Transition from the Agricultural Extension Model to Local Devices for
Transdisciplinary Co-Innovation by Luis L Vázquez in Modern Concepts &
Developments in Agronomy: Modern Concepts & Developments
in Agronomy
Conventional agricultural extension is in decline due to the demand
for contextualizing training and technological innovation during the
transition to sustainable local food systems. This short article was
prepared with the aim of raising awareness about institutional
innovation to adopt adaptive transdisciplinary co-innovation at the
scale of local food systems. It was developed as a critical reflection
based on personal experiences, supported by selected references. The
first part analyzes the decline of the conventional agricultural
extension model, before addressing the transition to decentralized
co-innovation. The second part of the article delves into territorial
co-innovation for the transition to sustainable local food systems and
emphasizes the value of local knowledge.
Keywords:Technological innovation; Institutional innovation; Local food systems; Sustainable food; Local knowledge
Conventional agricultural extension, as a vertical model of
technology transfer from scientific centers, is in decline due to the
demand to contextualize training and technological innovation during the
transition towards sustainable local food systems, under the
perspective of Participatory Action Research (PAR) and Agroecological
Knowledge Management (AKM), among other methodological proposals that
represent a challenge for institutional innovation in scientific centers
and local technical service entities. In this field, territorial
socio-technical innovations become relevant in changes that involve not
only technical aspects but also organizational dynamics and collective
action in the territory [1,2]; the territory is seen as a socially
constructed space where diverse actors interact, including farmers,
institutions and communities [3,4]. Technological innovation takes on
greater significance when considering the “One Health” approach, because
vertical specialization, which fragments scientific
interdisciplinarity, leads to agricultural, environmental, food, health,
education and social sciences being disconnected, causing
unsustainability in the application of their scientific products within
the food system. It is recognized that there are many ways to access
knowledge to achieve the sustainable transformation of food systems, all
of them equally valuable and necessary. These forms of knowledge are
inherently intercultural, exchangeable, dynamic and fluid. They include
scientific knowledge, indigenous knowledge, peasant and traditional
knowledge, knowledge from civil society and community organizations,
lived experiences and other forms of knowledge that form the foundation
of the core understanding of agroecology, regenerative agricultural
practices and indigenous food customs [5].
New social practices generate, but at the same time require, new
knowledges and understandings, which have specific demands: their own
complex and dynamic nature requires continuous learning, so that
individuals as well as communities,
companies, governmental institutions, cultural organizations,
etc., develop skills to face the new challenges of the knowledge
society and prepare for a more positive integration into the new
global scenario [6]. It is acknowledged that approaches to enable
transitions should be based on the principles of participation,
using a bottom-up rather than a top-down approach. The voices
and priorities of food producers, especially young people, women,
indigenous peoples, and other local communities, should guide
transitions and the actions taken to drive them [7]. To prepare
this short article, it was assumed that agricultural and livestock
production needs to move towards sustainable food systems,
through the integration of training and technological innovation
based on processes adapted to the characteristics of different
contexts. Specifically, this short article aims to raise awareness
about institutional innovation to adopt adaptive transdisciplinary
co-innovation.
This short article was developed as a critical reflection based
on personal experiences, supported by selected references, with
the purpose of raising awareness about the need to move toward
contextualized innovation systems as a socio-technical scientific
process to achieve sustainable food. The article begins by briefly
analyzing the legacy of the vertical model of agricultural extension
that characterizes conventional technological innovation, in contrast
with developments in agroecological transition as contextual
transdisciplinary processes. Subsequently, the need to advance
toward a prospect of decentralized co-innovation is justified. For
the purposes of drafting this article, the analysis of knowledge
management and innovation was based on the experience of
having participated, since the 1970s, first in agricultural extension
processes; later, in facilitating the agroecological transition in
territories of Cuba.
Descendants of the vertical agrarian extension model
Most of the research centers that contribute to food production
are specialized institutions, whose scientific results constitute
technological innovations on specific processes and products,
which are introduced into agricultural and livestock production in a
vertical manner, through extension mechanisms, technical services,
input markets, among others. Although this system works relatively
well for conventional agriculture, the transition toward sustainable
food requires adapted technologies, because production systems
are being transformed into integrated agroecosystems of
agriculture, livestock and forestry, whose outputs are offered in the
same context. It is very evident that the closed innovation model,
consolidated during the conventional agriculture and livestock
approach, led to hyper specialization in food-related sciences,
to the point that comprehensive research centers are subdivided
into specialties; furthermore, new specialized centers are even
created, also structured by specialties. This fragmentation, which
contributed to research with an analytical approach to obtain
new technological products, led to the establishment of vertical
agricultural extension systems to implement technologies with
a certain degree of difficulty in their practical application, a
characteristic that eroded comprehensiveness, compatibility and
potential synergies in the applicability of the technologies for
products and processes generated.
