Dr. Stan Lalor:

I will answer that one. The farm discussion group model has been an evolving innovation within the delivery of knowledge transfer over the past 30 or 40 years but, certainly, huge advances have been made in the past ten years. Teagasc has embraced it thoroughly, in that our approach to advisory services is towards group delivery models. That has advantages from the point of view of delivery. One can reach more farmers with information quicker and faster, when one can group them together. The studies done on discussion group participation are positive, from the point of view of what the farmers get out of it, compared to less contact on a one-to-one basis.

There is a balance to be struck between one-to-one advisory contact and discussion groups. That personal level of contact is still important. That is something we need to continue to be able to deliver successfully. From a farmer's perspective, that group interaction is significant from the point of view of the peer-to-peer learning in which farmers can share in each other's experiences and even the social aspects, given the way society has gone, especially pre-Covid-19. We are probably less isolated when more people are working at home due to Covid-19. Previous to that, the social aspect was recognised as being important as well.

As expected, when Covid-19 arrived, everything went online. Suddenly, these discussion groups had to cope with how to use various software and technologies, such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams and so on, to engage. We successfully kept groups going in that context. Towards the middle of last year as the restrictions eased, we were back doing many face-to-face meetings, which returned online for the early part of this year. However, we are starting to organise face-to-face discussion group meetings again.

Well-established groups in which the farmers know one another well are probably less vulnerable, but we are conscious of groups at the earlier stage of their development, in terms of the social cohesion within the group and familiarity between the farmers. Those groups are more strained when they are trying to depend completely on online delivery. However, we now have farmers who are better trained and more open-minded to the online engagement. Some discussion topics lend themselves adequately and quite well to online delivery models.

There have been some innovations. I have noticed some advisers, in trying to keep to the approach to discussion groups fresh through the virtual delivery, are changing aspects such as the timing of the group meetings to make them shorter, snappier and more frequent. There have been involving innovations, in agreement with and under the direction of, the groups involved in terms of trying to keep them fresh and alive.

In the future, there is probably scope for a blended approach in which there is a mix and match of both. The face-to-face and social aspects of it are important as well. It is relevant that knowledge transfer, KT, groups were supported in the previous round of the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP. There are opportunities for that to be supported again. The scope of the group is not just about group meetings. It is also about other aspects of group activities, whether it is shared experiences of technology usage or, particularly, the social aspects of groups such as trips away to broaden the everyday experience of the farmer. We see those aspects coming through loud and clear in the effective way the groups continue to be relevant in terms of a knowledge transfer. They will continue in our programme.