Ervaring rond transitie in Nederland in landbouw en voeding 5 november 2012, Krijn J. Poppe Aalst (B)

Presentatie over: "Ervaring rond transitie in Nederland in landbouw en voeding 5 november 2012, Krijn J. Poppe Aalst (B)"— Transcript van de presentatie:

1 Ervaring rond transitie in Nederland in landbouw en voeding 5 november 2012, Krijn J. Poppe Aalst (B)

2 2 Inhoud  Een korte historie en stand van het transitie onderzoek in Nederland  Enkele onderschatte aspecten in transities  De rol van transitie en – innovatiebeleid ● Topsectorenbeleid ● EU: Horizon2020, GLB-post 2013 en EIP

3 Een korte historie en stand van het transitie onderzoek in Nederland  Prof. Jan Rotmans (Rivm, Maastricht, Rotterdam – EUR/DRIFT)  Maatschappelijk-technologisch onderzoek aan de TU’s (o.a. F. Geels, Multi-level perspective)  KSI project Rotmans, Grin, Schot et al.  NWO project rond Energie  Wageningen UR: Kennisbasis-programma – naast systeem-innovatieprogramma’s, Vakgroepen  LNV’s Innovatienet.  Transforum  Veel is inmiddels beeindigd en gepubliceerd

4 4 Wat heeft het opgeleverd ? ● Wetenschappelijke output, die internationaal gebruikt wordt ● Aandacht voor transities en structurele verandering ● Discussies over transitie-management en beleid ● Resultaten van actie-onderzoek: nieuwe concepten (bv. Ronddeel als kippenstal) en (lokale) initiatieven (bv. Stadslandbouw Rotterdam) ● Als er al Rijksbeleid in transitiemanagement is geweest, dan weinig effectief want huidige structuren en business models werken nog volop ● Vgl. Energie, Mobiliteit, Voedsel

5 5 Enkele onderschatte aspecten in transities ● Rol van de consument (en technologie-adoptie) ● Zie Spaargaren et al. 2012 ● Roeselare, 1960s: van vlas naar vries ● De business cycle ● Political economy en machtsvraagstukken ● Energie ? ● Geo-politiek

6 tijd Mate van verspreiding van technologische revolutie Installatie periode Volgende golf Uitrol periode Draai- punt INDRINGER EXTASE SYNERGIE RIJPHEID Door- braak Werkeloosheid Stilstand oude bedrijfstakken Kapitaal zoekt nieuwe techniek Financiele bubble Onevenwichtigheden Polarisatie arm en rijk Gouden eeuw Coherente groei Toenemende externalities Techniek bereikt grenzen Marktverzadiging Teleurstelling en gemakzucht Institutionele innovatie Naar Perez, 2002 Crash 2008 1929 1893 1847 1797 The opportunity for green growth 1771 water, textile 1829 steam, railways 1875 steel 1908 car, oil, massproduction 1971 ICT chip

7 National States Many actors Coope- rative Non coope- rative Multipolair Power blocks Economic and politcal competition Protectionism Fragmentation Stagnating globalisation Insecure society Identity first Multilateral Strong west and upcoming BRICs Global governance reformed Globalisation continues Network Non-polair world order Global market economy and civil society Unpredictable Four scenarios on Scarcity and Transition 7 © De Ruijter Strategie

8 The Shell 2025 Scenario study – a geopolitics view

9 9 De rol van transitie- en innovatiebeleid ● Transitie-management ● Rijksoverheidsbeleid maar tijdelijk van aard ● Landbouw: ● “de overheid houdt geen kippen” ● Consumentenbeleid achter de voordeur niet aantrekkelijk ● Liever de Productivity dan de Sufficiency narrative ● Topsectorenbeleid (na fusie LNV en EZ): bedrijfsleven veel meer aan het stuur ● EU: Horizon2020, GLB-post 2013 en EIP

