- Email: [email protected]
Science, technology, innovation and governance for the goat sectors
Accepted Manuscript Title: Science, Technology, Innovation And Governance For The Goat Sectors Author: Jean-Paul Dubeuf PII: DOI: Reference:
S0921-4488(14)00155-2 http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.smallrumres.2014.05.016 RUMIN 4745
To appear in:
Small Ruminant Research
Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:
3-6-2013 21-5-2014 30-5-2014
Please cite this article as: Dubeuf, J.-P.,Science, Technology, Innovation And Governance For The Goat Sectors, Small Ruminant Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2014.05.016 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
2
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, INNOVATION AND GOVERNANCE FOR
3
THE GOAT SECTORS
4
Jean-Paul DUBEUF,
5
INRA-SAD F-20250 Corte France – [email protected] - +33(0) 608861813
6
cr
ip t
1
Abstract
8
The world is presently facing key challenges due to the amazing growth of the population, shortages in
9
renewable energy and environmental problems. Growth, once, the solution to create more wealth, more jobs,
10
more prosperity and happiness appears not to be anymore an efficient paradigm to solve these problems. The
11
objective of this introductive presentation is to show at what extent goats could be a part of the solution to face
12
them, keep people in rural areas, improve food security and eradicate poverty. To achieve such ambitious
13
objectives, more innovation and technology will be required. But innovation will not be based on the old top-
14
down model. Innovation in goat farming has to be based on partnership and co development with all the actors
15
and trans disciplinary approaches have to be enhanced.
16
Keywords: Innovation ; agroecology ; goat sectors; technology; prospective .
17
Introduction
Ac ce p
te
d
M
an
us
7
18 19
This article has been presented during a Conference entitled “Industrial, scientific and rural activities in the goat
20
sector”. Linking industry, science and rurality between them and with goats could seem to be surprising. It is not
21
really natural, nor usual. Goat activities and industry are generally seen very far from each other.
22
activities are often seen at the opposite of industrial ones! But it is probably not so anachronistic and this article
23
has proposed to pull the threads of the new interactions between scientific knowledge, production and territorial
24
rural issues concerning goat sectors in their diversity.
And rural
25 26
Introducing this does not begin by speaking of goats or goat products or goat producers. Goat activities will be
27
considered as a part of the all livestock sectors and agriculture. So, it is relevant to start by identifying what
28
challenges the world is facing, what changes are needed and some prospective approaches, at what level
1
Page 1 of 14
29
agriculture and animal products are concerned. Then, how innovation could be promoted by developing
30
collaboration between science and other stake holders will be shown. We will develop at what extent this
31
approach could be mobilized to strengthen the goat activities as one of the solutions for future.
32 The present challenges of agriculture and animal production: Agriculture at the Cross roads
ip t
33 34
It is trivial to say the world is now facing a global crisis in nearly all sectors. To consider and analyze this crisis,
36
the world we could choose between two main hypotheses:
37
The first one is most related to the concept of economic crisis itself. Economic crisis would be recurring
us
‐
cr
35
cycles (Krugman P., 2009). We would be on a growing line and we are facing some hard but limited
39
difficulties that we could solve by developing more technology and by adaptation.
40
‐
an
38
The second one is that our development model is facing a systemic breakdown and that we have to change our basic paradigms. We choose here this second hypothesis. To sum up why, we use the main
42
assessment of the famous economist Tim Jackson (2009), often seen as the “guru” of anti growth
43
subversive people: for him, “an economy predicated on the perpetual expansion of debt-driven
44
materialistic consumption is unsustainable ecologically, problematic socially, and unstable
45
economically in a world with limited resources”.
te
d
M
41
46
Until now, the only answers of our European and North American public powers to face the difficulties and
48
crisis, have been to find the ways to restore growth, and for the Southern one how to keep a double digit growth.
49
It is mainly due to the fact that our present paradigm is the religion of growth: Growth would create more
50
wealth, more jobs, more happiness and prosperity; technological innovation would not have limit; concerning
51
science and scientific research, it would mechanically favor innovation and technological innovation would
52
favor growth, etc…
Ac ce p
47
53 54
The problem is that it does not work anymore. The challenges of agriculture and animal production cannot be
55
faced only by more intensification and more technology: It is true that the Green Revolution enabled to multiply
56
the grain production by 3, the milk production by 5 and to feed a human world population growing from 1 billion
57
people to 7 billion in 2 centuries only (Figure 1). This human growth has followed the growth of yield and inputs
58
in Agriculture. Since 1960 irrigation has doubled; the use of Nitrogen was multiplied by 7, of phosphorus by 2
2
Page 2 of 14
59
and pesticides by 4. The results have been fantastic with a highest average production of cereal and wheat per
60
human being. (Figure 2)
61 62 Thanks to huge consultations decided by international organizations as the World Bank, OECD, FAO and the
64
United Nations, we know that following this way is no more possible. The International Assessment of
65
Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) has worn a clear diagnosis later
66
used to define the Millenium Development Goals (MDG). Agriculture is at a crossroads and a new paradigm
67
must give the way (IAASTD ; 2008). The Agricultural Knowledge, Sciences and Technologies (AKST) have
68
contributed to increase the agricultural production and food safety. The net food availability per capita has been
69
from 2360 kcal in the 60’s to reach 2803 kcal now. But in spite of this amazing success the negative externalities
70
are dramatic and threaten the sustainability of our environment and productivity: 1.9 billions ha (feeding 2
71
billion people) are facing high levels of soil degradation; agriculture and animal production are responsible of
72
60% of the emissions of anthropogenic methane and due to the fertilizers huge coastal areas and lakes are nearly
73
dead due to eutrophication. Specialization and intensification have caused the decrease of the soil fertility, the
74
use of non fertile lands, rural migration and the degradation of ecosystems. IAASTD has enhanced that a 75%
75
growth of grain demand is expected and a doubling of the meat demand between 2000 and 2050. Their
76
conclusions are clear. The AKST must be more increased and strengthened but differently. By nature, agriculture
77
has been based on the renewed fertility enabled by the balance between crops and animal production with
78
complex and multifunctional systems. The multi functionality of Agriculture has been forgotten and agro-
79
ecological sciences must be developed to stabilize and re –improve productivity.
