Enhancing dynamic systems research by activating integrative perspectives on processes of scaling up in agricultural development and innovation by Seerp Wigboldus et al

Enhancing dynamic systems research by activating integrative perspectives on processes of scaling up in agricultural development and innovation

Humidtropics

Presented by Seerp Wigboldus and Katharina Schiller, Wageningen University and Research centre, the

Netherlands - 5 March 2015

Success/failure,

mechanisms/consequences of scaling (up):

a study focus on its own

• “Find out what works and do more of the same” is a common, but

often too limited perspective on what is involved in scaling (up)

• Tentative conclusion from a review study:

– We need to improve conceptual (and shared) understanding about scaling

processes

– We need to take scaling processes more seriously in terms of understanding

what mechanisms are involved and what are wider effects (beyond narrow

success)

– We need to become more creative in devising options for engaging strategically

with scaling processes

• Are often considered to be a ‘next stage’ and not part of systems

research itself

• Need to integrate these elements into systems research/R4D

• From the beginning, design of research and innovation projects

needs to have future scaling-up in mind (Ghiron et al. 2014).

Related models for scaling up

• If the ones who find out what

works are not the same as

the ones supposed to be

doing more of the same

Find out what works

Do more of the same

Crossing the divide:AdoptionTransfer

DisseminationEtc.

• If scaling up is integrated in

innovation design: co-

innovation, co-scaling

RESEARCHDECISION MAKING

R4D as

E.g. potential

E.g. Risk

perception, mind-sets

Analysis Sense-making

FOR

Need to connect

Need toconnect

Widening perspectives on scaling up

From responsible innovation to responsible scaling

• If innovations are considered to be ‘responsible’ (relating to e.g.

inclusiveness, sustainability), will they also remain being

‘responsible’ when they go to scale?

• Scaling up often means entering new scale levels, new domains,

new geographical areas, etc. – how will we know innovations are

still ‘responsible’ when they cross those boundaries?

From successful scaling up to responsible scaling

• Are scaling processes successful when something effectively goes

to scale?

• Or can something effectively go to scale and still be considered

unsuccessful because of negative outcomes (incl. side effects)?

• Starting to scale something up often has a snow-ball effect of

scaling processes – e.g. scaling up of (monoculture) crop attracts a

scaling up of pests/diseases, and/or requires scaling up use of

agrochemicals, it may lead to scaling down other crops, etc., etc.

See study “late lessons from early warnings” (EEA, 2013)

The need to complement systems research

• Systems research focuses on system

dimensions and dynamics

• Scaling processes often escape

system boundaries used

• Scaling process studies can bridge

systems research and foresight

studies

Systemsresearch

Foresightstudies

Systemsresearch

Foresightstudies

Scaling studies

PROMIS:a PRactice-Oriented Multi-level

perspective on Innovation and Scaling

• An approach to facilitate research on scaling processes

• Complementing existing research methodologies and processes

– Conceptual frameworks (to help to more easily create integrative perspective on

relevant dimensions and dynamics of envisaged scaling processes)

– Interpretive frameworks (to help to more easily detect mechanisms involved in

supporting or hindering envisaged scaling processes)

– Methodological application options (to help apply the above in working with

stakeholders)

– Strategic translation frameworks (to help consider a variety of options for

engaging with the envisaged scaling processes) So what? Now what?

• Connects to wide range of dimensions, e.g. from technical to social,

from natural resources to mind-sets and motivations, and from

institutions to decision-making processes

Simplified example of conceptual frameworks used

• Developing integrative perspectives on change dimensions related to

scaling processes – connecting across domains and systems

Dimensions include the technical,

technology, knowledge, social

capital, culture, human capital,

natural capital, financial capital,

etc.

