Date post: | 22-Apr-2015 |
Category: |
Education |
Upload: | countryside-and-community-research-institute |
View: | 339 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Linkage processes between niche and regime:
analysis of Learning and Innovation Networks for Sustainable Agriculture across Europe
J. Ingram, N. Curry, J. Kirwan, D. Maye, and K. Kubinakova
The 11th European IFSA Symposium, Berlin, 1-4 April 2014
Outline
• Challenges of transition to sustainable agriculture
• Emerging networks
• Niches - regime interactions - analytical framework
• Methods
• Results
• Conclusion
2
Challenges of transition to sustainable agriculture
• Transition in agriculture - a shift from the mainstream
‘productivist regime’ to a regime built around the principles of sustainable production
• Transforming systems of food production and consumption poses challenges
• Innovation is key to transition but AKS (charged with fostering innovation) are often locked into old approaches or trajectories
Emerging networks • Alternative and innovative approaches to agriculture (SA)
emerging • Networks of individuals and/or organisations
experimenting with new solutions • Innovative niche practices on the margins of the
mainstream agriculture regime • Networks are bottom up, coalitions or within regime itself
5
• Alternative approaches (or niche initiatives) as sources of
innovation which can seed a sustainable regime transformation
• Regime transformation occurs through an accumulation of projects or novelties in niche spaces which allow (through learning and experimentation) radical practices to develop
Niche -regime interactions
Landscape Pressures
Mainstream Food System
Bottom Up Innovations
Time
Scales of Transition
Adapted from Geels & Schott, 2007 Macro scale niches -regime interactions
7
Linking potential - governed by: Compatibility with the assumptions, practices and rules of existing regimes facilitates rapid niche growth enabling it to develop and diffuse (Smith, 2006). Linkage processes – regime accommodating and niche adaptation & diffusion processes (translation, absorption, networking) Basis for analytical framework
Niche -regime interactions
Methods
• 17 Case studies in SOLINSA project-LINSA • Participatory workshops, interviews, observation… LINSA- Learning and Innovation Networks for Sustainable Agriculture Networks of producers, customers, experts, NGOs, SMEs, local administrations, as well as official researchers and extensionists, that are mutually engaged with common goals for sustainable agriculture and rural development - cooperating, sharing resources and co-producing new knowledge by creating conditions for communication (Brunori et al., 2013, p4) (See Ingram et al., 2013, www.solinsa.net)
LINSA-examples
Duurzaam Boer Blijven network of farmers who practice low external input dairy farming.
9
Natürli network of cheese producers in a mountainous region of Switzerland.
Latvia Biogas network of producers (especially large farms), investors, scientists, service providers, technology suppliers, policy makers, consultants, municipalities, banks, environmental agencies, NGOs.
Boeren en Zorg, Farmers and Care network in Netherlands.
