Conclusions - Transition Pathways towards Sustainability in Agriculture: Case Studies from Europe - page 210

advantage. However, in the UK case of wind energy production, where land is the sole
'agricultural' resource required, corporations are proving more able than farmers to
withstand the growing economic risks of turbine development, and are increasingly
dominating the transition process (see Sutherland et al. b, this volume). In the lifestyle
farming chapter (Pinto-Correia et al. a, this volume), competition for land was noted as
problematic in the Scottish case where lifestyle farming is leading to increased property
values, which in turn restrict opportunities for young farmers. However, in the Portuguese
case, lifestyle farming occurs on otherwise under-utilized land, thereby combatting land
abandonment (see Pinto-Correia et al. a, this volume). Although it has long been
recognized that farmers are no longer the dominant actors in many rural areas of Europe
(Wilson, 2007), the analysis in this topic brings to light concerns about the impact of open
land markets on who manages natural resources like land, and for what purposes. It also
raises the question of winners and losers in transition processes, an issue that Geels and
Schot (2010) recognize is not typically assessed by MLP studies.
The role of policy
The public goods provided through the agricultural sector represent the justification for
substantial policy investment. With the notable exception of Pinto-Correia et al. a (this
volume), most of the cases studied in this topic have had a significant amount of state
intervention. Within the MLP, policy is constructed as part of the incumbent regime.
Geels (2004) proposes that laws, regulations and standards represent 'regulative' rules:
one of three types of rules embedded in regimes (cognitive, regulative and normative).
The achievement of policy support for niches is also identified by Elzen et al. (2012) as an
important element of institutional anchoring.
As suggested in the previous section, policy interventions are particularly important
to support the protection of public goods. Renewable energy production was supported in
order to address climate change issues; HNVF to increase biodiversity and population
retention in remote areas; local certification schemes and AAFN, in part, to reduce the
environmental impact of agriculture; and supports to natural resource management were
aimed directly at improving water quality. However, as a characteristic of the frequently
negative 'lock-in' of the dominant regime, existing policies can also work against
sustainability transitions. Lošťák et al. (this volume) describe how food processing
regulations, designed for large-scale processing, limited the development of locally
certified products in the Bulgarian case study. They also describe the mismatch between
new forms of governance at the regional level and existing governance actions at the
national level. Slee and Pinto-Correia (this volume) suggest that policy supports
emanating from the EU level are inherently inconsistent, with the majority of subsidies
arguably targeted at productivist agriculture (CAP Pillar 1), and a minority aimed at
addressing the failures of this system through Pillar 2. The policies impacting on the niche
are also not necessarily set within a single sector. Sutherland et al. b (this volume) describe
the disconnection between agriculture and energy sector supports and objectives: farm
diversification grants for renewable energy production have been dwarfed by the price
supports provided through the energy sector. The result is the loss of opportunities to
realize long-term rural development aims through farm-based production, in favour of
large-scale renewable energy developments that contribute far less to community