Paradox of mainstreaming agroecology for regional and rural food security in developing countries

UNCO

RRECTED P

RO

OF

1Q1 Paradox of mainstreaming agroecology for regional and rural food security in2 developing countries

3Q2 Laxmi Prasad Pant ⁎4 School of Environmental Design and Rural Development, University of Guelph, CanadaQ35

a b s t r a c t6 a r t i c l e i n f o

7 Article history:8 Received 7 January 20159 Received in revised form 24 February 201610 Accepted 1 March 201611 Available online xxxx12

13Paradox of mainstreaming agroecology refers to an apparent contradiction between upscaling niche innovations14to producemore food in sustainableways, and the concerns for a loss of core values and principles of agroecology15in the mainstreaming process. This paper examines this paradox of mainstreaming and sidestreaming16(continuity of niche practises) using longitudinal case studies of agroecological innovations in soil and water17conservation, crop improvement, crop intensification, and market differentiation in the regional and rural18contexts of developing countries. Findings suggest that there are latent and salient paradoxes of mainstreaming19niche innovations, respectively explaining cooperative and competitive interactions with the incumbent regime20of industrial food and agriculture. While the former paradox involves continuity of niche practises as well as21regime conditions through incremental adaptations, the latter comprises regime shifts through transformational22adaptations. However, as these two paradoxes are in flux as a latent paradox can become salient when23competitive elements of seemingly cooperative niche-regime interactions unravel.24© 2016 Published by Elsevier Inc.

25 Keywords:26 Transformations27 Adaptive transition cycle28 Regime shifts29 Agroecology30 Innovation31 Food security

3233

34

35

36 1. Introduction

37 Effective approaches to feeding the future are debatable. Some argue38 for expanding the frontier of the industrial food and agriculture in mar-39 ginal lands usingmodern technological solutions, such as large-scale irri-40 gation systems, high yielding crop varieties and modern agrochemicals.41 Others critique that the continuity of this incumbent regime that was42 particularly influential during the Green Revolution (1960s and 70s) in-43 deed, does not necessarily work for all types of people, problems, spaces44 and places in the twenty-first century (Conway, 2012). They posit that45 despite being highly effective in promotingmodern technologies, the in-46 cumbent regime marginalises the rural poor in two major ways47 (Gliessman, 1998; Conway, 2012; Lacey, 2005; ParayilQ4 1992): first,48 modern technologies are less accessible and adaptable to marginal49 areas cultivated by the poor; and second, industrial food production ex-50 ternalises long-term environmental costs, such as biodiversity loss, soil51 degradation, nitrate leaching, greenhouse gas emission, chemical toxicity52 and disruption of geochemical cycles, to thosewhose livelihoods depend53 on the customary use of renewable natural resources. In response to54 social, health and environmental impacts of the incumbent technological55 regime, alternative thinkers and doers advocate for agroecological niche56 innovations, such as organic agriculture, fair trade, minimum tillage,57 permaculture, agroforestry, home gardens, community gardens and58 community forestry. However, there is an apparent contradiction59 between the need to upscale agroecological innovations to produce

60more food in sustainable ways, and the growing concerns for a loss61of core values and principles of agroecological niches in the62mainstreaming process. Moreover, mainstreaming is paradoxical63in procedural as well as substantive terms, respectively in managing64institutional processes of change and continuity, and enhancing region-65al and rural food security. Thus, as discussed in the organisational stud-66ies literature, mainstreaming agroecological niche innovations may67seem logical in isolation but they can be paradoxical when assessing so-68cial, economic and environmental impacts from systems perspectives69(Lewis, 2000; Smith and Lewis, 2011).70Reconising the apparent paradox of mainstreaming niche innova-71tions, some scholars argue that niche formation and regime transforma-72tions should involve reflexive interactive design and development of73technological prototypes, reflexive interactive assessment of risks and74benefits of technologies, and promotion of evidence-based policy and75practises (Bos and Grin, 2012; Joss and Bellucci, 2002). Many argue76that mainstreaming is essentially paradoxical in terms of procedural77(e.g., institutional processes of organising, belonging, learning), and78substantive aspects (e.g., increasing productivity, social equity and79environmental justice) (Lüscher and Lewis, 2008; Smith and Lewis,802011). First, procedural paradoxes of organising and belonging arise81from institutional processes of identity formation and collaboration82beyond niche spaces. Similarly, the paradox of learning involves83social learning and innovation for fundamental transformations in tech-84nologies, economies, livelihoods and lifestyles (so-called sustainability85transitions) (Elzen and Wieczorek, 2005). Second, the substantive86paradox of performing involves competing strategies, visions and87goals, such as controversy over themost effective food security strategy

Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

⁎ 50 Stone Rd. East, Guelph, Ontario, N1G2W1, Canada.E-mail address: [email protected].

TFS-18457; No of Pages 12

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.0010040-1625/© 2016 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

Please cite this article as: Pant, L.P., Paradox of mainstreaming agroecology for regional and rural food security in developing countries, Technol.Forecast. Soc. Change (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.001

mailto:[email protected]

Journal logo


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625


UNCO

RRECTED P

RO

OF

88 (e.g., industrial monoculture or ecological agriculture). Thus, this89 paper aims to examine substantive and procedural paradoxes of90 mainstreaming and their importance in setting a conceptual framework91 for discussion on agri-food innovations and sustainability transitions. As92 suggested by Hall and Clark (2010) in their examination of complex93 adaptive systems of food and agricultural innovations, the analysis in94 this paper situates the mainstreaming paradox of agricultural change95 and continuitywithin the broader framework of agricultural innovation96 systems in articulation of the following research questions: How do97 mainstreaming paradox relate to agricultural adaptations in the region-98 al and rural contexts of developing countries?What are the institutional99 determinants of mainstreaming agroecological innovations for regional100 and rural food security?101 Section 2 of this paper reviews literature on sustainability science102 with a focus on three attributes of complex adaptive systems: adapta-103 tion, transition, and adaptive transition. Section 3 presents four longitu-104 dinal case studies of agroecological innovations. Section 4 will then105 discuss the case study findings using multi-level analytical perspective106 on cooperative and competitive niche-regime interactions, which107 respectively involves a latent paradox of incremental adaptations, and108 a salient paradox of transformational adaptations. Then conclusions109 are drawn to inform the mainstreaming paradox.

110 2. Review of relevant theoretical literature on complex111 adaptive systems

112 The literature on adaptation and transition evolved in isolation until113 recently. At the two extremes of a continuum, socio-ecological systems114 approach explores adaptive capacity of local and indigenous communi-115 ties while socio-technical systems approach informs transitions to low-116 carbon systems (Fig. 1). In between them, adaptive transition involves117 innovations at the interface of science, nature and society to chart118 more balanced sustainability transition pathways. As it applies to119 agri-food innovation, adaptive transition integrates socio-ecological120 principles of agricultural adaptation with socio-technical principles of121 transitions to low-carbon systems of production in regional and rural122 contexts. The remainder of this Section reviews literature on adaptation,123 transition and adaptive transition as three attributes of complex124 adaptive systems.

125 2.1. Adaptation

126 Adaptation literature stresses the importance of developing adaptive127 capacity of those whose livelihoods depend on renewable natural

128resources. Adaptive capacity, an antithesis to vulnerability, is a source129of socio-ecological resilience against transient shocks and enduring130stresses. Vulnerability is determined by exposure to shocks and stresses,131sensitivity of exposures, and capacity to adapt to the effects (Engle,1322011). From the mainstreaming perspective, a multi-level construct133which is central to socio-ecologocial systems is ‘panarchy’ (named134after the Greek God of nature, Pan, to refer to sacred rules), which135entails conceptualisation of the hierarchy of ecosystem structures, func-136tions and services (Gunderson and Holling, 2002; Gallopin, 2006).137Scales of ecological systems range from a single cellular organism to138the biosphere over periods from seconds to geologic epochs, and of139social systems from an individual to a socio-political region over periods140from years to centuries. Building on the principles of ecological succes-141sion, Holling (1986, 2001) develops a perpetuating adaptive cycle that142involves exploitation, conservation, release and reorganisation as four143interlinked stages. The panarchical connections involve ‘revolt’ and144‘remember’, respectively illustrated by how a small fire develops into145a wildfire, and whether a burnt down forest enters a secondary succes-146sion releasing the potential resources accumulated and stored in it.147Adaptation capacity development should differentiate specific ca-148pacity from generic capacity (Lemos et al., 2013). The former involves149small and fast adaptive cycles to deal with risks, such as drought, floods150and forest fire, while the latter includes large and slow adaptive cycles151to address structural deficits, such as soil fertility decline, deforestation152and biodiversity loss, and lack of income, education, health and political153power. Thus, adaptation can be incremental aswell as transformational;154when small incremental changes are not enough to deal with structural155deficits, generic adaptive capacity should be developed to promote156transformational adaptations (Kates et al., 2012). Scholars suggest that157developing generic adaptive capacity to deal with structural status quo158requires polycentric governance involving multiple power centres as159opposed to either state-led, ‘command and control’ regulation or160market-based, laissez-faire governance (Adhikari and Tarkowski,1612013; Andersson and Ostrom, 2008; Ostrom, 1990). As well, adaptive162co-management is insufficient to inform mainstreaming paradox as it163depends on voluntary engagement of vulnerable communities in local164planning and adaptation processes (see Olsson et al., 2004; Schultz165et al., 2011; Schwarz et al., 2011). Some scholars suggest that166mid-range governance is effective to integrate state-led, command167and control regulation, and a voluntary response from local and indige-168nous resource users (Clark and Semmahasak, 2013). Referring back169to the adaptive cycle, a paradox is between stability and change of170socio-ecological systems (Holling, 2001): first, growth and conservation171to enhance stability and continuity of local and indigenous resource use

Fig. 1. Complex adaptive systems at the interface of science, society and nature Note: Size of the overlapping circles in the Venn diagram illustrates that socio-ecological systems assumesscience and technology as given (Smith and Stirling, 2010) whilst socio-ecological systems focuses on long-term transitions without addressing the sense of space and place (Truffer andCoenen, 2012). An integration of the two complex adaptive systems can address these limitations.