In fact, at the international level, there is a consensus that
the processes of “modernizing agriculture” and implementing
the techniques of the “Green Revolution” were carried out with
strong institutional support, embodied in agricultural research
and extension services well-endowed with economic and human
resources, forming a model of vertical and one-way research and
technology transfer, which has been heavily criticized since the
1970s [8,9]. The classic form of intervention in many countries
has materialized in the creation of public research and extension
institutions. Due to their operation under a centralized and linear
model, this type of institution has been subject to multiple criticisms,
questioning their effectiveness and efficiency in the generation, but
especially in the dissemination of knowledge. The main criticism
revolves around their linear vision of the technology transfer
process, in which basic research progresses to applied research,
then to technological development, from there to production, and
subsequently to commercialization, with a defined and limited role
for each of the different actors: universities and research centers,
extension institutes, advisors and consultants, companies, and
organizations, among others [10].
The compartmentalization of human knowledge and hyper
specialization are nothing more than a product of industrial society;
however, since the second half of the 20th century, we have been
witnessing the emergence of a multitude of theoretical approaches
and methods of a multidisciplinary and cross-cutting nature, in
light of the universal assumption that to address the challenges we
face, a holistic and systemic vision is necessary to understand these
phenomena in all their complexity [11]. In the current situation, it
is necessary for the generation of knowledge to start from more
critical, more human, more contextual concepts, recognizing
that when transmitting knowledge generated in a certain place,
one must, on the one hand, consider the social reality where this
knowledge will be used [10]. In other words, the central concern
today is the sustainability of agriculture, conceived as a system that
is economic, social, and ecological [12].
Agroecology is a complex socio-technical, organizational, and
contextual/territorial phenomenon, which in particular suggests
a broad approach that allows understanding (considering)
agricultural action in holistic terms, proposing that the
contemporary problem of production has evolved from a purely
technical dimension to a more sociotechnical dimension, where
social, economic, political and ecosystem aspects are present and
are part of the situation [13].
The practices associated with agroecology have a
transformative nature that involves the redesign of the entire agrifood
system [14], in which the complex relationships established
between ecological functioning, human well-being, innovation,
governance models and bottom-up policies are integrated. In this
way, agroecology imparts a socio-ecological perspective to the
context of agroecosystems [15,16]. The offspring of the vertical and
specialized model of technology transfer from scientific centers and
national programs to agroecosystems that contribute to local food
is evident in the dysfunction at the level of action within the food
system, the lack of alignment with the socio-cultural, ecologicalenvironmental
and economic-financial characteristics of different
territories, and in failing to recognize local experiences in adapted
traditional practices.
Transition towards decentralized co-innovation
Co-innovation in primary food production is moving from
systems with a vertical approach to more horizontal ones (Figure
1). Although this does not happen in the same way in all programs,
institutions and projects, there is a tendency to maintain the former
when the focus on conventional intensive production aligns with
input substitution; whereas the latter emerges from agroecological
movements, where these converge with peasant farming systems,
projects and organizations that facilitate co-innovation. In the latter,
there is a strong influence from projects facilitated by international
agencies that have experience in participatory innovation with
equity. Conventional technological innovation has an initial stage
in which the new technologies developed by research centers are
turned into technical standards and published in manuals and
technical instructions, considered as ‘national recipes’ (Figure 1A);
although in many cases, they later establish vertical innovation
systems known as ‘Technology Transfer,’ where groups of extension
agents intervene in representative environments to implement the
newly developed technologies (Figure 1B). The technology transfer
approach, which was widely disseminated in association with the
concept of science, emerges from the ‘green revolution’ model. It
is a way of ‘doing science’ in a centralized manner in agriculture
and assumes that professional researchers know the priorities of
farmers and that they adapt the technologies designed in public or
private research institutions.
Figure 1:Transition in agricultural technological innovation processes.
Caption: From the vertical model to the horizontal one. From disciplinary to multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary.
The very division of disciplines and specialization of knowledge
excludes the possibility that farmers or innovative clients could
lead the design, implementation, and dissemination of a new
variety, crop, or technology [17]. Research centers, universities
and agricultural extension systems have generally regarded
farmers as the recipients of their technologies or the users of their
services; that is, the goal of their research. However, farmers have
much to contribute to the processes of technology generation
and transfer, since as the main actors in agricultural production,
they have developed a holistic understanding of agriculture and
extensive experience with technological processes under their own
conditions, which has been little utilized by these centers [18]. A
disruptive change occurs when projects in scientific centers adopt
decentralized participatory innovation (Figure 1C); however, being
a new methodology, there have been various interpretations of
what is considered participation: from merely using farmers to
test technological proposals, to involving them from the research
process itself. This trend towards horizontality in technological
innovation generates impressive impacts on the benefiting
territories and research teams; the latter begin to adjust in their
experimental designs and in new variables for the participatory
evaluation of their results. Two examples that represent progress
in this regard in Cuba: the local agricultural innovation system
of the National Institute of Agricultural Sciences-INCA [19] and
the innovation system of the Indio Hatuey Pasture and Forage
Experimental Station-EEPFIH [20].
