Nonetheless, Valio, for instance, is doing a lot of work to identify better methods for the use of agricultural peatlands. Ultimately, however, public policy guidance is urgently needed. According to our study, the key justice issues in the transition to carbon-neutral farming relate to the profitability of farming, the distribution of blame in society, and the use of agricultural peatlands. These dimensions and justice issues are summarized in Table 2.It is an intergenerational issue in the sense that it can threaten the continuity of farming . Dairy farmers are of the opinion that they do not receive an equitable share in milk prices, and they are concerned about changes in the operational environment of milk production. They desire to achieve carbon neutrality goals in the dairy chain to create more profitability at the farm level in the future, such as through the adoption of different farming methods and resource efficiency. Additionally, in terms of the carbon-neutral milk chain program, there are expectations for biogas production to prosper. The feelings of blame experienced by Finnish farmers, are related to recognitive justice. Recent surveys from Finland suggest that they specifically feel that public discourse around climate change, is accusatory in nature, and these feelings of blame translate into a decreased willingness to engage in climate action . Also, in this study, the feeling of being blamed caused a passive mindset in some farmers. It is important to explore whether increased recognition of farmer agency, for example, by focusing on the positive societal impacts produced by farmers, would change this. Although research shows that anger, fear, and guilt can motivate climate change action , there has been less empirical analysis on how feelings of being blamed impact attitudes or willingness to act. One reason for this, as suggested by our interviews with the farmers, might be the large physical and psychological distance from the impacts of climate change experienced by Finnish farmers. In contrast to the Global South, in Finland, climate change is expected to have positive effects on farming conditions. Thus, Finnish farmers mostly reject the notion of guilt,hydroponic bucket which can lead to feelings of being unfairly blamed. This is in line with previous research suggesting that guilt, anger, and fear are often rejected as motivators for action in the Global North, unlike in the Global South .

Concerning the question of agricultural peatlands, different justice issues intersect. The use of agricultural peatlands is also a politically sensitive question, as the owners perceive themselves as being in the most vulnerable situation in terms of carbon neutrality goals in Finland. Hence, there is a concern that the use of agricultural peatlands will be a distributive issue, as some farmers will certainly experience greater disadvantages than others. This consequently creates a need for restorative justice considerations . If public policy restricts the use of peatlands, farmers also expect public compensation. In terms of procedural justice, the farmers perceive their voices as weak in the societal discourse and decision-making. They have limited resources to participate due to burdensome workloads. Hence, they could be better involved in various decision-making and preparation processes, which would require broader modes of support than only practical or financial ones. For example, support regarding mental well being is also required, as supporting farmers in this and other ways would give them a better starting point to allow them to participate in various decision-making processes. It would also motivate them better than feelings of being blamed . However, it should be noted that through farmers’ union, Finnish farmers have a broad representation in different policy processes and that seems to be sufficient for some farmers. Others wish that the farmers’ voices were stronger. There were not many differences of opinion in our relatively small data, regardless of whether the farmer had participated in the training. Overall, farmers’ opinions and perceptions of justice are strongly related to injustices they have experienced in the past. Therefore, targeting climate policy implementations toward them, is a challenge. In an equitable transition, past injustices and experiences should also be considered. Policymakers, researchers, and private companies can do more work to address the barriers that rural farmers face in working toward a just transition . According to this study, private initiatives can help dairy farmers see carbon farming and overall systemic change as more equitable. Generally, the interviewed farmers saw private regulations and guidance in a neutral or positive light. This is of interest, as farmers have traditionally been wary of public regulation .

Most of the farmers interviewed had new kinds of learning experiences through Valio’s carbon-neutral milk chain program. They expressed that it was important for them to understand how other farmers were doing their work and what the best solutions from their perspectives were. Connecting different farmers was perceived to be one of the most important parts of the program, which is also partly related to the need for support identified in this study. Furthermore, the feelings of blame experienced by farmers are highly relevant in relation to the program. They indicated that the program had the potential to offer solutions to the issue of shaping their role and image in society more positively. If, owing to the program, consumers and the media perceived farmers as more active participants in the fight against climate change, farmers’ public image could be improved. This might lead to multiple positive effects, if they feel less blamed and, as a result, are more willing to engage in practices that support their image as climate actors. Thus, farmers could play a more active role in climate policy. However, it must be recognized that the relationship between behavioral change and psychological factors is complex and difficult to measure. Nevertheless, it can be postulated that, if the program somehow contributes to farmers’ experiences of guilt and public blame, opposition to the program could increase . Some of the carbon farming solutions provided by the program require stronger public-private partnerships. The question of the use of agricultural peatlands, for instance, cannot be solved without public policy. Conversely, private companies can harness their own innovative capacities to advance carbon neutrality goals. In that sense, biogas production is one of the most important options from the farmers’ perspective, but this too requires stronger public guidance. Investing in biogas systems is too high-risk for farmers in the current situation. Additionally, for the potential of biogas production to be utilized, public policy should consider the importance thereof in a broader sense . However, from the perspective of reducing agricultural emissions, the reductions obtained by using biogas instead of fossil fuels are largely calculated for the benefit of the energy sector instead of directly benefitting the agriculture-related aims.

