Managing Sustainable Transitions: Institutional Innovations from India
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Sustainable Transitions in Agriculture
1.2. Research Method
2. Case 1: Encouraging Community-Supported Agriculture through Urban Farming Initiatives
2.1. Urban Farming as a Civic-Ecology Initiative
2.2. A Community Farm in Mumbai
2.3. From Growing Food to Supporting Local Farmers
2.4. Evolving Networks of Trust and Active Self-Organisation Capacity
3. Case 2: Enabling Conscious Consumerism in Semi-Urban Gujarat
3.1. COVID-Induced Disruption in Delivery and Supply
3.2. Leveraging Social Connections to Build a Local Customer Base
3.3. Conscious Consumerism Post-COVID
4. Case 3: Collective Experimentation to Promote Climate-Resilient Farming in a Drought-Prone District of India
4.1. Transitioning towards Sustainable Production
4.2. Building a Robust Form of Peer Validation–The Participatory Guarantee System
4.3. Social Innovations for Sustainable Transitions
5. Managing Sustainable Transitions
6. Seeding Sustainable Transitions—What Is the Way forward?
- Explicit focus on socio-ecological dimensions: There is mounting evidence that production and consumption patterns can no longer be understood along purely economic or price rationale lines, ignoring the ecological repercussions or social conditions of producers. India had 23 major droughts between 1871 to 2002; droughts have been more frequent ever since—roughly one every four years. Over 1000 incidents of crop losses due to unseasonal weather have been reported since 2015 [5]. An increasing number of smallholder producers are driven to starvation and suicide. Input-centred agricultural practices have severely stressed ground water availability and soil fertility, making many farmers dependent on barren and uncultivable lands for survival. Consumers need to look beyond economic growth models and explore the systemic relations of food systems that link ecological sustainability and human equity.
- Building agency and changing relations are key to managing sustainable transitions: Beyond a plethora of technical solutions, there is a greater need for institutional reform to align organisations towards the objectives (a commitment to shift dominant paradigms of food production) of sustainable transitions. As the cases illustrate, and as articulated in recent discussions on equitable livelihoods and food systems [59], a key element is to build the agency of both producers and consumers and changing existing relations that are iniquitous, power-imbalanced, and ecologically unsustainable. Collective experimentation at a grassroots level, through mechanisms that change the relations between producers and consumers, is key for sustainable consumption.
- Institutional innovations to break path-dependence: The cases also highlight innovative ways through which a shared understanding of socio-ecological interactions is supported. The role of informal institutions in building capacities to enable newer forms of interaction and learning is often undervalued, and change is often a non-linear, iterative process involving multiple knowledge bases. The path-dependence of the dominant systems can be altered through relevant triggers (such as COVID-19, the global financial crisis, peak-oil in Cuba, Arab Spring) and collaborations that address multiple issues simultaneously. These collaborations create new systemic opportunities through a recombination of pre-existing and novel ideas [60]. In the Indian agrarian context, while there is a broad consensus regarding the aim of sustainable food systems, there is less understanding on processes that could enable sustainable transitions. This would require the active unlearning of older paradigms, be it chemical farming or yield-focussed agricultural practices. While existing organisations of agricultural research are often technologically locked into old approaches, new knowledge and experiments in sustainable transition often exist outside formal institutions and state-led extension services, among diverse practitioners and networks. Enabling knowledge dialogues between the powerful formal and dispersed informal requires a greater focus on the software of policymaking, the skills in managing change in large systems, and the ability to create learning platforms among multiple actors and stakeholders. There is currently a deficit of such institutional spaces and skills to piece together the fragmented knowledge existing across development organisations, practitioners, formal institutions, and policy makers. For instance, a recent special programme for the promotion of millets in tribal areas of Odisha (Odisha Millets Mission), launched by the Governement of the eastern state of Odisha in 2017, to revive millets in farms and on the plate, brought together academics and civil society organisations to work with farmers to encourage the production of millets [61]. The efforts have improved the livelihood of farmers and supported the demand for climate-resilient crops.
