The Role of Actor Networks in Enabling Agroecological Innovation: Lessons from Laos
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Case Studies
2.2. Analytical Framework for Comparative Analysis of AeIS
2.3. Data Collection and Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Actor Networks in Agroecological Innovations
3.2. Actionable Knowledge in Agroecology Organizations
3.3. Values and Beliefs in Agroecology Transitions
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Actor × Intervention Matrices for Seven AeIS Cases
- PRONAE-PASS project on conservation agriculture.
Sectors | Material Assets | Organizational Capacities | Technical Capacities | Network Configuration | Market Structure | Soft Institutions | Hard Institutions | Infra-structures | |
Actors | |||||||||
Individual farmers | F1 | O1 | T1 | N1, N2 | S1 | ||||
Farmer organizations | |||||||||
Agri-input suppliers | N2 | ||||||||
Processors | |||||||||
Traders | |||||||||
Extension agents | F2, F3 | O2 | T2 | N1 | |||||
R&D actors | F3 | ||||||||
Policy and administration | N1 | ||||||||
Civil society | |||||||||
Financial and material assets: F1. Free leasing of mechanical planters, distribution of equipment; F2. Funding of extension work and demonstration activities; F3. Funding of field experiments; F4. Credit schemes for mechanization, seeds, and fertilizers; Organizational capacities: O1. Structuring of production groups; O2. Support for programming and budgeting; O3. Structuring of associations; O4 Support to land management committees; Technical capacities: T1. Technical advice and coaching on CA; T2. Trainings on CA techniques; T3. Support to farmer-to-farmer exchanges and field visits; T4. Trainings on participatory land-use planning; Network configuration: N1. Funding of meetings and peer exchanges; N2. Facilitation of exchanges between farmers and private sector; N3. Roundtables and workshops involving multiple development projects; N4. Knowledge hub—information sharing among development partners; Market structure: M1. Promotion of contract-farming systems; M2. Direct exchanges between farmers and agro-input suppliers; M3. Facilitation of cross-border trade; M4. Support to value chains; Soft institutions: S1. Sensitization on tillage risk and land degradation; S2. Sensitization on safe use of pesticides; S3. Media communication and radio broadcast; S4. Sensitization on agroecology practices and impacts; Hard institutions: H1. Provincial decrees establishing the CA development fund; H2. Village land-use planning and land allocation; H3. Decree on farmer groups and associations; Infrastructures: I1. Tax collection system and provincial fund; I2. Funding construction of service centers; I3. Bringing water and electricity to service centers. |
- 2.
- Catch-Up program on understanding the agrarian transition in the uplands of Laos.
Sectors | Material Assets | Organizational Capacities | Technical Capacities | Network Configuration | Market Structure | Soft Institutions | Hard Institutions | Infra-structures | |
Actors | |||||||||
Individual farmers | T4 | ||||||||
Farmer organizations | O3 | T3 | N2 | M1 | H3 | ||||
Agri-input suppliers | |||||||||
Processors | |||||||||
Traders | O1 | N2 | |||||||
Extension agents | O3, 04 | T4 | N2 | S4 | H2 | ||||
R&D actors | O4 | T4 | N4 | S1 | H2, H3 | ||||
Policy and administration | T4 | N3 | S4 | H2, H3 | |||||
Civil society | N3 |
- 3.
- Conservation Agriculture Development Fund (CADF).
Sectors | Material Assets | Organizational Capacities | Technical Capacities | Network Configuration | Market Structure | Soft Institutions | Hard Institutions | Infra-structures | |
Actors | |||||||||
Individual farmers | F4 | O1 | N1 | M1, M2 | S1 | ||||
Farmer organizations | |||||||||
Agri-input suppliers | M2 | ||||||||
Processors | |||||||||
Traders | O2, O3 | N1 | M1, M3 | I1 | |||||
Extension agents | F2 | O2 | |||||||
R&D actors | |||||||||
Policy and administration | O2 | N1 | H1 | I1 | |||||
Civil society |
- 4.
- NUDP support to technical service centers.
