Government	8
Project Catalyst	Works closely with farmers to trial and validate their farm management practices with the aim of reducing nutrients to improve water quality. Catalyst is a partnership between farmers, Reef Catchments, Terrain Natural Resource Management, NQ Dry Tropics, WWF, the Coca Cola foundation and the Australian Government.	From 2017	Australian Government	53
Project 25 (2.1.7): Engaging with farmers and demonstrating water quality outcomes to create confidence in on-farm decision-making	By engaging farmers, P25 aimed to build confidence in farming decisions by demonstrating water quality outcomes. This project involved understanding the use of new digital technologies. P25 is a NESP TWQ Hub project. This project included NESP 2.1.3 The National Environmental Science Programme (NESP) Tropical Water Quality (TWQ) Hub Project 2.1.3: Harnessing the science of social marketing and behaviour change for improved water quality in the Great Barrier Reef: An action research project	2018–2020	Australian Government, JCU, DAF and DSITIA	134
CQ 161	CQ161 is an extension of RP161 launched in the Mackay-Whitsunday region. CQ161 works with farmers to adjust their nitrogen rates in line with industry standard, SIX EASY STEPS without compromising their productivity and profitability.	From 2018	Queensland Government Reef Water Quality Program and the Australian Government’s Reef Trust, in partnership with Farmacist	0
RP 167: Sandy Creek – on-farm change for water quality improvement	Sugar cane farmers in the Sandy Creek Catchment collected water samples and worked with water quality scientists and local extension providers to make informed farming decisions aimed at improving water quality through a reduction in pesticides running into waterways. RP167 focussed on expanding uptake of improved chemical management practices by farmers in selected areas.	2016–2019	Queensland Government	1
Repeated Reverse Tenders	The RRT project provides financial incentives (through Reef Trust) to sugar cane farmers in the Wet Tropics and Burdekin in return for contracted reductions in nitrogen applications to improve farm sustainability and reduce nitrogen discharge.	2015–2019	Australian Government	0
Smartcane BMP: Best Management Practices for The Cane Industry	Smartcane BMP is an accreditation scheme working with cane farmers to record and verify their practice improvements. This synthesis revie included Project NEMO: Nitrogen Efficient Management On-farm – an approach that provided extension service support to farmers to change nitrogen application practices.	From 2014	Queensland Government	300*

*Limited to the first ten pages from Google Scholar.

A total of 872 reports and articles were retrieved, and 406 duplicate records were removed. Abstracts, article titles, keywords, subjects and executive summaries of the remaining 466 records were examined to identify all records that matched the search terms listed above. A total of 437 references were then excluded because they did not report on sugarcane growing practice change, were not relevant to water quality and the GBR, were conceptual, theoretical, methodological or formative research studies, or were not peer-reviewed literature or government or industry reports. Twenty-nine records remained, including content that focussed on farmers’ or growers’ engagement, practice change, nitrogen reduction, pesticide reduction, and water quality improvement. Within this set, eight records (Ihlein et al. 2018; Kraak and Drew 2016; Larson et al. 2019; Nachimuthu, Halpin, and Bell 2016; Renouf et al. 2018; Schroeder et al. 2018; Sugar Research Australia 2014; Verburg et al. 2019) were excluded as they did not include any reporting of evaluation of behaviour change, yielding 21 unique records following application of all exclusion criteria (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Flowchart of the selection process.

Backward and forward searches were used to collect further studies and related records that might have been missed in the primary search. Backward searching was completed by examining the reference lists of the 29 studies for further sources that may provide studies fitting the search criteria. The collected sources were located and examined in the same way as the original records, through abstracts, executive summaries, article titles, keywords and subjects. Forward searching was conducted using author and project names to search within Google Scholar to locate additional studies related to specific projects that were conducted by the authors. The backward and forward searches yielded no additional studies. A grounded approach was used to collect, summarise and map the available data to recognise common ideas, topics and patterns that emerged repeatedly from the data and sort factors into themes (Braun and Clarke 2006; Clarke, Braun, and Hayfield 2015).

All relevant excerpts were reviewed by two researchers to extract information related to enablers and barriers of behaviour change that could be attributed to sugarcane farmer project participation. This allowed the identification of best-practice approaches used in all the projects to date.

