Exploring barriers to the agroecological transition in Nicaragua: A Technological Innovation Systems Approach

Figures & data

Table 1. Structures of technological innovation systems (based on Wieczorek and Hekkert 2012).

Structure	Description
Actors	The “players in the game” (Klein Woolthuis, Lankhuizen, and Gilsing 2005). Includes individuals and organizations, such as farmers, farmer organizations, civil society organizations, government agencies, knowledge and research institutes, financial organizations, and donor organizations.
Institutions	The “rules of the game”. Can be hard (formal institutions, such as policies, standards, and regulations) or soft (informal). Institutions can support innovation processes by enabling space for change, or conversely hinder it through rigidity and close-mindedness.
Interactions	Interactions can help actors e.g. align their visions, leverage resources, and share knowledge. Includes informal interactions between actors or institutions, and formalized interactions such as networks.
Infrastructures	Includes physical infrastructures (e.g. roads, structures, networks, machines, artefacts), financial infrastructures (e.g. subsidies, specific credit lines, financial programs) and knowledge infrastructures (e.g., knowledge, strategic information).

Table 2. Functions and diagnostic questions for systemic analysis (Bergek, Jacobsson, and Sandén 2008; Hekkert et al. 2007; Wieczorek and Hekkert 2012; Wieczorek et al. 2013).

Function	Description	Diagnostic questions
F1: Experimentation by entrepreneurs	Entrepreneurs are essential: their role is to turn the potential of new knowledge, networks and markets into concrete actions to generate and take advantage of business opportunities. Experimentation by entrepreneurs refers to not just actors’ willingness to experiment with the new technology, but also their ability to do so – which is based on the resources at their disposal. Different types of actors experiment differently: for example, farmers may experiment with agroecological practices on their farm, while market entrepreneurs may experiment with novel value chain arrangements.	Sufficient and suitable actors contributing to diffusion? Amount and type of experiments sufficient?
F2: Knowledge development	Mechanisms of learning are at the heart of any innovation process. Knowledge development involves both experimentation (learning-by-doing) and research (learning-by-searching) (van Mierlo et al. 2010). New knowledge can be created by e.g., farmers through farm experimentation, or in formalized institutional settings such as universities, and further serves to legitimize the use of agroecology.	Enough and competent actors involved in knowledge development? Knowledge development sufficiently aligned with actors’ needs?
F3: Knowledge exchange	Knowledge exchange is the co-construction of knowledge by actors from different sectors of the TIS, as well as the formalization of knowledge exchange processes (e.g., through networks).	Sufficient networks or connections through which knowledge is exchanged?
F4: Guidance of the search	The processes that lead to a clear development goal for the new technology based on technological expectations, articulated user demand and societal discourse. Guidance of the search is the creation of a clear vision for further development of the technology and involves an understanding of different actors’ goals and visions. It is an important factor in aligning actors’ visions of how the system is functioning, and how it should move forward. In countries with a centralized political system (such as Nicaragua), this function is heavily dependent on government input.	Do actors and institutions provide sufficiently clear direction for future development?
F5: Market formation	Market formation entails the use of a variety of mechanisms to create demand for the outputs of the new technology (Sixt, Klerkx, and Griffin 2017) – here, agroecological products. The creation of markets facilitates cost reductions and incentivizes entrepreneurs.	Size of market sufficient to sustain entrepreneurial experimentation and innovation?
F6: Resource mobilization	Resource mobilization – of financial and human resources, knowledge and physical resources – is necessary for TIS growth and intimately linked to actors’ alignment along similar goals and their shared visions. New technologies, particularly knowledge-intensive technologies such as agroecology, often have difficulties competing with entrenched technologies (Hekkert et al. 2007).	Sufficient financial resources? Sufficient and competent actors? Sufficient physical infrastructure?
F7: Creation of legitimacy	Innovation is by definition uncertain. The creation of legitimacy reduces uncertainties and counteracts the resistance to change. The (7) creation of legitimacy for agroecology vis-à-vis the dominant conventional agricultural system is of central importance to further diffuse agroecological practices and principles nationwide by securing broad (public) support for agroecology. It helps minimize uncertainties to which actors are exposed, e.g. through supporting market development or enabling a stable regulatory environment (Klerkx, Aarts, and Leeuwis 2010).	Do actors, formal and informal institutions sufficiently contribute to legitimacy? How much external resistance is present towards the technology?