2 L.P. Pant / Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2016) xxx–xxx



UNCO

RRECTED P

RO

OF

172 practises; and second, release and reorganisation of accumulated173 resources for innovation and change.174 Despite unprecedented progress over several decades, socio-175 ecological systems literature falls short in operationalising transfor-176 mational adaptations at least in two major areas: effective treatment177 of structural status quo, and fair consideration of science and technol-178 ogy. First, the theory of political ecology provides critical insights179 into structural status quo as it explores determinants of vulnerability,180 food insecurity, powerlessness and social exclusion (Akram-Lodhi,181 2013; Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987; Robbins, 2012). As critics argue182 reflexive interactive design and development of technological arte-183 facts not only involve double-loop learning that challenges economic184 rationale of the incumbent industrial food and agriculture (Argyris,185 1976; Holt-Giménez and Altieri, 2013; Knickel et al., 2009), but186 also entail triple-loop learning that requires to reconsider our own187 commonly held beliefs about what is right for the society and the188 natural environment (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2013).1 Second, regarding189 the consideration of science and technology, socio-ecological190 systems literature considers technology as given, often sceptically,191 without due consideration of regionally and rurally appropriate192 technology development (Pant et al., 2014; Smith and Stirling,193 2010). While the concept of adaptive cycle provides meaningful194 insights into the mainstreaming paradox, the following review195 explores how socio-technical transition literature addresses the196 above gaps in socio-ecological systems thinking.

197 2.2. Transition

198 Socio-technical transition literature deals with two distinct schools199 of thought: strategic niche management (Kemp et al., 1998), and200 multi-level analytical perspective (Geels, 2002); the latter informs the201 mainstreaming paradox as it involves three levels of change and202 continuity: first, micro-level niches where niche experiments (also203 called transition experiments or sustainability experiments2) are reflex-204 ively designed through the agency of alternative thinkers and doers;205 second, the meso-level incumbent regime that dialectically influences206 strategic directions of niche experiments and are influenced by the207 agency of niche-internal actors; and third, the macro-level exogenous208 forces beyond the direct influence of niche and regime actors, such as209 macroeconomics, macro-politics and deep cultural patterns. Akin to210 mid-range governance of socio-ecological systems discussed above,211 Grin (2006) suggests dual-track governance of socio-technical transi-212 tions that informs competitive as well as cooperative interactions be-213 tween the state-led, regulatory governance institutions, and voluntary214 responses through the cultural-cognitive agency of niche-internal ac-215 tors (Bos and Grin, 2012; Klerkx et al., 2012). Dual-track governance216 makes use of boundary work (boundary objects, boundary processes217 and boundary actors) in modulation of socio-technical regime practises218 (Clark et al., 2011). Such modulations can potentially generate219 disruptive innovations and sustainability transitions, often involving a220 differentiated role of boundary actors, such as boundary spanning,221 positive deviancy and innovation brokering.3 Many scholars suggest222 that mainstreaming includes processes of building three types of social223 capital: ‘bonding’ within niche spaces to deepen their values and224 principles, ‘bridging’ with other loyal actors to widen the scope of225 niche innovations, and ‘linking’ with the incumbent regime, often in a

226paradoxical way, to facilitate mainstreaming (Hawkins and Maurer,2272010).4

228The timing and type of niche-regime interactions that involve229linking social capital give rise to four socio-technical transition230pathways — transformations, reconfigurations, substitutions and231alignments (Geels and Schot, 2007). First, when niche innovations232are still new and niche-regime interactions are seemingly cooperative,233a specific case of latent paradox, modulation in regime conditions234under the pressure of exogenous institutional forces can stimulate235fundamental transformations to sustainability. In this case, emerging236niche innovation practises require temporary protection as long as237elements of a salient paradox are unravelled through competitive238niche-regime interactions (Smith and Raven, 2012). Second,239mainstreaming agroecological innovations through reconfigurations of240sustainability transition pathways can be effective when well-developed241niche practises cooperate with the incumbent regime, especially in242case of exogenous forces reinforcing directions, diversity and distri-243bution of costs and benefits of innovations (STEPS, 2010). Third,244when innovations that compete with the incumbent regime are245well-developed and exogenous forces also exert pressure on the246regime, mainstreaming can be possible through technological247substitutions. For example, when consumer awareness grows, corpo-248rate food giants enter into organic value chains substituting chemical249inputs with ecological alternatives (Smith, 2007). However, this250situation can paradoxically fragment the organic niche intomainstream251organic and a revived organic. Finally, alignments can involve252de-alignment and re-alignment wherein major exogenous forces253first cause disintegration of the incumbent regime gradually stimu-254lating its de-alignment, such as transformations of industrial food255and agriculture into more ecological alternatives.256As the above review shows, mainstreaming involves cooperative as257well as competitive niche-regime interactions (Geels, 2002; Roep258et al., 2003; Schot and Geels, 2008). While competitive interactions259result in a salient paradox of transformational adaptations, cooperative260interactions give rise to a latent paradox of incremental adaptations that261assures continuity of both niche practises and regime conditions (Smith262and Lewis, 2011). In either of the niche-regime interactions, the long-263term goal is to transform carbon intensive industrial systems, such as264urban transport, conventional energy systems and chemical intensive265food and agricultural systems, into low-carbon systems. As Truffer and266Coenen (2012) argue, socio-technical transitions are urban centric to267transform carbon intensive life styles, such independence from cars268and coals, and thus the technology transition processes are insensitive269to the sense of space and place. As a result, socio-technical systems270literature provides limited information on what works best in regional271and rural contexts of developing countries where transformations are272imminent from already low-carbon subsistence agriculture to improved273ecological farming.

2742.3. Adaptive transition

275Scholars who work at the interface of adaptation and transition see276a benefit of integrating these two properties of complex adaptive277systems. They argue that the foremost idea and practise of neither of278the two systems is clearly sufficient to inform the mainstreaming

1 Social learning is understood as single loop (doing things right), double loop (doingright) and triple loop (decide what is right).

2 Reflexive interactive spaces are variously known: niche experiments (Lissandrello andGrin, 2011), sustainability experiments (Berkhout et al., 2010) or transition experiments(van den Bosch, 2010).

3 While boundary spanners help expand our sectoral and disciplinary comfort zones(Williams, 2002), positive deviants are those individuals who outperform among theirpeers under the same level of access to resources, regulations and social structures(Sternin, 2003; Pant and Hambly-Odame, 2009). Further, dedicated innovation brokershelp put modern science and technology into society (Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2009).

4 Linking social capitals are described variously: (1) ‘the duality of structure’, actors areembedded in social and political structures, and at the same time reproduce them throughtheir agency (Giddens, 1984); (2) ‘institutional entrepreneurship’, actors frame, aggregateand network in the processes of mobilising local resources, creating niche innovationspaces, reaching out to new actors (Hung andWhittington, 2011); (3) ‘deliberation on di-alectical divides’, addressing inherent differences thanmerely ignoring them through con-sensus building (Pant and Hambly Odame, 2006; Pant, 2014); (4) ‘effective reformism’, astrategy to create changes in the enabling environment in order to establish a more con-ducive design spaces (Klerkx et al., 2010; Roep et al., 2003); and (5) ‘anchoring’ betweenniche innovation spaces and the incumbent regime so that strategic alignments would bepossible (Elzen et al., 2012a, 2012b).

3L.P. Pant / Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (2016) xxx–xxx



UNCO

RRECTED P

RO

OF

279 paradox (Foxonet al., 2009;Halbe et al., 2013; Smith and Stirling, 2010).280 The former involves adaptive capacity of local and indigenous resource281 users under a given set of technologies while the latter entails unban282 centric concept of sustainability transitions without a due reference to283 a sense of place and space (e.g., regional and rural contexts of food secu-284 rity in developing countries) Hence, integrating these approaches can285 potentially address three gaps in agricultural innovation systems litera-286 ture: lack of attention to ecological principles and practises, poor sense287 of space and place, and bias towards ex-post impact assessment than288 ex-ante reflexive interactive design and development of regionally and289 rurally appropriate technology (Lundvall et al., 2002; Truffer and290 Coenen, 2012). To this end, adaptive transition literature suggests four291 reflexive interactive design principles (Voß and Bornemann, 2011;292 Pant et al., 2014, 2015): first, theoretical realm of adaptive transitions,293 such as integrating socio-ecological and socio-technical systems;294 second, basic assumptions of adaptive transitions as they relate to295 food and agricultural sustainability in regional and rural contexts;296 third, domains of applications from developing countries to low-297 income areas of developed countries; and finally, seemingly contested298 goals, such as economic growth, environmental protection or social299 welfare, that can be promoted as mutually inclusive sustainable300 development goals (Fig. 2).301 The adaptive transition framework combines adaptive cycle of302 socio-ecological systems with the multi-level analytical perspective of303 socio-technical systems to develop a new concept of ‘adaptive transition304 cycle’. While the concept of adaptive cycle recognises panarchical305 connections of micro, meso and macro scales that involve the phenom-306 enon of revolt and remember, the multi-level analytical perspective in-307 forms multiple transition pathways to low-carbon systems. Adaptive308 transition involves cooperative and competitive niche-regime interac-309 tions that respectively lead to a latent paradox of incremental adapta-310 tions, and a salient paradox of transformational adaptations. As they311 relate to mainstreaming niche-regime interactions involve cultural-312 cognitive institutional elements of reflexive interactive design of niche313 spaces, and revolt of niche actors to change restrictive state regulations314 and/or normative social structures. In the process of mainstreaming,315 cultural-cognitive institutional elements are carried over time and316 space through fourmain carriers— reflexive interactive design artefacts,

317symbolic systems, relational systems, and established routines and318practises (Scott, 2003). First, design artefacts constitute material319culture; second, symbolic systems include various types of symbolic320schemata into which meaningful information is coded and conveyed321among multiple stakeholders; third, relational systems include social322capital that entails salient and latent paradoxes of organising, learning323and belonging; and finally, routines refer to established habits and324past practises (Table 1).325In conclusion of this review, the literature on adaptive transition en-326tails multi-level analytical perspective on interlinked social, ecological327and technical systems of innovations (Bos and Grin, 2008; Elzen et al.,3282012b; Lamine, 2011; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2013; STEPS, 2010). Although329this body of literature is growing, only few studies have explicitly330discussed how the cultural-cognitive institutional elements of niche331innovations cooperative and compete with cognitive, normative and332regulative institutional structures of the incumbent regime in paradox-333ical processes of mainstreaming (e.g., Pant et al., 2014, 2015). Thus, the334following empirical section brings case studies of agroecological niche335innovations in the regional and rural contexts of developing countries336to examine the mainstreaming and sidestreaming paradox.

3373. Case studies

338This section presents four longitudinal case studies of agroecological339niche innovations: first, soil and water conservation in Burkina Faso;340second, participatory crop improvement and agricultural biodiversity341conservation in Nepal, Rwanda and Honduras; third, low-input rice in-342tensification inMedagascar, Nepal and India; and fourth, differentiation343of mango markets and products in India and Kenya. These case studies344present alternative food security strategies in response to apparent so-345cial, health and environmental impacts of the incumbent industrial346food and agriculture. While some niche innovations are incremental347through a latent paradox of cooperative niche-regime interactions,348others are transformational through a salient paradox of competitive349interactions. For example, the incumbent strategies to increase350food production include large-scale irrigation water transfer and use351of agrochemicals; modern high-yielding cop variety development,352often using state-of-the-art genetic modifications; intensive cereal

Fig. 2. Adaptive transition framework Source: Adapted from Pant et al. (2015).




