H.A. Oostindië

Multifunctionality: refocusing a spreading, loose and fashionable concept for looking at sustainability?

The notion of agricultures Multifunctionality (MF) emerged in the 1980s. It then followed two trajectories since the 1990s: a conflicting period linked to its use in the international trade negotiations on the one hand, a spreading in terms of meaning, use and geographically on the other hand. Specific meanings appeared in connection with policy making, at national or international levels, or through the involvement of new disciplines. Yet, very few authors discuss the implication of the chosen meaning on their findings. To explore and take advantage of using this word and to deliver it from its controversial use in international trade negotiations, it is absolutely necessary to clearly understand the differences in the epistemological and ideological foundations behind different conceptions of MF. Highlighting the historical conditions in which the word emerged and was used, is an important but not sufficient pathway to interpret the diversity of meanings and uses and to make the word a meaningful, robust and operational concept for addressing Sustainable Development (SD) and designing adequate policies.

Multifunctionality: epistemic diversity and concept oriented research clusters

This paper provides a mapping of the different uses of the word multifunctionality. To explore the diversity of meanings and interpretations, a comparative analysis was conducted through five national case studies in France, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Switzerland. The analysis conducted at national level makes it possible to identify eight Concept Oriented Research Clusters (CORCs), based on a relative homogeneity in the research practices, in the research questions addressed, in the concepts used or discussed by scientists to lead their work and in the scientific disciplines, the stream of thought or possibly the epistemic community researchers belong to. The classification helps in understanding how the term Multifuctionality (MF) is used by different advocates around a variety of conceptualisations, political context or normative perspectives. It also helps in looking at the strengths and weaknesses of the word for tackling different issues. Highlighting this diversity might contribute to the consolidation of research and to gain credibility facing the political debates. Because of what it can bring into analysis, the authors recommend to use it for the design of an analytical framework to look at sustainability, and to leave the conception of MF as a goal to the political spheres.

Towards the Characterization of Actors Engaged in Rural Development Processes in the North West of Europe

Rural development is, above all, constructed by actors operating at grass-root level. These actors are increasingly facilitated by specific policy programmes, but these programmes often follow the initiatives and practices already developed by the grass-root actors themselves. Policies follow, they do not trigger nor drive. This chapter is a second-level analysis of available European and national research material and focuses on the role of agricultural actors as crucial co-constitutors of RD processes. Some distinctive elements and characteristics of RD-practitioners are identified, described and discussed. Taken together these characteristics underscore that RD-actors may reflect distinctive features. It is finally argued that RD-actors will develop especially distinctive personal attributes through iterative learning by doing processes and unfolding agency. Both are thought to be key components of the resilience of RD-actors to withstand adverse conditions and to grasp new opportunities for alternative, more promising agricultural pathways.

Capturing change in European food assistance practices: a transformative social innovation perspective

ABSTRACT The food system’s decreasing ability to deliver food security has led to the emergence of food assistance initiatives. Food assistance is highly contested; as some argue, it is a “failure of the state”, while others regard food assistance to be an “extension of the welfare state”. Either way, research suggests that actors within food assistance are rethinking their role in the food system. In this paper, we study three food assistance initiatives, in the Netherlands, Italy and Ireland, that perform new food assistance practices while embedded in specific institutional contexts, and analyse their potential to transform the food system, drawing on Transformative Social Innovation theory. Building on transition and social innovation theory, this recently developed theory distinguishes different levels within systems, named “shades of change”, that are associated with societal transformation. By exploring these “shades” of change in the analysis, we describe aspects of the initiatives’ novel practices, and in relation to the initiative and institutional relations their motivations and expectations. We compare the three cases and discuss how food assistance practices relate to and change (or do not change) the food system. In particular, we elaborate on how these three food assistance initiatives contribute in various ways to local food and welfare system innovation. In doing so, we offer a novel perspective on food assistance initiatives. We argue that they show dynamics that have the potential for more substantial transformation towards food security over time, by building momentum through “small wins”.

The Distinctiveness of Rural Development Practices in North West Europe

Comparing rural development with agricultural modernisation, there are fundamental differences. Industrial development of agriculture more and more segregates agriculture from other functions and is based on an ‘individualised transaction model’ in which the world consists of loose particles that are linked by markets (atomistic world view). Conversely rural development can be perceived as a form of re-socialisation of agriculture and is based on a ‘relational cooperation model’ in which new relations characterise business development. This chapter is a second level type of analysis of many research findings of these common traits or features and gives a picture of the distinctiveness of rural development practices. Nine different features that characterize rural development practices are described and discussed: (1) novelty production, (2) relative autonomy, (3) synergy, (4) clashes and competing claims, (5) coalitions and new relations; the construction of rural webs, (6) common pool resources, (7) new division of labour, (8) the distinctive different impact and (9) resilience. The more these features are present and intertwined, the better the specific practice can face and withstand adverse conditions. These features and the associated practices have to be understood as part of a wider transitional process that might co-evolve with or run counter to competing transitional processes.