Social learning is a process suited to developing understanding and concerted action to tackle complex resource dilemmas, such as freshwater management. Research has begun to recognise that in practice social learning encounters a variety of institutional challenges from the shared habits and routines of stakeholders (organised by rules, norms and strategies) that are embedded in organisational structures and norms of professional behaviour. These institutional habits and routines influence the degree of willingness to engage with stakeholders, and expectations of behaviours in social learning processes. Considering this, there has been a call to understand how institutions influence social learning and emergent outcomes. We addresses this by presenting a heuristic for implementing social learning cognisant of institutional context to answer three questions: (i) How institutional influences impact implementation of social learning design; (ii) how implementation of social learning design modifies institutions influencing social learning; and (iii) how these changes in design and institutions together shape social learning outcomes? To answer these questions a freshwater planning exercise was designed, implemented and evaluated as a social learning process with community groups in two New Zealand catchments. Incorporating participatory reflection enabled the project team to modify social learning design to manage institutional influences hindering progress toward outcomes. Findings emphasise that social learning is underpinned by participants’ changing assumptions about what constitutes the institution of learning itself—from instruction to a dynamic, collective and emergent process. Reflecting on these assumptions also challenged participants’ expectations about their own and others’ behaviours and roles in freshwater planning.

The potential for monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) to enhance innovation and impact in agricultural research and development is receiving increasing attention. New Zealand’s AgResearch Limited and Australia’s CSIRO Agriculture and Food are working with their scientists to support the organisations to achieve greater innovation and impact by embedding MEL into research programs and projects. However, both organisations have found it challenging to systematically demonstrate the value of their MEL initiatives. While there is an increasing number of case studies and anecdotes pointing towards the contribution of MEL to fostering innovation that delivers social, economic and environmental impacts, there is limited evidence, collated through systematic and rigorous methods, to substantiate this. This article presents an evaluation framework drawing on insights from complexity science (the Cynefin framework), evaluation practice and research (complexity-aware M&E and reflective practice) and innovation capacities (learning, reflection and adaptation). The framework is intended for research organisations working in agricultural innovation systems to be able to demonstrate the value of their MEL initiatives as well as carry out comparative analyses. It also supports organisational learning to better inform evaluative strategies and actions.

Problems in agriculture and land use are increasingly recognised as complex, uncertain, operating at multiple levels (field to global value chains) and involving social, economic, institutional, and technological change. This has implications for how projects navigate complexity to achieve impact. However, few studies have systematically evaluated how project actors engage with other actors to configure capabilities and resources across multiple levels in agricultural innovation systems (AIS), from the individual to the network, to mobilise and build systemic innovation capacity. An analytical framework conceptualising the nested configuration of capabilities at multiple levels in the AIS is applied to two projects that successfully tackled agricultural and land management problems of differing complexity: (i) improving lamb survival; and (ii) sustainable land management in New Zealand. Findings indicate that innovation capacity constitutes project actors interacting with other AIS actors to configure capabilities and resources at different levels of the AIS in order to leverage positive project path dependencies and break path dependencies that are created by existing and historical capability configurations. Project actors also balance exploiting existing innovation capabilities, as well as using adaptive capability for exploring and creating new capability configurations to respond to emerging circumstances. This implies that projects should have strategic ambidexterity in terms of how they combine exploiting existing and exploring new networks to access, combine, create, or disconnect certain capabilities to address 'capability voids' in MS. This requires support to projects to constantly scrutinise, through reflexive monitoring by dedicated facilitators, specific agriculture and land use policies connected to major sustainable development models (e.g. climate smart agriculture, urban farming, smart farming). The can help assess whether the MS provides the right mix of capabilities and whether this is adequately supported by innovation policy, to realize transformative policy objectives.