Sectors | Material Assets | Organizational Capacities | Technical Capacities | Network Configuration | Market Structure | Soft Institutions | Hard Institutions | Infra-structures | |
Actors | |||||||||
Individual farmers | F2 | O4 | T2, T4 | M1 | S1, S2 | ||||
Farmer organizations | F2 | O1 | T3 | N2 | M1 | S3, S4 | |||
Agri-input suppliers | |||||||||
Processors | |||||||||
Traders | |||||||||
Extension agents | F2 | O2, O4 | T1, T3 | N1 | S3 | I2 | |||
R&D actors | F2 | O2 | T1, T3 | N3 | M1 | S3, S4 | I2, I3 | ||
Policy and administration | O3 | N4 | I2 | ||||||
Civil society |
- 5.
- The EFICAS action research project.
Sectors | Material Assets | Organizational Capacities | Technical Capacities | Network Configuration | Market Structure | Soft Institutions | Hard Institutions | Infra-structures | |
Actors | |||||||||
Individual farmers | F1, F2 | O1 | T2 | S4 | |||||
Farmer organizations | F3 | O1, O4 | T2, T3 | N1 | M4 | S4 | H2 | ||
Agri-input suppliers | |||||||||
Processors | |||||||||
Traders | |||||||||
Extension agents | F2, F3 | O2, O4 | T3 | N1 | M4 | S4 | H2 | I3 | |
R&D actors | F2 | O4 | T4 | N3 | M4 | ||||
Policy and administration | O2 | T4 | N4 | S4 | H2 | I2 | |||
Civil society |
- 6.
- The Land regeneration initiative in Kham district by Xiengkhuang PAFO.
Sectors | Material Assets | Organizational Capacities | Technical Capacities | Network Configuration | Market Structure | Soft Institutions | Hard Institutions | Infra-structures | |
Actors | |||||||||
Individual farmers | F2, F3 | O1 | T2 | S1, S2 | |||||
Farmer organizations | F2, F4 | O1, O4 | T3 | N2 | M1 | S1, S2 | H2 | ||
Agri-input suppliers | N2 | ||||||||
Processors | N2 | ||||||||
Traders | N2 | M2 | |||||||
Extension agents | F2 | O1 | T4 | N1 | |||||
R&D actors | |||||||||
Policy and administration | F2, F4 | O2 | N3 | S3 | |||||
Civil society |
- 7.
- The Lao Uplands Initiative—multi-stakeholder platform.
Sectors | Material Assets | Organizational Capacities | Technical Capacities | Network Configuration | Market Structure | Soft Institutions | Hard Institutions | Infra-structures | |
Actors | |||||||||
Individual farmers | |||||||||
Farmer organizations | M1 | S3 | |||||||
Agri-input suppliers | |||||||||
Processors | |||||||||
Traders | |||||||||
Extension agents | S3, S4 | ||||||||
R&D actors | N1 | M1 | S4 | ||||||
Policy and administration | N3, N4 | M1, M4 | S4 | ||||||
Civil society | N3, N4 | M1 | S4 |
References
- Wezel, A.; Bellon, S.; Doré, T.; Francis, C.; Vallod, D.; David, C. Agroecology as a Science, a Movement and a Practice. In Sustainable Agriculture; Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; Volume 2, pp. 27–43. ISBN 9789048126651. [Google Scholar]
- De Schutter, O. Agroécologie et Droit à l’alimentation. Rapport Présenté à la 16e Session du Conseil des Droits de l’homme de l’ONU [A/HRC/16/49]; United Nations General Assembly: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Barrios, E.; Gemmill-Herren, B.; Bicksler, A.; Siliprandi, E.; Brathwaite, R.; Moller, S.; Batello, C.; Tittonell, P. The 10 Elements of Agroecology: Enabling transitions towards sustainable agriculture and food systems through visual narratives. Ecosyst. People 2020, 16, 230–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO. Final Report: International Symposium on Agroecology for Food Security and Nutrition, 18 and 19 September 2014, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. Scaling up agroecology to achieve the sustainable development goals. In Proceedings of the Second FAO International Symposium, Rome, Italy, 3–5 April 2018. [Google Scholar]
- HLPE. Report on Agroecological and Other Innovative Approaches for Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems that Enhance Food Security and Nutrition; High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, (HLPE): Rome, Italy, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Mason, R.E.; White, A.; Bucini, G.; Anderzén, J.; Méndez, V.E.; Merrill, S.C. The evolving landscape of agroecological research. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 45, 551–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, C.R.; Maughan, C. “The Innovation Imperative”: The Struggle Over Agroecology in the International Food Policy Arena. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 619185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altieri, M.A. Agroecology: A new research and development paradigm for world agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1989, 27, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dalgaard, T.; Hutchings, N.J.; Porter, J.R. Agroecology, scaling and interdisciplinarity. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2003, 100, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wezel, A.; David, C. Agroecology and the Food System. In Agroecology and Strategies for Climate Change; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 17–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wezel, A.; Herren, B.G.; Kerr, R.B.; Barrios, E.; Gonçalves, A.L.R.; Sinclair, F. Agroecological principles and elements and their implications for transitioning to sustainable food systems. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 40, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanderson Bellamy, A.; Ioris, A. Addressing the Knowledge Gaps in Agroecology and Identifying Guiding Principles for Transforming Conventional Agri-Food Systems. Sustainability 2017, 9, 330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Argyris, C. Actionable Knowledge. Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory. 2005; pp. 1–672. Available online: https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199275250.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199275250-e-16 (accessed on 19 January 2022).
