Conclusions - Transition Pathways towards Sustainability in Agriculture: Case Studies from Europe - page 209

volume). As Vlahos and Schiller point out, the socio-technical transitions literature tends
to focus on market-based solutions to sustainability issues. Although it is recognized that
niches initially require protection from market forces (Geels, 2007), little consideration is
given to the development of niches for which there may, or may not, be a functioning
market (for example, transitions associated with public rather than private goods). These
cases are addressed further in the following section.
The implicit expectation of market penetration by niches, as part of the process of
regime change, may reflect the centrality of physical technologies within the MLP:
technology-centric transitions almost inevitably include market penetration and
integration because these physical technologies are clearly marketable products. Within
the MLP, markets represent central organizing forces for regime actors, reinforcing their
power and position, and establishing the value of new and existing technologies and rules
(such as creating 'negative' lock-ins; see Wilson, 2012). Transition is, thus,
conceptualized as occurring when the incumbent regime becomes unable to respond to a
landscape pressure, leading to an opportunity for existing niches to fill this gap. In the
typical studies of transition processes, this leads to new market opportunities for the
technologies developed and supported by niche actors (such as technology substitution
pathways). Uncritical use of the MLP could lead to reliance on commercial market forces
and, in its application to sustainability problems, a bias towards identification of
'technology fix' solutions (rather than new organizational forms or collaborative actions).
The problems caused by market forces, such as economies of scale leading to
environmental degradation and local job losses, remain unchallenged.
The cases presented in this topic also raise the question: 'which markets are
relevant?' Whilst it is recognized that new innovations often emerge outside, or on the
periphery of a regime (Geels and Schot, 2010), studies utilizing the MLP typically focus
on niche integration/transition into a single dominant regime. In the case studies in this
book, some of the markets are entirely outside of the agricultural sector (for example in
the case of renewable energy production, farm-produced renewable energy is sold back
into the energy sector through the electricity grid, Sutherland et al. b, this volume). Even in
the cases where the aim included food production (e.g. AAFN and local certification
schemes), it is notable that these initiatives do not typically set out to transform, or anchor
into, the markets of the incumbent agricultural regime. Instead, they focus on developing
new, 'autonomous' (arguably hybrid) markets, anchored in multiple sectors (such as food
and tourism). Mainstream agricultural marketing channels, meanwhile, appear to have
remained intact. Indeed, as Darrot et al. (this volume) argue, autonomy was the goal of the
AAFNs studied, rather than regime change. Conventional agricultural markets, thus,
appear to be problems which need to be addressed through transitions towards
sustainability, rather than being part of the solution.
The cases, thus, also demonstrate increasing market competition in rural areas over
resource access. In the lifestyle farming and on-farm renewable energy production
chapters (Pinto-Correia et al .a and Sutherland et al .b, both this volume), commercial
farmers face growing competition for agricultural land. This plays out differentially,
reflecting regional characteristics and the type of production involved. In the renewable
energy cases focused on biogas production (Germany and the Czech Republic), where
slurry and maize were also important to production, farmers retained their competitive