Many New Zealand dairy farmers have significantly adapted their farm systems in the past decade but there has been minimal focus on the subsequent implications for skill requirements on farms. The aim of this study was to understand the skills farmers require to successfully run different dairy farm systems. Using a survey of farm systems experts, focus groups with farmers and industry representatives, and semi-structured interviews of farmers throughout New Zealand we identified eight key skills that change across dairy farm systems. The most important skills were: managing risk associated with feed prices and ordering supplements at the best price, managing supplements, managing marginal costs, communicating (and negotiating) with suppliers and contractors, balancing nutritional requirements, knowledge of different feeds, and managing acidosis. We identified the concept of 'system drift' where farmers do not make conscious decisions to change. Farmers need to develop skills, or source skilled advisors, to first consider change at a strategic level, and the skills to communicate change with staff and build a team to manage and enact change.

Primary Innovation is a 5-year collaborative initiative demonstrating and evaluating co-innovation, a systemic approach to innovation addressing complex problems, in five “innovation projects” (active case studies) in different agricultural industries. In defining the elements of co-innovation, Primary Innovation has emphasized nine principles that guide activity in the innovation projects. To understand how useful these principles were in guiding practice, and their influence on co-innovation, project participants assessed and reflected on how the principles were applied in practice, issues that arose, how each influenced the project, and how important each principle was perceived as being in influencing project outcomes. The nine principles should be understood in each individual project’s context because their appropriateness and usefulness were affected by the type of problem being addressed and the stage of the project. It was also evident that they need to be built into the process from the outset.

Approaches to accelerate innovation have become more integrated and systemic over time, such as Agricultural Innovation Systems and co-innovation. Primary Innovation is a New Zealand co-innovation programme in which innovation is conceived as being ‘co-produced’ by stakeholders who contribute their unique knowledge to solving a problem or realizing an opportunity. In co-innovation, cyclical processes of planning, doing, observing and reflecting enable innovation to emerge from interactive learning among stakeholders. In this article, we argue that when flexibly applied and adapted to capture dynamics typical in systems innovation projects, the log frame approach and logical frameworks have considerable utility to support evaluation for both learning and accountability and for identifying and addressing institutional logics, which lead to system innovation. We demonstrate this for the case of Primary Innovation and compare our experiences with the limitations and solutions suggested by other recent researchers when applying logic models, logical frameworks, programme theories or theories of change as part of an ‘adapted accountability framework’.

The planting of riparian margins is a policy option for pastoral farmers in response to land use induced environmental issues such as declining water quality, stream bank erosion, and loss of aquatic and terrestrial habitat. We elicited the views and experiences as to pros and cons of planting riparian margins from two sets of dairy farmers from Taranaki, New Zealand: those who are or have planted riparian margins, and those who have not yet done so. Those farmers who have planted riparian margins identified 21 positive aspects of riparian margin plantings and 11 negative aspects of riparian margin plantings. Perceived benefits identified by this group include water quality, increased biodiversity, the provision of cultural ecosystem services, immediate direct benefits to farm management and the farm system, and in some instances increased productivity on-farm. In contrast, those farmers that had fenced but not planted their riparian margins did not consider that riparian margin plantings could add further benefits to that which could be achieved by excluding stock from waterways, and associated only negative perceptions with riparian margin plantings. Planting riparian margins is not cost neutral and will not deliver anticipated environmental benefits in every situation. However, we argue that riparian margin plantings are an important ecological infrastructure investment that needs to be captured within a wider policy framework, the benefits of which extend beyond the mitigation of a single negative externality generated by land use practices, such as nutrient loss, and contribute to a multifunctional landscape. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

There is an increasing need for research organisations conducting applied research to change from a traditional linear approach to extension to a more collaborative model. This paper outlines how AgResearch (the Crown Research Institute for New Zealand's pastoral industry) is focusing on partnering with next-users to deliver research outcomes to the end-user, planning science programmes with a clear understanding of who the collaborative partners will be and their roles in achieving impact, recognising the function of innovation brokering, and monitoring and evaluating progress within science programmes. Key findings have included the need to involve an implementation group to pilot tools and processes, using facilitators to guide project teams, defining language and concepts using electronic media, videos and case studies, and on-going monitoring and evaluation. This approach has enabled AgResearch to begin the process of cultural change with the aim of increasing the impact of science.