- A bricolage approach to scalability: The trajectories of the transitions set into motion by game-changers are not pre-determined routes or destinations. Instead, they are manifested in many different, simultaneous initiatives interacting with each other in unpredictable, emergent ways. These forms of collective experimentation are interesting, as they allow for the redistribution and contextualisation of innovative practices, such as self-help groups, local governance structures, stewardship of commons, and so on. The diverse forms of representation are not amenable to conventional ideas of scalability that assume the context-independent replicability of elements and relationships. Instead, transformative actions and relationships require attention to the historical contingency and particularities of a place, much like the multi-crop patterns used in agroecology. Social innovations can grow in the form of forests, diverse and connected, rather than plantations, controlled and bereft of the qualities that enabled them in the first place. The challenge and opportunity for these innovations is to identify practical points of entry into mainstream practices.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- IPBES. Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondízio, E.S., Ngo, H.T., Guèze, M., Agard, J., Arneth, A., Balvanera, P., Brauman, K.A., Butchart, S.H.M., et al., Eds.; IPBES Secretariat: Bonn, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Dasgupta, P. The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review; HM Treasury: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Ehrlich, P.R.; Harte, J. Opinion: To feed the world in 2050 will require a global revolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 14743–14744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Lal, R. Regenerative agriculture for food and climate. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2020, 75, 123A–124A. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sangloma, A. Looking Back: How Did Climate Change Alter the World This Year? 2020. Available online: https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/climate-change/looking-back-how-did-climate-change-alter-the-world-this-year--74648 (accessed on 1 March 2021).
- Heimlich, J.E.; Ardoin, N.M. Understanding behavior to understand behavior change: A literature review. Environ. Educ. Res. 2008, 14, 215–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agarwal, N. Inequality in India: What’s the Real Story? 2016. Available online: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/10/inequality-in-india-oxfam-explainer/ (accessed on 1 March 2021).
- Bhaduri, A. The Face You Were Afraid to See: Essays on the Indian Economy; Penguin Books India: New Delhi, India, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Warlenius, R.; Pierce, G.; Ramasar, V. Reversing the arrow of arrears: The concept of “ecological debt” and its value for environmental justice. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2015, 30, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UN Food Systems Summit. Action Track 4—Advancing Equitable Livelihoods. 2021. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit/action-tracks (accessed on 30 March 2021).
- Altieri, M.A.; Nicholls, C.I. Agroecology and the reconstruction of a post-COVID-19 agriculture. J. Peasant Stud. 2020, 47, 881–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avelino, F.; Wittmayer, J.; Haxeltine, A.; Kemp, R.; O’Riordan, T.; Weaver, P.; Loorbach, D.; Rotmans, J. Game-changers and transformative social innovation. The case of the economic crisis and the new economy. TRANSIT Working Paper 2014, 1, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
- Prasad, S.C. Innovating at the margins: The System of Rice Intensification in India and transformative social innovation. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Köhler, J.; Geels, F.W.; Kern, F.; Markard, J.; Onsongo, E.; Wieczorek, A.; Alkemade, F.; Avelino, F.; Bergek, A.; Boons, F.; et al. An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2019, 31, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Bijker, W.E. The Social Construction of Bakelite: Toward a Theory of Invention; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1987; pp. 159–187. [Google Scholar]
- Kemp, R.; Schot, J.J.; Hoogma, R. Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technol. Anal. Strat. Manag. 1998, 10, 175–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vanloqueren, G.; Baret, P.V. How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations. Res. Policy 2009, 38, 971–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuenfschilling, L.; Truffer, B. The structuration of socio-technical regimes—Conceptual foundations from institutional theory. Res. Policy 2014, 43, 772–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geels, F.W. Regime Resistance against Low-Carbon Transitions: Introducing Politics and Power into the Multi-Level Perspective. Theory Cult. Soc. 2014, 31, 21–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Batterink, M.H.; Wubben, E.F.; Klerkx, L.; Omta, S.W.F. Orchestrating innovation networks: The case of innovation brokers in the agri-food sector. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2010, 22, 47–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Metelerkamp, L.; Biggs, R.; Drimie, S. Learning for transitions: A niche perspective. Ecol. Soc. 2020, 25, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shove, E.; Walker, G. Caution! Transitions Ahead: Politics, Practice, and Sustainable Transition Management. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 2007, 39, 763–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Gerber, J.-F.; Raina, R.S. Post-Growth in the Global South? Some Reflections from India and Bhutan. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 150, 353–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Priyadarshini, P.; Abhilash, P.C. Policy recommendations for enabling transition towards sustainable agriculture in India. Land Use Policy 2020, 96, 104718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kassam, A.; Kassam, L. Paradigms of agriculture. In Rethinking Food and Agriculture; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2021; pp. 181–218. [Google Scholar]
- Kilelu, C.W.; Klerkx, L.; Leeuwis, C.; Hall, A. Beyond knowledge brokering: An exploratory study on innovation intermediaries in an evolving smallholder agricultural system in Kenya. Knowl. Manag. Dev. J. 2011, 7, 84–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holt Giménez, E.; Shattuck, A. Food crises, food regimes and food movements: Rumblings of reform or tides of transformation? J. Peasant. Stud. 2011, 38, 109–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loorbach, D.; Rotmans, J. Managing Transitions for Sustainable Development. In Environment & Policy; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006; Volume 44, pp. 187–206. [Google Scholar]
- Livelihoods India. SOIL State of India’s Livelihood Report; Mahajan,, V., Ed.; Access Development Services: New Delhi, India, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Jorgensen, D.L. Participant observation. In Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Clark, A.; Holland, C.; Katz, J.; Peace, S. Learning to see: Lessons from a participatory observation research project in public spaces. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2009, 12, 345–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Creswell, J.W.; Creswell, J.D. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Crabtree, B.F.; Miller, W.L.; Swenson, M.M. Doing Qualitative Research. Nurs. Res. 1995, 44, 254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lather, P. Critical frames in educational research: Feminist and post-structural perspectives. Theory Pract. 1992, 31, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robottom, I.M.; Hart, E.P. Research in Environmental Education: Engaging the Debate; Deakin University: Geelong, Australia, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Clarke, V.; Braun, V. Thematic Analysis. In Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 1947–1952. [Google Scholar]
- Parnell, S.; Elmqvist, T.; McPhearson, T.; Nagendra, H.; Sörlin, S. Introduction: Situating knowledge and action for an urban planet. In The Urban Planet: Knowledge towards Sustainable Cities; Elmqvist, T., Bai, X., Frantzeskaki, N., Griffith, C., Maddox, D., McPhearson, T., Parnell, S., Romero-Lankao, P., Simon, D., Watkins, M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2018; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
- Mougeot, L.J. Growing Better Cities: Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Development; IDRC: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Berry, W. The Pleasures of Eating. In What Are People For? North Point Press: New York, NY, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Okvat, H.A.; Zautra, A.J. Community gardening: A parsimonious path to individual, community, and environmental resilience. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2011, 47, 374–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Poulsen, M.N.; Neff, R.A.; Winch, P.J. The multifunctionality of urban farming: Perceived benefits for neighbourhood improvement. Local Environ. 2017, 22, 1411–1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suma, T.R.; Großmann, K. Exclusions in inclusive programs: State-sponsored sustainable development initiatives amongst the Kurichya in Kerala, India. Agric. Hum. Values 2017, 34, 995–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frazier, C. “Grow what you eat, eat what you grow”: Urban agriculture as middle class intervention in India. J. Political Ecol. 2018, 25, 221–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Dutta, D.; Chandrasekharan, S. Doing to being: Farming actions in a community coalesce into pro-environment motivations and values. Environ. Educ. Res. 2017, 24, 1192–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prasad, C.S. Farming as an Enterprise: Ten years of FPO Movement in India. In State of India’s Livelihood Report; Access Development Services: New Delhi, India, 2019; pp. 37–48. [Google Scholar]
- Ravichandran, V.; Vani, A. Conscious Consumerism-Institutions of India’s Milk Capital Enable FPO Sell Mangoes During Lockdown. 2020. Available online: https://www.smallfarmincomes.in/post/conscious-consumerism-institutions-of-india-s-milk-capital-enable-fpo-sell-mangoes-during-lockdown (accessed on 1 March 2021).
