FARMING

LIVES
Using the Sustainable Livelihoods
Approach in the
Peak District Farming Community

April 2009
 Contents

Page

Acknowledgements 2

Executive summary 3

1 Introduction 5

2 Background 6

3 Context of the project 7

4 The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach 10

5 How can the sustainable livelihoods approach benefit farming families? 12

6 Peak District farming 13

7 Farming Lives Project 14

8 Sustainable Livelihoods Approach tools 17

9 Considering farming livelihoods in terms of assets 17

10 The relationship between assets 28

11 The Livelihoods Ladder 30

12 Considering gender 33

13 Lessons from this project 34

14 Recommendations for the Peak District 35

15 How could the SLA be applied within other UK farming communities? 37

16 Conclusions 38

References 39

1
 Acknowledgements

This report is a joint production between the National Farmers Network and Oxfam GB. It was
written by Val Ponder and Ann Hindley and edited by Carol Evans and Ann Hindley. It was based
on work carried out by Janice Walton, Jo Williams and John Moseley.

We would like to thank:

The farming families who took part in this project
Bakewell Agricultural Centre for hosting us during our surveys
Oxfam GB for providing training in SLA tools and ongoing support throughout the project
Rachel Roland, Centre for International Development and Training, University of
Wolverhampton for her valuable advice and support during the initial development of this
project

This pilot project was made possible by funding from:

Oxfam GB
Big Lottery ‘Awards for All’ fund
Peak District Rural Deprivation Forum

For further details and copies of this report please contact:

Val Ponder through the National Farmers Network website: http://nationalfarmersnetwork.org.uk

Or by email:
valerie@ponder517.freeserve.co.uk

NOTE:
In order to protect the identity of participants
all names have been changed

NATIONAL FARMERS NETWORK

The National Farmers Network is a network of local family farmer groups, organisations and
networks across England. They come together to exchange ideas and good practice. These are
challenging times for farmers and family farmers are the most likely to be affected. But we believe
that by working together we can help bring about positive changes to farming livelihoods and work
towards a thriving family farming sector.

2
 Executive Summary

This Farming Lives project was carried out in recognition of the immense challenges faced by the
farming community over the past fifteen years. It was preceded by a piece of research into the
position of hill farmers in the Peak District which led to the development of a National Farmers’
Network. The subsequent consultation of farmer-led groups revealed feelings of powerlessness
amongst farmer members, a perceived lack of government support and hardship caused by trying
to earn a living through farming. As a result, Oxfam agreed to fund a pilot of the Sustainable
Livelihoods Approach within the Peak District farming community.

It was carried out in a context of declining agricultural income in the UK and a change in public
funding arrangements which has had serious consequences for farming communities. This, along
with rising costs, has led to increased stress levels among farmers and a decline in the interest of
younger members of the farming sector to work in farming.
The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) has been extensively used in international
development. Practitioners use a livelihoods framework to help them understand the complexities
of people lives and the circumstances within which they conduct their livelihoods and a set of
principles to guide action to address and overcome the barriers to improving the sustainability of
livelihoods
The SLA is unique in that it places people at the centre of the influences and interactions that affect
their lives. It was proposed that the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach could offer a number of
benefits to farming families in the Peak District.

Project facilitators worked with sixteen farming families to conduct an analysis of their livelihoods
using a number of participatory tools, including time lines, assets pentagon, semi structured
interviews and a livelihoods ladder. Using these tools, facilitators were able to build up a picture
of financial, social, physical, human and natural assets.

Surveys were also conducted at Bakewell Livestock Market to collect additional data. A total of
seventy-seven farmers took part in the surveys, providing valuable data on the challenges facing
farmers and their coping strategies.

Financially most families were facing difficulties and relied on off farm income to supplement the
business and on diversification. There was evidence of a high level of resourcefulness and a
number of strategies had been adopted to adapt to the situation. Financial issues were
compounded by the lack of ability to plan for retirement.

In terms of human assets, health was seen as most important, although most carried on whatever
their state of health. There was little evidence of mental health issues. There was failure to
acknowledge and value the skills they had in relation to farming. Children were encouraged to
become better educated which then led them outside farming. Access to clear information was
highlighted as lacking by some. Overall, participants had confidence in running their own business
and understanding the land and livestock.

Most families demonstrated strong inter and intra generational linkages. This could, however,
cause tension and breakdown because of close physical proximity both at home and at work,
which could have a detrimental effect on the business. Community activity tended to be a female
reserve as men claimed not to have the time. Isolation was becoming more of an issue as more
family members worked away from the farm.

3
The landscape and the environment were seen as opportunities to promote tourism and take part
in environmental schemes, although only a minority of farmers were able to take up these
opportunities

Farmers had experienced a number of shocks over the previous ten years both farming and family
related. The most difficult to cope with were the livestock disease outbreaks. This has been
followed by a sudden increase in input prices which has cancelled out increases in livestock
market prices. A number of strategies have been adopted which provide short term relief but will
have long term impact.

The social, economic and legislative environment has eroded both profitability and farmers’ status
as food producers. Reduced subsidy levels are creating a general cause for concern. This is
accompanied by increased levels of bureaucracy which was seen as restrictive. Public
perceptions of farming have over recent years become increasingly negative and this has
increased the sense of isolation from mainstream society felt by farmers. The more recent growing
interest in local food and food traceability has to some extent reversed this trend and given farmers
some cause for optimism. Nevertheless they do perceive the government as having little interest in
maintaining a viable food production industry.

DEFRA was perceived to impose considerable limitations, with farmers having no ability to
influence policy. Planning laws were another limiting factor, especially in the National Park area.
Advice services were often limited and inappropriate unless paid for and there was general
confusion about grants available.

The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach helps to highlight the connections between different assets
and how a change on access to one can impact on access to another.

The challenges faced by this project were gaining access to marginalised families and the lack of
time that farmers had to take part. The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach offered a new approach
which gave farmers the opportunity to talk about their lives and most were happy to do so but
constrained by time. Those who took part were genuinely interested in the process which allowed
them to refocus their minds away from the negative aspects of their lives towards opportunities to
maximise their existing assets.

The results of this pilot reassure us that the approach can make positive contributions to farming
livelihoods with both individual farmers and with farming groups. Our recommendation is that it is
tested further with another farming community but offering long term support.

4
 Introduction

This report describes the ‘Farming Lives’ project, which took an in depth look at the lives of some
Peak District farming families. It examines the lives of these families not only in terms of the farming
business but also by taking into consideration all aspects of their livelihoods. Farming Lives began
with the acknowledgement that farming livelihoods are multi-dimensional and inter-related, and
therefore an impact upon one aspect of the livelihood can have repercussions within other areas.
The project was built around the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) and our aim was to test
effectiveness of the SLA in helping us to understand the livelihoods of the farming families that
participated in the project, while also helping those families to identify opportunities for building
greater resilience and sustainability into their livelihoods. If this approach is found to be effective,
we think that it may be of interest to farmer groups and organisations around the country that work
to support farmers through these challenging times.

5
 Background

The UK farming community has witnessed more than its fair share of challenges over the past
fifteen years. Not only have profits declined significantly, but the level of bureaucracy has
increased, and both the social fabric of rural communities and the general public have grown
increasingly disengaged from the farming sector. Any conversation that you may have had in
recent years with farmers about farming will no doubt have left you with the impression that they
feel undervalued by the population at large, neglected by government and that they are only
needed as stewards of the countryside rather than valued as food producers.

Hill farmers have been hit particularly badly by the economic downturn in farming as livestock
prices have declined considerably. At the same time they have also suffered the consequences of
livestock disease outbreaks; Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), two outbreaks of Foot and
Mouth disease, Bovine Tuberculosis and more recently Bluetongue disease. This has all occurred
against a backdrop of the harsh conditions found in hill farming areas: poor weather conditions,
poor quality soil, difficult terrain and isolation. Government has encouraged farmers to restructure
their farming businesses, develop diversification initiatives and cut costs. But for many hill farmers,
opportunities for change are limited and they see their only option is to learn to live on a diminishing
budget. Yet despite the hardship, farming families remain stoical, most are determined to carry on
farming, driven by either a commitment to the way of life or the sense that their whole lives are tied
into the farm that in many cases has been passed down through generations.

In 2005 the Peak District Rural Deprivation Forum, a network that undertook research into the
causes of deprivation in the Peak District and sought to influence policy and seek solutions to
deprivation, set up the National Farmers Network. The Forum had previously conducted research
into the extent and nature of deprivation within Peak District hill farmers. The report ‘Hard Times’
(Peak District Rural Deprivation Forum, 2004) was published from the research. One of the
recommendations of the report was that a national network of farmer-led groups should be
established to enable groups to link together to share good practice and to advocate on behalf of
farmers. The National Farmers Network was established in response to that recommendation.