Riparian zones can provide a wide range of benefits in productive landscapes, including forming a buffer between productive farmland and waterways. The increasing requirements to fence riparian strips on dairy farms have intensified the debate on the “value of riparian zones”, and the degree to which they are actively managed. This study involved a trans-disciplinary group that identified a range of novel uses available to farmers to better integrate riparian margins within the farm system. Using an ecosystem services approach, it also identified that fencing riparian margins on-farm increased the provision of services such as raw materials, flood mitigation and filtering of nutrients and pathogens for temporary fenced grass strips, but decreased food production. A traditional cost benefit analysis (CBA) shows the net present value (NPV) of an investment in riparian planting is negative. However with the emergence of limits on emissions of nutrients and pathogens to water in second generation regional plans, inclusion of the regulating services in the CBA changes the NPV of the fencing investment to positive. This study showed that using an ecosystem services approach to look at the benefits from riparian margins gives new insights into the use of the farms resources. Further, considering new and novel uses for these areas may help farmers to see them as opportunities in the future.

The wellness and wellbeing of farmers are crucial to maintaining sustainable agricultural production and resilient farming communities. Dairy farming is one of the most intensive forms of pastoral farming in New Zealand and is characterised by long hours of monotonous hard work. The consequences for many farmers can be depression, anxiety and/or burnout. As these mental states influence sufferers' decision-making abilities, they potentially cost the country many millions of dollars per year. Starting in 2010-11 dairy farmers were interviewed over three consecutive years when they attended health pit stops at major dairy events nationally. This paper presents the baseline data, discusses the research findings and offers policy recommendations for improving farmers' emotional wellness.

Dairy farming in New Zealand (NZ) is under increasing scrutiny due to growing environmental concerns. Considerable investments have been made in the search for sustainable land management options and opportunities for mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and nutrient losses. According to farmers, high production, low emission systems are hard to run, but a small number of farmers are currently doing this. The objective of this study was to identify and examine dairy farms that were highly productive and profitable while maintaining reduced GHG emissions. These systems carried reduced stock numbers (i.e. less than 3.3 cows/ha). Two farms in the Waikato region and two in the Southland region were identified. The whole-farm system models FARMAX ® and OVERSEER ® were used to examine feed flow and nutrient balances, as well as the profitability of these systems. Although differing in size, all farms tended to be reliant on home grown feeds for most of their needs; imported feed ranged from 2.2 to 9.7% of total feed consumed. Stocking rates ranged from 2.5 to 3.3 cows/ha, annual production ranged from 377 to 464 kg milksolids (MS)/cow, and operating profits ranged from 1600 to 2350 NZ$/ha. Wintering policies (i.e. the use of an off-farm block of land for dry cow wintering and young stock) differed between regions; the Waikato farms used these blocks only for young stock whereas the Southland farms used them for young stock and dry cows. Despite these differences, emissions intensity ranged from 8.4 to 9.6 kg CO2-e/kg MS, well below the average NZ farm range (11 – 13 kg CO2-e/kg MS). Farms with lower emissions intensity tended to be more profitable and achieve greater feed conversion efficiencies (kg MS/kg DM consumed). Although low stocked dairying may require a higher level of managerial skill to be successful, these systems were associated with low emission levels and highly competitive farm profitability. These farms are commercial working examples of the opportunities for highly profitable, emission efficient farms.

Focused group projects engaging owners and managers of Maori farm businesses were initiated on the East Coast of New Zealand. The objective was to improve productivity and profitability on-farm through enhanced capability building and collaboration. Five group projects were evaluated. Critical success factors of learning groups were identified. Leadership, communication, organisation and commitment were required from project participants and facilitators. Collaborative and interactive processes built the knowledge and confidence of farm managers. Building trust was critical. Participation of mentor farmers reinforced learning in the group. Social network building was also important. We conclude that interactive group projects are a powerful way of building confidence of farm managers to communicate issues and make clearer, more strategically aligned decisions and actions. Collaborative farm initiatives foster ownership of issues, develop farmer support networks and ultimately the confidence to change. Keywords: experiential learning, farmer group, trust.

