Explore Official Dialogue Feedback

Risk Participants agreed that effectively identifying and proactively sharing risk burdens could improve partnerships and collaborations, further optimising the innovation process. Some key discussion outcomes included: • The process of innovation carries inherent risk-taking, as the process of discovery, validation and application of new solutions will not always result in the impactful changes envisioned and can have unintended system consequences. Reframing innovation as a process of iterative learning may encourage greater risk taking. However, there will always be a tension in research ... Read morefor development, which seeks to iteratively create sustained impact while often needing to address urgent issues. Despite being urged to ‘think big’, researchers seem to agree that starting small and enhancing solutions is progressive innovation that can eventually achieve the same large impacts but with lower risks. • Participants discussed that institutional arrangements that fund and support research can sometimes encourage projects that seem to over-promise and under-deliver, as the available resources are limited, and the true expectations of funders are not always communicated. This can lead to risk-aversion in public innovation processes, particularly when there are few resources available for long-term forward planning into future stages that is needed to create sustained value. o This raised reflections on the level of innovation common in public and private sectors, and whether there is sense in adopting private-sector risk levels and approaches. Even if there was value in this strategy, how could it be operationalised given that the drivers and motivations of each sector remain so different? However, if the difference in risk-appetite between public and private is not overcome, it will continue to be difficult to form robust partnerships between sectors, further stifling global innovation. • Participants identified that a major risk of research and innovation is that the validation and scaling stages will not be properly supported due to constraints such as funding or implementation difficulties in-country. These risks could be managed, but current funding processes don’t often encourage planning 5-10 years into the future. • Effective management of risk is a key part of successful partnerships, as multi-stakeholder relationships will almost certainly bring together different risk appetites and strategies. Participants discussed the benefits of bringing together partners with similar risk profiles yet acknowledged that this attitude would likely lead to lower overall risk-taking in innovation. • Ideas for funding were discussed and a staged approach was proposed whereby funding comes online at different stages of innovation, dependent on appropriate partners being engaged (somewhat like borrowing money to build a house in evolving stages). • A need was identified for partnership frameworks that help identify not just similar characteristics and goals on which many partnerships are based, but also assign value to the right combination of dissimilar or ‘competing’ interests that can more boldly drive transformation. • Research for development activities are planned to overcome known unknowns as they arise, drawing on previous knowledge and risk management plans to solve problems that are likely to come up. However, translating outputs to outcomes (and creating sustained impact) can be more challenging than anticipated because of numerous unforeseen difficulties (unknown unknowns) that arise. Managing risk means building resilience into the process of innovation itself. • The greatest risk-holder is often seen to be the funding agency, which can make funder-fundee relationships transactional. Participants agreed that a true partnership is one in which power, and therefore risk, are truly shared. Boundary organisations and brokers must advocate for changed governance structures to change the nature of risk-management in innovation processes Read less

Inclusivity Participants agreed that inclusivity must drive each stage of innovation, from problem definition to scaling for impact. Key reflections about inclusivity included: • It is crucial to consciously consider inclusivity during problem-definition stages of innovation, as this allows us to define a common problem in terms that are accessible and relevant to the greatest number of people. Participants noted importance of gender-inclusivity in agricultural innovation, as women are more likely to undertake agricultural activities without access to information, technology, or markets that... Read more would create better outcomes (in empowered decision-making, production, and livelihoods). • Participants agreed that successful scaling of food systems solutions relies on community understanding and uptake, which in turn necessitates inclusive practices, at least within that community. A point was raised that during the scaling stage of innovation, principles of inclusivity can be overlooked; this is sometimes justified by the fact that earlier stages of innovation were inclusive, but participants agreed that there must be attentiveness to inclusivity when scaling ideas/technology into new contexts. • Questions were raised about the relationship between inclusivity and accessibility. Does one necessarily guarantee the other, or are they unfortunately conflated in matters of innovation and development programs? • Participants agreed that including voices and considerations of marginalised groups, including women, youth and persons with disabilities, remains of utmost important in research for development activities. • Partnerships are key to sharing information effectively, which can in turn improve inclusivity in innovation. In situations where technologies have already been developed, communicating about the contexts in which these technologies have been successful (e.g. which stakeholders were instrumental to applying it successfully, what institutional capacities are required) can help ensure all relevant stakeholders are involved when scaling the technology into new contexts. • Inclusivity necessitates systems-thinking and goes beyond collecting stakeholder’s views to consider the nexus between social, environmental and economic issues. • Informal partnerships are often as important as formal partnerships, and inclusivity should recognise the value of social capital and networks in supporting action towards shared goals. • Inclusivity on a large scale will likely accompanied by conflict, as various groups will likely disagree on certain issues. Participants discussed that lessons from work on including specific marginalised groups (like women or youth) in deliberation processes could be harnessed to create guidelines for generalised inclusion processes. o In this way, inclusivity or lack there-of carries some element of risk. Conflict around appropriate levels of inclusion is likely to arise, particularly as existing solutions or technologies are scaled into new contexts. Explicit addressing of these issues in multi-stakeholder partnerships could provide greater structure to principles of inclusivity and therefore alleviate risk associated with scaling innovation. o Systems at different spatial scales will likely require a focus on different actors. As an example, at a farm-scale level, farmers and private industry might be prioritised in developing farm-level solutions that maximise smallholder returns, but when considering innovation at the catchment-level, regional or national authorities, water-user associations and other large institutions may set different priorities which may be less inclusive of smallholder participation. What is the responsibility of partnerships across every system-level to include actors from different scales? o There was some agreement that scaling innovation at the expense of inclusivity could be one step forward, but two steps backwards in achieving the SDGs and reducing global poverty in a sustainable way. Read less