The significance of Valio’s program lies in its proposal of new solutions to identified problems. However, private and public regulation and guidance must work together to create the appropriate appreciation for farmers’ work. As noted, previous studies have highlighted farmers’ identities and socio-cultural dimensions in the implementation of environmental policy . Hence, ultimately, this can result in a new kind of identity among farmers and better recognition of farming work in society. The concept of the ‘good farmer’ and ‘good farming’ has been used to explain farmers’ resistance towards environmental land-use policies. Various studies have described how payment for environmental public goods fails to compensate farmers’ loss of cultural identity, articulated visibly to the wider farming community through symbolic capital such as ‘tidy’ fields and hedgerows. Bio-security policy makers face a similar challenge. Since the invention of modern disease animal control, financial incentives have been used to encourage participation in disease surveillance schemes and/or compensate farmers whose animals are slaughtered to stamp out disease. Recently, influenced by the ‘behavioural turn’ in policy making , bio-security policy makers have begun to view withholding or reducing compensation payments alongside other behavioural cues as a way of ‘nudging’ farmers towards better bio-security. However, recent research suggests that farmers’ bio-security practices are also influenced by what they consider to be good farming suggesting the need to think more broadly about the kinds of behavioural cues and strategies required to reduce disease incidence. The purpose of this paper is to explore in greater depth the role that different behavioural interventions have upon farmers’ bio-security decisions. Specifically, we focus on the salience of the symbols and measures of good farming in relation to animal disease, and financial incentives for one bio-security practice – cattle purchasing – in the management of bovine Tuberculosis . The movement of livestock from one farm to another, often via a livestock market, stackable planters is frequently identified as the most significant risk factor in the spread of bTB as well as other exotic and endemic diseases.Disease outbreaks may compromise farmers’ ability to publicly demonstrate their good farming statues as governments prohibit the movement of infected livestock. However, the limitations of disease surveillance systems and diagnostic uncertainties, and concerns that regulatory approaches could damage farming economies have led bio-security policy makers to consider behavioural policy interventions. To investigate the role of behavioural interventions in animal disease management, we develop an innovative methodological approach, using a scenario-based cattle purchasing game to understand what drives farmers’ cattle purchasing decisions, and the effects of behavioural interventions upon simulated cattle purchases in different contexts.

The paper begins by outlining the challenges bio-security policy makers face in seeking to change farmers’ behaviour, and how measures of good farming could affect farmers’ bio-security behaviour. Secondly, the paper describes the methodology used to explore the relevance of these behavioural interventions within cattle purchasing policies. Thirdly, we present the results of 76 simulated purchasing events, describing the relationship between purchase choices, behavioural interventions, and farmers’ strategic approach to cattle purchasing. In conclusion, the paper considers the wider role of behavioural interventions for bio-security policy. In seeking regulation without legislation, ‘behavioural insights’ have become the leitmotif of neoliberal governments. Taking inspiration from Thaler and Sunstein , the significance of ‘choice architecture’, defaults and nudging have seeped into all policy areas, providing the hope that ‘soft-paternalism’ can reach parts of the population other approaches cannot . Spawning its own governmental infrastructure and behavioural insights units, mnemonic acronyms such as ‘Mindspace’ and ‘EAST’ , these forms of ‘neuroliberal’ psychological governance have exhorted policy makers to create behavioural cues that are easy to follow, draw on social norms and positively reinforce good behaviour. Reworked physical infrastructure, financial incentives, and a proliferation of signs and letters emphasising social and geographical norms, have been the result. Whilst agricultural policy has been no stranger to attempts to coerce farmers into adopting new practices and behaviours, bio-security policies have been late to the behavioural party. In part this reflects how many bio-security policies are written into statute, tied to international agreements and trade regulations. Financial compensation is written into these regulations as a means of incentivizing compliance with disease eradication programs . Yet, research has suggested that farmers’ knowledge of financial compensation is limited such that for some diseases, compensation plays little role in their decision making . Other research suggests that compensation creates a ‘moral hazard’: farmers take more risks or fail to reduce bio-security risks because of the financial insurance provided by compensation regimes . Moral hazard may be dealt with through variable compensation or, as Barnes et al. suggest, encourage more innovative use of non-fiscal behavioural interventions. Indeed, a much broader behavioural awakening of bio-security policy has been triggered by governments recognising the rising costs of statutory animal disease control and seeking cost-sharing partnership governance . Attempts to develop cultural ‘ownership’ of disease amongst farmers by increasingly using non-regulatory behavioural interventions should therefore be understood in this light. In the United Kingdom, endemic diseases such as bTB have therefore attracted considerable attention with bio-security policy makers seeking to redefine it as a ‘sociological problem’ as much as an epidemiological one . Whilst scientific studies of bTB have highlighted the challenge of ‘cultural ownership’ . 2007, independent policy reviews have pointed towards farmer behaviour as a key barrier to effective disease control . In response, governments have commissioned social research on bio-security practices , whilst veterinary groups have argued that ‘behavioural science should be central to the control, eradication and research of bTB’ . 2020. Whilst these calls suggest the need to reorganise bio-security research and policy through an integration of the social and natural sciences, Garza et al. provide a note of caution.