- Antonacopoulou, E. Actionable Knowledge. In International Encyclopaedia of Organization Studies; Clegg, S., Bailey, J., Eds.; Sage: London, UK, 2013; Volume 1, pp. 15–17. [Google Scholar]
- Loconto, A.; Fouilleux, E. Defining agroecology: Exploring the circulation of knowledge in FAO ’s Global Dialogue. Int. J. Soc. Agr. Food 2019, 25, 116–137. [Google Scholar]
- Therond, O.; Duru, M.; Roger-Estrade, J.; Richard, G. A new analytical framework of farming system and agriculture model diversities. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 37, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duru, M.; Therond, O.; Fares, M. Designing agroecological transitions; A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 1237–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pretty, J. Intensification for redesigned and sustainable agricultural systems. Science 2018, 362, eaav0294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Giller, K.E.; Witter, E.; Corbeels, M.; Tittonell, P. Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: The heretics’ view. F. Crop. Res. 2009, 114, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lienhard, P.; Lestrelin, G.; Phanthanivong, I.; Kiewvongphachan, X.; Leudphanane, B.; Lairez, J.; Tran Quoc, H.; Castella, J.C. Opportunities and constraints for adoption of maize-legume mixed cropping systems in Laos. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2020, 18, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Husson, O.; Tran Quoc, H.; Boulakia, S.; Chabanne, A.; Tivet, F.; Bouzinac, S.; Lienhard, P.; Michellon, R.; Chabierski, S.; Boyer, J.; et al. Co-designing innovative cropping systems that match biophysical and socio-economic diversity: The DATE approach to Conservation Agriculture in Madagascar, Lao PDR and Cambodia. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2016, 31, 452–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Herrero, M.; Thornton, P.K.; Notenbaert, A.M.; Wood, S.; Msangi, S.; Freeman, H.A.; Bossio, D.; Dixon, J.; Peters, M.; van de Steeg, J.; et al. Smart Investments in Sustainable Food Production: Revisiting Mixed Crop-Livestock Systems. Science 2010, 327, 822–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lestrelin, G.; Nanthavong, K.; Jobard, E.; Keophoxay, A.; Lienhard, P.; Khambanseuang, C.; Castella, J.-C. To Till or not to Till? The Diffusion of Conservation Agriculture in Xieng Khouang Province, Lao PDR. Outlook Agric. 2012, 41, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wigboldus, S.; Klerkx, L.; Leeuwis, C.; Schut, M.; Muilerman, S.; Jochemsen, H. Systemic perspectives on scaling agricultural innovations. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 36, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- El Bilali, H. The Multi-Level Perspective in Research on Sustainability Transitions in Agriculture and Food Systems: A Systematic Review. Agriculture 2019, 9, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ong, T.; Liao, W. Agroecological Transitions: A Mathematical Perspective on a Transdisciplinary Problem. Front. Sustain. Food Syst 2020, 4, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Callon, M.; Law, J. Agency and the hybrid collectif. South Atl. Q. 1995, 94, 481–507. [Google Scholar]
- Latour, B. Reassembling the Social—An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Tatnall, A.; Gilding, A. Actor-Network Theory and Information Systems Research. In Proceedings of the 10th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Wellington, New Zealand, 1–3 December 1999; pp. 955–966. [Google Scholar]
- Latour, B. Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1987; ISBN 9780674792913. [Google Scholar]
