Steps and activities that may be involved
Step 1: On-farm site monitoring
The most likely scenario is that farmers will either do this, or arrange to have this done for them. They will pay for this, but also retain ownership of the data collected. (However, later comments relate to the need to share this data, and how that might be done.) It seemed as though the most common method of doing this is to pay someone ..... although this could well be somebody that is willing to be trained and lives within the community.
At the same time, if monitoring data is going to be collected then it is also going to be necessary to collect corresponding information on related changes. This will include management data and environmental data (mainly climate related). A suggested list of management factors to record is provided in the recording section.
The question is still open about how best to compile and store this data. The monitoring data itself is automatically stored within the program, however hard copy is currently the main way that management and climate data are stored. Need to look at the best way to store this data before we go too far down the track.
Another point to consider here is the need for an independent audit of site monitoring. this was thought to be mainly useful if the monitoring exercise was to be used as a basis for a future quality assurance accreditation.
The question of whether the farmer monitoring programmes themselves would stand up in court was also raised. However, while the science behind the monitoring techniques is in itself robust, it was felt that the programme itself (site numbers and selection) was likely to be oriented more towards learning about what is going in the tussock grasslands. It was also felt that because this was a learning exercise farmers would gain more by involving others (such as Regional Councils) as partners in such a learning exercise, rather than in an adversarial manner.
How to use the results from monitoring programmes
Cycle 1: farmer-based monitoring
Clearly, farmers that monitor are always going to use the results from their own properties as a basis for considering future management options. The question that was raised in this discussion was whether or not individual use would provide enough benefits, or whether a more cooperative approach would provide far greater benefits. And in general the answer seemed to be that sharing results would be more useful.
Cycle 2: community-based monitoring
It was felt that one useful activity would be to pool the results from within a group (Figure 1: Step 2a). This should be able to be easily done by whoever is managing the data, and it would more easily highlight trends that were due to climatic effects from those that were due to management. As shown in the attached protocol this should be able to be done without compromising individual confidentiality.
An alternative, or complementary, pathway would be to involve other parties (such as Regional Councils) in this "sharing" exercise (Figure 1: Step 2b). This immediately opens up the way to also share costs and bring in skills that might otherwise lie outside the group's means. Again the use of an appropriate protocol for information sharing should be used.
These costs could be used to help pay for the on-farm monitoring, or they could be used to provide for more in-depth expertise to help bring in facilitators and scientists where needed to help analyse and provide more insight on the lessons that can be learnt (Figure 1; Step 3). This also provides a forum through which scientists can work together with farmers to identify new research priorities. This could also help disseminate the lessons learnt through the whole monitoring exercise to other farmers.
Another useful step was seen to be capturing and recording the new knowledge gained through the whole process, and adding to the existing knowledge base (Figure 1: Step 4). Clearly, an important question here is who should maintain and facilitate this (e.g. the knowledge-base gained through the HMP). Given the community-based nature of the knowledge involved it is necessary for this to be publicly accessible and maintained by a body which is likely to be ongoing. the most likely candidate was thought to be Regional Council.
Finally, it was observed that whatever pathways are chosen by farmers .... the establishment of this type of monitoring programme is essentially the first step in gaining accreditation for some sort of Total Quality Management System (e.g. ISO 14000).