This section reports in greater detail the discussion participants had around the five foundational elements of partnership that were deemed important to successfully scaling innovation. As participants were split into smaller discussion groups, the commentary on each of the discussion topics has come from a relatively small number of participants. Each group shared key takeaways back with the plenary and there was great enthusiasm to delve more deeply into each of these topics. Systems-thinking Participants agreed that systems-thinking is needed to optimise food systems innovation. Key reflec... Read moretions about what systems-thinking entails included: • People are a dynamic, integral part of the food ‘system’. Systems-thinking is different to systems analysis or big-data approaches. While considering environmental and technical elements of a systems is important, a people-centred approach to research and innovation is key if systems-thinking is truly to be operationalised. This means that community engagement must be at the heart of food systems change. One participant noted that change arises from working within a system, by stimulating different parts of a system that naturally interact rather than by forcibly changing any particular part of that system. o This raised a further point that building capabilities and capacity should be part of all innovation, in order to create self-sustaining value. Reserving resources to record, review and reflect on previous successes will allow for greater development impacts. • Reframing the start and end points of innovation may be helpful in stimulating systems-thinking. Systems-thinking supports an iterative process for developing solutions as there can be many strands of ideas and testing at once. o Considering value propositions from the perspective of numerous potential end-users or adopters could help anticipate co-benefits and prioritise research streams. • Systems-thinking requires both specialists and connectors, with each player recognising their own place in this ‘system’ of innovation. The role of enablers or knowledge brokers is key in creating partnership structures that define what each actor contributes at each stage of innovation. • Because of the complexity of systems, they can often be defined as narrowly or broadly as convenient to each party. For successful partnership, assumptions about systems pathways must be clarified and communicated so that all relevant actors, value-chains, etc. are identified, and constraints are agreed upon. This ties to the foundations of defining impact and inclusivity at various scales. • While systems-thinking should in theory enable multi-stakeholder, cross-disciplinary partnerships, it can actually be the difficulties of partnering that inhibit successful systems-thinking. Participants discussed many of the challenges associated with operationalising systems thinking in innovation: o Competition for resources often results in narrowly-focused solutions because funding arrangements seldom prioritise systems-thinking over timeliness, cost-effectiveness, etc. In order to demonstrate fast, scalable impact in the competition for resourcing, solutions are often pared back in complexity. o Institutionalised funding structures may prevent systems-thinking. Agriculture historically has not often been prioritised in allocations of funding (domestic or development aid), especially in comparison to sectors such as education, health, and trade. How might the traditional ‘zero-sum game’ be reframed so that partners across sectors see value in collaboration (e.g. 1+1=3 mindset)? • Systems exist on a number of spatial scales that require different types of actors to be considered or prioritised throughout the innovation process. • Practical approaches for encouraging systems-thinking in multi-stakeholder partnerships through the innovation process could include: o Resourcing fore-sighting and reflection activities to build a library of good examples accompanied by contextual information Formalising mechanisms for integrating various scales of systems and enabling multi-scalar connections Read less