Table 3. Systemic problems leading to blocking mechanisms (based on Wieczorek and Hekkert 2012).

Problem dimension	Actors	Institutions	Interactions	Infrastructures
Presence or absence	Absence of actors	Absence of specific institutions that support the agroecological transition	Missing interactions due to e.g. lacking trust, capacities, differing assumptions	Absence of necessary infrastructures, such as value chains or knowledge exchange
Quality/Capacity	Lacking capacity of actors	Strong institutional problems leading to technological ‘lock-in’ of conventional agriculture; weak institutional problems hinder innovation concerning agroecology	Strong network problems exist when some actors are erroneously guided by stronger actors; weak network problems hinder interaction and innovation	Lacking quality of infrastructures, e.g. bad roads hindering timely access to markets

Table 4. Summary of data collection.

Type of data gathering	Details – respondents from organizations
Semi-structured interviews	4 scientists and extensionists from producer organizations 6 scientists from research and education institutes 2 department managers from government institutions 2 managers from financial institutions 1 scientist from INGO 3 scientists from national NGOs 9 agroecological smallholders
Workshops	2 with agroecological smallholders, total: 27 participants (11 female, 16 male) 1 multi-stakeholder, 8 participants
Farm visits and interviews	9 agroecological smallholders (3 female, 6 male)
Literature review	Scientific literature Grey literature from involved organizations Newspaper articles
Document analysis	Government policies Internal documents from involved organizations

Figure 1. Map of Nicaragua with research areas starred (mapsof.net 2014).

Figure 2. Timeline of the three periods of the agroecological innovation system in Nicaragua, with main events of each period.

Table 5. Summary of main positive and negative aspects of each function.

Function	Positive aspects	Negative aspects
F1: Experimentation by entrepreneurs	- 3 decades of farmer experimentation - Experimentation and demonstration plots across the country	- Infrastructural difficulties - Insufficient market development by market actors
F2: Knowledge development	Formalization of knowledge development through farmer organizations and public higher education system	- Dependency on donor funding - Government functionaries lack knowledge of agroecology - Insufficient human and organizational adaptive capacity
F3: Knowledge exchange	- Farmer to farmer schools and networks - Bachelor, Masters, PhD programs in universities - National networks and roundtables of organizations supporting agroecology - Regional and international knowledge exchange through NGOs and research organizations - Focus on youth outreach - Nascent: training for government employees and awareness-building of consumers	- Dependency on donor funding - “Islands of agroecology” that do not connect to other agroecological projects or organizations - Difficulties of working with municipal governments
F4: Guidance of the search	- Government has written agroecology and related issues into law	- Government does not focus on implementing its policies - Government’s two-prong approach (on conventional agribusiness and on agroecology) is confusing for stakeholders - Difficulties of defining “agroecology”
F5: Market formation	Creation of farmer’s markets in municipalities and in the capital	- Low consumer purchasing power - Insufficient production of and access to agroecological inputs
F6: Resource mobilization	International financial resource donors	- Lacking financial, human, and physical resource mobilization - Rapid change of government staff makes working with municipal governments difficult
F7: Creation of legitimacy	- Groundswell: 3 decades of farmer-to-farmer movement - Organizations linking farmer organizations and policy-making	- Difficulties of defining “agroecology” - Mixed messages of government - Insufficient creation of market opportunities and infrastructures

Table 6. Legislation on agroecology and related topics since 2007.

Year	Law (number, issue)
2007	620: Regulation of national water sources
2008	648: Equal rights and opportunities for all citizens
2009	693: Food and nutrition security and sovereignty
2010	705: Regulating the use of biotechnology
2011	747: Animal rights
2011	765: Agroecological and organic production
2012	807: Conservation of biodiversity

Table 7. Systemic problems hampering the further growth of the agroecological innovation system in Nicaragua.