- Castella, J.; Lestrelin, G.; Buchheit, P. Agrarian transition in the northern uplands of Lao PDR: A meta-analysis of changes in landscapes and livelihoods. In Proceedings of the The 3rd International Conference on Conservation Agriculture in Southeast Asia, Hanoi, Vietnam, 10–15 December 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Castella, J.; Sysanhouth, K.; Saphangthong, T.; Victor, M.; Ingalls, M.; Lienhard, P.; Bartlett, A.; Sonethavixay, S.; Namvong, S.; Vagneron, I.; et al. Adding Values to Agriculture; Lao Uplands Initiative: Vientiane, Laos, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Castella, J.-C.; Kibler, J.-F. Towards an Agroecological Transition in Southeast Asia: Cultivating Diversity and Developing Synergies; GRET: Vientiane, Laos, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Lienhard, P.; Castella, J.-C.; Ferrand, P.; Cournarie, M.; D’Aquino, P.; Scopel, E.; Bougnoux, N. Accompanying the actors of the agroecological transition in Laos. In The Agroecological Transition of Agricultural Systems in the Global South; Côte, F.-X., Poirier-Magona, E., Perret, S., Roudier, P., Rapidel, B., Thirion, M.-C., Eds.; Agricultures et défis du monde; Ed. Quae: Versailles, France, 2019; pp. 89–105. ISBN 978-2-7592-3056-3. [Google Scholar]
- Lestrelin, G.; Tran Quoc, H.; Jullien, F.; Rattanatray, B.; Khamxaykhay, C.; Tivet, F. Conservation agriculture in Laos: Diffusion and determinants for adoption of direct seeding mulch-based cropping systems in smallholder agriculture. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2012, 27, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lie, R.; Tivet, F. ORCATAD. Developing a database of exemplary practices in conservation agriculture. In Investing in Sustainable Agriculture: The Case of Conservation Agriculture and Direct Seeding Mulch-Based Cropping Systems. Proceedings of the Regional Workshop, Phonsavan, Laos, 28 October–1 November 2008; Chanphengxay, M., Khamhung, A., Panysiri, K., Eds.; NAFRI: Vientiane, Laos; MAF: Vientiane, Laos; CIRAD: Vientiane, Laos, 2010; pp. 253–271. [Google Scholar]
- Castella, J.; Bouahom, B. Farmer cooperatives are the missing link to meet market demands in Laos. Dev. Pract. 2014, 24, 185–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castella, J.-C.; Bourgoin, J.; Cottet, L.; Drouillat, M.; Nanthavong, K.; Phatsalin, S.; Lestrelin, G.; Bouahom, B.; Thepphavanh, M.C.N. Handbook on Participatory Land Use Planning: Methods and Tools Developed and Tested in Viengkham District, Luang Prabang Province; NAFRI: Vientiane, Laos; IRD: Vientiane, Laos; CIFOR: Vientiane, Laos, 2013; ISBN 978-2-7099-1741-4. [Google Scholar]
- Lienhard, P.; Panyasiri, K.; Sayphoummie, S.; Leudphanane, B.; Lestrelin, G.; Séguy, L.; Tivet, F. Profitability and opportunity of conservation agriculture in acid savannah grasslands of Laos. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2014, 12, 391–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lestrelin, G. Knowledge Capitalization on the Conservation Agriculture Development Fund in Sayaboury Province, Lao PDR; EFICAS Project: Vientiane, Laos, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Pigford, A.A.E.; Hickey, G.M.; Klerkx, L. Beyond agricultural innovation systems? Exploring an agricultural innovation ecosystems approach for niche design and development in sustainability transitions. Agric. Syst. 2018, 164, 116–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klein Woolthuis, R.; Lankhuizen, M.; Gilsing, V. A system failure framework for innovation policy design. Technovation 2005, 25, 609–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klerkx, L.; van Mierlo, B.; Leeuwis, C. Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: Concepts, analysis and interventions. In Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic; Darnhofer, I., Gibbon, D., Dedieu, B., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 457–483. ISBN 978-94-007-4503-2. [Google Scholar]
- Schut, M.; Klerkx, L.; Rodenburg, J.; Kayeke, J.; Hinnou, L.C.; Raboanarielina, C.M.; Adegbola, P.Y.; van Ast, A.; Bastiaans, L. RAAIS: Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Innovation Systems (Part I). A diagnostic tool for integrated analysis of complex problems and innovation capacity. Agric. Syst. 2015, 132, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wieczorek, A.J.; Hekkert, M.P. Systemic instruments for systemic innovation problems: A framework for policy makers and innovation scholars. Sci. Public Policy 2012, 39, 74–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Bank Enhancing Agricultural Innovation; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; ISBN 978-0-8213-6741-4.
