1) The document analyzes niche-regime interactions in learning and innovation networks for sustainable agriculture across Europe. 2) It identifies five modes of interaction between niches and the mainstream agricultural regime: compatible, complementary, emergent, divergent, and oppositional. 3) The analysis finds transition to sustainable agriculture involves dynamic, diverse, and irregular interaction in the "fuzzy" space between niches and the regime, leading to a series of adaptive changes rather than a single regime change.

1. Linkage processes between niche and regime:
analysis of Learning and Innovation Networks for
Sustainable Agriculture across Europe
J. Ingram, N. Curry, J. Kirwan, D. Maye, and K. Kubinakova
jingram@glos.ac.uk
The 11th European IFSA Symposium, Berlin, 1-4 April 2014

2. Outline
• Challenges of transition to sustainable agriculture
• Emerging networks
• Niches - regime interactions - analytical framework
• Methods
• Results
• Conclusion
2

3. Challenges of transition to sustainable agriculture
• Transition in agriculture - a shift from the mainstream
‘productivist regime’ to a regime built around the principles
of sustainable production
• Transforming systems of food production and consumption
poses challenges
• Innovation is key to transition but AKS (charged with
fostering innovation) are often locked into old approaches
or trajectories

4. Emerging networks
• Alternative and innovative approaches to agriculture (SA)
emerging
• Networks of individuals and/or organisations
experimenting with new solutions
• Innovative niche practices on the margins of the
mainstream agriculture regime
• Networks are bottom up, coalitions or within regime itself

5. 5
• Alternative approaches (or niche initiatives) as sources of
innovation which can seed a sustainable regime transformation
• Regime transformation occurs through an accumulation of
projects or novelties in niche spaces which allow (through
learning and experimentation) radical practices to develop
Niche -regime interactions

6. Landscape
Pressures
Mainstream
Food System
Bottom Up
Innovations
Time
Scales of Transition
Adapted from Geels & Schott, 2007 Macro scale niches -regime interactions

7. 7
Linking potential - governed by:
Compatibility with the assumptions, practices and rules of
existing regimes facilitates rapid niche growth enabling it to
develop and diffuse (Smith, 2006).
Linkage processes – regime accommodating and niche
adaptation & diffusion processes (translation, absorption,
networking)
Basis for analytical framework
Niche -regime interactions

8. Methods
• 17 Case studies in SOLINSA project-LINSA
• Participatory workshops, interviews, observation…
LINSA- Learning and Innovation Networks for Sustainable
Agriculture
Networks of producers, customers, experts, NGOs, SMEs, local
administrations, as well as official researchers and extensionists,
that are mutually engaged with common goals for sustainable
agriculture and rural development - cooperating, sharing
resources and co-producing new knowledge by creating
conditions for communication (Brunori et al., 2013, p4)
(See Ingram et al., 2013, www.solinsa.net)

9. LINSA-examples
Duurzaam Boer Blijven network of
farmers who practice low external
input dairy farming.
9
Natürli network of cheese producers
in a mountainous region of
Switzerland.
Latvia Biogas network of producers
(especially large farms), investors,
scientists, service providers,
technology suppliers, policy makers,
consultants, municipalities, banks,
environmental agencies, NGOs.
Boeren en Zorg, Farmers and Care
network in Netherlands.

10. Analytical Framework –Modes of interaction
• Compatibility
• Linkage processes – adaptation, translation, absorption,
networking
17 LINSA - clustered into 5 Modes of Interaction
Compatible; Complementary; Emergent; Divergent; and
Oppositional
3 examples follow:

