8 Innovations for Sustainable Land Management …
161
In contrast, there are “incremental innovations” that are far less ground-breaking,
new and original, and more likely to result in changes and modifications in the form
of incremental improvements to existing innovations and technological systems.
This differentiation according to the novelty and impact of innovations appears
to be rather questionable, because assessing the novelty of an innovation is a very
subjective and vague matter. Kasmire et al. (2012, p. 348) argue: “when examined
critically, the birth process of many “radical” innovations reveals only logical, even
obvious, small steps with no “eureka” moments”.
With regard to the projects examined here, it emerged that SLM innovations were
neither “sensationally new” nor radical or disruptive. Instead, they can be considered
as incremental adaptations towards new normative objectives or paradigms such as
the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) or growing awareness of the importance
of a systems perspective. SLM innovations in the nine projects under investigation
were often locally tailored solutions that were mainly based on existing ideas, and
were now being implemented.
The extent to which the concept of “radical” innovations applies to SLM innovations is questionable because they often revolve around social innovations such
as new forms of coordination and collaboration. However, the concept of “radical”
innovations was derived from and is related to the retrospective study of technological
innovations (ibid.). Nonetheless, the concept of “radical” innovations seems hardly
applicable to SLM innovations, also with regard to the impact of such innovations.
Although some of the projects also focused on technical/product innovations
(e.g. hay ovens, biomillers, agrophotovoltaic systems, agroforestry systems), these
innovations were closely tied to the well-regulated resource of “land”.
For example, agroforestry systems with short-rotation wood strips for energy
wood production have been researched and developed in Germany for over 25 years.
However, the implementation and dissemination of such systems in practice has
so far failed due to the legal framework. In this case, minimal changes (also in
terms of subsidy backdrops) may cause considerable land use changes and, in retrospect, appear to be “radical”. However, it is unlikely that agroforestry systems will
completely replace other agricultural systems. It is more likely that such systems will
complement other systems, where appropriate.
The strict regulation of land is not only a strong barrier to SLM innovation. It
is very likely that it will influence the innovation process from the very beginning,
excluding legally unworkable solutions from the outset. From a critical point of view,
the innovations developed within the nine projects under examination are mainly
based on the existing system. The extent to which these innovations challenge current
regime structures is an open question.
161
In contrast, there are “incremental innovations” that are far less ground-breaking,
new and original, and more likely to result in changes and modifications in the form
of incremental improvements to existing innovations and technological systems.
This differentiation according to the novelty and impact of innovations appears
to be rather questionable, because assessing the novelty of an innovation is a very
subjective and vague matter. Kasmire et al. (2012, p. 348) argue: “when examined
critically, the birth process of many “radical” innovations reveals only logical, even
obvious, small steps with no “eureka” moments”.
With regard to the projects examined here, it emerged that SLM innovations were
neither “sensationally new” nor radical or disruptive. Instead, they can be considered
as incremental adaptations towards new normative objectives or paradigms such as
the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) or growing awareness of the importance
of a systems perspective. SLM innovations in the nine projects under investigation
were often locally tailored solutions that were mainly based on existing ideas, and
were now being implemented.
The extent to which the concept of “radical” innovations applies to SLM innovations is questionable because they often revolve around social innovations such
as new forms of coordination and collaboration. However, the concept of “radical”
innovations was derived from and is related to the retrospective study of technological
innovations (ibid.). Nonetheless, the concept of “radical” innovations seems hardly
applicable to SLM innovations, also with regard to the impact of such innovations.
Although some of the projects also focused on technical/product innovations
(e.g. hay ovens, biomillers, agrophotovoltaic systems, agroforestry systems), these
innovations were closely tied to the well-regulated resource of “land”.
For example, agroforestry systems with short-rotation wood strips for energy
wood production have been researched and developed in Germany for over 25 years.
However, the implementation and dissemination of such systems in practice has
so far failed due to the legal framework. In this case, minimal changes (also in
terms of subsidy backdrops) may cause considerable land use changes and, in retrospect, appear to be “radical”. However, it is unlikely that agroforestry systems will
completely replace other agricultural systems. It is more likely that such systems will
complement other systems, where appropriate.
The strict regulation of land is not only a strong barrier to SLM innovation. It
is very likely that it will influence the innovation process from the very beginning,
excluding legally unworkable solutions from the outset. From a critical point of view,
the innovations developed within the nine projects under examination are mainly
based on the existing system. The extent to which these innovations challenge current
regime structures is an open question.