Building on strengths: the future of agricultural innovation policy in Australia

A new CSIRO paper explores ways to design agricultural innovation policy for complex national challenges. 

Australia’s Rural Research and Development Corporations (RDCs) have long been recognised as a world-leading model for industry-led agricultural innovation. Since their establishment in 1989, they have successfully driven the development of new technologies and practices to help Australian producers remain competitive in global markets.  

Yet, as the policy landscape evolves to include broader societal challenges like climate change, environmental sustainability, health outcomes and social inclusion, questions have emerged about whether the current innovation system is fully equipped to meet these expanded goals. 

A new paper from CSIRO responds to this challenge, presenting a constructive and forward-looking narrative for agricultural innovation policy. It aims to build on the strengths of the RDC model by identifying complementary capabilities that could enhance the system’s responsiveness to emerging national priorities. 

“The RDCs are a fabulous feature of our system, and many countries look at them with envy,” says Dr Rohan Nelson, Director of CSIRO’s Food System Horizons and lead author of the report. “But we’ve found ourselves in a situation where we can’t celebrate what we have because we’re also demanding more from them than they were designed to deliver.”  

Dr Nelson points out that the RDC model was originally created to address a very different set of challenges – namely, the fragmentation of agricultural R&D across states and sectors. “It was about solving the inefficiencies of the Federation-era research landscape and enabling government and industry co-investment in strategic R&D. But now, we need the system to deliver on emissions reduction, dietary health, and social inclusion goals as well. That’s not a failure of the RDCs – it’s just that the rules of the game have changed.” 

Recognising that repeated inquiries into the system have often been inconclusive or overly negative, the project sought to shift the conversation. Rather than focusing on institutional structures or casting blame, the team used a different lens: innovation system ‘functions’. This framing provides a way to think about what the system needs to do, rather than who needs to change. 

“We wanted to move beyond the usual critique of who’s in and who’s out,” says Dr Andy Hall, a science and technology policy analyst with the Navigating Transitions and Sustainability Science Scaffolding project team, and co-author of the paper. “Instead, we asked: what are the functions the system needs to perform to meet today’s challenges? That shift allows for a more inclusive and constructive conversation.” 

Functions, in this context, refer to the key actions and processes that allow an innovation system to operate effectively and adapt to change. Dr Hall stresses that functions differ from structures: “Structures describe the different parts of an innovation system – actors, networks, institutions. Functions describe what the system needs to be able to do.” 

The paper outlines core innovation functions such as knowledge creation, dissemination and use, priority setting, and organisational agility. It also highlights newer functions that are increasingly important in addressing multi-sector challenges. These include setting system-wide directions, coordinating new capabilities, monitoring progress towards evolving goals, and transferring learning across contexts. 

“We’re certainly not saying this is a definitive list of functions in Australia’s agricultural innovation system,” Dr Hall explains. “But it’s a starting point – a concept that can be used both analytically and as a boundary object to enable people with different interests to have a structured conversation about system design.” 

To test and refine this conceptual framework, and to build a more positive and forward looking narrative around agricultural innovation, the team convened a community of more than 65 innovation experts across Australia, New Zealand, and beyond. Through 18 months of dialogue, they explored how different countries have approached similar challenges, and what lessons might be relevant for Australia. 

“There’s actually a lot of agreement on the concepts,” says Nelson. “The hard part is putting them into practice. How do you enable practical people to join this fairly conceptual conversation? That’s what we set out to do – not to present a perfect solution, but to experiment with ways of getting there.” 

One of the clearest insights from an international scan was that innovation systems must be context-specific and continually evolving. What works in one country may not translate directly to another, but the underlying principle of regularly revisiting and adapting the system remains consistent. 

“It’s not about one grand design,” Hall says. “It’s about home-growing a system that suits our needs, and building in mechanisms for continuous learning. That’s why we’re recommending routine reporting on the health of the innovation system – to keep track of what’s working and where new functions might be needed.” 

The paper outlines several practical policy options to support this more dynamic, integrated approach: 

• Keep policy connected with experts: Maintain networks of innovation policy experts to test and refine ideas in real time. 

• Cross-portfolio dialogue: Encourage ongoing engagement between agriculture and other sectors to reflect the cross-cutting nature of today’s innovation challenges. 

• Routine system reporting: Establish regular reporting mechanisms to monitor system health and its alignment with national priorities. 

• Design for function, not form: Focus on the roles the system needs to perform, rather than who should perform them. 

• Widen participation: Enrol a broader range of voices to co-create a shared vision for innovation. 

• Demonstrate leadership: Support public sector leadership that is proactive and experimental in pursuit of public-good outcomes. 

Importantly, the authors stress that this work is only the beginning. A companion paper explores specific frameworks and diagrams developed during the project to support structured dialogue and co-design. 

“Probably the best way to describe this work is pioneering, but humble,” says Dr Nelson. “Nobody’s cracked this yet. But we’ve made a good start. We’ve developed some tools that help people think about the system differently, and we’ve laid the foundation for a broader conversation.” 

That broader conversation will be essential as Australia considers how best to align its agricultural innovation system with national aspirations – not by dismantling what exists, but by imagining what more it could become.