A significant contribution to understanding these aspects has
been the rise of Participatory Action Research (PAR), which emerged
from the social sciences and was enriched by questioning the
extension and training systems used for agricultural modernization.
It is based on the idea that any development process undertaken will
be biased if it does not consider the realities, needs, aspirations and
beliefs of the beneficiaries and even more so if it does not integrate
the beneficiaries of this process as protagonists, who explain their
reality comprehensively (systemic approach), in order to initiate or
consolidate a strategy of change (transition processes), alongside
an increase in political power, both aimed at achieving positive
transformations for the community at the local level and at higher
levels to the extent that it can connect with similar experiences
[21]. There are (or we can rely on) theoretical and conceptual
frameworks to work in cooperation among (and with) different
actors, for the co-design of innovations, such as action research,
intervention research, or more generally collaborative research
[13]. It is about the emergence of action research, being able to
align the desire for change (of farmers and other actors) with the
research intent [22]. A disruptive change occurs in territories where
cooperative self-management is facilitated (Figure 1D), to carry out
transdisciplinary co-innovations with the active participation of
farmers and technicians, through networks or local agroecological
movements, who advance in co-innovation capacities to solve their
technical problems, share experiences and adopt appropriate
practices from formal research.
Two facilitation devices that have advanced towards
transdisciplinary horizontal co-innovation are: the Agroecological
Farmer-to-Farmer Movement [23] and Participatory Plant Breeding
[17,19].
The Farmer-to-Farmer (F to F) Methodology, which in Cuba
has been structured as a decentralized system, functions as a
coordinated movement facilitated by the National Association of
Small Farmers (ANAP). It encourages farmers themselves to take
a leading role in learning and innovation through the exchange of
experiences according to local characteristics. Participatory Plant
Breeding also constitutes a powerful example of a decentralized
facilitation mechanism for local areas, linking scientific centers
that manage germplasm with primary food production systems
run by experimental farmers, who play a leading role in achieving
high-impact results in the regionalization of varieties, the rescue
and conservation of traditional varieties and the adaptation of
germplasm to climate change, among other things. The co-creation
of knowledge is gaining recognition and use within science,
practice and the agroecology movement. It offers a compelling
and adaptable approach and outcome to the increasingly complex
challenges faced by farmers and the agri-food system [24].
There are different sources of knowledge: scientific knowledge,
indigenous knowledge, peasant and traditional knowledge,
knowledge from civil society and community organizations, lived
experiences and other forms of knowledge that form the basis of the
fundamental knowledge of agroecology, regenerative agricultural
practices, and indigenous food customs [5]. Knowledge can be tacit
or explicit. Tacit knowledge is characterized by being personal and
difficult to formalize to be transmitted; it depends on the context
and its trajectory, individual capabilities (talent and cognitive
abilities), skills (know-how), as well as experience, decisionmaking
models of individuals, perceptions, and beliefs [25]. Explicit
knowledge is documented in various media, which can be accessed.
The “virtuous” dimension of innovation processes is not only about
obtaining new products, new ways of managing or organizing, but
also about generating learning among the actors. This learning will
not only allow the actors to work together, innovate, adapt, or adopt
new technology, but it will also be useful in the ordinary (everyday)
work of the actors in companies, organizations, and territories to
“exploit” or “explore” new situations [13].
Precisely, Agroecological Knowledge Management (AKM)
is a contextual, inclusive and multiplier process, carried out
in two phases, which can be sequential or simultaneous: the
transdisciplinary articulation of local actors and the agroecological
transformation of systems. The purpose is to contribute to the
coherent integration of people from different disciplines and
entities, to achieve complementarity in training, systematization
of experiences, co-innovation and communication, so that
the process of adopting practices (designs and management)
effectively contributes to the transformation of food systems into
sustainable ones [26]. In this sense, it is important to understand
that Transformative Learning is the process through which we
transform our given frames of reference, so that they become more
inclusive, open, capable of change and reflective, to generate beliefs
and opinions that prove to be true or justified to guide action [27].
When knowledge management and technological innovation
converge from vertical agricultural extension systems with
local projects or movements that facilitate transdisciplinary coinnovation,
a scenario is created that can be conflictive when there
are no synergistic integration and coherence in the sustainability
approach, slowing down the transformation towards sustainable
food due to technological uncertainties among farmers and
technicians. On the other hand, scientific centers and national
programs that are proactive towards innovation in institutional
management, which move towards decentralized action as hybrid
devices, become drivers of transformation.
Territorial co-innovation for the transition towards
sustainable local food systems
With the recent trend of new public policies aimed at
transitioning towards sustainable local food systems, the territory
is being reconfigured as a new stage for co-innovation, where it is
necessary to understand that the field is not only about agricultural
innovations, but also relates to industrial processes, marketing,
healthy eating and others that are represented in different sectors
and scientific institutions, created under the multisectoral model of
doing science. Its local articulation in transforming the food system
towards sustainability requires coherence around sustainability
attributes, serving as a reference framework for food governance.
