The role of institutions in food system transformations: lessons learned from transdisciplinary engagements in Ethiopia, the Philippines, and Indonesia

Aisa O. Manlosa; Stefan Partelow; Tolera Senbeto Jiren; Maraja Riechers; Adiska Octa Paramita

doi:10.1080/26395916.2022.2146753

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

DeepDyve requires Javascript to function. Please enable Javascript on your browser to continue.

The role of institutions in food system transformations: lessons learned from transdisciplinary engagements in Ethiopia, the Philippines, and Indonesia

Manlosa, Aisa O.; Partelow, Stefan; Jiren, Tolera Senbeto; Riechers, Maraja; Paramita, Adiska Octa 2023-12-31 00:00:00 ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 2023, VOL. 19, NO. 1, 2146753 https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2146753 RESEARCH The role of institutions in food system transformations: lessons learned from transdisciplinary engagements in Ethiopia, the Philippines, and Indonesia a,b a c c Aisa O. Manlosa , Stefan Partelow , Tolera Senbeto Jiren , Maraja Riechers and Adiska Octa Paramita a b Social Sciences Department, Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT), Bremen, Germany; Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs - Leiden University College The Hague, Leiden University, Netherlands; Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Received 1 June 2022 In many parts of the Global South, food systems are confronted with complex sustainability Accepted 25 October 2022 challenges including high levels of poverty, food insecurity, malnutrition, disempowerment, and degraded environments. Transformation is broadly discussed in research, policy, and EDITED BY planning as the systemic change required to address complex sustainability issues. Nadia Sitas Transformation of food systems has become a global priority for research and action. KEYWORDS However, transformation processes are not neutral, but are associated with losses and Cooperation; community; gains that are unevenly distributed. Institutions play an important role in relation to how food security; rules; society; transformation of food systems occur and with what outcomes. Empirical understandings of sustainability how institutions can influence transformation processes in a way that avoids risks or the so- called dark side of transformation are needed. This article aims to contribute towards under- standing the roles that institutions play in transformation processes in the context of Global South food systems through synthesising insights from transdisciplinary case studies. The three case studies include multi-purpose cooperative institutions in farming areas in south- west Ethiopia, fisherfolk organisations in aquatic food-producing areas in northern Philippines, and Gotong Royong for irrigation canal management for pond aquaculture in Indonesia. The article examines whether and how institutions advance inclusion and partici- pation in food systems, and whether institutions enable or constrain food system actors in mitigating or avoiding transformation risks. The paper reflects on the role of community-level institutions and hybrid governance arrangements, and the interplay of structure and agency in transformation processes. domain of sustainability science, it is by no means Introduction a new phenomenon in our collective global history. The Transforming food systems to realise human health and unsustainable trajectory that humanity is currently on, is well-being, while ensuring ecological integrity has an outcome of transformation processes that were set become a global priority for research and action (Béné into motion long before the present generation, but et al. 2019, 2020; Hainzelin et al. 2021). This is particularly were accelerated during our lifetime (Steffen et al. 2018). urgent in the context of the Global South where many small-scale food producers are confronted with high levels of poverty, food insecurity, malnutrition, disempo- Food system transformations in the Global werment, and degraded environments (Willett et al. 2019; South FAO et al. 2020). The Food and Agriculture Organisation Whitfield et al. (2021, 383) views food system trans- along with other global institutions (FAO et al. 2021) formation as ‘fundamental changes in circumstance report high levels of food insecurity and malnutrition in occurring to, for, and by people within. . . food sys- Africa and parts of Asia – areas where large fractions of tems’. Transformation ultimately refers to systemic populations rely on food production such as smallholder change which fundamentally shifts system function- farming and fishing, and marketing of food for their ality and outcomes resulting in the emergence of livelihoods. Presently, the term transformation is broadly a new system or a new regime. In food systems, it is discussed in research, policy, and planning, as the sys- a fundamental change in the structure, function, and temic change required in various sectors of society relational aspects, that in a normative view, can be including the food sector, to address complex sustain- oriented towards creating more just social-ecological ability issues (Bennett et al. 2019; Scoones et al. 2020; Feola et al. 2021). But while the concept of transformation relationships, interactions, and outcomes (Patterson is a relatively new research focus within the broader et al. 2017). CONTACT Aisa O. Manlosa a.o.manlosa@luc.leidenuniv.nl © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 2 A. O. MANLOSA ET AL. A historical example of systemic transformation mitigating them (Davis et al. 2022). Important work emerges from the Spanish occupation of Jamaica by Blythe et al. (2018) calls attention to the dark side from 1509 to 1655 which transformed the country’s of transformation, referring to latent risks in trans- food system through integration into the global mar- formation processes and in discourse that frames the ket (Hardt 2009). Prior to this period, Jamaica had process as either inevitable or apolitical. productive reef systems to fall back on when fish In view of the current status of poverty, global availability from near-shore fisheries fluctuated. But food insecurity, other forms of unsustainability, and transformative globalisation and market integration the magnitude of these challenges in many food sys- during the colonial period resulted in degraded near- tems of the Global South, it is not only necessary to shore fisheries, decreased availability of seafood for understand what drives food system transformations consumption, and looming food insecurity (Dajka in these contexts and the mechanisms in which these et al. 2020). To cite another example, the transforma- happen (Béné et al. 2019), it is also equally important tive institutionalisation of La Via Campesina which is to critically examine whether and how ongoing or a global movement of organised small and middle- envisioned transformations advance sustainability, scale food producers, has shifted numerous farms in equality, and social justice as equally valued goals in different parts of the world towards sustainable agri- transformation processes and outcomes of Global culture through agroecological practices and food South food systems (Njuki et al. 2016; Whitfield sovereignty principles (Desmarais 2008), considered et al. 2021; Davis et al. 2022). Scholars have critiqued as the more just and sustainable trajectory over cor- top-down and technocratic solutions for their insuf- porate agriculture (Patel 2012; Albertus 2021). ficiency in achieving complex societal goals (Scott Transformations are typically viewed as a gradual 2008). Instead, new modes of research are being process, but some may also manifest in the form of tested, such as participatory, transdisciplinary abrupt changes once a system crosses a threshold or research which aims for sustained engagement with tipping point and a cascade of changes occur multiple actors in framing problems and challenges, (Milkoreit et al. 2018). co-designing solutions, collaborative implementation As the examples highlighted, transformation pro- of solutions, co-monitoring of impacts, and co- cesses are not neutral (Leeuwis et al. 2021; Whitfield creation of knowledge in an iterative and reflexive et al. 2021; Davis et al. 2022). They are associated manner (Lang et al. 2012; West et al. 2019; with losses and gains which are often unevenly dis- Chambers et al. 2022). While research engagement tributed (Egli et al. 2018; Gurney et al. 2021). In the in the topic of transformation particularly, as it past, food systems have undergone series of transfor- relates to transdisciplinarity, has increased (Brandt mations giving rise to different food regimes with et al. 2013; Chambers et al. 2021), questions and evidently mixed outcomes for different actors, includ- context-specific evidence around the mechanisms of ing the systematic marginalisation and impoverish- transformation remains open for examination in ment of many smallholder producers through various most of the Global South (Baumann et al. this issue). mechanisms (Patel 2012; Prause et al. 2021). Critical Empirical understandings of how institutions can perspectives on the liberalisation of international help influence transformation processes in a way that trade for food in the post-war era which brought avoids the so-called dark side of transformation are about broad changes in food policies shed light on needed (Blythe et al. 2018). Transformation processes how the transformation which privileged investments can be influenced by various factors, and institutions to intensify agricultural production and international are among the powerful factors that can shift the trade also resulted in decreased access and control trajectory of complex systems (Meadows 1999; over the means of food production. The latter out- Westley et al. 2011; Abson et al. 2017). Yet the comes were more sharply experienced by small-scale mechanisms through which institutions contribute to producers in the Global South relative to their large- transformation are not well understood – especially in scale and richer counterparts. These outcomes were the Global South which prompted the Special Issue to widespread in different parts of Asia and Latin which this paper contributes. Distilling insights on the America (Patel 2012). Davis et al. (2022) cautioned role of institutions in transformation processes and against transforming food systems on the backs of the mobilising such knowledge for transdisciplinary work poor which occurs when transformation discourses between researchers and societal actors are vital for and interventions de-centre the livelihoods of small- informing ongoing or future transformative and trans- holder producers. Rather, they highlight the necessity disciplinary interventions. of foregrounding inclusion and environmental jus- Our article, therefore, aims to contribute towards tice, prioritising livelihood improvement for the understanding the roles that institutions play in rural poor, and making explicit the differences of transformation processes in the context of Global food systems in externalities generated and in South food systems through synthesising insights ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 3 from transdisciplinary case studies in Ethiopia (diver- the dark side of transformation (Blythe et al. 2018). sified smallholder farming), the Philippines (aquatic While it may be challenging for diverse actors with food production), and Indonesia (brackish water different interests and agenda to collectively subscribe pond aquaculture). A multi-country case study to similar sustainability outcomes, agreeing on what approach is adopted in order to analyse differing to avoid provides a stable basis for finding common processes in specific places and to examine the roles ground and avoiding worst case scenarios within of institutions in different contexts. The first objective complex governance and institutional landscapes. of this paper is to identify and describe institutions We therefore adopt the framework developed by that are important in relation to the transformation Blythe et al. (2018) which conceptualises the dark of food systems in the selected case studies. For this, side of transformation as consisting of shifting of we focus on institutions that fostered new social burdens to vulnerable parties, transformation as arrangements which can potentially give rise to new a justification for business-as-usual, lack of attention practices (e.g. Manlosa et al. 2019a), new social rela- to social differentiation, exclusion of the possibility of tions (e.g. Cockburn et al. 2020), new ways of work- resistance or non-transformation, and inattention to ing together (e.g. Hakkarainen et al. 2020), or new power and politics (see Table 1 for examples from the ways of thinking (e.g. Lotz-Sisitka et al. 2017), among Global South). Thus, our third objective is to examine other outcomes that potentially contribute to trans- whether and how institutions in the case studies formation. Applying a normative lens that is enable or constrain small-scale food system actors in informed by critical perspectives, our second objec- mitigating or avoiding any or a combination of these tive is to examine how emerging social dynamics are identified transformation risks. fostered by the institutions of focus and whether the In the next section, we outline the concept of institutions advance inclusion and participation in institutions as they relate to transformation. This is food system transformations (Blythe et al. 2018; followed by a methods section that provides a brief Davis et al. 2022). This objective focuses on process overview of the cases and data collection. The find- and is concerned with how institutions can structure ings address the objectives in each of the case studies. whose interests, values, and voices are recognised and The discussion returns to the topic of transdisciplin- valued in transformation processes. Crucially, we ary engagement and offers reflections on how it can argue that it is necessary to have a normative goal be amplified particularly through awareness and care- in researching and in facilitating food system trans- ful engagement with institutions in food systems of formation to understand and actively work towards the Global South. It includes suggestions on key avoiding risks and negative outcomes, referred to as action areas for future research and practice in Table 1. Risks associated with transformation processes (Blythe et al. 2018) and some examples for food systems in the Global South. Transformation risks to avoid Some examples in Global South food systems Risk 1: Transformation that risks shifting the burden of Establishment of protected areas that involves excluding smallholder food producers response onto vulnerable parties from accessing resources they rely on for their livelihoods. Promoting adaptation strategies that are costlier for smallholder producers e.g. costly restoration or infrastructure programs. (see Anaya and Espírito-Santo 2018 for detailed discussion) Risk 2: Transformation that may be used to justify business- Unsustainable intensification and industrialisation of food production justified on the as-usual basis of food security which reproduces long standing patterns of large scale producers consolidating control while smallholders lose livelihoods, lose control of resources, face decreasing incomes, and face reduced life quality. (see Patel 2012 for detailed discussion) Risk 3: Transformation that pays insufficient attention to Framing agriculture as one category of production that generates environmental social differentiation externalities without foregrounding the differences in responsibility between small scale and large scale producers; or highlighting aggregated economic benefits from transformative technological changes (e.g. Green Revolution in the 1970s) without foregrounding how the benefits are disproportionately captured by large scale players while small scale actors lose out. This also plays out when differences across social groups within countries are missed and panacea policies that are not adaptable to local contexts are applied. (see Loos et al. 2014 for detailed discussion) Risk 4: Transformation that excludes the possibility of non- Promotion of costly technologies that intensify food production and digitalisation as transformation or resistance ‘the’ pathway for transforming towards sustainable food systems while not attending to multiple pathways and plural alternatives. (see Prause