This report seeks to summarise views and perspectives of Dialogue participants and does not represent the views of the Australian Government. The main findings that emerged from this Dialogue: 1) In order to successfully scale game-changing innovations and propositions that can transform food systems, we will need robust partnerships that bring together different skill sets and capabilities, as identified through the case studies shared as examples. 2) Participants agreed that there are at least five foundational elements of successful partnership, though this is certainly not an exhaustive li... Read morest. Participants agreed that to work successfully to scale innovation, partnerships need to reflect on and implement these foundations: a. Systems thinking: integrating systems-thinking into the innovation process opens up partnerships to include more varied and dynamic members than might otherwise be involved. b. Inclusivity: promoting inclusivity creates an explicit focus on bringing together diverse viewpoints that might not organically emerge from all partnerships. c. Capability: partnerships can create a successful platform for sharing knowledge and strengthening capabilities, particularly if these activities are actively prioritised. d. Risk: effective risk management is integral to successful partnership, and means that risk is adequately identified, acknowledged, and appropriately shared by all partners. e. Impact: defining impact is key to long-term change. When partners can work towards clearly defined goals, collective efforts are much more likely to create ‘game-changing’ impact. 3) While many existing partnerships already informally practice the above foundations that contribute to collaborative and productive work, participants agreed that formal practices that institutionalise these foundations of partnerships would improve partnership arrangements and lead to enhanced, wider and enduring impacts. 4) There is recognition that scalable solutions do not emerge from a linear innovation process. Rather, innovation takes place in a number of stages that can meander back and forth between problem definition, options analysis, validation and testing, and scaling. 5) The type and value of partnership across each of these stages may vary, and it is not always the same partnerships that are needed when scaling an innovation as were integral to the options analysis and testing of that same solution. A key question remains: how to maintain strong, purposeful partnerships that are responsive to the challenges of supporting locally-relevant, globally-impactful solutions. Introductory keynote presentations shared learnings from diverse case studies of innovative practices that could be taken to scale to transform food systems. These examples were shared to prime the participants to think about partnership in action across a number of disciplines and at different stages of the innovation process. Brief notes are below. SOLAW-LIVE: The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) State of Land and Water (SOLAW) report that is published every 10 years provides a wealth of information that can be used to improve relevant decision-making. A pilot project in the Philippines – supported by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Griffith University, and the Philippines Government (through Philippine Council for Agriculture, Aquatic and Natural Resources Research and Development (DOST-PCAARRD) and the Bureau of Soils and Waste Management) – is testing a ‘living assessment framework’ that could shift the decadal report into a tool that collects and shares environmental information more quickly and nimbly. Creating an interactive tool and supportive system for gathering, applying, and sharing land and water data could transform decision-making at every level, with greater ability to examine existing practices and identify co-benefits of other responses. At the validation and testing stage, this ‘SOLAW-LIVE’ tool has enormous potential impact if scaled successfully through supportive partnerships. Community-based fisheries management: ACIAR has been supporting research relevant to community-based fisheries management (CBFM) for over a decade. Current research efforts draw on the skills and contributions of several partners, including the Australian government and researchers, the New Zealand government, and numerous organisations within the Pacific region, including government, academia and civil society. CBFM is based on collective knowledge and action that draws on systems-thinking to sustainably manage fisheries in a way that also respects local communities. Notably, CBFM requires different types of partnership at different scales to best share and spread this very successful practice. Island-level scaling from a community requires formal and informal networks, while international forums have helped to share and shape transferable lessons for other islands. Smallholder irrigation: In an Australian–African collaboration, ACIAR funding contributed to the development of the Virtual Irrigation Academy, which brings together new irrigation monitoring tools with an online communication and learning system. This project is already creating global impact, with the Chameleon Soil Water Sensor tool from the project now semi-commercialised, available and in-use across Africa and Australia. Expanding the partnership and sharing risks (and benefits) among other public and private actors could encourage further scaling of this transformative innovation Read less

This Dialogue, convened by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) and the Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), focused on the role of partnerships in successful agricultural innovation. This theme of partnership was explored through five suggested foundations of partnership, which are integral to ensuring success at each stage of innovation and scaling out solutions for maximum impact. As Australia’s principal agricultural research for development ACIAR has a long history of building lasting, effective partnerships, which allow ... Read morefor Australia to support collaborative research in local contexts and deliver benefits domestically and abroad. Building on this strong foundation the Dialogue brought together research and development stakeholders from around the world to reflect on the elements of partnership that have allowed Australia to support science and innovation in low and lower-middle-income partner countries. The key learning from the Dialogue was the five foundations that should be considered in building partnerships as we scale food systems solutions: - Effectively managing risk - Promoting inclusivity - Integrating systems thinking - Defining impact - Strengthening capabilities Through the Dialogue it was demonstrated that strong partnerships require that each of these elements is considered at each stage of innovation. Innovation is a process of creating value by applying knowledge or technology to a complex challenge in a novel way. This process is not linear, but often moves through four general stages of problem definition, options analysis, testing and validation, and scaling. Different stages of innovation require different forms of collaboration, and the scaling stage in particular relies on effective partnerships that help translate and apply innovative solutions to new contexts. With a focus on scaling solutions globally, the UN Food Systems Summit provides an opportunity to codify foundational elements of partnership that will support and govern innovation efforts. Since the convening of this Dialogue, the UN Food Systems Summit has notably expanded the Action Tracks to include the cross-cutting area of (6) Governance and Planning. Australia supports and funds agricultural research for development with a strong focus on capacity building and collaboration. ACIAR is celebrating a 40-year history of long-term partnerships and collaborative research planning that has laid the groundwork for ongoing research to be taken forward by partner countries and organisations. By supporting governance structures for international research organisations such as the CGIAR, Australia has also contributed to the global pool of knowledge and resources for planning the future of sustainable food systems. While the theme of this Dialogue was particularly relevant to the Innovation lever of change, partnership is also key to unlocking the other change-levers including gender, human rights and finance. Partnership is the mechanism through which all of these levers will be operationalised in order to create tangible change in the world’s food systems. This Dialogue brought together Australian and international stakeholders to discuss how partnerships are instrumental in scaling solutions across all of the UN FSS Action Tracks. Participants were able to discuss tangible elements and application of partnership through their own examples of innovation, and share best-practices with one another. These learnings will continue to inform progress towards the SDGs through collaborative scaling of game-changing innovations through the next decade. Read less