In order to inform the establishment of the network, a consultation of farmer-led groups was
undertaken. This revealed that farmers felt powerless, with restrictions and red tape imposed upon
them in a top-down manner by bureaucrats who had little understanding of farming. Support and
advice available was largely of a business nature and did not take into account the many other
dimensions of a farming livelihood. In addition government initiatives lacked continuity; they run
until the funding ends and then stop and any benefits developed can be lost.

The SLA was developed by international development and aid agencies, including the UK
Government Department for International Development and Oxfam, to help them understand the
complexities of rural livelihoods in developing countries in order that support and development
could be more effectively targeted. We considered that the approach could be used within a UK
farming context to help agencies and support services gain a better understanding of farming
livelihoods and therefore target resources and support more effectively. Our enquiries revealed no
previous attempts to apply the SLA within farming communities in the UK. Oxfam was interested
in applying the approach within the UK and was already supporting urban-based projects that
were piloting its use within deprived urban communities. Oxfam had supported the establishment
of the National Farmers Network and agreed to fund the Network to pilot the use of the SLA within
a deprived UK farming setting.

The Peak District was chosen as the setting for the project as we had established links with the
farming community and the Hard Times report provided evidence of the deprivation within farming
families.

6
 Context of the Project
Acknowledgement
As in all hill farming areas of the UK the Peak District has suffered a significant downturn in farming
profitability over the past ten years. In 2006 according to the Farm Business Survey (Farm Business
Survey, 2007) conducted by the University of Nottingham on behalf of DEFRA, the average Farm
Business Income (FBI) (profit before farm labour costs are deducted) for Peak District farms was
£11,167, compared to £15,322 in 2004. However, in 2006 FBI from agriculture alone demonstrated
that farms made a loss of £14,843. It was in fact income from agri-environment schemes, the
Single Farm Payment and diversification that raised the total FBI to £11,167.

These figures demonstrate how vital public funding is to maintaining a viable hill farming sector.
Farmers are entitled to public funding for providing public goods in terms of maintaining and
enhancing the environment, protecting wildlife and the landscape. However, the nature of public
funding is due to change in the near future, Single Farm Payments are decreasing year on year and
will end in 2012. There is unlikely to be a replacement scheme. The current Hill Farm Allowance
scheme which is available to farmers in designated ‘Less favoured Areas’ (usually uplands with low
productivity) is to be replaced by the Uplands Entry Level Scheme. There are concerns that hill
farmers will be worse off under this scheme and some may not be able to qualify for it at all. The
present economic situation in hill farming and the fear that the new scheme may not adequately
replace the Hill Farming Allowance adds to the uncertainty about the future of hill farming. In
Scotland there has been an ‘unmanaged retreat from the hills’ as hill farmers have given up farming
and left the land (SAC, 2008), unable to make a living from their farms. There are concerns that we
may see similar behaviour in England in the future. This would not only have serious consequences
for the environment and landscape but also for rural communities in the uplands.

In 2008 there was a rise in the market prices of lamb and cattle and the price of milk received by
dairy farmers has also risen. However in the same period farm input costs increased considerably;
fertiliser prices doubled, and fuel prices also increased significantly. Higher input costs are likely
to wipe out any increase in farming income.

Farm Crisis Network is a charity that provides pastoral and practical support to farming people
across the UK in times of anxiety, stress and problems which relate to both the farm household and
the farm business. In 2007 the services of Farm Crisis Network were in high demand as farmers
felt the impacts of a series of disasters during that year, resulting in a 49% increase in ‘new cases’
of which 50% were due to financial problems (Farm Crisis Network, 2008).

Economic trends, increasing levels of legislation, the threat of livestock diseases and extreme
weather patterns have brought particular challenges to farmers over recent years. Farmers have
done their best to adapt. However, they are tied into crop growing seasons and livestock breeding
programmes, which make it difficult to overcome these problems and absorb the costs incurred.

7
Table 1 below depicts a time line, which details the events over the past 12 years that have affected hill
farmers:

Table 1:
Time Line

Year Event Effects

1996 BSE identified as the cause of • All trade export stopped

Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans • Cull cattle prices dropped
• Dairy bull calves worthless
• Cattle passports and double tagging
introduced – increased paperwork

1997 Milk Marketing Board closed • Milk marketing co-operatives formed

• Competition between dairy companies
causes milk price war: dairy farmers
received lower milk prices
• Beginning of difficult times for dairy
farmers

2001 Foot and Mouth disease outbreak • Strict movement restrictions imposed
• Millions of sheep and cattle culled
• Movement restrictions cause welfare
problems where stock needed to be
moved for lambing etc.
• Some farmers give up farming or are
forced to give up
• Significant rise in stress in farming
population
• Tourists kept away from countryside with
a negative affect on farm tourism

2005 Single Farm Payment introduced • Productivity linked support abolished

• Support payments linked to land area
• Opportunities for entering environmental
schemes provide extra income for farmers

2005 Bovine TB spreading • Infected cattle herd have movement

restrictions imposed, cattle tested
repeatedly until clear
• Cattle sales from infected farms restricted
resulting in financial hardship

2006 Pre-movement TB testing for cattle introduced • All cattle over 42 days old moving from a
1 or 2 yearly tested herd must have tested
negative to a TB test before they can be
moved
• Farmer has to pay for testing
• 26,000 cattle culled due to TB

2007 Foot and Mouth disease and
Bluetongue disease outbreaks.
• Outbreak of Foot and Mouth disease in
Surrey results in livestock movement and
sales restrictions imposed. Livestock
prices drop
• Bluetongue disease spreads to England
from Europe – movement restrictions and
protection/surveillance zones imposed

8
Year Event Effects

2007 Dairy farmers leave the industry at the • Some farms are merged to create larger
rate of one a day across UK farms; however, the national dairy herd
size is decreasing. Milk shortages could
result if trend continues

2008 Livestock prices rise, increase in milk prices • Profits decrease

but also steep rise in cost of fuel, electricity, • Cost of living increases
fertiliser and livestock feed

2008 Bluetongue vaccine developed • Additional cost of buying vaccine.

• Implementing vaccination programme
additional work for farmers, particularly
moorland farmers who have livestock
spread over large areas.
• Movement restrictions and protection/
surveillance zones still in place.

2008 Government refuses to implement • No immediate solution for farmers

badger cull in bTB hotspots but forms a 6,000 herds under movement restrictions
bTB eradication group in July 2008

9
 The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach

The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) used in this project is a way to improve understanding
of the livelihoods of people and communities. It draws on the main factors that affect people’s
livelihoods and the relationships between these factors. It can be used in planning new
development activities and in assessing how current activities have contributed to improving the
sustainability of livelihoods.

The SLA has two components:

● a framework that helps in understanding the complexities of people’s lives

● a set of principles to guide action to address and overcome the barriers to improving the
sustainability of livelihoods

The Sustainable Livelihoods framework places people at the centre of the interactions and
influences that affect their livelihoods. At the centre of the framework are the personal resources
and the assets to which they have access and use. These can include natural assets such as soil
and landscape, physical assets such as buildings and equipment, human assets such as their
health, skills and knowledge, social assets such as access to social support networks, and
financial assets such as savings, pensions and access to and sources of credit. Their ability to
access these assets is strongly affected by their vulnerability context, which takes into account
trends (for example, economic and political), shocks (for example, disease epidemics and natural
disasters) and seasonality (for example, prices, production, and employment opportunities).
Access is also influenced by the social, institutional and political environment, which affects the
ways in which people combine and use their assets to achieve their goals. These are their livelihood
strategies (IFAD, 2008).
Diagram 1:
The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

Source: DFID 1999

Source: DFID 1999
SLA has a set of core guiding principles:

People-centred: puts people at the centre of development. It starts with an

10 analysis of people!s livelihoods and how they have changed over time as
described by themselves, whilst considering the effect that policy and
institutional arrangements have upon their livelihoods. It aims to help people
SLA has a set of core guiding principles:

● People-centred: puts people at the centre of development. It starts with an analysis of people’s
livelihoods and how they have changed over time as described by themselves, whilst
considering the effect that policy and institutional arrangements have upon their livelihoods. It
aims to help people work towards their own livelihood goals. It highlights the importance of
influencing policy and institutional arrangements so that they promote the priorities of the
people.

● Holistic: recognises that people adopt various strategies to secure their livelihoods and that
they are affected by many different organisations and institutions, from community based
organisations and the private sector to local and national governments and international
organisations.

● Dynamic: recognises that livelihoods are multi-dimensional and are influenced by many
different factors.

● Builds on strengths: builds on what people consider to be the positive aspects of their
livelihoods and the opportunities available to them rather than focusing on their problems and
needs.

● Promotes micro-macro links: helps people understand the influences that policies and
institutions have on their lives, whilst also stressing the need for policy making to be informed by
the people.

● Partnership working: encourages broad partnership working, including both the public and
private sector, drawing on the strengths and resources of all involved.

