Our Approach

Our agri-food systems deliver significant economic value and ensure food security for many, while supporting natural capitals and biodiversity on farms. Yet, there is an urgent national imperative for these systems to address pressing emerging challenges, such as health risks, climate change, food insecurity and natural capital loss, while also harnessing new opportunities for a more sustainable and resilient future.

These include contributing to net-zero goals through low-carbon energy solutions (e.g., sustainable liquid fuels), supporting economic renewal through local food economies and agritourism, and advancing equity by aligning agri-food systems with the aspirations of Indigenous and local communities.

Australia’s Roadmap to Reshape Food Systems, the State of Food System Report of Australia, Food System Horizons, the EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy, and the UN Food Systems Summit Report are only few examples of attempts to guide such changes in our agri-food systems. As a result, terms like ‘transition’ have become increasingly prominent in both political and scientific discourse.

The message across these efforts is clear:

“Complex challenges and opportunities in agri-food systems do not have pre-specified engineered pathways to the future and cannot be solely addressed through linear, siloed, or predictive methods. They increasingly need complexity-aware approaches that can work across the supply chains and at the system-level to recognise and address the interconnectedness, multi-stakeholder, and deep uncertainties that shape our agri-food systems.”

We propose a systems learning approach to respond to and adapt uncertainties in agri-food system transitions through the translation and aggregation of learnings from local experimentation and place-based case studies across sectors and locations.

Our systems learning approach can help:

Leapfrog the steep learning curve of change in agri-food systems by drawing from lessons in achieving transformative change in different contexts with empirical evidence and practical guidance. This helps researchers and practitioners fill in the gaps in a space between understanding what needs to change and knowing how to make it happen through locally relevant change processes.

Adapt to uncertainties through incremental learning from real-world cases, understanding the challenges they faced and how they adjusted course to stay effective. As local conditions and knowledge evolve, this can help actors anticipate change and adjust transitions through reflection on how change has been governed and supported elsewhere to stay on track toward long-term sustainability.

Connect a wide range of case studies and local experiments to national and international food system agendas. This might help scale, in a context-relevant way, valuable place-based learning to drive broader systemic change. Without proposing “one-size-fit-all” approaches, the place-based evidence could also support national and international mechanisms to coordinate and accelerate systemic change in ways that are grounded and action-oriented.

We have developed a series of thought pieces, practical frameworks, and empirical databases that reflect and support our systems learning approach to agri-food transitions.

Foundational concepts behind systems learning. The concepts and theories behind our approach are summarised in short commentaries and perspective pieces.

Our frameworks and processes to implement systems learning. Frameworks and processes for how stakeholders from government agencies to grassroots community organisations can engage more effectively with learning-based approach to drive transformation.

Our database of transition case studies and empirical evidence for learning. Empirical evidence and comparative case studies (curated collection of inspiring, practical examples, tagged and searchable) to illustrate the feasibility and effectiveness of transition practices.

Why do we need a different approach?

Navigating large-scale systemic change is complex and challenging. Despite over three decades of research on transitions and transformations, three critical gaps persist:

First, there is a gap between visions, as well as between visions and action.

What transitions entail in different geographies and different scales remains contentious. Different stakeholders might have very different visions and interests in terms of what agri-food system transitions will entail, and the process will inevitably benefit or impact people differently depending on these different visions.

While a growing number of theories and modelling frameworks offer visions and scenarios insights, they are largely limited by sufficient empirical grounding and practical guidance, offering little guidance on how to navigate potentially different visions and set clear directions or processes for action.

Second, the pathways to transition are dynamic and uncertain.

The drivers of change, actors involved, and conditions for success of such far-reaching change are not only underexplored but also continuously evolving. In food, energy, and climate systems alike, this makes it difficult to rely on linear, pre-defined actions, requiring more adaptive, learning-oriented and complexity-responsive approaches. Furthermore, contestation arising from anticipated consequences requires careful negotiation if pathways are to be tenable.

Third, a major challenge also lies in the disconnect between top-down strategies and bottom-up initiatives.

Current transition efforts are often either in form of narrow case-specific studies disconnected from broader national and global agendas OR national and global assessments that are disconnected from the realities on the ground. How top-down and bottom-up visions, preferences, actions, and policies can be harmonised remains unclear.

These challenges need approaches that bridge the gap between knowledge and practice, connect actions on the ground with broader systemic ambition, and embrace uncertainty through reflexive learning and adaptability.