UNCO

RRECTED P

RO

OF353 monoculture to increase productivity per unit of land, labour and

354 capital; and export promotion of high-value commodities. Many of355 these strategies are challenged by agroecological niche innovations,356 such as on-farm soil and water conservation practises, organic farming,357 local crop variety development, on-farm biodiversity conservation358 and local ‘100-mile’ food movements. The selection of case studies of359 agroecological innovations relied on theoretical sampling, i.e., they are360 chosen for theoretical generalisations covering a range of agroecological361 movements at different stages of reflexive interactive design of niche362 spaces, rurally and regionally appropriate technology development363 and incumbent regime transformations (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2002).364 Scholars argue that adaptive transition studies, such as this, should365 follow a broader longitudinal analysis spanning over several decades366 than cross-sectional studies (see Geels, 2002; Kemp et al., 1998).367 While the case studies on soil and water conservation and low-input368 rice intensification were primarily literature review, the other two on369 participatory crop improvement and mango market differentiation370 involved a part of a larger study where primary data were collected:371 a survey of multiple stakeholders to identify critical incidents leading372 to agroecological innovations, 24 key informant interviews with373 mango and rice stakeholders, 12 focus group interviews with farmers374 and traders, and direct observation of rice farms and mango orchards,375 research stations and processing plants (see Pant and Hambly-Odame,376 2009; Pant et al., 2012). However, to provide a level playing field for in-377 ternational comparison of agroecological niche innovations, all of these378 case studies are presented as a literature review. Although a part of the379 research on crop improvement and mango marketing has been already380 published, the comparison of agroecological niche innovations with a381 longitudinal focus of this study is original. This methodological ap-382 proach not only provides an opportunity to synthesise our own work383 across time and space for theoretical generalisations, but also gives an384 opportunity to make influential arguments about the mainstreaming385 paradox through international comparisons of broader trends in the in-386 stitutional determinants of mainstreaming agroecological innovations387 for regional and rural food security. Since neither niche nor regime388 actors can influence landscape level forces, mainstreaming involves a389 latent paradox of cooperative interactions, and a salient paradox390 of competitive interactions between niche practises and regime391 conditions. These paradoxes respectively inform incremental and trans-392 formational adaptations. Hence, the four case studies are arranged393 under three subheadings: regime condition, agroecological niche394 innovation, and carriers of cultural-cognitive institutional elements395 that mediate cooperative and competitive niche-regime interactions396 in the mainstreaming process.

397 3.1. Soil and water conservation

398 This case study brings several decades' work on soil and water399 conservation in the Yatenga Province of Burkina Faso synthesising the400 literature on an initiative that has transformed theway dryland farming401 is done in Sub-Saharan Africa. This region has a history of devastating

402droughts, most significantly in the 1970s, but also in recent decades,403which have caused widespread famines and overwhelming human404and animal mortality (Barbier, 1998; Barbier et al., 2009).

4053.1.1. Regime condition406The incumbent regime of soil and water conservation assumes that407the problem of desertification is specifically related to a lack of irriga-408tion, low or no use of chemical fertilisers and reduced fallow period to409allow soil regeneration between crops (Sawadogo, 2011). This relates410to modern technological solutions to reclaim the desert, such as large-411scale irrigation infrastructure development and introduction of drought412tolerant crop varieties. Nielsen and Reenberg (2010) explain that many413villagers throughout the Yatenga Province of Burkina Faso complain of414soil degradation and the disappearance of plants and trees which415make traditional rainfed agriculture particularly difficult. As implied416by farmers' understanding of agroecological processes, the problem is417more complex than recurrent droughts and the lack of fallow period.418And effective solutions would involve reflexive interactive design419and practise of soil and water conservation leading to a latent paradox420of incremental adaptations through cooperative niche-regime interac-421tions, and a salient paradox of transformational adoptions through422competitive niche-regime interactions.

4233.1.2. Agroecological niche innovation424In the 1970s and early 80s, during a famine that killed thousands,425a farmer native to the Yatenga region, through years of trial and error,426developed two effective agroecological solutions – zaï hole and cordons427pierreux – in an effort to reclaim degraded agricultural land (Critchley,4281991; Hien et al., 2001; Reij et al., 2009; Roose et al., 1999). The soil429and water conservation techniques used by the farmer took a while to430gain cultural-cognitive legitimacy within niche innovation spaces,431let alone normative and regulative legitimacy at the regime level. Until432this technique gained procedural as well as substantive legitimacy,433villagers and extensionworkers alike stereotyped the farmer as a deviant.434The technological design artefacts of the zaï technique involve435digging pits that are approximately 10–20 cm deep and 30–50 cm in436diameter with 0.8–1.2 m spacing and cordons pierreux involves stone437contour lines (for further details see Q5Reij et al., 2009; Sidibé, 2005;438Sawadogo, 2011). The earth that has been dug is then thrown downhill439to form crescents and gradual formation of contour terraces. Termites440are introduced to take advantage of the leaves and crop residues that441are blown into the pits facilitating the processes of nutrient cycling442(Roose et al., 1999). When the rainy season starts farmers deposit a443handful (approximately 200–600 g) of dung and compost into the444pits. Then 10–15 sorghum or millet seeds are sown into the pits along445with the compost. When it rains the water is trapped deeply in the446pits from the holes that the termites created and is protected fromdirect447evaporation. The seeds germinate very quickly using soil moisture and448nutrients accumulated in the pits Q6(Sidibé, 2005). This technique of449soil and water conservation gives farmers local alternatives to costly450mainstream solutions, such as chemical fertilisers and large-scale

t1:1 Table 1t1:2 Carriers of various institutional elements with examples from food and agriculture.

t1:3 Principalt1:4 carriers

Institutional elements

t1:5 Regulative Normative Cultural-cognitive

t1:6 Artefacts Formally patented and registered technology,e.g., modern crop variety.

Modern technology endorsed by conventionsand standards.

Culturally relevant agroecological technology,objects of symbolic value, e.g., local crop variety.

t1:7 Symbolic systems Rules, laws, e.g., public food safety regulations. Values, expectations, e.g., voluntary foodsafety regulations.

Categories, schema, e.g., cultural notion of foodsafety and quality.

t1:8 Relational systems Governance systems, power systems,e.g., market capitalism.

Regimes, authority systems, e.g., industryconglomerates,professional associations.

Structural isomorphism, identities, e.g., degreeof compatibility with regime.

t1:9 Routines Protocols, standard operatingprocedures, e.g., public/private standards.

Jobs, roles, duty, e.g., established habits/practises. Scripts, e.g., telling and retelling of indigenousknowledge/practises.

t1:10 Source: Adapted from Scott (1995).




UNCO

RRECTED P

RO

OF

451 diversions of scarce irrigation water (Garrity et al., 2010). Incremental452 adaptations through a latent paradox of cooperative niche-regime453 interaction help continue both zai practises and regime conditions454 of soil and water conservation whilst transformational adaptations455 through a salient paradox of competitive niche-regime interactions456 aim to fundamentally transform regime structures. Thus, reflexive457 interactive design and practise of soil and water conservation should458 embrace the fact that salient and latent paradoxes are always in flux,459 for example, the zai technique gained legitimacy over time turning a460 competitive niche-regime interaction into a cooperative one.

461 3.1.3. Carriers of cultural-cognitive institutional elements462 With increasing acceptance of Yacouba's symbolic systems of463 schemas and methods, zai techniques gradually gained cultural-464 cognitive legitimacywithin niche innovation spaces. Relational systems465 as a carrier of this innovation led to its dissemination over time and466 space with the interest of development practitioners ultimately leading467 to a salient paradox of transformational adaptations in the design and468 practise of soil and water conservation measures. The first external469 organisation to mainstream this technique in its programmes was470 OXFAM in 1979. The initial plan was to promote the zai techniques in471 order to re-grow the forests flattened by drought, but not surprisingly,472 the natives of the Yatenga Province were more interested in promoting473 the growth of the crops than trees (ILEIA, 1991). Relational systems474 further developed as villages across Sub-Saharan Africa nominated475 their representatives to learn the zai technique through their engage-476 ment in OXFAM's agroforestry project. Those nominated individuals477 were trained to mainstream the agroecological niche innovations and478 encouraged to pass the knowledge down to entire villages generating479 substantive impacts on regional and rural food security. The training480 programme led to several thousand people becoming experts in the zai481 method, covering 500 villages across Sub-Saharan Africa. Villagers were482 encouraged to implement strong restrictions on themovement of grazing483 animals to ensure regeneration of the forest cover and crop land, a trans-484 formation in normative systems of soil and water conservation.485 More recently between 2002 and 2004, theWorld Bank in conjunc-486 tion with The Association pour la Vulgarisation et l'Appui aux487 Producteurs Agro-écologistes au Sahel created an adaptive transition488 programme on zaimethod of soil and water conservation that provided489 support to local farmers through training and information sessions, field490 demonstrations, and field trips (Essama, 2005). The World Neighbours491 took these efforts further in 2007, and combined the traditional zai492 technique with tree planting in order to increase soil water retention493 and soil fertility enhancement of subsistence production systems494 (World Neighbors, 2007). The success storeys were scripted, and told495 and retold over time and space creating awareness and interest about496 adaptive transitions in soil andwater conservation to reclaim the desert497 in the face of climate change and extreme droughts.

498 3.2. Participatory crop improvement and agricultural biodiversity499 conservation

500 This case study from Nepal, complemented by a review of relevant501 literature from other countries in Africa and South America, illustrates502 how agroecological innovations happen within externally funded503 projects. The entry point for this study involves a series of projects504 implemented by the Plant Science Programme in Nepal, funded by the505 British Department for International Development (DFID)’s £220 m506 11-year Renewable Natural Resources Research Strategy between507 1995 and 2006. This strategy was managed through 10 different508 programmes across developing countries.

509 3.2.1. Regime condition510 The evolution of participatory research and extension in food and511 agriculture can be traced back to the mid-twentieth century, when the512 social, health and environmental impacts of the Green Revolution

513were becoming evident. One such attempt was the Farming Systems514Research and Extension, with various levels of integration of expert515knowledge, and local and indigenous practises. However, the linkages516between formal research systems of the incumbent socio-technical re-517gime, and informal practises of local and indigenous socio-ecological518systems were essentially linear and hierarchical. This means that519technology developed at research stations were tested through a520limited level of user participation in the one-way ‘technology supply521chain’ from modern scientific establishments to farming communities522(Collinson, 2000; Pant et al., 2012). Although these were all well-523meaning initiatives to test agricultural technologies on farmers' fields,524the level of farmers' involvement were very different: first, trials525planned and managed by scientists; second, trials planned by scientists526but implemented by farmers; and third, trials planned and managed by527farmers. The third type of trails were, however, beyond the scope of528the Farming Systems Research and Extension that was orchestrated529by the incumbent industrial regime of food and agriculture that530overlooked the role of local and indigenous communities in managing531socio-ecological systems.