et al. 2021 for detailed discussion) Risk 5: Transformation that does not sufficiently engage Asymmetric power relations enable rich and influential actors to lobby for greater with issues arising from power and politics control over production resources and trading processes, have a stronger voice in legislating policies and setting transformation trajectory in a way that advances their interests rather than prioritising and tackling food insecurity, malnutrition, poverty, and environmental degradation among the most marginalised groups in a population. (see Whitfield et al. 2021 for detailed discussion) 4 A. O. MANLOSA ET AL. a way that harnesses institutions towards what might outcomes, it is a challenge to transform towards be envisioned as a brighter side of transformation. sustainability when institutions lock food systems into a certain state or regime. Restructuring institu- tions for sustainability can be difficult due to its Conceptual framework: institutions and their tendency to be self-reinforcing and change-resistant role in transformation (Abson et al. 2017). However, such restructuring can be powerful because of institutions’ strategic role in We adopt Scott’s (1995) broad definition of institutions guiding humans towards a collective goal and in as those ‘cognitive, normative, and regulative structures organising societal interactions (e.g. Abson et al. and activities that provide stability and meaning to social 2017). Restructuring can occur, for example, through behaviour’. These determine an institution’s functions, its crises that trigger institutional adaptations, purposive mechanisms of influence over a system, and its change- destabilisation of unsustainable institutions, building ability. Some institutions are more regulative in charac- insights around institutional failure that can inform teristic and function, such as protected areas for efforts to improve institutional functioning in the conservation which restrict resource extraction, use, and future, and the loss or decline of institutions due to activities in a defined area (e.g. Rifai et al. 2022). Others broader social changes (Abson et al. 2017; Derwort are more normative such as cultural gender norms which et al. 2019). Institutions are considered vital for trans- implicitly designate gender roles and shape gendered formation, and institutional change is considered access and control over resources and decision-making a necessary part in the process of shifting unsustain- in a food system (e.g. Lawless et al. 2019) with significant able and inequitable food systems into alternative and impacts on people’s abilities to be food secure and nour- desirable trajectories (Patel 2012; Chappell 2018). ished. The cognitive element of institutions can be con- Channelling efforts and carefully investing in institu- sidered akin to Veblen’s (1919) settled habits of thought. tional changes (Westley et al. 2011) that advance It is deeply embedded and relates to how both formal and process-oriented normative goals (e.g. inclusion, par- informal rules may be internalised by people to the extent ticipation, transparency) and proactively working that they shape people’s paradigms and worldviews. towards mitigating or avoiding the risks associated Institutions are also understood as the socially con- with transformation processes plays an important structed formal and informal rules that govern and struc- role in reversing unsustainability and inequity in ture humans’ interactions and relationships with one another, as well as their interactions with more-than- many food systems of the Global South. humans (e.g. other species, and natural and built envir- Different types of institutions exist and exert influ- onments) (see Jentoft 2004 for various definitions). ence over processes and outcomes of food systems Institutions tend to resist change. They are char- (Table 2). Examples of institutions in food systems acterised by durability and stability (Jentoft 2004). include formal rules and regulations, organisations, According to Williamson (2000), different institu- informal norms, markets, and property rights tions vary in relation to the timescales in which (Partelow et al. 2022). Rules (of the operational they change. Markets, for instance, change within kind) tend to regulate the kind of food production shorter timescales than embedded cultural norms activities that are allowed within a defined area, (Williamson 2000). In cases where institutions under- determine those which are prohibited, and designate pin unsustainable and inequitable food system who carries responsibility for enforcement (sensu Table 2. General types of institutions that may influence food systems. Institutions Descriptions Examples Formal These are fomally written or codified rules such as laws and regulations, and International laws, bi-lateral or multilateral country institutions agreements such as plans and contracts that are collectively and legally agreements, national laws, local regulations, binding. Accountability for the enforcement of these institutions is legally recognised property rights typically the jurisdiction of government. (Abson et al. 2017) Informal These are collectively held and implicitly learned customs, taboos, codes of Customary laws on land access, customary property institutions conduct, informal conventions, and social norms. They are considered ‘the rights, customary inheritance practices, normal way of doing things’ which tend to remain unquestioned for intersectional gender norms centuries. They are also deeply embedded in religion or culture. (Abson et al. 2017) Hybrid Collaborative governance that goes beyond co-existence or competition Collaborative state-community approaches institutional between governance structures and involves the merging of different arrangements types of governance arrangements. Includes reformist and alternative orientations. (Clément 2019) Organisations There are varying views on this. Some view organisations as entities that Community groups, local associations, cooperatives, cannot be considered as institutions. Others view organisations as state organisations, private firms consisting of a bundle of rules which make organisations a type of institution. We adopt the latter view. Organisations may also be formal or informal. (Hodgson 2006) ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 5 Gardner and Ostrom 1991). For instance, in the usual, remedy the lack of attention to social differ- Philippines, small-scale fishing is allowed within 7 entiation of food system actors, reverses exclusion of km from the shore, while large scale commercial non-transformation or resistance, or address inatten- fishing can only be undertaken beyond this space tion to power and politics. (Manlosa et al. 2021). There are institutions that incentivise production of certain crops, or govern market transactions. Examples of different market Methods institutions are middlemen-dominated market Case studies arrangements, community-supported agriculture, and retail supermarket. There are also formal institu- A focus on the Global South is important for under- tions that define property rights. These differentiate standing the role of institutions in food system trans- between private property, public property, and com- formation processes due to some shared monly held resources (Partelow et al. 2022). characteristics including high dependence on food Additionally, there are institutions that structure production for people’s livelihoods, high importance cooperation in communities, civil society, and hybrid of community-level initiatives, and histories of mar- arrangements in the form of associations which may ginalisation of small-scale and rural food system be formal or informal in character (see Partelow et al. actors. In addition, issues related to a lack of clear 2022 for detailed explanations of types of institu- property rights and capacities for initiating or sus- tions). For a complex sector, such as the food sector, taining collective action in some cases add to the institutions of different types with different functions challenge of food system governance. This study and different characteristics may simultaneously exert examines the role of institutions in transformation influence on the processes and outcomes of food processes in three case studies, namely diversified systems (Partelow et al. 2020). smallholder farming system in southwest Ethiopia, Different factors have been examined by scholars aquatic food production in northern Philippines, as contributing to the transformative potential of and canal management for pond aquaculture in institutions. Focus was given on institutions that Indonesia (Figure 1, also see Table 3 for transforma- enable transformative learning and those that facil- tion trends in the case studies). The inclusion of these itate the creation of new connections and alliances case studies was motivated by our interest to examine (e.g. Lotz-Sisitka et al. 2017; Cockburn et al. 2020) institutions in diverse food systems and contexts, and and empower social groups to the extent that coun- to uncover key differences and similarities. ter-narratives and counter-actions are able to disrupt Knowledge on the case studies were contributed by existing power relations and existing structures (e.g. different co-authors who undertook field work at Chappell 2018). Here, the case studies we selected are different times in the selected areas. Thus, place- all influenced by multiple institutions and a number based expertise also informed the selection of these of papers have been published providing detailed cases. backgrounds on these (e.g. Partelow et al. 2018; The case study in southwest Ethiopia includes the Jiren et al. 2021b; Manlosa et al. 2021). For this districts of Seka Chekorsa, Gumay, Setema, and Gera study, we specifically examine those that demonstrate in the Jimma Zone, Oromia Federal State. Ethiopia potential to contribute to and influence transforma- has a federal government structure consisting of tion processes particularly by creating more inclusive national, regional, zone, district (woredas), and processes and enabling actors to address risks asso- municipality (kebeles) levels. Administratively, ciated with transformation. These in turn, can result Jimma zone is located in Oromia regional state, in substantive changes in food systems such as approximately 350 km southwest of the regional changes in who controls and accesses important capital, Finfinne. Nearly 90% of inhabitants are resources for food system livelihoods, promoting the smallholder farmers whose livelihoods are highly human agency of those who are marginalised, the dependent on diversified farming of food crops creation of new and safe spaces for challenging dis- including cereals and pulses, production of cash advantageous asymmetric power relationships and crops mainly coffee (Coffea arabica) and khat structures, promotion of transformative learning, (Catha edulis), and some fruits (Manlosa et al. and fostering egalitarian relationships across different 2019b; Jiren et al. 2022). Although relatively better axes of social differentiation, among others. As pre- off than those in other parts of Ethiopia (CSA and conditions for these desirable outcomes, and applying WFP 2014), smallholder farmers in the Jimma zone the notion of the dark side of transformation (Blythe face seasonal food insecurity and structural food et al. 2018), in our analyses we paid attention to system issues (Manlosa et al. 2019b; Jiren et al. whether institutions help avoid the shifting of bur- 2021a). For instance, formal agricultural develop- dens to vulnerable food system actors, avoid using ment interventions force farmers to use inorganic transformation as a justification for business-as- fertilisers without considering their willingness and 6 A. O. MANLOSA ET AL. institutional support, and market problems (a) (Manlosa et al. 2019c; Jiren et al. 2021b). Farmers often rely on formal and informal institutions to overcome food production problems (see Manlosa et al. 2019c; Jiren et al. 2021a). Examples are diddaro, dabo, and dado which are informal, cultural norms of cooperation at the community level. These are long-standing local practices for collaboratively guarding farms from crop raiders or for harvesting crops (see Manlosa et al. 2019c; Jiren et al. 2021a for details). Over the last decade, smallholder-based multi-purpose cooperative institutions (MPCI) have been expanding in the area to promote collective action for a sustainable food system. These coopera- (b) tive institutions in the food-producing areas often positively contribute to ensuring food security (Zeweld et al. 2015). However, its role in transform- ing the local food system specifically in the mixed food and cash crops-producing areas still need to be understood. The case study in northern Philippines is situated in the coastal municipalities of Hagonoy, Paombong, and Malolos. These municipalities are situated in the province of Bulacan, within the region of Central Luzon and along the coast of Manila Bay. Aquatic food production is under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources which (c) has offices at the national and regional levels and a satellite station in one of the municipalities studied, and the local government units at the municipality level. Small-scale fishing and aquaculture production are important sources of aquatic food and livelihoods, and these are undertaken in estuarine areas and municipal waters (up to 7 km from the shore) and earthen fish ponds, respectively. Fishers face the chal- lenge of declining fish catch, while aquaculture pro- ducers face decreasing productivity of fish ponds and more frequent fish kills (Manlosa et al. 2021). A major environmental problem in the area is water pollution from multiple sources including residential areas, industries, and excessive feed use in large-scale Figure 1. (a) A common view of the landscape in south- intensive aquaculture. The unregulated overuse of western Ethiopia where the food system largely relies on diversified smallholder farming systems involving the produc- synthetic aquaculture feeds and the lack of water tion of various food and cash crops. (b) A small scale fisher in treatment facilities in intensive fish ponds were the northern part of the Philippines is unfurling fish nets in observed by small-scale aquatic food producers to an estuary leading to Manila Bay. (c) An irrigation canal along have caused the decline and disappearance of certain some of the dried brackish water earthen pond aquaculture marine aquatic species that are important food in Indonesia. sources (Manlosa et al. 2021). Fishers also perceived a substantive increase in plastics in the estuaries and capacity. In some cases, this has led to indebtedness sea. In addition, lack of access to financing, and among farmers due to increased production cost disadvantageous arrangements in fish markets con- without commensurate improvement in earnings front local aquatic food producers. Community-based (Manlosa et al. 2019c). Some of the key livelihood fisherfolk organisations are, collectively, an important challenges in the area include environmental degra- institution that enables small-scale producers to col- dation, decreasing soil fertility, wild animal crop laborate to address food system challenges (Manlosa raids, low agricultural productivity, weak et al. 2021). ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 7 Table 3. Transformation trends in the case studies. Case studies Past or ongoing transformation trends Diversified smallholder farming in Increasing orientation towards export of local farming products particularly of the cash crop coffee; southwest Ethiopia increasing adoption of sustainable intensification in the form of organic and mixed-crop farming Aquatic food production in northern Shift from most aquatic food coming from capture fisheries to more aquatic food being produced from Philippines aquaculture; past land use change from rice farms to aquaculture ponds due to saline water intrusion; ongoing conversion of land use from aquaculture to residential areas or commercial areas (e.g. airport complex) (Manlosa et al. 2021) Brackish water pond aquaculture in Shift in land ownership rights leading to remote management of aquaculture ponds Indonesia Weakening of Gotong Royong cultural norm The case study in West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia and attendant outcomes, and how conditions of includes the villages of Lembar and Sekotong in the natural environments influence people’s livelihoods West Lombok region and the villages of Jerowaru and and collective governance. The studies integrated Sugian in the East Lombok region (Partelow et al. transdisciplinarity at different levels but mainly 2018; Senff et al. 2018). Indonesia is one the world’s with an orientation to institutional and natural largest aquaculture producers, primarily from brack- resource management research. For instance, insti- ish (i.e. mixed fresh and salt water) coastal earthen tutional research in the Ethiopian case followed pond production systems irrigated through canal sys- more than 4 years of transdisciplinary engagement tems. The case study areas produce tiger shrimp, to understand food system challenges and to work milkfish, crab, snapper, and tilapia from a mix of with scenarios to depict shared goals and explore traditional low intensity to semi-intensive production tensions between different stakeholders’ interests. systems that involve water wheels in lined earthen or All three case studies involved the collection and concrete ponds. Pond systems are typically situated analysis of qualitative data around the food system within deforested mangrove estuaries, and provide contexts, the ways in which the broader social- subsistence food and small-scale livelihoods serving ecological systems within which food systems are local and regional markets. A key issue faced by food embedded have changed in the past years and are producers in the area is the management of water transforming, and how institutions play a role in supply to fish ponds. Water is delivered through net- these processes. works of irrigation canals that need to be actively Focus group discussions, participant observations, maintained to ensure adequate supply and turnover, and analysis of institutional documents (e.g. formal often relying on manual water gates, tidal swings, and municipality ordinances, national laws, local regula- generator pumps to maintain water flow. Here, we tions, reports) were undertaken. Moreover, 40 key examine how the government sought to revitalise the informant interviews were conducted with stake- Gotong Royong, a socio-cultural norm in the holders who are engaged in food security governance Indonesian culture for working together for develop- from the kebele up to the zonal levels in Ethiopia, 67 ment in any sector of society. The notion of Gotong in the Philippines with diverse actors in the aquatic Royong in this case is used to catalyse cooperation in food sector including fishers, aquaculture producers, irrigation canal management and maintenance for government representatives, non-government organi- aquaculture. This is explained in greater detail in sations, and market actors, and 111 in Indonesia with the findings section. aquaculture producers and other stakeholders in aquaculture including community leaders and multi- level government representatives. (Ethics statement Data collection and analysis can be found at the end of the manuscript.) Field work for the Ethiopian case study was con- Field work for each of the case study generated ducted on February to April 2020, for the substantive qualitative data and in-depth place-based Philippine case study on November 2019 to knowledge. Qualitative data for each case study was March 2020, and for the Indonesian case study analysed respectively by the co-author who under- from September 2021 to February 2022. Each co- took the field work (TSJ for Ethiopia, AOM for the author who contributed place-based empirical Philippines, and AOP for Indonesia). All co-authors knowledge for each case study is a native resident applied a thematic and iterative coding approach in of the countries. They conducted the field work in the analysis. The authors first coded qualitative data the Afaan Oromoo language in Ethiopia, Tagalog in according to general categories such as descriptions the Philippines, and Sasak and Bahasa in Indonesia. of the food systems, the changes the food systems Field work in the three cases applied a social- have undergone, social-ecological challenges, and ecological systems perspective which examined relevant institutions, among others. For purposes of how socially constructed institutional structures this paper, the authors then focused on the topic of shape the use and management of natural resources institutions to reflect on its attributes, processes, and 8 A. O. MANLOSA ET AL. roles in transformation. Authors used the MaxQDA at the regional or national level. The higher scale qualitative data analysis software for the analysis. unions then link local cooperatives with regional, national, and international markets. Thus, while the institutions’ primary locus of influence is at the com- Findings munity level, they are relevant beyond their immedi- This section examines the role of institutions in ate communities. transformation processes in the three case studies. There are a number of mechanisms through which In each case study, we describe institutions that play MPCIs influence processes in the food system. The a strong role in transformation processes, discuss bottom-up characteristic of these institutions facili- how institutions influence processes in the food sys- tates active exchange among its members in identify- tems, and examine whether and how institutions help ing the different challenges facing them and in taking avoid transformation risks (Blythe et al. 2018). concerted action to alleviate the challenges. In this way, members are able to participate in problem- solving and to benefit in the process. For instance, Multi-purpose cooperative institutions in farming MPCIs provide a platform for collectively identifying areas in southwest Ethiopia where there is farm labour shortage and for co- Different institutions operate and interplay in this devising labour sharing arrangements. These are con- case study to influence the food system which is cerns that, in the absence of an institution, may be highly dependent on diversified smallholder farming. borne individually by farmers, or overlooked at For instance, the public agricultural extension system higher levels of governance. MPCIs also encourage which is a formal institution, applies an expert-driven alternative ways of farming such as organic and eco- top-down approach for the purpose of increasing friendly farming. Its openness to the diverse and agricultural productivity (Jiren et al. 2021a). complex needs of its members has resulted in a multi- Informal institutions (e.g. diddaro, dabo, dado) pronged approach to achieving food security to which are deeply embedded in culture, aim to help include issues of food availability, increasing incomes, community health, and awareness. While MPCIs households tide over food shortages by facilitating the sharing of resources particularly labour. These con- facilitate supply of agricultural inputs and seek to tribute to increased food production, continued promote best farming practices in the area, they also access to food, and promotion of social cohesion mobilise collective action to expand public infrastruc- (Jiren et al. 2021a). ture including irrigation facilities, schools, health cen- Here, we focus on smallholder-based multi- tres, and weather and market information centres. As purpose cooperative institutions (MPCI) which are a result, the production and accessibility of diversified community-level institutions that play a key role in food and cash crops have increased in the area. Thus, supporting smallholder farming in southwest the MPCIs play an important role in ensuring inclu- Ethiopia. MPCIs aim for an inclusive, bottom-up, sive processes where voices of smallholder food pro- and voluntary organisation rooted in communities ducers and their contribution to addressing food in order to support farmers. The goals of MPCIs in system challenges are recognised and valued. the case study are to increase the production of food However, the gains achieved by MPCIs in promot- ing inclusion at the community level are limited when (e.g. maize, teff) and cash crops (e.g. coffee), promote sustainable resource management, ensure equitable higher governance scales are examined. First, there is benefit sharing from food production and marketing, inadequate interplay and weak collaboration between and collectively address food insecurity in ways that MPCIs and other local institutions at the district and go beyond individual capacities. To realise these, kebele levels. Mechanisms for collaborative engage- MPCIs institutionalise arrangements such as the ment between different institutions functioning in the pooling of labour, finance, and other resources. landscape were missing leading to inadequate func- Among its functions is to facilitate an interface tioning of the MPCIs. In addition, the institutional between diverse stakeholders across different govern- interactions across administration levels were similarly ance levels so that actors can interact and stimulate weak, posing a challenge to the cooperatives’ opera- tions. While MPCIs achieved livelihood improvements hybrid initiatives. MPCIs bring together multiple actors including local food producers and residents, and inclusion for its members to some extent, within government representatives, and non-governmental a larger scale, its operations were still largely hampered by power capture by elites and government agencies actors. While locals self-organise and manage MPCIs, other actors provide advisory and legal sup- who had bigger capacity in steering food system trans- port, market linkages, and capacity building services. formation towards a neoliberal agenda. These community-level institutions are also con- There are two ways in which the MPCIs are inter- nected with other cooperatives in different parts of acting with the latent risks of transformation. On one the country because cooperatives form unions either hand, as described above, the cooperatives at the ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 9 community level have not been able to sufficiently Fisheries Code of 1998), members of the organisa- engage with, and challenge issues arising from power tions are also able to collectively set their goals and and politics which are at play beyond the scale of agenda, and to mobilise to achieve these. The FOs communities. On the other hand, the MPCIs have have been present in the study area for a long time, demonstrated achievements in addressing the role of but in the recent years, these organisations have social differentiation in food system transformation. undergone important changes which are emerging This was done by organising distributional services to to be relevant to food system transformation. Here, community members. For example, over the last five we focus on the FO called Nagkakaisang Samahan ng years, MPCIs in the Gumay and Gera woredas mga Mangingisda ng Paombong (NASAMAPA)/ enabled local coffee producers to export their pro- United Association of Fisherfolks of Paombong. The ducts to European markets. This was further made group is unique in the area because it combines possible by cooperatives in these districts forming the various FOs and provides a platform for collaboration Arga Union. Similarly, cooperatives in the Seka between small-scale fishers and fish farmers. Chekorsa district exported their products to the In general, members of FOs in the case study Middle East through the help of non-governmental reported that being part of an organisation helps organizations. This was perceived by local stake- with having their voices heard. This is primarily holders as playing an important role in increasing because FOs provide a regular platform to discuss income of MPCI members (Shumeta and D’Haese concerns of aquatic food producers and a means to 2018; Jiren et al. 2022). By providing market services, communicate these concerns to state actors such as the MPCIs reduced transaction costs and avoided the the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. For capturing of benefits by a few private traders. In instance, members are able to identify the kinds of a market setting where a few purchasers can substan- livelihood assistance they require (e.g. fishing boats) tially affect prices, the MPCIs counteracted the likely and FOs channel this information to government. outcome that local smallholder producers would lose NASAMAPA plays a key role in promoting the out due to dominant trade arrangements and reduced participation of small scale aquatic food producers local people’s vulnerability to market and price- in the governance of aquatic food production. A key related risks. Furthermore, MPCIs are supporting mechanism through which NASAMAPA promotes nature conservation through organic and eco- inclusion in food system processes in the case study friendly agricultural production and ecosystem ser- is by bringing together fishers and fish farmers within vice management. In this way, it demonstrates an one organisation and positioning itself as a partner in alternative to agricultural intensification and indus- government initiatives for development. This has trialisation that the national government envisions as given the group legitimacy to be involved in aquatic its desired transformation trajectory. For instance, the food development projects beyond what individual forest-based cooperatives, locally known as Wahbub, FOs have done. It partnered with the government to were instrumental in improving local people’s access operate the Community Fish Landing Centre which to ecosystem services while conserving the forest. was initially opened in late 2019. This step gave However, it is worth noting that due to increasing smallholder aquatic food producers a venue to dis- financial returns from cash crops, people have tended cuss the challenges they face in relation to marketing to shift their focus towards producing perennial cash of aquatic food where many are locked into disem- crops at the expense of food crop farming. This has powering roles as price-takers. Additionally, mem- the potential to transform agriculture towards greater bers of the group were also able to participate in, cash crop production in the long term. However, the and actively shape the municipal fisheries ordinance role of MPCIs in relation to this food system shift has of Paombong which is the municipality’s primary not yet been adequately observed. regulation for aquatic food production. Since its establishment, NASAMAPA has evolved to become the NASAMAPA Agri-Coop. It seeks to Fisherfolk organisations in aquatic food address the issue of social differentiation in the aqua- producing areas in northern Philippines tic food sector. Owing to the dominance of middle- men-centered fish markets at the local level, small- Community-based fisherfolk organisations (FOs) are commonly established in aquatic food-producing scale producers receive the least benefit from market areas in the Philippines. These organisations fulfil transactions while profits are concentrated by mid- dlemen. Since 2019, members of the organisation different functions which range from formal func- tions related to local level rule-making, to informal worked closely with the government to access support to members during times of collective (e.g. resources that can help them explore alternative mar- ket options. By pooling together their resources (e.g. pandemic lockdowns) and personal difficulties (e.g. illness). While FOs’ functions and activities are sharing vehicles, labour, and time), organisation guided by the Philippines’ national fisheries law (i.e. members have been able to explore markets in other 10 A. O. MANLOSA ET AL. cities, gain better access to loans for individual fish challenge at the national level by establishing a co- ponds, apply for government support in the form of management scheme for irrigation canals (KKP storage facilities, and participate in capacity building 2019). A set of technical guidelines and co- initiatives. Having evolved into a cooperative, the management contracts with budget allocations were organisation is gradually challenging the dominant established as formal institutions. Under the co- middlemen-centered markets which ignore differen- management scheme, irrigation canals can be collec- tiated advantages and disadvantages by middlemen, tively managed by reinforcing the Gotong Royong traders and smallholder producers. By gradually traditional and informal institution of commonality building individual and collective capacities particu- and mutual assistance. The intent was to revitalise larly in fish marketing and more recently fish