80
The opposition between an industrial intensified, “developed” agriculture and a developing one dedicated to poor
81
people in marginal lands has no more meaning and all the systems are concerned. Significant progresses in favor
82
of poor farmers and small holders are as much necessary and will be as much efficient to create ecologically and
83
socially viable ecosystems! It is so useful to investigate explain what types of innovative devices could be
84
implemented and how.
Ac ce p
te
d
M
an
us
cr
ip t
63
85 86 87 88
3
Page 3 of 14
89
Toward a new agro – ecological paradigm based on food security to promote innovation
90 Once observed that the paradigm of progress does not work anymore1, by which one replaces it? Several authors,
92
suggest to link food security, rural development, collective and individual prosperity.
93
This paradigm is related to agro – ecology and to the concept of an agro –system composed by interaction with
94
the environment. Altieri (1983) defined agro ecology as the application of ecological principles to agriculture.
95
Later, the concept was enlarged to the whole food system linking production with the food chain and consumers.
96
It allowed to apply their principles to animal production and became an interdisciplinary method that questioned
97
bio- technical and social borders (Stassart et al., 2012, Wezel et al., 2009). Agro ecology is an approach of
98
Agriculture considering the systems by its interactions, its balances and combining technical, social political
99
aspects. It explores ways on autonomy and the prudent use of resources (few tillage, few inputs and few water
100
utilization) thanks to integrated production (Griffon, 2013). Agro ecology is not against intensification but for an
101
ecological intensification based on human skills and valorization of renewable resources not on not renewable
102
inputs. In many cases, it would mean to favor small holders and promote biodiversity.
103
But we must not underestimate the difficulties to impose it. The industrial lobbies are generally against this
104
approach. It could weaken their position and could consider it is unrealistic.
105
Do not forget that our socio –technical networks are often locked in without being aware of it.
106
Gunby (1996) have shown that a network of actors produce rules, standards, conceptions without clear
107
awareness. A technology would not be chosen because it is more efficient individually but because it enables
108
economies of scale, for instance by training effects (more technicians are trained, more technology will be used)
109
and because more numerous will be its potential of diffusion in bigger networks, more the technology would
110
appear useful
Cowan and
Ac ce p
te
d
M
an
us
cr
ip t
91
111 112
This approach changes the position of science which is not any more a sacred activity included in the holy
113
Trinity Research-Innovation and Growth (Baret, 2009). A relevant research is a research related to operational
114
problems. It must be multidisciplinary, include social, economic, technical and environmental questions and not
115
only academic science. Only such a research could consider these questions globally and develop innovation
116
systems.
117 1
Growth always create more wealth, more jobs, more happiness and prosperity
4
Page 4 of 14
118
The several approaches of innovation as a way to consider the problems
119 The approach of innovation has changed drastically since 50 years. The first model of innovation was linear.
121
This model, we could sum up as “Diffusion and adoption” was the dominant one between 1960 and 1970. This
122
model is related to the growth paradigm. Innovation comes from outside. “Fundamental sciences” produce
123
“applied science” used for “education and extension” then proposed to the farmers that have only to accept it.
124
Unfortunately, this old model is not really dead and is very often still in the minds of many people.
cr
ip t
120
125
A response to the limits of linear and adoption model has been a more holistic view of what happens on farms;
127
this second model often developed between 1970 and 1990 has a Farming systems research perspective (FSR)
128
and has began to develop the partnership between technical and social science.
129
The Agricultural Knowledge and Information System perspective (AKIS) emerged after 1990 from an extension
130
perspective and is based on interactive learning with consciousness of a broader institutional environment
131
The Agricultural Innovation system (AIS) has been promoted for instance by many international institutions like
132
the World Bank after 2000. It is seen as a network of organizations, enterprises and individuals focused on
133
bringing new processes and new products including technological and organizational innovation. AIS has a
134
dynamic view and is seen as a complex adaptive system. It is composed of a set of function to be fulfilled as a
135
prerequisite or pre-conditions for innovation. In the more recent approaches, more attention has been given to
136
resistance and political processes (Table1). A comparison between the “Diffusion and Innovation” and AIS
137
models is sum up in Figure 3 (from Dubeuf et al., in press).
Ac ce p
te
d
M
an
us
126
138 139 140
How the goat activities are concerned by these approaches:
141 142
Let us come back on goats. Goat activities and sectors are fully involved in these sectorial innovation systems
143
approaches and the global challenges we have described upstairs.