Analytical Framework –Modes of interaction
• Compatibility • Linkage processes – adaptation, translation, absorption,
networking 17 LINSA - clustered into 5 Modes of Interaction Compatible; Complementary; Emergent; Divergent; and
Oppositional 3 examples follow:
11
Interaction Mode
Compatible Complementary Emergent Divergent Oppositional
Compatibility Links between niche and regime
Strong
Political support and recognition from regime
Moderately strong
Some shared guiding principles
Operating at the intersection of two regimes –some links to both
Moderately weak
Limited sharing of guiding principles
Weak
No shared guiding principles; different value system
Actors/network configurations
Traditional actors Traditional actors in new arrangements plus new facilitators
New actors and new networks
Traditional actors in new roles, new actors and new networks
New actors and new networks
Tension in regime (pressures in landscape)
Tension – consumers and policy and regulations
farm economic livelihood
Tension – environmental policy and farm economic livelihood
Tensions - policy and economic in both regimes (health/ energy and agriculture)
Tensions in regime –consumer awareness, farm economic livelihood
Tensions in regime –consumer awareness, health, community concerns
Linkage Processes Adaptation
Absorption
Translation
Networking
Growing within or adapting to the regime/AKS integration/absorption
LINSA practices are sufficiently flexible to be interpreted favourably against regime socio-technical criteria
Regime accommodation
Co-evolving with regime/AKS
aspirations to make a difference to the regime although some adaptation to regime problems
Looking for recognition and legitimacy
Some regime accommodation
Develop in a complementary manner to the agriculture regime, make use of the existing structures when appropriate
Mutual adaptation
Alignment of rules and routines plus new rules created
Some adaptation of LINSA through certification
Translations that adapt lessons
Extensive networking
Mutual adaptation
Regime actors accommodate, new actor roles
No linkage to traditional regime actors or institutions
Little adaptation or regime accommodation
Extensive Networking
LINSA N Dairy, F RAD, EU organ
L Biogas, N Care I Crisop, S Naturli E B&H, E perm, H G7, H Nat
12
Compatibility
•Moderately strong , some shared guiding principles
•Traditional actors in new arrangements plus new facilitators
•Tension – environmental policy and farm economic livelihood
Linkage processes
•Co-evolving with regime/AKS
•Aspirations to make a difference to the regime/some adaptation to regime problems
•Looking for recognition and legitimacy
•Some regime accommodation
Complementary Mode - Sustainable Agriculture
Network (RAD) France
Compatibility
• Operating at the intersection of two regimes –some links to both
• New actors and new networks
• Tensions - policy and economic in both regimes (health/ energy and agriculture)
Linkage processes
• Develop in a complementary manner to the agriculture regime, makes use of the existing structures when appropriate
• Mutual adaptation
• Alignment of rules and routines plus new rules created
13
Emergent Mode – Biogas, Latvia & Care Farming, Netherlands
Compatibility
• Weak - different value system
• New actors and new networks
• Tensions in regime –consumer awareness, health, community concerns
Linkage processes
• No linkage to traditional regime actors or institutions
• Little adaptation or regime accommodation
• Extensive networking
(see Ingram, J. et al., 2014 for Permaculture LINSA)
Oppositional Mode - Permaculture & BHFP, UK
Linkage processes –LINSA adaptation
Interplay between LINSA adaptation and the regime’s accommodation Adaptation LINSA actors make alliances and partnerships with regime
actors and draw on, or contribute to, different elements of the regime Translation-not simple adoption - ideas, practices and events in LINSA
are translated into ideas and practices in the regime Mutual adaptations and negotiations - aligning practices and rules to
those in the regime Networking for diffusing and consolidating ideas in LINSA where
traditional regime actors and structures are irrelevant or not accessible
Linkage processes- regime accommodates
• Provides support, participates in networks/ partnerships/ new alliances
• AKS actors are involved in new collaborations with LINSA actors, and take on new roles
• Adapts or substitutes some of its rules or routines to accommodate LINSA practices
• Certification is key device for inserting practices into the mainstream
• Offers legitimacy • Policy instruments make space for LINSA to develop- eg Biogas
and N Dairy - regime
• Challenges of transition conceptualised at a macro level
• Analysis at the sub-niche/niche project level reveals dynamic, diverse and irregular interaction in the ‘fuzzy’ space between niche and regime
• Transition to sustainable agriculture is a complex of interactive processes leading to a series of adaptive changes, rather than a regime change
© 2014 Julie Ingram. The Author(s) asserts their moral right to be identified as the Authors of the work
Conclusion
18
References
• Brunori , G. et al. (2013) CAP Reform and Innovation: The Role of Learning and Innovation Networks. Eurochoices 12 (2), 27–33
• Ingram et al. (2013) WP4 Synthesis Report. SOLINSA Deliverable 4.2a,b. www.solinsa.net
• Ingram, J. et al. (2014) Learning in the Permaculture Community of Practice in England: An Analysis of the Relationship between Core Practices and Boundary Processes. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 20 (3), 1–16
• Ingram, J. et al. (in review) Interactions between niche and regime: an analysis of learning and innovation networks for sustainable agriculture across Europe. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension