Innovation for Sustainability:

The Case of Biosaline Agriculture

Background and Introduction
This section discusses the increasing pressures on the existing food production system, and details
the reasons for the growing interest in alternative forms of agriculture. It also salt-loving plants,
known as halophytes, which have been put forward as a potential solution to increasing levels of
salinity and water shortages. It also discusses the models that have been suggested for their
domestication, as well as their potential. Finally, the section outlines the important role innovation
plays in economic growth and development historically, and how it can be harnessed for a transition
towards more sustainable economic activity.

Population growth and food demand

The world is in the midst of a food and energy crisis, coupled with an environmental crisis. The world
demand for food is expected to rise substantially, going up by 40% by 2030, driven by population
growth and greater prosperity in some developing countries (Beddington, 2009). At the same time,
fresh water demand is increasing rapidly, and UN figures expect that about two thirds of the world’s
population will be subject to water stress, with 1.8 billion people projected to be living in places with
severe water scarcity (UN, 2009). At the same time, agriculture continues to consume almost three
quarters of the world’s fresh water resources, with an even higher proportion in Africa, where
agriculture consumes 90% of fresh water. Demand for fresh water for agriculture is expected to rise
by 30%, while global water demand for all uses will likely rise by 35% to 60% It has been estimated,
based on mid-range population scenarios, that demand for water for agriculture could rise by over
30% by 2030. As a result, the agricultural sector will increasingly compete with other uses, including
growing urban centres, over fresh water resources and the availability of fresh water for agricultural
purposes will decline (Beddington, 2009).

This is all happening at a time when the demand for ever more intensive agricultural production, as
well as the increasing demand for meat and dairy in developing countries and a global population
that is set to increase to around 9 billion by mid-century, rising at a rate of 6 million people per
month, with Africa’s population alone projected to double from 1 billion to 2 billion (Beddington,
2009). This process is driving greater environmental degradation, loss of habitat and decreased
biodiversity, a continuation of a long-standing trend of changes in land use in favour of intensive
agriculture. Yet more land is needed merely to sustain current levels of production, which are under
pressure due to soil degradation, increased salinity and desertification in many arable lands (Hodges
et al., 1993). There are signs that agricultural lands are being increasingly seen as strategic resources,
and Beddington (2009) reports that several countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Egypt, as
well as some multinational corporations, have started buying agricultural land in developing
countries.

Another global source of food, wild fisheries, has recently become a high value global commodity
with great economic and nutritional importance (Pauly et al., 2002). Yet this resource also under
huge pressure; according to the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) assessment, published in
2008, 80% of the fish stocks assessed where either fully exploited or overexploited. Predictions for
the future of commercial fisheries expect a collapse in all species by 2048 unless the situation
improves drastically, with unforeseeable economic and environmental consequences (Worm et al.,
2006).

The FAO report also highlights the rapid growth in aquaculture as a source of seafood and fish
products worldwide, and with current trends aquaculture is poised to make up for shortfalls in wild
fishing. However, environmental problems resulting from current aquaculture practices, particularly
the well-publicised damage caused by shrimp farming, hardly make for a model in sustainability.
Moreover, the limited supplies of fish oil and fish meal, which are in turn derived from wild fisheries,
are likely to constrain this growth. It is worth noting that much of the global aquaculture industry is
also dependant on fresh water supplies, and that is another factor limiting its potential (FAO, 2008).

Essentially, the challenge is to produce 50% more food and energy, and have 30% more fresh water
available, all while mitigating and adapting to environmental impacts, particularly climate change
(Beddington, 2009). Given the dependence of agriculture on energy and fresh water, as well as
stable climatic conditions, this is no small feat.

Halophytes –history of use and potential

Halophytes are salt-tolerant plants that generally grow in saline environments like salt marshes.
They are very diverse and include trees, such as the different species of mangroves. They also
include annual succulents like Salicornia sp., the most well-known of which is samphire, often eaten
as a vegetable (Clark, 1994). There has been some interest in studying halophytes since the 1970s,
because of their potential to grow using brackish ground water or seawater, and their promise of
turning arid areas to productive agricultural land. Seawater is an abundant resource, making up 97%
of the water on the planet, and coastal deserts also cover large swathes of the planet, as figure 1
illustrates (Hodges et al., 1993). Halophytes could enable this resource to be used in novel ways, and
to support the sustainable development of many impoverished communities.
Figure 1 – Map of areas suitable for saline agriculture.

Botanically, halophytes come from diverse families of plants and are not necessarily related.
However, they share very similar mechanisms of dealing with high levels of salinity. Almost all
traditional crops have low salt tolerance. Following some initial optimism in the 1970s and 1980s,
efforts to breed salt tolerance into common crops have only showed modest improvements
(Hendricks and Bushnell, 2008; Glenn et al., 1999; Glenn et al., 1998; Hodges et al., 1993 ). More
recent work using modern genetic modifications was somewhat more successful, but the
mechanism of salt tolerance is complex and controlled my multiple genes, consequently, the
likelihood of introducing a high level of salt tolerance into traditional crops seems to be very low
(Hendricks and Bushnell, 2008).

Therefore, the research interest started moving towards identifying halophytes that can be
domesticated and used in for various agricultural and landscaping purposes. Because of their
diversity, halophytes have been regarded as a rich source of potential new crops, which were
expected to form the basis of the new field of ‘biosaline agriculture’. A number of halophyte species
have been used as vegetable, forage, and oilseed crops in agronomic field trials. The most
productive species yield 10 to 20 ton/ha of biomass on seawater irrigation, equivalent to
conventional crops (Glenn et al., 1999; Kraidees et al., 1998). The oilseed halophyte, Salicornia
bigelovii, has shown comparable yields to other conventional sources of vegetable oil, such as soya
beans. It produces seed containing 28% oil and 31% protein, the oil is edible and is of reportedly of
very good quality (Glenn et al., 1999; Glenn et al., 1998; Hodges et al., 1993). However these yields
have been achieved under controlled conditions and it is not clear how they can be achieved in the
field (Bushnak, in interview, 2011; Hoek, in interview, 2011).