144
One important side of ecological intensification is the use and improvement of interstitial and “marginal” lands
145
and spaces often ignored until now. Goats are known to be well adapted to use scrubs, forage trees, rangelands
146
but also sub products and interstitial spaces between the crops. Goats could contribute still marginally but
147
significantly to answer the growing demand for meat without using arable lands, and prevent expulsion of
5
Page 5 of 14
148
thousands of small farmers to create huge feed lots as it is the case presently for instance in Uruguay, Argentina
149
or Paraguay with the boom of beef (Rosegrant et al., 2001). The contribution of goats to dairy marketed
150
production would keep probably more limited to niche markets but their contribution to food safety in many
151
rural areas is constantly growing.
ip t
152 An important realty has been identified for many years. It is the perception of the illegitimacy or marginality of
154
the goat activities by many stake holders and institutions (Morand-Fehr et al, 2002, Dubeuf et al., 2004, Dubeuf,
155
2005). In regions and countries where goats are considered as dynamic and structured (the goat milk sector in
156
France, Spain, Netherlands, the cashmere goat sector in China, the Boer goat meat sector), the models were
157
industrial models following classical logics developed in other livestock sector (based on intensification and high
158
inputs).
159
There is not an approach for developed countries or regions on one side and another one for emerging situations.
160
Basically, the innovation and research systems to implement will not be different in developed countries and in
161
project to fight poverty. Goat Innovation Systems must be built with all stake holders, with politicians, with local
162
organizations, and favor cooperative research. This research is not a routine; it is not “business as usual”. We are
163
facing a real revolution and this revolution is necessary to favor a significant development of goats where ever
164
goats have favorable conditions (markets, local skills, resources…). We have coordinated a study for the
165
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) with the International Goat Association, to identify the
166
success factors of pro-poor goat projects. This study shows that to invest on goats can be profitable and impact to
167
fight poverty and favor rural development. It is not THE solution to poverty because many constraints other than
168
market ones could limit their development and success but there are many pathways to develop (Amankwah, et
169
al., in press). The indicators, we have identified show also that main success factors are the construction of
170
strong relations and interactions between all the stake holders including the scientists and that governance has to
171
be often improved.
172
Goat activities could face both social and environmental challenges. Because goats have the capacity to browse
173
very diverse forages and shrubs and use them for their nutritional needs, very diverse low inputs production
174
systems could be developed with agro –ecological objectives and few environmental impacts. But these systems
175
could not be the reproduction of old traditional systems. Because everything has changed in the world, these
176
systems will have to be innovative. They have to be built with the real participation of the local breeders but also
177
incorporate more scientific knowledge from several disciplines (Tilman et al., 2002). Thanks to these
Ac ce p
te
d
M
an
us
cr
153
6
Page 6 of 14
hybridizations between local know how and scientific knowledge, the development of goat activities has to be
179
based on human capacities and intensified in qualified labor (Linck, 2012). This strategy could answer social and
180
poverty challenges by maintaining more populations in the rural areas where they were born and where they
181
have their social relations. These approaches could be applied both in developing countries in developed
182
countries. In the first ones, appropriate local project strategies could improve step by step the standards of living
183
of the rural populations. In the second ones, they will fight rural desertification and maintain sustainable
184
activities with environmental externalities.
185
Consequently, the orientations for research on goat related projects are also re-defined: We need to produce more
186
high quality knowledge and references on local forage resources, local breeds, health control but also collective
187
organization, economics and innovation processes. The need for knowledge on the governance of socio –
188
technical involving goats would require more specific researches and in all cases technical science has to be
189
crossed with social science
an
us
cr
ip t
178
190
All these elements have shown that our initial question, “What are the links between industry, science and rural
192
life for the goat sectors?” was fully pertinent. We have today the theoretical scientific concepts and operational
193
more participative methods to update our visions, redefine our scientific priorities, to support local policies and
194
improve operationally the role of goats.
REFERENCES
Ac ce p
196 197 198
te
195
d
M
191
Altieri, A.M., 1983. Agro ecology, the Scientific Basis for Alternative Agriculture. Berkeley, U.C. Berkeley.
199 200
Amankwah, K., Klerkx, L., Oosting, S.J., Sakyi-Dawson, O., Van der Zijpp, A., Millar, D. (in press).
201
Diagnosing constraints to market participation of small ruminant producers in Northern Ghana: an innovation
202
systems analysis. NJAS-Wageningen Journal Of Life Sciences.
203 204
Baret, Ph., 2009. Intervention de Philippe Baret, Professeur de Génétique à l’UCL au congrès d’Economie et
205
d’Ecologie de Charleroi du 3 mai 2009. (8’ 03’’; Consulted in May 2013)
206
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x97exi_philippe-baret-au-congres-ecologie_news
207
7
Page 7 of 14
208
Cowan R., Gunby P., 1996. Sprayed to death: Path dependence, lock-in and pest control. Economic Journal
209
106(436), 521-43.
210 Dubeuf, J-P., Belmin, R., Casabianca, F., (in press). L’organisation des systèmes d’innovation en agriculture :
212
approches transdisciplinaires et rencontres entre connaissances scientifiques et savoir d’acteurs. Perspectives de
213
co-construction de nouveaux dispositifs en Corse. « Journées sur la pluridisciplinarité », University of Corsica,
214
November, 2013.
cr
ip t
211
215
us
216
Dubeuf, J-P, 2005. Structural, market and organisational conditions for a development of goat dairy production
218
systems; in "Plenary papers of the 8th International Conference on Goats ", Small Rumin. Res., 60; 1-2.
an
217
219
Dubeuf, J-P., Morand-Fehr, P., Rubino, R., 2004. Situation, changes and future of goat industry around the
221
world. Small Rumin. Res. 51, 165-73.
