Research and innovation as a catalyst for food system transformation

Background: Food systems are associated with severe and persistent problems worldwide. Governance approaches aiming to foster sustainable transformation of food systems face several challenges due to the complex nature of food systems. Scope and approach: In this commentary we argue that addressing these governance challenges requires the development and adoption of novel research and innovation (R&I) approaches that will provide evidence to inform food system transformation and will serve as catalysts for change. We first elaborate on the complexity of food systems (transformation) and stress the need to move beyond traditional linear R&I approaches to be able to respond to persistent problems that affect food systems. Though integrated transdisciplinary approaches are promising, current R&I systems do not sufficiently support such endeavors. As such, we argue, we need strategies that trigger a double transformation - of food systems and of their R&I systems. Key Findings and Conclusions: Seizing the opportunities to transform R&I systems has implications for how research is done - pointing to the need for competence development among researchers, policy makers and society in general - and requires specific governance interventions that stimulate a systemic approach. Such interventions should foster transdisciplinary and transformative research agendas that stimulate portfolios of projects that will reinforce one another, and stimulate innovative experiments to shape conditions for systemic change. In short, a thorough rethinking of the role of R&I as well as how it is funded is a crucial step towards the development of the integrative policies that are necessary to engender systemic change - in the food system and beyond

Politics beyond agency? Pluralizing structure(s) in sustainability transitions

What exactly do transition scholars mean by structure? In efforts to articulate the politics of sustainability transitions, scholarship has en masse turned to unraveling and pluralizing the many different manifestations of agency and power in processes of transformative change. While this is valuable, such an agency-centered focus risks de-politicizing the role of structure in studies on the politics of transitions. This perspective explores the plurality of interpretations of structure presented in transitions research. Transitions research, perhaps paradoxically, considers structure to be (1) concrete or elusive; (2) a verb or a noun; (3) the medium or conditions for action; (4) internal or external to agents; (5) influenceable or contextual; (6) hierarchical or relational; and (7) stabilizing or transformative. Such a non-exhaustive overview of different interpretations of structure portrays the richness of the field, and could help scholars to reflect upon their assumptions when engaging with the concept of ‘structure’. Finally, it provides pathways for re-politicizing structure, by articulating the different ways in which structure can be considered (a)political. Re-politicization requires governance efforts to more explicitly engage with the politics of structures. This entails de-constructing existing and oppressive structures that reinforce incumbencies and unjust dynamics, while embracing the transformative power of democratically designed structures that might help us to accelerate transformative change

Deepening democracy for the governance toward just transitions in agri-food systems

In this paper, we explore the relation between democracy and justice in governing agri-food transitions. We argue that a deeper understanding of democracy is needed to foster just transitions. First, we present a multi-dimensional understanding of justice in transitions and relate it to scholarship on democratizing transitions. Then, we argue that three paradigm shifts are required to overcome current unsustainable dynamics: (1) from expert toward pluralist understandings of knowledge; (2) from economic materialism toward post-growth strategies; and (3) from anthropocentrism toward reconnecting human-nature relationships. We explicate what these paradigm shifts entail for democratizing transitions from distributive, procedural, recognition and restorative justice perspectives. Finally, we highlight six challenges to institutionalizing deep democratic governance. These entail balancing tensions between: multiple justice dimensions, democracy and urgency, top-down and bottom-up directionalities, local and global scales, realism and idealism, and roles of incumbent scientific systems. This requires thoroughly rethinking transition studies’ normative and democratic ambitions

Politics of complexity:Conceptualizing agency, power and powering in the transitional dynamics of complex adaptive systems

This paper seeks to bridge the gap between socio-material and complex adaptive systems approaches in conceptualizing the politics of transformation. Our contribution in particular is a further clarification of the relational nature of power, and the role of non-humans in transitional dynamics of complex adaptive systems. We explore and operationalize the role of non-humans and relationality in (1) agency and (2) power, and the implications thereof for processes of (3) powering, through which power relations shape resource distributions and associated macro-scale dynamics. We consider agency as an embedded and temporal capacity for reorientation. This also entails attributing agency to entangled networks of humans and non-humans. Such a capacitive conception of agency follows from our understanding that agents and structures consist of comparable ontological building blocks, both being (networks of) components in complex adaptive systems. Power we understand as a productive and relational phenomenon that emerges from interactions between components and that structures their agency. We argue that such a ‘force-field’ understanding of power enables the observation of different types of power relations. Finally, we consider six different mechanisms through which power relations can result in a (re)distribution of resources and with that, contribute to self-reproducing or transformative systemic dynamics. With this conceptualization, we hope to advance the debate on the different facets of the politics of transformation, and to help further urgently needed transitions towards a more sustainable future

Unraveling the politics of ‘doing inclusion’ in transdisciplinarity for sustainable transformation