Of course, for these diverse sources of scientific results to be
applicable to territories, viewed as food systems, there needs to
be organized and coordinated local mechanisms that act as hybrid
actors facilitating the proper integration of new technological
and management proposals, because their isolated vertical
implementation does not lead to sustainability. This requires that
local entities facilitate processes of agroecological transformation
to move towards sustainable food systems. They also need to carry
out institutional innovations to promote changes in their actions,
shifting from separate training and innovation towards a culture
of agroecological co-innovation with equity. In this way, they also
contribute to making their management sustainable for these
entities and the territory [26].
Therefore, entities operating at the territorial level must
understand that institutional innovation precedes technological
innovation, since the former transforms the ways people interpret
and intervene in changing things, while the latter transforms
material reality by changing “things” under the influence of the
premises of the people leading the innovation process [28].
There is a need to have competent teams in agroecology, who
possess multidimensional skills: scientific, practical, political,
communicative, financial, market knowledge, and socio-economic
transformation [5]. In this effort, it is important to develop systems
thinking, understand organizational dynamics and promote the
hybridization of knowledge as key elements to advance these
ongoing processes [29], described as a “whirlwind” or “virtuous
spiral” of innovation [30], which reinforces the role of the territory
as a key space for dialogue and experimentation, where common
languages are built and niche innovations emerge [31,32].
The most radical importance of co-evolutionary interactions
among agents in a complex system is that they allow the
development of certain properties that are truly fundamental in
fostering diversity, innovation, learning, and sustainability in any
complex organization. These characteristics (though there may
be more) have summarized as: reciprocity, learning, strategic
development, spatiotemporal dynamics, multiscale nature,
propagative and expansive qualities, and emergence [33]. In fact,
territories are undergoing a constant process of transitions, which
includes broader changes related to ecological, political, economic,
and other factors that operate at multiple scales. Agroecological
transitions are strategic processes of collective action aimed at
achieving more ecological and social just food systems [7]. The
transition to a more sustainable way of life requires a significant
change in the way problems are perceived, defined and solved,
based on an open systems perspective, in which both problems and
solutions are managed holistically [34].
An innovation systems approach that fits perfectly with the idea
of the horizontal creation of knowledge inherent in agroecology is
what is known as co-innovation [35], which combines the complex
systems approach with social learning and the dynamic monitoring
of innovation projects. Co-innovation platforms include diverse
actors, from producers to scientific technicians, extension agents,
representatives of governments, technology and input suppliers,
the market, etc. [36]. The ability of local processes to build hybrid
forums, as an area in which innovation niches and the dominant
socio-technical regime are intertwined, has been identified as a
key element in constructing transitions towards sustainability
in local agri-food systems [37,38]. Such hybrid forums have been
characterized in relation to stable innovation networks, which
connect actors involved in innovation niches (which we will call
alternative actors) with actors more aligned with the reproduction
of the dominant socio-technical regime (which we will call
conventional actors) [38]. This diversification of the subjects of
the transition, with an emphasis on hybrid actors who facilitate
the establishment of bridges of communication and cooperation
between alternative and conventional actors, has been noted in
relation to a context of crisis in local development models, but
also with the inability of alternative food networks to generate
models that are both pure and viable, outside the conventional and
globalized agri-food system [37,39].
The social and ecological coevolution developed in
agroecosystems is the result of a coevolution, in the sense
of integrated evolution, between culture and environment
[40,41]. Cognitive contributions need to interact with attitudes,
feelings, values, and ideas to have meaning; this allows for the
incorporation of new practices in personal and social spheres;
thereby demonstrating that the informational approach alone
is not sufficient to generate personal and social change [42,27].
In agroecosystems, when we consider both the components of
a natural nature and those of a social and cultural nature, we
encounter the term coevolution [43]. Each ecosystem has evolved
and modified over time through the interactions and influences
that its different components have exerted on one another. In this
interaction, natural components have been defined and modified,
as well as the social and cultural components of the human groups
immersed in them [44]. It is a coevolutionary process that defines
the current state of ecosystems, as well as the sociocultural
identities that coexist with them [45].
Social innovation has various definitions and theoretical
approaches. The approach that highlights the potential of
innovation strongly linked to the existence of social networks and
the social capital available at the local level is very important, as is
the idea that the development of social innovation goes far beyond
technological advances and focuses on changing the attitudes and
behaviors of a group of people organized in a network with similar
interests, which leads to new and better forms of collective action
than outside of it [46]. To facilitate the agroecological transition, it
is necessary for society to take ownership of several elements of the
systemic approach of this science: a) agroecology for sustainability,
b) the characteristics of the context, c) people’s perceptions, d)
the scope of the agroecological transition in the territory, e) the
disciplines and trans disciplines involved, f) open access to the
various sources of knowledge, and g) participatory methods for
transformative action [47].