Practices

Focus systems

Wider systems

Futures

Generalised dimensions involved in

configurations, which are operative

throughout scale levels

Illustrations from quick-scan study on “scaling

up ‘green’ rubber in Xishuangbanna, China”

• Rubber cultivation once promoted as a way out of poverty and even a

way to ‘green’ the landscape

• Then its monoculture manifestation becoming criticized as being

environmentally unfriendly (25%+ of the land taken over by rubber)

• Extensive research efforts to assess (environmental) impact and to find

out alternative that can help ‘green’ rubber cultivation

• Market price of natural rubber plummeted over past few years

• More details in presentation by Jianchu Xu

Research activities

• Literature study – many studies available, looking at rubber in

Xishuangbanna from different angles

• Activating previously done survey among farmers (not specific for this

purpose, but left unused so far)

• Interviews with representatives from key stakeholder groups

• Interactive sense-making workshop

• Development of report, platform brief, research paper and concept note

Use of system(at)ic insights

and imagination/intuition

• Hybrid knowledge – hybrid

processes

• Facilitated sense-making

• Soft systems methodologies,

e.g. rich picture

• Relationship-building among

stakeholders (actually building

on momentum which R4D

platform may help create)

• Empirical and imaginative

(what if...)

Applying conceptual frameworks:

What needs to scale up exactly on what scale?

Unpacking “green rubber”:

• Plot/farm level: e.g. ground cover, inter/mixed cropping, use of

pesticides/herbicides, chemical fertiliser

• Village level: e.g. zoning crops

• Watershed level: e.g. no rubber near water courses

• Landscape level: zoning of land use, rubber not above 800 masl

Different “shades” of green possible

Applying interpretive frameworks:

Ready to scale up ‘green’ rubber? Lock-in factors.

• Lock-in of monoculture rubber

– Economic benefits fresh in memories of producers

– Unwillingness to go for something which has lower income potential

or requires harder work

– Environmental awareness not strong

– Rubber brought the pride of being part of modernity

– Lack of knowledge/expertise about alternatives

– Smallholders want “proven” alternative options

– No real interest in benefits on longer term

– Etc.

Applying interpretive frameworks:

Ready to scale up ‘green’ rubber? Lock-in factors (2)

• Disconnect between massive research capacity and smallholders

• Hesitance of policy implementers to enforce environmental regulations

• History of top-down policy making/implementation and smallholders

who became passive recipients

• Narrow scientific perspectives on ‘green rubber’: Agronomist look for

agronomic ‘solutions’, ecologists for ecological ‘solutions’, foresters for

‘forestry’ solutions, etc. Need for inter- and transdisciplinary

perspectives

Applying interpretive frameworks:

Ready to scale up ‘green’ rubber? Space for change

• In-principle readiness to do something

• In-principle agreement that current rubber cultivation causes harm

• Interest to meet as stakeholders and to seek ways forward (e.g.

through recent workshops and interviews)

• Successful PTD example in nearby parts of the province

• Massive research capacity

• Green policies by government

• Potentially available government subsidies

• Etc.

Creating integrative perspective on variety

interacting factors and dynamics

Application of conceptual perspectives on

scaling up: compound dynamics (1)

Scaling up green rubber

↑Level of

(bio)diversity

Time → 2015

Subsistence

Specialisation/intensification

Diversification?

↑Commodi

tizaton

2015

Culturalidentity

Marketorientation

Eco products?

Time →

↑ Influence

ondecision-making Farmers

Government

Scientists

Time → 2015

↑Importance

environmental values in

comparison with economic

values

Farmers

Government

Scientists

Time → 2015

Application of conceptual perspectives on

scaling up: compound dynamics (2)

↑Scale level

Greenpolicy

making

Green mentality

Eco-friendly farm

practices

The age of monoculture

The age of light green

The age of medium

green

The age of dark green

Diversified land use

Alternativecrops

introduction

Green policy implementation

Exploring connections between integrative

perspective and strategy options

Wider context in Xishuangbanna and China

Monoculture rubber dominance

Green rubber niche

Pressure to change factors

Support status quofactors

Promoting alternative options

Green rubber cradles

Providing new ideas, options

Greenrubber

Monoculture rubberDifferent strategic options possible in

helping green rubber go to scale

Different strategic options possible in

helping green rubber go to scale

From integrative/interpretive

perspectives to strategy options (2)

What may tip the balance and help ‘green’ rubber scale up?