● Sustainability: a broad view of sustainability should be taken when using this approach to
ensure that people’s livelihood goals are not only achievable but long lasting

11
 How can the sustainable livelihoods
approach benefit farming families?
Common complaints heard from UK farmers are that government is not interested in farming and
doesn’t listen to farmers, they have their hands tied by legislation and there is little they can do to
improve the viability of their farms.

Support, in terms of advice and public funding, tends to be accessed by those who have the
capabilities and the financial resources to secure them, thereby placing the more marginalised
farmers at a disadvantage. Not only do they miss out on these benefits but they are less able to
compete with farmers who were able to access them.

Farming families, particularly those that are more marginalised, can be so pre-occupied with the
day to day challenges of making a living that they have little time to look at their livelihoods
objectively, identify their strengths and assets and consider how they could use them to improve
their livelihoods.
The SLA has the potential to benefit farming families because:
● It is different to the advice and support that is currently available in that it puts people first rather
than resources or profit

● It helps us to understand how people live and why they make the decisions they make. This
information can help to shape more appropriate policies and services

● It takes a holistic view of the farming livelihood including the economic, political and social
environment in which it operates

● Not only does it take into account those assets that have a monetary value but also those such
as skills, health, social networks and access to credit, all of which are vital to farming livelihoods

● It aims to help link people to government and support services and it acknowledges the vital
part that government and institutions play in farming

● It considers hardship broadly across all aspects of the farming livelihood and not only in terms
of income

● It aims to help people build resilience into their livelihoods so that when ‘disasters’ occur they
are able to come through them and move their livelihoods on once again.

12
 Peak District Farming

The main farming activities are livestock production and dairying. The Peak District is located
predominantly in Derbyshire and can be divided into two sections, the Dark Peak to the north, and
the White Peak to the central and south western area. The Dark Peak is high terrain and comprises
mainly of gritstone covered with peaty acid soils and bogs; the White Peak is lower and an area of
limestone covered with pastures and deeply cut dales.

The Dark Peak has mainly sheep and beef farms; the sheep graze the rough moorland pasture
and beef herds tend to produce store cattle to be sold to lowland farmers for finishing. The White
Peak is dominated by dairying, although sheep and beef cattle are also farmed. The number of
dairy farms has decreased over the past 10 years as dairying has become less profitable.

Most farms are family run and between 100–300 acres in size. Some have diversified into tourism
and adding value to their produce. Environmental stewardship schemes are also an important
source of income for many farming families.

13
 The Farming Lives Project

The project worked with sixteen farming families over a fifteen month period, undertaking an
analysis of their livelihoods using the SLA. We also conducted a survey at Bakewell Livestock
Market on three separate market days, interviewing a total of seventy-seven farmers, collecting
information on their livelihoods and assets.

Whilst the more in-depth work with the sixteen families provided an insight into how these families
use their assets the Bakewell Market surveys provided a broad overview of the challenges facing
participants and their coping strategies.

Our intention was to work with some of the more marginalised and vulnerable farming families in
the Peak District as we felt they may gain greater benefit from the project than those farmers who
were coping better. However, the more marginalised farmers are notoriously hard to reach due to
various factors. Typically they tend to live in more isolated locations, do not take part in the known
farming and community networks and are too busy working to speak to visitors, of whom they may
be suspicious anyway. We tried a number of different approaches to make contact with farmers.
We tried to reach them through local farming groups, through professionals working with farming
families, via publicity at Bakewell Market, in the local press and media and through the personal
contacts of project staff. The Bakewell Market surveys gave us the opportunity to invite
participants and their families to take part in the more in-depth livelihoods analysis and proved to
be one of the more successful ways to engage farmers.

Although the sixteen families that took part in the livelihood analysis were not the most
marginalised; they did have their share of hardship and challenges and so provided an opportunity
to apply the SLA and test its effectiveness in identifying both the strengths and the challenges
within their livelihoods and providing stimulus to help them move forward. Table 2 shows the types
of farms contacted during the project. Table 3 shows the size of these farms.

Table 2.
Types of farms in the project

Farm enterprises Number of farms

Bakewell Market Survey Livelihoods analysis
Dairy 5 6
Dairy, beef and/or sheep 23 2
Beef and/or sheep 49 8
Total farms 77 16

In addition some farms had:

Arable 8 0
Pigs 2 1
Turkeys 2 0
Horse livery 6 1
Holiday lets/caravans 3 1
Haulage business 3 0
Care farming initiative 0 1

14
 Table 3:
Size of farms within the project

Size of farms (acres) Number of farms

Bakewell Market Survey Livelihoods analysis
30-99 9 1
100-199 24 10
200-299 23 3
300-399 8 0
400-499 4 1
500-599 5 0
600-699 3 1
1500 1 0
Total farms 77 16

Three facilitators, two of whom were farmers themselves, were recruited to work with the farming
families and conduct the Bakewell Market surveys. They were trained in using the SLA and
participatory approaches to community development. They worked individually, visiting the families
on their farms and whilst engaging with as many family members as were available. Participatory
tools were used to help family members identify and express their own perceptions of their
livelihoods and their hopes for the future.

Facilitators experienced a number of delays to their visits. Weather conditions and farming
operations made it very difficult for participants to arrange visits; at busy periods of the year such
as lambing and calving time it was impossible for farmers to take time off to talk to facilitators, while
poor weather conditions created even more work for farmers so that they could not predict when
they would be free for a visit. If the weather improved they needed to get on with their farm work.
Some farmers also worked off-farm and had the additional burden of juggling farming with their
off-farm work. Then in August 2007 the Foot and Mouth disease outbreak prevented facilitators
from visiting farms, causing two months of delays.

As the project progressed it became apparent that it was not appropriate for the facilitators to visit
farmers on several occasions over the project cycle, primarily due to the time constraints of the
families. It was therefore decided that the facilitators would interview the families only once or twice
in order to conduct the SLA analysis. This process highlighted some key issues for the family to
consider and gave us a valuable insight into their livelihoods, why they make the decisions they
make and how their livelihoods could be improved. Each family was provided with a publication
produced by the project, ‘A Directory of Services and Farming Organisations in the Peak District’,
to help signpost them to specialised advice and support.

The surveys conducted at Bakewell Livestock Market provided further insight into the livelihoods of
farming families and provided the opportunity to verify the information collected through the visits
to families. We also had a presence at two local agricultural shows, which gave us further
opportunities for verification of information.

15
 SLA Tools
The facilitators used a number of participatory tools commonly used in community development.
Not only did these tools enable us to gain information about the livelihoods of participants, but we
were also able to evaluate how appropriate they were for a farming situation and gauge the
participants’ reactions to these tools. None of the participants had previously experienced
participatory tools.
Table 4:
Tools used in the analysis
Tool Description
Who’s in the Participants identify who lives within their
house household, where they go when they leave
the house (work, market, social events) and
who visits the house
Timeline Participants are asked to identify a significant
point in their past and to plot events from that
point up until the present.
OK/not OK Used in relation to the past and the present.
Participants are asked when their lives have
been OK or not OK. Can be used in
conjunction with the timeline to determine
how events impacted upon their lives
(positively and negatively) and if and how
changes in certain assets had changed their
stock of other assets.
Assets Five different asset bases: human, social,
Pentagon physical, financial and natural are set out
diagrammatically in a pentagon shape.
Participants are asked to identify their assets
and they are placed within the appropriate
section of the pentagon
Semi-structured Using a framework of general topics for
interviews investigation the facilitator asks open and
flexible questions. The conversation is two
way allowing the participant to also ask
questions and raise issues.
Livelihoods The ladder has four stages: surviving,
ladder coping, accumulating and adapting.
(developed by Participants are asked to determine the
Orr et al. 2006) position they see themselves on the ladder
and their reasons for putting themselves there
16
What it tells us
Builds up a picture of social networks,
whether or not the household is
isolated or has interests outside the
farm
Builds up a picture of how the
livelihood has evolved historically and
the participants’ perceptions of
significant events and the impact they
had on their lives.
Helps us to understand how changes
in certain aspects of peoples’
livelihoods can impact upon other
aspects. For example a fall in income
may impact negatively upon health or
social networks. Also can lead
discussions into establishing what
risks people are taking, what
strategies they are using to cope,
what they can do for themselves to
improve their situation and what can
be done by authorities.
Clearly demonstrates the assets that
participants have and demonstrates
those which are weak or unavailable.
Can also help show the
interconnectedness of assets and
how changes in one asset can
influence other assets.
Helps to bring out issues not raised by
other tools and allows the participants
to explore points that they wish to
raise.
Helps to determine how secure and
resilient peoples’ livelihood strategies
are for maintaining and increasing
their assets and how they may move
from one rung of the ladder to another
during their lives
 Considering farming livelihoods in terms of assets

Using the participatory tools we were able to build up a picture of the assets that the sixteen
participating families had available to them as identified by themselves. The Bakewell Livestock
Market survey provided additional information on assets as well as verifying information already
collected through on-farm visits. Below we discuss this information under the five asset categories:
financial, physical, human, social and natural.