- van Mierlo, B.; Leeuwis, C.; Smits, R.; Woolthuis, R.K. Learning towards system innovation: Evaluating a systemic instrument. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2010, 77, 318–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Castella, J.-C.; Bourgoin, J.; Lestrelin, G.; Bouahom, B. A model of the science–practice–policy interface in participatory land-use planning: Lessons from Laos. Landsc. Ecol. 2014, 29, 1095–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antonacopoulou, E.P.; Moldjord, C.; Steiro, T.J.; Stokkeland, C. The New Learning Organisation: Institutional Reflexivity, High Agility Organising and Learning Leadership. Learn. Organ. 2019, 26, 304–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Totin, E.; van Mierlo, B.; Klerkx, L. Scaling practices within agricultural innovation platforms: Between pushing and pulling. Agric. Syst. 2020, 179, 102764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Haan, F.J.; Rotmans, J. A proposed theoretical framework for actors in transformative change. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 128, 275–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geels, F.W.; Schot, J. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res. Policy 2007, 36, 399–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loorbach, D.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Avelino, F. Sustainability Transitions Research: Transforming Science and Practice for Societal Change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2017, 42, 599–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kenney-Lazar, M.; Dwyer, M.; Hett, C. Turning Land into Capital: Assessing A Decade of Policy in Practice; The Land Information Working Group (LIWG): Vientiane, Laos, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Baird, I.G. Turning Land into Capital, Turning People into Labor: Primitive Accumulation and the Arrival of Large-Scale Economic Land Concessions in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. New Propos. J. Marx. Interdiscip. Inq. 2011, 5, 10–26. [Google Scholar]
- Li, T.M. Governing rural Indonesia: Convergence on the project system. Crit. Policy Stud. 2016, 10, 79–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harwood, J. Was the Green Revolution intended to maximise food production? Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2019, 17, 312–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fullbrook, D. Food as Security. Food Secur. 2010, 2, 5–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sectors | Examples of Intervention | Push-Pull |
---|---|---|
Material assets | Providing subsidies, equipment, village funds, credit schemes | Push Incentives |
Organizational capacities | Strengthening farmer groups, village organizations, entrepreneurship | |
Technical capacities | Providing technical training, advice | |
Network configuration | Organizing farmer-to-farmer, producer-to-buyer exchanges | |
Market structure | Promoting contract farming agreements | Pull Enablers |
Soft institutions | Organizing awareness raising campaigns | |
Hard institutions | Drafting laws, regulations | |
Physical infrastructure | Building roads, schools, banks, telecom network |
Actor-Network Configurations | Issues and Innovations | Results and Outcomes |
---|---|---|
1—PRONAE-PASS, 2005–2010 Soil erosion due to mechanical tillage and maize monocropping on steep slopes was found responsible for yield decrease and siltation of paddy land and infrastructures. Conservation agriculture practices based on reduced tillage, permanent soil cover with crop rotation, cover crops, and mulch were combined with crop residue recycling. | The project resulted in increased awareness of the farming community and policymakers about the agronomic and environmental risks associated with intensive monocropping [24]. Farmer groups were organized around the innovative CA practices and supported by a network of trained extension agents from the government [36]. | |
2—Catch-Up Program, 2007–2013 The shift from subsistence to commercial agriculture, known as the agrarian transition, produced winners and losers. A large range of organizational innovations, including participatory land-use planning (PLUP), were tested with local communities to buffer the negative impacts of the agrarian transition on local livelihood. | The project resulted in a better understanding of the role of farmer organizations in the innovation processes and the constraints farmers face to organize in cooperatives [38]. The territorial dimension of agroecology was recognized by all actor groups as a constraint to farmer adoption, and was addressed through PLUP [49]. | |
