Speaker
Description
Introduction
Systems-level transformation is increasingly recognized as necessary to improve the sustainability, equity, and resilience of agri-food systems. The CGIAR initiative on Agroecology utilizes a system transformation approach in alignment with (Gliessman, 2021) and the 13 principles of agroecology outlined by Nicolétis et al. (2019). This approach requires new understandings of actor agency and behavior change processes that enable systems change. To provide these new understandings for approaches and investments in agroecological transitions, this study presents a novel framework and lessons from past experiences in similar transitions that required changes in behaviors and agency of food system actors.
The specific objectives of this study were to: i) understand how agroecology-relevant projects, government and/or donor programs, community initiatives, and social movements (collectively referred to as “initiatives” in this report) have approached behavior change and agency of food system actors for agri-food systems transformation, ii) identify common assumptions on behavior change and agency that underpinned the initiatives’ design, and iii) recommend adjustments to the Theories of Change, assumptions, and processes in initiative design and implementation to enhance the roles of actor agency and behavior change processes in systems change.
Methods
To address the study objectives, we drew upon 239 initiatives that included agroecology-relevant projects, government or donor programs (220), community initiatives (12), and social movements (7) from Tunisia, Zimbabwe, Peru, India, and Kenya. We developed an inventory of initiatives through review of published and grey literature, such as websites and reports. We then characterized these initiatives in terms of the type of initiative, time period of implementation, and the focal agroecological principles addressed.
To further investigate approaches to changing behaviors and agency, we selected 29 initiatives as case studies based on the following criteria: engagement with multiple and diverse agroecological principles, geographical scale of reach, diverse representation of initiative type and objective, relevance or impact as reported by local experts, and some country-specific criteria. We interviewed the designers and/or implementers of these case study initiatives to collect additional data, including the perceived factors that contributed to success or failure to achieve the intended behavior changes.
We developed and applied a conceptual framework for behavior change and agency of food system actors in agri-food systems to synthesize patterns across the case studies. After identifying the key assumptions underlying the theory of change in each case study, we analyzed whether these assumptions were supported by the initiative results. The initiative results used for this analysis were primarily derived from interviews with key informants on perceived successes and/or failures in achieving intended changes. Where available, we also used actual reports of initiative outcomes from the interviews and initiative documents.
Key results
The initiatives most often targeted agroecology principles related to resilience: biodiversity (71% of initiatives), soil health (67%), economic diversification (60%), and synergy (49%); the exception was animal health which was among the least applied (18%) of the 13 principles. One principle related to social equity was also frequently applied (co-creation of knowledge; 44%), while connectivity (31%), social values and diets (31%), and fairness (25%) were given lower priority
All 29 in-depth case studies targeted the behaviors of producers such as farmers, fishers, pastoralists, and other food producers both as individuals and groups. To a lesser extent, initiatives intended to change actions of private sector actors (including retailers, input sellers, and actors in post-harvest activities), extension and education actors (including national agricultural extension agents and researchers), communities (including individual and groups of natural resource users), governance actors (including policy makers and donors) and consumers.
The theories of change of 45 % of the in-depth case studies expressed the objective to change on-farm practices of producers. Two Fifth intended to strengthen relations of producers to value chain actors. When behaviors of other actor groups were targeted, it was often to influence the producers’ behavior.
Looking deeper into strategies how behavior was expected to be influenced reveals key assumptions about behavioral drivers. Technical assistance, trainings, and demonstrations were the most common approaches used to target producers’ knowledge, attitudes, and eventually behavior. 55% of cases promoted agency, entrepreneurship, and/or inclusion and equity on the individual or group level in order to widen the opportunity space especially of weaker and marginalized actors. The absence or inverse of the alignment between the promoted behaviors and actors’ needs and constraints was most frequently reported as impeding behavior change, for example: the poor suitability of introduced practices or technologies, or farmer disinterest or resistance to behavior change. It should be seen in this context that 46% of initiatives were perceived to have missed key entry points, thus impeding the intended behavior changes.
Conclusions
We find that past initiatives related to agroecology have focused primarily on influencing individual behavioral drivers, and principally producer knowledge. Much less common are efforts that support stakeholders in changing mechanisms in the realm of economic and governance systems that expand actors’ opportunities. Systemic approaches to influence agency and behavior change were least often applied. This contrasts with the perception of designers and implementers that factors related to governance including policies, markets, and partner collaboration were critical for the success or failure of their initiatives.
References
Gliessman, S. R. (2021). Package price agroecology: The ecology of sustainable food systems. CRC press.
Nicolétis, É., Caron, P., El Solh, M., Cole, M., Fresco, L. O., Godoy-Faúndez, A., Kadleciková, M., Kennedy, E., Khan, M., & Li, X. (2019). Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security.