Financial assets

“We’re always scritching and scratching to get by”

For most families keeping their farms financially afloat was a constant battle. Their situation had
become particularly difficult during times of shocks such as livestock disease and poor weather.
Few families relied only on farm income; in the majority of families some members had off-farm
employment, undertook contractual work for local farmers and council or had started up diversified
businesses. Older farming couples used their state pensions to subsidise their farming income.

Most families, particularly those with more then one generation living/working on the farm, had
considered their options for improving their financial income from every angle; there certainly didn’t
appear to be a lack of willingness to take on additional work or start up new business initiatives.
Many had sought advice, applied for appropriate planning permission and had researched their
ideas. However, in all of these cases they had come up against barriers such as having planning
permission refused, lacking investment capital or unable to find work that is flexible enough to fit in
with their farm work.

Only two of the sixteen families interviewed on-farm and only fourteen of the seventy-seven
farmers who took part in the Bakewell Livestock Market survey had diversified. Those families who
had diversified had mainly set up tourist related businesses such as a small caravan site, holiday
cottages and one family had established a bunk house. Horse livery was another common choice.
Two families had set up haulage businesses, two had farm shops, one had set up a care farm
initiative (see case study 1), there was also a cattery, a mobile DJ, a welding business and one who
sold meat directly to the customer.

Nearly half of families had at least one member employed off farm, part-time or full time. Jobs
ranged from low paid work in the tourist and catering industry and manual work to better paid office
based job, civil service and NHS jobs.

Grant funding has been available for diversification initiatives, from regional development agencies
as well as some other local funding streams. However, few families had applied for grants; the need
for matched funding was given as a significant reason by many that had investigated diversification
option but had not made an application. The process is long and complex so it is possible that most
farmers would not have the time or the experience to go through the application process without
investing in professional help.

“We used to get paid a grant to repair dry stone walls on our farm. It was useful work
in the winter months, but they’ve stopped the grants now”

It is common for neighbouring farmers to help each other out, especially during peak work periods

17
such as during haymaking and silage making. Not only does this save on hiring labour but it also
saves on the amount of machinery each farm needs as neighbours bring their own tractors and
trailers etc.

It is possible that there is an informal economy although this was never mentioned by any
participants. Undertaking casual work and hiring causal labour does go on so it is possible that
some of this may be ‘cash in hand’.

Some families had taken out loans or mortgages to purchase additional blocks of land as they
came up for sale; increasing the farm size gave them more options and as land prices have risen
significantly over the previous two years this is considered to be a sound investment, despite the
pressure that repayments give them.

A bank overdraft facility is crucial to farmers and although the size fluctuates throughout the year,
overdrafts tend to be uncomfortably high. Delayed receipt of Single-Farm Payments and
movement restrictions that stopped farmers selling their livestock placed considerable pressure on
overdraft limits.

Farmers usually receive a limited credit facility from the farm suppliers (livestock feed supplier,
fertilizer supplier) they have accounts with. The short delay between receiving the goods and
having to pay the bill helps them to manage their cash flow.

Farmers who considered themselves to be surviving or coping tended not to have private pensions
and would rely upon their state pension when they eventually retired. There was little money to
spare to put away for retirement. Some had considered their pension options; selling land/cows to
pay for their retirement is a common strategy. But this is not an option in families where the next
generations wish to take over the farm, or for many tenant farmers. Retirement is not something
that automatically happens when they reach 65 years old anyway; many continue to work until poor
health forces then to stop.

Succession is an issue that families avoided, partly because of the financial complexities. Where
this topic was raised parents wanted to be fair to all of their children. However, where only one child
wanted to farm other children may expect a settlement from the farm, which the parents or the
succeeding child would have to find, possibly making the farm unviable.

One family considered themselves to be better off since the man’s father had died and he had
gained full control of the farm’s finances.

Most families expressed concern about the lack of profit in farming, but in the majority of cases
this concern was in relation to paying the bills, keeping their farm going and being able pass on a
viable business to the next generation. It was not mentioned in relation to their own personal
desires for more spending money. In fact families tended to accept that it was necessary to cut
back on their living expenses in order to continue farming. Most farmers showed a high level of
resourcefulness and have the skills to make things themselves. The ‘make do and mend’ approach
and having low expectations in terms of financial rewards seems to be a significant strategy for
coping with tight finances.

18
 Financial strategies:

● Financial assets were weak in most families but particularly amongst those families who
were more dependant upon farming for income.
● Most families had considered other possible income streams such as diversification or
off-farm employment and about two thirds of families had adopted one of these
strategies.
● Debt (over-draft, loan or mortgage) was a common and accepted tool for managing the
farm finances although where there was a high level of debt it could cause worry and
stress.
● In times of financial up-turn, there is a need to re-invest. However, a new tractor does not
improve the standard of living of the family.
● Retirement planning tends to be weak or non-existent in families that are just surviving or
coping. Lack of spare money to put into pensions can lead to the issue just being avoided
● Succession planning has complex financial issues and therefore may be avoided.
● The resilient and resourceful nature of farming families and their acceptance of cutting
back on their standard of living helps them get through the leaner times.

Human assets

Of all the human assets, health was the most critical. Although most participants were in good
health, they were very conscious of how the smooth running of their livelihoods relied upon them
remaining in good health. The nature of farming (good livestock husbandry is vital and the
timeliness of operations critical) means that jobs cannot be left for another day if those responsible
for them are unwell or injured. If it was physically possible to do so they got on with those jobs. If
they were incapacitated then either other family members were called upon or neighbours came
in to help out. However, farmers recognised that this situation stretches everyone and can cause
extreme stress and overwork. In such circumstances, usually only the bare minimum gets done
and on farms where there is already hardship this can cause further financial setbacks.

Of those participants that had suffered health problems, joint problems (arthritis, rheumatism) were
mentioned due to wear and tear from years of physical work in all weathers. However, except
where they cause significant disability, they are generally regarded as part of life for farmers, an
occupational hazard, and therefore not highlighted as a significant problem. Similarly back
problems are also regarded as an occupational hazard although they were the cause of a great
deal of pain for sufferers who had to just get on with the work.

“My wife doesn’t come to market any more – it’s too depressing for her to
see what has happened to the old farmers – they’re on their knees”.

Injuries also occurred from time to time amongst families, usually caused when handling animals.
When they occurred they usually put the family into crisis initially, particularly when the injury
occurred at a busy time (e.g. lambing time) or to a key worker (e.g. herdsman).

Only one participant claimed to have mental health problems and this had considerable impact on
the running of his farm and his ability to cope on a day to day basis, consequently the viability of
his farm appeared to be in decline.

19
Stress and depression is known to be a significant problem in farming families and is more
significant in times of crisis (e.g. when in financial hardship or dealing with the impacts of livestock
disease) (Farm Crisis Network, 2008). It is possible that there were other participants who had
suffered from mental illnesses but they were unwilling to reveal this to us or did not recognise the
symptoms they had suffered as mental illness.

There was a general lack of recognition amongst participants of the skills they had, particularly the
(hidden) skills related to farming, e.g. business and countryside management skills. These
transferable skills were not acknowledged in many families; they considered themselves to “only
know farming”. Yet some families had successfully used the skills of members to start up
diversification businesses or take up off-farm employment, such as horse livery, a part-time welding
business or HGV work.

Case study 1:
Using skills and experience to take on new challenges
George and Margaret are tenants of a 150 acre farm. It used to be a dairy farm but when
George turned 50 nearly ten years ago they decided to give up milking as their children
did not want to farm. They now breed and rear Aberdeen Angus cattle and rare breed
pigs, selling the meat through the farm shop that they have set up. The farm is a registered
care farm and they have founded a charity, which over the years has provided education
and training in life skills on their farm for adults and children with learning disabilities and
children who are in danger of exclusion from school. Recently they have also set up a tea
room. They do not take what might be considered ‘a proper wage’ out of the farm
business and despite being always short of money, Margaret says “I think we live a
millionaire’s life”. She enjoys the hard work and the challenges and the fact that she is
surrounded by countryside and livestock.

The skills of family members, particularly children who had moved away were called upon where
relevant, for example, helping to fill in grant application forms.

Women were in many families were recognised as being ‘good’ at computer work, book keeping
or handling the finances and so took responsibility for the office work. In two families women had
been involved with a local farming organisation, the Farming Life Centre that arranged visits to farm
diversification projects to share ideas and encourage participants to look at their own
diversification possibilities. Both women considered these visits to be positive and inspirational.

Most of the older generation interviewed left school at the earliest convenience, cutting short their
education due to farm commitments. However, in general they have encouraged and prioritised
their children’s education, who tend to have higher qualifications than their parents and for some
children this has translated into a desire to move away from farming and into a career elsewhere.
In some families this has meant that there is no one to take over the farm and they will have to sell
up/give up the tenancy once the parents retire. Nevertheless in more than half of families
interviewed there was one member who had shown interest in taking over the farm.

