Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Srinivasan 2018
Srinivasan 2018
M . S . S R I N I VA S A N 1 A N D G R A H A M E L L E Y 2
1
Catchment Hydrology, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited, 10 Kyle Street, Christchurch, New
Zealand, 2Environmental Monitoring, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited, 10 Kyle Street,
Christchurch, New Zealand
Email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT Through learnings and reflections from a water-use efficiency (WUE) pilot study, this paper examines the
use of co-innovation. Led by hydrologists, this paper tracks the cycle of trust building among stakeholders, co-learning
of WUE problem, co-developing of possible solutions and practices, identifying the need for capability development to
overcome constraints, and finally enabling confidence among stakeholders in adapting new practices. The hydrologists
built the trust among stakeholders by matching and validating stakeholders’ experiential knowledge through on-farm
biophysical observations of water use (irrigation) practices. This trust allowed the stakeholder group to identify con-
straints to improving WUE and helped the hydrologists to devise biophysical solutions and practices that support farm-
ers in better managing their irrigations. Observations also indicated that the process of capability development needed
to take into account of farmers’ experiential knowledge and integrate a learning–practice–confirmation cycle that would
boost their (farmers’) confidence in using newly acquired capability.
Case Studies in the Environment, 2018, pps. 1–8. electronic ISSN 2473-9510. © 2018 by the Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press’s Reprints and Permissions web
page, www.ucpress.edu/journals.php?p=reprints. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/cse.2018.001255
1
and multi-stakeholder approach, where knowledge and included an estimate of timing and amount of rainfall
input from every stakeholder are valued in every phase of expected. A daily email was also sent to all pilot farmers,
the project, from defining the problem to evolving solu- displaying the rainfall, irrigation, soil moisture, and soil
tions. The co-innovation principles used in the pilot study temperature data of the last 7 days and the 2-, 6-, and
were (1) take time to understand the problem from mul- 15-day weather forecasts. The hydrologists did not pro-
tiple (stakeholder) perspectives; (2) be inclusive of all per- vide any irrigation recommendation.
spectives; (3) value all sources of knowledge; (4) strive Throughout the season, several one-on-one conversa-
to learn from each other by actively listening and under- tions via email, phone, and in-person about the informa-
standing; (5) keep sight of the shared vision; (6) be hon- tion ensued between the pilot farmers and hydrologists.
est, open, and constructive while interacting with stake- At the end of each irrigation season (typically in May),
holders; (7) be aware of the wider context of the problem; all stakeholders were invited to come together for a work-
(8) be flexible and adaptable; and (9) stick with the co- shop (referred to as “farmer workshop” hereafter). The co-
innovation process despite its frustrations [5, 6]. innovation approach used in the pilot study was aimed
Through a selection of examples from the 5-year pilot at creating and enhancing co-learning opportunities that
study, we reflect on the cycle of trust building, co- would lead to an agreement on problem description, iden-
learning, capability development, and confidence building tification of barriers to change, and opportunities to adopt
as guided by a co-innovation approach. improved irrigation practices. The farmer workshops
would start with a hydrological appraisal of the just-
C A S E E X A M I N AT I O N concluded irrigation season, discussing how much irriga-
Pilot Study Description tion was applied, when, and why, and the differences in
The WIS is a farmer cooperative with ~240 shareholders, irrigation practices between the pilot farms (see an exam-
irrigating a total area of 18,000 ha. The irrigation scheme ple in Figure 2). The hydrologists also presented modelled
is located in the South Island of NZ. The scheme abstracts information on drainage based on measured rainfall and
water from the Waimakariri River, which undergoes sig- irrigation and published soil hydraulic properties. The
nificant flow fluctuations in summer, resulting in poor stakeholder group collectively reflected on the current irri-
supply reliability. An earlier study, which examined the gation practices and explored opportunities to improve
irrigation practices in WIS, concluded that poor supply WUE through improved irrigation scheduling. The dis-
reliability had been an impediment to efficient irrigation cussions were unmoderated, open, and transparent, and
practices and that farmers tend to manage their irrigations provided a window into the diverse perspectives and
based on supply rather than on demand (soil/crop needs) knowledge existing within the stakeholder group.