M
220
222
Griffon, M., 2013. Qu’est ce que l’agriculture écologiquement intensive? Quae Editions, Versailles. 221 pp.
d
223
te
224
IAASTD, 2008. Agriculture at a cross roads; Analytic report global report;
226
http://www.agassessment.org/reports/IAASTD/EN/Agriculture%20at%20a%20Crossroads_Global%20Report%
227
20(English).pdf ; consulted September 2012.
Ac ce p
225
228 229
Klerkx, L., Van Bommel, S., Bos, B., Holster, H., Zwartkruis, J., Aarts, N., 2012. Design process outputs as
230
boundary objects in agricultural innovation projects: functions and limitations. Agricultural Systems 113, 39-49.
231 232
Krugman P., 2009. Pourquoi les crises reviennent toujours. Editions du Seuil, Paris ; 203 pp.
233 234
Jackson, T., 2009. Prosperity without growth; the transition to a sustainable economy. Sustainable Development
235
Commission. Earth Scan, 264 pp.
236
8
Page 8 of 14
237
Linck Th., 2012, « Économie et patrimonialisation : La construction des appropriations du vivant et de
238
l’immatériel ». In « Le patrimoine oui, mais quel patrimoine ? » Commission Nationale Française pour
239
l’UNESCO. Paris.
240 Morand-Fehr P., Boutonnet J.P., Devendra C., et al, 2002. Strategy for goat farming in the 21st century.
242
Conference: 20th Anniversary Meeting of the IGA/Annual Conference of the EAAP; Cairo, Egypt.
ip t
241
cr
243
Rosegrant, M. W., Paisner, M. S. Meijer, S., Witcover, J. 2001. Global Food Projections to 2020: Emerging
245
trends and alternative futures (International Food Policy. Research Institute, Washington, DC, 2001).
us
244
246
Stassart, P, M., Baret, Ph., Grégoire, V., J., C., Hance, T. Mormont, M. , Reheul, D.,Vanloqueren, G., Visser. M.,
248
2012. Trajectoire et potentiel de l'agro écologie, pour une transition vers des systèmes alimentaires durables
249
(available on http://hdl.handle.net/2268/130063). Pages 25- 51. In D. Vandam, M. Streith, J. Nizet, and P.
250
Stassart, M., editors; “Agro écologie, entre pratiques et sciences sociales“. Educagri, Dijon.
251
.
252
Tilman, D., Cassman, K.G., Matson, P.A., Naylor, R., and Polasky, S. 2002. Agricultural sustainability and
253
intensive production practices. Nature 418: 671-677
te
d
M
an
247
254
UNEP, 2005. Millennium Eco system Assessment report; http://www.unep.org; consulted September
256
2012.
Ac ce p
255
257 258
Wezel A, Bellon S, Doré T, Francis C, Vallod, D, David C, 2009. Agro ecology as a science; a movement and a
259
practice; a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29, 503 - 515
260
9
Page 9 of 14
261
Conflict of Interest Statements
262
Potential Conflicts of Interest (COI) Related to Individual Authors' Commitments
263 264 265
When authors submit a manuscript, whether an article or a letter, they are responsible for disclosing all financial and personal relationships that might bias their work. To prevent ambiguity, authors must state explicitly whether potential conflicts do or do not exist.
266 267 268 269
In order to have either a journal special issue, or supplement, indexed in Medline, it is now obligatory that each individual article contains a COI statement (this obligation does not yet apply to regular journal articles, but may well do eventually and a COI statement should ideally be included in these also).
270
271 272 273 274 275 276
At the end of the text (usually before the Acknowledgements section), under a subheading "Conflict of interest statement" all authors must disclose any financial and personal relationships with other people or organisations that could inappropriately influence (bias) their work. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding.
277 278 279 280
If no conflicts exist, then authors should state this either as “None declared” or using the following example:“None of the authors (Jean‐Paul DUBEUF) has a financial or personal relationship with other people or organisations that could inappropriately influence or bias the paper entitled “SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, INNOVATION AND GOVERNANCE FOR THE GOAT SECTORS”.”
281
282
283
284
Ac ce p
285
te
d
M
an
us
cr
ip t
260
10
Page 10 of 14
285 286 287
Figure 1- The human world population since antiques ages
cr
ip t
Source : UN statistics quoted by Jackson, 2009.
us
288
Ac ce p
te
d
M
an
289
11
Page 11 of 14
an
us
cr
ip t
289
291 292 293 294 295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
Source: Jackson, 2009.
