10.07.2015 Views

tpo_dossier_action-plan-for-innovation-and-learning_201406

tpo_dossier_action-plan-for-innovation-and-learning_201406

tpo_dossier_action-plan-for-innovation-and-learning_201406

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

6countries, there is variation in legal st<strong>and</strong>ards aroundthe World - though practices on farms often exceedthe minimum legal requirements within each country.Nevertheless, all follow the same broad principles <strong>and</strong>objectives <strong>and</strong> there is a huge international trade in organicproducts.In addition to the regulated organic farming of themajor organic markets, there is also much unregulated,smallholder/peasant-based organic farming supplyinglocal markets. However, unregulated does not necessarilymean uncontrolled: there are often sophisticated, sel<strong>for</strong>ganisedsystems ensuring integrity, good practice <strong>and</strong>in<strong>for</strong>mation sharing. Some call themselves agroecological,not organic.Notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing their different histories, there are strongoverlaps between organic agriculture <strong>and</strong> agroecology.Both promote a ‘closed system’ approach to minimiseexternal inputs, use multiple <strong>and</strong> diverse crops <strong>and</strong>/oranimals, <strong>and</strong> rely on biological processes <strong>for</strong> building soilfertility <strong>and</strong> controlling pests <strong>and</strong> diseases (Bellon et al.,2011). Both tend to favour more direct links with theircustomers <strong>and</strong> to engage with social movements. Bothseek to improve wider agricultural systems towards greatersustainability using similar approaches, <strong>and</strong> both are opento <strong>learning</strong> <strong>and</strong> are ambitious to probe, to improve <strong>and</strong> todevelop their practices towards this goal – exactly one ofthe goals of this publication.Thus, whilst not quite synonymous, organic farming <strong>and</strong>agroecology are strongly related <strong>and</strong> are complementarybedfellows.Innovation is a broad concept that is generally definedas the development, introduction <strong>and</strong> application ofnew ideas, processes, products or procedures where aneconomic or social benefit is assumed <strong>for</strong> individuals,groups or entire organisations (Maier, 2001; Aichner et al.,2000). Put simply, it is something original, there<strong>for</strong>e new,that “breaks into” a market or society.Innovation could be seen as sitting in betweeninvention <strong>and</strong> improvement. Invention is the creation ofan idea or method, whereas <strong>innovation</strong> is developing <strong>and</strong>implementing a better, novel idea or method. It refers tothe notion of doing something different. Improvement,on the other h<strong>and</strong>, is simply about doing the same thingbetter.Many scientists <strong>and</strong> researchers have studied<strong>innovation</strong> with the aim of identifying the different <strong>for</strong>msof <strong>innovation</strong> <strong>and</strong> documenting the associated structures<strong>and</strong> policies. These include:• Schumpeter et al. (1980) defined three phases ofthe <strong>innovation</strong> process: invention (when ideas aregenerated), <strong>innovation</strong> (putting ideas into practice),<strong>and</strong> diffusion (the widespread application of the<strong>innovation</strong>);• Smits et al. (2010) described <strong>innovation</strong> as eithermacroeconomic (more linear, like ‘technologytransfer’), or institutional (more the whole <strong>innovation</strong>system);• Li et al. (2008) differentiated between exploitative(refining, leveraging <strong>and</strong> extending existingknowledge) <strong>and</strong> explorative (searching <strong>for</strong> newalternatives or unfamiliar, distant <strong>and</strong> remoteknowledge);• Meißner (2001) <strong>and</strong> Knickel et al. (2009) identifieddifferent groups who per<strong>for</strong>m different tasks in thevarious phases of the <strong>innovation</strong> process: knowledgeproducers (researchers, R&D departments),knowledge users (commerce, consumers, farmers),knowledge brokers (advisory services, the educationsystem, NGOs) <strong>and</strong> political decision-makers;• Padel et al. (2010) in the TP Organics ImplementationAction Plan argued <strong>for</strong> a broad underst<strong>and</strong>ing of<strong>innovation</strong>, distinguishing between:• technology <strong>innovation</strong>, generated mainlythrough lab-based science <strong>and</strong> technology,<strong>and</strong> then transferred to users such as farmers,advisory services, <strong>and</strong> policy makers;• know-how <strong>innovation</strong>, knowledge aroundmethods <strong>and</strong> practices, often the result ofparticipatory research, spanning the normalboundary between knowledge producers <strong>and</strong>users; it makes ‘tacit knowledge’ explicit <strong>and</strong>often combines new <strong>and</strong> traditional knowledge;• organisational <strong>innovation</strong>, changes inmanagement <strong>and</strong> cooperation amongstakeholders across the agro-food value chain(e.g. researchers, seed breeders, extensionservices, farmers, retailers, consumers, civilsociety);• social <strong>innovation</strong>, change of behaviour of groupsin wider society establishing new relationships.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!