[7]. Based on this, the hydrologists in the present pilot Detailed description of the workshop processes and the
study hypothesised that irrigation scheduling could be outputs and outcomes from the co-innovation processes
improved by combining current soil moisture (a proxy for used in the pilot study are available elsewhere [2, 8]. Here,
soil and/or crop water demand), supply (river flow), and we have drawn examples from the pilot study to describe
future supplies (next 2-, 6-, and 15-day rainfall). the genesis of trust among the stakeholders and how the
The role of hydrologists in the pilot study was to estab- trust enabled co-learning and capability development. We
lish a co-innovation process that would be inclusive of all also present an example highlighting the need to extend
stakeholders—pilot study funders, hydrologists, farmers, the cycle of trust building, co-learning, and capability
industry professionals, regulators, and irrigation scheme development into confidence building in using new tech-
managers. The pilot study originally included five farms nologies and practices.
(Figure 1). At each pilot farm, a rain gauge and soil mois-
ture sensor were installed under one spray irrigator, and Building Trust
the data were relayed back to farmers electronically every Building trust between the pilot farmers and hydrologists
hour. Pilot farmers were given 24/7 web access to farm- was identified as a key task for the project team to achieve
specific, near real-time rainfall, irrigation, soil moisture its goal of improved WUE. On-farm biophysical obser-
and soil temperature data, and 2-, 6-, and 15-day weather vations of irrigation practices and observations of local
forecasts that were updated every 6 h. The forecast data weather and soil conditions that could influence irrigation
FIGURE 2. Rainfall, irrigation, and drainage gradient across the pilot farms resulting in gradients in rainfall, soil type, and
irrigation management. Both rainfall and irrigation were measured and drainage estimated based on soil water holding capacity.
The gradients matched that of farmers shown in Figure 1.
scheduling (e.g., differences in rainfall and soil water hold- demand was a new concept, so the pilot farmers com-
ing capacities across WIS area) were used as tools, or mented on the need for a confirmation of their practice.
boundary objects, to initiate a conversation between the This need was intensified as hydrologists deliberately did
pilot farmers and hydrologists. When considering the not provide any irrigation recommendation. The hydrolo-
selection of pilot farms, the hydrologists met with the gists indicated that farmers need to upskill their decision-
prospective farmers and the irrigation scheme manager to making capability, taking their own constraints and capac-
gain an understanding of local soil and weather conditions ities into consideration, instead of relying on external
and how they were incorporated currently (then) incorpo- agents (e.g., the hydrologists in the pilot study) who may
rated into irrigation management decisions. Even though lack on-farm knowledge. The ability to see others’ irriga-
the farmers lacked scientific skills or tools for monitoring tion data was helpful with this capability building. When
of weather, they possessed an enormous amount of expe- irrigation scheduling between pilot farms coincided, it
riential knowledge on local weather gradients. Farmers provided those pilot farmers a positive confirmation that
understood that the prevailing weather brought more they are on the right track. However, when their schedul-
rainfall to one end of the scheme than the other, although ing did not match, it gave them a moment to reflect on
they (farmers) did not know the strength of this gradient, their practice and that of the other pilot farmer. With-
and they did not use it in their irrigation management out such a reference, these moments of pause-and-reflect
decisions. Similarly, the farmers possessed a good knowl- would not have been possible in the pilot study. Here,
edge of variability in soil water holding capacities, though the role of hydrologists was limited to enabling such co-
they rarely applied that knowledge in practice. Based on learning and capability development opportunities.
these preliminary conversations, the hydrologists deliber-
ately chose pilot farms distributed across the length and Trust Leading to Co-Learning
breadth of the scheme to quantify the gradient, specifically Once a trust in the co-innovation process was established
the rainfall differences (see Figure 1). between the pilot farmers and hydrologists, the latter
Measurement of rainfall at the pilot farms helped to delved into understanding farmers’ perception to the use
quantify the rainfall gradient across the scheme. At the of weather forecasts for irrigation scheduling. A discussion
2013 farmer workshop, when the hydrologists presented at the 2014 farmer workshop indicated that farmers gen-
the gradient information (Figure 2), it matched farmers’ erally use weather forecast at the start and end of irrigation
experiential knowledge (Figure 1). This match between seasons (termed as “shoulder” season, September, Octo-
scientific observations and experiential knowledge ber, March, and April) and rarely during peak seasons
enabled a trust in the co-innovation process. The hydrol- (November through February). Farmers perceived that
ogists took this opportunity to further the use of this any interruption to irrigation during the peak season
knowledge by highlighting the differences in irrigation would aggravate the dry conditions, thereby stressing the
applied between farms, as influenced by weather and soil crop and affecting the yield. While farmers acknowledged
water holding capacity gradients. This also allowed the that rainfall during the peak season would add to soil
irrigation scheme manager to understand the demand moisture, they generally discounted these additions, as
(water ordering) gradient across the scheme. they do not use rainfall forecasts for irrigation scheduling.