Breaking the stalemate

• Use momentum created by R4D platform (relationships!): ICRAF,

government

• Stop hobby-horsing: science and policy

• Engage smallholders actively in R&D: science

• Get organised: smallholders (supported by NGO?)

• Set examples: (former) state companies

• Look beyond rubber; adopt a ‘green’ landscape perspective: all

stakeholders

• Facilitate collaboration and convergence between and strengthen

capacities of stakeholders for collective action: new project

Some quick conclusions from quick-scan study

• Even though a lot of research has been and is being done, good

policies are in place, rubber prices are low, still the situation appears to

be locked in

• Need to look beyond scaling up (technical) solutions (intercropping,

understory ground cover, new crops, etc.) to scaling up processes

(most notably communication and collaboration between stakeholders

• Need to start involving smallholder meaningfully and intensively

This means that technical/technological “solutions” NOT expected to

‘unlock’ the dominance of monoculture rubber in the Xishuangbanna

landscape

A concept note was developed for a project which focuses on facilitating

convergence of visions and action between stakeholders

• What about the measure of convergence as an indicator of capacity to

innovate?

• Helps to look at it beyond technical/technological innovation

• Would require unpacking ‘convergence’ toward e.g. stages, etc.

Some initial experiences with research

approach so far

• Not so suitable if just a matter of research on scaling – more suitable if

also connected to positioning interventions and as part of a multi-

stakeholder process

• Need for distinguishing between two types of scaling:

– Scaling up “something” defined (e.g. a particular cropping system)

– Scaling up toward the existence of a desired outcome/impact at scale (e.g. food

security) which actually involves a range of interactive scaling processes

• A quick-scan study set-up can be useful in

project/programme proposal development

• Good connection options to other

presentations in conference, e.g. on

participatory modelling (!), transdisciplinary

research, intuitive approaches,

and foresight analysis

• Integrative research easily becomes overwhelming

Reflections on case study on scaling up

agroecology in Nicaragua

• Takes into account smallholders’ livelihood systems

• Helpful to connect perspectives between eg socio-economic and bio-

physical realm; individual – systemic levels

• Keeping focus on one aspect without losing birds-eye perspective

• Toolkit of quantitative and qualitative methods, including checklist

Tentative (selected) learning about what contributes

to creating conditions for responsible scaling

• From the beginning, design of research and innovation projects needs to have

future scaling-up in mind

• Be aware that scaling-up is not a neutral process. Consider trade-offs and net

benefit/value for society from an inclusive and cross-scale perspective (e.g. how

scaling works out for disadvantaged groups, such as women and children)

• Approach the scaling initiative as a co-creative effort, working toward a

collaborative scaling initiative; facilitate co-creative design of scaling strategies

with stakeholders – scientist can play key role in this, but often need to learn how

• Negotiate (with funders and managers) room for manoeuvre in terms of required

flexibility for adaptively treading on pathways to scale (preventing ‘monorail

scaling’ and ‘one-gear scaling’)

• Facilitate convergence of perspectives and preferences of stakeholders,

enhancing opportunities for shared effort through common (communicative and

discursive) spaces in support of scaling processes, such as innovation/R4D

platforms/labs and farmer field schools

This presentation is based on research which is

partly conducted in collaboration with CIAT-

Nicaragua and ICRAF-East and Central Asia

• Co-authors of research products related to this presentation are

– Marc Schut (International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Bujumbura,

Burundi, and Wageningen UR, Knowledge, Technology and Innovation

group),

– Cees Leeuwis, Laurens Klerkx, Katharina Schiller and Onno Giller

(Wageningen UR, Knowledge, Technology and Innovation group)

– Marijn Poortvliet and Anne Marike Lokhorst (Wageningen UR, Strategic

Communication group)

• Special thanks for their active participation in the research to Rein

van der Hoek, Falguni Guharay, Nelson Castellon, and Eduardo

Herrera (CIAT-Nicaragua), and Jim Hammond (ICRAF East and

Central Asia)

Contact: Laurens Klerkx, Knowledge, Technology and Innovation group, Wageningen

University – [email protected] or Seerp Wigboldus, Centre for Development

Innovation, Wageningen UR, the Netherlands – [email protected]

Thank you