Findings

This section begins with an overview of records located for the ten reviewed sugarcane practice change projects. It is followed by a discussion of the key barriers and enablers of growers’ adoption of growing practice changes that could be attributed to project participation.

Project overview

Projects that were identified in the 21 records included Smartcane BMP (4 records), Project Catalyst (2 records), RP 20: Complete Nutrient Management Planning for Cane Farming (1 record) and Reef Trust 2 and 3 (1 record). NESP project 2.1.3: Harnessing the science of … behaviour change …  delivered six publicly available records. A further six records did not identify the government funded project. In addition to sugarcane (20 records), grazing (6 records), bananas (1 record) and urban practices (1 record) were also reported in the studied records. The majority of the studies were conducted in the Wet Tropics (12 records). Specific locations identified in the studies were Burdekin (9 records), Dry Tropics (2 records), North Queensland (1 record), Queensland East Coast (1 record), Mackay Whitsunday (3 records), Attwood (1 record), Cairns Coastal and Atherton Tablelands (1 record) and more broadly Australia (2 records).

The methods used in the records included surveys (12 records), interviews (4 records), case studies (3 records), evaluation of peer-reviewed studies and government records (1 record), Google analytics (1 record), and focus groups (1 record). All studies were conducted between 2008 and 2019.

Five of the ten projects were reported upon or mentioned in publicly available reports on project engagement and/or sugarcane farming practice change: Smartcane BMP (Billing 2019; Farr, Eagle, and Hay 2017a, 2017b, 2017c; Hamman et al. 2015; Hay and Eagle 2019; Pickering et al. 2018), Project Catalyst (Farr et al. 2017b, 2017c; Gillies, Attard, and Foley 2017; Greiner 2015; Hamman et al. 2015; Hay and Eagle 2019), Reef Trust III (Beutel et al. 2019; Billing 2019; Hamman et al. 2015; Hay and Eagle 2018), Project Uplift (Connolly et al. 2018; Hay and Eagle 2018; Hay and Eagle 2019), Project 25 (Billing 2019; Vilas et al. 2020). The other five projects were not mentioned in any of the records located.

Seven records reported project-specific insights while the remaining records reported on grower experiences in general. Hay and Eagle (2019) presented a summary of research activities undertaken during a three-year project (Eagle, Hay, and Farr 2017; Farr, Eagle, and Hay 2017a, 2017b, 2017c; Hay and Eagle 2018; Hay, Eagle, and Saleem 2019), detailing three rounds of survey research that were conducted in the Wet Tropic and Burdekin regions from 2016 to 2018. Each round of these surveys was published in a separate report (Farr, Eagle, and Hay 2017a, 2017b, 2017c). Eagle, Hay, and Farr (2017) presented a summary of the comparison report. Hay, Eagle, and Saleem (2019) extended insights from Year 1 data reporting structural equation model analysis of round 1 surveys across both areas. Hay and Eagle (2018) discussed round 2 of the survey in Wet Tropics (while data was not collected in the Burdekin region in Year 2), and finally, Hay and Eagle (2019) presented a summary of rounds 1 and 2 as well as a detailed discussion of round 3 in both regions (see Table 2 for an overview).

Table 2. Publicly available data sources by project.

