BRUNORI, GIANLUCA

Favilli E.

Montanari C.

ROSSI, ADANELLA

English

Archivio della Ricerca - Università di Pisa

 XXVth ESRS Congress 29 July – 1 August 2013 in Florence, Italy 1    Innovation for sustainable agriculture: perspectives and potentials of learning processes in two case studies in Italy  Elena Favilli, Adanella Rossi, Claudio Montanari, Gianluca Brunori1  Abstract - The processes of transitions towards sus-tainability require that the actors involved act in a collective dimension in order not only to learn about technical innovations but, moreover, to change well-known and established frames of reference for think-ing. This paper aims at contributing to the under-standing of this processes by drawing on some in-sights coming from the reflections and the fieldwork done within the EU project SOLINSA, addressed to explore transition towards sustainable agriculture. This article describes the paths of innovation and learning towards sustainability in two case studies carried out in Italy within the SOLINSA project: a network of organic farmers, fishermen, consumers’ groups and consumers’ associations in Tuscany (Crisoperla Association) and a Consortium of breeders in Emilia Romagna that produces Parmigiano Reggiano cheese from milk of a local breed (Red Cows Consortium, RCC). Through the analysis of the histo-ry, evolution, actions and organizational arrange-ments of the two initiatives, we highlight the learning paths that occur along with the development of the two networks and, through that, the definition of priorities and modes of action they have adopted to meet the common goals. Specifically, we wonder how the mechanisms of governance of the networks can influence the realization of the processes of innova-tion and learning towards sustainability. In fact, in analyzing these collective strategies, the focus is so not only on the shared goal of the group, but also (and above all) on the process of social learning (and related framing processes) and on governance char-acteristics that can foster or hamper these processes, as mechanisms of responsibility sharing, distribution of power and leadership balance. We also explore the capacity of these networks to influence the social, economic and institutional context, highlighting the potential of pressure on local dominant systems.  INTRODUCTION  This paper reports some results of the research conducted within the EU (7th FP) project SOLINSA (Support of Learning and Innovation Networks for Sustainable Agriculture). The recent literature on theories of transition and innovation in agriculture  ___________________________________ 1Elena Favilli is from University of Pisa, Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment (efavilli@agr.unipi.it) Adanella Rossi is working at University of Pisa, Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment (arossi@agr.unipi.it) Claudio Montanari is from the Research Centre of Animal Production of Reggio Emilia (c.montanari@crpa.it) Gianluca Brunori is from University of Pisa, Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment  (gbrunori@agr.unipi.it) (Ploeg et al., 2004; Seyfang e Smith, 2006; Brunori et al., 2008; Knickel et al., 2009) highlights the development of a gap in the official Agriculture Knowledge System (AKS) to achieve the objectives of sustainability (economic, social, environmental) to which policies and public opinion have been aspiring for several years now (Hall et al., 2003, Knickel et al., 2009). The research conducted within SOLINSA intends to fill in part this gap by studying networks of farmers, consumers, CSOs, experts, components of the formal AKS, local administrations, SMEs - called LINSA -, as innovative forms of relationship, learning and innovation that can meet the challenge of sustainability. The deepening proposed in this article concerns the study conducted by the Univer-sity of Pisa on two LINSAs with very different char-acteristics: a network of producers, consumers, associations, institutions (Crisoperla) and a network of breeders, institutions and research institutes (Red Cows Consortium, CVR). The first one has developed outside of the conventional AKS, the second was initially hindered by AKS but then has gradually developed within this and with its support. The analysis will focus on the structure of the two networks and on how the mechanisms of govern-ance of the networks can influence the realization of the processes of innovation and learning towards sustainability. METHODS From the methodological point, the case studies were developed through a combination of qualitative methods of investigation: structured and semi–structured interviews, with different networks mem-bers (20 in total); 5 thematic workshops, dealing with facilitated discussion on different topics of LINSA interest (internal rules, concept of innovation, network history analysis); participation in internal meetings as observers, participation in public initia-tives and events organized by LINSAs. We carried out a parallel study documents, by analyzing the flows of internal communication of networks (e.g. mailing lists), thematic papers and press articles related to their activities. Combining the different methods described above, we analyzed some characteristics of LINSAs, specifi-cally: scale, origin and functions, degree of integra-tion, level of learning and innovation, relationship with the AKS, efficiency and effectiveness on sup-port, perception of sustainability.  