From this approach, recent studies point to a scientific
paradigm shift to address the agri-food system from sectoral
theoretical approaches to systemic approaches supported by
decision-making processes linked to territorial governance. From
a holistic perspective, agroecology considers that the problems
of the agricultural system cannot be studied independently of the
human communities and social contexts in which they are situated
[48]. Because most local entities that provide technical services
have generally been created under the conventional food approach,
their management system remains vertical and disconnected from
the rest of the entities, even though their services serve the same
beneficiaries. For this reason, they must transform their system
toward participatory management and create local networks as cofacilitation
devices, so that their actions are also sustainable.
Valuing local knowledge management
For knowledge management to be sustainable, it must consider
the various existing sources of local knowledge and access to
appropriate external sources, through local mechanisms that link
them to integrate the co-creation of cognitive capacities (technical
training) and co-innovation (adoption of technologies) in a way
that is consistent with the characteristics of the territory. The
great challenge of local knowledge and innovation management is
to break down the structural and operational barriers that hinder
articulation at the territorial scale, to achieve convergence among
the different existing sources of knowledge and facilitate the local
flow of tacit and explicit knowledge from various sources, such as
the following:
Multilateral: It is expressed in the cooperative actions of
entities that belong to national organizations, through commissions
or other mechanisms that are often formal because they are
managed by one-way methods; therefore, it is sensitive to the fact
that transformations may not occur, as it is based on “integrating”
explicit knowledge (sometimes established by these organizations),
which is enriched with the tacit knowledge of the members of these
mechanisms. Proposals or decisions are generated that are not
always compatible or appropriate for the context [26]; however, it
is considered a source of knowledge updated from the perspective
of recent scientific results and documented explicit knowledge.
Local entities: In municipalities, a variety of local entities
and civil society organizations work together, each with specific
functions of their respective governing centers. In the case of
agricultural production, they carry out undergraduate training
(polytechnics, universities) and skills training (technicians,
workers, farmers, others), which in some municipalities achieve
synergies in their management with mutual benefit [26]. This
source of tacit knowledge has great contextual value because they
know the territory and have mastery of the practices used and their
adaptation.
Farmers: There are four dimensions [49]: (a) knowledge about
local biological taxonomies; (b) about the ecological environment,
which includes the geographical, physical, vegetational, and
biological realms [50]; (c) about agricultural practices, and (d)
experimental peasant knowledge. This is without diminishing the
more general cultural knowledge of the social fabric such as health,
food, construction, myths, art, festivals, which helps them to sustain
themselves. This knowledge about nature can be classified into
three areas: (a) structural, referring to natural elements or their
dynamic components, when it concerns processes or phenomena,
such as lunar cycles, erosion, ecological succession, life cycles; (b)
relational, when it is linked to the relationship or within elements
or events; and (c) utilitarian, to indicate knowledge about the
use of resources [50]. It is a very important source of knowledge
because it is based on the rationality of farmers and on peasant
experimentation.
Knowledge management refers to the process of creating,
disseminating, and incorporating knowledge into new products,
organizations, etc. It involves identifying, grouping, organizing and
continuously sharing/mobilizing knowledge of all kinds to meet
current needs and explore possible futures, to identify and exploit
knowledge resources, both existing and acquired, and to develop
new opportunities [10]. Innovation is defined as the introduction of
recent knowledge or novel combinations of existing knowledge to
transform them into products and processes with economic impact
[51], where only scientific knowledge is considered. Agroecology
is a complex socio-technical, organizational and contextual/
territorial phenomenon [13], which in particular suggests a broad
approach that allows understanding (considering) agricultural
action in holistic terms, proposing that contemporary production
issues have evolved from a purely technical dimension to a more
sociotechnical dimension, where social, economic, political, and
ecosystem aspects are present and are part of the situation. In other
words, the central concern today is the sustainability of agriculture,
conceived as a system that is economic, social, and ecological [12].
The local management of agroecological knowledge is based
on the interaction among actors, which is why it must be inclusive,
because in addition to being transdisciplinary, it values the
experience of older adults and the perceptions of young people,
whether women or men and does not exclude contributions from
people with different occupations; precisely because the holistic
approach of agroecology requires multiple perspectives that come
together in practices appropriate to each context [26], among
other criteria and methodological aspects that are decisive for
its sustainability (Table 1). For example, regarding the transition
in the management of agroecological knowledge in Cuban
territories, during the 1980s, training and technology transfer were
established as a vertical model in the agricultural sector, managed
nationally by various scientific and development institutions, with
the collaboration of local entities and specialists.
Table 1:Criteria used to design, facilitate, and assess sustainability in local management of agroecological knowledge
(26).
(1) Sustainability is a relative assessment, carried out through a percentage distribution (low, medium, high, very high)
based on 100% of the aspects that determine the sustainability of each criterion.