But why not let conventional agriculture solve the problem?

Neo-Malthusian predictions regarding the depletion of resources have been part of the
environmental and economic discourse at various times. Most recently, concerns about resource
shortages intensified in the 1970s when a spike in population growth, and oil shock lead to warnings
of commodity and food production not matching demand. The manifesto of this movement was ‘The
Limits to Growth’, published by the Club or Rome and with the leadership of Paul Ehlrich. On the
other side of the debate was the ‘Cornucopian’ camp, with ‘The Resourceful Earth’ as their
manifesto, who believed that innovation and economic forces will compensate and increase supply
to match demand, or work around the shortage in resources by finding alternatives.

As we all know, the dire predictions of soaring commodity prices and disastrous food shortages in
‘Limits to Growth’ did not materialize, and the green revolution of the 1970s led to a rapid growth in
agricultural productivity that more than matched population growth (Chenoweth & Feitelson, 2005),
albeit with greater energy use, land degradation, and a heavier reliance on agrochemicals.

Given the history of the debate, it is entirely justified to ask “why not let conventional agriculture
solve the problem?”

Concerns about the reliability of the global food production system have come to the fore recently,
and have gained particularly urgency following the sharp spike in food prices in 2007 and 2008.
Although competition from biofuel crops may have been a factor in this price shock (Beddington,
2009; Hendricks and Bushnell, 2008) there are also fundamental drivers relating to the availability of
agricultural inputs including water and energy. Whatever the reasons for the price spike it is clear
that wheat and maize prices had peaked at around triple their early 2005 levels, with an even higher
peak in rice prices signals the end of 20 years of low food commodity prices. This has highlighted the
vulnerability of global food supplies to any environmental or economic shocks (Beddington, 2009).

Clearly, all the evidence above points to the need to increase agricultural production, but there are
fundamental limits on how much intensive agriculture can expand, given its dependence on non-
renewable resources. In the long run, energy is likely to be a key limiting factor for agricultural
productivity, within the existing agricultural paradigm (and to economic growth in general). The
scale of growth in energy use for agricultural production is striking; Pimentel et al. (1973) estimate
that energy inputs into growing corn in the US increased almost threefold, from 925,500 kilocalories
in 1945 to 2,896,800 kilocalories in 1970. These figures reflect increases in transport, machinery,
electricity consumption, as well as huge increases in the use of fertilizers and other agricultural
chemicals. This jump in energy use predates the green revolution of the 1970s, and energy use for
agricultural production has continued to grow at a pace. The most recent figures available from FAO
(2000) are based on data from 1982, and show that the energy inputs per hectare of cereals stood at
195 kilograms of oil equivalent (kgoe) per hectare (kgoe/ha thereafter). The figures also show that in
industrialized countries with highly productive agriculture energy use was 312 kgoe/ha, compared to
only 96 kgoe/ha in developing countries. The difference is even more extreme if energy use per
agricultural worker is considered, with those working in industrialized nations using 20 times the
energy used by their peers in developing countries. This illustrates the importance of energy inputs
to agricultural productivity, and that intensive agriculture will suffer in a world with restricted energy
supplies without radical changes in the industry.

The sustainability movement has been another source of challenge to the intensive agriculture
regime. Following Schumacher’s ideas, those advocating more sustainable alternative forms of
agriculture have a fundamentally different view of what agriculture should be like. The proponents
of alternative agriculture are guided by a very different philosophical position compared to intensive
agriculture. Advocates of alternative agriculture emphasised sustainability, low inputs and harmony
with the ecological and social environment, rather than ever growing productivity (Beus & Dunlap,
1990). These ideas have influenced policy somewhat. For instance UNEP advised the use of
‘appropriate technologies’ that are based on raw materials that are abundant and can be
replenished; minimise waste by design; and blend into ecosystems rather than replace them
(Kaplinsky, 2011).

Although these objections are philosophical in nature, they are rooted in a greater awareness of the
problems caused by intensive agriculture. Some of these problems are economic, such as the costs
of surplus food production and farming subsidies. However, the environmental externalities, which
became more visible as a result of a number of health scares – pesticide residue and BSE to name a
few, were more important in shaping alternative agriculture. Pollution as a result of the ever
increasing use of chemicals has become a serious public concern, as in the case of pesticide levels in
UK drinking water supplies (Morgan & Murdoch, 1999). More recently, proponents of alternative
agriculture have argued that it enables locally-rooted businesses to focus on quality and speciality
foods, thereby resisting the downwards price pressure and creating opportunities for sustainable
growth (Marsden & Smith, 2005). Some authors go further and argue that alternative agriculture
allows farmers to maintain their local tacit knowledge, and therefore some degree of power, rather
than being reliant on multinationals providing chemicals or equipment, and shielding themselves
from market forces and globalization (Morgan & Murdoch, 1999; Phillimore, 2001).

Finally, the fundamental problems limiting the growth of irrigated agriculture also bear repeating.
Apart from dwindling fresh water supplies, the increasing salinity of soils is an unavoidable
consequence of irrigation, and it often approaching the limits of the soil’s ability to support crops. At
the same time, agriculture is often reliant on ground water sources that are over used, and
competing with people for fresh water, particularly in arid parts of the world. Furthermore, the
amount of land available for intensive agriculture is small, and creating new spaces for agriculture
would further impinge on vulnerable and shrinking natural landscapes (Grattan, 2008).