Access to clear information was highlighted by some as a problem. One farmer also told us that
“there are plenty of people out there who want to tell you what to do”, intimating that advise tended
to be imposed, ‘top down’, rather than having regard for the specific needs of the farmer. They

20
received plenty of literature from DEFRA informing them of new legislation and changes to existing
legislation, but frequently it was confusing or unclear. Around half of families had no internet
access, which limited their ability to find the information they needed. However, a significant
number of participants regularly used the National Farmers Union’s advice hotline, a signposting
service to sources of help and advice.

Most participants did not demonstrate a lack of self-esteem, but rather came across as being
proud people. During discussions, they showed themselves to have confidence, which seemed to
come from running their own business and having a deep understanding of the land and livestock
that they farm.

Human strategies:
● Tended to carry on with work in spite of health problems

● Little evidence of mental health problems, but they may be hidden or possibly too busy

working to acknowledge them let alone seek help.

● Tend not to acknowledge the valuable farming related skills they have and their

transferability. However, more distinct skills such as welding or HGV licence were more
likely to be used to bring in additional income.
● Parents tended to encourage their children to become better educated than themselves,
although that did mean in some cases that the children had followed careers outside
farming and there was no one to take over the farm
● Information was available to those able to seek it out. Official information could be

confusing and advice narrow and not entirely appropriate for the needs of specific farming
families.

Social assets

In most families there were strong linkages between the generations and the different family
branches. Dependence on one another seemed to be taken for granted and the dynamics of this
support/dependence relationship changes over time; adult children relied upon their parents for
accommodation and then childcare; as time went on the parents relied upon their children to do
the more demanding tasks such as routine milking and eventually required more support for their
personal care. In some families three generations of the same family live on the farm and in a small
number they shared the same house. For some, living in close proximity worked well, with all
members having defined roles. Conversely this type of situation caused tension in a minority of
families, in two cases resulting in a breakdown of relationships between generations. Although we
were only aware of two families where this situation had arose, it is possible that there had been
times when it had occurred in other families but the situation had been resolved. Triggers in the
cases identified were when children marry and bring spouses onto the farm and then go on to have
children. This can change their expectations of their roles within the farm and their needs in terms
of income and housing. There were also indications of a power/responsibility struggle between
the generations; children, who work within the family farm, tend to expect greater responsibility as
they grow older. Some parents seem reluctant to hand over or share responsibility. This caused
particular tensions when the parents remained in control of financial and business decisions.
Where this occurred there were indications that the bad feelings this caused within the family held
back or prevented developments that may have improved the farm profitability.

21
 Case study 2:
A family farm with an uncertain future
John and Heather Baxter started married life living and working on John’s parents’ farm.
The farm was small and there was very little income. Heather found employment to help
subsidise their income until eventually they managed to secure the tenancy of a local dairy
farm and moved there with their three children. After a few years the farm came up for sale
and they were able to buy it, taking on a substantial mortgage and have since bought and
rented further land. Their two sons are now partners in the family farm; both now have their
own families, and live and work on the farm. Although they now have a substantial acreage,
they have a mortgage, loans and a large overdraft to service, so money is tight. John and
Heather’s two daughters-in-law have added a new dynamic to the family unit and they do
not appear to be happy with their lives on the farm and the family setup. The shortage of
money and living in such close proximity to the in-laws has fuelled their discontent. There
has been a series of arguments recently, which has caused stress and worry amongst the
family. The farm’s financial situation means that the farm cannot be split up between
partners for several years to come. John is approaching retiring age and because of health
problems may not wish to carry on working for long after that time. If the current situation
within the family isn’t resolved then the only option may be to sell the farm when John retires.
After their hard work and struggle to build up the farm both John and Heather would be
reluctant to do this as it would deny not only their sons but also their grandchildren of the
opportunity to farm.

Nevertheless many families did have agreed and clearly defined roles for family members,
according to the skills and the interests of the individual. This was most evident in families where
some members worked off-farm, and on farms which had diversified.

Marriage breakdowns were rare within the families. Although we did not explore the reason for this,
it is possible that as family life is so intrinsically linked to the farm, the commitment to keeping the
farm going follows through into the marriage.

Participation in social groups outside the family depended very much on the will, interests of the
individual and time availability. Women were more involved in local community life than men,
through schools, the church and community groups. Some of the women interviewed attended
events and courses organised by the Farming Life Centre, near Buxton, which provides a range of
services for the local farming community. Men’s social life was generally focused around farming;
meeting up with friends on market days at Bakewell Livestock Market or attending NFU meetings.
Long hours worked during busy periods left little time for socialising even at market. Children were
able to attend clubs and activities but this required a level of commitment from parents, who had
to drive them there and pick them up.

With some family members working away from the farm, those remaining on the farm have tended
to become more isolated. However, this was not highlighted by participants as a problem.
Nevertheless the solitary nature of farming may have been seen as a disadvantage to those
younger family members who had left the family farm. This possibility was not explored in this study.

22
 Social strategies:
● Highly reliant upon the extended family for support and care

● Living and working in close proximity to the family can cause tension and breakdown of

relationships between family members. Ultimately, if not resolved, this can have a
detrimental effect on the viability and resilience of the farm business
● Marriage breakdowns rare

● Women tended to participate in community life more than men; time availability was a
constraint to socialising
● Solitary nature of farming did not seem to be a problem to those involved but potentially

could have contributed to the decisions of those family members who decided to leave the
family farms.

Physical assets

Farming families who own their farm find themselves in the situation of owning a valuable asset,
their farm, and yet on a daily basis they struggle to make ends meet, and the business may even
lose money in some years. On a personal level they may be living close to the poverty line. If they
sold their farm they could be quite wealthy. But that would mean giving up their livelihood, a farm
that may have been in the family for several generations and possibly livestock whose bloodlines
had been improved over many years. Consequently, families that consider selling their farms have
to make some difficult decisions.

Peak District farms can fetch high prices, particularly if they are split up and the house and a few
acres are sold to lifestyle buyers. There is also a good market for parcels of land as some farmers
look to increase their acreage as a way of improving the viability of their farms. As one farmer
interviewed said, “the house isn’t worth five pounds as long as we need a roof over our head”.

One vital benefit for families that own their farm is that they may be able to use their farm as
collateral to secure mortgages, loans to develop and grow their business and to secure an
overdraft.

A further irony is that although their land and property may be a valuable asset, they can also cost
a considerable amount of money in maintenance, running costs and repairs. This is particularly
the case for farmhouses, which are generally old, costly to repair and maintain and energy
inefficient. Participating families tended to prioritise investment in the farm rather than the house.
Traditional farm buildings can be a money making asset if converted for non-farming uses such as
holiday lets. However, this requires planning permission as well as a considerable amount of
investment, which may not be available. They are generally unsuitable for modern farming usage
and without investment may fall into disrepair. Although some of the families interviewed had
developed their farm buildings and received an income from them, most had not for various
reasons; they did not have access to the investment required, their buildings were unsuitable, they
were unable to get planning permission or there was no market for converted buildings.

Tenant farms are also assets as the tenant has the legal right to farm the land. The value to the
tenant depends upon the nature of the tenancy (whether or not it can be passed on to the next
generation) and the length of the tenancy. One farmer interviewed commented that there was a
rise in the number of farms being let on short (five or six year) tenancies agreements, which
discouraged tenants from developing, improving or investing in them. Consequently, these farms
may be run down over the tenancy period.

23
Livestock, machinery and equipment are all vital farming assets, but taken for granted by many
participants, who considered them to be part of their livelihoods and part of their family. Some saw
them as their pension plan; assets to be realised when they sold up. However, this conflicted with
any aims they had to pass on the farm to the next generation.

Physical strategies:
● Selling the farm could release significant capital, which could solve financial problems, but

financial, family and emotional ties to the farm usually prevents this decision being made.
● Property may be used as collateral for securing loans and mortgages for buying up more
land or developing new initiatives
● Farms, especially traditional building and farm houses require maintenance which can be a

drain on finances – property improvements do not always bring additional income.

● Farm tenancies are also assets, although their value depends upon the nature and the

length of the tenancy

● Livestock and machinery were not generally viewed as assets but part of the fabric of their
livelihoods, although some saw them as their future pension plan

Natural assets

All participants appreciated where they lived; the landscape, the views and the environment they
lived in and wouldn’t want to swap it despite its challenges and lack of services. For some the
natural assets around them brought financial rewards in form of income from tourists or because
they had entered environmental stewardship schemes and received grants for looking after and
enhancing the environment.

They tended to be aware of the wildlife around them. One farmer mentioned that tourists
discouraged wildlife; during the 2001 foot and Mouth disease outbreak, when visitors kept away
from the countryside, he noticed that the wildlife came back.