3—CADF, 2008–2015 The fund was designed as part of the exit strategy of the PRONAE-PASS project to sustain the efforts of the agroecology extension network beyond the project period. This payment system for ecosystem service was very innovative in Laos. It was designed to scale-up extension activities from the initial three districts to the whole province of Sayaburi. | Despite organizational constraints faced by this initiative at the initial stages, it succeeded in engaging all actors of the maize value chain, especially the private sector, and developed strong relations across the border with Thailand. The experiment had a strong policy impact. Unfortunately, it did not resist staff turnover and entrenched economic interests of different actor groups [41]. | |
4—TSC-NUDP, 2008–2016 In 2008, a MAF Ministerial Decree established technical service centers (TSC) at the village cluster level to bring extension services closer to farming communities. This policy was supported by the donors through projects that equipped this national network of extension center dedicated to sustainable agriculture. | The successive AeISs under the NUDP Program contributed to the equipment and governance of a network of TSC. These centers provided seeds, training, and advice to farming communities in their vicinity. They synergized the extension activities brought up by multiple groups of actors: administration, policymakers, researchers, NGO developers. | |
5—EFICAS Project, 2014–2019 The project aimed at developing innovative methods and intervention approaches to support farmers’ adoption of climate smart agricultural systems based on agroecology. They involved the same partners as the previous projects around renewed challenges related to climate change and in larger areas (five provinces). | The project promoted landscape approaches to agroecology by combining the lessons from previous AeISs, especially technical innovations (#1 PRONAE-PASS), participatory land-use planning, and farmer network governance (#2 Catch-Up). Key outcomes relate to the capacity of village communities to transform their local institutions to enable innovation (www.eficas-laos.net, accessed on 14 January 2022). | |
6—PAFO Initiative, 2015–2017 The land regeneration initiative led by the provincial agriculture and forestry office aimed at synergizing the efforts of multiple projects active in Xiengkhuang province. It conducted an awareness campaign on, e.g., reduced and safe use of pesticides, soil fertility management, and organic farming, and it provided services to the farm networks. | The initiative was original in the sense that it was entirely managed by the provincial administration and mobilized project support without their direct involvement. They harnessed their strong ties with the private sector in supporting the reduced use of chemical inputs in agriculture. They were largely depended on project resources and, thus, had to phase out at the end of the projects. | |
7—LUI, 2017–2019 The ambition of this initiative was to capitalize on agroecology-related empirical evidence from multiple projects active in the northern uplands of Laos to inform MAF policies on sustainable agriculture. LUI promoted interactions between development partners and representatives of the government and the civil society. | The multiple actor groups involved in the initiative recognized the need for more concerted efforts toward large-scale adoption of agroecology practices. They pointed out the governance constraints (e.g., project-led development vs. foreign investment) that should be tackled collectively to enable innovation (see [33] and laouplandsforum.org, accessed on 14 January 2022). |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Castella, J.-C.; Lestrelin, G.; Phimmasone, S.; Tran Quoc, H.; Lienhard, P. The Role of Actor Networks in Enabling Agroecological Innovation: Lessons from Laos. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3550. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063550
Castella J-C, Lestrelin G, Phimmasone S, Tran Quoc H, Lienhard P. The Role of Actor Networks in Enabling Agroecological Innovation: Lessons from Laos. Sustainability. 2022; 14(6):3550. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063550
Chicago/Turabian StyleCastella, Jean-Christophe, Guillaume Lestrelin, Sisavath Phimmasone, Hoa Tran Quoc, and Pascal Lienhard. 2022. "The Role of Actor Networks in Enabling Agroecological Innovation: Lessons from Laos" Sustainability 14, no. 6: 3550. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063550