The role of innovation

Although orthodox economic theory still focuses on equilibrium and growth in inputs, a significant
body of evidence points that innovation may be the main driver of economic development. For
instance, in the 1950s, Moses Abramovitz published a paper comparing the growth in US economic
outputs with the growth of inputs between 1870 and 1950. He found that inputs only explained 15%
of growth, leaving 85% of the growth of the US economy unaccounted for (Rosenberg, 2004).
Increases in productivity as a result of innovation can explain this difference. Many economists have
since repeated the analysis with varying methodologies, and found that innovation plays a large part
in productivity growth (Cameron, 1996; Rosenberg 2004). Development and economic growth is
ultimately a result of the human knowledge, and its interaction with the world and its resources.
This evidence is largely consistent with Schumpeter's views on innovation as an engine of growth in
capitalist economies (Martin and Scott, 2000) and has led many policy-makers to try to support and
encourage innovation in order to enhance the competitiveness and productivity of their local
economies.

Moreover, entrepreneurship and innovation are also important tools that can be used by policy
makers to achieve specific aims, historically these have most often been military aims (MacKenzie &
Wajcman), and more recently environmental sustainability or emissions reduction (Commission of
the EC, 2003; Dean & McMullen, 2007; Bürer & Wüstenhagen, 2009). Another key role of innovation
is to allow businesses to adapt to environmental regulation, which may drive firms to increase their
efficiency and gain a first-mover advantage, making environmental compliance a win-win situation
(Porter & Van der Linde, 1995). Current trends suggest that the need to transition to a more
sustainable future will become more acute, policy makers will need to develop tools that will enable
them to achieve it. One such tool will be encouraging innovations that are likely to lead to
favourable outcomes in terms of environmental improvement and more efficient production.
However, managing innovation, even without adding the sustainability dimension, is very
challenging to policy makers and governments. While they are increasingly aware of its value, the
process is very complex and, by definition, unpredictable. Rosenberg (2004) provides many
examples showing that even experts at their fields cannot envision how successful or important an
innovation will prove to be – LASERs, mobile phones, televisions and even computers have all
become ubiquitous technologies, but early in their development they were all dismissed as having
very limited practical applications.

This fundamental uncertainty around the outcomes and processes of innovation makes for an
interesting management and policy problem, which has been explored from a number of divergent
theoretical perspectives. Taking into account the many theory frameworks, the goal of this paper is
to explore biosaline agriculture as a case in sustainable innovation, examining what arguments its
proponents use, and the barriers that have hindered its evolution. The research will be primarily
concerned with organizational, social and institutional aspects of biosaline agriculture, and will not
take a position on its merits as a technology (merits that, in any case, are yet to be established and
agreed on).

Discussion
This section brings together theoretical perspectives on innovation, insights gained from interviews,
and data from secondary sources, and integrates them into a coherent view of innovation in
biosaline agriculture. The main purpose of this chapter is to understand the evolution so far of the
industry, the different visions of its future, and models of its implementation considered by those
involved in it, and their perception of the barriers impeding its development and commercialization,
as well as the various stakeholders who may potentially impact the future of this field.

This task is complicated by the need to draw on theories from disparate fields, which sometimes
overlap and come from different intellectual traditions. Furthermore, the majority of the academic
literature looks at innovations historically, after they have already occurred and with the outcome of
the innovation process already known. This is problematic, because it only deals with big, iconic,
cases of successful innovation such as the light-bulb or Bakelite. Conversely, there has been very
little research on innovations that had potential but never made it, and the case of biosaline
agriculture has yet to play out completely, and may well disappear, and fail to develop, but also may
become an important innovation with widespread impact. Despite the limited scope of this research,
it seeks to provide a snapshot of an innovation developing before its meaning has crystalized (and
therefore coloured any retrospective view of the technology, despite the researcher’s best effort).
Biosaline agriculture has some other interesting features as a case study in sustainable innovation.
Firstly, it seeks to address a number of concerns that relate to the environmental impact of intensive
agriculture, such as increasing soil salinity. It also deals with another key sustainability concern: the
rapid depletion of limited resources, such as water and energy. From an innovation perspective,
biosaline agriculture is a radical innovation requiring significant levels of formal scientific research,
and social learning at the organizational and personal level. Despite being a type of agriculture, it is
also outside the institutional framework of other industries (including agriculture), and does not
have a clearly defined market and therefore needs to create its own economic space (Kenney, 1998).
It is (depending on the model implemented) is comparatively low-tech, has many potential models
and uses, making it highly adaptable to different local contexts, and shares many similarities with
alternative agriculture. Finally, much of the research and experimentation around biosaline
agriculture has become concentrated in arid and semi-arid regions in the developing world, where
the technology is going to be used. This provides a different perspective on innovation processes,
which are normally studied in a developed economy context.

Visions, models and potential

One of the key features of this innovation that emerges from the interviews is the multiplicity of
visions and models for how biosaline agriculture can be used. On one end of the scale, there is the
model of millions of acres of desert turned into productive land by pumping huge amounts of
seawater, using varying combinations of halophytes (particularly Salicornia), and aquaculture
(Hodges, in written response via email, 2011; Hodges, 1993). This huge transformational vision is in
contrast with the much more modest applications of halophytes to deal with small-scale local issues,
such as the creation of artificial mangrove forests in Eritrea, with locally-developed, simple
technologies, to provide local resources (Sato et al., 2005; The Manazar Project, 2011). Within that
range, there are many suggested uses, practices, methods, and halophyte species that are being
promoted or used, and their suggested uses also vary greatly.

