Book of Abstract (incl. addendum) - IFSA symposium 2012

Workshop 2.3 Systems thinking and practice in rural innovation: advances in concept,
methodologies and interventions
sustainability. IWRM articulates multi-stakeholders’ participation and social learning to foster an
innovative and transformative approach towards environmental change. Using qualitative field data
from the rainfed Matruh region in Egypt, this paper evaluates the contribution of stakeholders’
participation in advancing IWRM with regards to equitable allocation, empowerment and
sustainability. It analyses whether stakeholders’ participation fosters a sustainable use of natural
resources. It argues in its case study that the politics of water management are seldom considered in
IWRM. Consequently, equity and empowerment gains are captured by power differentials, which thus
constrains its sustainability potential. By doing so, it expands the literature on IWRM with a political
sociology angle.
Finding farmers' motivation - a key to sustainable farm development
through interventions
Jenny Höckert and Magnus Ljung
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden
Jenny.Hockert@slu.se
Recent studies show that the viability of Swedish farms lies below the long-term sustainable level, a
negative trend over the last 10 years. Different actors within the agricultural sector have responded by
trying to stimulate farmers' entrepreneurship and innovative capacity. We argue that one can identify
four distinct phases.
The first phase, beginning fifteen years ago, was when the Swedish Farmer’s Federation (LRF)
launched the competence project “The Farm Business Manager”. One central part was to pinpoint the
distinction between the farm manager's life idea and his business idea. A broader view on farmers’
motivations and driving forces were introduced. In the second phase, starting in 2000, the focus shifted
towards external cost reductions, arguing that better preconditions for rural entrepreneurship and
innovation were needed to motivate farmers to take action. But not much happened within the farming
community.
In 2006 a new advisory concept was borne; “Future dialogues”. The debate within advisory
services shifted from farmer’s attitudes, values and preconditions, toward the learning process that
farmers needed to be engaged in. Later this third phase developed into business coaching. The fourth
phase, beginning in 2009, can be conceptualized as the introduction of lean production. It is understood
as a way to change the whole mindset of the farmer, while simultaneously taking incremental actions.
We critically examine the development of advisory concepts in Sweden, which reflects a lack of
basic understanding of learning, change, and innovation among farmers. The common denominator for
most initiatives is well grounded, in that they focus on the farmer’s motives and capabilities. But
similarities between concepts are put in contrast to a relative low level of success. Our main argument
is that a deeper and systemic understanding of farmers' lifeworld and Weltanschauung is necessary.
Some recommendations for extension competence and policy are given.
Development-led innovation?: Concepts and challenges in changing
agricultural RD&E systems in Australia
Ruth Nettle, Pauline Brightling and Anne Hope
University of Melbourne, Australia
Ranettle@unimelb.edu.au
Models of rural innovation have evolved over time with much current interest in the systems and
arrangements that balance knowledge production/technology development with end-users and
practitioner adaptation. Strong network linkages amongst innovation actors in co‐developing new
technologies or social learning for systemic change is a suggested design feature for agricultural and
42