M
290
Ac ce p
te
d
Figure 2- Global trends in cereal, meat production, global use in nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers, use of irrigation and global pesticides production since 1960
12
Page 12 of 14
309
310
311
AIS 2000/… Co development Innovation in partnership Trans disciplinary Idem
an M d te Ac ce p
312 313
us
cr
“Diffusion and FSR AKIS adoption” 1960/1970 1970-1990 1990/2000 Era Survey Collaboration and Application Mental model partnership technology pipe line Single; descendant Multi disciplinary Inter disciplinary Relation disposal Idem Science is Science and Relation between developed in a Institutions are Science and historically social independent from Institutions Contest each other Table 1 - Summary of the main innovation systems (from Klerkx et al., 2012)
ip t
Innovation model
13
Page 13 of 14
us
cr
ip t
313
314
Figure 3: Representation of the “Diffusion and innovation” and AIS models (from Dubeuf et al. 2013)
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
M d te Ac ce p
325
an
315
14
Page 14 of 14
S0921-4488(14)00155-2 http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.smallrumres.2014.05.016 RUMIN 4745
To appear in:
Small Ruminant Research
Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:
3-6-2013 21-5-2014 30-5-2014
Please cite this article as: Dubeuf, J.-P.,Science, Technology, Innovation And Governance For The Goat Sectors, Small Ruminant Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2014.05.016 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
2
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, INNOVATION AND GOVERNANCE FOR
3
THE GOAT SECTORS
4
Jean-Paul DUBEUF,
5
INRA-SAD F-20250 Corte France – [email protected] - +33(0) 608861813
6
cr
ip t
1
Abstract
8
The world is presently facing key challenges due to the amazing growth of the population, shortages in
9
renewable energy and environmental problems. Growth, once, the solution to create more wealth, more jobs,
10
more prosperity and happiness appears not to be anymore an efficient paradigm to solve these problems. The
11
objective of this introductive presentation is to show at what extent goats could be a part of the solution to face
12
them, keep people in rural areas, improve food security and eradicate poverty. To achieve such ambitious
13
objectives, more innovation and technology will be required. But innovation will not be based on the old top-
14
down model. Innovation in goat farming has to be based on partnership and co development with all the actors
15
and trans disciplinary approaches have to be enhanced.
16
Keywords: Innovation ; agroecology ; goat sectors; technology; prospective .
17
Introduction
Ac ce p
te
d
M
an
us
7
18 19
This article has been presented during a Conference entitled “Industrial, scientific and rural activities in the goat
20
sector”. Linking industry, science and rurality between them and with goats could seem to be surprising. It is not
21
really natural, nor usual. Goat activities and industry are generally seen very far from each other.
22
activities are often seen at the opposite of industrial ones! But it is probably not so anachronistic and this article
23
has proposed to pull the threads of the new interactions between scientific knowledge, production and territorial
24
rural issues concerning goat sectors in their diversity.
And rural
25 26
Introducing this does not begin by speaking of goats or goat products or goat producers. Goat activities will be
27
considered as a part of the all livestock sectors and agriculture. So, it is relevant to start by identifying what
28
challenges the world is facing, what changes are needed and some prospective approaches, at what level
1
Page 1 of 14
29
agriculture and animal products are concerned. Then, how innovation could be promoted by developing
30
collaboration between science and other stake holders will be shown. We will develop at what extent this
31
approach could be mobilized to strengthen the goat activities as one of the solutions for future.
32 The present challenges of agriculture and animal production: Agriculture at the Cross roads
ip t
33 34
It is trivial to say the world is now facing a global crisis in nearly all sectors. To consider and analyze this crisis,
36
the world we could choose between two main hypotheses:
37
The first one is most related to the concept of economic crisis itself. Economic crisis would be recurring
us
‐
cr
35
cycles (Krugman P., 2009). We would be on a growing line and we are facing some hard but limited
39
difficulties that we could solve by developing more technology and by adaptation.
40
‐
an
38
The second one is that our development model is facing a systemic breakdown and that we have to change our basic paradigms. We choose here this second hypothesis. To sum up why, we use the main
42
assessment of the famous economist Tim Jackson (2009), often seen as the “guru” of anti growth
43
subversive people: for him, “an economy predicated on the perpetual expansion of debt-driven
44
materialistic consumption is unsustainable ecologically, problematic socially, and unstable
45
economically in a world with limited resources”.
te
d
M
41
46
Until now, the only answers of our European and North American public powers to face the difficulties and
48
crisis, have been to find the ways to restore growth, and for the Southern one how to keep a double digit growth.
49
It is mainly due to the fact that our present paradigm is the religion of growth: Growth would create more
50
wealth, more jobs, more happiness and prosperity; technological innovation would not have limit; concerning
51
science and scientific research, it would mechanically favor innovation and technological innovation would
52
favor growth, etc…
Ac ce p
47
53 54
The problem is that it does not work anymore. The challenges of agriculture and animal production cannot be
55
faced only by more intensification and more technology: It is true that the Green Revolution enabled to multiply
56
the grain production by 3, the milk production by 5 and to feed a human world population growing from 1 billion
57
people to 7 billion in 2 centuries only (Figure 1). This human growth has followed the growth of yield and inputs
58
in Agriculture. Since 1960 irrigation has doubled; the use of Nitrogen was multiplied by 7, of phosphorus by 2
2
Page 2 of 14
59
and pesticides by 4. The results have been fantastic with a highest average production of cereal and wheat per
60
human being. (Figure 2)
61 62 Thanks to huge consultations decided by international organizations as the World Bank, OECD, FAO and the
64
United Nations, we know that following this way is no more possible. The International Assessment of
65
Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) has worn a clear diagnosis later
66
used to define the Millenium Development Goals (MDG). Agriculture is at a crossroads and a new paradigm
67
must give the way (IAASTD ; 2008). The Agricultural Knowledge, Sciences and Technologies (AKST) have
68
contributed to increase the agricultural production and food safety. The net food availability per capita has been
69
from 2360 kcal in the 60’s to reach 2803 kcal now. But in spite of this amazing success the negative externalities
70
are dramatic and threaten the sustainability of our environment and productivity: 1.9 billions ha (feeding 2
71
billion people) are facing high levels of soil degradation; agriculture and animal production are responsible of
72
60% of the emissions of anthropogenic methane and due to the fertilizers huge coastal areas and lakes are nearly
73
dead due to eutrophication. Specialization and intensification have caused the decrease of the soil fertility, the
74
use of non fertile lands, rural migration and the degradation of ecosystems. IAASTD has enhanced that a 75%
75
growth of grain demand is expected and a doubling of the meat demand between 2000 and 2050. Their
76
conclusions are clear. The AKST must be more increased and strengthened but differently. By nature, agriculture
77
has been based on the renewed fertility enabled by the balance between crops and animal production with
78
complex and multifunctional systems. The multi functionality of Agriculture has been forgotten and agro-
79
ecological sciences must be developed to stabilize and re –improve productivity.