The results of a study investigating the response of farmers to adverse weather events are outlined. The aim was to identify adaptive management activities that would increase on-farm resilience. This project focused on beef/sheep farmers, dairy farmers and horticulturalists in Northland. Participants were pragmatic about adverse weather events, particularly storms. Local knowledge, previous experiences, information and networks helped build resilience. Participants highlighted a range of tactical decisions to address immediate damage from storms. However, strategic planning and adaption varied amongst farmers and orchardists as assessment of the cost-benefit of strategic actions differed. This information can be used to help farmers and organisations that assist with recovery assess and build resilience to adverse weather events. Keywords: Northland, dairy, beef/sheep, orchardist, resilience

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image sizeKeywords: agricultural scienceagricultural historybiological economiesknowledge productionrural geographysocial science methodologiestransdisciplinary researchtransformative research

In 2003, MAF declared a vegetation control zone in Hamilton to limit the potential spread of the Asian gypsy moth.The control zone restricted the movement of vegetation from inside the specified area.This study was designed to investigate the effectiveness of a vegetation control zone as a tool for biosecurity incursions.A preliminary round of interviews was conducted with members of gardening clubs to gather their views.Awareness of the zone and its boundaries was low.Only a few of the interviewees had read material on the vegetation control zone or had noticed road signs on the zone boundaries.With one exception, no members of the groups interviewed had changed their behaviour in response to the zone.It was concluded that understanding public engagement with biosecurity incursion response tools is critical to ensuring their effectiveness.The next stage of the project will explore people's engagement with biosecurity through more case studies.

Researchers in the AgResearch deer programme are using social research to understand the level of environmental awareness amongst farmers. Our aim in this research was to understand the issues surrounding waterway fencing amongst farmers in Otago and Southland. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected as part of this project. Our findings indicate that the level of environmental awareness amongst farmers was influenced by their specific farm context. Many farmers were defensive when explaining their reasons for or against waterway fencing. Those farmers who did fence off waterways did so for practical reasons. Many believed it was impossible to fence off their waterways. Our findings suggest that the imperatives for fencing have to be balanced with the practicalities. These practicalities tended to centre on the number of streams that would be required to be fenced and the nature of the stream. Many farmers believed they were doing the 'best they could' and therefore did not feel they needed to adopt new environmental practices. Keywords: environmental awareness, waterway fencing, deer farming

Problems in agriculture are increasingly recognised as complex, uncertain, operating at multiple levels (field to global value chains) and involve social, economic, institutional, and technological change. Combining these changes to address agricultural problems is a non‐linear process in which innovation emerges from distributed collaboration among heterogeneous actors interacting with and responding to continuously changing external environments. This has implications for how research organisations support innovation and navigate complexity to achieve impact. Few studies have systematically evaluated how research project actors coordinate capabilities across multiple levels from the individual to the network and adaptively respond to changes in the innovation system to successfully create impact. To address this gap, this paper presents an analytical framework based on the broader concept of innovation capacity. Innovation capacity is built through practices, routines or processes to mobilise, combine and create resources and capabilities to successfully innovate. Capabilities can be divided into: (a) innovation capabilities, which are the processes for exploring and exploiting opportunities to innovate, (b) adaptive capabilities, which are the development and adaptation of resources and capabilities toward the changing environment in which innovation is undertaken, and (c) absorptive capabilities, which are the processes for acquiring, assimilating and transforming external knowledge. These capabilities operate at and are linked across different levels in the innovation system to create innovation capacity at multiple levels in the agricultural innovation system. The analytical framework is applied to two innovation projects tackling agricultural problems of differing complexity; sustainable land management in New Zealand hill country and improving lamb survival on‐farms. Application of the framework highlights the importance of evaluating the interactions among project resources and capabilities at multiple levels to understand how these were successfully coordinated to create individual, organisational, project and network capacities to achieve impact.