5323.2.2. Agroecological niche innovation533During the early 1990s, the concept of participatory plant breeding534was developed, which illustrated an example of post-normal incar-535nation of researcher planned and farmer implemented on-farm tri-536als. Alternative plant breeding methods were first initiated in bean537breeding in Rwanda (Sperling et al., 1993) and latter carried to538Nepal (Witcombe et al., 1996) and Honduras (Classen et al., 2008;539Humphries et al., 2005). This method of participatory plant breeding540was carried over time and space by professional and personal541networks of plant breeders, social scientists and development practi-542tioners working for international agencies and northern universities.543As elsewhere in developing areas of the world, Nepal's incumbent544regime of food and agriculture remains insufficient to serve vulnerable545people and places. For example, despite a modest number of modern546rice varieties (about 50 in 2007) released by the national rice research547systems, only fewof themwere adopted even in high production poten-548tial areas, and only few of them were suitable for dry-season planting.549While scientists from NGOs under the funding from the DFID's Plant550Science Programme were influential to bring together a range of551stakeholders in participatory crop improvement, local farmers552remained sceptical about the cultural-cognitive legitimacy of NGO-553led participatory plant breeding techniques, let alone conventional554state-led plant breeding to serve their needs. In response to this,555a farmer in the Chitwan district used crop variety selection tech-556niques to develop and test two rice varieties through trial and557error, snatching a handful of seeds from scientific experimental558plots initially without the knowledge of participating scientists559(Pant and Hambly-Odame, 2009). As soon as civil society scientists560knew this ingenuity in niche practises the farmer was given full sup-561port to work further rather than legal sanctions for literally stealing562the seeds. The two rice varieties were recognised as transformational563by fellow farmers for dry-season cultivation as these are fine grain564varieties with food quality better than the existing dry-season565varieties that are all coarse grain.

5663.2.3. Carriers of cultural-cognitive institutional elements567The two rice varieties serve as reflexive interactive design artefacts568of farmer-led research and extension. The relational systems of reflexive569interactive learning among researchers and farmers were instrumental570to stimulate adaptive transitions, such as improving local crop varieties571for dry season cultivation as a strategy to adapt to extreme droughts in572the face of climate change. For example, the National Seed Committee573of Nepal under the rubric of pluralistic innovation systems amended574the existing crop variety registration and release procedure thereby575allowing both public and private actors, including rural farmers, to reg-576ister and/or release a variety. This initiative of crop variety registration




UNCO

RRECTED P

RO

OF

577 and release, which is characterised as incremental adaptations to agri-578 cultural biodiversity loss through monoculture of rice, was deemed579 helpful to document agricultural biodiversity that serve as a source of580 resilience in extreme events, such as droughts and outbreaks of insect581 pests and diseases. However, even after the two rice varieties gained582 cultural-cognitive legitimacy among the fellow rice growers, they583 were not considered safe enough to release officially, a clear illustration584 of a need for transformational adaptations in incumbent regime condi-585 tions through competitive niche-regime interactions. Confirming the586 incumbent socio-technical systems of food and agriculture, the two587 varieties were sent to disease screening and multi-location testing at588 public research stations. The multi-location testing was designed for589 assessing genotype by environmental interactions (GXE) through590 on-station research as if there was a risk to release them for general591 cultivation although the rice varieties were already in cultivation (for592 further details see Pant and Hambly-Odame, 2009). This illustrates a593 paradox of change through transformational adaptations in regime con-594 ditions and continuity through incremental adaptations. The apparent595 challenge is to gain regulative and normative legitimacy of agroecolog-596 ical niche innovations against the imposition of mandatory on-station597 testing of farmers' varieties that have no known negative social, health598 and environmental impacts.

599 3.3. Low-input rice intensification

600 The Systems of Rice Intensification (SRI) provides an empirical case601 to illustrate the paradox of change and continuity. First initiated by602 Father Henri de Laulaníe, a French Jesuit priest, in Medagascar in 1983,603 SRI concepts and techniques has spread around the world, not only in604 rice farming but also in the production of other crops, livestock605 and poultry as diverse as millet, sugarcane, potato, wheat, cotton, and606 chicken (Uphoff, 2006).5

607 3.3.1. Regime condition608 The failure of the incumbent socio-ecotechnical regime of food and609 agriculture to recognise the legitimacy of agroecological innovations610 has been also evident in crop intensification. One such example comes611 from SRI in Nepal, where some public sector scientists introduced this612 technique as early as 1999 but they failed to challenge the incumbent613 regime of food and agriculture (Uprety, 2006). In subsequent years,614 development practitioners, mostly from NGOs, tested various SRI615 techniques. Once declined by the incumbent public sector research sci-616 entists, the SRI gained its roots through the work of public extension617 workers in the Morang district of southeastern Nepal.

618 3.3.2. Agroecological niche innovation619 Sceptics of the SRI are understandable that the conventionalwisdom620 of rice cultivation help pursue that rice is a water-loving plant, and thus621 a flooded growing condition is necessary for a good harvest (for further622 details see Uphoff, 2006).6 In addition to the departure from this incum-623 bent socio-ecotechnical regime that dominated thinking and practise in624 rice research and extension, there are other fundamental deviations625 in SRI concepts and techniques: transplanting young seedlings of626 9–12 days against the conventional practise of transplanting seedlings

627of 25–30 days old, transplanting single seedling per hill against the628practise of transplanting multiple seedlings (3–5), wider spacing629of 20X20 cm or even 25X25 cm against the dominant practise of63015X15 cm or less spacing, and modifications in other cultural opera-631tions, such as mechanical control of weeds and non-chemical manage-632ment of insect pests and diseases. Thus SRI concepts and practises aim633to provide a highly favourable growing condition so that a given rice634variety develops stronger root systems, achieves its full potential to635give tillers, and tolerates biotic and abiotic stresses. All of these636elements of crop resilience are achieved through the practise of im-637proved soil aeration, wider spacing, planting of single seedling, and638non-chemical management of insect pests, diseases and weeds. These639agroecological niche innovations compete with incumbent socio-640ecotechnical regime of rice research and extension. Although SRI has641been questioned by some sceptics in support of the continuity of the642conventional rice farming, a SRI farmer in the Nalanda district of643Bihar, India, bordering to southeastern Nepal, set a world record yield644of 22.4 t paddy rice per hectare in 2011 (Vidal, 2013).

6453.3.3. Carriers of cultural-cognitive institutional elements646In spite of the widespread doubts about the SRI, it has transforma-647tional potential to produce more rice with less water and seed thereby648developing a low-carbon system of rice farming. A Nepalese extension649educator Rajendera Uprety (2009) shares a personal storey that in6502002 he was inspired to practise the SRI after reading an article written651by one of the theorists associated with the SRI International Network652and Resources Center (SRI-Rice).7 In Nepal, the reflexive interactive653design artefacts of SRI clearly stand out as an agroecological innovation654and symbolise a cultural-cognitive departure from the incumbent socio-655technical regime of high-input rice intensification. The passionate656proponents of this agroecological innovation in a neighbouring country657India include T. M. Thiyagaranjan at Tamil Nadu Agricultural University658in Tamil Nadu (Thiyagaranjan, 2006) and Alapati Satyanarayna659at Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University in Andhra Pradesh660(Basu and Leeuwis, 2012; Prasad, 2007). Interestingly enough,661Dr. Satyanarayan was initially a tough sceptic of the SRI, but he turned662into a proponent after an accidental injury of his fingers by the sturdy663rice blades grown under this technique in an official visit to Sri Lanka664(Prasad, 2007). As a result of SRI's salient paradox arising from com-665petitive interactions with the incumbent regime of rice farming, it666has led to transformational adaptations in incumbent rice research667and extension policy in many countries. For example, Indian policy668makers provided enabling policy environments to promote this669method of rice intensification. Basu and Leeuwis (2012) argue that670an unprecedented mainstreaming of SRI practises in India was the671transformation of enabling socio-ecotechnical regime conditions at672the state and federal levels.

6733.4. Differentiation of mango market and products

674This case study presents agroecological innovations that respond to675failed attempts of the incumbent socio-ecotechnical regime to export676Indian mangoes. As with the second case study on rice improvement677above, the opening for this case study also involves a series of projects678implemented by the Crop Post-Harvest Programme, also under DFID's679£220 m 11-year Renewable Natural Resources Research Strategy680between 1995 and 2006.

6813.4.1. Regime condition682Indian mango industry arguably provides natural competitive ad-683vantage over other mango producing countries accounting about 43%684of the world's mango production — the land of mangoes, a centre of685diversity. Despite this potential, India's incumbent socio-ecotechnical

5 For a review of SRI movements in Madagascar, please see Stoop et al. (2002). It is un-derstandable that SRI sustained strong criticism because the concepts and practises differfrom what have been understood to be the optimum conditions and techniques for ricecultivation and the success depends on neither of the two pillars of the crop-improvement paradigm of the Green Revolution: varietal improvement, and external in-puts. Rather the success of SRI depends of knowledge intensive modification of the envi-ronment under which a rice plant grows rather than the modification of genotypes of aplant making them responsive to high-level of inputs (e.g., fertiliser).

6 The SRI controversy reached its height during the beginning of 2000s. To learn moreabout the arguments against SRI, please see Dobermann (2004); McDonald et al.(2006); Sheehy et al. (2004), and Sinclair and Cassman (2004). The literature in favourof the controversy includes Prasad (2007); Stoop et al. (2002); Uphoff (2006) and Stoopand Kassam (2005) for a specific response to strong critics.

7 The SRI International Network and Resources Center (SRI-Rice), http://sri.ciifad.cornell.edu/aboutsri/aboutus/index.html.



http://sri.ciifad.cornell.edu/aboutsri/aboutus/index.html

http://sri.ciifad.cornell.edu/aboutsri/aboutus/index.html


UNCO

RRECTED P

RO

OF

686 regime of mango export promotion failed to deliver the highest yield of687 mango in terms of both quantity as well as quality. And it is generally688 perceived that Indian mangoes failed in the export market because the689 fruit spoils during a long transport and the sea shipment technology690 for perishable produce was not well developed. Quality was, however,691 just one of a series of evolving challenges to the competitive future692 of the mango sector. The incumbent regime was preoccupied with in-693 cumbent industrial practises: first, mango export promotion through694 the development of technology, such as experimenting sea fright and695 determining dosages of cobalt ray irradiation to sterilise mangoes; sec-696 ond, infrastructure development, including construction of integrated697 packhouse facilities and vapour treatment plants; and third, exclusive698 public policies to subsidise export oriented commercial mangoes699 compromising the capabilities of smallholder mango growers (for700 further details see Pant et al., 2012).701 Incumbent regime actors of commercial mango production and702 export initially did not sufficiently explore the potential for product703 differentiation through organic mango production and promotion of704 traditional value added products (e.g., pickle, mango leather and705 mango power). They also failed to find alternatives to export markets.706 Moreover, small-scale mango producers who maintain multifunctional707 home gardens were clearly excluded from the mainstream interven-708 tions to promote export of premium quality mangoes. The incumbent709 regime did not recognise aesthetic, ecological, nutritional and cultural710 values of species-diverse home gardens.