For example, Khan (2011) proposes a model by which local researchers in arid countries develop
local halophyte species, gradually domesticating them at a smaller scale. This has been the model
he’s applied in Pakistan, and it has been successful, in terms of the ability to achieve high levels of
biomass production from land that is no longer usable for traditional agriculture, or using saline
water resources. This approach is very different from earlier attempts to use Salicornia in the
coastal regions in Pakistan, whereby large sums were spent on hybrid Salicornia seeds and
equipment. That project did not succeed, since the seeds and equipment had been used in Arizona
and in the Sonoran desert, and therefore were not suited to the Pakistani setting. Khan’s approach is
similar to that of the Manazar project, and it also has a lot in common with the ‘appropriate
technology’ idea that is promoted by the sustainable development movement. It is therefore not
surprising that Practical Action, an NGO originally co-founded by Schumacher, has also been involved
in a project focusing on biosaline agriculture in Sri Lanka, with the goal of dealing with the problems
of sustainability and dependence on fertilizers, pesticides and hybrid seeds that need to be bought
by farmers (Forum for the Future, 2011).

One of the largest operations using halophytes for agriculture was in Jubail in Saudi Arabia, and that
project also experimented with a number of models and uses of biosaline agriculture. It was partly
the result of an initiative by a number of Saudi businessmen who were trying to make advanced
technologies ‘native’ to Saudi Arabia, and chose Salicornia agriculture as an idea to develop locally.
The model followed was more commercially focused, and Dr Bushnak, the main entrepreneur
behind it, established a partnership with a Saudi company producing vegetable oil from imported oil
seed, whose main motivation for backing the project was to find a local source of oil seed. The
project involved a significant degree of learning and incremental innovations, and invented an
automated spray irrigation system using seawater. The spray irrigation system was built in
collaboration with American engineers, but very quickly the local staff developed the necessary
knowledge to run and maintain the system, and expand it when necessary (Bushnak, in interview,
2011). This indicates that biosaline agriculture was seen as an innovation that can use local
resources contribute to appropriate economic development, and technical learning, as well as being
seen as a method of producing food locally for human consumption, and enhancing food security,
while minimizing freshwater use.

However, this view of biosaline agriculture evolved as the project progressed - after 5 years of
increasing yields, the farm was producing two tonnes of seed per hectare. But Bushnak points out
the huge production of plant biomass as the main output. The high biomass productivity, as well as
the partner’s decision to pull out of the project due to the slow growth in oil seed productivity
(Bushnak, in interview, 2011) resulted in a change in perspective, and lead to the Salicornia farm
being seen as a source of plant biomass, some of which is exported to Europe as the sea vegetable,
samphire (the young Salicronia shoots), with the remaining biomass being promoted as fodder.
However, ambivalence of a key stakeholder, the Saudi Ministry of Agriculture, resulted in its refusal
to buy or promote the remaining biomass for use as livestock feed (Bushnak, in interview, 2011).

The Jubail project continued to experiment with other combining Salicornia fields with aquaculture,
as a way of cleaning the environmentally-damaging effluent, while simultaneously producing a
useful products (Bushnak, in interview, 2011), including nutrient-rich seeds that can make up a
substantial portion of the feed required for farmed fish (Belal & Al-Dosari, 1999). This closed-loop
system is one of the models of commercial biosaline agriculture proposed by some of its early
proponents (Glenn et al., 1998; Hodges et al., 1993). Although this project had already accumulated
substantial knowledge, and continued to scale up its production, it failed to secure a market for its
main product – bulk Salicornia biomass – and eventually ran out of funds (Bushnak, in interview,
2011). This type of experimentation and learning is desirable, and constitutes a vital component of
successful innovation, but as this case demonstrates, there is a gap between inception and
commercial viability that is often difficult to bridge.

OceanDesertEnterprises is currently running a commercially successful business growing Salicornia

shoots in Mexico using seawater. The main reason why this model seems viable is the existence of a
market for ‘sea vegetables’, which are considered high-value speciality foods in Europe (Hoek, in
interview, 2011). Although this niche provides an opportunity for biosaline agriculture to develop, it
is really limited and is in stark contrast with the grand visions of making large swathes of desert
green. Hoek believes that visions of large-scale biosaline agriculture are unlikely to materialise. They
would struggle to compete wtih alternative forms of agriculture, such as hydroponics, that have the
advantage of producing food that people are used to eating, and therefore do not require changes in
consumer behaviour, which are very difficult. Furthermore, countries that are likely to invest heavily
in biosaline agriculture, such as the Gulf States, are equally likely, in her view, to invest in large-scale
hydroponics and similar systems (although, it is not clear where the required water would come
from). In terms of using Salicornia as an oil crop, Hoek argues that, its economics have yet to be
proven and that the crop itself has many problems in terms of the seeds falling before harvest and
maturing at different times, and while it has potential the crop has not yet been fully domesticated.

Interestingly, a new view of Salicornia emerges from this interview. Salicornia seeds contain a high
level of Saponins, which were considered a problem by researchers trying to use Salicronia seed
meal as animal feed, describing them as ‘anti-nutrients’. Hoek’s associates in Mexico however, see it
as an opportunity, a potential high value product for the cleaning and pharmaceutical industries, and
are researching Salicornia-derived saponins for this purpose (Hoek, in interview, 2011).

Although the Jubail project did not become commercially viable, Dr Bushnak remains optimistic
about the ability of biosaline agriculture to help solve some of the problems in Saudi Arabia.
However, the choice of model, if starting a biosaline agriculture project now, would be completely
different. Partly as a result of the problems faced by the project, as well as the high cost of coastal
land, a better model would be to use halophytes a component of an integrated approach that may
include aquaculture, tourism, leisure and perhaps botanical gardens or educational projects.
Interestingly, both Taha (2011) and Hoek (2011) suggest that this approach to biosaline agriculture,
namely integrating halophytes into projects that are producing multiple products and services, is
also a promising route to establishing a viable industry.

