Why agricultural programs don't always meet expections

Through my career, I've helped to develop, deliver and oversee many different programs and projects to support agriculture. Some of them have been hugely impactful - creating real and meaningful change. I've also seen many that haven't really delivered to their potential. In this blog, I share my thoughts on what are the key things that make a difference in the performance of a program.

Australian agriculture’s research, development, extension and capability-building system is complex. Programs are usually funded through government investment, industry levies, research partnerships and some private investment. Funding priorities often sit in silos and also shift with policy cycles. Over more than 30 years in the industry, I have seen the focus move from water efficiency to soil salinity, export development, drought and climate resilience, carbon farming and many other areas.

Most agricultural programs begin with good intentions to strengthen industry, support growers, build capability and deliver value to communities. Yet too many struggle to achieve the outcomes they were designed for. They meet a political or funding requirement, are opportunistic, tick a box to enable researchers to publish work, duplicate what has already been done, are too specifically targeted towards a narrow stakeholder group or are too broad and don’t allow for geographical or regional differences, or fail to connect with the people they are meant to serve.

At the same time, sustainable funding is becoming harder for industry organisations, farming systems groups and regional communities to secure. That makes it even more important to understand why programs fall short, and how we can design initiatives that are practical, purposeful and aligned with the needs of growers, industry and community.

Many of the reasons are predictable and fixable. When we address them, we create the conditions for programs to succeed.

Clarity of purpose

Purpose is the anchor of any successful program. Without it, decisions become reactive, priorities shift, and the work becomes unfocused.

A clear purpose answers:

• Why are we doing this?

• Who is it for?

• What problem are we solving?

• What will be different because of this work?

When purpose is vague or not aligned to industry need, programs do not always deliver. I have often seen projects get off the ground because a researcher wants to pursue a particular idea or research focus. The research may be interesting and technically strong, but adoption and uptake can fall flat when it is not what industry was really looking for. Industry organisations and farming systems groups can also find themselves designing projects to fit available funding streams, rather than being clear about their priorities and finding the funding to deliver those priority outcomes. This is largely a function of the way the current funding system works, rather than a deliberate failing by researchers or industry bodies.

When purpose is clear and aligned with industry priorities, programs gain direction and momentum.

Programs designed around people

Agriculture is a people‑centred industry. Programs succeed when growers, industry partners, community members and delivery teams are involved early and meaningfully.

Programs struggle when consultation is rushed or superficial, when growers feel unheard, when industry is not shaping outcomes, when community perspectives are missing, or when design happens in isolation.

People support what they help create. Co‑design isn’t a trend — it’s a necessity.

Clear roles and responsibilities

Strong programs rely on strong foundations: sound governance, defined responsibilities, effective communication, collaborative leadership and consistent accountability. I have seen first-hand the impact on industry when there is not clear accountability, communication or transparency around the outcomes of high-stakes projects that have not delivered to expectations. Trust is quickly eroded, not only with the research provider but also with the funding body responsible for project evaluation and acquittal. That trust can take a very long time, and a lot of effort, to rebuild.

When roles are unclear, people hesitate, decisions slow down, and confidence erodes. When roles are clear, teams work with purpose and alignment.

Timing

Agriculture is a long-term industry. Programs usually need time, consistency, patience, resilience and stable support. Yet program funding is almost always relatively short term, with very little investment in longitudinal assessment of impact and outcomes over a longer period. More often than not, the timing of funding is tied to funding cycles and political cycles, rather than what is optimal for delivering the best program outcomes.

Short‑term thinking leads to short‑term results. Long‑term thinking builds capability, confidence and sustainability.

So how do we build programs that actually work?

The answer is not to add more layers, more reporting or more complexity. It is to come back to the basics, and to keep asking whether the work is still serving the growers, industries and communities it was designed for.

That starts with a clear, shared purpose. It needs to be meaningful, practical and easy to explain. Everyone involved should be able to talk plainly about why the program exists, who it is for, and what success will look like.

It also means bringing people in early, not once the big decisions have already been made. Growers, industry partners and community members know the practical realities better than anyone, and the best programs are shaped with them, not simply delivered to them.

Trust matters here, and trust is built through honest conversations, consistent follow-through and relationships that are genuine rather than transactional. People do not expect every program to be perfect, but they do expect openness about what is working, what is difficult and what is changing along the way.

The structure should be simple enough that people can understand it and use it. If the process becomes too complex, the energy shifts from doing the work to managing the work. Clear roles, good communication and sensible governance help keep everyone moving in the same direction.

It is also worth recognising progress along the way. In agriculture, change can be slow and sometimes hard to see immediately. Small wins matter because they build confidence, keep people engaged and remind everyone that the work is making a difference.

And above all, we need to stay committed beyond the funding cycle. Real change in agriculture takes time. It takes patience, persistence and steady investment in people, relationships and capability.

In the end, I don't think agricultural programs fall short because people do not care. Most people involved are deeply committed. The problems tend to appear when clarity, connection and focus are lost along the way.

When we design programs with clear purpose, simple structures, genuine collaboration and long-term trust, we create something more useful than another project. We build capability, strengthen industry, support growers and help reconnect Australians with the people who produce their food.