711 3.4.2. Agroecological niche innovation712 In the Krishna district of Andhra Pradesh, the Vijaya Fruit and713 Vegetable Growers Association with their repeatedly failed attempts714 to meet initial expectations of individual members to export mangoes715 through sea shipment went through two successive institutional716 restructuring since its establishment as a federation of cooperative717 in 1992. It was initially a federation of 16 primary cooperatives718 representing 500 farmers, then restructured into a public limited719 company, and finally, an association of 217 individual members.720 To the surprise of thosewho believe in the success of cooperativemove-721 ments, the effort to exportmangoeswas a dismal failure. The lost up-hill722 battle for cooperative marketing compelled mango farmers sell their723 produce to commission agents accepting unfair pricing mechanisms.724 In spite of all these dismal scenarios, a cooperative member utilised725 the processing facilities, heavily subsidised for export promotions,726 to supply premium quality mangoes to Indian supermarkets. This727 farmer who was initially ironically stereotyped as ‘son-in-law’ of gov-728 ernment officials getting preferential access to processing facilities for729 domesticmarketingwas later considered legitimate to help smallholder730 mango growers to access emerging domestic middle class mango con-731 sumers who shop in supermarkets. This paradox was salient through732 competitive niche-regime interactions, such as using subsidised733 processing facilities to supply premium quality mangoes to domestic734 supermarkets against expectations of the incumbent socio-technical735 regime actors. This is an example of learning from failure that led to736 strategic targeting of the growing urbanmiddle classmango consumers,737 including their demand for organically produced mangoes. Although738 local farmers articulated this agroecological innovation in terms of local739 marketing, it was indeed an adaptive transition to a low-carbon mango740 production and marketing. In a similar experience of a failure to export741 mangoes as a result of quality issues, such as mango weevil infestation,742 Kenyan mango farmers explored a host of value added products, such743 as juice, jam, pickles, mango leather, mango flakes, and raw mango744 powder for local markets (Gitika and Hawkins, 2011). Although these745 products were not organic, the focus on production of locally popular746 value added products was recognised as an adaptive transition strategy.

747 3.4.3. Carriers of cultural-cognitive institutional elements748 Unlike the other three case studies that have well-developed749 agroecological innovations, the niches in the mango sector of India,

750a traditional producer, and Kenya, an emerging producer, were still751experimenting with various alternatives. In terms of reflexive interac-752tive design artefacts, while Indian farmers have shown interest in753organic mango production, Kenyan farmers are getting into dried754value added products for local markets. The success of mainstreaming755these niche innovations was limited by competitive interactions of756niche practises with stringent regulations of the incumbent regime,757such as food quality and safety inspections of fresh as well value758added products. Some of the adaptations were incremental, such as759supply of premium quality mangoes to domestic supermarkets to760meet demands of growing middle class consumers. The potential761growth of organic and fair trademangoes in India can bring transforma-762tional adaptations in regime conditions.

7634. Discussion

764Empirical evidence from the above four case studies revealed765that most niche spaces are designed in a subtle way based on the766cultural-cognitive agency of niche-internal actors (also confirmed by767Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2009; Pant and Hambly-Odame, 2009). While768cultural-cognitive institutions are important for initial niche formation,769rurally and regionally appropriate technology development and770regime transformations require reflexive interactive understanding771of how niche practises compete or cooperate with the cognitive,772regulative and normative institutional elements of the incumbent773regime (Table 2). In other words, cognitive, normative and regulative774institutions mediate niche-regime interactions. Hence, the discussion775in this section focuses on two aspects of adaptive transition: first, agro-776ecological niche innovations and their cultural-cognitive institutional777elements; and second, competitive and cooperative niche-regime778interactions that respectively lead to salient and latent paradoxes779of mainstreaming.

7804.1. Agroecological innovations and their cultural-cognitive institutional781elements

782The case study innovations were at various stages of niche forma-783tion, rurally and regionally appropriate technology development, and784incumbent regime transformations. Participatory crop improvement785shows some evidence of adaptive transitions in Nepal's national786systems of agricultural innovation. This confirms Elzen et al.'s (2012a)787findings that transformations to sustainability would only be possible788through transformational adaptations in incumbent plant breeding789methods. Further, as Kates et al. (2012) put it, when incremental adap-790tations are not enough, it would be necessary to promote transforma-791tional adaptations through competitive niche-regime interactions,792such as the tensions between farmer-led crop improvement and the793incumbent public research and extension systems. This, however, para-794doxically leads to niche fragmentation into scientist-led and farmer-led795participatory plant breeding. But, as illustrated in the case studies of SRI796and zai, mainstreaming can also be possible without the risk of niche797fragmentation when niche spaces are protected under strong value sys-798tems. Lessons from these case studies provide precautions for successful799mainstreaming of niche innovations, such as organic mangoes in India,800that niche spaces should be deep and wide enough to protect their801core values before striving into a paradoxical task of mainstreaming.802Analysis of the determinants of mainstreaming using Scott's (2003)803concept of carriers of cultural-cognitive institutions should juxtapose804niche practises with cognitive, normative and regulative institutions of805the incumbent regime. As all four agroecological nicheswere controver-806sial in the beginning, socio-technical transition literature confirms that807niche innovations first struggle to gain cultural-cognitive legitimacy808within their own innovation spaces (see Geels and Verhees, 2011).809When reflexive interactive design artefacts, symbols and routines of810agroecological innovations became more prominent over time and811space, niche innovations gain cultural-cognitive legitimacy further




UNCO

RRECTED P

RO

OF

812 deepening their core values, often in anticipation of future crises in the813 incumbent industrial food and agricultural systems. However, a caveat814 arising from the latent paradox is that mainstreaming through incre-815 mental integration of niche practises into the incumbent regime does816 not necessarily help stimulate transformational adaptations. The failure817 to export mangoes from India and Kenya are such attempts to integrate818 agroecological practises into the incumbent regime of stringent regula-819 tions of incumbent high-value export markets without deepening the820 core values and principles of organic production. In other words, one821 can anticipate a complete loss of core values and principles of growing822 of organic mangoes if stakeholders continue to mainstream them in823 the export market under the stringent regulatory systems without824 first deepening the core values and principles of niches. Although it825 has not been long enough to observe the long-term consequences,826 neither in India nor in Kenya, evidence from Smith's (2007) study of827 organic movements in the UK suggests a likely scenario that an828 introduction of organic mangoes in the mainstream supermarkets829 may fragment niche spaces into local organic mangoes and the organic830 mangoes that are exported for sales in western ‘big-box’ stores.831 Competitive and cooperative niche-regime interactions respectively832 result in salient and latent paradoxes of organising, belonging, learning833 and performing. First, as discussed above, paradoxes of organising and834 belonging arise from cultural-cognitive institutional aspects of identity835 formation, reflexive interactive design of artefacts, symbolic systems,836 relational systems and established routines of communications within837 and beyond niche innovation spaces. For example, the identity of838 the four case study innovations as viable alternatives to the industrial839 food and agriculture are paradoxical, at least in some quarters, when840 looked from the perspective of incumbent regime that prioritise841 economic productivity over human health, social welfare and the842 natural environment.843 Second, the paradox of learning involves agroecological niche844 innovations and adaptive transitions. A need for such transitions845 towards transformational adaptations in regime conditions differs846 from incremental adaptations as the former modulate system innova-847 tion or regime shift to bring potential disruptive innovations (Elzen848 and Wieczorek, 2005). Thus, the process of generating novelty through849 deepening the core values and principles of niche innovations begins850 with the understanding of a learning paradox — unlearning learned851 habits and practises followed by subsequent learning and innovation852 (Becker, 2005; McWilliam, 2005; Sherwood, 2000). For example,853 triple-loop learning in the SRI involves the processes of unlearning854 established habits and practises whereby the cultural-cognitive agency855 of niche-internal actors reach a radical decision to challenge their own856 frame of reference that rice is not necessarily a water-loving plant to857 be grown under flooded conditions. Furthermore, local and indigenous858 communities continue to grow a diversity of rain-fed as well as deep

859water rice in many parts of the world despite the incumbent860practise of irrigated rice cultivation that force us to believe that rice is861ideally a water loving plant. And the dominant nursery practises,862transplanting methods and intercultural operations are after all863agronomic orthodoxies of the incumbent regime of intensive rice864monoculture under the influence of landscape level forces of chemical865and water intensive farming. Direct seeding of rice is also practised866in some areas. Thus, the case study finding confirms established man-867agement literature that niche innovations and adaptive transitions868would require questioning the dominant logic and commonly held be-869liefs (Bettis and Prahalad, 1995; Prahalad and Bettis, 1986). Thus,870mainstreaming niche innovations over time, scale and space requires871looking at various carriers of institutional elements, for example,872reflexive interactive design artefacts of zai techniques, relational sys-873tems of nominating zai representatives, networks of plant breeders874and SRI practitioners, and scripts of agroecological principles and875practises that are told and retold over time and space. These carriers876facilitate niche-internal actors to communicate beyond their comfort877zone of niche spaces, often through the relational systems of boundary878actors who can help build relational social capital to translate cultural-879cognitive scripts of agroecological innovations into the language of880regime actors and vice versa (Clark et al., 2011; Klerkx et al., 2010).881Finally, the paradox of performing involves competing strategies,882visions and goals, such as debates on achieving food security through883agroecological alternatives or industrial farming or some middle884pathways of agri-food sustainability transitions. Some argue thatmono-885culture in industrial farming has made the incumbent industrial food886and agricultural systems dependent on a selected domesticated species,887for example, 10 crop species and 5 animal species that are being888commonly grownworldwide. Andmonoculture is vulnerable to pertur-889bations, such as disease outbreaks, heat waves, droughts and market890price volatility. Many argue for more sustainable and resilient agroeco-891logical alternatives to the incumbent industrial food and agriculture892(Conway, 2012; Gliessman, 1998). The case studies provide empirical893evidence of challenges and opportunities to mainstream such alterna-894tives. The apparent performing paradox is that the agroecological895alternatives are critiqued as being less productive, often primitive and896inferior, than the industrial monoculture without considering their897social, health and environmental impacts. Now the next section898more specifically discusses the distinction between latent and salient899paradoxes of mainstreaming, and their implications for incremental900and transformational adaptations.

