Rationale for CCP

Climate risk is arguably the largest challenge that Australian farmers face given that they operate on the driest inhabited continent with the world’s most variable climate, which is becoming even more variable with climate change (Cleugh et al., 2011). Farmers are likely to be the group most directly affected by climate change in Australia (Fleming & Vanclay, 2009). Climate change is predicted to result in diverse, uncertain and possibly catastrophic consequences for Australian agriculture (McEvoy et al., 2010). Such predictions reduce even further farmers’ capacity to plan for and manage their seasons (Hochman & Carberry, 2011). It is therefore crucial that Australian farmers

have the latest tools for forecasting and managing the seasons and years ahead. Farmers need to make some tough decisions, and they need to make these based on the best available evidence if they are to continue to farm sustainably and profitably. Farmers need access to well communicated and relevant knowledge, something they used to get through government extension services, which has diminished sharply over the last two decades (as discussed previously).

The overarching goal of the CCP was to support leading farmers across Australia in communicating with their peers about climate science and the means for adapting to and managing climate risk. Climate change remains a controversial issue in Australia, and while Australian farmers have long accepted the reality of climate

variability, their attitudes to climate change science have tended to be at the sceptical end. This was especially the case at the start of the Climate Champion Program (2009). For example, a survey of 255 farmers in Western Australia in late 2008 (Evans et al., 2011) found that only one third agreed that climate change was occurring, and just 19 per cent believed climate change was human induced. More recent surveys as reported in the media (e.g. Barlow, 2014; Chang, 2016) suggest greater acceptance by farmers of human-induced climate change.

The CCP was initiated in 2009 and sponsored through the national Managing Climate Variability (MCV) research and development program and Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) communication strategies. MCV is funded through a consortium of RDCs, including the GRDC. The CCP was the major component of both strategies in terms of investment and time. The initiative was recommended in response to research that indicates that those involved in primary industries – farmers, foresters, fishers - learn best from their peers, and will adopt practice changes in response to what their peers are doing (Jacobi et al., 2011; Patel et

al., 2012). Research also indicates that the best capacity-building processes combine peer learning with access to trusted professionals (Child, 2010).

The focus of the research of the MCV program, and to some extent the GRDC- funded research, was to provide farmers with better seasonal forecasting tools to

manage their climate risk. Seasonal forecasts use scientific models to predict the climate in the coming months. Seasonal climate forecasts have the potential to improve farm profitability, minimise land degradation, assist with drought preparedness and reduce vulnerability to future climate change (Hansen et al., 2006). However, the challenge of communicating seasonal forecasts is the probabilistic nature of such forecasts, which means they include a degree of uncertainty and can be complex to explain. A 2008 MCV analysis of farmers’ needs from seasonal forecasts asked for feedback on some of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s draft seasonal forecasting products. This study (Land and Water Australia, 2008, p. 25) found there was a need for MCV and the Bureau to “work with target users, in a participatory style of science communication” to help jointly develop clearer explanations of climate risk and the terms used to explain that risk. The CCP was also a response to that finding in that it was thought that a group of leading farmers would provide an accessible means of providing feedback to

scientists about proposed research products and communication tools. In summary, there were all three forms of participatory motivations for the program: normative because it seemed like a good thing to get farmers and scientists talking and listening to each other; instrumental so that more farmers would adopt seasonal forecasting tools; and substantive in that better outcomes would be achieved by farmers and scientists working together to critically evaluate research directions as well as design and test communication approaches and tools.

My study focuses on the participation of climate champion farmers with scientists rather than their participation with other farmers. The CCP, through my science communication company Econnect Communication, supported participant farmers by developing their communication skills; assisting them with media and speaking engagements; organising workshops and field trips involving scientists; creating opportunities for them to interact with or question scientists; providing them with plain English scientific summaries; and profiling them through case studies on the MCV website. The Econnect project manager for CCP, Sarah Cole, said she spent time almost every day of the seven years of the Program responding to CCP farmers’

requests for assistance, and putting scientists and farmers in touch with each other. The time to organise and facilitate such programs is something that Powell and Colin (2009) also noted in their review of participatory nanotechnology projects.