80
The opposition between an industrial intensified, “developed” agriculture and a developing one dedicated to poor
81
people in marginal lands has no more meaning and all the systems are concerned. Significant progresses in favor
82
of poor farmers and small holders are as much necessary and will be as much efficient to create ecologically and
83
socially viable ecosystems! It is so useful to investigate explain what types of innovative devices could be
84
implemented and how.
Ac ce p
te
d
M
an
us
cr
ip t
63
85 86 87 88
3
Page 3 of 14
89
Toward a new agro – ecological paradigm based on food security to promote innovation
90 Once observed that the paradigm of progress does not work anymore1, by which one replaces it? Several authors,
92
suggest to link food security, rural development, collective and individual prosperity.
93
This paradigm is related to agro – ecology and to the concept of an agro –system composed by interaction with
94
the environment. Altieri (1983) defined agro ecology as the application of ecological principles to agriculture.
95
Later, the concept was enlarged to the whole food system linking production with the food chain and consumers.
96
It allowed to apply their principles to animal production and became an interdisciplinary method that questioned
97
bio- technical and social borders (Stassart et al., 2012, Wezel et al., 2009). Agro ecology is an approach of
98
Agriculture considering the systems by its interactions, its balances and combining technical, social political
99
aspects. It explores ways on autonomy and the prudent use of resources (few tillage, few inputs and few water
100
utilization) thanks to integrated production (Griffon, 2013). Agro ecology is not against intensification but for an
101
ecological intensification based on human skills and valorization of renewable resources not on not renewable
102
inputs. In many cases, it would mean to favor small holders and promote biodiversity.
103
But we must not underestimate the difficulties to impose it. The industrial lobbies are generally against this
104
approach. It could weaken their position and could consider it is unrealistic.
105
Do not forget that our socio –technical networks are often locked in without being aware of it.
106
Gunby (1996) have shown that a network of actors produce rules, standards, conceptions without clear
107
awareness. A technology would not be chosen because it is more efficient individually but because it enables
108
economies of scale, for instance by training effects (more technicians are trained, more technology will be used)
109
and because more numerous will be its potential of diffusion in bigger networks, more the technology would
110
appear useful
Cowan and
Ac ce p
te
d
M
an
us
cr
ip t
91
111 112
This approach changes the position of science which is not any more a sacred activity included in the holy
113
Trinity Research-Innovation and Growth (Baret, 2009). A relevant research is a research related to operational
114
problems. It must be multidisciplinary, include social, economic, technical and environmental questions and not
115
only academic science. Only such a research could consider these questions globally and develop innovation
116
systems.
117 1
Growth always create more wealth, more jobs, more happiness and prosperity
4
Page 4 of 14
118
The several approaches of innovation as a way to consider the problems
119 The approach of innovation has changed drastically since 50 years. The first model of innovation was linear.
121
This model, we could sum up as “Diffusion and adoption” was the dominant one between 1960 and 1970. This
122
model is related to the growth paradigm. Innovation comes from outside. “Fundamental sciences” produce
123
“applied science” used for “education and extension” then proposed to the farmers that have only to accept it.
124
Unfortunately, this old model is not really dead and is very often still in the minds of many people.
cr
ip t
120
125
A response to the limits of linear and adoption model has been a more holistic view of what happens on farms;
127
this second model often developed between 1970 and 1990 has a Farming systems research perspective (FSR)
128
and has began to develop the partnership between technical and social science.
129
The Agricultural Knowledge and Information System perspective (AKIS) emerged after 1990 from an extension
130
perspective and is based on interactive learning with consciousness of a broader institutional environment
131
The Agricultural Innovation system (AIS) has been promoted for instance by many international institutions like
132
the World Bank after 2000. It is seen as a network of organizations, enterprises and individuals focused on
133
bringing new processes and new products including technological and organizational innovation. AIS has a
134
dynamic view and is seen as a complex adaptive system. It is composed of a set of function to be fulfilled as a
135
prerequisite or pre-conditions for innovation. In the more recent approaches, more attention has been given to
136
resistance and political processes (Table1). A comparison between the “Diffusion and Innovation” and AIS
137
models is sum up in Figure 3 (from Dubeuf et al., in press).
Ac ce p
te
d
M
an
us
126
138 139 140
How the goat activities are concerned by these approaches:
141 142
Let us come back on goats. Goat activities and sectors are fully involved in these sectorial innovation systems
143
approaches and the global challenges we have described upstairs.
