Conclusions - Transition Pathways towards Sustainability in Agriculture: Case Studies from Europe - page 216

In contrast, support for the protection function of agriculture is where multifunctional
agricultural policy - at least in northern Europe - has focused in recent decades (Wilson,
2007). The natural resource initiatives discussed in this topic were established to counter
water quality issues resulting from intensive agricultural production (Vlahos and Schiller,
this volume), whereas HNVF is about the social, economic and environmental
sustainability of remote, marginal agricultural areas (Peneva et al. , this volume). Smith
(2007) points out the challenges in establishing green niches, arguing that linking to the
regime is easier for niches which are aligned to it but the closer the alignment, the less
likely it is that the niches will lead to a radical transition. In their French case study,
Darrot et al. (this volume) describe how, despite the development of a well-anchored
niche (including low input farmers, suppliers, scientists, tourist industry members and
government officials) the political pressure brought about by intensive farmers led to
weak mediation strategies and, ultimately, the failure of government policies to eradicate
toxic 'green tides' caused by water pollution. In contrast, the HNVF areas were very
successful in engaging new participants, including young people. The challenges for
supporting protection functions appear to be far greater in regions where land is more
productive (where market forces support the production function). The challenge of long -
term funding for these public goods is also an issue; although the research has identified
some promising options (such as shareholder cooperatives and payments for ecosystem
services) the variable market value of different social and environmental services, within a
context of increasing scarcity of state resources, raises the questions of the winners and
losers in these types of funding strategies.
In identifying particular trajectories for agriculture, it is important to note that the
scaling-up of innovations was not necessarily the intention of the initiatives studied.
Proliferation, when it occurred, was more viable (as local food, by definition, can onl y be
local to a specified geographical area). Innovations adopted in the regions studied were
also not necessarily local to that region. For example, the machinery ring concept was
already successful in Germany before it was introduced to Scotland by state -funded
agricultural advisors. The CRIE Montado niche was established to follow a Dutch
programme. The renewable energy technologies were largely developed outside of the
regions that were studied, and then imported by enthusiastic actors. Further, local
certification schemes and AAFN may have been pioneered in the French cases but it is
clear that founders of more recently established cases, in the Czech Republic and
Bulgaria, had observed similar processes elsewhere. In addition, as Darnhofer et al. (this
volume) outlined, one niche can affect the regime, paving the way for others. Smith and
Raven (2012) described this as a change in the selection context ('stretch and transform
empowerment'), where the regime is transformed through institutionalization of some
features of the niche. Successful development may, thus, result from adoption of practices
which have been successful elsewhere, rather than new innovation per se .
Future directions and looking forward
The FarmPath project was developed in response to a European Commission call in 2009,
for research on enabling sustainability transitions in agriculture. Since then, concerns