The co-innovation-based pilot study was built on the This provided an insight into farmer decision-making and
premise that stakeholders could co-learn and co-identify an opportunity for the hydrologists to analyse irrigation
barriers, opportunities, and constraints to achieve a better applications and drainage during the peak season.
WUE. To enhance this experience, each pilot farmer, in At the following farmer workshop in 2015, based on
addition to their farm, was provided with access to irri- drainage data collected at one of the pilot farms, the hydrol-
gation data from other pilot farms. This open data access ogists presented evidence for significant drainage from irriga-
helped in building trust among the farmers. When the tion during the peak season of 2014 (Figure 3). The hydrol-
pilot farmers arrived at the farmer workshop, since every- ogists highlighted that the drainage during peak season
one had prior knowledge of others’ irrigation practices, a resulted from poor irrigation scheduling, either irrigating
free and transparent discussion ensued. The concept of more than the soil could hold (exceeding soil water holding
matching current and forecast supplies against current capacities), irrigating when soil was wet from previous
irrigation and/or rainfall events, or irrigating before a signif- leaching management issues was conveyed directly to the
icant rainfall event. Unlike the earlier example, where the group, allowing them sufficient time to look for solutions.
farmers’ experiential knowledge and the hydrologists’ science At the 2015 workshop, the hydrologists, based on a
data agreed, here they contradicted. However, the trust built water balance model developed from observed drainage
in the co-innovation process helped in effectively communi- data from one of the pilot farms, presented estimations
cating the results. This also led to further discussion among of drainage at all five pilot farms (Figure 2). These data
the stakeholders, which revealed that farmers lacked capabil- provided an indication of the extent of drainage during
ity to manage irrigation and drainage together, an important the irrigation seasons, but these data were not available to
step to better WUE. farmers in real time. This meant that the farmers could not
effect a change to their irrigation practice in real time. The
Co-Learning Leading to Capability Building pilot study farmers urged the hydrologists for a solution
At the start of the pilot study (2012), soil moisture sensors that would allow them (farmers) to assess the impact of
were installed at 20 cm (depth to root zone, 40 cm), and their irrigation in real time. The hydrologists sensed that
soil moisture was used as a proxy to trigger irrigations. In real-time knowledge of drainage would provide an oppor-
2014, the local regulatory authority, Environment Can- tunity to enhance the uptake of irrigation scheduling prac-
terbury (ECan), published agricultural good management tices and weather forecast.
guidelines [9] that emphasised the need to reduce Following the 2015 farmer workshop, at each pilot farm,
drainage to control nutrient leaching, as leaching below the hydrologists installed a profile soil moisture sensor that
root zone in irrigated farms was identified as a key envi- measured soil moisture within (0–40 cm) and below
ronmental issue in NZ [10]. Since ECan was a stakeholder (40–80 cm) the root zone. The soil moisture measurements
at the farmer workshop, the emergence of drainage and within the root zone were used as a proxy for irrigation
provide a good platform in establishing stakeholders’ trust in 2. Apart from biophysical observations of
a co-innovation process. stakeholders’ irrigation practices, how else
Even when on-farm observations contradicted stake- could trust be established in a multi-
holder perceptions, the trust in co-innovation process could stakeholder setting?
enable moments of reflection and (co-)learning. In the irri-
3. While transferring specific on-farm observa-
gation pilot study described here, the co-learning was notice-
tions of irrigation practices from one stake-
able among all stakeholders and not just among pilot farmers
holder group to another, how could the
(end-users). For instance, the hydrologists learned to present
experiences and lessons be transformed across
information that takes into account of stakeholders’ percep-
the groups?
tions and knowledge gaps. One of the key learnings for all
stakeholders was the need to spend more time in practising
the lessons learned. In the absence of any confirmation of AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
their practice, the confidence in using new practices could The lead author MS is the programme manager for the
decline over time, resulting in old habits to creep up. research programme “Justified Irrigation” and the lead
researcher of “Primary Innovation” programme. GE is an irri-
gation scientist who contributed to the designing and imple-
C A S E S T U DY Q U E S T I O N S
mentation of Justified Irrigation and Primary Innovation pro-
1. What are the advantages and limitations of a
grammes. Both authors contributed equally to idea concep-
co-innovation process in a multi-stakeholder
tualisation, funding acquisition, and investigation.
setting?