#	Source	Project identified	Region	Industry	Objective	Behaviour	Evaluation method	Participants	Year
1	Hay and Eagle (2019)	NESP Project 2.1.3: Harnessing the science of behaviour change..^1	Burdekin and Wet Tropics (WT)	Sugarcane	Evaluate the way WQ improvement programs are marketed.	Change key behaviours to improve WQ	Longitudinal surveys	n = 118	2016–2018
2	Farr et al. (2017b)	NESP Project 2.1.3: Harnessing the science of … behaviour change^1	The Wet and Dry Tropics	Sugarcane	Gain insights about farmers who are or are not involved in projects	Enhance marketing of programs	Surveys	248 cane growers	2017
3	Farr et al. (2017c)	NESP Project 2.1.3: Harnessing the science of … behaviour change^1	Burdekin	Sugarcane and grazing	Gain insights about farmers who are involved in projects	Enhance marketing of programs	Surveys	134 of 80 graziers and 54 cane growers	2016
4	Farr, Eagle, and Hay (2017a)	NESP Project 2.1.3: Harnessing the science of … behaviour change^1	Burdekin and Wet Tropics (WT)	Sugarcane and grazing	Gain insights about farmers who are involved in projects in two regions	Enhance marketing of programs	Surveys	248 in Wet Tropics and 134 in Burdekin	2016–2017
5	Eagle, Hay, and Farr (2017)	NESP Project 2.1.3: Harnessing the science of … behaviour change^1	Burdekin and Wet Tropics (WT)	Sugarcane and grazing	A webinar summary of findings from round 1 survey	–	Surveys	–	2016
7	Hay and Eagle (2018)	NESP Project 2.1.3: Harnessing the science of … behaviour change^1	The Wet Tropics	Sugarcane	To evaluate government programs to support land managers	To control erosion and reduce nitrogen use	Surveys	Extension officers (n = 31) and land managers (n = 248)	2016–2017
6	Hay, Eagle, and Saleem (2019)	Smartcane BMP	The Wet and Dry Tropics	Sugarcane	Identify implications of claimed detrimental impacts for agricultural activity	Fertiliser application and handling Run-off	Surveys	N = 302 of extension officers and land managers	2017
8	Connolly et al. (2018)	Smartcane BMP	Wet Tropics	Sugarcane	Identify outcomes for farm profitability and the environment after adopting six easy steps	Applying BPM and the six easy steps	Case studies	Six commercial farms	–
9	Gillies, Attard, and Foley (2017)	Smartcane BMP	Burdekin	Sugarcane	Evaluate the Smart Autonomous Irrigation project	Using technology to remotely control irrigation	Case study	Three sites	2016
10	Pickering et al. (2018)	Smartcane BMP	North Queensland	Sugarcane	Identify psychological characteristics associated with farming practices and innovation	Handling run-off	Surveys	48 cane growers	2016
11	Royle and Bella (2017)	Project NEMO – Smartcane BMP	Wet Tropics	Sugarcane	A comparison of on-ground practices between 2011–2012 and 2015	To improve nitrogen use efficiency	Surveys	–	2011–2015
12	Rouse and Davenport (2017)	Project Catalyst	Mackay Whitsunday, Burdekin and Wet Tropics	Sugarcane	Evaluate the effectiveness of Project Catalyst	Managing run-off and pollutants	Case study	78 participating	–
13	Paschen et al. (2018)	Project Catalyst	Australia, including Mackay and Attwood, QLD	Sugarcane	Strengthen the role of private sector advisers in the agricultural extension system.		Intervention and two focus groups	–	2017
14	Arklay, van Acker, and Hollander (2018)	RP 20: Complete Nutrient Management Planning for Cane Farming	Burdekin and Townsville	Sugarcane	Evaluate Burdekin Nitrogen Trial (RP20).	Reducing the run-off & apply six easy steps	Interviews	23 farmers	2009–2015
15	Beutel et al. (2019)	Collaboration with Reef Trust 2 and 3	Australia	Grazing	Evaluate the impact of VegMachine.net land cover monitoring tool.	Increase land cover monitoring	Google analytics data	913 graziers, government agencies, NRM groups and researchers	2016–2019
16	Billing (2019)	Not identified	Wet Tropics	Sugarcane	Increase uptake of management practices	Reduce application of fertilisers	Surveys	Six growers	2017–2019
17	Greiner (2015)	Not identified	Burdekin	Sugarcane and grazing	Evaluate whether tender bids are fully implemented	Reduce nitrogen application in return for funds awarded	Interviews	42 tender participants who had submitted 64 bids	2008–2014
18	Hamman et al. (2015)	Not identified	Queensland Eastern Coast	Sugarcane	Evaluate the impact of the Polluter Pays Principle (PPP)	Improve evaluation of the effectiveness of environmental laws	Scientific data, legal decisions (and laws concerning the PPP) and peer – reviewed publications
19	Paul et al. (2018)	Not identified	Cairns Coastal, Atherton Tablelands, Upper Fitzroy, Dawson, and Mary River	Sugar cane and cropping/cattle grazing, bananas and urban	Evaluate the effectiveness of previous investments in delivering change	Handling excessive delivery of sediments and pollutants	Surveys	42 landholders
20	Rolfe and Harvey (2017)	Not identified	Wet Tropics, Burdekin and Mackay Whitsundays	Sugarcane	Identify factors influencing adoption of BMP	Improve adoption of BMPs	Surveys	55 landholders	2013
21	Vilas et al. (2020)	Not identified	Russel-Mulgrave, Johnston and Tully catchments of the Wet Tropics	Sugarcane	Identify barriers to uptake of 1622WQ application	Improving water quality by timely evaluation	Interviews	12 farmers; farm 3 management advisors and 5 researchers (20 in total)	2017

A total of seven enablers of sugarcane farming practice change were reported in the 21 studies (see Table 3).