A further model for the use of biosaline agriculture is landscaping in arid regions, an approach with
fewer institutional barriers than using halophytes for food and is more acceptable (Khan, in
interview, 2011; Hoek, in interview, 2011; Taha, in written response via email, 2011). Hoek (2011)
has reported that this has been used for landscaping using a mix of seawater, wastewater and
greywater in resorts on the Mexican coast. Salt-tolerant grasses have also been used to create lawns
and golf courses in the US and the UAE, using saline water resources and even seawater in some
cases (Khan, in interview, 2011). This opens up interesting possibilities for sustainable tourism and
sustainable landscaping, however, Khan (2011) cautions that using saline water for irrigation
requires a high level of knowledge and skills that have not yet been formalised, and is therefore slow
to diffuse.

An interesting paradox between current work on biosaline agriculture and early research is the
limited interest in halophytes as fodder crops. The fodder crop model was very well researched, and
the 1990s saw much research on the viability of using halophytes to feed livestock. The science
established that biomass and seeds from a range of halophyte species can replace conventional
ingredients to a degree (Glenn et al., 1999; Grattan et al., 2008). Studies examining the inclusion of
halophytes in livestock diets and have shown promising results, although at the cost of increased
water consumption in some cases. The animals put on weight at a lower rate if the proportion of
halophytes in the diet was more than 30%, but below that level the weight gain was the same, or
even superior to a traditional diet. The inclusion of halophyte products in the diet had no negative
impact on the quality of the meat produced, or the animals’ health (Swingle et al., 1996; Kraidees et
al., 1998). This is not surprising, given that ruminants have the ability to consume large amounts of
common halophytes such as Salicornia spp. and Artiplex spp. while grazing, without any ill effects
(Kraidees et al., 1998). The increase in water consumption is an important concern in the
assessment of the sustainability of replacing traditional animal fodder crops with halophytes.
Swingle et al. (1996) argue that the increase in water consumption by animals is much smaller than
the amount of water needed to irrigate fodder crops grown in arid conditions. Salicornia meal (the
high protein seed residue remaining after oil extraction) was explored as a replacement for soya
meal in chicken diets and found to be appropriate for this use, with the need of cholesterol
supplementation (Attia et al., 1997).
While Khan (2011) and Taha (2011) continue to explore halophyte biomass production, market
demand remains limited at this stage. Hoek (2011) has attempted to market Salicornia ‘hay’ as a
component in high-end horse fodder, due to its appropriate mineral composition, but apparently the
barrier in this case was simply that the horses did not like the taste. However, on the less
commercial end of the spectrum the Manazar project attempts to provide fodder to local people at a
small scale, as a side effect of mangrove afforestation, and this has been successful (Sato et al.,
2005).

There are many more potential models for biosaline agriculture, for instance as a source of biofuels
(Hendricks and Bushnell, 2008; Hodges, in written response via email, 2011; Khan, in interview,
2011), or to leach the salts from agricultural land that has become saline due to unsustainable
irrigation practices. The models and ideas around biosaline agriculture are, as shown above, quite
diverse. That said, there are some aspects of biosaline agriculture on which there is broad
agreement among interviewees. For instance, there is general agreement on the need to develop
biosaline agriculture. Water shortages, greater demand for food, the requirement for food security
and progressive increases in the salinity of agricultural land, as well as environmental degradation,
are all put forward as arguments for investing in this area (Khan, in interview, 2011; Hoek, in
interview, 2011; Koyro, in interview, 2011; Bushnak, in interview,2011; Taha, in written response via
email, 2011; Hodges, in written response via email, 2011). Interestingly, the scientists are much
more confident of the inevitability of the growth of biosaline agriculture (Khan, in interview, 2011;
Koyro, in interview, 2011), while business people have a higher degree of caution and a greater
awareness of the barriers and problems involved in achieving commercial viability (Hoek, in
interview, 2011; Bushnak, in interview, 2011). This difference is probably due to their experience in
implementing biosaline agriculture in a commercial setting.

Another point of agreement is the vision of environmental benefits that can result from a wider
adoption of biosaline agriculture, in terms of carbon sequestration, combatting desertification,
improving ecosystem services (Khan, in interview, 2011; Koyro,2011; Hodges, in written response via
email, 2011; Sato, 2005). Khan (2011) goes as far as arguing that even if there are no useful products
as a result of biosaline agriculture, the environmental benefits alone make it worth investing in.

This broad range of views on the nature of biosaline agriculture at this stage is well aligned with the
evolutionary nature of innovation, suggested by neo-Schumpeterians. Moreover, the different
versions of biosaline agriculture, represented by the variety of views on what it is, and how it may
work, matches Bijker’s (1989) view on the social construction of technologies, and the concept of
interpretive flexibility is particularly relevant here. Biosaline agriculture appears to still be in the
midst of a process variety creation, which is socially mediated with different groups of stakeholders
attributing different meanings to the innovation, and what it can evolve into.

It is impossible what this process of evolution would lead to, but it is likely that, if biosaline
agriculture is to succeed, am incremental process of stabilization will have to occur resulting in some
subset of the many models gradually gaining legitimacy, establishing institutional frameworks, and
persuading stakeholders of its benefits and economic viability. However, the different models of
biosaline agriculture are not necessarily competing, and different models are likely to be suitable in
different social, economic and ecological contexts. The low-tech approach of the Manazar Project is
viable in rural Eritrea, but is unlikely to succeed in Mexico or the US, while Salicornia crops
developed in Arizona have been difficult to establish in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia (Khan, in interview,
2011; Taha, in written response via email, 2011).

