Agricultural Innovation System In Australia

The aim of this paper is to document agricultural innovation systems (AIS) in Australia. We identified eleven broad categories (actors) in terms of their activities, namely: policy, education, finance and credit, marketing, input supply, research, extension and information, logistics, processing and storage, farmers and farm organisations and consumers. Survey results reveal that 11 kinds of innovation-related activities of research and education organisations with corresponding percentage weight are directly involved in innovation diffusion. Twelve pre-identified goals of innovation related activities of the above organisations surveyed with their corresponding percentage weight have also been revealed. The study reveals that the majority of funding (more than 80%) for innovation activities comes from the Federal Government and funding bodies. Finally survey results indicate that the main constrains/incentives are other issues such as funding, lack of qualified staff, equipment, environmental and Government policy issues etc.


Introduction
Agriculture can be defined as the science and practice of cultivating the soil and rearing farm animals (Moore, 2002). Innovation is crucial to the development of agricultural production in order to stay competitive in world markets and to meet from the challenge of globalisation. Many innovations have come about by sharing knowledge, information and resources among stakeholders, with agriculture unusual in the extent of its traditional dependence upon public research. and extension/information. It will also be localised and conditional.
 Event responsesthere may be a third area of innovation relating to responses to occasional unusual events, so there is less knowledge about what to do from experience at the farm level. Examples might be plagues (mice, locusts etc.), diseases (avian flu, foot and mouth etc.), fire, flood etc. Again the links between research and farming practices in these processes are likely to be more direct. However, they are also diffuse and involve family and community, though possibly with more reliance on extension/information (i.e. drawing on wider experience). The existence of some mandatory regulatory actions that might by themselves bring about innovation, for example in a situation where a new animal husbandry regime is to be followed in response/prevention to a disease to threat of disease. In itself this may force "innovation".
All play a part in the ongoing development of agricultural production.

The Innovation Systems Approach
The innovation systems approach is a holistic approach that has emerged during the past decade and has become well established. It is widely used in the academic context and as a conceptual framework for innovation studies. It is also a useful tool to study industrial and agricultural innovations in the economy. In fact, the systems approach is crucial in identifying economic, social, political, organisational, institutional activities and functions of the innovation system. These activities are conducted by sets of agents that interact to achieve a common goal through exchange of information and by learning from each other.
The reality of agricultural innovation is that it involves a more diverse set of agents than is conventionally acknowledged by the linear approach. As a result, innovation requires different sets of functions, the most important ones being technological invention, communication and the adaptation of new ideas for current practice. Every function is equally important, and actors or stakeholders need to collaborate in order to achieve innovation. Termel et al (2001) define the agricultural innovation system (AIS) as a: set of agents that jointly and/or individually contribute to the development, diffusion, and use of agriculture-related new technologies, and that directly and/or indirectly influence the process of technological change in agriculture (p. 6) The innovation system approach also provides a useful framework to explore the linkages between stakeholders in agricultural innovation diffusion. Those actors belong to various companies, organisations, institutes, corporations, universities or research centres. They can be classified as private, public and NGO/semi-public depending on size, nature of funding sources and whether they operate as a service or profit-oriented enterprise. These actors can be local, regional, national or international in their scope.

Methodology and Data Sources
To document the innovation system in agriculture in Australia the following data collection tools were used: 1. Desk-based research identified the stakeholders who play a role in the agricultural innovation system in Australia.

2.
A structured survey questionnaire was sent to a sample of stakeholders (identified by step number 1) by mail to gather information regarding the role of stakeholders in agricultural innovation activities and to analyse stakeholders' interaction in the innovation process (N=50). The questionnaire was similar in format to Temels' (2001) questionnaire for an agricultural innovation study in Azerbaijan.
In order to develop a picture of the agricultural sector, data were sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and Australian Food Statistics (AFS).

Australian Agriculture
Australia has advanced in 200 years from a land largely without widespread, systematic agriculture to one of the world's leading producers and exporters of food, livestock and natural fibres (Reid, 1990). This achievement has taken place in the face of harsh climatic and environmental conditions, which necessitated the development of highly specialised agricultural systems, skills and technology.
The gross value of Australia's farm production in 2004 is $25 billion (4-6 per cent of GDP) with an export value of $29.5 billion. Around 375,000 ( Australian agriculture has undergone much change over the last few decades. Key drivers have been shifts in consumer demand, changes in government policies, technological advances and innovation, emerging environmental concerns and an unrelenting decline in the sector's terms of trade. Australian agriculture has become increasingly export oriented over the last two decades, with around two-thirds of production now exported. Exports have also become more diverse, with less reliance on traditional commodities such as wool and more on processed products such as wine, cheese and seafood (Trends in Australian Agriculture, 2005).
The agricultural workforce has a number of distinctive features, including: a high proportion of selfemployed, family and casual workers; long job tenure; and a relatively old workforce with relatively low education levels and employee wages. Performance within the sector has been mixed. Over the last three decades the cropping industry recorded the highest productivity gains, and the sheep and sheep-beef industries recorded the lowest (Trends in Australian Agriculture, 2005).   (2005)) The agricultural sector contributed only 3.6 per cent of GDP in Australia in 2005. This is quite small compared to other sectors, such as manufacturing and services. However it contributes a diverse set of food production activities ranging from grape-growing to cotton-farming.   (2005)) Jayasuriya (2003) identified and categorized 13 major farming systems in Australia (Table 3). Those farming systems consist not only of crop farming but also of animal husbandry and forestry. Jayasuriya (2003) also explored major farming systems in Australia in order to quantify the percentage of each farming system, the number of farm families employed and what they grow.  The supply network Australian agricultural producers consumed $8.9 billion in inputs during 1998-9, of which $8.1 billion were supplied domestically and $778 million were imported. Table 4 provides the overview of who are the main suppliers and who are the main customers of agricultural industry in Australia. Services to agriculture were largest individual category of domestically produced input supplies, costing 1,226million in 1998-9.