Table 3. Enablers and barriers to practice change.

#	Source	Enablers							Barriers
		Govt. & industry partnerships	Effective communication	Training and education	Community led	Financial support	ROI	Social factors	Alternatives	Research	Trust	Stakeholders’ competing interests
1	Hay and Eagle (2019)		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
2	Farr et al. (2017b)		✓			✓		✓			✓
3	Farr et al. (2017c)		✓			✓		✓			✓
4	Farr, Eagle, and Hay (2017a)		✓			✓		✓			✓
5	Eagle, Hay, and Farr (2017)		✓	✓	✓		✓	✓			✓
7	Hay and Eagle (2018)		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓		✓	✓
6	Hay, Eagle, and Saleem (2019)		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓			✓
8	Connolly et al. (2018)			✓		✓	✓			✓	✓
9	Gillies, Attard, and Foley (2017)			✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
10	Pickering et al. (2018)		✓	✓	✓		✓	✓
11	Royle and Bella (2017)		✓	✓		✓	✓
12	Rouse and Davenport (2017)	✓	✓		✓		✓	✓				✓
13	Paschen et al. (2018)				✓		✓			✓	✓	✓
14	Arklay, van Acker, and Hollander (2018)		✓	✓	✓	✓			✓		✓
15	Beutel et al. (2019)		✓	✓						✓
16	Billing (2019)			✓	✓		✓		✓	✓	✓
17	Greiner (2015)	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓			✓
18	Hamman et al. (2015)	✓			✓	✓	✓			✓
19	Paul et al. (2018)	✓				✓	✓	✓		✓
20	Rolfe and Harvey (2017)					✓	✓				✓
21	Vilas et al. (2020)								✓	✓

Enablers of practice change attributable to project participation

Enabler 1: Government and industry partnerships

The formation and continuation of government and industry cooperation to deliver solutions that assure productivity while not compromising environmental impacts was significant, with four studies featuring successful public private partnerships. Hamman et al. (2015) reported on Project Catalyst – a five-year private public partnership delivering $2.5 million in funding support. Project Catalyst has effectively raised awareness of reef run-off and influenced change for 80 cane farmers covering over 80,000 hectares of land. Hamman et al. (2015) emphasised the contributions that arise with supply chain involvement (e.g. chemical producers and processed food industry) resulting in the delivery of funding support that has helped farmers to reduce pollution.

Enabler 2: Effective communication

The importance of clear communication between project stakeholders was emphasised by respondents in 12 studies (e.g. Greiner 2015; Hay and Eagle 2018, 2019). Greiner’s (2015) evaluation of farmers’ satisfaction with a tender process showed that growers reported benefiting from the one-on-one consultations they received from technical personnel who helped them to tailor their expressions of interest and translate their ideas into costed tender proposals. Indeed, the importance of ongoing two-way communication to bridge farmers’ knowledge with water quality data was further emphasised by Davis, Taylor, and Fielke (2019, 26), who stated ‘You take the growers with you, and you will get more uptake … more of an outcome because you’ll get more belief in the science’. Similarly, Arklay, van Acker, and Hollander (2018) identified the benefits derived by growers from a one-day forum which informed growers about project outcomes, outlining evaluation data from the RP20 trial. Several speakers at the forum reinforced the importance of stakeholder engagement and iterative feedback.

The Hay and Eagle (2019) study reported that upskilling all personnel, including extension officers, was needed to help them communicate better with farmers and stakeholders. They recommended applying theory and communication frameworks to improve service support. They also detailed a range of social media platforms and gave examples of visual imagery that could be used to reinforce key messages aiming to support practice change. Communication of new ideas as well as having farmers’ efforts recognised in the wider community were identified as important enablers of practice change (e.g. Hay and Eagle 2018; 2019; Hay, Eagle, and Saleem 2019).