Transdisciplinary research and innovation (R&I) efforts have emerged as a means to address challenges to sustainable transformation. One of the main elements of transdisciplinary efforts is the ‘inclusion’ of different stakeholders, values and perspectives in participatory R&I processes. In practice, however, ‘doing inclusion’ raises a number of challenges. In this article, we aim to contribute to re-politicizing inclusion in transdisciplinarity for transformation, by (1) empirically unraveling four key challenges that emerge in the political practice of ‘doing inclusion’, (2) illustrating how facilitators of inclusion processes perform balancing acts when confronted with these challenges, and (3) reflecting on what the unfolding dynamics suggests about the politics of stakeholder inclusion for societal transformation. In doing so, we analyze the transdisciplinary FIT4FOOD2030 project (2017–2020)—an EU-funded project that aimed to contribute to fostering EU R&I systems’ ability to catalyze food system transformation through stakeholder engagement in 25 Living Labs. Based on 3 years of action-research (including interviews, workshops and field observations), we identified four inherent political challenges to ‘doing inclusion’ in FIT4FOOD2030: (1) the challenge to meaningfully bring together powerful and marginalized stakeholders; (2) combining representation and deliberation of different stakeholder groups; (3) balancing diversities of inclusion with directionalities implied by transformative efforts; and (4) navigating the complexities of establishing boundaries of inclusion processes. We argue that by understanding ‘doing inclusion’ as a political practice, necessitating specificity about the (normative) ambitions in different inclusion settings, facilitators may better grasp and address challenges in transdisciplinarity for transformation

Learning systems and learning paths in sustainability transitions

Scholars have stressed the need to better understand the role of learning in sustainability transitions. Even though progress has been made, there is a call for more research, both in the form of large-scale empirical studies and theoretical clarity. Based on pragmatic learning theory, this paper responds to this call by presenting the results of an empirical study on learning within the context of a European large-scale multi-level transition-oriented sustainability project. Following the empirical analysis of the learning in this project, the concept of a learning system is proposed as a theoretical innovation, and the question of how to most effectively facilitate learning in sustainability transitions is rephrased as how such a learning system is best designed. Moreover, the term “learning path” is introduced to describe how individuals or groups maneuver within a learning system. We argue that to understand this maneuvering, the focus needs to be directed at the perceived learning needs of the actors relative to the challenges they are experiencing. Finally, the article discusses how to improve learning in sustainability transition projects and points to the potential value of using the concepts of learning systems and learning paths in doing so

Governing translocal experimentation in multi-sited transition programs: Dynamics and challenges

Transition experiments are important instruments to foster sustainability transitions. Transition scholars increasingly suggest investigating how multiple local experiments can become connected across spatial scales, and how transformative dynamics of multiple connected experiments can be facilitated and governed. In this paper we analyze the different types of translocal dynamics involved in simultaneously governing multiple experiments in multi-sited transition programs, by empirically exploring the FIT4FOOD2030 program (2017-2020) that supported 25 transition experiments. Then, we present four overarching challenges in governing translocal experimentation: (1) finding synergies between diverging local needs and program ambitions; (2) navigating the cross-scale political dynamics in multi-sited transition programs; (3) moving beyond output-oriented evaluation frameworks in order to capture transformative efforts of short-term programs; and (4) expanding the boundaries of programs by linking to ongoing policy developments in highly complex multi-level governance settings. We hope our work can inform transition governance efforts in fostering transformative translocal dynamics toward sustainability

Exploring the practice of Labs for sustainable transformation: The challenge of ‘creating impact’

Scholars have argued that transdisciplinary experimentation processes in Labs which include societal stakeholders in research and innovation might help to create meaningful societal impact. At the same time, there is ample room to explore the practice of ‘doing’ Labs in relation to the transformative impacts that Labs aim to create. We present a case study of the FIT4FOOD2030 project (2017–2020) aimed at contributing to food system transformation in the EU through setting up 25 multi-stakeholder Labs. We aimed to gain insight into how transdisciplinary Labs with transformative ambitions try to create impact, and which challenges that brings along. For “capacitating change”, Labs built agency by focusing on creating (1) new relations through network mobilization, network consolidation and network coordination; (2) new knowledge through knowledge sharing and social learning; and (3) new competences for Lab coordinators and engaged stakeholders. For “creating change” Labs focused on (1) transforming networks – the Lab as catalyst; (2) transforming practices – the Lab as concretizer; (3) transforming structures – the Lab as construction site; (4) transforming cultures - the Lab as critical mass. We observed complex (reciprocal) relations between processes of capacitating and creating change. Finally, we present intrinsic challenges in the practice of ‘doing’ Labs regarding the evaluation of single-Lab impacts, and the political dynamics of transformative Labs

Beyond food for thought – Directing sustainability transitions research to address fundamental change in agri-food systems

Dominant agricultural and food systems lead to continuous resource depletion and unacceptable environmental and social impacts. While current calls for changing agrifood systems are increasingly framed in the context of sustainability transitions, they rarely make an explicit link to transition studies to address these systemic challenges, nor do transition scholars sufficiently address agri-food systems, despite their global pertinence. From this viewpoint, we illustrate several gaps in the agri-food systems debate that sustainability transition studies could engage in. We propose four avenues for research in the next decade of transition research on agri-food systems: 1) Crossscale dynamics between coupled systems; 2) Social justice, equity and inclusion; 3) Sustainability transitions in low- and middle-income countries; 4) Cross-sectoral governance and system integration. We call for a decade of new transition research that moves beyond single-scale and sector perspectives toward more inclusive and integrated analyses of food system dynamics