144
One important side of ecological intensification is the use and improvement of interstitial and “marginal” lands
145
and spaces often ignored until now. Goats are known to be well adapted to use scrubs, forage trees, rangelands
146
but also sub products and interstitial spaces between the crops. Goats could contribute still marginally but
147
significantly to answer the growing demand for meat without using arable lands, and prevent expulsion of
5
Page 5 of 14
148
thousands of small farmers to create huge feed lots as it is the case presently for instance in Uruguay, Argentina
149
or Paraguay with the boom of beef (Rosegrant et al., 2001). The contribution of goats to dairy marketed
150
production would keep probably more limited to niche markets but their contribution to food safety in many
151
rural areas is constantly growing.
ip t
152 An important realty has been identified for many years. It is the perception of the illegitimacy or marginality of
154
the goat activities by many stake holders and institutions (Morand-Fehr et al, 2002, Dubeuf et al., 2004, Dubeuf,
155
2005). In regions and countries where goats are considered as dynamic and structured (the goat milk sector in
156
France, Spain, Netherlands, the cashmere goat sector in China, the Boer goat meat sector), the models were
157
industrial models following classical logics developed in other livestock sector (based on intensification and high
158
inputs).
159
There is not an approach for developed countries or regions on one side and another one for emerging situations.
160
Basically, the innovation and research systems to implement will not be different in developed countries and in
161
project to fight poverty. Goat Innovation Systems must be built with all stake holders, with politicians, with local
162
organizations, and favor cooperative research. This research is not a routine; it is not “business as usual”. We are
163
facing a real revolution and this revolution is necessary to favor a significant development of goats where ever
164
goats have favorable conditions (markets, local skills, resources…). We have coordinated a study for the
165
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) with the International Goat Association, to identify the
166
success factors of pro-poor goat projects. This study shows that to invest on goats can be profitable and impact to
167
fight poverty and favor rural development. It is not THE solution to poverty because many constraints other than
168
market ones could limit their development and success but there are many pathways to develop (Amankwah, et
169
al., in press). The indicators, we have identified show also that main success factors are the construction of
170
strong relations and interactions between all the stake holders including the scientists and that governance has to
171
be often improved.
172
Goat activities could face both social and environmental challenges. Because goats have the capacity to browse
173
very diverse forages and shrubs and use them for their nutritional needs, very diverse low inputs production
174
systems could be developed with agro –ecological objectives and few environmental impacts. But these systems
175
could not be the reproduction of old traditional systems. Because everything has changed in the world, these
176
systems will have to be innovative. They have to be built with the real participation of the local breeders but also
177
incorporate more scientific knowledge from several disciplines (Tilman et al., 2002). Thanks to these
Ac ce p
te
d
M
an
us
cr
153
6
Page 6 of 14
hybridizations between local know how and scientific knowledge, the development of goat activities has to be
179
based on human capacities and intensified in qualified labor (Linck, 2012). This strategy could answer social and
180
poverty challenges by maintaining more populations in the rural areas where they were born and where they
181
have their social relations. These approaches could be applied both in developing countries in developed
182
countries. In the first ones, appropriate local project strategies could improve step by step the standards of living
183
of the rural populations. In the second ones, they will fight rural desertification and maintain sustainable
184
activities with environmental externalities.
185
Consequently, the orientations for research on goat related projects are also re-defined: We need to produce more
186
high quality knowledge and references on local forage resources, local breeds, health control but also collective
187
organization, economics and innovation processes. The need for knowledge on the governance of socio –
188
technical involving goats would require more specific researches and in all cases technical science has to be
189
crossed with social science
an
us
cr
ip t
178
190
All these elements have shown that our initial question, “What are the links between industry, science and rural
192
life for the goat sectors?” was fully pertinent. We have today the theoretical scientific concepts and operational
193
more participative methods to update our visions, redefine our scientific priorities, to support local policies and
194
improve operationally the role of goats.
REFERENCES
Ac ce p
196 197 198
te
195
d
M
191
Altieri, A.M., 1983. Agro ecology, the Scientific Basis for Alternative Agriculture. Berkeley, U.C. Berkeley.
199 200
Amankwah, K., Klerkx, L., Oosting, S.J., Sakyi-Dawson, O., Van der Zijpp, A., Millar, D. (in press).
201
Diagnosing constraints to market participation of small ruminant producers in Northern Ghana: an innovation
202
systems analysis. NJAS-Wageningen Journal Of Life Sciences.
203 204
Baret, Ph., 2009. Intervention de Philippe Baret, Professeur de Génétique à l’UCL au congrès d’Economie et
205
d’Ecologie de Charleroi du 3 mai 2009. (8’ 03’’; Consulted in May 2013)
206
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x97exi_philippe-baret-au-congres-ecologie_news
207
7
Page 7 of 14
208
Cowan R., Gunby P., 1996. Sprayed to death: Path dependence, lock-in and pest control. Economic Journal
209
106(436), 521-43.
210 Dubeuf, J-P., Belmin, R., Casabianca, F., (in press). L’organisation des systèmes d’innovation en agriculture :
212
approches transdisciplinaires et rencontres entre connaissances scientifiques et savoir d’acteurs. Perspectives de
213
co-construction de nouveaux dispositifs en Corse. « Journées sur la pluridisciplinarité », University of Corsica,
214
November, 2013.
cr
ip t
211
215
us
216
Dubeuf, J-P, 2005. Structural, market and organisational conditions for a development of goat dairy production
218
systems; in "Plenary papers of the 8th International Conference on Goats ", Small Rumin. Res., 60; 1-2.
an
217
219
Dubeuf, J-P., Morand-Fehr, P., Rubino, R., 2004. Situation, changes and future of goat industry around the
221
world. Small Rumin. Res. 51, 165-73.
