Farmers' perception of efficacy of antimicrobials, based on clinical outcomes, is an important determinant of their preferred choice of product. Hence, where changes in on-farm use patterns are required, clear communication by veterinarians about prudent antimicrobial choice and usage will require initial education around classes of antimicrobials and risk of resistance, as well as information around assessing efficacy of antimicrobial usage. Many veterinarians are in businesses that do not have practice prescribing policies. Such policies would likely lead to more consistent and judicious use of antimicrobials.

A recently implemented research and development (R&D) programme in New Zealand is attempting to implement co-innovation principles throughout the country's agricultural sector. It is based on an agricultural innovation systems (AIS) approach, using five innovation platforms (IPs) based in the leading industries, plus a national-level IP. This paper presents and analyses the emerging challenges of operationalizing transdisciplinary research connected to co-innovation in the context of the programme. The main challenges relate to managing the complexity of a multi-stakeholder network, aligning the formal procedures for research funding and IPs with a co-innovation approach that requires flexibility, and changing participants' framing of innovation from linear to interactive models. Our conclusion is that 'learning by doing' is essential in operationalizing coinnovation. Its practical implications still need to be translated into institutional changes in the national R&D structures so that policies, instruments and incentives enable co-innovation. It is envisaged that the higher-level innovation platform will drive these changes.

No abstract

Co-innovation can be effective for complex challenges-involving interactions amongst multiple stakeholders, viewpoints, perceptions, practices and interests across programmes, sectors and national systems. Approaches to challenges in the primary sector have tended to be linear, where tools and outputs are developed by a few, mostly scientists/researchers, and then extended to stakeholders. A co-innovation approach first deciphers and delineates the biophysical, societal, regulatory, policy, economic and environmental drivers, constraints and controls influencing these challenges at multiple levels. Second, stakeholder interactions and perspectives can inform and change the focus as well as help in co-developing solutions to deliver agreed outcomes. However, there is limited systematic and comparative research on how coinnovation works out in different projects. Here we analyse the results of applying a co-innovation approach to five research projects in the New Zealand primary sector. The projects varied in depth and breadth of stakeholder engagement, availability of ready-made solutions and prevalence of interests and conflicts. The projects show how and why co-innovation approaches in some cases contributed to a shared understanding of complex problems. Our results confirm the context specificity of co-innovation practices.

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.

The aim of this study was to understand the role that agricultural consultants in New Zealand were undertaking in the Research, Development and Extension (RD&E) system* and in particular in relation to environmental extension. New Zealand does not have a public extension service and hence there is a strong reliance on consultants and regional councils for environmental management information and advice. As they are independent of the formal RD&E system there is no guarantee that RD&E outcomes are reaching farmers, nor that effective environmental extension is occurring. The study used a combination of case studies, phone interviews with informed persons and a national web survey to explore the role of the consultant. The study found that agricultural consultants are playing an important role in working with farmers to improve agricultural production. There are, however, indications that gaps have developed over time between agricultural consultants and the agricultural research sector which limit the effectiveness of the RD&E system. Agricultural consultants are playing a minimal role in proactive environmental extension because insufficient market forces are driving this role. The paper suggests that a national database of agricultural consultants could improve the flow of tailored information between research and agricultural consultants and also suggests mechanisms where consultants could be better integrated into the RD&E system and provide feedback to research programs. Market failure in the area of environmental extension could be addressed by publicly funded incentive programs.

No abstract

Co-innovation has gained interest in recent years as an approach to tackle issues in agriculture and natural resource management. Co-innovation requires new roles for researchers supporting these processes and enabling settings in the programs they work in and the organizations they pertain to. The contributions to this special issue explore experiences with co-innovation in different settings from different angles. The special issue presents several studies on co-innovation in a large program in New Zealand, a study based on an EU Horizon 2020 project in the Czech Republic, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom as well as co-innovation experiences from Uruguay and Tanzania. Cross-cutting findings and emergent issues include (i) the need to consider the issue of simultaneously scaling both co-innovation project results and the co-innovation practice, (ii) the issue of flexibility in pace of co-innovation to allow different participants to converge and the flexibility in learning space needed to enable reflection, (iii) the issue of changing the dominant logics of the innovation systems in which co-innovation is embedded and (iv) the need for reflexive monitoring to support processes of co-innovation and their institutional embedding.