Legitimacy and perceptions

As previously discussed, legitimacy is a vital resource for a new venture or a new industry,
particularly as it acts as a catalyst for the acquisition of other resources such as investment,
government support and skilled staff (Aldrich & Fiol, 1994; Zimmerman & Zeitz, 2002). In the case of
biosaline agriculture, an approach radically different from what many stakeholders are accustomed
to, establishing legitimacy is a significant challenge. For instance, biosaline agriculture was initially
seen as a crazy idea, particularly by farmers, who are constantly trying to do the opposite, namely
reducing salinity in the soil using fresh water. This attitude has changed slowly as a result of the
growing awareness of salinity, water shortages and climate change (Hoek, in interview, 2011). Taha
(2011) also argues that the issues of salinity and water have come to be taken very seriously by
policy makers in countries like the UAE, Qatar and Oman, attracting increasing interest and funding.
This has been a positive development for biosaline agriculture and enhanced its perception among
policy makers. Khan (2011, in interview) describes a similar process in Pakistan driven by the
disastrous increases in salinity in coastal areas and an increased interest in funding local scientific
research.

Although negative perceptions are an issue, biosaline agriculture has only received limited media
coverage, and there is very little awareness of it, something that is in itself a challenge (Koyro, in
interview, 2011). The little press coverage that there is has been largely positive. For example, the
BBC and the Los Angeles Times both published articles covering biosaline agriculture in 2008, most
likely coinciding with the spike in food and energy prices which occurred in 2008. The coverage of
biosaline agriculture in these cases focused on the people involved, and a vague assessment of its
long-term. The treatment of the subject is uncritical with a limited discussion of the extensive
challenges facing the realization of this vision (Dickerson, 2008; Siddle, 2008). Gulf News in the UAE
also covered the use of seawater for irrigation, focusing mainly on local projects run by ICBA and
provides a more detailed and up-to-date account of its work (Landais, 2010).

Media accounts of biosaline agriculture discuss water scarcity, and to a lesser extent, rising salinity
levels in agricultural land, as well as climate change and its consequences. In terms of the benefits of
Halophytes, they echo the key arguments put forward by the small group of scientists who are
promoting halophyte-based agriculture, namely, the production of fodder, vegetable oil, and the
environmental benefits of greening coastal deserts. A more recent addition to the list is of
arguments is the production of biofuels (Dickerson, 2008; Siddle, 2008).

The positive nature of media coverage indicates that the novelty of this type of agriculture may be
an advantage if there are any commercial successes in the future. Furthermore the impression of
sustainability and innovativeness may become a significant source of goodwill, increasing the
chances of public acceptance. The sustainability credentials of biosaline agriculture are particularly
important, but only for a subset of stakeholders. While environmental sustainability has been only a
minor concern, so far, from the commercial perspective (Bushnak, in interview, 2011) it is becoming
increasingly important as a source of legitimacy (Hodges, in written response via email, 2011) and as
a prerequisite for accessing certain types of funding and support from international organizations
and governments (Taha, in written response via email, 2011).

Although public awareness biosaline agriculture remains very limited, there is a very active
community of academics and researchers who believe that the science supports using halophytes for
agriculture (Khan, in interview, 2011; Koyro, in interview, 2011; Taha, in written response via email,
2011; Hoek, in interview, 2011) and number of projects globally that are trying to make it more
prevalent. The community that has developed around biosaline agriculture is another important
source of legitimacy for the burgeoning industry (Koyro, in interview, 2011; Khan, in interview, 2011;
Bushnak, in interview, 2011). The international nature of this network is also important, for instance
Koyro (2011) mentions as an example how Dr Khan helped him legitimize one of his projects to
German NGOs, since Dr Khan (2011) was based in a developing country and therefore had greater
legitimacy in their eyes. Yet, in the interview with Dr Khan, he discusses how his collaboration with
Dr Koyro, and other European scientists, has helped establish the legitimacy of his institute in the
eyes of local Pakistani stakeholders.

The message of growing crops with seawater and coastal deserts (although only a small part of the
story) is a compelling communications message, with Salicronia in particular being an attractive
‘poster plant’ (Hoek, in interview, 2011). However, Salicornia also has an image problem as a result
of the push to market seed and equipment at the early stages of the markets evolution, before the
plant was fully domesticated, and before all the challenges involved in growing it using seawater in
different environments had been established. This resulted in very high initial expectations that
were not met, resulting in a relative loss of legitimacy that still has a negative impact on biosaline
agriculture as a whole (Khan, in interview, 2011; Koyro, in interview, 2011; Hoek, in interview, 2011).

Moreover, the companies marketing Salicornia hybrids and equipment attempted to spread a
standardized, centrally researched model based on large-scale Salicornia agriculture, a model that
was neither ready for deployment, nor seen as appropriate by key local. This approach was
problematic and its top-down nature made it more difficult to do apply the gradual and
decentralized learning process that is necessary for the evolution of biosaline agriculture
stakeholders (Hoek, in interview, 2011; Khan, in interview, 2011). Hoek advocates a more realistic
approach with small diverse investments, and an emphasis on incremental innovation, or ‘bricolage’.
Interestingly, this view parallels that in a study by Garud & Karnøe (2003) comparing the attitudes to
innovation in the American and Danish wind turbine industries. American firms invested large sums
into centralized research facilities searching for a big breakthrough, while their Danish counterparts
made continual small improvement, quickly tested them with customers and then shared them with
their competitors. It also resembles the approach adopted by the Dutch government with regards to
energy and agricultural innovation policies (Nil & Kemp, 2009; Hoek, in interview, 2011).