Rainfall was generally not mentioned as an asset, although it was considered a problem when it
fell at the wrong time such as during hay making.
Natural strategies:
● Landscape and environment can bring financial rewards from tourism and environmental
schemes
● In general have to work with natural assets and use them as effectively as you can

● Weather can be an asset or a problem

Shocks, trends and seasonality

According to the SLA framework the ability of the farming families interviewed to access the assets
they identified was influenced by their vulnerability context, which takes into account shocks,
trends and seasonality. They can use their assets in combination to build resilience into their
livelihoods. However, effectiveness will depend upon the severity of the shocks, trends and
seasonality and the assets available to them. Here we consider how the families felt they were
affected and their ability to recover.

24
Shocks:

The families we interviewed identified livestock diseases (BSE, Foot and Mouth disease, Blue
Tongue disease and Bovine Tuberculosis) during the period 1998 to 2008, abnormal and untimely
weather conditions (rainfall during silage and haymaking) during 2007, and the sudden escalating
costs of inputs (livestock feeds, fuel and fertilisers) during 2007/2008 as the most significant
shocks they had experienced. Some families had experienced shocks within their families, such
as illness, injury or death of a family member. However, they didn’t consider these personal shocks
to be as damaging as those inflicted on them from outside their family and their strong social assets
(family and neighbours rallying round) had helped them recover.

Almost all families spoken to highlighted the periods of livestock disease outbreaks as the most
difficult for them. All outbreaks caused stress and uncertainty. However, the level and the nature
of the impact varied according to how each individual farm was affected; whether or not their
livestock contracted the disease (for example Bovine TB) or whether they were affected by the
repercussions; movement and consequently marketing restrictions, export ban and consequently
a dramatic drop in income (as in for example the Foot and Mouth disease outbreaks). All families
had recovered sufficiently to continue farming, although their experiences of the disease outbreak
had in some cases been the catalyst for a change in the direction of the farm business, for
developing diversification enterprises or, in the case of younger family members another reason
why they should choose a career outside the family farm.

The sudden increase in input prices was unexpected by farmers and although it has come at a
time when livestock market prices had risen, it has effectively cancelled out any increase in profits
they may have enjoyed and heightened the level of uncertainty about future profitability. Fertiliser
prices more than doubled over a 12 month period during 2007/2008. Fuel and livestock feed costs
also soared. Nearly all farmers mentioned increasing input prices as a significant challenge that
had made managing the money and budgeting for the future difficult. One farmer had reduced his
fertiliser application rate to save money as a knee jerk reaction to the price inflation. Although no
other farmers admitted to doing this it may be one way that farmers try to reduce input costs in the
future. This strategy could have implications for the productivity of their farm if more sustainable
methods of maintaining soil fertility are not adopted to replace fertiliser inputs.

More generally the impact of sudden increases in input costs had forced farmers to change their
livestock buying and selling habits. Strategies included selling cattle sooner than they would
otherwise have done to avoid higher feed costs and to realise some money to keep the overdraft
below their agreed limit, or delaying buying store or replacement stock. These strategies may help
the cash flow in the short-term but ultimately would have had negative impacts upon overall
profitability of the farm.

Trends

Looking back over the years, people interviewed felt that the social, economic and legislative
environment in which they farmed had changed significantly and had not only eroded the
profitability of their farms but also their status as food producers. They also felt that they were so
constrained and overwhelmed by red tape that they could not get on with the job of farming as well
as they should.

The change in 2005 in farm subsidy provision to the Single Farm Payment Scheme, from being
production based to area based, with an increasing emphasis on funding through environmental

25
schemes, had brought about reduced stocking rates on farms, and also reduced the level of
subsidy that many received. Subsidy levels are also decreasing year on year and from 2013 the
availability of subsidies is uncertain. Participants did not indicate that the possible end of
subsidies as a problem in itself but along with low livestock prices and higher input prices there
was a general cause for concern over how they would be able to manage to make a living in the
future.

Increasing levels of bureaucracy, perceived unnecessary changes in government imposed

regulations and ever increasing levels of paperwork that it generates for farmers were considered
as both restrictive on their ability to get on with farming and an interference. Nevertheless, as one
farmer stated, “farmers know how to work the system”, intimating that they had developed ways of
getting around certain rules and regulations. One example given concerned the six day stand-still
rule imposed under livestock movement restrictions. For bio-security reasons when an animal is
moved onto a farm holding then livestock cannot be moved off that holding for the following six
days. Many farms are split into more than one registered holding, each with its own registered
holding number. Animals brought in may be registered as going to one holding, whilst any that are
due to leave the farm within the six day period are registered as moving from another holding
number.

“Government only want us as park-keepers”

Older farming family members spoke of the change in the public perceptions of farming and
farmers, of government not being interested in farming and even running the farming industry
down. They felt they are no longer seen as providing a vital service as producers of food and that
government has little interest in maintaining a viable food producing farming industry. In fact it is
now common government practice to refer to the ‘land based’ industry rather than farming.

Nevertheless, some felt there was cause for optimism. Recently, the rise in food prices caused by
lower global food stocks had, some felt, woken the public up to the link between farming,
production levels and food prices. This had triggered a growing appreciation of farming. The
rising interest in local food and ‘food miles’ would also benefit farming.

Seasonality

Farming by its very nature is affected by seasonal fluctuations in production and income. The
fluctuations in the tourist season add a further impact upon the livelihoods of the families that have
diversified into tourist related initiatives. However, farmers are used to these seasonal changes and
they use their bank overdraft to cushion dips in income and rises in expenditure.

Policies, institutions and processes and how they affect farming livelihoods

The policies, institutional and processes element of the SLA framework considers a range of
issues associated with participation, power, authority, governance, laws, policies, public service
delivery, social relations, institutions and organisations. These issues are significant as they can
influence the extent to which livelihoods are helped to progress or hindered.

Government and specifically DEFRA, was considered to be main cause of limitations on their
livelihoods. Increasing and changing legislation not only created more red tape and paperwork but
it also increased the farm work load. Rounding up livestock for double tagging, TB testing and Blue

26
Tongue vaccinations (not compulsory but encouraged by DEFRA) not only increases the workload
on farms that are frequently under-staffed, but it can also be impractical and difficult to implement
on extensively grazed moorland farms.

Generally farmers felt that they were on the receiving end of policy and had no ability or
opportunity to influence it.

“Rules and regulations are made by civil servants sitting in offices

who have no idea about farming”

Planning laws can be a limitation for those who wish to diversify and require planning permission
to do so, or want to convert buildings for additional housing for family members. It can be a
particularly lengthy and costly process for those farming within the Peak District National Park
boundaries, where planning regulation are more stringent than outside the National Park area.
Planning permission is not always granted and plans often have to be resubmitted, adding to the
cost.

“We’re not short of people telling us what to do”

Access to appropriate advice was a limitation for some people interviewed. Advice is available
from various sources, including the NFU hotline and the Peak District National Park Authority, which
has a drop-in centre on market days at Bakewell Livestock Market. However, farmers find it difficult
to get advice that is specific to their circumstances. One family spoke of an instance where they
had been directed to Business Link for advice on an issue. The advice they received came in the
form of a letter and was totally inappropriate for a farming business.

The DEFRA funded Farm Business Advice Service has recently been re-established. In the East
Midlands farmers can apply for one half day of free advice from a consultant, who will provide
advice specific to their farm’s needs. However, advice over a longer term appears to be only
available from independent consultants and has to be paid for.

“There are too many advisors and not enough people talking to farmers
to find out what they really need and helping them get it”

The confusion and lack of knowledge of what grants were available to the farming sector has
resulted in little grant funding reaching those farming families that could potentially benefit most
from funding. Grant fund applications are generally time consuming and complex and little
support is provided by funding bodies to ensure applicants receive the help they require to help
them apply.

Three farmers mentioned that they had received support during difficult times from Farm Crisis
Network, which had helped them through that period of their lives.

27
 The Relationship between Assets

A significant feature of the SLA is how is helps us to visualise the interconnection between different
assets and specifically how a change in access to one asset can impact upon access to another
asset.

An example regards a family who were unable to participate in the Farming Lives project due to
time constraints. The family was contacted during a period of particularly wet weather (external
shock). They were unable to get on with silage making due to wet weather and the muddy
conditions made the cows extremely dirty, which prolonged each milking session as the cows
udders had to be washed off thoroughly before they could be milked. The farmer was working on
his own as his wife had recently had an operation and was temporarily unable to work (reduced
personal asset – health). During his wife’s recuperation he also had to care for their children,
including taking their disabled daughter to hospital for appointments regularly. The family was
struggling to cope and appeared to have no family members to call upon for support (few social
assets).

A further example concerns a family where the wife sought off-farm work to supplement the low
farm income (financial asset). Not only did she bring in additional money, which helped them to
continue farming during financially difficult times, but she also learnt a range of new skills, which
she was able to apply within their farming business to develop new initiatives (personal asset –
skills and education). The experiences she gained through work also helped to bring a flow of new
ideas into the family farm, which could be explored and where appropriate adapted to help them
develop new ways of working. Diagram 2 summarises the various assets around the pentagon.

