governance, sustainability and pathways to food and agricultural futures
TRANSCRIPT
Governance, Sustainability and Pathways to Food and
Agricultural Futures
Dr John ThompsonResearch Fellow, Knowledge, Technology and Society,
Institute of Development Studies and
Co-convenor, Food and Agriculture Domain
The STEPS Centre, UK
Second International Conference on Sustainability Science
23-25 June 2010 – Rome
Presentation• A pathways approach
• Framings of pathways to
sustainable food and
agriculture futures
• Redefining sustainability
• The ‘3Ds’ – directionality,
distribution, diversity
• Incertitude – contrasting states
of incomplete knowledge
• Policy responses and
conclusions
Linear view of agricultural
science and technology
• Notions of „progress’ pervade
debates about food and agricultural
futures
• Policy makers speak of „the way
forward‟ often without saying which
way
• Agricultural history is viewed as a
„race to advance science and
technology‟ without stating the
particular direction
Progress
Past
Future
Open nature of
technological progress
Progress
Science
Technology
Governments proclaim „pro-
innovation‟ and „pro-
sustainability‟ policies, without
specifying which options or
values are prioritised
Dissent over choice of
directions is treated as
generally „anti-technology‟
Underlying view of
technological progress:
• seen as singular pathway
• determined by science…
Future innovation pathways?
Time
But innovation in food and
agriculture systems is
„vector‟ not „scalar‟
Technological trajectories are
characterised by the crucial
property of direction as well
as magnitude
Difficult to assert a single,
uniquely objective „way
forward‟ toward an optimal
food and agricultural future
Many past examples of repeated „lock-in‟ at expense of diversity
… QWERTY keyboards…
… Microsoft Windows software…
…Internal combustion engine…
Deliberately or not – societies close down directions of progress
Pressures intensify with globalisation, harmonisation, standardisation
Time
Historic „branching pathways‟
Future innovation pathways?
Plural interests and values favour a diversity of directions or
innovation pathways:
e.g., seed production: – genetic modification;
– commercial industrial hybrids;
– public open source research;
– participatory plant breeding;
– farmer-led seed multiplication
Time
innovation
is ‘vector’
not ‘scalar’
Governance and pathways to
sustainability
The nature of governance and pathways to
sustainability in agri-food systems are intimately
intertwined in at least two ways:
1. Issues in today‟s world are open to a variety of
different ‘framings’ or „narratives’ about problems
and potential policy solutions each suggesting
particular ‘pathways to sustainability’
2. Political and institutional processes are often key
factors implicated in these framings and pathways
themselves
Dynamic sustainabilities:
Towards a „pathways approach‟
• Diverse „framings‟, actors and interests (power
and politics) related to dynamic agri-food
systems
• Multiple dimensions of sustainability
• Broad reflection + critical reflexivity
• Deal with incomplete knowledge („incertitude‟)
• Open, democratic, accountable process
• Systematic, rigorous
environment
system
‘Fra
min
gs’
A „system‟ heuristic
‘Framings’
can be defined as:
Particular ways of
understanding or
representing a
socio-technical or
natural system and
its environment
Narratives about
system dynamics
and governance
Multiple framings:
• Dominant
• Alternative
• Suppressed
„system‟
environmentComprehensively
reflect the full
range and diversity of
• elements
• linkages
• dynamics
in a system
Reflective scope
and its environment
environment
„system‟
FR
AM
ING
S
Not about objective:
• context-variability
• scale of analysis
• nonlinear dynamics
• stochastic functions
• uncertainties
But intrinsically
subjective:
• narratives
• perspectives
• interests
• values
go
vern
men
tin
du
str
yN
GO
slo
ca
ls
A reflexive understanding
Narratives, actors, interests
• Competing framings/narratives of systems and
qualities are linked to particular actors, networks
and interests
• Narratives are co-produced with governance and
intervention strategies – they are inherently political
• Dominant narratives vs. alternative narratives,
including those of marginalised groups – sometimes
hidden or suppressed
• Unavoidable constructivist element ‘The operative
question is how to distinguish between good
constructions and bad?’
environment
system
do
min
an
t
fra
min
g
Dominant:
• Avian flu as a
‘global security threat’
• Biofuels as
‘sustainable energy’
• GM technology as
‘farmer empowerment’
• Drought tolerant maize as
‘resilience in the seed’
Powerful institutions assert
particular framings in ag policy debates
environment
system
marg
inal
fram
ing
sd
om
ina
nt
fra
min
g
Alternative:
• Avian flu as a
‘local livelihood problem’
• Biofuels as
‘carbon intensive’
• GM technology as
‘industrial control’
• Drought tolerant maize as
‘technological lock-in’
Powerful institutions close down
alternative framings in ag policy debates
STEPS Centre is using maize as a ‘window’ though which to analyse the dynamics of
environmental, social and technical change
in ‘innovation systems’ in Africa
Environmental change and
maize innovation pathways
• Climate change narrative leading to concerns about food security
• Dominant framing Maize security = food security – has huge influence on national food policy in E&S Africa
• New R&D, government policy and major donor investments in developing „Drought Tolerant‟ / „Water Efficient‟ maize for dryland environments
• „Pathways in and out of maize‟ Posing the question, „Why maize?’ seeking to understand the „lock in‟ to the dominant maize pathway; revealing alternative pathways
STABILITY RESILIENCE
environment
DURABILITY
environment
system
endogenous
shock
system
internal
stresses
system
environment
transient exogenous shocks
ROBUSTNESS
environmentsecular
external
stress
system
Properties of sustainability
Sustainability
Long-term maintenance
of system functions
Equity, Social Justice
Envt’l Quality
Stability
against
internal
shocks
Resilience
against
external
shocks
Robustness
under external
stresses
Properties of Sustainability
Durability
under internal
stresses
Redefining sustainability
• We need to ask, „What exactly is to be
sustained and for whom?’