9014.2. Cooperative and competitive niche-regime interactions

902As it has become evident from the case studies, the success of devel-903oping ‘linking social capital’ to facilitate niche-regime interactions

t2:1 Table 2t2:2 Summary of the case studies with examples of cultural-cognitive institutional elements.

t2:3 Case studyt2:4 parameters

Case studies

t2:5 Soil & water conservation Participatory crop improvement Low-input rice intensification Mango market & productdifferentiation

t2:6 Agroecologicalt2:7 innovation

zai holes and stone lines. Locally adapted dry seasonrice varieties.

Alternative rice farming. New markets and products.

t2:8 Carriert2:9 Artefacts zai pits, terraces. Crop varieties. Sturdy rice plants, planting design. Domestic supermarkets, value

added products.t2:10 Symbolic systems zai for crop production and

agro-forestry.Crop varieties developed byscientists and farmers.

Conventional wisdom of floodedrice farming.

Organic and conventional mangoes.

t2:11 Relational systems Identity of zai technique amongother existing soil and waterconservation methods.

Isomorphism of conventionaland participatory plant breeding.

Identity of SRI technique aslow-input production methods

Isomorphism of domesticmarkets and export markets.

t2:12 Routines Scripts of zai technique. Scripts of farmers' rice varietydevelopment.

Scripts of SRI methods. Scripts of culturally appropriatemango gardens.

t2:13 Regime condition Increasing fallow period torevert desertification.

Conventional plant breeding,biodiversity loss.

Flooded rice farming, high inputcosts.

Export promotion, institutionalfailure.




UNCO

RRECTED P

RO

OF

904 depends on whether niche practises compete or cooperate with the905 incumbent regime. This leads to the development of three key princi-906 ples of mainstreaming niche innovations: first, nurture niche innova-907 tions that show a seemingly latent mainstreaming paradox; second,908 continually look for radical ideas and practises that compete with the909 incumbent regime manifesting a salient paradox; and third, challenge910 scientific profiling of niche innovations.911 First, the incumbent regime of industrial food and agriculture has912 gone through frequent crises, such as food insecurity, food borne913 disease outbreaks, chemical toxicity and hidden hunger, either from914 its own fate or through landscape level pressures to promote industrial915 monoculture. Some of these crises can be temporarily fixed through916 incremental adaptation practises that are seemingly compatible with917 the incumbent regime conditions. For example, the case study on crop918 improvement demonstrates that scientist-led participatory plant breed-919 ing reinforces the incumbent regime conditions that engaging farmers is920 effective only in evaluating selected traits that are not possible to test in921 labs or on-station trials. Similarly SRI techniques are equally applicable922 to grow local as well as modern rice varieties. However, the long-term923 impacts of a latent paradox depend on the developmental stage of an924 innovation (e.g., formation, deepening, widening, mainstreaming and925 fragmentation, if any, of niches), and human imagination of future real-926 ity thatmay anytime transform a latent paradox into a salient one. Thus,927 fundamental transformations in regime structures are important for928 mainstreaming of well-developed niche practises. This argument is929 based on the evidence that it may not always be possible to find niche930 practises that are ripe enough to fix regime crises unless they are931 nurtured through reflexive interactive design and development. Supply932 of premium qualitymangoes to supermarkets is another example of in-933 cremental adaptation to the incumbent market capitalist rationale to934 promoting high value mango production. The case of the growing935 urbanmiddle classmangomarkets in India also confirms that nurturing936 of niche spaces like this is important when regime, such as export937 promotion, fails to support regional and rural livelihoods (also see938 Pant et al., 2012).939 Second, transformational adaptations in regime conditions involve940 competitive niche-regime integration to influence sustainability transi-941 tions. The theory of salient paradox suggests that niche-internal actors942 should persistently look for radical ideas and practises unless transfor-943 mational adaptations are possible. Hence, it would not be smarter944 enough to strive early mainstreaming unless the innovation spaces are945 deep and wide enough to protect their core values and principles,946 particularly when there is a possibility of niche fragmentation, such as947 scientist-led and farmer-led participatory plant breeding (also see948 Pant and Hambly-Odame, 2009). This finding is also confirmed by949 earlier work on scientist-led participatory plant breeding that950 embrace many incumbent regime conditions to evaluate some traits951 (Witcombe et al., 2005): an absence of market incentives to develop952 a variety; to lower research costs through farmers' free labour, and to953 test food quality preferences that need to be confirmed with farmers954 in advance. Conditional engagement of farmers can be one of the955 reasons of niche fragmentation through a salient paradox.956 Finally, the incumbent regime of industrial food and agriculture can,957 often unintentionally, profile agroecological innovations as a second958 class science not credible enough to inform sustainability science policy959 and practise. For example, sceptics discount SRI experimental results as960 unconfirmed field observations (see Sheehy et al., 2004; Sinclair and961 Cassman, 2004; Stoop and Kassam, 2005). Legitimacy gap in zai962 practises that label innovators as deviants also illustrate profiling of963 niche innovations inferior to the incumbent regime of soil and water964 conservation. These deviants are indeed positive deviants with unique965 cultural-cognitive agency to challenge the status quo of cognitive,966 normative and regulative institutions of the incumbent regime. Such a967 scientific profiling is also reported by Goldberger (2008) that required968 the help of boundary actors to ‘scientise’ organic agriculture in Kenya.969 Subjecting rice varieties developed by Nepalese farmers into

970on-station multi-location testing also serve as an example of citizen971science being inferior to expert science. These findings confirm the972literature that reflexive interactive designs are important to mediate973interactions between niches of citizen science, and incumbent regime974of expert science (Bos and Grin, 2012).

9755. Conclusion

976In conclusion, clearly the incumbent industrial food and agriculture977is generally problematic to stimulate adaptive transitions to low-978carbon systems, particularly in areas where production systems are979already low-carbon. It is partly because the incumbent research and ex-980tension draw resources towards retrofitting carbon intensive industrial981production systems than adaptive transition of already low-carbon982subsistence production systems. Empirical evidence from the four case983studies unravels that the incumbent regime under the influence of984landscape level pressures of the market capitalist economic rationale985of industrial food production often stereotypes agroecological niche in-986novations as unscientific, primitive and low in productivity without987considering their social, health, aesthetic and environmental values.988However, the industrial monoculture that is economically productive989externalises social, health and environmental costs in an inconvenient990bid to keep the economic costs of production artificially low. Hence,991mainstreaming agroecological innovations is essentially paradoxical in992procedural as well as substantive terms. Procedurally it is a paradox of993change and continuity, and substantively it is about achieving regional994and rural food security, health and well-being through conventional or995alternative production systems. Reflexive interactive learning of these996paradoxes helps charter multiple pathways of agri-food sustainability997transitions. For example, evidence suggests that agroecological farming998can be economically less productive but socially inclusive and environ-999mentally benign through the use of ecological principles in food produc-1000tion and distribution. But many argue that industrial agriculture help1001improve indirect entitlements to food through such process as employ-1002ment, income generation and production of higher yields for domestic1003and international markets.1004Unlike inmore accessible areas of developed countrieswhere transi-1005tionmovements have become relatively successful in agriculture aswell1006as other sectors, it can be very different to work around the paradox of1007mainstreaming in rural and regional contexts of developing countries,1008including some low-income areas of developed countries. These regions1009are in a two-fold pressure: first, incremental adaptations to improve1010existing subsistence production practises; and second, transformational1011adaptations in regime conditions to develop sustainable food and agri-1012cultural systems that are more productive than the existing subsistence1013agriculture. In other words, regional and rural production systems are1014already low-carbon, but they are more subsistence oriented than the1015improved agroecological farming.1016This research contributes to the body of knowledge on sustainability1017transitions, and informs sustainable development policy and practise.1018Regarding knowledge generation, empirical evidence suggests that an1019integration of socio-ecological resilience building through adaptive1020capacity development, and socio-technical transitions through regime1021shifts can inform effective pathways to mainstream agroecological1022niche innovations in already low-carbon subsistence production1023systems. While the former thinking informs ways to improve local and1024indigenous practises for agroecological innovations, the latter suggests1025effective ways to put modern science and technology into society1026through such processes as reflexive interactive assessment of risks1027and benefits of new and emerging technologies. Adaptive transition1028theory that integrates the two properties of complex adaptive systems –1029adaptation and transition – of complex adaptive systems in the form1030of interlinked social, ecological and technical processes can inform1031formations of niches, development of rurally and regionally appropriate1032technology, and fundamental transformations in the incumbent regime1033of industrial food and agricultural systems. The adaptive transition




UNCO

RRECTED P

RO

OF

1034 framework is one effective way to integrate and operationalise the two1035 independently evolved complex adaptive systems to inform adaptive1036 transitions in the regional and rural contexts of food and agriculture in1037 a changing world. Analysis of empirical data of transition experiments,1038 such as agroecological approaches to soil and water conservation,1039 participatory crop improvement, crop intensification, and organic and1040 fair trade, using this framework provides evidence base to sustainable1041 agricultural development policy and practise. Thus, agroecological1042 niche innovations provide learning lessons for changes in incumbent1043 agricultural innovation policy and practise. Cooperative and competi-1044 tive niche-regime interactions respectively result in a latent paradox1045 of incremental adaptations and a salient paradox of transformational1046 adaptations in regime conditions.

1047 Uncited referencesQ7

1048 Bawden, 20021049 Holling, 19781050 Raynolds, 20091051 Sen, 19801052 Smits, 2002

1053 Acknowledgements

1054 An earlier version of this paperwas presented at the Guelph Organic1055 Conference, January 28–31, 2010. The author acknowledges the1056 participants of the conference for their insightful comments, and1057 organisations and individuals in Nepal, India and Canada who directly1058 or indirectly contributed to the research. The author also sincerely1059 thanks Laurens Klerkx in the Knowledge, Technology and Innovation1060 programme at Wageningen University in The Netherlands, Helen1061 Hambly Odame in the School of Environmental Design and Rural1062 Development and Evan D. G. Fraser in the Faculty of Geography,1063 both at the University of Guelph, Canada for their helpful comments1064 on the manuscript.