The existence of more than 20 independent research centers
in the agricultural sector, far from being an advantage, constitutes
an obstacle to the development of integrated innovation processes,
since technologies are generated and disseminated by the research
centers themselves, and it is up to the farmer to integrate them
on the farms, which results in the underutilization of human
talents and resources in the research centers, as well as certain
losses in expenses and technological incompatibilities [52]. With
the rise of Agroecology in Cuba since the mid-1990s, this model
gradually adjusted to allow greater participation and recognition
of the experiences of local technicians and farmers. For this reason,
researchers from these national institutions began to interact
with them, fostering what was considered agroecological training,
with the Peasant-to-Peasant Agroecological Movement standing
out [53]. At the same time, various research centers were moving
towards participatory research, such as the Participatory Plant
Breeding project [17].
Figure 2:Summary of the transition towards local management of agroecological knowledge in Cuba.
The management of agroecological knowledge in Cuba is
moving towards greater sustainability, characterized by: local
sources of knowledge, facilitators of activities (specialists from
municipal entities), meeting spaces (classrooms and halls in
municipal entities), forms of interaction between actors (lectures
or classes), receiving actors (farmers), local synergies in action
(municipal entities and productive forms), dissemination of
knowledge and experiences (events), are predominant [26]. In fact,
although training and innovation are planned and carried out as
different activities to be implemented through vertical methods,
they have been coevolving toward their integration in the territories
where projects and programs operate, as transdisciplinary systems
for the local management of agroecological knowledge (Figure 2).
However, in the face of the challenge of building sustainable food
systems, local management of agroecological knowledge requires
strengthening several components, such as: fostering institutional
innovation (popular education, transformative learning, design
thinking, participatory governance, proactive communication);
decentralizing and contextualizing technical innovation (on-farm
research, farmer experimentation, networks of innovative farmers);
transdisciplinary local innovation (co-innovation); disseminating
explicit knowledge (meetings, workshops, brochures, videos);
turning tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge (systematizing
experiences) and exchanging tacit knowledge (participatory
exercises in meetings and workshops), among other components
such as foresight to move towards sustainable agriculture.
In fact, in these territories, different narratives coexist that
contrast conventional production and marketing with sustainable
practices. These are expressed in the actions of individuals, entities
and organizations involved in the governance of the population’s
food supply, most of whom play a significant role in the establishment
of public policies, strategies and actions. This situation, which is
characteristic of various territories, highlights the existence of
theoretical and methodological inconsistencies in the adoption of
agroecology. This is evident in meetings, courses, events and other
types of collective activities, where diverse interpretations and
proposals on the subject can be observed. These differences are
not only seen in the realm of production and marketing but also in
other sectors such as technical services, research, education, health
and communication [47].
The challenges of the agroecological transition are often
discussed. Such challenges can be social, biological, economic,
cultural, institutional, political, etc., and addressing each of
them requires strategies and technological, organizational, and
institutional innovations. In other words, the transition toward
sustainable food production through the principles of agroecology
requires not just one transition, but several simultaneous
transitions, at different scales, levels, and dimensions [36]. Several
factors can act alone or together to promote and sustain the
territorial scaling of agroecology [54-56]: (a) crises that drive the
search for alternatives; (b) social organizations; (c) constructivist
teaching-learning processes; (d) effective agroecological practices;
(e) mobilizing discourse; (f) external alliances; (g) favorable
markets; (h) favorable political opportunities. Regardless of these
or other determining factors in the transition towards sustainable
food systems, progress or slowdown is determined by the creation
of local devices for transdisciplinary articulation, composed of
people trained in facilitating participatory processes; because
existing devices are usually based on conventional food systems,
which generally operate under the technology transfer model,
whose methods of action are basically top-down and pseudoparticipatory.
Territories that are transitioning towards sustainable food
systems should design and create knowledge management
systems that bring together actors who determine critical local
knowledge and external entities that generate appropriate
technologies, through synergies and mechanisms that operate via
programs, projects and interest networks. During the early years
of the transition to sustainable agriculture, specialized research
centers contribute with product technologies (bioproducts,
varieties, breeds, energy sources, others) that serve as substitutes
for conventional ones; meanwhile, comprehensive centers also
provide process technologies (farming and livestock systems, soil
management, others). Although these contributions are necessary,
the transformation of agroecosystems into sustainable ones is
achieved when innovative processes take traditional practices
and farmers’ experiences into account, as a robust criterion for
adapting technologies to the characteristics of landscapes and
agroecosystems.
References
- Bui
S, Cardona A, Lamine C, Cerf M (2016) Sustainability transitions:
Insights on processes of niche-regime interaction and regime
reconfiguration in agri-food systems. Journal of Rural Studies 48:
92-103.
- Meynard JM (2017) L’agroécologie, un nouveau rapport aux savoirs et à l’ OCL 24(3): 303.
- Deverre
C and Lamine C (2010) Alternative agri-food systems: A review of
English-language works in the social sciences. Économie Rurale, pp.
57-73.
- Lepratte
L, Blanc R, Pietroboni R, Hegglin D (2010) Socio-technical production
systems and innovation. Analysis of the dynamics of the poultry meat
production sector in Argentina. Ibero-American Magazine of Science,
Technology and Society 10(28): 57-83.