proces- Gotong Royong in the aquaculture communities sing, the organisation is generating mechanisms so where it was already fading while also addressing the that more benefits from aquatic food production can problem of canal management. The villages included be captured by smallholder producers. As these in the case study participated in the initiative with the initiatives have only recently started, how successful goal of improving traditional pond aquaculture these initiatives are in terms of shifting market through the repair and regular maintenance of the arrangements to a more equitable trajectory remains canals in order to benefit aquaculture production. to be seen. However, it can be said that the organisa- The government paid wages to aquaculture producers tion’s presence and actions to build capacity and for their labour in maintaining the canals. In addition, empower smallholder producers in market transac- the government also sought to promote self- tions provide the foundation for a struggle towards governance by introducing a mechanism in which more equitable sharing of benefits in future a budget is set that can be used to pay the labour for transformations. canal maintenance. Aquaculture producers have the freedom to independently manage the budget and collectively decide which canals need rehabilitation. Gotong Royong in small-scale brackish pond The program’s success was measured based on aquaculture in Indonesia whether aquaculture producers were still willing to Gotong Royong is a collectively held principle as well maintain the canals beyond the lifetime of the project as an activity that involves joint undertaking of and cover areas beyond the limit of the budget. The outcomes of the effort to formally institutiona- a communal task within a local community (Slikkerveer 2019). It is a cultural norm of coopera- lise a cultural norm by providing wage incentives dif- tion that is expected among community members in fered for the western and eastern parts Lombok. In the Indonesian culture, but one that has been weakening eastern part where most people own aquaculture land, in various parts, over time. there was a higher willingness to continue to manage Small-scale brackish pond aquaculture in ponds without wage incentive and to carry this out Indonesia is faced with the challenge of water man- through the Gotong Royong norm. The challenge is agement, that is, the construction and maintenance of how to institutionalise community-based governance shared irrigation canal infrastructure. The emergence through policy without undermining and crowding of this challenge traces back to the shift in land own- out cultural norms through misaligned incentives. This is related to the question of how to build capacity ership rights in the 1980s. During this period, indivi- duals from Mataram, Bali, and Java gained ownership for collective action that supports local governance by rights over the ponds in West Lombok leading to leveraging the norms of Gotong Royong through a sense of collective responsibility, shared risk, and remote management of ponds, the proliferation of caretakers, and renting by those who used to be agency for self-organising. Furthermore, property rights land and pond owners. In contrast, ponds in the influence Gotong Royong and needs to be considered in East Lombok region were still owned and managed efforts to revitalise it to maintain the shared resources by fish farmers. The change in property rights and (e.g. canals) among traditional and small-scale aquacul- the resulting demotivation among landless aquacul- ture producers in Lombok. ture farmers particularly in West Lombok, coupled with a lack of awareness about the need for regular Discussion canal maintenance (e.g. clearing silt, debris, and waste from surrounding areas) led to the neglect of irriga- This article examined the role of institutions in trans- tion canals for aquaculture ponds. Arguably, due to formation processes in the context of food systems in changed social relations in the area and the weaken- the Global South. In this section, we unpack the ing of Gotong Royong, canal management emerged hybrid governance arrangements that were enabled as an issue that could compromise pond productivity. by the existence of these community-level institutions In 2013, the government through the Ministry of in the case studies, reflect on the interplay between Marine and Fisheries Affairs sought to address the institutional structures and human agency in the ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 11 context of transformations, consider the opportu- market options beside the disadvantageous middle- nities and limitations for influencing transformation men-centred fish markets (Manlosa et al. 2021). processes arising from the scale of institutions, and For hybrid arrangements to influence transforma- synthesise implications for transdisciplinary tion processes in a way that promotes inclusion engagements. (Davis et al. 2022) and mitigates transformation risks (Blythe et al. 2018), a number of factors was observed to be helpful. First, organised groups of local food producers with a shared collective identity Community-level institutions and hybrid must exist. Developing the capacity to articulate their governance arrangements concerns, set their agenda, mobilise to achieve their We found that the existence of institutions, particu- goals, and productively partner with other actors larly organised groups at the community level facili- particularly the government without their interest being co-opted are needed. These can enable small- tated the emergence of hybrid governance arrangements in the form of collaborative state- scale food producers to navigate collaborative part- community initiatives. For instance, in Ethiopia, col- nerships and the tensions that can arise from such laborations between multi-purpose cooperative insti- arrangements. Second, key government actors must tutions and various actors including government recognise the legitimacy of community-level institu- offices, supported local food producers to self- tions and must be willing to invest resources to organise to address environmental degradation achieve common goals through collaboration on the through the promotion of mixed and organic farm- basis of egalitarian principles. The absence of one of ing. These collaborations also enabled action to miti- these factors can significantly stifle the potential of gate market inequities by supporting local producers hybrid arrangements as demonstrated by the case in to benefit from coffee export. In the Philippine case, Indonesia where aquaculture producers in west collaborative partnerships between community-based Lombok were less willing to cooperate due to weak- fisherfolk associations, local government units, and ening cultural norms of cooperation and changed the fisheries bureau enabled aquatic food producers property rights. to explore opportunities to benefit more from the market in a setting where the power of middlemen is strongly entrenched. In Indonesia, we find the Structure-agency interplay government providing incentives to revitalise the Gotong Royong cultural norm of shared responsibil- In many past and ongoing large-scale transformation ity and shared tasks for canal management. By con- processes in food systems of the Global South, small- necting different institutional actors working across scale producers are typically excluded in decision- scales of governance, hybrid arrangements helped making processes leading to negative outcomes such foster inclusion and participation of local food pro- as socio-economic inequities (Patel 2012; Davis et al. ducers in governance processes, most strongly at the 2022). However, within broad-scale transformation community level. processes, distinct and nuanced systemic shifts at Hybrid governance arrangements and the choices the local level may also occur and are important for made within these arrangements are known to lead to the future of food systems (Tacoli and Agergaard both positive and negative justice-related outcomes 2017). Local communities tend to be attuned to the (Toxopeus et al. 2020) and marginalisation can impacts of these shifts through their daily lived remain a challenge in such arrangements (Viana experiences in their own livelihoods. Organising as et al. 2016). But as our cases demonstrate, commu- a collective to take action on the impacts can be nity-level institutions can be leveraged as an alterna- gradual or quick, but as our findings demonstrate, tive to individual strategies or top-down strategies in community-level institutions in the form of coopera- responding to food system challenges. Community tives, associations, and other forms of local groups institutions helped local food producers find are important institutions. Thus, transdisciplinary a venue to articulate their concerns, to observe the engagement needs to start with understanding the broader effects of transformation processes not only institutions (e.g. formal rules, social norms, hybrid on their own livelihoods but also on others, and to arrangements, organisations) that are already in place explore alternative ways of participating or resisting and the mechanisms through which these institutions ongoing processes. For instance, cooperatives in attempt to address food system challenges in their Ethiopia are helping producers earn more income own terms. This can help build understanding (Jiren et al. 2022) by enabling small-scale producers around what works, what does not, and to map out to participate in export. In the Philippines, coopera- which existing social structures can future interven- tion between small-scale aquatic food producers and tions connect with to co-create a more sustainable government are enabling the former to explore other and equitable food system. 12 A. O. MANLOSA ET AL. There are strengths from the community-level institu- challenges they have faced before. The key is to build on tions we examined that are similar across the contexts we these existing efforts and structures. studied. In many cases, these are the institutions that small-scale local food producers are able to participate Conclusion in most actively because of the relatively smaller or lack of asymmetric power relations among the members (rela- Institutions play an important role in transformation tive to higher scale institutions and actors). For instance, processes, particularly in food systems of the Global members of fisheries associations in the Philippine case South. Community or local scale institutions such as study were neighbours working in the same livelihoods multi-purpose cooperative institutions in southwest and facing shared challenges although in differentiated Ethiopia, fisheries associations in the Philippines, and ways (e.g. differences between men and women). This Gotong Royong in Indonesia are place-based institu- facilitates openness in discussions. The embeddedness of tions which demonstrate distinctive mechanisms that community-level institutions in local social relations can potentially promote inclusion and participation, helps foster agency, accountability, and ownership over and can enable small-scale food producers to act against initiatives. However, such a dynamic is also embedded in transformation risks. These institutions are the primary broader social relations (e.g. Manlosa et al. 2021). As venues in which food producers, who are not often multiple scales become involved and asymmetry in present in higher level decision-making, are able to power relations increase (e.g. small-scale aquatic food articulate and discuss livelihood challenges, explore producers and local government representatives) in potential solutions, pool resources, and mobilise for multi-actor relations, trust and openness may shift and more environmentally friendly and equitable food sys- take a longer time to build depending on the histories of tem practices. While community-level institutions may those who are interacting. Relatedly, whether commu- lack the resources and power to influence food system nity-level institutions function in a bottom-up or top- transformations at a large scale, they also make possible down manner influences the above-mentioned strengths. the emergence of hybrid governance formations or col- The bottom-up institutions in the Ethiopian and laborative state-community arrangements. Such Philippine food systems demonstrated better outcomes arrangements provide community-level institutions than the centralised revitalisation of Gotong Royong in with access to resources, expertise, wider networks, Indonesia. In the latter case, a top-down intervention, in and political power that they can draw on to co-create combination with altered property rights and weakening and co-implement new initiatives. Some of these initia- norms of cooperation, failed to foster accountability and tives have been helpful in mitigating transformation ownership in canal management. risks in the case studies, for example, by bringing atten- Community-level institutions of food systems in the tion to issues of social differentiation and inequalities. study areas exhibit ability to foster and strengthen the Given the central importance of community institutions agency of local food producers and this is strengthened in fostering inclusion and foregrounding the needs and when they are connected to higher level institutions solutions to food system challenges, as well as their which can facilitate access to more resources and higher ubiquity in the Global South, understanding institutions authority. Higher level institutions can thus promote and how they function should be among the first steps in local food producers’ agency by creating enabling envir- any transdisciplinary engagement. Questions around onments, and providing support for the successful func- which institutions are already working towards addres- tioning of community-level institutions. However, since sing sustainability challenges and amplifying the bene- higher level institutions also have their own agendas, fits, while seeking to understand and change institutions community actors need to navigate how they take advan- that are reproducing unsustainability needs to be more tage of opportunities as they arise, without being co- central in any transdisciplinary engagement whether in opted by the interests and means of the higher level the food sector or other sectors. This will require bring- actors, and how to ensure harmonious working relations ing in institutional expertise both in research and prac- even in the face of differences in priorities or conflicts. tice in transdisciplinary teams. Transdisciplinary research can help promote agency of small scale food system actors by fostering opportunities Notes to strengthen existing social connections and to help establish missing ones. Importantly, many community- 1. Food systems consist of the interconnected activities level institutions have already predetermined agenda dri- that encompass the production of food up to its con- ven by the actors’ own experiences. Transdisciplinary sumption, including the processing, distribution, and marketing of food (Ericksen 2008). Food systems are engagement can support this by enabling the articulation the broad contexts in which our case studies are of this agenda to higher level governance and ensuring embedded, but the analyses focus mostly on conditions that these are not lost or co-opted. Moreover, community related to food production and food marketing. institutions in the case studies are also actively working to 2. Our use of the term Global South is informed by the address the risks of transformation in response to the work of Pereira et al. (2020). We view it as a useful ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 13 review on transdisciplinary coastal research in the classification while acknowledging its tensions and Global South. United Kingdom: Ecosystems and People. limitations. We use it as a broad category to refer to Béné C, Fanzo J, Haddad L, Hawkes C, Caron P, the three countries included in this study. However, Vermeulen S, Herrero M, Oosterveer P. 2020. Five prio- we are aware that the term should be used with atten- rities to operationalize the EAT–Lancet commission tion to differentiation in social-ecological contexts and report. Nat Food. 1(8):457–459. doi:10.1038/s43016- we have taken care to highlight these in our work. 020-0136-4. Béné C, Oosterveer P, Lamotte L, Brouwer ID, de Haan S, Prager SD, Talsma EF, Khoury CK. 2019. When food Acknowledgments systems meet sustainability–current narratives and implications for actions. World Dev. 113:116–130. We thank local residents in the study areas in Ethiopia, the doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.08.011. Philippines, and Indonesia from whom we learned so much. Work in the three case studies was funded by Bennett NJ, Blythe J, Cisneros-Montemayor AM, Germany's Federal Ministry of Education and Research Singh GG, Sumaila UR. 2019. Just transformations to (BMBF) under the theme Bioeconomy. sustainability. Sustainability. 