10 EU’s SCAR Foresight: two narratives Productivity:  Science has the potential to develop technologies that can boost productivity whilst addressing resource scarcities and environmental problems  Massive investments needed in R&D, technology adoption, rural infrastructure, access to markets  GRIN technologies (Genetics, Robotics, Informatics, Nano) Sufficiency:  Science has the potential to develop technological solutions that are productive, reduce resource use, preserve biodiversity  However, demand increases need to be mitigated, through behavorial change, structural changes food systems  Appropriate governance structures to internalise externalities

11 11 Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation Economics: thinking on equilibrium and dis-eq. Ricardo Marshall Walras Coase Hayek Friedman Ostrom F. List: infant industry K. Marx: role of capitalist J. Schumpeter: entrepreneur / business cycle K. Arrow : market failure O. Williamson : Inst. Econ. Adam Smith

12 12 Two views on innovation policy (Smits et al, 2010) Mainstream macro-economics Institutional and evolutionary economics: Systems of Innovation Main assumptions Equilibrium Perfect information Dis-equilibrium Asymetric information Focus Allocation of resources for invention Individuals Interaction in innovation processes Networks and frame conditions Main policyScience / research policyInnovation policy Main rationaleMarket failureSystemic problems Government intervenes to provide public goods mitigate externalities reduce barriers to entry eliminate inefficient market structures solve problems in the system facilitate creation new systems facilitate transition and avoid lock-in induce changes in the supporting structure for innovation: create institutions and support networking main strengths of policies designed under this paradigm clarity and simplicity analysis based on long term trends of science-based indicators context specific involvement of all policies related to innovation holistic approach to innovation main weaknesses of policies designed under this paradigm linear model of innovation (institutional) framework conditions are not explicitly considered difficult to implement lack of indicators for analysis and evaluation of policy

13 13 SCAR Collaborative Working Group AKIS Table S.1 Two types of motivation for research AspectScience driven researchInnovation driven research Incentive to program a topic Emerging science that can contribute to solving a societal issue (or a scientific question) An issue / problem in society that can be solved by new research, or a new idea to solve an existing issue Participation of usersIn demonstration phase / via research dissemination In agenda setting, defining the problem and during the research process Quality criteriaScientific qualityRelevance (for the sector or a region) FocusResearch organisationsNetworks of producers and users of knowledge Diffusion modelLinear modelSystem (network) approach Type of government policyScience / Research PolicyInnovation Policy Economic line of thinking (see table 2.1) Macro-economicsSystems of innovation FinanceTo a large extent public money: more speculative and large spill over effects Public-private partnerships very possible / advantageous The role of the EUEfficiency of scale (member states often too small), smart specialisation between member states, create European research market with harmonisation of hard- and soft infrastructures Stimulate interaction and learning in Europe between national/regional AKIS. Enable in CAP innovation by networks with farmers Typical EU examplesHorizon 2020, FP7, ERC, some ERAnets, Joint Programming Initiatives CAP: European Innovation Partnership, LEADER, European Technology Platforms, EIPs, some ERAnets Type of researchInterdisciplinary with absorption capacity in AKIS (to work with material science, ICT, chemistry etc.). Transdisciplinary and translational with close interactions. DIFFERENT MOTIVES NEED TO BE ADDRESSED

14 Rural Development Policy : Knowledge transfer Cooperation Pilot projects Demonstration Advisory services Investment Research & Innovation Framework: Research projects Multi-actor projects Pilot project clusters Innovation brokers On-farm experiments Operational Groups Member States Programmes ETPs, ERA- Nets, JPIs, etc. EIP Network Rural Development Committee Rural Development Network Steering Group Steering Board European Innovation Partnership ‚Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability ‘ Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (SCAR) Farmers. Advisers. Enterprises. Scientists. NGOs Horizon 2020 Programme Committee

15 Scenario’s Sterke overheid Veel ruimte voor markten en burgers Con- serveren Ontwikkelen

16 Dank voor uw aandacht krijn.poppe@wur.nl www.lei.wur.nl