XXVth ESRS Congress 29 July – 1 August 2013 in Florence, Italy 2     RESULTS We have traced the development of the two net-works, from the origin until their current shape. Crisoperla is a young and expanding network, the RCC was formed in the 1980s and now is consoli-dated, both from the point of view of the structure (main actors) and practices (methods of production and marketing of Parmesan cheese with Red Caws milk). Both of them are configured as Community of Practices (Cop) (Wenger, 1998), even if Crisoperla has over time expanded its network of relationships beyond the local context, taking on more the config-uration of a Network of Practices (NoP) (Brown and Duguid, 2001). As Linsa, the common basis of action of the actors is aimed at achieving sustainability goals: in Crisoperla they are to be understood as referring to the valorisation and diffusion of organic farming and lifestyles based on solidarity; for the RCC these goals refer to the protection of plant and animal biodiversity, as an engine of local develop-ment.  We found that the two LINSAs have very different organizational models: Crisoperla refers to a democ-ratic system of shared decision-making (representa-tives of different groups - GAS, producers, consumer associations - attend the meetings and decide), the exchange between peers and an informal division of roles, without any formal structure (e.g. Governing Council); the RCC is an organized group of produc-ers, characterised by a well-defined leadership and a directive council, included within the larger network of the community of producers of Parmigiano Reg-giano. The governance dynamics which characterise the groups are consequently different. Due to the diversity of sustainability targets and fields of activity, the two Linsa have also different willingness and ability to influence the socio-economic environment: Crisoperla aims to change the environment in which it operates according to its own principles and to contribute to the change of the dominant system by acting at institutional and politi-cal level; the RCC challenged the AKS at the begin-ning but subsequently it obtained a recognized role within the local community of producers and has been legitimated by the scientific community.  DISCUSSION In both cases, the same growth of networks and the progressive structuring of relations in the area (by involving associations, institutions, research insti-tutes, local community of farmers) have contributed to the creation of learning spaces, as well as new social capital. The different organizational forms affect the flow of information, the mechanisms of learning, actors involvement in decision-making and effectiveness of the Linsa towards sustainability. In the case of Crisoperla, the case study has high-lighted weaknesses in terms of management and organization (internal and external communication, division of roles) resulting from the democratic gov-ernance of the network. In the case of the RCC, the hierarchical structure in some way reduces the par-ticipation of actors with respect to decisions and to the formulation of strategies of action of the group. In both cases, acting on the internal organization could improve the effectiveness of the LINSAs on  technical-institutional environment, which already shows/showed significant results (e.g., respectively, recognition of the role of organic farming and soli-darity economy as a tool for the development of marginal areas; recognition of the socio-economic and environmental value of a local product).  FINAL REMARKS The analysis of the development process of LINSAs showed that at the basis of the ability to promote changes there are social learning processes that lead to the creation of new shared systems of knowledge and norms and, on that basis, to the development of innovative pathways, both at operational and at strategic level. The effectiveness of these processes of social learning is strongly related to network building processes and to the governance dynamics developing within them.  In a logic of necessary transition to more sustainable food systems, the understanding of the innovative potential of the network dimension and of the fac-tors that allow its expression is fundamental, to be taken into account, together with an assessment of their impact, both in the research agenda and in public policies.  REFERENCES Brown SJ, Duguid P. (2001) Knowledge and organization: a social practice perspective. Organisation Science, 12(2) pp 198-213.  Brunori G., Rand S. e Proost J. (2008), Towards a conceptu-al framework for agricultural and rural innovation policies, WP1 Synthesis Report, IN-Sight EU project.   Hall A., Rasheed Sulaiman V., Clark N., Yoganand B. (2003) From measuring impact to learning institutional lessons: an innovation system perspective on improving the manage-ment of international agricultural research. Agricultural Systems 78(2), pp 213 – 241.  Knickel K., Tisenkopfs T., Peter S. (2009), Innovation pro-cesses in agriculture and rural development. Results of a cross-national analysis of the situation in seven countries, research gaps and recommendations. Final report of IN-SIGHT Project. 6FP, pp. 68-92.  Ploeg, J.D. van der, J. Bouma, A. Rip, F.H.J. Rijkenberg, F. Ventura, e Wiskerke, J.S.C. (2004), On Regimes, Novelties and Co-Production, in: Wiskerke J.S.C. e Ploeg J.D. van der (eds) Seeds of Transition, Essays on novelty production, niches and regimes in agriculture, Assen, the Netherlands: Royal Van Gorcum, pp. 1-27.  Seyfang, G. e Smith A. (2006), Community action: A ne-glected site of innovation for sustainable development?, Cserge Working Paper, Edm 06-10, pp.1-5.  Wenger E. (1998) Communities of practice. Learning, Mean-ing and Identity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).  

Innovation for sustainable agriculture: perspectives and potentials of learning processes in two case studies in Italy

https://arpi.unipi.it/bitstream/11568/233128/1/ESRS2013%20Favilli%20Rossi%20Montanari%20Brunori.pdf

Innovation for sustainable agriculture: perspectives and potentials of learning processes in two case studies in Italy

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Archivio della Ricerca - Università di Pisa