1065 References

1066 Adhikari, B., Tarkowski, J., 2013. Examining water governance: a new institutional1067 approach. J. Geogr. Nat. Disasters S5, 1–10.1068 Akram-Lodhi, A.H., 2013. Hungry For Change: Farmers, Food Justice, And The Agrarian1069 Question. Fernwood Publishing, Halifax, Canada.1070 Andersson, K.P., Ostrom, E., 2008. Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a1071 polycentric perspective. Pol. Sci. 41, 71–93.1072 Argyris, C., 1976. Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making.1073 Adm. Sci. Q. 21, 363–375.1074 Barbier, B., 1998. Induced innovation and land degradation: results from a bioeconomic1075 model of a village in West Africa. Agric. Econ. 19, 15–25.1076 Barbier, B., Yacouba, H., Karambiri, H., Zorome, M., Some, B., 2009. Human vulnerability to1077 climate variability in the Sahel: farmers' adaptation strategies in northern Burkina1078 Faso. Environ. Manag. 43 (5), 790–803.1079 Basu, S., Leeuwis, C., 2012. Understanding the rapid spread of System of Rice1080 Intensification (SRI) in Andhra Pradesh: exploring the building of support1081 networks and media representation. Agric. Syst. 111 (34–44).1082 Bawden, R., 2002. On the systems dimension in FSR. J. Farming Syst. Res. Ext. 5, 1–18.1083 Becker, K., 2005. Individual and organizational unlearning: directions for future research.1084 Int. J. Organ. Behav. 9, 659–670.1085 Berkhout, F., Verbong, G., Wieczorek, A.J., Raven, R., Lebel, L., Bai, X., 2010. Sustainability1086 experiments in Asia: innovations shaping alternative development pathways?1087 Environ. Sci. Pol. 13, 261–271.1088 Bettis, R.A., Prahalad, C.K., 1995. The dominant logic: retrospective and extension. Strateg.1089 Manag. J. 16, 5–14.1090 Blaikie, P., Brookfield, H., 1987. Land Degradation And Society. Methuen & Co., Ltd., London.1091 Bos, B., Grin, J., 2008. “Doing” reflexive modernization in pig husbandary: the hard work1092 of changing the course of a river. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 33 (4), 480–507.1093 Bos, B., Grin, J., 2012. Reflexive interactive design as an instrument for dual track1094 governance. In: Barbier, M., Elzen, B. (Eds.), System Innovations, Knowledge Regimes,1095 and Design Practices towards Transitions for Sustainable Agriculture. INRA Science1096 for Action and Development, France, pp. 132–153.1097 Clark, J.R.A., Semmahasak, C., 2013. Evaluating adaptive governance approaches to1098 sustainable water management in North-West Thailand. Environ. Manag. 51, 882–896.1099 Clark, W.C., Tomich, T.P., van Noordwijk, M., Guston, Catacutan, D., Dickson, N.M., McNie,1100 E., 2011. Boundary work for sustainable development: natural resource management

1101at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). PNAS 1–81102(Early Edition (August 15)).1103Classen, L., Humphries, S., FitzSimons, J., Kaaria, S., Jiménez, J., Sierra, F., Gallardo, O., 2008.1104Opening participatory spaces for the most marginal: learning from collective action1105in the Honduran hillsides. World Dev. 36, 2402–2420.1106Collinson, M.E., 2000. Evolving typologies for agricultural R&D. In: Collinson, M.E. (Ed.),1107A History of Farming Systems Research. CABI Publishing/FAO, Oxon, UK/Rome, Italy,1108pp. 51–58.1109Conway, G., 2012. One Billion Hungry: Can We Feed the World? Cornell University1110Press, Ithaca1111Critchley, W., 1991. Looking After Our Land: Soil And Water Conservation In Dryland1112Africa (Oxford, UK). Q81113Dobermann, A., 2004. A critical assessment of the systems of rice intensification (SRI).1114Agric. Syst. 79, 261–281.1115Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 141116(4), 532–550.1117Elzen, B., Wieczorek, A., 2005. Transitions towards sustainability through systems1118innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 72, 651–661.1119Elzen, B., Barbier, M., Cerf, M., Grin, J., 2012a. Stimulating transitions towards sustainable1120farming systems. In: Darnhofer, I., Gibbon, D., Dedieu, B. (Eds.), Farming Systems1121Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 431–455.1122Elzen, B., van Mierlo, B., Leeuwis, C., 2012b. Anchoring of innovations: assessing Dutch1123efforts to harvest energy from glasshouses. Environ. Innov. Societal Transit. 5, 1–18.1124Engle, N.L., 2011. Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Glob. Environ. Chang. 21, 647–656.1125Essama, S., 2005. Burkina Faso: The Zai Technique And Enhanced Agricultural1126Productivity. Ik Notes No. 80. World Bank, Washington, D. C. (Retrieved on1127April 21, 2012 from http://www.worldbank.org/afr/ik/iknt80.htm).1128Foxon, T.J., Reed, M.S., Stringer, L.C., 2009. Governing long-term social–ecological change:1129what can the adaptive management and transition management approaches learn1130from each other? Environ. Policy Gov. 19, 3–20.1131Gallopin, G.C., 2006. Linkages between vulnerability, resilience and adaptive capacity.1132Glob. Environ. Chang. 16 (3), 293–303.1133Garrity, D.P., Akinnifesi, F.K., Oluyede, C.A., Weldesemayat, S.G., Mowo, J.G., Kalinganire,1134A., Bayala, J., 2010. Evergreen agriculture: a robust approach to sustainable food1135security in Africa. Food Secur. 2 (3), 197–214.1136Geels, F.W., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration process:1137a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy 31, 1257–1274.1138Geels, F.W., Schot, J., 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res. Policy 36,1139399–417.1140Geels, F.W., Verhees, B., 2011. Cultural legitimacy and framing struggles in innovation1141journeys: A cultural-performative perspective and a case study of Dutch nuclear1142energy (1945–1986). Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 78 (6), 931–944.1143Giddens, A., 1984. The Constitution Of Society: Outline Of The Theory Of Structuration.1144University of California Press, Berkeley.1145Gitika, P.M., Hawkins, R., 2011. Putting my fruit with yours: organising the mango value1146chanin in Kenya. In: Nederlof, E.S., Wongtschowski, M., van der Lee, F. (Eds.), Putting1147Heads Together: Agricultural Innovation Platforms In Practice. Royal Tropical1148Institute, The Netherlands, pp. 168–175.1149Gliessman, S.R., 1998. Agroecology: Ecological Processes in Sustainable Agriculture. Ann1150Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI.1151Goldberger, J.R., 2008. Non-governmental organizations, strategic bridge building, and the1152‘scientization’ of organic agriculture in Kenya. Agric. Hum. Values 25, 271–289.1153Grin, J., 2006. Reflexive modernization as a governance issue— or: designing and shaping1154re-structuration. In: Voß, J.-P., Bauknecht, D., Kemp, R. (Eds.), Reflexive Governance1155For Sustainable Development. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 54–81.1156Gunderson, L., Holling, C.S., 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human1157and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington, D. C.1158Halbe, J., Pahl-Wostl, C., Sendzimir, J., Adamowski, J., 2013. Towards adaptive and1159integrated management paradigms to meet the challenges of water governance.1160Water Sci. Technol. 67 (67), 2651–2660.1161Hall, A., Clark, N., 2010. What do complex adaptive systems look like and what are the1162implications for innovation policy? J. Int. Dev. 22, 308–324.1163Hawkins, R.L., Maurer, R., 2010. Bonding, bridging and linking: how social capital operated1164in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. Br. J. Soc. Work. 40, 1777–1793.1165Hien, F., Sawadogo, H., Sohoro, A., Kambou, F., 2001. Pit for trees: how farmers in1166semi-arid Burkina Faso increase and diversify plant biomass. In: Reij, C., Waters-1167Bayer, A. (Eds.), Farmer Innovation in Africa: A Source Of Inspiration For Agricultural1168Development. Earthscan Publications Ltd., London.1169Holling, C.S., 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment And Management. John Wiley,1170New York, USA.1171Holling, C.S., 1986. Resilience of ecosystems: local surprise and global change. In: Clark,1172W.C., Munn, R.E. (Eds.), Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. Cambridge1173University Press, Cambridge [Cambridgeshire];New York.1174Holling, C.S., 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social1175systems. Ecosystems 4, 390–405.1176Holt-Giménez, E., Altieri, M.A., 2013. Agroecology, food sovereignty, and the new green1177revolution. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 37 (1), 90–102.1178Humphries, S., Gallardo, O., Jimenez, J., Sierra, F., 2005. Linking small farmers to the formal1179research sector: lessons from a participatory bean breeding programmed in Honduras.1180AgREN Network Paper 142. Overseas Development Institute (ODI), London, UK.1181Hung, S.-C., Whittington, R., 2011. Agency in national innovation systems:1182institutional entrepreneurship and the professionalization of Taiwanese IT. Res.1183Policy 40, 526–538.1184ILEIA, 1991. Project Agro-Fertilizer. ILEIA Newsletter (Retrieved on April 21, 20121185from http://www.agriculturesnetwork.org/magazines/global/assessing-farmer-1186techniques/projet-agro-forestier).



http://www.worldbank.org/afr/ik/iknt80.htm

http://www.agriculturesnetwork.org/magazines/global/assessingarmer-echniques/projetgroorestier

http://www.agriculturesnetwork.org/magazines/global/assessingarmer-echniques/projetgroorestier