• This means linking sustainability to
specific qualities of equity, social
justice and environmental integrity
• Sustainability goals are therefore
context-specific and inevitably
contested
• This makes public deliberation and
negotiation about those goals
essential a ‘3D’ agenda
A “3D” agenda
• Directionality – of pathways towards specific
sustainability objectives
• Distribution – more equitable distribution of benefits,
costs and risks associated with innovation
• Diversity – in socio-technical systems, in order to
build robust and resilient systems, mitigate ‘lock-in’
and cater for seemingly irreconcilable perspectives
on value and sustainability
Direction, distribution, diversity
• Questions about the future of food and
agricultural systems are often restricted to: ‘yes
or no?’; ‘how much?’; ‘how fast?’; ‘who leads?’
• More searching questions are often neglected:
‘which way?’; ‘what alternatives?’; ‘who says?’;
‘who benefits?’ and ‘why?’
• There are many possible pathways each looks
preferable to different actors and interests
• Only by nurturing diversities of pathways in agri-
food systems can we confidently reduce
vulnerability, empower the least advantaged and
promote sustainable food futures
Agri-food system dynamics and
development challenges
• Dynamic interactions between social, ecological and technological change in diverse agri-food systems exemplify unfolding situations where different kinds of „incertitude‟ play out uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance, as well as risk
• Short term shocks interplay with longer-term stresses over a variety of scales
• In this context, rather than aim at what might turn out to be illusory „control‟ of a „knowable future‟…
shock (against transient
disruption)
stress (agaInst
enduring shift)
control (change is internal
to control system)
response (change is external
to control system)
temporality
of change
STABILITY
Pressures for planned equilibrium
POWER DYNAMICS
incumbent institutions
favour strategies which
preserve the status quo
DURABILITY
RESILIENCE
ROBUSTNESS
Need to be reflexive about the dynamics of power
potency of action
shock (against transient
disruption)
stress (agaInst
enduring shift)
control (change is internal
to control system)
response (change is external
to control system)
temporality
of change
potency of action
STABILITY
e.g. - avian influenza:
routine responses,
institutionalised practices
encoded in standard, global
surveillance, early warning and
rapid response routines
DURABILITY
RESILIENCE
ROBUSTNESS
Pressures for planned equilibrium Need to be reflexive about the dynamics of power
shock (against transient
disruption)
stress (agaInst
enduring shift)
control (change is internal
to control system)
response (change is external
to control system)
temporality
of change
potency of action
DURABILITY
RESILIENCE
ROBUSTNESS
Reflection and Reflexivity
engage stakeholders;
address multiple systems;
explore uncertainties;
map ambiguities;
maintain flexibility / diversity
Pressures for planned equilibrium Need to be reflexive about the dynamics of power
unproblematic
problematic
unproblematic problematic
knowledge
about
likelihoods
knowledge about outcomes
RISK
UNCERTAINTY
AMBIGUITY
IGNORANCE
uncertainty heuristics
interval analysis
sensitivity testing
scenarios / backcasting
interactive modelling
network mapping
participatory deliberation
monitor, surveil, research
institutional learning
adaptive management
„Opening up‟ to respond to incertitude:
methodological implications
reductive
aggregative
models
ALL INVOLVE INTERACTIVE MAPPING OF DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDINGS
Policy responses to agri-food
system dynamics and incertitude
Policy approaches and strategies need to be:
• more agile, flexible and responsive, aimed at building resilience
• more adaptive and diverse, incorporating learning-by-doing and a portfolio of options to build robustness
• more located and networked, recognising that context matters and that responses will need to work simultaneously across local and global scales
• more deliberative, using inclusive debate and dialogue to address ambiguities around dynamic processes and their causes, why they matter and to whom
Conclusions
• Avoid generalised diagnoses and unilinear prescriptions to complex food and ag problems
• Understand dynamic interactions of social, ecological and technological processes
• Recognise directionality, distribution and diversity in agri-food systems – power and politics
• Promote and nurture a new global politics of science, technology and innovation
• Focus on incertitude – avoid simple risk-based fixes
• Foster multiple pathways to sustainable food and agriculture futures – negotiate trade-offs
Thank You
John Thompson
STEPS Centre
www.steps-centre.org