28
Diagram 2:
Assets Pentagon
Social
● Extended family intrinsic to the
functioning of the farm: childcare,
unpaid labour, social activities. Often
live with or next to parents and care of
one another the accepted norm
● Can be isolated from society, although
women less so as they tend to be
involved in village, church and school
activities.
● Women often seek off farm
employment – can open up new social
opportunities
● Men - depends upon workload but
tend to socialise on market days,
sometimes go to the pub or NFU
meetings.
Human
● Health: important but have to
carry on regardless
● Ability to do manual work
● Mental health issues and
stress particularly in bad
times
● Skills: running a business,
women tend to have good
administrative skills. Tend to
underestimate their skills and
think they are only good at
farming as that is all they
have done. Resourcefulness
in overcoming problems.
Stoicism - usually able to
take a long term view when
faced with difficulties
● Children may use their
education to move out of
farming
● High self esteem – proud
● Relationship breakdown
uncommon
Natural
● Soil: thin and not the best quality
● Landscape and views: fortunate to live
in such a nice environment, although
can mean remoteness from services
and isolation. Can bring financial
rewards if diversified into tourism, if
not can be an inconvenience as it
attracts too many tourists. Can offer
opportunities to enter environmental
schemes
● Wildlife: see more wildlife than most
people ever get to see
● Fresh air: no air pollution here
● Rainfall: essential but too much at the
wrong time can cause delays in
farming operations and loss of income
● Wind: perhaps a source of energy,
planning laws permitting
Financial
● Owner occupiers: high
capital assets (land, house,
Physical buildings) but this capital is
● House: usually beautifully locked up, although can be
used as collateral to secure
situated, but may be
loans.
mortgaged. Large
farmhouses can look ● Land has increased in value
desirable but expensive to ● Tenant farmers: pressure to
maintain and heat – usually pay the rent
the farm comes first in terms ● Access to large working
of time and money overdraft
● Land: may be mortgaged ● Turn-over is relatively high
but profit margins are so
● Machinery, tools, tractor, car:
tight there is little available
may be purchased with a
for living expenses.
loan
● In higher profit years there is
● Farm buildings: vital for
usually machinery in need of
livestock and storage,
replacement
traditional buildings can have
potential for conversion for ● Pension/retirement home:
diversification projects, many have not had the funds
to make retirement provisions
although usually need
considerable investment and ● SLA and environmental
planning permission scheme payments
29
 The Livelihoods Ladder

People select and adopt livelihood strategies in accordance with the assets they have access to
and their aspirations. Access to assets also determines the level of choice and flexibility they have
over livelihood strategies. We used the Livelihoods Ladder, adapted from Orr et. al. (2006) to
ascertain the level of choice they had over their livelihood strategies and the outcomes. The people
interviewed were asked whether they felt that they were ‘surviving’, ‘coping’, ‘adapting’ or
‘accumulating’ in livelihood terms. Identifying where people felt they were on the livelihoods ladder
enabled us to characterise each level in farming family terms and identify some typical farming
strategies and outcomes for each level of the ladder.

The livelihoods ladder can be a useful tool in identifying ‘entry points’ for positive interventions for
improving the livelihoods of farming families.

The Livelihoods Ladder is unique compared with other wellbeing/wealth ranking tools in that
people are placed at levels on the ladder according to their own perceptions. Individuals may see
their position differently to how others see them, depending upon how they cope with their
circumstances and perhaps whether they are ‘a glass half full’ or ‘a glass half empty’ person.
People will not necessarily remain at one level on the livelihoods ladder but may move up or down
as circumstances within their lives change. Members of the same family may place themselves at
different levels of the ladder because they have differing levels of access to assets within their
livelihood. Table 5 shows the characteristics, strategies, assets and outcomes of each level of the
livelihoods ladders as determined from the interviews we carried out.

Table 5
The Livelihoods Ladder

Accumulating

Characteristics:
● Life is going well and improving.
● Have built up their farming business and are reaping the rewards.
● Mainly older farmers, nearing retirement, some middle aged farmers who have made their money
outside farming

Strategies:
● Have diversified into non-farming businesses such as tourism and haulage.
● Have embraced new technologies, including information technology.
● Children have grown up and either pursue professional careers or are working in the family
business driving forward the diversified businesses.
● They know how to make the ‘system’ work for them

Assets and Outcomes:

● Diversified businesses ‘cushion’ the impact of poor returns on farming and allow families to remain in
farming living on their farms
● Have sufficient capital to grow their businesses and make improvements to their buildings and house
● Are able to employ staff and therefore can take holidays.

Most farming families interviewed had not reached this category

30
 Adapting
Characteristics:
● Life is improving and people are working towards their aspirations
● Are optimistic about their future and are looking for opportunities to make long term improvements
to their livelihoods
● The resurgence of consumer interest in where food comes from, food miles and food security
gives them cause for optimism and a feeling of being more valued than previously

Strategies:
● Women work off-farm or take on more responsibility for the farm whilst the men go out to work or
are focused on developing farm diversification business
● Have strong social networks
● Involved in community: PTA, Parish Council etc
● Improving their skills by taking up training relevant to new challenges
● Have off farm employment or are looking for diversification opportunities
● May have recently inherited their farm from parents and now have a free rein to move their plans
for the farm forward
● May be involved in environmental schemes

Assets and Outcomes:

● Are owner-occupiers or the family have been tenants across generations and having enjoyed
security of tenure, have had the confidence to invest in their farm
● Capital assets can be used as collateral for loans
● Have the capabilities to access relevant information for new initiatives
● Are less inclined to be stressed

Few farming families interviewed were in this category

Coping
Characteristics:
● People are getting by and feel that they will be ok in the future, although no better than they are now
● May be more than one generation and more than one branch of the family taking an income from
the farm
● Feel that policy and legislation will not let them better themselves, although the resurgence of
consumer interest in where food comes from and food security may be reflected in the market to
allow them at least to carry on farming
● Feel unsupported and marginalised by government policy and hindered by red-tape and paperwork.

Strategies:
● Engage in low paid jobs off-farm
● Rely upon family support network for childcare and may care for elderly parents
● Take on ‘cash in hand’ work
● Collaborate with neighbours to help each other out in times of crisis/heavy work load
● ‘Make do and mend’ attitude
● Work long hours and have difficulty in getting away for a break

Assets and outcomes:

● Usually have a large overdraft to manage
● Shocks such as ill health, livestock disease, sudden increase in input prices can cause difficulties and
knock on effects but they have sufficient assets to draw on to see them through the recovery period
● Determined to carry on despite lack of government support
● Those with no children interested in taking over the farm look to sell up/give up tenancy as
retirement draws near

Most farmers interviewed considered themselves to be in this category

31
 Surviving
Characteristics:
● People feel that their life is a struggle and may always find it hard to get by
● Often isolated
● Poor access to local services and available grants
● Have difficulty finding their way through red tape and bureaucracy
● Feel powerless when circumstances stacked against them, which can cause stress
● Lack confidence to address issues
● May keep working well into retirement age

Strategies:
● As farm profitability has declined they have learnt to live on a tighter budget
● Few or no off-farm or diversification opportunities and no capital to invest in them
● In times of financial crisis may resort to selling livestock early to realise some money and reduce
input costs
● Work long hours and rarely get a break
● Selling up/selling off some land/giving up tenancy may be a regular consideration and maybe the
only way to retire

Assets and Outputs:

● Mental and physical health may deteriorate but may be reluctant to seek help
● May be entitled to benefits but too proud to apply for them or unaware of entitlements
● Children may not see a future in the farm and seek off-farm employment

Some of the families interviewed placed themselves in this category

32
 Considering Gender

When using the sustainable livelihoods approach it is usual to consider gender. In this project both
men and women took part in interviews. As far as the on-farm visits were concerned there was an
equal split between the number of men and women taking part. During the Bakewell Livestock
Market surveys seventy five percent of participants were men. However, this is probably a
reflection of the fact that it is generally the men’s role to bring livestock to market rather than
evidence of a lack of participation by women.
In general we found that women and men within farms worked well together. Usually they had their
specific roles and jobs to do and appeared to be united in working for a common cause – their
farm. As farming has become more technical and diversified over the past 20 years, generally
women’s roles have become more specialised, particularly in relation to administrative work and
compliance. Certainly the ‘office work’ was considered to be the domain of women. Similarly,
where farms had established diversified business opportunities, these were either managed by the
female members of the family or they very heavily involved in them. A further trend over the past
20 years has been for few people to be employed on the farm (both family and non-family
members). This has given women members of the family additional work as they are called on to
help keep on top of the farm workload in addition to any other work they may do.

There was a tendency for women to be more involved in the local community more than men, often
as members of committees. Men felt that they did not have the time to get involved in most cases.

33
 Lessons from this Project

As a pilot project one of the aims was to determine whether the SLA has the potential to make
positive contributions to peoples’ lives within UK farming livelihoods and therefore should be
disseminated more widely. Here we will consider the lessons we have learnt.