- Global Alliance for the Future of Food (2021) The politics of
knowledge: Understanding the evidence for agroecology, regenerative
agricultural practices, and Indigenous foodways, pp: 1-114.
- Lastres HM, Cassiolato JE, Arroio A (2004) Knowledge, innovation
systems and development. Rio de Janeiro, Editora da UFRJ y Contraponto.
- Anderson CR, McCune N, Bucini G, Mendez VE, Carasco A, et al. (2022)
Working together for agroecological transitions. Perspectives on
Agroecological Transitions-No. 3, Agroecology and Livelihoods
Collaborative (ALC), University of Vermont, Burlington, USA.
- Chambers
R, Ghildyal BP (1985) Agricultural research for resource-poor farmers:
The farmer first and last. Agricultural Administration 20(1): 1-30.
- Tripp R (1991) Planned change in farming systems: Progress in
on-farm research, In: R Tripp (Ed.), John Wiley & Sons Ltd,
Chichester, England, pp. 3-16.
- Muñoz M, Rendón R, Aguilar J, García JG, Reyes J (2004) Innovation
networks. An approach to their identification, analysis, and management
for rural development. Research and technology transfer program,
Michoacán, Produce Michoacán Foundation, Chapingo Autonomous University,
Mexico.
- Bas E, Guilló M (2011) Foresight and culture of innovation. Ekonomiaz 76: 18-37.
- Altieri MA (2010) The state of the art of agroecology: Reviewing
progress and challenges. In: T León, MA Altieri (Eds.), Aspects of
Agroecological Thought: Foundations and Applications. Universidad
Nacional de Colombia. Bogotá, Colombia. pp. 77-104.
- Chia E (2018) Agroecology: A new paradigm for family farming and
territorial development. The Contribution of the Virtuous Trifold of
Innovation, Learning and Governance, Cangue 40: 10-14.
- Tittonell P (2014) Ecological intensification-sustainable by nature. Current Opinion Environmental Sustainability 8: 53-61.
- García-Llorente
M, Pérez-Ramírez I, Sabán de la Portilla C, Haro C, Benito A (2019)
Agroecological strategies for reactivating the agrarian sector: The case
of Agrolab in Madrid. Sustainability 11(4): 1181.
- Oteros-Rozas
E, Ravera F, García-Llorente M (2019) How does agroecology contribute
to the transitions towards social-ecological sustainability?
Sustainability 11: 4372.
- Ríos-Labrada H (2016) Participatory plant breeding and local
innovation. In: Funes F, y Vázquez LL (Eds.), Advances in Agroecology in
Cuba. Estación Experimental de Pastos y Forrajes Indio Hatuey,
Matanzas, Cuba, pp. 183-198.
- Vázquez LL (2010) Farmers experimenting with agroecology and
agricultural transition in Cuba. In: T León y MA Altieri (Ed.), Aspects
of Agroecological Thought. Foundations and Applications. Sociedad
Científica Latinoamericana de Agroecología (Socla), Medellín, Colombia,
pp. 229-248.
- Ortiz R, Acosta R, Ruz R, la O M, Rivas A, et al. (2021) Innovation
systems with a participatory approach to local development management.
Anales de la Academia de Ciencias de Cuba 11(3): 1-7.
- Miranda T, Machado H, Suarez J, Sánchez T, Lamela L, et al. (2011)
Innovation and technology transfer at the Indio Hatuey experimental
station. 50 Years Fostering the Development of Cuba's Rural Sector (Part
I). Pastos y Forrajes 34(4):
- Guzmán GI, Alonso AM (2007) Participatory research in agroecology: A tool for sustainable development. Ecosystems (1):
- Liu M (1997) Fondements et pratiques de la Recherche-Action. L’Harmattan, Paris, France, p. 250.
- Machín B, Roque A, Rocío D, Rosset P (2010) Agroecological
revolution: ANAP's farmer-to-farmer movement in Cuba, La Habana, Cuba.
- Utter A, White A, Mendez E, Morris K (2021) Co-creation of knowledge in agroecology. Elem Sci Anth 9(1): 26.
- Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (2015) Creative Knowledge: The Dynamics of the
Learning Organization. De Boeck University Press, Belgium, p. 303.
- Vázquez LL, Chia E (2023) Sustainability of agroecological knowledge management in Cuban territories. Études caribéennes 54:
- Mezirow J (2000) Learning to think like an adult. Core concepts of
transformation theory. In: Meziro Jack (Ed.), Learning as
Transformation. Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress.
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 3-33.
- De Souza J, Cheaz J, Santamaría J, Mato M., Lima S, et al. (2005)
The innovation of institutional innovation: From the universal,
mechanical and neutral to the contextual, interactive and ethical,
Quito, Artes Gráficas Silva, Ecuador, p. 370.
- Vitry
C, Chia E (2016) Contextualisation d’un instrument et apprentissages
pour l’action collective. Revue management et avenir (83): 141-21.