11(14):3881. doi:10.3390/ su11143881. Blythe J, Silver J, Evans L, Armitage D, Bennett NJ, Moore M-L, Morrison TH, Brown K. 2018. The dark Disclosure statement side of transformation: latent risks in contemporary No potential conflict of interest was reported by the sustainability discourse. Antipode. 50(5):1206–1223. author(s). doi:10.1111/anti.12405. Brandt P, Ernst A, Gralla F, Luederitz C, Lang DJ, Newig J, Reinert F, Abson DJ, von Wehrden H. 2013. A review of Ethics declaration transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecol Econ. 92:1–15. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.008. All case studies included here underwent a review and Chambers JM, Wyborn C, Klenk NL, Ryan M, Serban A, were approved by the respective Ethics Committees of Bennett NJ, Brennan R, Charli-Joseph L, Fernández- Leuphana University Lüneburg and the Leibniz Centre Giménez ME, Galvin KA, Goldstein BE. 2022. Co- for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT). All case studies productive agility and four collaborative pathways to obtained the approval of local authorities and were based sustainability transformations. Global Environ Change. on the informed consent of all study participants. Prior to 72:102422. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102422. each interview or focus group discussion, the authors Chambers JM, Wyborn C, Ryan ME, Reid RS, Riechers M, explained the purpose of the study, asked for informed Serban A, Bennett NJ, Cvitanovic C, Fernández- consent while making clear that participants have the Giménez ME, Galvin KA, Goldstein BE. 2021. Six right to decline to answer a question or stop the interview modes of co-production for sustainability. Nat Sustain. at any time, informed about the mode of recording and 4(11):983–996. doi:10.1038/s41893-021-00755-x. how data will be anonymised, and answered any question Chappell MJ. 2018. Beginning to end hunger. In: Beginning from the participants. Informed consent was requested and to end hunger. Oakland, California: University of given verbally to appropriately adhere to cultural California Press. sensibilities. Clément CWY. 2019. Hybrid governance as rural develop- ment: market, state, and civil society in Correns, France. In: Peter Andrée, Jill K. Clark, Charles Z. Levkoe and ORCID Kristen Lowitt. Civil society and social movements in food system governance. United Kingdom: Routledge; Aisa O. Manlosa http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8058-412X pp. 183–200. Stefan Partelow http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7751-4005 Cockburn J, Schoon M, Cundill G, Robinson C, Aburto JA, Tolera Senbeto Jiren http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5905- Alexander SM, Baggio JA, Barnaud C, Chapman M, Garcia Llorente M, García-López GA. 2020. Maraja Riechers http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3916-8102 Understanding the context of multifaceted collabora- Adiska Octa Paramita http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7164- tions for social-ecological sustainability: a methodology for cross-case analysis. Ecol Soc. 25(3). doi:10.5751/ES- 11527-250307. CSA, WFP. 2014. Comprehensive Food Security and References Vulnerability Analysis (CFSVA). A joint publication between the Ethiopia Central Statistical Agency and the Abson DJ, Fischer J, Leventon J, Newig J, Schomerus T, World Food Programme. http://www.csa.gov.et,http:// Vilsmaier U, von Wehrden H, Abernethy P, Ives CD, www.wfp.org/food-security/ Jager NW, Lang DJ. 2017. Leverage points for sustain- Dajka J-C, Woodhead AJ, Norström AV, Graham NA, ability transformation. Ambio. 46(1):30–39. doi:10.1007/ Riechers M, Nyström M, Belgrano A. 2020. Red and s13280-016-0800-y. green loops help uncover missing feedbacks in a coral Albertus M. 2021. Property without rights: origins and reef social–ecological system. People Nat. 2(3):608–618. consequences of the property rights gap. Cambridge, doi:10.1002/pan3.10092. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Davis B, Lipper L, Winters P. 2022. Do not transform food Anaya FC, Espírito-Santo MM. 2018. Protected areas and systems on the backs of the rural poor. Food Secur. 14 territorial exclusion of traditional communities. Ecol (3):1–12. doi:10.1007/s12571-021-01214-3. Soc. 23(1). doi:10.5751/ES-09850-230108. Derwort P, Jager N, Newig J. 2019. Towards productive Baumann L, Riechers M, Celliers L, Ferse S. thisissue. functions? A systematic review of institutional failure, its Anticipating and transforming futures: a literature 14 A. O. MANLOSA ET AL. Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, causes and consequences. Policy Sci. 52(2):281–298. Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ. 2012. Transdisciplinary doi:10.1007/s11077-018-9339-z. research in sustainability science: practice, principles, Desmarais AA. 2008. The power of peasants: reflections on and challenges. Sustain Sci. 7(S1):25–43. doi:10.1007/ the meanings of La Vía Campesina. J Rural Stud. 24 s11625-011-0149-x. (2):138–149. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.12.002. Lawless S, Cohen P, McDougall C, Orirana G, Siota F, Egli L, Meyer C, Scherber C, Kreft H, Tscharntke T. 2018. Doyle K. 2019. Gender norms and relations: implica- Winners and losers of national and global efforts to tions for agency in coastal livelihoods. Maritime Stud. reconcile agricultural intensification and biodiversity 18(3):347–358. doi:10.1007/s40152-019-00147-0. conservation. Glob Chang Biol. 24(5):2212–2228. Leeuwis C, Boogaard BK, Atta-Krah K. 2021. How food doi:10.1111/gcb.14076. systems change (or not): governance implications for Ericksen PJ. 2008. Conceptualizing food systems for global system transformation processes. Food Secur. 13 environmental change research. Global Environ Change. (4):761–780. doi:10.1007/s12571-021-01178-4. 18(1):234–245. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.09.002. Loos J, Abson DJ, Chappell MJ, Hanspach J, Mikulcak F, FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, WHO. 2020. The state of food Tichit M, Fischer J. 2014. Putting meaning back into security and nutrition in the World 2020. Transforming “sustainable intensification”. Front Ecol Environ. 12 food systems for affordable healthy diets. Rome: FAO. (6):356–361. doi:10.1890/130157. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, WHO. 2021. The state of food Lotz-Sisitka H, Mukute M, Chikunda C, Baloi A, security and nutrition in the World 2021. Transforming Pesanayi T. 2017. Transgressing the norm: transforma- food systems for food security, improved nutrition and tive agency in community-based learning for sustainabil- affordable healthy diets for all. Rome: FAO. ity in southern African contexts. Int Rev Educ. 63 Feola G, Koretskaya O, Moore D. 2021. (Un) making in (6):897–914. doi:10.1007/s11159-017-9689-3. sustainability transformation beyond capitalism. Global Environ Change. 69:102290. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha. Manlosa AO, Hanspach J, Schultner J, Dorresteijn I, 2021.102290. Fischer J. 2019b. Livelihood strategies, capital assets, Gardner R, Ostrom E. 1991. Rules and games. Public and food security in rural Southwest Ethiopia. Food Choice. 70(2):121–149. doi:10.1007/BF00124480. Secur. 11(1):167–181. doi:10.1007/s12571-018-00883-x. Gurney GG, Mangubhai S, Fox M, Kim MK, Agrawal A. Manlosa AO, Hornidge A-K, Schlüter A. 2021. Institutions 2021. Equity in environmental governance: perceived and institutional changes: aquatic food production in fairness of distributional justice principles in marine Central Luzon, Philippines. Reg Environ Change. 21 co-management. Environ Sci Policy. 124:23–32. doi:10. (4):1–14. doi:10.1007/s10113-021-01853-4. 1016/j.envsci.2021.05.022. Manlosa AO, Schultner J, Dorresteijn I, Fischer J. 2019a. Hainzelin E, Caron P, Place F, Dury S, Echeverria R, Leverage points for improving gender equality and Harding A. 2021. How could science-policy interfaces human well-being in a smallholder farming context. boost food system transformation? Food Systems Sustain Sci. 14(2):529–541. doi:10.1007/s11625-018-0636-4. Summit Brief. Manlosa AO, Schultner J, Dorresteijn I, Fischer J. 2019c. Hakkarainen V, Daw TM, Tengö M 2020. On the other end Capital asset substitution as a coping strategy: practices of research: exploring community-level knowledge and implications for food security and resilience in exchanges in small-scale fisheries in Zanzibar. southwestern Ethiopia. Geoforum. 106:13–23. doi:10. Sustainability Science. 15(1):281–295. doi:10.1007/ 1016/j.geoforum.2019.07.022. s11625-019-00750-4. Meadows DH. 1999. Leverage points: places to intervene in Hardt MJ. 2009. Lessons from the past: the collapse of a system. USA: Sustainability Institute. Jamaican coral reefs. Fish Fisheries. 10(2):143–158. Milkoreit M, Hodbod J, Baggio J, Benessaiah K, doi:10.1111/j.1467-2979.2008.00308.x. Calderón-Contreras R, Donges JF, Mathias J-D, Hodgson GM. 2006. What are institutions? J Econ Issues. Rocha JC, Schoon M, Werners SE. 2018. Defining tip- 40(1):1–25. doi:10.1080/00213624.2006.11506879. ping points for social-ecological systems scholarship—an Jentoft S. 2004. Institutions in fisheries: what they are, what interdisciplinary literature review. Environ Res Lett. 13 they do, and how they change. Marine Policy. 28 (3):033005. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aaaa75. (2):137–149. doi:10.1016/S0308-597X(03)00085-X. Njuki J, Parkins J, Kaler A, editors. 2016. Transforming Jiren TS, Leventon J, Jager NW, Dorresteijn I, Schultner J, gender and food security in the global south. New York: Senbeta F, Bergsten A, Fischer J. 2021b. Governance Routledge. challenges at the interface of food security and biodiver- Partelow S, Schlüter A, Armitage D, Bavinck M, Carlisle K, sity conservation: a multi-level case study from Ethiopia. Gruby RL, Hornidge K, Le Tissier M, Pittman JB, Environ Manage. 67(4):717–730. doi:10.1007/s00267- Song AM, Sousa LP. 2020. Environmental governance 021-01432-7. theories: a review and application to coastal systems. Jiren TS, Riechers M, Bergsten A, Fischer J. 2021a. Ecol Soc. 25(4). doi:10.5751/ES-12067-250419. A leverage points perspective on institutions for food Partelow S, Schlüter A, O Manlosa A, Nagel B, Octa security in a smallholder-dominated landscape in south- Paramita A. 2022. Governing aquaculture commons. western Ethiopia. Sustain Sci. 16(3):767–779. doi:10. Rev Aquacult. 14(2):729–750. doi:10.1111/raq.12622. 1007/s11625-021-00936-9. Partelow S, Senff P, Buhari N, Schlüter A. 2018. Jiren TS, Schultner J, Abson DJ, Fischer J, Fang W-T. 2022. Operationalizing the social-ecological systems frame- A multi-level assessment of changes in stakeholder con- work in pond aquaculture. Int J Commons. 12 stellations, interest and influence on ecosystem services (1):485–518. doi:10.18352/ijc.834. under different landscape scenarios in southwestern Patel R. 2012. Stuffed and starved: the hidden battle for the Ethiopia. PLOS Sustain Transform. 1(5):e0000012. world food system-revised and updated. Brooklyn, New doi:10.1371/journal.pstr.0000012. York: Melville House. KKP. 2019. Laporan Tahunan Kementerian Kelautan dan Patterson J, Schulz K, Vervoort J, Van Der Hel S, Widerberg O, Perikanan Tahun 2019. 16:1–168. Adler C, Hurlbert M, Anderton K, Sethi M, Barau A. 2017. ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 15 Exploring the governance and politics of transformations Tacoli C, Agergaard J. 2017. Urbanisation, rural transfor- towards sustainability. Environ Innov Soc Transit. 24:1–16. mations and food systems: the role of small towns. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.001. London, United Kingdom: International Institute for Pereira L, Frantzeskaki N, Hebinck A, Charli-Joseph L, Environment and Development (IIED). Drimie S, Dyer M, Eakin H, Galafassi D, Toxopeus H, Kotsila P, Conde M, Katona A, van der Karpouzoglou T, Marshall F, Moore M-L. 2020. Jagt AP, Polzin F. 2020. How ‘just’ is hybrid governance Transformative spaces in the making: key lessons from of urban nature-based solutions? Cities. 105:102839. nine cases in the Global South. Sustain Sci. 15 doi:10.1016/j.cities.2020.102839. (1):161–178. doi:10.1007/s11625-019-00749-x. Veblen T. 1919. The place of science in modern civilization Prause L, Hackfort S, Lindgren M. 2021. Digitalization and and other essays. New York: Huebach. the third food regime. Agric Human Values. 38 Viana C, Coudel E, Barlow J, Ferreira J, Gardner T, (3):641–655. doi:10.1007/s10460-020-10161-2. Parry L. 2016. How does hybrid governance emerge? Rifai H, Hernawan UE, Zulpikar F, Sondakh CF, Ambo- Role of the elite in building a green municipality in the Rappe R, Sjafrie ND, Irawan A, Dewanto HY, Rahayu YP, Eastern Brazilian Amazon. Environ Policy Governance. Reenyan J, Safaat M. 2022. Strategies to improve manage- 26(5):337–350. doi:10.1002/eet.1720. ment of Indonesia’s blue carbon seagrass habitats in mar- Westley F, Olsson P, Folke C, Homer-Dixon T, ine protected areas. Coastal Manage. 50(2):93–105. doi:10. Vredenburg H, Loorbach D, Thompson J, Nilsson M, 1080/08920753.2022.2022948. Lambin E, Sendzimir J, Banerjee B. 2011. Tipping Scoones I, Stirling A, Abrol D, Atela J, Charli-Joseph L, toward sustainability: emerging pathways of Eakin H, Ely A, Olsson P, Pereira L, Priya R, van transformation. Ambio. 40(7):762–780. doi:10.1007/ Zwanenberg P. 2020. Transformations to sustainability: s13280-011-0186-9. combining structural, systemic and enabling approaches. West S, van Kerkhoff L, Wagenaar H. 2019. Beyond “link- Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 42:65–75. doi:10.1016/j. ing knowledge and action”: towards a practice-based cosust.2019.12.004. approach to transdisciplinary sustainability interven- Scott WR. 1995. Institutions andorganizations. London: tions. Policy Stud. 40(5):534–555. doi:10.1080/ Sage Publications. 01442872.2019.1618810. Scott JC. 2008. Seeing like a state. In: Seeing like a state. Whitfield S, Apgar M, Chabvuta C, Challinor A, Yale University Press. Deering K, Dougill A, Gulzar A, Kalaba F, Senff P, Partelow S, Indriana LF, Buhari N, Kunzmann A. Lamanna C, Manyonga D, Naess LO. 2021. 2018. Improving pond aquaculture production on A framework for examining justice in food system Lombok, Indonesia. Aquaculture. 497:64–73. doi:10. transformations research. Nat Food. 2(6):383–385. 1016/j.aquaculture.2018.07.027. doi:10.1038/s43016-021-00304-x. Shumeta Z, D’Haese M. 2018. Do coffee farmers benefit in food Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, security from participating in coffee cooperatives? Evidence Vermeulen S, Garnett T, Tilman D, DeClerck F, from Southwest Ethiopia coffee cooperatives. Food Nutr Wood A, Jonell M. 2019. Food in the Anthropocene: Bull. 39(2):266–280. doi:10.1177/0379572118765341. the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from Slikkerveer LJ. 2019. Gotong royong: an indigenous insti- sustainable food systems. Lancet. 393(10170):447–492. tution of communality and mutual assistance in doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4. Indonesia. In: L. Jan Slikkerveer, George Baourakis, Williamson OE. 2000. The new institutional economics: and Kurniawan Saefullah. Integrated community-mana- taking stock, looking ahead. J Econ Lit. 38(3):595–613. ged development. Cham: Springer. pp. 307–320. doi:10.1257/jel.38.3.595. Steffen W, Rockström J, Richardson K, Lenton TM, Zeweld W, Van Huylenbroeck G, Buysse J. 2015. Folke C, Liverman D, Summerhayes CP, Barnosky AD, Household food security through cooperative societies Cornell SE, Crucifix M, Donges JF. 2018. Trajectories of in northern Ethiopia. International Journal of the earth system in the anthropocene. Proc Natl Acad Development Issues. 14(1):60–72. doi:10.1108/IJDI-02- Sci. 115(33):8252–8259. doi:10.1073/pnas.1810141115. 2014-0014. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Ecosystems and People Taylor & Francis http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/taylor-francis/the-role-of-institutions-in-food-system-transformations-lessons-9D3KNt5Qw2