System function	Systemic problems hampering system functions	Description of links between systemic problems
F1: Experimentation by entrepreneurs	Missing actors Interaction failure Hard institutional failure	Different groups of actors are affected by different systemic problems. Experimentation by the private sector is weak esp. concerning market development, as they don’t see opportunities for financial gain – this is related also to lacking information/demand on consumer side. Amongst farmers, experimentation is stifled by the 1-crop-focus of some cooperatives, as well as by opposing policies within and between government institutions. Further issues include land tenure insecurity, land fragmentation, and the lack of government (financial) support for farmers in transition period.
F2: Knowledge development	Missing actors, Hard institutional failure Lacking capacity of actors	This relates to weak human, organizational, and institutional adaptive capacity, connected to the lacking guidance of the search at national level. Related to this is weak consumer knowledge and market development – most ecological production focuses on export crops, and the national market is incipient.
F3: Knowledge exchange	Hard and soft institutional failures Infrastructure failure Interaction failure	Connected to the “islands of agroecology”, weak organizational capacity, and weak guidance of the search, knowledge exchange between different stakeholder groups remains weak.
F4: Guidance of the search	Missing actors, hard institutional failure Interaction failure	Lacking coherence of government policies concerning agroecological and conventional agriculture lead to further mismatch between national policies and their implementation at municipal scales.
F5: Market formation	Lacking presence and quality of actors and infrastructures Hard and soft institutional failure Interaction failure	National input and output markets growing but insufficient, including the lack of consumer awareness of benefits of buying agroecological products, lacking differentiation of agroecological products in markets and connected to this, the lack of a price premium. Lacking knowledge of NTON 11–037 and certification possibilities, by farmers and technicians, further impedes market development.
F6: Resource mobilization	Lacking presence and quality of actors, interactions, institutions, infrastructures	Lacking resources include financial instruments for the parameters of agroecological production, lacking sufficient and timey access to bio-inputs, and low profit margins for producers.
F7: Creation of legitimacy	Lacking presence and quality of physical and financial infrastructures; hard and soft institutional failure	Countermanded through government’s continued focus on conventional production, as well as by contradictory policies within and between government institutions, including lacking resource mobilization and market development.

Figure 3. The lack of a common vision for agroecology as a central blocking mechanism impacting all other system aspects (vicious cycles 1–4 identified by dotted lines; arrows indicate one-way or two-way relationships between issues).

Figure 4. Hard and soft institutional problems weakening market entrepreneurs’ willingness to experiment (arrows indicate one-way or two-way relationships between issues).

Figure 5. Hard and soft institutional problems negatively impact farmers‘ willingness to experiment with agroecology (arrows indicate relationships between issues).

Figure 6. Insufficient creation of legitimacy causes vicious cycles throughout the agroecological innovation system (cycles 1–4 identified by dotted lines; arrows indicate one-way or two-way relationships between issues).

Figure 7. Vicious cycles between central functions that hinder the further diffusion of agroecology (arrows indicate interrelationships between issues).

Wieczorek, A. J., and M. P. Hekkert. 2012. Systemic instruments for systemic innovation problems: A framework for policy makers and innovation scholars. Science and Public Policy 39 (1):74–87. doi:10.1093/scipol/scr008.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Woolthuis, K., M. L. Rosalinde, and V. Gilsing. 2005. A system failure framework for innovation policy design. Technovation 25 (6):609–19. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2003.11.002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bergek, A., S. Jacobsson, B. Carlsson, S. Lindmark, and A. Rickne. 2008. Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis. Research Policy 37 (3):407–29. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hekkert, M. P., R. A. A. Suurs, O. Simona, S. K. Negro, and R. E. H. M. Smits. 2007. Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74 (4):413–32. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2006.03.002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wieczorek, A. J., S. O. Negro, R. Harmsen, G. J. Heimeriks, L. Luo, and M. P. Hekkert. 2013. A review of the european offshore wind innovation system. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 26 (C):294–306. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.05.045.

 Google Scholar

van Mierlo, B., C. Leeuwis, and R. E. H. M Smits.,and Woolthuis, R. K. (2010). Learning towards system innovation:Evaluating a systemic instrument. Technological Forecastingand Social Change 77(2), 318–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.08.004

 Google Scholar

Sixt, G. N., L. Klerkx, and T. S. Griffin. 2017. Transitions in water harvesting practices in jordan’s rainfed agricultural systems: Systemic problems and blocking mechanisms in an emerging technological innovation system. Environmental Science and Policy 84 (July):235–49. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.08.010.

 Google Scholar