Barriers to the development of biosaline agriculture

With regards to barriers to the progress of biosaline agriculture, interviews (Khan, in interview,
2011; Koyro, in interview, 2011) and written responses (Hodges, in written response via email, 2011;
Taha, in written response via email, 2011) from scientists, as well as some of the published articles
(Grattan et al., 2008; Glenn et al., 1999) all express similar sentiments, namely that the science
behind biosaline agriculture is convincing, but that social, economic, political and organizational
barriers and inertia are behind the lack of progress. This sentiment is coupled with a degree of
frustration and an inability to understand why biosaline agriculture has not been applied more
widely (Koyro, in interview, 2011; Hodges, in written response via email, 2011). Furthermore, there
is a difficulty in communicating the science to policy-makers and business people, and vice versa,
creating a gap between the scientists’ understanding of biosaline agriculture as a business, and
policy makers’ understanding of the science behind biosaline agriculture. The scientists themselves
are reluctant to get involved commercializing this innovation, and consider this to be the role of
business people and entrepreneurs (Khan, in interview, 2011; Koyro, 2001).
Theories on innovation and technology development have highlighted the role of the entrepreneur,
or the system builder, in bringing together the knowledge and physical resources required to achieve
successful innovations. One of the barriers limiting the field of biosaline agriculture seems to be a
shortage in such entrepreneurs, who are capable of understanding the science, but also the social,
institutional and market factors, as well as the complexity and ambiguity of sustainability as a
business objective. Bushnak (2011) and Hoek (2011) are entrepreneurs, and have a different
understanding of biosaline agriculture that is, while still optimistic, more aware of the scale of the
challenge beyond the science – the role of learning and the creation of new tacit knowledge across
the system, the creation of new markets, establishing legitimacy, and building an institutional
framework that supports the industry.

Kenney (1998) ads an empirical perspective on what he refers to as the creation of a new economic
space by innovators who are acting to create a new industry. His study of the early years of the
biotechnology sector in the US highlights the unique combination venture capital support, university
research and a culture of entrepreneurship around Boston and San Francisco. These factors made it
possible for a new economic space to emerge. Khan (2011) cited many the lack of venture capital
and a limited culture of entrepreneurship as the main reasons why the development of local
biosaline agriculture in Pakistan has stalled, despite solid science and promising advances in
productivity, as well as government support. Although such limited cases cannot be generalised, the
geographical proximity of venture capital and a culture that encourages and respects
entrepreneurship seem vital for the commercialization of innovations in general, and that market-
based mechanisms such as tax incentives are effective in directing investment to environmentally
desirable technologies (Bürer & Wüstenhagen, 2009).

A particularly important structural barrier to biosaline agriculture is the fact that it is outside of
existing institutional frameworks, and has yet to develop legal, organizational and financial
templates that are present in established industries. This outsider status makes it difficult to access
existing support mechanisms that cater for conventional agriculture, or other similar industries
(Hoek, in interview, 2011). For example OceanDesertEnterprises’ project in Mexico struggles to get
certification for its products, and struggles to export them outside of Mexico through the US. The
project is also unable to access agricultural subsidies in Mexico, because it does not fit into the
definition of agriculture under the local rules (Hoek, in interview, 2011).

Funding is problematic for any radical innovation – a new venture is often expected to provide
evidence of the feasibility and commercial viability of the proposed innovation before it is granted
funding. By definition this is not possible in the context of a new industry, with no track record
creating a gap in the possibility of getting funding due to the high level of uncertainty and risk (Hoek,
in interview, 2011; Khan, in interview, 2011; Bürer & Wüstenhagen, 2009). OceanDesertEnterprises
has received some R&D support from the Dutch government, but this funding has been very limited
and only provided short-term funding, while a much longer time scale would be required to move
from the initial stages of innovation to the creation of a commercially viable product – for instance
the process of fully domesticating Salicronia and turning it into a reliable oil crop is a 10-year process
(Hoek, in interview, 2011).

Ambivalent government attitudes are a further challenge to biosaline agriculture. Apart from the
lack of funding in most cases, agricultural production is often subsidised, which results in making in
making biosaline agricultural methods less competitive by comparison. For instance, the market
demand for samphire (Salicornia shoots) in Europe should benefit biosaline agriculture, Israeli
producers are able to compete with OceanDesertEnterprises by adding salt to subsidised fresh
water, while growing Salicronia on arable land that (Hoek, in interview, 2011).

Government support for biosaline agriculture need not be costly to, but governments have been
slow to provide assistance by using procurement policies, or including biosaline agriculture in their
legal or institutional frameworks (Hoek, in interview, 2011; Khan, in interview, 2011; Koyro, in
interview, 2011). However, there are signs that countries with water shortages and salinity
problems, such as the UAE, Oman, Saudi Arabia (Taha, in written response via email, 2011) and
Pakistan (Khan, in interview, 2011) are investing more in this area. This investment, even if small in
monetary terms, is likely to confer more legitimacy on the industry, and provide it with more scope
for experimentation and learning, which are necessary for it to evolve and mature.

Finally, borrowing from the systems of innovation perspective, it is important to reiterate the
interdependence the factors impacting the evolution of biosaline agriculture. The different barriers
to greater investment in this area mutually influence each other, and are dynamic and constantly
changing. While this makes it much more challenging to understand how innovation can be
supported, it also implies the presence of feedback loops that would enable a new industry to
quickly establish itself independently once it reaches certain thresholds of legitimacy, finance,
knowledge and other resources, enabling it to acquire more resources. This is not unusual – long
incubation periods are not uncommon in new industries, while they acquire resources and engage in
organizational learning, seemingly without any results, only to start a period of growth after several
decades (Jacobsson & Bergek, 2004 ).
Conclusion
Biosaline agriculture is radical innovation centred on the idea of using halophytes, salt-loving plants,
as a basis for a new agricultural model. Its proponents argue that biosaline agriculture can use saline
water and marginal land to produce new crops, providing and ambitious vision of large swathes of
desert turned into green productive landscapes using nothing but seawater and human ingenuity
(and a few key halophyte species, of course). There are still many models of how it can work, but
they all argue for its sustainability benefits, in terms of taking pressure of dwindling freshwater
resources, sequestering carbon and producing food and biofuel sustainably. Given the abundance of
seawater and coastal deserts, the exploitation of halophytes for agricultural and environmental
purposes is perceived as logical and obvious by scientists involved in this field. Yet, like many radical
innovations, biosaline agriculture has faced many barriers to its evolution. There are technical issues
to resolve, but the most important barriers have been social, economic and organizational.