Enabler 3: Training and education

Farmers emphasised the role of education in achieving intrinsically motivated behavioural change. Education approaches were viewed as more effective than regulatory approaches: ‘Encouraging and educating farmers is the best strategy’ and

All regulation is about is to make it happen today. If you educate people and they understand why – the consequences of their actions – they will want to do the right thing. If you regulate, you will always require strong audits so that people don't regress. (Greiner 2015, 28).

Hay and Eagle (2018) reported that twenty-three workshops, training events, meetings and information sessions were conducted in the twelve months prior to their survey period, and that extension officers stated that land managers found the events useful. Specifically, events related to the Six Easy Steps, soil health workshops, and Sugar Research Australia masterclasses raised awareness about land and soil management practices and water quality issues as well as providing accreditation and networking opportunities. Targeting skill deficiencies related to nutrient management and soil chemistry, and more involvement with extension officers and strategic coordinated extension programs with assistance from the then named Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, was recognised as important activities that would support land managers to make farm improvements (Hay and Eagle 2018).

Enabler 4: Grower or community led

Greiner (2015) called for more grass-roots engagement in the development of policies and programs. Decision makers need to understand the realities of deriving a living from farming. Decision makers

Need to listen to farmers’ perspective’s a lot more. Decision makers need to spend time on the ground with farmers in the field. It was felt that a lot of detail was missed when decision makers rely on peak organisations, because without broad interactions with farmers decision-makers were not able to appreciate the position that farmers are in. (Greiner 2015, 28)

There is a need to take a wider on-ground view to recognise that not all farmers are in a position to make large scale investments. Celebrating the initiatives that growers take is important and acknowledging that some farmers are willing to finance the purchase of technology demonstrates clear willingness to change. For example, Greiner (2015, 22) offered the following evidence: ‘I did the recycle pit, without funding, then bought instruments to measure N and P in my tail water’ and ‘I spent $400,000 on water quality improvements – all our own money. I replaced concrete pipes and generated large water savings. I am monitoring water outflow’.

The need for grower led initiatives was supported by Hay and Eagle (2019), who stated that discussions should be led by someone from within their own community, while Arklay, van Acker, and Hollander (2018) stated that grower led initiatives were effective in engaging wider grower support. Greiner (2015, 28) described acknowledging industry’s environmental achievements as key and that communicating these changes among farmers is a facilitating factor: ‘We need “good news stories” to get out there, about Catalyst, Reef Guardian, Reef Rescue’.

A wide range of grower initiatives were reported. For example, Hay and Eagle (2018; 2019) observations from extension officers of innovative practices adopted by cane growers included bed renovators, contour planting, experiments with flocculants (a particle clumping substance), grassed headlands and riparian vegetation, wetland bioreactors (a natural water purification process), sediment traps, minimum tillage, wetlands, spoon drains, subsurface fertiliser application, headland management, well designed drainage, trash blanketing and spraying out and covering fallowed fields. The significance of grower led innovation was further emphasised by one extension officer who stated that ‘the innovation is about minimising the amount of sediment, DIN and chemicals, which is about placement, timing, farming systems; there are plans to intercept groundwater DIN using filters’ as a solution to reduce run-off (Hay and Eagle 2018, 36).

Enabler 5: Funds and financial support

The role of funds and financial incentives was strongly evident in the records. Assisting farmers with funds and the financial support needed to make practice change during crop cycles was an important enabler. Funds could deliver the short-term support needed to purchase equipment and/or incentivise participation in practice change projects (e.g. Farr, Eagle, and Hay 2017a; Greiner 2015; Hamman et al. 2015; Hay and Eagle 2018) to move rapidly from early adopters to mainstream farming practice. A key issue associated with delivering funding to enable practice change was that dependence could potentially be created.