This project had a number of challenges, two of which had a significant impact on the project
implementation.

Firstly, it was difficult to access the most marginalised farming families, which we felt would
potentially have had most to gain from this project and which would give us the opportunity to test
the approach most effectively. Reasons for us not being able to access these families include their
lack of time to give to a project that they did not know anything about and possibly suspicious of,
and they did not associate with the farming networks that we had links to.

Secondly, farmers are time poor. There is a constant stream of work to be done on their farms,
many cannot afford to employ staff as they did in the past and many families have members
working outside the farm, also adding to the work pressure. The weather plays a significant role in
the work load at certain times of the year. When weather conditions are unpredictable or extreme,
farmers could not commit time or make plans to meet project staff in case the weather improved
to give them a window of opportunity to get on with their work.

Farmers are used to being given advice, frequently in a top-down manner so they were not used
to the type of approach used in this project. The SLA was a different concept to take on board.
However, given the opportunity to talk about their lives, their farms and their livelihoods, nearly all
the people we interviewed were happy to talk to us and appeared to enjoy the experience. We did
not offer advice, however, this approach enabled them to stop for a while and look at their
livelihoods and what they had available to them. The time constraints on the families did not allow
us to work with them over several months as we had intended, as they considered their options for
developing their livelihoods and where possible building in greater sustainability. Had we been
able to continue our visits over time we feel that there would have been opportunities for doing this.

Even though this was a new approach to those taking part, they appeared genuinely interested in
the process, for example filling in the asset pentagon and debating over which assets went in which
segment of the pentagon. Also, in most cases, discussions about their assets refocused their
minds away from the negative aspects of their lives on to the positives, enabling them to appreciate
how many assets they actually had. In some cases this acted as a trigger for discussions about
opportunities to maximise their use of existing assets and given more time may have had a similar
effect on other families taking part. It could also have provided opportunities for considering how
they may build upon their weaker assets to help strengthen their livelihoods.

34
 Recommendations for the Peak District

Farming Lives highlighted some significant issues that impact upon Peak District farming families,
which with positive and appropriate interventions could be addressed.

Succession Planning
A significant numbers of families do not have plans for succession in place and where they do have
they are not always agreed and put in place in time to prevent bad feeling between family
members. Succession planning can cover a range of points; passing on legal entitlement to
property or tenancies, sharing out of available accommodation, delegation of responsibilities
including decision making, retirement plans for senior members of the family and handing over a
share of the farm worth to family members who do not remain on the farm. These are clearly
complex and sensitive issues and can be especially difficult to deal with when resources are
limited and there are several branches of the family to share them amongst. Yet if these issues are
not resolved the outcomes can mean that the farm operates inefficiently, individuals do not get the
opportunity to use the skills for the benefit of the farm and are not able to grow into roles of
responsibility gradually. It can even cause a break-down in family relations and stress, which can
be detrimental to the farm as well as family members.

Families may require support, advice and mediation to help them through the process of
succession planning. This could take different forms; legal or accountancy advice may be
required or they may be a need for mediation or pastoral support. We recommend that there
should be an awareness raising of succession issues through a series of meetings or workshops
and information packs. This could be followed by making a mediation service available to farmers
who could benefit.

Access to Information
There appears to be a lack of awareness of grant funding that is available to farmers as well as
confusion about how farmers can qualify for grants. Clear and up to date information should be
made available to farmers of both regionally dispersed EU funding streams and grants provided
by local sectors and service providers.

There are a number of support initiatives working in the Peak District, but there is not a central
information point where farmers can go to find out about them. Initiatives are often short term and
finish before many farmers get to hear about them. A central information point, giving clear
information, with effective lines of communication going out to the farming community, including the
most isolated would help to disseminate information on initiatives, grant funding and good practice.

Cohesive Communities
Farming families work together to help each other out; providing mutual support through difficult
times, as well as promoting cohesiveness within the farming community. This is a strength that
could be developed if facilitation was available to nurture collaborative initiatives that would
improve the viability of farming livelihoods.

Support Services
Facilities have been developed at Bakewell Livestock Market to meet the needs of farmers coming
to the market. These services are valued and well used by farmers. The Farming Life Centre has
developed a number of initiatives, addressing a range of needs within the local farming community,
including sharing good practice and addressing health and social needs. Facilities and initiatives
provided are valued by the farming community. However, they rely upon the provision of time
limited funding. Successful support services should not be curtailed when funding runs out as this

35
often results in the loss of vital skills, knowledge and momentum. Funders should work with local
organisations to enable continuity of successful services.

Many farmers complained that government agencies and service providers do not understand
what farming lives are really like, particularly in hill farming areas. This report gives an insight into
the livelihood of the farming families in the Peak District – it may help to give those in local and
regional government agencies a clearer understanding of Peak District farming lives and how
service provision and policy can reflect the issues facing farmers.

Resourcefulness
The people that took part in the project were very resourceful and generally there is a strong sense
of cohesion within families that enables them to work together for the benefit of their livelihoods.
More broadly we found there was a sense of a strong farming community with a proud heritage.
There was also an uneasy feeling that farming was in decline, but they were ready to stand up for
hill farming and amongst some there was a small ray of optimism for the future.

36
 How could the SLA be applied within
other UK farming communities?
Our experiences of this pilot project lead us to believe that the SLA can make positive contributions
to farming livelihoods if applied over time in the correct manner. The approach requires sensitivity
in its application as well as an understanding of the farming community and its challenges. We
believe that the approach can be most effectively be applied by organisations that are integrated
within the farming community and are already proving support services, who are familiar to and
trusted by farming families including those who are most marginalised. If used along side other
support provided it may be possible to overcome the time constraints experienced by farmers. By
using the SLA to identify areas of their lives where positive interventions are needed, farming
families may be helped to move their lives forward.

The SLA may also have an application within farming groups, where farmers are coming together
to collaborate in some way. Applying the SLA may help to identify the assets of the group, support
and intervention required and development opportunities.

Feedback from families that took part in this project suggested that the SLA is an acceptable
approach to use. We therefore recommend that it is tested further within another farming
community by a farming support group that has links with marginalised farmers through its existing
work. We suggest that its potential lies in using the approach when working with families over a
long period of time and we would be interested to learn of its effectiveness when used in long term
support.

37
 Conclusion

We set out to test the potential of the SLA to support farming families in building more sustainable
farming livelihoods. We had identified shortcomings in the advice that is available to farmers,
which tends to focus on the financial or environmental aspects of farms without considering the
social, cultural and human elements of farming. By placing people at the centre, this approach
gives the opportunity to consider all elements of farming livelihoods and so identify the most
effective points within their livelihoods for intervention. Our findings suggest that the SLA has
potential to be an effective approach for application within the farming sector and we hope the
lessons we have learnt will encourage other farming organisations to apply the approach within
their farming communities.

In the Peak District farming community we found resilience and resourcefulness that has helped to
bring farming families through some very difficult times. Their ability to compromise, cut back and
develop various other strategies to enable them to continue farming, will hopefully get them through
current difficulties. We also found a certain amount of optimism for farming; that prospects will
improve as the public are taking a renewed interest in food and farming. As one farmer said, “for
those who can get through the bad times farming will come good”.

38
 References

DEFRA Farm Business Survey Government Office region reports 2006/07 Rural Business
Research, viewed 14th November 2008, http://www.farmbusinesssurvey.co.uk/regional/index.asp

DFID (1999) Section 2: Sustainable Livelihoods Framework. In: Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance
Sheets Department for International Development, London
Farm Crisis Network (2008) FCN Case-work Evaluation Summary for 2007 Farm Crisis Network
viewed 15th November 2008, http://www.farmcrisisnetwork.org.uk

IFAD Sustainable livelihoods approach, viewed 15th November 2008. http://www.ifad.org/sla

Orr, S., Brown, G., Smith, S., May, C., Waters, M. (2006) Assets, vulnerabilities and livelihoods: an
analysis of households in Thornaby-on-Tees. Church Action on Poverty, Manchester

Peak District Rural Deprivation Forum (2004) Hard Times: A research report into hill farming and
farming families in the Peak District Peak District Rural Deprivation Forum, Hope Valley

SAC (2008) Farming’s retreat from the hills Rural Policy Centre, Scottish Agricultural College,

November 2008, http://www.farmcrisisnetwork.org.uk

IFAD Sustainable livelihoods approach, viewed 15th November 2008. http://www.ifad.org/sla

Orr, S., Brown, G., Smith, S., May, C., Waters, M. (2006) Assets, vulnerabilities and livelihoods: an
analysis of households in Thornaby-on-Tees. Church Action on Poverty, Manchester

Peak District Rural Deprivation Forum (2004) Hard Times: A research report into hill farming and
farming families in the Peak District Peak District Rural Deprivation Forum, Hope Valley

SAC (2008) Farming’s retreat from the hills Rural Policy Centre, Scottish Agricultural College,

39
40