SECTOR GDP %
Other significant inputs to agricultural producers included medicinal and pharmaceutical products (1.3 billion), Road and rail transport (835 million) and basic chemicals (800 million

The Agricultural Innovation System (AIS) in Australia
The Agricultural Innovation System involves the collaboration of various actors who perform specific roles in the innovation-dissemination process. They can be categorised depending on the role they perform in the innovation system as policy makers, education providers, finance/credit providers, research organisations, input suppliers, extension and information providers, farmers and farm organizations, logistics providers, processing companies, storage facilities providers, marketing  Figure 2 (below) depicts the systematic nature of major players in AIS in Australia. It also helps to identify major contributors of the each broad category. Left-Right arrow indicated that both way of information and resources flows, also described as inflows and feedback loops.

The Empirical Results
This study has undertaken an empirical investigation into identified research organisations/institutes and University research centres in Australia. A survey of 50 research organisations/centres, including a number of universities, was conducted during 2005 to determine the: (a) type of innovation related activities of the organisation; (b) goals of innovation related activities of the organisation; (c) how the behaviour of an organisation is shaped by organisational/institutional constrains and/or incentives for innovation; and (d) funding sources for their innovation activities.  Table 5 indicates responses regarding types of innovation-related activities. Respondents could select more than one option. Most organisations conducted more than one innovation-related activity. As a result responses do not add to 100 per cent. Organisations that participated in the survey have conducted all (11) types of innovation-related activities in Australia in varying degrees. Table 5 indicates those activities in chronological order. Almost all organisations surveyed were involved in technology development (93%). And more than 50 per cent of organisations involved technology diffusion (67 per cent), training (60 per cent) and demonstration (53 per cent) respectively. Further, survey revelled that technology evaluation, integration, use, policy, introduction/selling, acquisition and financing represented less than 50% of innovation-related activities of the organisations. This shows that these activities are conducted by other organisations such as state government and private companies.

No Kind of Innovation Number
Percentage (%)  1  Technology development  14  93  2  Technology dissemination  10  67  3  Technology training  9  60  4  Technology demonstration  8  53  5  Technology evaluation  7  47  6  Technology integration  5  33  7  Technology use  4  27  8 Technology policy 4 27 9 Technology introduction/selling 3 20 10 Technology acquisition (local/international) 3 20 11 Technology financing 2 13  Table 6 reveals the responses relating to the goals of innovation related activities. Most organisations conducted more than one innovation-related activity. As a result responses do not add to 100 per cent.

Goals of innovation related activities
More than 50 per cent of organisations indicated that their goals for innovation-related activities were to provide knowledge and information (87 per cent), introduce new products and services (80 per cent), increase commodity quality (80 per cent) and production (73 per cent), reduce environmental damage (67 per cent) and increase market opportunities (60 per cent). Table 6 presents the detail.

Constraints and incentives for innovation
Finally, table 8 indicates responses relating to how behaviours are shaped by organisational /institutional constraints and/or incentives for innovation. Most organisations conducted more than one innovation-related activity. As a result responses do not add to 100 per cent.
The majority of respondents (53 per cent) indicated that other issues, such as funding, staff, equipment, environment and government policy, affected innovation in their organisations more than kind of behaviour listed. The most commonly cited constraints (53 per cent) on innovation were the finding was difficult to obtain funding followed by a deficiency of skilled staff and equipment.

Summary and Conclusions
In this paper we identified 11 actors in terms of their function within the Australian Agricultural Innovation System. They are policy makers, education providers, finance/credit providers, research organisations, input suppliers, extension and information providers, farmers and farm organizations, logistics providers, processing companies, storage facilities providers, marketing companies and consumers. These actors are inter-linked with each other in order to share knowledge, information and resources to meet requirements to innovate. A systems approach was utilised to identify the systematic nature of the collaborative links of the above actors.
The study concludes that actors in the AIS in Australia are linked to each other in sharing knowledge, information and resources. Some organisations perform more than one role in the AIS in Australia, such as State Governments and universities.
Even though the Australian agricultural sector contributes a relatively small percentage (3.6 per cent in 2005) to its total economy, the AIS in Australia involves a significant portion of the manufacturing and services sectors. Analysing Australian agricultural producer's supply chain in 1998-9, it is possible to conclude that one-third of agricultural production was exported. On the supply side, most inputs were