Greiner (2015) reported that funding delivered much needed support assisting farmers to purchase the necessary equipment to adopt change: ‘We have put in additional recycling pits and enviro-scan, which helps with scheduling of irrigation and reduces deep drainage’ and ‘eliminates the necessity to use pre-emergent herbicides’. ‘We have done lots of things, including getting GPS and a shielded sprayer. We have also changed the planter which reduced the need for ground preparation for plant cane’ (Greiner 2015, 21). This was further supported by Hay and Eagle (2018) who observed that 72 per cent of extension officers named Reef Rescue and Project Uplift as the most useful funding packages for land managers to achieve their aims. Extension officers emphasised that grant funding assisted growers to change land management practices such as improving soil health, water quality and reducing nitrogen runoff from their farm or property.

Funds act as incentives to encourage participation of farmers who had not previously engaged in practice change programs: ‘By getting the sprayer we changed spraying practices. I am now part of project Catalyst and progress groups’ (Greiner 2015, 21). Receiving funds could be associated directly with behaviour change. For example, 83 per cent of the 24 funded proposals were completed as per the tender’s contract (Greiner 2015). Respondents stated: ‘I am now doing 96 per cent water recycling and also bought a GPS and new spray rig, so I use less Diuron’ and could further assist in long term and sustainable change among farmers, stating that 88 per cent of the respondents indicated that they undertook water quality improvement activities or investment following the Tender: ‘I applied for funding under Reef Rescue together with my neighbour. We got funding for a minimum tillage stool splitter. This changed our farming practices and made us more aware of the impact of old farming practices’ (Greiner 2015, 24).

Enabler 6: Return on investment

The majority of studies (15) recognised the importance of maximising productivity and profit while maintaining low farming costs. Communicating the return on investment that arises from practice change positively influences farmers’ decisions (Farr, Eagle, and Hay 2017a; Hay and Eagle 2019; Hay, Eagle, and Saleem 2019). For instance, using recycle pits or sediment traps for handling run-off were influenced by intentions to reduce business risks (Hay and Eagle 2019), while filter applications were influenced by concerns about diminishing yield returns (Arklay, van Acker, and Hollander 2018). Although return on investment could take many years in line with five-year crop cycles (Rouse and Davenport 2017), demonstrating the production and financial benefits to land managers (e.g. direct cost savings that can be made) encouraged practice change identified in RP20 (Arklay, van Acker, and Hollander 2018) and other programs (e.g. Rolfe and Harvey 2017).

Sugarcane crops growing over five-year cycles mean that costs are incurred by farmers before income is realised; meanwhile income is subject to market fluctuations, exacerbating risks from a financial standpoint. Farmers favour grants and financial support schemes and regard them as more encouraging to support changes to farm actions than regulatory approaches: ‘Help fund more recycle pits. They are the only sure way of reducing runoff, and therefore N and herbicide and pesticide runoff. They [farmers] need assistance with the [financially] marginal ones [pits], particularly while cane prices are low’ (Greiner 2015, 27). Similarly, Hamman et al. (2015) reported that supporting canefarmers with funds assisted the success of Project Catalyst more effectively than regulatory or mandated approaches. Hay and Eagle (2018) emphasised the importance of funds in encouraging farmers to have an opportunity to explore new ideas and implement new practices, and thus, find innovative approaches to support sustainable behaviour change.

Enabler 7: Social factors

Wider grower involvement engenders further support. Hay, Eagle, and Saleem (2019, 1313) showed the influential role of subjective norms measured as ‘farmers I respect most do this’. The positive influence on fertiliser application behaviour following the industry standard was highest for sugarcane farmers who believe other farmers have reduced nutrient application. This finding is supported elsewhere (e.g. Pickering et al. 2018). Farmers’ choice of fertiliser application according to industry standard was positively influenced by social factors (Hay, Eagle, and Saleem 2019). Matching programs to meet the needs and wants of farmers and land managers remained a key success factor. Individual motivations vary. Hay and Eagle (2019) and Farr et al. (2017a, 2017b) identified that managers’ main goals are to improve their land so that it can remain productive and sustainable into the future. Billing (2019) stated that a change in attitudes towards excess application of products (e.g. the pesticide imidacloprid) could be achieved by emphasising costs.

Barriers to practice change attributable to project participation

Understanding factors that may hinder farmers from engagement in practice change projects and/or the subsequent adoption of practice change is necessary to identify actions project stakeholders can take to increase project uptake and rates of practice change. Four barriers to adoption of practice change were reported in the 21 studies. Each is discussed in turn.

