Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Conclusion
One of the key lessons learned from comparing the three initiatives was the crucial role of
normative institutions and funding opportunities, identified as key drivers in the emergence
and development of transitions. In the MLP, successful transition of niche innovation
occurs when the socio-technical landscape opens up a window of opportunity by putting
pressure on the regime. In other words, the successful development of HNVF innovation
would lead to transition utilizing policy support from one side, as financial payments, and
from the other as restrictions imposed on the regime (such as encouraging intensive farmers
to become engaged in sustainable agriculture). The CAP regulations (landscape pressures)
shape the current legal framework for promotion, adaptation and further development of the
initiatives. But the practical implementation of HNV rules and the relevant agri-
environmental measures vary between the cases. In France, it is shaped as a bottom-up
approach where policy with regards to such measures has been efficiently implemented;
whereas in Bulgaria and Portugal, the top-down approach is followed as HNVF policy is
adopted and implemented by the measures and included in their National Rural
Development Programmes (2007-2013). This process is more recent, policy driven
(provides a window of opportunity forcing the regime to recognize the niche) and in both
cases is reinforced by bottom-up processes driven by actors like NGOs. These NGOs can
be active promoters of policy requirements and facilitators of interrelations between niche
and regime actors (for example between farmers and administrators). These examples
illustrate how national policies can be adhered to and adequately implemented at regional
level, taking into account particular regional characteristics and needs.
Another important lesson learned concerns the role of producers in collaboration and
networking processes and their potential effect on the pathway to transition. In the
Bulgarian case, farmers were considered to be beneficiaries of extension services and
public policy; they did not take part in creating the local development plan and this lack of
participation could affect further adoption of the innovation (Callon
et al
., 2001). In the
French case, farmers were empowered and officially commissioned to manage a public
good; they became the leaders of the initiative and could influence public decisions and
policy making. In the Portuguese case, they were part of the collaboration process in the
same way as other actors involved in the collective efficiency strategy. It is perhaps too
early to draw definitive conclusions about the success of the initiative s but we can suppose
that this approach is efficient in terms of adoption of the innovation and management of
public funding. Based on the research we cannot conclude that a bottom-up initiative makes
the process easier.
However, we can verify that transition is an ongoing process. The transition process
reached the take-off phase only in the French initiative, as it was the most longstanding. It
is too early to conclude that the initiatives led to a transition in the Bulgarian and
Portuguese cases, as they are at an early stage of transition. From the MLP perspective, for
transition to happen there should be alignment at the three levels: niche, regime and
landscape. In our cases the alignment of the three levels was achieved in the French case
but it has not yet been achieved in the Bulgarian and Portuguese cases due to the time-
frame and other constraints. The research on the transition to HNVF raises questions as to
whether the transition has an end, and what follows the stabilization of the transition.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search