M
220
222
Griffon, M., 2013. Qu’est ce que l’agriculture écologiquement intensive? Quae Editions, Versailles. 221 pp.
d
223
te
224
IAASTD, 2008. Agriculture at a cross roads; Analytic report global report;
226
http://www.agassessment.org/reports/IAASTD/EN/Agriculture%20at%20a%20Crossroads_Global%20Report%
227
20(English).pdf ; consulted September 2012.
Ac ce p
225
228 229
Klerkx, L., Van Bommel, S., Bos, B., Holster, H., Zwartkruis, J., Aarts, N., 2012. Design process outputs as
230
boundary objects in agricultural innovation projects: functions and limitations. Agricultural Systems 113, 39-49.
231 232
Krugman P., 2009. Pourquoi les crises reviennent toujours. Editions du Seuil, Paris ; 203 pp.
233 234
Jackson, T., 2009. Prosperity without growth; the transition to a sustainable economy. Sustainable Development
235
Commission. Earth Scan, 264 pp.
236
8
Page 8 of 14
237
Linck Th., 2012, « Économie et patrimonialisation : La construction des appropriations du vivant et de
238
l’immatériel ». In « Le patrimoine oui, mais quel patrimoine ? » Commission Nationale Française pour
239
l’UNESCO. Paris.
240 Morand-Fehr P., Boutonnet J.P., Devendra C., et al, 2002. Strategy for goat farming in the 21st century.
242
Conference: 20th Anniversary Meeting of the IGA/Annual Conference of the EAAP; Cairo, Egypt.
ip t
241
cr
243
Rosegrant, M. W., Paisner, M. S. Meijer, S., Witcover, J. 2001. Global Food Projections to 2020: Emerging
245
trends and alternative futures (International Food Policy. Research Institute, Washington, DC, 2001).
us
244
246
Stassart, P, M., Baret, Ph., Grégoire, V., J., C., Hance, T. Mormont, M. , Reheul, D.,Vanloqueren, G., Visser. M.,
248
2012. Trajectoire et potentiel de l'agro écologie, pour une transition vers des systèmes alimentaires durables
249
(available on http://hdl.handle.net/2268/130063). Pages 25- 51. In D. Vandam, M. Streith, J. Nizet, and P.
250
Stassart, M., editors; “Agro écologie, entre pratiques et sciences sociales“. Educagri, Dijon.
251
.
252
Tilman, D., Cassman, K.G., Matson, P.A., Naylor, R., and Polasky, S. 2002. Agricultural sustainability and
253
intensive production practices. Nature 418: 671-677
te
d
M
an
247
254
UNEP, 2005. Millennium Eco system Assessment report; http://www.unep.org; consulted September
256
2012.
Ac ce p
255
257 258
Wezel A, Bellon S, Doré T, Francis C, Vallod, D, David C, 2009. Agro ecology as a science; a movement and a
259
practice; a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29, 503 - 515
260
9
Page 9 of 14
261
Conflict of Interest Statements
262
Potential Conflicts of Interest (COI) Related to Individual Authors' Commitments
263 264 265
When authors submit a manuscript, whether an article or a letter, they are responsible for disclosing all financial and personal relationships that might bias their work. To prevent ambiguity, authors must state explicitly whether potential conflicts do or do not exist.
266 267 268 269
In order to have either a journal special issue, or supplement, indexed in Medline, it is now obligatory that each individual article contains a COI statement (this obligation does not yet apply to regular journal articles, but may well do eventually and a COI statement should ideally be included in these also).
270
271 272 273 274 275 276
At the end of the text (usually before the Acknowledgements section), under a subheading "Conflict of interest statement" all authors must disclose any financial and personal relationships with other people or organisations that could inappropriately influence (bias) their work. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding.
277 278 279 280
If no conflicts exist, then authors should state this either as “None declared” or using the following example:“None of the authors (Jean‐Paul DUBEUF) has a financial or personal relationship with other people or organisations that could inappropriately influence or bias the paper entitled “SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, INNOVATION AND GOVERNANCE FOR THE GOAT SECTORS”.”
281
282
283
284
Ac ce p
285
te
d
M
an
us
cr
ip t
260
10
Page 10 of 14
285 286 287
Figure 1- The human world population since antiques ages
cr
ip t
Source : UN statistics quoted by Jackson, 2009.
us
288
Ac ce p
te
d
M
an
289
11
Page 11 of 14
an
us
cr
ip t
289
291 292 293 294 295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
Source: Jackson, 2009.
M
290
Ac ce p
te
d
Figure 2- Global trends in cereal, meat production, global use in nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers, use of irrigation and global pesticides production since 1960
12
Page 12 of 14
309
310
311
AIS 2000/… Co development Innovation in partnership Trans disciplinary Idem
an M d te Ac ce p
312 313
us
cr
“Diffusion and FSR AKIS adoption” 1960/1970 1970-1990 1990/2000 Era Survey Collaboration and Application Mental model partnership technology pipe line Single; descendant Multi disciplinary Inter disciplinary Relation disposal Idem Science is Science and Relation between developed in a Institutions are Science and historically social independent from Institutions Contest each other Table 1 - Summary of the main innovation systems (from Klerkx et al., 2012)
ip t
Innovation model
13
Page 13 of 14
us
cr
ip t
313
314
Figure 3: Representation of the “Diffusion and innovation” and AIS models (from Dubeuf et al. 2013)
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
M d te Ac ce p
325
an
315
14
Page 14 of 14