Availability of alternatives

The lack of chemical alternatives for pesticides and fertilisers was discussed in four records. For instance, promoting a cost-effective alternative to pollutants or encouraging a reduction in nitrogen applications would overcome the main factor preventing farmers from engaging with practice change (Arklay, van Acker, and Hollander 2018). The importance of alternatives was also made clear by Billing (2019), who named imidacloprid, which is toxic to the aquatic environment at very low amounts, as the only readily available product for controlling canegrubs. It was noted that it remains challenging to bring about more strategic use of the product and prevent continued exceedances when no alternatives are available to control a grub capable of wiping out a crop. Due to the lack of alternatives, growers were advised to reduce the rate of application of pollutants and apply only if necessary (Billing 2019).

Monitoring and evaluation

Lack of clear and transparent evaluation and monitoring and timely reporting were considered to be barriers. Clear and timely reporting of project results is needed to enhance communication about what works. Davis, Taylor, and Fielke (2019, 22) addressed the significance of communicating project outcomes to farmers which, in turn, affected their willingness to discuss their own practices: ‘I want to know what I’m most responsible for, not get blamed for other issues’. An understanding of approaches that have been successfully applied by various stakeholders can also help to close the gap between science and practice (Paschen et al. 2018). On-farm research and trials were perceived to be essential for demonstrating impact, engaging more land managers, and encouraging innovation (Paschen et al. 2018; Paul et al. 2018).

Lack of trust

Communication gaps and distrust between stakeholders influenced engagement and adoption of practice change projects. There was a limited trust between government agencies and farmers according to Hay and Eagle (2018, 2019). Issues reported include underestimations of the complexity of the decisions faced by farmers (including family and cost concerns), misinterpretation of messages about practice change and perceptions that practice change efforts were ‘controlling, judgemental or patronising’ (Hay and Eagle 2018, 11; Hay and Eagle 2019, 29). Moreover, conflicting information from the range of active organisations, including those from state and federal governments, has contributed to distrust. Parties need to come to consensus on what works, and they need to agree on communication approaches that are proven to work.

Competing stakeholder interests

The ten practice change projects that were reviewed in this study have the same aim, to improve water quality. Many entities are involved including government, Traditional Owners, community, industry and scientists. The NESP TWQ Hub research (2015-2021) recognised the existence of ‘competing and conflicting’ activities in both the Wet Tropics and Burdekin regions such as Cane Changer (Canegrowers) (Farr et al. 2017c, 85), Landscape Resilience, Project Catalyst, announcements regarding additional funding via Reef Trust Phase IV Repeated Tenders, Grazing Best Management Extension Support, Smartcane BMP, Project NEMO, Sandy Creek, connecting cane farmers to local wetlands and Major Integrated Projects (Farr et al. 2017b; Hay and Eagle 2019). A consistent message was needed across project efforts, which would involve coordination across different on-ground projects (Hay and Eagle 2019). That posed challenges given the existing approaches by regional bodies for natural resource management. Similarly, Paschen et al. (2018, 10) suggested that perceived agendas and suspected vested interests were ‘probably the worst’ impediment to effective knowledge sharing and collaboration.

Absence of enabling factors

The absence of any of the seven enabling factors enumerated earlier can be considered as barriers. Ensuring enabling factors are present is therefore a key to increasing sugarcane growing practice changes.

Funds: The process of acquiring funds and grants was perceived to discourage farmers from applying (e.g. Hay and Eagle 2018, 2019; Paschen et al. 2018). Hay and Eagle (2018, 15) stated 61 per cent of extension officers perceived the Reef Trust Phase III and IV funding and the Reef Rescue applications to have less than 10 per cent chance of being successful. Moreover, only 7.8 per cent indicated that more than 50 per cent of funding applications would succeed. Similarly, Paschen et al. (2018, 1) stated that industry groups were often perceived to have a ‘gatekeeping function’ when it comes to setting priorities for funding, which limited further development of innovations. This emphasised the importance of community-led initiatives featuring industry and government partnerships to realise GBR outcomes sought (Paschen et al. 2018).