The role of institutions in food system transformations: lessons learned from transdisciplinary engagements in Ethiopia, the Philippines, and Indonesia

Manlosa, Aisa O.; Partelow, Stefan; Jiren, Tolera Senbeto; Riechers, Maraja; Paramita, Adiska Octa

Ecosystems and People , Volume 19 (1): 1 – Dec 31, 2023

Download PDF

Share Full Text for Free

15 pages

The role of institutions in food system transformations: lessons learned from transdisciplinary engagements in Ethiopia, the Philippines, and Indonesia

Abstract

In many parts of the Global South, food systems are confronted with complex sustainability challenges including high levels of poverty, food insecurity, malnutrition, disempowerment, and degraded environments. Transformation is broadly discussed in research, policy, and planning as the systemic change required to address complex sustainability issues. Transformation of food systems has become a global priority for research and action. However, transformation processes are not neutral, but...

Loading next page...

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
ISSN: 2639-5916
DOI: 10.1080/26395916.2022.2146753
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 2023, VOL. 19, NO. 1, 2146753 https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2146753 RESEARCH The role of institutions in food system transformations: lessons learned from transdisciplinary engagements in Ethiopia, the Philippines, and Indonesia a,b a c c Aisa O. Manlosa , Stefan Partelow , Tolera Senbeto Jiren , Maraja Riechers and Adiska Octa Paramita a b Social Sciences Department, Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT), Bremen, Germany; Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs - Leiden University College The Hague, Leiden University, Netherlands; Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Received 1 June 2022 In many parts of the Global South, food systems are confronted with complex sustainability Accepted 25 October 2022 challenges including high levels of poverty, food insecurity, malnutrition, disempowerment, and degraded environments. Transformation is broadly discussed in research, policy, and EDITED BY planning as the systemic change required to address complex sustainability issues. Nadia Sitas Transformation of food systems has become a global priority for research and action. KEYWORDS However, transformation processes are not neutral, but are associated with losses and Cooperation; community; gains that are unevenly distributed. Institutions play an important role in relation to how food security; rules; society; transformation of food systems occur and with what outcomes. Empirical understandings of sustainability how institutions can influence transformation processes in a way that avoids risks or the so- called dark side of transformation are needed. This article aims to contribute towards under- standing the roles that institutions play in transformation processes in the context of Global South food systems through synthesising insights from transdisciplinary case studies. The three case studies include multi-purpose cooperative institutions in farming areas in south- west Ethiopia, fisherfolk organisations in aquatic food-producing areas in northern Philippines, and Gotong Royong for irrigation canal management for pond aquaculture in Indonesia. The article examines whether and how institutions advance inclusion and partici- pation in food systems, and whether institutions enable or constrain food system actors in mitigating or avoiding transformation risks. The paper reflects on the role of community-level institutions and hybrid governance arrangements, and the interplay of structure and agency in transformation processes. domain of sustainability science, it is by no means Introduction a new phenomenon in our collective global history. The Transforming food systems to realise human health and unsustainable trajectory that humanity is currently on, is well-being, while ensuring ecological integrity has an outcome of transformation processes that were set become a global priority for research and action (Béné into motion long before the present generation, but et al. 2019, 2020; Hainzelin et al. 2021). This is particularly were accelerated during our lifetime (Steffen et al. 2018). urgent in the context of the Global South where many small-scale food producers are confronted with high levels of poverty, food insecurity, malnutrition, disempo- Food system transformations in the Global werment, and degraded environments (Willett et al. 2019; South FAO et al. 2020). The Food and Agriculture Organisation Whitfield et al. (2021, 383) views food system trans- along with other global institutions (FAO et al. 2021) formation as ‘fundamental changes in circumstance report high levels of food insecurity and malnutrition in occurring to, for, and by people within. . . food sys- Africa and parts of Asia – areas where large fractions of tems’. Transformation ultimately refers to systemic populations rely on food production such as smallholder change which fundamentally shifts system function- farming and fishing, and marketing of food for their ality and outcomes resulting in the emergence of livelihoods. Presently, the term transformation is broadly a new system or a new regime. In food systems, it is discussed in research, policy, and planning, as the sys- a fundamental change in the structure, function, and temic change required in various sectors of society relational aspects, that in a normative view, can be including the food sector, to address complex sustain- oriented towards creating more just social-ecological ability issues (Bennett et al. 2019; Scoones et al. 2020; Feola et al. 2021). But while the concept of transformation relationships, interactions, and outcomes (Patterson is a relatively new research focus within the broader et al. 2017). CONTACT Aisa O. Manlosa a.o.manlosa@luc.leidenuniv.nl © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 2 A. O. MANLOSA ET AL. A historical example of systemic transformation mitigating them (Davis et al. 2022). Important work emerges from the Spanish occupation of Jamaica by Blythe et al. (2018) calls attention to the dark side from 1509 to 1655 which transformed the country’s of transformation, referring to latent risks in trans- food system through integration into the global mar- formation processes and in discourse that frames the ket (Hardt 2009). Prior to this period, Jamaica had process as either inevitable or apolitical. productive reef systems to fall back on when fish In view of the current status of poverty, global availability from near-shore fisheries fluctuated. But food insecurity, other forms of unsustainability, and transformative globalisation and market integration the magnitude of these challenges in many food sys- during the colonial period resulted in degraded near- tems of the Global South, it is not only necessary to shore fisheries, decreased availability of seafood for understand what drives food system transformations consumption, and looming food insecurity (Dajka in these contexts and the mechanisms in which these et al. 2020). To cite another example, the transforma- happen (Béné et al. 2019), it is also equally important tive institutionalisation of La Via Campesina which is to critically examine whether and how ongoing or a global movement of organised small and middle- envisioned transformations advance sustainability, scale food producers, has shifted numerous farms in equality, and social justice as equally valued goals in different parts of the world towards sustainable agri- transformation processes and outcomes of Global culture through agroecological practices and food South food systems (Njuki et al. 2016; Whitfield sovereignty principles (Desmarais 2008), considered et al. 2021; Davis et al. 2022). Scholars have critiqued as the more just and sustainable trajectory over cor- top-down and technocratic solutions for their insuf- porate agriculture (Patel 2012; Albertus 2021). ficiency in achieving complex societal goals (Scott Transformations are typically viewed as a gradual 2008). Instead, new modes of research are being process, but some may also manifest in the form of tested, such as participatory, transdisciplinary abrupt changes once a system crosses a threshold or research which aims for sustained engagement with tipping point and a cascade of changes occur multiple actors in framing problems and challenges, (Milkoreit et al. 2018). co-designing solutions, collaborative implementation As the examples highlighted, transformation pro- of solutions, co-monitoring of impacts, and co- cesses are not neutral (Leeuwis et al. 2021; Whitfield creation of knowledge in an iterative and reflexive et al. 2021; Davis et al. 2022). They are associated manner (Lang et al. 2012; West et al. 2019; with losses and gains which are often unevenly dis- Chambers et al. 2022). While research engagement tributed (Egli et al. 2018; Gurney et al. 2021). In the in the topic of transformation particularly, as it past, food systems have undergone series of transfor- relates to transdisciplinarity, has increased (Brandt mations giving rise to different food regimes with et al. 2013; Chambers et al. 2021), questions and evidently mixed outcomes for different actors, includ- context-specific evidence around the mechanisms of ing the systematic marginalisation and impoverish- transformation remains open for examination in ment of many smallholder producers through various most of the Global South (Baumann et al. this issue). mechanisms (Patel 2012; Prause et al. 2021). Critical Empirical understandings of how institutions can perspectives on the liberalisation of international help influence transformation processes in a way that trade for food in the post-war era which brought avoids the so-called dark side of transformation are about broad changes in food policies shed light on needed (Blythe et al. 2018). Transformation processes how the transformation which privileged investments can be influenced by various factors, and institutions to intensify agricultural production and international are among the powerful factors that can shift the trade also resulted in decreased access and control trajectory of complex systems (Meadows 1999; over the means of food production. The latter out- Westley et al. 2011; Abson et al. 2017). Yet the comes were more sharply experienced by small-scale mechanisms through which institutions contribute to producers in the Global South relative to their large- transformation are not well understood – especially in scale and richer counterparts. These outcomes were the Global South which prompted the Special Issue to widespread in different parts of Asia and Latin which this paper contributes. Distilling insights on the America (Patel 2012). Davis et al. (2022) cautioned role of institutions in transformation processes and against transforming food systems on the backs of the mobilising such knowledge for transdisciplinary work poor which occurs when transformation discourses between researchers and societal actors are vital for and interventions de-centre the livelihoods of small- informing ongoing or future transformative and trans- holder producers. Rather, they highlight the necessity disciplinary interventions. of foregrounding inclusion and environmental jus- Our article, therefore, aims to contribute towards tice, prioritising livelihood improvement for the understanding the roles that institutions play in rural poor, and making explicit the differences of transformation processes in the context of Global food systems in externalities generated and in South food systems through synthesising insights ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 3 from transdisciplinary case studies in Ethiopia (diver- the dark side of transformation (Blythe et al. 2018). sified smallholder farming), the Philippines (aquatic While it may be challenging for diverse actors with food production), and Indonesia (brackish water different interests and agenda to collectively subscribe pond aquaculture). A multi-country case study to similar sustainability outcomes, agreeing on what approach is adopted in order to analyse differing to avoid provides a stable basis for finding common processes in specific places and to examine the roles ground and avoiding worst case scenarios within of institutions in different contexts. The first objective complex governance and institutional landscapes. of this paper is to identify and describe institutions We therefore adopt the framework developed by that are important in relation to the transformation Blythe et al. (2018) which conceptualises the dark of food systems in the selected case studies. For this, side of transformation as consisting of shifting of we focus on institutions that fostered new social burdens to vulnerable parties, transformation as arrangements which can potentially give rise to new a justification for business-as-usual, lack of attention practices (e.g. Manlosa et al. 2019a), new social rela- to social differentiation, exclusion of the possibility of tions (e.g. Cockburn et al. 2020), new ways of work- resistance or non-transformation, and inattention to ing together (e.g. Hakkarainen et al. 2020), or new power and politics (see Table 1 for examples from the ways of thinking (e.g. Lotz-Sisitka et al. 2017), among Global South). Thus, our third objective is to examine other outcomes that potentially contribute to trans- whether and how institutions in the case studies formation. Applying a normative lens that is enable or constrain small-scale food system actors in informed by critical perspectives, our second objec- mitigating or avoiding any or a combination of these tive is to examine how emerging social dynamics are identified transformation risks. fostered by the institutions of focus and whether the In the next section, we outline the concept of institutions advance inclusion and participation in institutions as they relate to transformation. This is food system transformations (Blythe et al. 2018; followed by a methods section that provides a brief Davis et al. 2022). This objective focuses on process overview of the cases and data collection. The find- and is concerned with how institutions can structure ings address the objectives in each of the case studies. whose interests, values, and voices are recognised and The discussion returns to the topic of transdisciplin- valued in transformation processes. Crucially, we ary engagement and offers reflections on how it can argue that it is necessary to have a normative goal be amplified particularly through awareness and care- in researching and in facilitating food system trans- ful engagement with institutions in food systems of formation to understand and actively work towards the Global South. It includes suggestions on key avoiding risks and negative outcomes, referred to as action areas for future research and practice in Table 1. Risks associated with transformation processes (Blythe et al. 2018) and some examples for food systems in the Global South. Transformation risks to avoid Some examples in Global South food systems Risk 1: Transformation that risks shifting the burden of Establishment of protected areas that involves excluding smallholder food producers response onto vulnerable parties from accessing resources they rely on for their livelihoods. Promoting adaptation strategies that are costlier for smallholder producers e.g. costly restoration or infrastructure programs. (see Anaya and Espírito-Santo 2018 for detailed discussion) Risk 2: Transformation that may be used to justify business- Unsustainable intensification and industrialisation of food production justified on the as-usual basis of food security which reproduces long standing patterns of large scale producers consolidating control while smallholders lose livelihoods, lose control of resources, face decreasing incomes, and face reduced life quality. (see Patel 2012 for detailed discussion) Risk 3: Transformation that pays insufficient attention to Framing agriculture as one category of production that generates environmental social differentiation externalities without foregrounding the differences in responsibility between small scale and large scale producers; or highlighting aggregated economic benefits from transformative technological changes (e.g. Green Revolution in the 1970s) without foregrounding how the benefits are disproportionately captured by large scale players while small scale actors lose out. This also plays out when differences across social groups within countries are missed and panacea policies that are not adaptable to local contexts are applied. (see Loos et al. 2014 for detailed discussion) Risk 4: Transformation that excludes the possibility of non- Promotion of costly technologies that intensify food production and digitalisation as transformation or resistance ‘the’ pathway for transforming towards sustainable food systems while not attending to multiple pathways and plural alternatives. (see Prause et al. 2021 for detailed discussion) Risk 5: Transformation that does not sufficiently engage Asymmetric power relations enable rich and influential actors to lobby for greater with issues arising from power and politics control over production resources and trading processes, have a stronger voice in legislating policies and setting transformation trajectory in a way that advances their interests rather than prioritising and tackling food insecurity, malnutrition, poverty, and environmental degradation among the most marginalised groups in a population. (see Whitfield et al. 2021 for detailed discussion) 4 A. O. MANLOSA ET AL. a way that harnesses institutions towards what might outcomes, it is a challenge to transform towards be envisioned as a brighter side of transformation. sustainability when institutions lock food systems into a certain state or regime. Restructuring institu- tions for sustainability can be difficult due to its Conceptual framework: institutions and their tendency to be self-reinforcing and change-resistant role in transformation (Abson et al. 2017). However, such restructuring can be powerful because of institutions’ strategic role in We adopt Scott’s (1995) broad definition of institutions guiding humans towards a collective goal and in as those ‘cognitive, normative, and regulative structures organising societal interactions (e.g. Abson et al. and activities that provide stability and meaning to social 2017). Restructuring can occur, for example, through behaviour’. These determine an institution’s functions, its crises that trigger institutional adaptations, purposive mechanisms of influence over a system, and its change- destabilisation of unsustainable institutions, building ability. Some institutions are more regulative in charac- insights around institutional failure that can inform teristic and function, such as protected areas for efforts to improve institutional functioning in the conservation which restrict resource extraction, use, and future, and the loss or decline of institutions due to activities in a defined area (e.g. Rifai et al. 2022). Others broader social changes (Abson et al. 2017; Derwort are more normative such as cultural gender norms which et al. 2019). Institutions are considered vital for trans- implicitly designate gender roles and shape gendered formation, and institutional change is considered access and control over resources and decision-making a necessary part in the process of shifting unsustain- in a food system (e.g. Lawless et al. 2019) with significant able and inequitable food systems into alternative and impacts on people’s abilities to be food secure and nour- desirable trajectories (Patel 2012; Chappell 2018). ished. The cognitive element of institutions can be con- Channelling efforts and carefully investing in institu- sidered akin to Veblen’s (1919) settled habits of thought. tional changes (Westley et al. 2011) that advance It is deeply embedded and relates to how both formal and process-oriented normative goals (e.g. inclusion, par- informal rules may be internalised by people to the extent ticipation, transparency) and proactively working that they shape people’s paradigms and worldviews. towards mitigating or avoiding the risks associated Institutions