Abstract: Research in sustainable agricultural management requires appropriate participatory processes and tools enabling efficient dialogue and cooperation to allow researchers and stakeholders to co-produce knowledge. Research approaches that encourage stakeholder participation are in high demand because they allow a better understanding of human-nature interactions and interdependencies between actors. Participatory approaches also support multiple goals of agricultural management: improved productivity, food security, climate change adaptation, environmental conservation, rural development and policy decision making. Approaches to stakeholder engagement in the field of agricultural management research are manifold. Therefore, selecting the “right” approach depends on the specific purpose and contextualized issues at stake. We analyzed ten stakeholder approaches and propose a new framework with which to identify and select appropriate approaches for stakeholder engagement. The framework consists of three components: whom to engage (i.e., stakeholder type and mandate), why to engage (i.e., research purpose: consult, inform, collaborate), and how to engage (i.e., different methodological approaches). We identified different stakeholder groups (who?): farmers, agricultural actors, land users, and policymakers; different purposes (why?): facilitate engagement process, inform stakeholders, and obtain stakeholder perceptions; and different types of engagement methods (how?): participatory field experiments, desk simulations, interviews, panel discussions and different types of workshops. The framework was applied to arrange these approaches, organize them to improve understanding of their main strengths, weaknesses and supports for identifying and selecting an appropriate approach. We conclude that understanding the different facets of available approaches is crucial for selecting an appropriate stakeholder engagement approach. ;

Abstract: The case study area (54,000 ha) is located at Oristano, Italy. The main cropping systems are based on forages (silage maize, Italian ryegrass and alfalfa under irrigation, winter cereals and grasslands under rainfed conditions), rainfed cereals (durum wheat, barley), vegetables (e.g. artichokes), rice, citrus, olives and vineyards. Some 36,000 ha are served by irrigation. The area includes the dairy cows cooperative system of Arborea (30,000 cows, 5500 ha, nitrate vulnerable zone). The rainfed dairy sheep includes 372,000 sheep and a number of small milk processing plants. The research aims to support adaptive responses to climate change through the combination of modeling approaches and stakeholder engagement. Present (2000-2010) and future (2020-2030) climatic scenarios were developed by combining global climate models with Regional Atmospheric Modelling Systems to produce calibrated time series of daily temperature and precipitation for the case study. The EPIC model was calibrated to simulate the impact of climate scenarios on the main cropping systems. The impact of THIndex on milk yield, milk quality and mortality was also simulated for dairy cows. A territorial farm-type Discrete Stochastic Programming model was implemented to simulate choices for thirteen farming typologies as influenced by crop yields and water consumptions. Participatory activities, including field experiments, interviews, focus groups and interactive workshops, involved farmers and other stakeholders in the most critical phases of the research. The assessment of uncertainties and opportunities were proposed as a basis for discussion with policy makers to identify priorities for agro-climatic measures in 2014-2020.

Abstract: The sustainable development of agricultural systems is currently challenged by many complex agro-environmental issues. These are characterized by an incomplete understanding of the situation and the problems that arise, and the conflicting opinions that result, issues over boundaries that are often difficult to define, and controversy over the multiple goals and uncertain outcomes. Added to these characteristics, we also have the slow and often inadequate uptake and implementation of research outcomes in this complex, real world. In order to improve sustainability of agro-ecosystems, agronomic research must move away from the linear research approaches and extension practices adopted so far that have focused purely on biophysical agro-ecosystems. The theoretical operational space of agronomic research must be transformed by considering agronomic issues as part of a broader social-agro-ecosystem. One aspect of this transformation is the inclusion of knowledge collected on a local level with the participation of farmers on the ground. The integration of local experiential knowledge with traditional agronomic research is by necessity based on the participation of many different stakeholders and there can be no single blueprint for how best to develop and use the input received. However, agronomists and policy advisors require general guidelines drawn up from actual experience in order to accelerate positive agronomic change. We address this need through a comparative analysis of two case studies; one involves multi-stakeholder research in a cropping system in the dairy district of Arborea, Sardinia, Italy. The central question was: How can high crop production be maintained while also achieving the EU target water quality and minimizing the production costs? The second case is a multi-stakeholder soil health project from south-eastern Australia. Here the central question was: How can soil decline be prevented and reversed in this district, and soils made more resilient to future challenges? The Social Learning for the Integrated Management and sustainable use of water (SLIM) framework, a useful heuristic tool for exploring the dynamics of transformational change, guided the analysis of the case studies. Within this framework, a key indicator of success is the emergence of new knowledge from the creation of new spaces for learning between researchers and local stakeholders. The Italian case study appears to have been the most successful in this sense, as opportunities for joint exploration of research data allowed new potential farming responses to the central question to emerge. The multi-stakeholder processes in the Australian case focused more on providing public openings for individual learning, and missed the opportunity for new knowledge to emerge through joint exploration. We conclude that participatory approaches may enable transformative practice through knowledge integration, but that this process is not an automatic outcome of increased community participation.