11. 11
Interaction
Mode
Compatible Complementary Emergent Divergent Oppositional
Compatibility
Links between
niche and regime
Strong
Political support and
recognition from
regime
Moderately strong
Some shared guiding
principles
Operating at the
intersection of two
regimes –some links
to both
Moderately weak
Limited sharing of
guiding principles
Weak
No shared guiding
principles; different
value system
Actors/network
configurations
Traditional actors Traditional actors in
new arrangements
plus new facilitators
New actors and new
networks
Traditional actors in
new roles, new actors
and new networks
New actors and new
networks
Tension in regime
(pressures in
landscape)
Tension – consumers
and policy and
regulations
farm economic
livelihood
Tension –
environmental policy
and farm economic
livelihood
Tensions - policy and
economic in both
regimes (health/
energy and
agriculture)
Tensions in regime –
consumer awareness,
farm economic
livelihood
Tensions in regime –
consumer awareness,
health, community
concerns
Linkage Processes
Adaptation
Absorption
Translation
Networking
Growing within or
adapting to the
regime/AKS
integration/absorption
LINSA practices are
sufficiently flexible to
be interpreted
favourably against
regime socio-technical
criteria
Regime
accommodation
Co-evolving with
regime/AKS
aspirations to make a
difference to the
regime although some
adaptation to regime
problems
Looking for
recognition and
legitimacy
Some regime
accommodation
Develop in a
complementary
manner to the
agriculture regime,
make use of the
existing structures
when appropriate
Mutual adaptation
Alignment of rules and
routines plus new
rules created
Some adaptation of
LINSA through
certification
Translations that
adapt lessons
Extensive networking
Mutual adaptation
Regime actors
accommodate, new
actor roles
No linkage to
traditional regime
actors or institutions
Little adaptation or
regime
accommodation
Extensive Networking
LINSA N Dairy, F RAD, EU
organ
L Biogas, N Care I Crisop, S Naturli E B&H, E perm, H G7,
H Nat

12. 12
Compatibility
•Moderately strong , some shared guiding principles
•Traditional actors in new arrangements plus new facilitators
•Tension – environmental policy and farm economic livelihood
Linkage processes
•Co-evolving with regime/AKS
•Aspirations to make a difference to the regime/some adaptation to regime
problems
•Looking for recognition and legitimacy
•Some regime accommodation
Complementary Mode - Sustainable Agriculture
Network (RAD) France

13. Compatibility
• Operating at the intersection of two regimes –some links to both
• New actors and new networks
• Tensions - policy and economic in both regimes (health/ energy and
agriculture)
Linkage processes
• Develop in a complementary manner to the agriculture regime, makes
use of the existing structures when appropriate
• Mutual adaptation
• Alignment of rules and routines plus new rules created
13
Emergent Mode – Biogas, Latvia
& Care Farming, Netherlands

14. Compatibility
• Weak - different value system
• New actors and new networks
• Tensions in regime –consumer awareness, health, community
concerns
Linkage processes
• No linkage to traditional regime actors or institutions
• Little adaptation or regime accommodation
• Extensive networking
(see Ingram, J. et al., 2014 for Permaculture LINSA)
Oppositional Mode - Permaculture & BHFP, UK

15. Linkage processes –LINSA adaptation
Interplay between LINSA adaptation and the regime’s accommodation
Adaptation LINSA actors make alliances and partnerships with regime
actors and draw on, or contribute to, different elements of the regime
Translation-not simple adoption - ideas, practices and events in LINSA
are translated into ideas and practices in the regime
Mutual adaptations and negotiations - aligning practices and rules to
those in the regime
Networking for diffusing and consolidating ideas in LINSA where
traditional regime actors and structures are irrelevant or not
accessible

16. Linkage processes- regime accommodates
• Provides support, participates in networks/ partnerships/ new
alliances
• AKS actors are involved in new collaborations with LINSA
actors, and take on new roles
• Adapts or substitutes some of its rules or routines to
accommodate LINSA practices
• Certification is key device for inserting practices into the
mainstream
• Offers legitimacy
• Policy instruments make space for LINSA to develop- eg Biogas
and N Dairy - regime

17. • Challenges of transition conceptualised at a
macro level
• Analysis at the sub-niche/niche project level
reveals dynamic, diverse and irregular
interaction in the ‘fuzzy’ space between niche
and regime
• Transition to sustainable agriculture is a
complex of interactive processes leading to a
series of adaptive changes, rather than a regime
change
© 2014 Julie Ingram. The Author(s) asserts their moral right to be identified as the Authors of the work
Conclusion

18. 18
References
• Brunori , G. et al. (2013) CAP Reform and Innovation: The Role of
Learning and Innovation Networks. Eurochoices 12 (2), 27–33
• Ingram et al. (2013) WP4 Synthesis Report. SOLINSA Deliverable
4.2a,b. www.solinsa.net
• Ingram, J. et al. (2014) Learning in the Permaculture Community of
Practice in England: An Analysis of the Relationship between Core
Practices and Boundary Processes. Journal of Agricultural
Education and Extension 20 (3), 1–16
• Ingram, J. et al. (in review) Interactions between niche and regime:
an analysis of learning and innovation networks for sustainable
agriculture across Europe. Journal of Agricultural Education and
Extension