Communication: Grower-led initiatives are acknowledged to enhance program success, so it is essential that decision makers engage with sugarcane farmers. Different growers must be selected over time and across different projects rather than reliance on the same few. Hay and Eagle (2018) explained a discrepancy in understanding between extension officers and farmers. This lack of understanding meant that some communication messages did not meet the needs of different farmers. Moreover, Hay and Eagle (2019) reported that extension officers resisted approaching land managers who follow different land management practices; this contributed to an uneven coverage of properties. Further, limited understanding and perceptions of the effects of some farming practices on water quality was reported in nine records (e.g. Farr, Eagle, and Hay 2017a; Rolfe and Harvey 2017; Vilas et al. 2020). Where beliefs were not aligned, engagement with, and subsequent participation in, projects were lower.

Discussion and conclusions

One of the Australian and the Queensland governments’ endeavours to preserve the Great Barrier Reef and improve its health and resilience is the Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan 2017–022. The plan pointed out that evaluation systems are urgently needed. Our efforts to examine ten sugarcane growing practice change projects demonstrates that many projects do not make their results publicly available, limiting our ability to learn what works, and what does not. Rather than being viewed as a test in which participants are expected to pass, evaluation provides an opportunity for participants to reflect. Shared results help a sector to avoid costly mistakes ensuring that efforts that succeed are continued. In the events that efforts fail, evaluations can help to explain perspectives that decision makers may not have considered previously.

This synthesis review of ten sugarcane growing practice change projects highlighted that too few projects had shared results. Smartcane BMP was the most frequently reported project, followed by Project Catalyst, Reef Trust III, and RP 20. Other publicly funded projects collected for this review were either barely mentioned (e.g. Project Uplift and Project 25) or were overlooked altogether (e.g. RP161, RP167, CQ161 and Repeated Reverse Tenders). This absence of publicly available information on project performance – despite the significance of these projects – limit our knowledge about which efforts have led to water quality improvements. It is important to note that some Reef catchment regions were not represented or under-represented, while other regions (e.g. the Wet Tropics and Burdekin regions) were over-represented in the 21 records. Lack of information concerning the effectiveness of the ten projects provides limited guidance for researchers and practitioners seeking to design and manage future programs.

This study identified factors that contribute to the adoption of sustainable sugarcane growing practice change. These are: encouraging partnerships between government and industry, developing effective communication between different stakeholders by illuminating conflicting interests and reducing negative messages, supporting land owners with training and education, encouraging grower and community leadership, providing necessary funding and financial support to encourage innovation and adoption of new technology and/or practices, focussing all efforts on return on investment (rather than environmental benefit) and addressing social factors. The absence of these factors can hinder program effectiveness. Addressing factors which act as barriers to engagement with programs, and hence practice change, will improve program performance. Research has previously identified limited trust in program regulators (Arklay, van Acker, and Hollander 2018; Breetz et al. 2005), inadequate communication and involvement (Aarts, Humphreys, and Le Gall 2014), lack of alternatives, poor networking opportunities and lack of access to educational support (Grover and Gruver 2017) as barriers to farmers’ adoption of practice change. Moving forward, a focus on solutions rather than problem identification is needed to deliver the support the sector needs to drive positive change. Tested alternatives, case studies and project outcomes will deliver a path forward to help increase rates of sugarcane growing practice change.

This study is the first of its kind to offer a synthesis of existing knowledge of publicly available monitoring and evaluation data from ten recent Australian projects on practice change in sugarcane growing. The current study identified barriers and enablers to engagement with practice change programs. Identifying enabling factors is critical to provide the support and guidance needed for decision makers to ensure that funded projects deliver project success. By reducing barriers and ensuring enabling factors are present, water quality improvements will benefit the World Heritage Area of the GBR and adjacent catchments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This project is supported with funding from the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program.

Notes

1 NESP Project 2.1.3 was a project funded by the National Environment Science Program that captured farmers’ views on projects they were participating in. This provided an additional publicly available data source to synthesise findings. The National Environmental Science Programme (NESP) Tropical Water Quality (TWQ) Hub Project 2.1.3: Harnessing the science of social marketing and behaviour change for improved water quality in the Great Barrier Reef: An action research project worked in partnership with staff from the Australian Government’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), the Department of the Environment and Energy (DoEE), regional Natural Resource Management bodies, and the Queensland Government’s Department of Science Information Technology and Innovation (DSITI) and the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP) to evaluate how water quality improvement programmes are ‘marketed’ to land managers.