The purpose of studying biosaline agriculture is to describe the evolution of an idea, and how it
evolves as it is applied in the real world, as well as examine the perceived barriers to its
development. Innovation has been central to economic growth and improvements in global
standards of living, albeit at a great environmental cost. On the other hand, it has also historically
helped humanity overcome seemingly insurmountable resource constraints and avert neo-
Malthusian disasters so far. It has also been an important mechanism for adaptation to new
environmental regulations and requirements, at much lower cost than static economic calculations
suggested.

Environmental degradation, climate change, and worries about the availability of key resources are
putting pressure on the current techno-economic paradigm. Yet, a transition to sustainability will
have to overcome many difficulties, including the reluctance to pay the perceived cost of
sustainability. Encouraging the right kind of innovation may result in the emergence of more
sustainable technologies and technological systems, eventually shifting the current technological
trajectory (according to the Dosi, Nelson and Winter model). Many are counting on innovation to
provide technological solutions that will allow for more sustainable production and consumption,
without having to make sacrifices in terms of economic growth or standards of living.

Theories of innovation and technological development demonstrate the complex, dynamic,

evolutionary nature of the process, and emphasize the impossibility of knowing the outcomes a
priori. Policy interventions are likely to have unforeseen consequences, solving one environmental
problem but perhaps causing another. Sartorius (2006) argues for solving this conundrum by
learning to apply ‘second-order sustainability’ – the ability to recognize technological paths that are
more sustainable and move towards them dynamically and continuously.

While insights from the limited empirical research on biosaline agriculture cannot be generalized
beyond this case, some are relevant to policy and consistent with theory. For instance, as the initial
ideas of biosaline agriculture started being applied in new contexts, many interpretations of what it
means and how it can be applied have proliferated. Furthermore, real-world attempts to
commercialize biosaline agriculture led to a process of organizational learning that involved many
stakeholders and went beyond simply applying the science. This process of learning by doing,
exploring, and allowing markets and institutions to co-evolve with and accommodate an innovation
is an essential part of success, but is also a long-term process fraught with uncertainties.

Experimentation and learning are risky and costly and requires support from venture investing,
which is rare in many of the countries where biosaline agriculture is appropriate. This lack of venture
capital means that risky projects with uncertain outcomes are unlikely to attract private investment.
Legitimacy is also another important factor that has negatively impacted the development of
biosaline agriculture – Salicornia oil seed production was marketed before it was fully domesticated,
resulting in a few unsuccessful attempts of commercialization, resulting in a loss of legitimacy that
made it difficult to attract investments. Furthermore, the lack of institutional and regulatory
frameworks for new industries has also been a serious challenge to attempts to commercialize
biosaline agriculture. Finally, the need for entrepreneurs, or heterogeneous engineers, is another
limitation. The interviews showed that some of the scientists involved feel they cannot market
biosaline agriculture and make it into a commercial success. Entrepreneurs who can work across
many disciplines and build legitimacy, institutions and networks of support have been vital to the
development of new industries and complex socio-technical systems, and the same may be
applicable in this case.

Desirable as it may be, encouraging the right kind of innovation is not an easy task, with many
challenging questions to resolve. When should governments intervene? What is the best way to
encourage innovation? How does a policy-maker decide which innovations to support? How can we
assess the sustainability potential of an innovation? When should the support be withdrawn? Are
these resources best used elsewhere? This research does not seek to provide answers to these
questions; merely to survey theoretical tools and empirical insights that can elucidate whether they
can be answered and how.
Although it is doubtful that there are any recipes for supporting innovation, some of the barriers
discussed above can be addressed through policy. Firstly, creating spaces for experimentation and
learning, as well as niche markets for evolving technologies may help deal with the evolutionary
nature of innovation and allow radical innovations to develop. Fostering a local culture of venture
capital and entrepreneurship can also remove many of the barriers to radical innovation without
direct government control, as well as generating locally-appropriate innovations. Having flexible and
responsive institutions and regulatory frameworks with the aim of accommodating innovations more
easily as they arise is also likely to remove an important barrier to the diffusion of innovations, as
well as making them seem more legitimate.

Innovation is a social process that operates on many levels and involves many dynamic interactions;
this makes it challenging to study and to theorise, which has led to its treatment as a ‘black box’ in
many contexts. The attempts to open this black box are an important development in the study of
innovation, but as the review of theory demonstrates, this task is far from being finished and there is
a need to reconcile many disparate research traditions into a coherent picture.

Additionally, there is a difficulty in studying the process of innovation empirically, and many of the
existing work has focused on historical studies of the evolution of innovations, systems and
industries which we know have succeeded, leaving out the majority of attempts to innovate that do
not succeed. An interesting direction of research would be to conduct more research into
innovations as they evolve, or to compare successful and unsuccessful innovations while avoiding
the circular logic of using success to explain why one innovation took hold and others did not (Bijker
et al., 1989).

Finally, a clearer characterisation of the relationship between innovation and sustainability would be
a valuable addition to this field of research. This may include theoretical work on defining
sustainable innovations, and exploring ways of (in line with the evolutionary metaphor) changing the
selection environment so that it favours variations that are more environmentally sustainable. It
may also take the direction of empirical work on the impact of policies aimed at encouraging
sustainable innovation.