- Chia
E, Torre A (2020) Territorial governance through the prism of
instruments, lessons learned, and conflicts. Investigaciones Geográficas
60: 18-34.
- Geels FW, Schot J (2007) Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy 36(3): 399-417.
- González-Fernández L, Carámbula M, Rossi V, Viera I, Chia E (2023) A
look from the sociology of translation at a territorial innovation in
Canelones, Uruguay. Mundos Plurales-Revista Latinoamericana De Políticas
y Acción Pública 10(2): 111-132.
- Calvente AM (2007) Coevolution: A central process for sustainability. Universidad Abierta Interanmericana, UAIS, p. 6.
- Gutiérrez JM (2008) How we know a good teacher? Revista Mexicana de investigación Educativa 13(39): 1299-1303.
- Dogliotti
S, García MC, Peluffo S, Dieste J, Pedemonte A, et al. (2014)
Co-innovation of family farm systems: A systems approach to sustainable
agricultiure. Agric Syst 126: 76-86.
- Tittonell P (2019) Agroecological transitions: Multiple scales, levels and challenges. Rev FCA UNCUYO 51(1): 231-246.
- Ilbery
B, Maye D (2005) Making reconnections in agro-food geography:
Alternative systems of food provision. Progress in Human Geography
29(1): 331-344.
- Elzen B, Barbier M, Cerf M, Grin J (2012) Farming systems research into the 21st century: The New Dynamic, pp. 431-455.
- Darnhofer I (2014) Resilience and why it matters for farm management. European Review of Agriculture Economics 41(3): 461-484.
- Norgaad RB (1987) The epistemological basis of agroecology: En
Agroecology. The Scientific Basis of Alternative Agriculture, Boulder-IT
Publications, West-View Press, London, England.
- Norgaad RB, Sikor T (1999) Methodology and practice of agroecology.
In: Altieri MA (Ed.), Agroecology: Scientific Basis for Sustainable
Agriculture, Nordan-Comunidad, p. 31-46.
- Kegan R (2000) What "form" transforms? A constructive developmental approach to transformative learning. In: J Mezirow (Ed.), 1st (edn), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, USA, pp. 3-34.
- Norgaad RB (1994) Development Betrayed: The end of progress and a
coevolutionary revisioning of the future. Reutledge, New York, USA.
- Kallis G, Norgaard RB (2010) Coevolutionary ecological economics. Ecological Economics 69(4): 690-699.
- Pugliese
P (2001) Organic farming and sustainable rural development: A
multifaced and promising convergence. Sociologia Ruralis 41(1): 112-130.
- Neumeier
S (2012) Why do social innovations in rural development matter and
should they be considered more seriously in rural developing research?
Proposal for a stronger focus on social innovations in rural development
research. Sociologia Ruralis 52(1): 48-69.
- Vázquez LL (2024)
Social appropriation of agroecology: Key to the sustainable
transformation of local food systems. Foro 8(4): 29-39.
- Wibbelmann
M, Schmutz U, Wright J, Udall D, Rayns F, et al. (2013) Mainstreaming
agroecology: Implications for global food and farming systems. Centre
for Agroecology and Food Security.
- Altieri MA (1999) Scientific foundations for sustainable agriculture. Nordan Comunidad, Montevideo, Uruguay, p. 338.
- Toledo VM (1992) The rationality of peasant production. In: Sevilla
G, M González de Molina (Eds.), Ecología, Campesinado e Historia,
Ediciones La Piqueta, Madrid, España, pp. 197-218.
- Edquist C, Björn J (1997) Institutions and organizations in systems
of innovation. In: Edquist C (Ed.), Systems of Innovation: Technologies,
Institutions and Organizations. Series Editor: John de la Mothe and
Pinter, Ottawa, Canada.
- Caballero R, Vázquez LL (2016) Agroecological innovation. In: Funes
F, y Vázquez LL (Eds.), Avances de la Agroecología En Cuba. Estación
Experimental de Pastos y Forrajes Indio Hatuey, Matanzas, pp. 471-482.
- Funes F, Freyre E, Blanco F (2016) Agroecological training. In:
Funes F, y Vázquez LL (Eds.) Avances de la Agroecología en Cuba.
Estación Experimental de Pastos y Forrajes Indio Hatuey, Matanzas, pp.
449-468.
- Rosset PM (2015) Social organization and process in bringing
agroecology to scale. In Agroecology for food security and nutrition.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, Rome,
Italy.
- Khadse APM, Rosset PM, Ferguson BG (2017) Taking agroecology to
scale: The zero budget natural farming peasant movement in Karnataka,
India. The Journal of Peasant Studies 45: 1-28.
- Rosset PM, Altieri MA (2017) Agroecology: Science and politics. Fernwood Publishing, Manitoba, Canada.
https://crimsonpublishers.com/mcda/fulltext/MCDA.000868.php
Publishers: https://crimsonpublishers.com/
For
more articles in Modern Concepts & Developments in Agronomy
Please
click on below link: https://crimsonpublishers.com/mcda/
