Presentation by Dr John Thompson, STEPS Centre Food & Agriculture convenor, at the Second International Conference on Sustainability Science in Rome, June 2010.

1. Governance, Sustainability
and Pathways to Food and
Agricultural Futures
Dr John Thompson
Research 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

2. 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

3. Linear view of agricultural
science and technology
• Notions of „progress’ pervade Future
debates about food and agricultural
futures
• Policy makers speak of „the way
forward‟ often without saying which
way Progress
• Agricultural history is viewed as a
„race to advance science and
technology‟ without stating the
particular direction Past

4. Open nature of
technological progress
Underlying view of Technology
technological progress:
• seen as singular pathway
• determined by science…
Governments proclaim „pro- Progress
innovation‟ and „pro-
sustainability‟ policies, without
specifying which options or
values are prioritised
Science
Dissent over choice of
directions is treated as
generally „anti-technology‟

5. Future innovation pathways?
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
Time
Difficult to assert a single,
uniquely objective „way
forward‟ toward an optimal
food and agricultural future

6. Historic „branching pathways‟
Time
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

7. Future innovation pathways?
innovation
is ‘vector’
not ‘scalar’
Time
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

8. 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

9. 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

10. A „system‟ heuristic
environment ‘Framings’
can be defined as:
Particular ways of
understanding or
representing a
‘Framings’
socio-technical or
system natural system and
its environment
Narratives about
system dynamics
and governance
Multiple framings:
• Dominant
• Alternative
• Suppressed

11. Reflective scope
Comprehensively
environment
reflect the full
range and diversity of
• elements
„system‟
• linkages
• dynamics
in a system
and its environment

12. A reflexive understanding
Not about objective:
locals
environment • context-variability
• scale of analysis
• nonlinear dynamics
NGOs
FRAMINGS
• stochastic functions
• uncertainties
„system‟
industry
But intrinsically
subjective:
• narratives
government
• perspectives
• interests
• values

13. 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?’

14. Powerful institutions assert
particular framings in ag policy debates
environment Dominant:
• Avian flu as a
‘global security threat’
• Biofuels as
system ‘sustainable energy’
• GM technology as
‘farmer empowerment’
dominant
framing
• Drought tolerant maize as
‘resilience in the seed’

15. Powerful institutions close down
alternative framings in ag policy debates
environment Alternative:
framings
marginal
• Avian flu as a
‘local livelihood problem’
• Biofuels as
system ‘carbon intensive’
• GM technology as
‘industrial control’
dominant
framing
• Drought tolerant maize as
‘technological lock-in’

16. 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

17. 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

18. Properties of sustainability
STABILITY RESILIENCE
environment environment
system system
endogenous
shock
transient exogenous shocks
DURABILITY ROBUSTNESS
environment secular environment
system external
stress
internal system
stresses

19. Properties of Sustainability
Durability
under internal
stresses
Stability Sustainability Resilience
against Long-term maintenance against
internal of system functions external
shocks shocks
Equity, Social Justice
Envt’l Quality
Robustness
under external
stresses

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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‟…

24. Pressures for planned equilibrium
Need to be reflexive about the dynamics of power
potency of action
control response
(change is internal (change is external
to control system) to control system)
shock
(against transient STABILITY RESILIENCE
disruption)
POWER DYNAMICS
temporality
of change incumbent institutions
favour strategies which
preserve the status quo
stress
(agaInst DURABILITY ROBUSTNESS
enduring shift)

25. Pressures for planned equilibrium
Need to be reflexive about the dynamics of power
potency of action
control response
(change is internal (change is external
to control system) to control system)
shock
(against transient STABILITY RESILIENCE
disruption)
e.g. - avian influenza:
temporality routine responses,
of change institutionalised practices
encoded in standard, global
surveillance, early warning and
rapid response routines
stress
(agaInst DURABILITY ROBUSTNESS
enduring shift)

26. Pressures for planned equilibrium
Need to be reflexive about the dynamics of power
potency of action
control response
(change is internal (change is external
to control system) to control system)
shock
Reflection and Reflexivity
(against transient RESILIENCE
disruption) engage stakeholders;
address multiple systems;
explore uncertainties;
temporality map ambiguities;
of change maintain flexibility / diversity
stress
(agaInst DURABILITY ROBUSTNESS
enduring shift)

27. „Opening up‟ to respond to incertitude:
methodological implications
knowledge about outcomes
unproblematic problematic
unproblematic RISK AMBIGUITY
reductive scenarios / backcasting
aggregative
interactive modelling
models
network mapping
knowledge
about participatory deliberation
likelihoods
uncertainty heuristics monitor, surveil, research
interval analysis institutional learning
sensitivity testing adaptive management
problematic UNCERTAINTY IGNORANCE
ALL INVOLVE INTERACTIVE MAPPING OF DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDINGS

28. 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

29. 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

30. Thank You
John Thompson
j.thompson@ids.ac.uk
STEPS Centre
www.steps-centre.org