are also understood as the socially con- with transformation processes plays an important structed formal and informal rules that govern and struc- role in reversing unsustainability and inequity in ture humans’ interactions and relationships with one another, as well as their interactions with more-than- many food systems of the Global South. humans (e.g. other species, and natural and built envir- Different types of institutions exist and exert influ- onments) (see Jentoft 2004 for various definitions). ence over processes and outcomes of food systems Institutions tend to resist change. They are char- (Table 2). Examples of institutions in food systems acterised by durability and stability (Jentoft 2004). include formal rules and regulations, organisations, According to Williamson (2000), different institu- informal norms, markets, and property rights tions vary in relation to the timescales in which (Partelow et al. 2022). Rules (of the operational they change. Markets, for instance, change within kind) tend to regulate the kind of food production shorter timescales than embedded cultural norms activities that are allowed within a defined area, (Williamson 2000). In cases where institutions under- determine those which are prohibited, and designate pin unsustainable and inequitable food system who carries responsibility for enforcement (sensu Table 2. General types of institutions that may influence food systems. Institutions Descriptions Examples Formal These are fomally written or codified rules such as laws and regulations, and International laws, bi-lateral or multilateral country institutions agreements such as plans and contracts that are collectively and legally agreements, national laws, local regulations, binding. Accountability for the enforcement of these institutions is legally recognised property rights typically the jurisdiction of government. (Abson et al. 2017) Informal These are collectively held and implicitly learned customs, taboos, codes of Customary laws on land access, customary property institutions conduct, informal conventions, and social norms. They are considered ‘the rights, customary inheritance practices, normal way of doing things’ which tend to remain unquestioned for intersectional gender norms centuries. They are also deeply embedded in religion or culture. (Abson et al. 2017) Hybrid Collaborative governance that goes beyond co-existence or competition Collaborative state-community approaches institutional between governance structures and involves the merging of different arrangements types of governance arrangements. Includes reformist and alternative orientations. (Clément 2019) Organisations There are varying views on this. Some view organisations as entities that Community groups, local associations, cooperatives, cannot be considered as institutions. Others view organisations as state organisations, private firms consisting of a bundle of rules which make organisations a type of institution. We adopt the latter view. Organisations may also be formal or informal. (Hodgson 2006) ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 5 Gardner and Ostrom 1991). For instance, in the usual, remedy the lack of attention to social differ- Philippines, small-scale fishing is allowed within 7 entiation of food system actors, reverses exclusion of km from the shore, while large scale commercial non-transformation or resistance, or address inatten- fishing can only be undertaken beyond this space tion to power and politics. (Manlosa et al. 2021). There are institutions that incentivise production of certain crops, or govern market transactions. Examples of different market Methods institutions are middlemen-dominated market Case studies arrangements, community-supported agriculture, and retail supermarket. There are also formal institu- A focus on the Global South is important for under- tions that define property rights. These differentiate standing the role of institutions in food system trans- between private property, public property, and com- formation processes due to some shared monly held resources (Partelow et al. 2022). characteristics including high dependence on food Additionally, there are institutions that structure production for people’s livelihoods, high importance cooperation in communities, civil society, and hybrid of community-level initiatives, and histories of mar- arrangements in the form of associations which may ginalisation of small-scale and rural food system be formal or informal in character (see Partelow et al. actors. In addition, issues related to a lack of clear 2022 for detailed explanations of types of institu- property rights and capacities for initiating or sus- tions). For a complex sector, such as the food sector, taining collective action in some cases add to the institutions of different types with different functions challenge of food system governance. This study and different characteristics may simultaneously exert examines the role of institutions in transformation influence on the processes and outcomes of food processes in three case studies, namely diversified systems (Partelow et al. 2020). smallholder farming system in southwest Ethiopia, Different factors have been examined by scholars aquatic food production in northern Philippines, as contributing to the transformative potential of and canal management for pond aquaculture in institutions. Focus was given on institutions that Indonesia (Figure 1, also see Table 3 for transforma- enable transformative learning and those that facil- tion trends in the case studies). The inclusion of these itate the creation of new connections and alliances case studies was motivated by our interest to examine (e.g. Lotz-Sisitka et al. 2017; Cockburn et al. 2020) institutions in diverse food systems and contexts, and and empower social groups to the extent that coun- to uncover key differences and similarities. ter-narratives and counter-actions are able to disrupt Knowledge on the case studies were contributed by existing power relations and existing structures (e.g. different co-authors who undertook field work at Chappell 2018). Here, the case studies we selected are different times in the selected areas. Thus, place- all influenced by multiple institutions and a number based expertise also informed the selection of these of papers have been published providing detailed cases. backgrounds on these (e.g. Partelow et al. 2018; The case study in southwest Ethiopia includes the Jiren et al. 2021b; Manlosa et al. 2021). For this districts of Seka Chekorsa, Gumay, Setema, and Gera study, we specifically examine those that demonstrate in the Jimma Zone, Oromia Federal State. Ethiopia potential to contribute to and influence transforma- has a federal government structure consisting of tion processes particularly by creating more inclusive national, regional, zone, district (woredas), and processes and enabling actors to address risks asso- municipality (kebeles) levels. Administratively, ciated with transformation. These in turn, can result Jimma zone is located in Oromia regional state, in substantive changes in food systems such as approximately 350 km southwest of the regional changes in who controls and accesses important capital, Finfinne. Nearly 90% of inhabitants are resources for food system livelihoods, promoting the smallholder farmers whose livelihoods are highly human agency of those who are marginalised, the dependent on diversified farming of food crops creation of new and safe spaces for challenging dis- including cereals and pulses, production of cash advantageous asymmetric power relationships and crops mainly coffee (Coffea arabica) and khat structures, promotion of transformative learning, (Catha edulis), and some fruits (Manlosa et al. and fostering egalitarian relationships across different 2019b; Jiren et al. 2022). Although relatively better axes of social differentiation, among others. As pre- off than those in other parts of Ethiopia (CSA and conditions for these desirable outcomes, and applying WFP 2014), smallholder farmers in the Jimma zone the notion of the dark side of transformation (Blythe face seasonal food insecurity and structural food et al. 2018), in our analyses we paid attention to system issues (Manlosa et al. 2019b; Jiren et al. whether institutions help avoid the shifting of bur- 2021a). For instance, formal agricultural develop- dens to vulnerable food system actors, avoid using ment interventions force farmers to use inorganic transformation as a justification for business-as- fertilisers without considering their willingness and 6 A. O. MANLOSA ET AL. institutional support, and market problems (a) (Manlosa et al. 2019c; Jiren et al. 2021b). Farmers often rely on formal and informal institutions to overcome food production problems (see Manlosa et al. 2019c; Jiren et al. 2021a). Examples are diddaro, dabo, and dado which are informal, cultural norms of cooperation at the community level. These are long-standing local practices for collaboratively guarding farms from crop raiders or for harvesting crops (see Manlosa et al. 2019c; Jiren et al. 2021a for details). Over the last decade, smallholder-based multi-purpose cooperative institutions (MPCI) have been expanding in the area to promote collective action for a sustainable food system. These coopera- (b) tive institutions in the food-producing areas often positively contribute to ensuring food security (Zeweld et al. 2015). However, its role in transform- ing the local food system specifically in the mixed food and cash crops-producing areas still need to be understood. The case study in northern Philippines is situated in the coastal municipalities of Hagonoy, Paombong, and Malolos. These municipalities are situated in the province of Bulacan, within the region of Central Luzon and along the coast of Manila Bay. Aquatic food production is under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources which (c) has offices at the national and regional levels and a satellite station in one of the municipalities studied, and the local government units at the municipality level. Small-scale fishing and aquaculture production are important sources of aquatic food and livelihoods, and these are undertaken in estuarine areas and municipal waters (up to 7 km from the shore) and earthen fish ponds, respectively. Fishers face the chal- lenge of declining fish catch, while aquaculture pro- ducers face decreasing productivity of fish ponds and more frequent fish kills (Manlosa et al. 2021). A major environmental problem in the area is water pollution from multiple sources including residential areas, industries, and excessive feed use in large-scale Figure 1. (a) A common view of the landscape in south- intensive aquaculture. The unregulated overuse of western Ethiopia where the food system largely relies on diversified smallholder farming systems involving the produc- synthetic aquaculture feeds and the lack of water tion of various food and cash crops. (b) A small scale fisher in treatment facilities in intensive fish ponds were the northern part of the Philippines is unfurling fish nets in observed by small-scale aquatic food producers to an estuary leading to Manila Bay. (c) An irrigation canal along have caused the decline and disappearance of certain some of the dried brackish water earthen pond aquaculture marine aquatic species that are important food in Indonesia. sources (Manlosa et al. 2021). Fishers also perceived a substantive increase in plastics in the estuaries and capacity. In some cases, this has led to indebtedness sea. In addition, lack of access to financing, and among farmers due to increased production cost disadvantageous arrangements in fish markets con- without commensurate improvement in earnings front local aquatic food producers. Community-based (Manlosa et al. 2019c). Some of the key livelihood fisherfolk organisations are, collectively, an important challenges in the area include environmental degra- institution that enables small-scale producers to col- dation, decreasing soil fertility, wild animal crop laborate to address food system challenges (Manlosa raids, low agricultural productivity, weak et al. 2021). ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 7 Table 3. Transformation trends in the case studies. Case studies Past or ongoing transformation trends Diversified smallholder farming in Increasing orientation towards export of local farming products particularly of the cash crop coffee; southwest Ethiopia increasing adoption of sustainable intensification in the form of organic and mixed-crop farming Aquatic food production in northern Shift from most aquatic food coming from capture fisheries to more aquatic food being produced from Philippines aquaculture; past land use change from rice farms to aquaculture ponds due to saline water intrusion; ongoing conversion of land use from aquaculture to residential areas or commercial areas (e.g. airport complex) (Manlosa et al. 2021) Brackish water pond aquaculture in Shift in land ownership rights leading to remote management of aquaculture ponds Indonesia Weakening of Gotong Royong cultural norm The case study in West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia and attendant outcomes, and how conditions of includes the villages of Lembar and Sekotong in the natural environments influence people’s livelihoods West Lombok region and the villages of Jerowaru and and collective governance. The studies integrated Sugian in the East Lombok region (Partelow et al. transdisciplinarity at different levels but mainly 2018; Senff et al. 2018). Indonesia is one the world’s with an orientation to institutional and natural largest aquaculture producers, primarily from brack- resource management research. For instance, insti- ish (i.e. mixed fresh and salt water) coastal earthen tutional research in the Ethiopian case followed pond production systems irrigated through canal sys- more than 4 years of transdisciplinary engagement tems. The case study areas produce tiger shrimp, to understand food system challenges and to work milkfish, crab, snapper, and tilapia from a mix of with scenarios to depict shared goals and explore traditional low intensity to semi-intensive production tensions between different stakeholders’ interests. systems that involve water wheels in lined earthen or All three case studies involved the collection and concrete ponds. Pond systems are typically situated analysis of qualitative data around the food system within deforested mangrove estuaries, and provide contexts, the ways in which the broader social- subsistence food and small-scale livelihoods serving ecological systems within which food systems are local and regional markets. A key issue faced by food embedded have changed in the past years and are producers in the area is the management of water transforming, and how institutions play a role in supply to fish ponds. Water is delivered through net- these processes. works of irrigation canals that need to be actively Focus group discussions, participant observations, maintained to ensure adequate supply and turnover, and analysis of institutional documents (e.g. formal often relying on manual water gates, tidal swings, and municipality ordinances, national laws, local regula- generator pumps to maintain water flow. Here, we tions, reports) were undertaken. Moreover, 40 key examine how the government sought to revitalise the informant interviews were conducted with stake- Gotong Royong, a socio-cultural norm in the holders who are engaged in food security governance Indonesian culture for working together for develop- from the kebele up to the zonal levels in Ethiopia, 67 ment in any sector of society. The notion of Gotong in the Philippines with diverse actors in the aquatic Royong in this case is used to catalyse cooperation in food sector including fishers, aquaculture producers, irrigation canal management and maintenance for government representatives, non-government organi- aquaculture. This is explained in greater detail in sations, and market actors, and 111 in Indonesia with the findings section. aquaculture producers and other stakeholders in aquaculture including community leaders and multi- level government representatives. (Ethics statement Data collection and analysis can be found at the end of the manuscript.) Field work for the Ethiopian case study was con- Field work for each of the case study generated ducted on February to April 2020, for the substantive qualitative data and in-depth place-based Philippine case study on November 2019 to knowledge. Qualitative data for each case study was March 2020, and for the Indonesian case study analysed respectively by the co-author who under- from September 2021 to February 2022. Each co- took the field work (TSJ for Ethiopia, AOM for the author who contributed place-based empirical Philippines, and AOP for Indonesia). All co-authors knowledge for each case study is a native resident applied a thematic and iterative coding approach in of the countries. They conducted the field work in the analysis. The authors first coded qualitative data the Afaan Oromoo language in Ethiopia, Tagalog in according to general categories such as descriptions the Philippines, and Sasak and Bahasa in Indonesia. of the food systems, the changes the food systems Field work in the three cases applied a social- have undergone, social-ecological challenges, and ecological systems perspective which examined relevant institutions, among others. For purposes of how socially constructed institutional structures this paper, the authors then focused on the topic of shape the use and management of natural resources institutions to reflect on its attributes, processes, and 8 A. O. MANLOSA ET AL. roles in transformation. Authors used the MaxQDA at the regional or national level. The higher scale qualitative data analysis software for the analysis. unions then link local cooperatives with regional, national, and international markets. Thus, while the institutions’ primary locus of influence is at the com- Findings munity level, they are relevant beyond their immedi- This section examines the role of institutions in ate communities. transformation processes in the three case studies. There are a number of mechanisms through which In each case study, we describe institutions that play MPCIs influence processes in the food system. The a strong role in transformation processes, discuss bottom-up characteristic of these institutions facili- how institutions influence processes in the food sys- tates active exchange among its members in identify- tems, and examine whether and how institutions help ing the different challenges facing them and in taking avoid transformation risks (Blythe et al. 2018). concerted action to alleviate the challenges. In this way, members are able to participate in problem- solving and to benefit in the process. For instance, Multi-purpose cooperative institutions in farming MPCIs provide a platform for collectively identifying areas in southwest Ethiopia where there is farm labour shortage and for co- Different institutions operate and interplay in this devising labour sharing arrangements. These are con- case study to influence the food system which is cerns that, in the absence of an institution, may be highly dependent on diversified smallholder farming. borne individually by farmers, or overlooked at For instance, the public agricultural extension system higher levels of governance. MPCIs also encourage which is a formal institution, applies an expert-driven alternative ways of farming such as organic and eco- top-down approach for the purpose of increasing friendly farming. Its openness to the diverse and agricultural productivity (Jiren et al. 2021a). complex needs of its members has resulted in a multi- Informal institutions (e.g. diddaro, dabo, dado) pronged approach to achieving food security to which are deeply embedded in culture, aim to help include issues of food availability, increasing incomes, community health, and awareness. While MPCIs households tide over food shortages by facilitating the sharing of resources particularly labour. These con- facilitate supply of agricultural inputs and seek to tribute to increased food production, continued promote best farming practices