- Kumar, R.; Agrawal, N.K.; Vijayshankar, P.S.; Vasavi, A.R. State of Rural and Agrarian India Report; Network of Rural and Agrarian Studies: Delhi, India, 2020; p. 78. [Google Scholar]
- Prasad, C.S. Constructing Alternative Socio-technical Worlds: Re-imagining RRI through SRI in India. Sci. Technol. Soc. 2020, 25, 291–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tyagi, B.B.; Kumar, R. The Future of Farming: To What End and For What Purpose? Sci. Technol. Soc. 2020, 25, 256–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ganguly, C.K. Putting people at the centre of development. Rural 21 2018, 52, 17–19. [Google Scholar]
- Home, R.; Bouagnimbeck, H.; Ugas, R.; Arbenz, M.; Stolze, M. Participatory guarantee systems: Organic certification to empower farmers and strengthen communities. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2017, 41, 526–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Gupta, A. Participatory guarantee systems: The case of smallholders in Indian markets. In Innovative Markets for Sustainable Agriculture: How Innovations in Market Institutions Encourage Sustainable Agriculture in Developing Countries; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2016; pp. 113–136. [Google Scholar]
- Kumar, C.A.V.S.; Prasad, C.S. Social Innovations in Organic Foods in Rainfed India: The Case of Dharani FaM Coop Ltd. In Cooperatives and Social Innovation; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 165–182. [Google Scholar]
- Hendrickson, M.K. Resilience in a concentrated and consolidated food system. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2015, 5, 418–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schut, M.; van Asten, P.; Okafor, C.; Hicintuka, C.; Mapatano, S.; Nabahungu, N.L.; Kagabo, D.; Muchunguzi, P.; Njukwe, E.; Dontsop-Nguezet, P.M.; et al. Sustainable intensification of agricultural systems in the Central African Highlands: The need for institutional innovation. Agric. Syst. 2016, 145, 165–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Date, G.; Dutta, D.; Chandrasekharan, S. Solving for Pattern: An Ecological Approach to Reshape the Human Building Instinct. Environ. Values 2021, 30, 65–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Westley, F.; Antadze, N. Making a difference: Strategies for scaling social innovation for greater impact. Innov. J. 2010, 15, 2. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, A.; Stirling, A. The Politics of Social-ecological Resilience and Sustainable Socio-technical Transitions. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joshi, S. There’s a Third Alternative to Redefine Agri Markets. 2021. Available online: https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/web-edits/theres-a-third-alternative-to-redefine-agri-markets-7140607/ (accessed on 24 February 2021).
- Chambers, R. Knowledge systems for inclusively responsible food and agriculture. In Rethinking Food and Agriculture; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2021; pp. 353–369. [Google Scholar]
Case | Dream Grove Community Farm | GujPro Mango Delivery | Dharani FaM Coop |
---|---|---|---|
Elements | Farm Plot, compost, food crops, seeds | Farmer Producer Organisations (FPOs), locked-in consumers, ready produce | Drought-resistant crops, organic farming, organic retail |
Transition Pathway | Passive consumers to critically engaged participants | Locked-in to conscious consumerism | From input-centric agriculture to organic farming |
Extent | 15–20 farm volunteers, 50–60 WhatsApp members | 130 consumers, 6 volunteers, 329 boxes (10 kgs) of mangoes sold | 2072 orders, 617 tonnes of organic produce from 462 farmers, Sales of Rs 50 million |
Building agency though institutional innovation | Social learning of consumers through experiments facilitated by core volunteers | Consumers minimising risk for producer collectives through pre-orders rather than cash on delivery | Producers facilitated into organic through brindams, Trust of consumers through PGS; and newer models of ethical investing |
Mechanisms for changed relations | Peer feedback and active social platforms | Social capital of producer collective networks; leveraging the sustained demand in the following year | Synergy of networks of women SHG groups; Brindams (Farmer Field Schools) and organic farming (national and international) |
Challenges in transforming structures | Motivating continued support from consumers to buy directly from farmers | Competing with cheaper (but ecologically harmful) alternatives, sustaining, and increasing scale of newer channels | Expanding organic procurement from more members, diversifying cropping patterns away from groundnut |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chebrolu, S.P.; Dutta, D. Managing Sustainable Transitions: Institutional Innovations from India. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6076. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116076
Chebrolu SP, Dutta D. Managing Sustainable Transitions: Institutional Innovations from India. Sustainability. 2021; 13(11):6076. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116076
Chicago/Turabian StyleChebrolu, Shambu Prasad, and Deborah Dutta. 2021. "Managing Sustainable Transitions: Institutional Innovations from India" Sustainability 13, no. 11: 6076. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116076