UNCO

RRECTED P

RO

OF

1187 Joss, S., Bellucci, S. (Eds.), 2002. Participatory Technology Assessment: European1188 Perspectives. Centre for Study of Democracy, University of Westminster, London, UK.1189 Kates, R.W., Travis, W.R., Wilbanks, T.J., 2012. Transformational adaptation when1190 incrementaladaptations to climate change are insufficient. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 1091191 (19), 7156–7161.1192 Kemp, R., Schot, J., Hoogma, R., 1998. Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of1193 niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management. Tech. Anal. Strat.1194 Manag. 10, 175–198.1195 Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., 2009. Establishment and embedding of innovation broker at1196 different innovation systems levels: insights from the Dutch agricultural sector.1197 Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 76, 849–860.1198 Klerkx, L., Aarts, N., Leeuwis, C., 2010. Adaptive management in agricultural innovation1199 systems: the interactions between innovation networks and their environment.1200 Agric. Syst. 103 (6), 390–400.1201 Klerkx, L., van Bommel, S., Bos, B., Holster, H., Zwartkruis, J.V., Aarts, N., 2012. Design1202 process outputs as boundary objects in agricultural innovation projects: functions1203 and limitations. Agric. Syst. 113, 39–49.1204 Knickel, K., Brunori, G., Rand, S., Proost, J., 2009. Towards a better conceptual framework1205 for innovation processes in agriculture and rural development: from linear models to1206 systemic approaches. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 15 (2), 131–146.1207 Lacey, H., 2005. Values and Objectivity in Science: The Current Controversy About1208 Transgenic Crops. Lexington Books, New York.1209 Lamine, C., 2011. Transition pathways towards a robust ecologization of agriculture and1210 the need for system redesign: cases from organic farming and IPM. J. Rural. Stud.1211 27, 209–219.1212 Lemos, M.C., Agrawal, A., Eakin, H., Nelson, D.R., Engle, N.L., Johns, O., 2013. Building1213 adaptive capacity to climate change in less developed countries. In: Asrar, G.R.,1214 Hurrell, J.W. (Eds.), Climate Science for Serving Society: Research, Modeling and1215 Prediction Priorities, pp. 437–457.1216 Lewis, M.W., 2000. Exploring paradox: toward a more comprehensive guide. Acad.1217 Manag. Rev. 25 (4), 760–776.1218 Lissandrello, E., Grin, J., 2011. Reflexive planning as design and work: lessons from the1219 port of Amsterdam. Plan. Theory Pract. 12 (2), 223–248.1220 Lundvall, B.-Å., Johnston, R., Andersen, E.S., Dalum, B., 2002. National systems of produc-1221 tion, innovation and competence building. Res. Policy 31, 213–231.1222 Lüscher, L.S., Lewis, M.W., 2008. Organizational change and managerial sensemaking:1223 working through paradox. Acad. Manag. J. 51 (2), 221–240.1224 McDonald, J.H., Hobbs, P.R., Riha, S.J., 2006. Does the system of rice intensification1225 outperform conventional best management? A synopsis of the empirical record.1226 Field Crop Res. 96, 31–36.1227 McWilliam, E.L., 2005. Unlearning pedagogy. J. Learn. Des. 1, 1–11.1228 Nielsen, J.O., Reenberg, A., 2010. Cultural barriers to climate change adaptation: a case1229 study from Northern Burkina Faso. Glob. Environ. Chang. 20 (1), 142–152.1230 Olsson, P., Folke, C., Berkes, F., 2004. Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in1231 social–ecological systems. Environ. Manag. 34 (1), 75–90.1232 Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective1233 Action. Cambridge University Press, New York.1234 Pahl-Wostl, C., Giupponi, C., Richards, K., Binder, C., de Sherbinin, A., Sprinz, D., Toonen, T.,1235 van Bers, C., 2013. Transition towards a new global change science: requirements for1236 methodologies, methods, data and knowledge. Environ. Sci. Pol. 28, 36–47.1237 Pant, L.P., 2014. Critical systems of learning and innovation competence for addressing1238 complexity in transformations to agricultural sustainability. Agroecol. Sustain. Food1239 Syst. 38 (3), 336–365.1240 Pant, L.P., Hambly Odame, H., 2006. Multi-stakeholder deliberation on dialectical1241 divides: an operational principle of the systems of innovation. Knowl. Manag.1242 Dev. J. 2 (3), 60–74.1243 Pant, L.P., Hambly-Odame, H., 2009. The promise of positive deviants: bridging divides1244 between scientific research and local practices in smallholder agriculture. Knowl.1245 Manag. Dev. J. 5, 160–172.1246 Pant, L.P., Hambly-Odame, H., Hall, A., Sulaiman, V.R., 2012. Beyond the supply chains of1247 technology and commodity: challenges to strengthening Mango Innovation Systems1248 in Andhra Pradesh, India. World J. of Sci. Technol. Sustain. Dev. 9 (3), 175–193.Q91249 Pant, L.P., KC K., Fraser, E., Shrestha, P., Lama, A., Jirel, S., Chaudhary, P., 2014. Adaptive1250 transition management for transformations to agricultural sustainability in the1251 Karnali Mountains of Nepal. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1252 21683565.2014.942022.1253 Pant, L.P., Adhikari, B., Bhattarai, K.K., 2015. Adaptive transition for transformations to1254 sustainability in developing countries. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14 (June 2015).1255 Prahalad, C.K., Bettis, R.A., 1986. The dominant logic: a new linkage between diversity and1256 performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 7, 485–501.1257 Prasad, C.S., 2007. Rethinking innovation and development: insights from the System of1258 Rice Intensification (SRI) in India. Innov. J. 12 (2) (article 3).1259 Raynolds, L.T., 2009. Mainstreaming fair trade coffee: from partnership to traceability.1260 World Dev. 37 (6), 1083–1093.1261 Reij, C., Tappan, G., Smale, M., 2009. Agroenvironmental transformation in the Sahel:1262 another kind of ‘green revolution’. Retrieved on April 12, 2012 from http://www.1263 ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00914.pdf.1264 Robbins, P., 2012. Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. second ed. Wiley Blackwell,1265 West Sussex.1266 Roep, D., van Der Ploeg, J.D., Wiskerke, J.S.C., 2003. Managing technical–institutional1267 design processes: some strategic lessons from environmental co-operatives in the1268 Netherlands. NJAS Wagening. J. Life Sci. 51 (1/2), 195–328.

1269Roose, E., Kabore, V., Guenat, C., 1999. Zaï practice: a West African traditional rehabilita-1270tion system for semiarid degraded lands, a case study in Burkina Faso. J. Nativ.1271Agric. Environ. 13 (4), 344.1272Sawadogo, H., 2011. Using soil and water conservation techniques to rehabilitate1273degraded northwestern Burkina Faso. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 9 (1), 120–128.1274Schot, J., Geels, F.W., 2008. Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation1275journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Tech. Anal. Strat. Manag. 20,1276537–554.1277Schultz, L., Duit, A., Folke, C., 2011. Participation, adaptive co-management, and manage-1278ment performance in the world network of biosphere reserves. World Dev. 39 (4),1279662–671.1280Schwarz, A.-M., Bene, C., Bennett, G., Boso, D., Hilly, Z., Paul, C., Posala, R., Sibiti, S., Andrew,1281N., 2011. Vulnerability and resilience of remote rural communities to shocks1282and global changes: empirical analysis from Solomon Islands. Glob. Environ. Chang.128321, 28–40.1284Scott, W.R., 1995. Institutions and Organisations. Sage Publications, London/New Delhi.1285Scott, W.R., 2003. Institutional carriers: reviewing modes of transporting ideas over time1286and space and considering their consequences. Ind. Corp. Chang. 12 (4), 879–894.1287Sen, A., 1980. Poverty and Famines. Claredon Press, Oxford, UK.1288Sheehy, J.E., Peng, S., Dobermann, A., Mitchell, P.L., Ferrer, A., Yang, J., Zou, Y., Zhong, X.,1289Huang, J., 2004. Fantastic yields in the system of rice intensification: fact or fallacy?1290Field Crop Res. 88, 1–8.1291Sherwood, D., 2000. The unlearning organization. Bus. Strateg. Rev. 11, 31–55.1292Sidibé, A., 2005. Farm-level adoption of soil and water conservation techniques in1293northern Burkina Faso. Agric. Water Manag. 71, 211–224.1294Sinclair, T.R., Cassman, K.G., 2004. Agronomic UFOs? Field Crop Res. 88, 9–10.1295Smith, A., 2007. Translating sustainabilities between green niches and socio-technical1296regimes. Tech. Anal. Strat. Manag. 19 (4), 427–450.1297Smith, W.K., Lewis, M.W., 2011. Toward a theory of paradox: a dynamic equilibrium1298model of organizing. Acad. Manag. Rev. 36 (2), 381–403.1299Smith, A., Raven, R., 2012.What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to1300sustainability. Res. Policy 41 (6), 1025–1036.1301Smith, A., Stirling, A., 2010. The politics of socio-ecological resilience and sustainable1302socio-technical transitions. Ecol. Soc. 15 (1), 11.1303Smits, R., 2002. Innovation studies in the 21st century: questions froma user's perspective.1304Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 69, 861–883.1305Sperling, L., Loevinsohn, M.E., Ntabomvura, B., 1993. Rethinking the farmer's role in1306plant breeding: local bean experts and on-station selection in Rwanda. Exp. Agric.130729, 509–519.1308STEPS, 2010. Innovation, Sustainability and Development: A New Manifesto. STEPS1309Centre, Brighton, UK.1310Sternin, J., 2003. Positive deviance: a new paradigm for addressing today's problems1311today. J. Corp. Citizenship 5, 57–62.1312Stoop, W.A., Kassam, A., 2005. The SRI controversy: a response. Field Crop Res. 91,1313357–360.1314Stoop,W.A., Uphoff, N., Kassam, A., 2002. A review of agricultural research issues raised by1315the system of rice intensification (SRI) fromMadagascar: opportunities for improving1316farming systems for resource-poor farmers. Agric. Syst. 71, 249–274.1317Thiyagaranjan, T.M., 2006. Adapting SRI in Tamil Nadu, India. LEISA Mag. 22, 28–29.1318Truffer, B., Coenen, L., 2012. Environmental INNOVATION AND SUSTAINABILITY1319TRANSITIONS IN REGIONAL STUDies. Reg. Stud. 46 (1), 1–21.1320Uphoff, N., 2006. The system of rice intensification and its implications for agriculture.1321LEISA Mag. 22, 6–8.1322Uprety, R., 2006. SRI takes root in Nepal. LEISA Mag. 22, 25–27.1323Uprety, R., 2009. The large impact of a small article. LEISA Mag. 25, 18–19.1324van den Bosch, S., 2010. Transition Experiments: Exploring Societal Changes Towards1325Sustainability (PhD Thesis) Eramus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.1326Vidal, J., 2013. India's RICE REVOLUTION: CHINESE SCIENTISTS QUESTIONS MASSIVE1327HARVESts. The Guardian Global Development (Saturday 23 February 2013).1328Voß, J.-P., Bornemann, B., 2011. The politics of reflexive governance: challenges for1329designing adaptive management and transition management. Ecol. Soc. 16 (2), 9.1330Williams, P., 2002. The competent boundary spanner. Public Adm. 80, 103–124.1331Witcombe, J.R., Joshi, A., Joshi, K.D., Sthapit, B.R., 1996. Farmer participatory crop1332improvement: I. varietal selection and breeding methods and their impact on1333biodiversity. Exp. Agric. 22, 443–460.1334Witcombe, J.R., Joshi, K.D., Gyawali, S., Musa, A.M., Johansen, C., Virk, V.S., Sthapit, B.R.,13352005. Participatory plant breeding is better described as highly client-oriented1336plant breeding I. Four indicators of client — orientation in plant breeding. Exp.1337Agric. 41, 299–319.1338World Neighbors, 2007. West Africa: How Trees Are Bringing Hope To Communities.1339World Neighbors, pp. 4–6 (June 2007).1340Yin, R.K., 2002. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications,1341Newbury Park.

1342Laxmi Prasad Pant is Adjunct Professor of Capacity Development and Extension in the1343School of Environmental Design and Rural Development at the University of Guelph. His1344research focuses on agroecological innovations and sustainability transitions, including1345social and ecological impacts of new and emerging, often controversial, technologies. His1346postdoctoral research on these issues involvesworkwith TheMonieson Centre at Queen's1347School of Business.1348

1349



http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2014.942022

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2014.942022

http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00914.pdf

http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpridp00914.pdf


Documents

Paradox of mainstreaming agroecology for regional and rural food security in developing countries