A new green revolution or agribusiness as usual? Uncovering alignment issues and potential transition complications in agri-food system transitions

Abstract

Agri-food system transitions are a considerable challenge requiring stakeholder alignment on what changes need to be made and how. When stakeholders do not agree on the goals or methods of a transition, this can be a serious obstacle to success. This paper analyzes 42 vision documents for the future of Dutch agriculture from a broad range of stakeholders to determine stakeholder alignment using an inductive coding approach. We identified 23 issues as the main challenges for the transition in these documents. We are the first to categorize them according to a recently proposed problem-solution space for wicked problems. Stakeholders were fully aligned in recognizing the problem for the majority of issues, but showed agreement on solutions for less than a quarter. For the issues of international orientation, sector size, and farm business models, we found a lack of consensus on the problem, indicating fundamental disagreement about the type of agricultural sector desired by stakeholders. The apparent consensus on environmental and social issues provides clear societal expectations for agronomic development and innovation, while the divergence on economic issues highlights the rift between growth-oriented paradigms and more holistic paradigms like agroecology. The crucial empirical novelty of this paper is that progress on environmental and social matters is restricted by divergent views on the economic characteristics of a future agri-food system, adding further complexity to mission-oriented transition and innovation policies.

People’s attitudes towards the agrifood system influence the value of ecosystem services of mountain agroecosystems

“…This study also reveals that society might be highly segmented in different social groups regarding these attitudinal dimensions, which can lead to a double reading: on the one hand, despite this segmentation, we found widespread support to improve the delivery of some ES across all social groups (e.g., the general preference for higher biodiversity levels across social groups may facilitate the implementation and success of biodiversity policies, such as the European Biodiversity Strategy 2030) [ 91 ]; on the other hand, since a generalised consensus on the desired goal (improve ES delivery) does not always imply agreements about the ways and means to achieve it, conflicts are likely to emerge. In the end, these conflicts may determine the success or failure of policies, as highlighted by other authors [ 89 , 92 ].…”

Constructing legitimacy for technologies developed in response to environmental regulation: the case of ammonia emission-reducing technology for the Flemish intensive livestock industry

“…As other authors have pointed out, these technologies generally address agri-environmental impacts without fundamentally altering the agricultural system (Barnes 2016;Firbank 2020). For this reason, several authors have taken to calling these technologies techno-fixes (Mooney 2018;Wojtynia et al 2021). Governments have a key role in directing the development of these technologies, by setting out the problem-solution space in agri-environmental regulation (Borrás and Edler 2020;Conti et al 2021;Wojtynia et al 2021).…”

“…For this reason, several authors have taken to calling these technologies techno-fixes (Mooney 2018;Wojtynia et al 2021). Governments have a key role in directing the development of these technologies, by setting out the problem-solution space in agri-environmental regulation (Borrás and Edler 2020;Conti et al 2021;Wojtynia et al 2021). Other authors have shown that existing sociotechnical configurations lend legitimacy to such technological solutions (or techno-fixes) for environmental problems (Montenegro de Wit and Iles 2016; Vanloqueren and Baret 2009).…”

Crop up! : adoption and value chain organisation in crop diversification transitions

“…Yet, the enablers and barriers for bringing these niches to scale at a territorial level are far from being fully understood (Ingram, 2015;Magrini et al, 2016;Meynard et al, 2018;Morel et al, 2020). The implementation and adoption of niche practices at larger scale is a complex endeavour (Boulestreau et al, 2021;Wigboldus et al, 2016;Wojtynia et al, 2021) and in the case of crop diversification touches upon many dimensions, including policies, markets and value chains, and farm management (Magrini et al, 2016;Meynard et al, 2018;Voisin et al, 2014). Accordingly, farmers are not always in full control of their choice to adopt crop diversification (Bonke & Musshoff, 2020), and while they can stimulate change at the innovation niche level (Boulestreau et al, 2021), it is the scaling of these practices that is essential to bring about the sustainability transitions food systems need.…”

“…Fuenfschilling & Truffer, 2014;Huxley et al, 2019;Smink et al, 2015). Just like transition processes, the scaling process of niches is non-linear and based on tensions and negotiations (Fuenfschilling & Truffer, 2014;Geels, 2011) and if stakeholders are not aligned, transitions are likely to be blocked (Wojtynia et al, 2021). It is proposed that these tensions and negotiations are guided by the (changing) institutional logics upon which a niche is built (Fuenfschilling & Truffer, 2014;Thornton & Ocasio, 1999).…”