in the area, they also access to food, and promotion of social cohesion mobilise collective action to expand public infrastruc- (Jiren et al. 2021a). ture including irrigation facilities, schools, health cen- Here, we focus on smallholder-based multi- tres, and weather and market information centres. As purpose cooperative institutions (MPCI) which are a result, the production and accessibility of diversified community-level institutions that play a key role in food and cash crops have increased in the area. Thus, supporting smallholder farming in southwest the MPCIs play an important role in ensuring inclu- Ethiopia. MPCIs aim for an inclusive, bottom-up, sive processes where voices of smallholder food pro- and voluntary organisation rooted in communities ducers and their contribution to addressing food in order to support farmers. The goals of MPCIs in system challenges are recognised and valued. the case study are to increase the production of food However, the gains achieved by MPCIs in promot- ing inclusion at the community level are limited when (e.g. maize, teff) and cash crops (e.g. coffee), promote sustainable resource management, ensure equitable higher governance scales are examined. First, there is benefit sharing from food production and marketing, inadequate interplay and weak collaboration between and collectively address food insecurity in ways that MPCIs and other local institutions at the district and go beyond individual capacities. To realise these, kebele levels. Mechanisms for collaborative engage- MPCIs institutionalise arrangements such as the ment between different institutions functioning in the pooling of labour, finance, and other resources. landscape were missing leading to inadequate func- Among its functions is to facilitate an interface tioning of the MPCIs. In addition, the institutional between diverse stakeholders across different govern- interactions across administration levels were similarly ance levels so that actors can interact and stimulate weak, posing a challenge to the cooperatives’ opera- tions. While MPCIs achieved livelihood improvements hybrid initiatives. MPCIs bring together multiple actors including local food producers and residents, and inclusion for its members to some extent, within government representatives, and non-governmental a larger scale, its operations were still largely hampered by power capture by elites and government agencies actors. While locals self-organise and manage MPCIs, other actors provide advisory and legal sup- who had bigger capacity in steering food system trans- port, market linkages, and capacity building services. formation towards a neoliberal agenda. These community-level institutions are also con- There are two ways in which the MPCIs are inter- nected with other cooperatives in different parts of acting with the latent risks of transformation. On one the country because cooperatives form unions either hand, as described above, the cooperatives at the ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 9 community level have not been able to sufficiently Fisheries Code of 1998), members of the organisa- engage with, and challenge issues arising from power tions are also able to collectively set their goals and and politics which are at play beyond the scale of agenda, and to mobilise to achieve these. The FOs communities. On the other hand, the MPCIs have have been present in the study area for a long time, demonstrated achievements in addressing the role of but in the recent years, these organisations have social differentiation in food system transformation. undergone important changes which are emerging This was done by organising distributional services to to be relevant to food system transformation. Here, community members. For example, over the last five we focus on the FO called Nagkakaisang Samahan ng years, MPCIs in the Gumay and Gera woredas mga Mangingisda ng Paombong (NASAMAPA)/ enabled local coffee producers to export their pro- United Association of Fisherfolks of Paombong. The ducts to European markets. This was further made group is unique in the area because it combines possible by cooperatives in these districts forming the various FOs and provides a platform for collaboration Arga Union. Similarly, cooperatives in the Seka between small-scale fishers and fish farmers. Chekorsa district exported their products to the In general, members of FOs in the case study Middle East through the help of non-governmental reported that being part of an organisation helps organizations. This was perceived by local stake- with having their voices heard. This is primarily holders as playing an important role in increasing because FOs provide a regular platform to discuss income of MPCI members (Shumeta and D’Haese concerns of aquatic food producers and a means to 2018; Jiren et al. 2022). By providing market services, communicate these concerns to state actors such as the MPCIs reduced transaction costs and avoided the the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. For capturing of benefits by a few private traders. In instance, members are able to identify the kinds of a market setting where a few purchasers can substan- livelihood assistance they require (e.g. fishing boats) tially affect prices, the MPCIs counteracted the likely and FOs channel this information to government. outcome that local smallholder producers would lose NASAMAPA plays a key role in promoting the out due to dominant trade arrangements and reduced participation of small scale aquatic food producers local people’s vulnerability to market and price- in the governance of aquatic food production. A key related risks. Furthermore, MPCIs are supporting mechanism through which NASAMAPA promotes nature conservation through organic and eco- inclusion in food system processes in the case study friendly agricultural production and ecosystem ser- is by bringing together fishers and fish farmers within vice management. In this way, it demonstrates an one organisation and positioning itself as a partner in alternative to agricultural intensification and indus- government initiatives for development. This has trialisation that the national government envisions as given the group legitimacy to be involved in aquatic its desired transformation trajectory. For instance, the food development projects beyond what individual forest-based cooperatives, locally known as Wahbub, FOs have done. It partnered with the government to were instrumental in improving local people’s access operate the Community Fish Landing Centre which to ecosystem services while conserving the forest. was initially opened in late 2019. This step gave However, it is worth noting that due to increasing smallholder aquatic food producers a venue to dis- financial returns from cash crops, people have tended cuss the challenges they face in relation to marketing to shift their focus towards producing perennial cash of aquatic food where many are locked into disem- crops at the expense of food crop farming. This has powering roles as price-takers. Additionally, mem- the potential to transform agriculture towards greater bers of the group were also able to participate in, cash crop production in the long term. However, the and actively shape the municipal fisheries ordinance role of MPCIs in relation to this food system shift has of Paombong which is the municipality’s primary not yet been adequately observed. regulation for aquatic food production. Since its establishment, NASAMAPA has evolved to become the NASAMAPA Agri-Coop. It seeks to Fisherfolk organisations in aquatic food address the issue of social differentiation in the aqua- producing areas in northern Philippines tic food sector. Owing to the dominance of middle- men-centered fish markets at the local level, small- Community-based fisherfolk organisations (FOs) are commonly established in aquatic food-producing scale producers receive the least benefit from market areas in the Philippines. These organisations fulfil transactions while profits are concentrated by mid- dlemen. Since 2019, members of the organisation different functions which range from formal func- tions related to local level rule-making, to informal worked closely with the government to access support to members during times of collective (e.g. resources that can help them explore alternative mar- ket options. By pooling together their resources (e.g. pandemic lockdowns) and personal difficulties (e.g. illness). While FOs’ functions and activities are sharing vehicles, labour, and time), organisation guided by the Philippines’ national fisheries law (i.e. members have been able to explore markets in other 10 A. O. MANLOSA ET AL. cities, gain better access to loans for individual fish challenge at the national level by establishing a co- ponds, apply for government support in the form of management scheme for irrigation canals (KKP storage facilities, and participate in capacity building 2019). A set of technical guidelines and co- initiatives. Having evolved into a cooperative, the management contracts with budget allocations were organisation is gradually challenging the dominant established as formal institutions. Under the co- middlemen-centered markets which ignore differen- management scheme, irrigation canals can be collec- tiated advantages and disadvantages by middlemen, tively managed by reinforcing the Gotong Royong traders and smallholder producers. By gradually traditional and informal institution of commonality building individual and collective capacities particu- and mutual assistance. The intent was to revitalise larly in fish marketing and more recently fish proces- Gotong Royong in the aquaculture communities sing, the organisation is generating mechanisms so where it was already fading while also addressing the that more benefits from aquatic food production can problem of canal management. The villages included be captured by smallholder producers. As these in the case study participated in the initiative with the initiatives have only recently started, how successful goal of improving traditional pond aquaculture these initiatives are in terms of shifting market through the repair and regular maintenance of the arrangements to a more equitable trajectory remains canals in order to benefit aquaculture production. to be seen. However, it can be said that the organisa- The government paid wages to aquaculture producers tion’s presence and actions to build capacity and for their labour in maintaining the canals. In addition, empower smallholder producers in market transac- the government also sought to promote self- tions provide the foundation for a struggle towards governance by introducing a mechanism in which more equitable sharing of benefits in future a budget is set that can be used to pay the labour for transformations. canal maintenance. Aquaculture producers have the freedom to independently manage the budget and collectively decide which canals need rehabilitation. Gotong Royong in small-scale brackish pond The program’s success was measured based on aquaculture in Indonesia whether aquaculture producers were still willing to Gotong Royong is a collectively held principle as well maintain the canals beyond the lifetime of the project as an activity that involves joint undertaking of and cover areas beyond the limit of the budget. The outcomes of the effort to formally institutiona- a communal task within a local community (Slikkerveer 2019). It is a cultural norm of coopera- lise a cultural norm by providing wage incentives dif- tion that is expected among community members in fered for the western and eastern parts Lombok. In the Indonesian culture, but one that has been weakening eastern part where most people own aquaculture land, in various parts, over time. there was a higher willingness to continue to manage Small-scale brackish pond aquaculture in ponds without wage incentive and to carry this out Indonesia is faced with the challenge of water man- through the Gotong Royong norm. The challenge is agement, that is, the construction and maintenance of how to institutionalise community-based governance shared irrigation canal infrastructure. The emergence through policy without undermining and crowding of this challenge traces back to the shift in land own- out cultural norms through misaligned incentives. This is related to the question of how to build capacity ership rights in the 1980s. During this period, indivi- duals from Mataram, Bali, and Java gained ownership for collective action that supports local governance by rights over the ponds in West Lombok leading to leveraging the norms of Gotong Royong through a sense of collective responsibility, shared risk, and remote management of ponds, the proliferation of caretakers, and renting by those who used to be agency for self-organising. Furthermore, property rights land and pond owners. In contrast, ponds in the influence Gotong Royong and needs to be considered in East Lombok region were still owned and managed efforts to revitalise it to maintain the shared resources by fish farmers. The change in property rights and (e.g. canals) among traditional and small-scale aquacul- the resulting demotivation among landless aquacul- ture producers in Lombok. ture farmers particularly in West Lombok, coupled with a lack of awareness about the need for regular Discussion canal maintenance (e.g. clearing silt, debris, and waste from surrounding areas) led to the neglect of irriga- This article examined the role of institutions in trans- tion canals for aquaculture ponds. Arguably, due to formation processes in the context of food systems in changed social relations in the area and the weaken- the Global South. In this section, we unpack the ing of Gotong Royong, canal management emerged hybrid governance arrangements that were enabled as an issue that could compromise pond productivity. by the existence of these community-level institutions In 2013, the government through the Ministry of in the case studies, reflect on the interplay between Marine and Fisheries Affairs sought to address the institutional structures and human agency in the ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 11 context of transformations, consider the opportu- market options beside the disadvantageous middle- nities and limitations for influencing transformation men-centred fish markets (Manlosa et al. 2021). processes arising from the scale of institutions, and For hybrid arrangements to influence transforma- synthesise implications for transdisciplinary tion processes in a way that promotes inclusion engagements. (Davis et al. 2022) and mitigates transformation risks (Blythe et al. 2018), a number of factors was observed to be helpful. First, organised groups of local food producers with a shared collective identity Community-level institutions and hybrid must exist. Developing the capacity to articulate their governance arrangements concerns, set their agenda, mobilise to achieve their We found that the existence of institutions, particu- goals, and productively partner with other actors larly organised groups at the community level facili- particularly the government without their interest being co-opted are needed. These can enable small- tated the emergence of hybrid governance arrangements in the form of collaborative state- scale food producers to navigate collaborative part- community initiatives. For instance, in Ethiopia, col- nerships and the tensions that can arise from such laborations between multi-purpose cooperative insti- arrangements. Second, key government actors must tutions and various actors including government recognise the legitimacy of community-level institu- offices, supported local food producers to self- tions and must be willing to invest resources to organise to address environmental degradation achieve common goals through collaboration on the through the promotion of mixed and organic farm- basis of egalitarian principles. The absence of one of ing. These collaborations also enabled action to miti- these factors can significantly stifle the potential of gate market inequities by supporting local producers hybrid arrangements as demonstrated by the case in to benefit from coffee export. In the Philippine case, Indonesia where aquaculture producers in west collaborative partnerships between community-based Lombok were less willing to cooperate due to weak- fisherfolk associations, local government units, and ening cultural norms of cooperation and changed the fisheries bureau enabled aquatic food producers property rights. to explore opportunities to benefit more from the market in a setting where the power of middlemen is strongly entrenched. In Indonesia, we find the Structure-agency interplay government providing incentives to revitalise the Gotong Royong cultural norm of shared responsibil- In many past and ongoing large-scale transformation ity and shared tasks for canal management. By con- processes in food systems of the Global South, small- necting different institutional actors working across scale producers are typically excluded in decision- scales of governance, hybrid arrangements helped making processes leading to negative outcomes such foster inclusion and participation of local food pro- as socio-economic inequities (Patel 2012; Davis et al. ducers in governance processes, most strongly at the 2022). However, within broad-scale transformation community level. processes, distinct and nuanced systemic shifts at Hybrid governance arrangements and the choices the local level may also occur and are important for made within these arrangements are known to lead to the future of food systems (Tacoli and Agergaard both positive and negative justice-related outcomes 2017). Local communities tend to be attuned to the (Toxopeus et al. 2020) and marginalisation can impacts of these shifts through their daily lived remain a challenge in such arrangements (Viana experiences in their own livelihoods. Organising as et al. 2016). But as our cases demonstrate, commu- a collective to take action on the impacts can be nity-level institutions can be leveraged as an alterna- gradual or quick, but as our findings demonstrate, tive to individual strategies or top-down strategies in community-level institutions in the form of coopera- responding to food system challenges. Community tives, associations, and other forms of local groups institutions helped local food producers find are important institutions. Thus, transdisciplinary a venue to articulate their concerns, to observe the engagement needs to start with understanding the broader effects of transformation processes not only institutions (e.g. formal rules, social norms, hybrid on their own livelihoods but also on others, and to arrangements, organisations) that are already in place explore alternative ways of participating or resisting and the mechanisms through which these institutions ongoing processes. For instance, cooperatives in attempt to address food system challenges in their Ethiopia are helping producers earn more income own terms. This can help build understanding (Jiren et al. 2022) by enabling small-scale producers around what works, what does not, and to map out to participate in export. In the Philippines, coopera- which existing social structures can future interven- tion between small-scale aquatic food producers and tions connect with to co-create a more sustainable government are enabling the former to explore other and equitable food system. 12 A. O. MANLOSA ET AL. There are strengths from the community-level institu- challenges they have faced before. The key is to build on tions we examined that are similar across the contexts we these existing efforts and structures. studied. In many cases, these are the institutions that small-scale local food producers are able to participate Conclusion in most actively because of the relatively smaller or lack of asymmetric power relations among the members (rela- Institutions play an important role in transformation tive to higher scale institutions and actors). For instance, processes, particularly in food systems of the Global members of fisheries associations in the Philippine case South. Community or local scale institutions such as study were neighbours working in the same livelihoods multi-purpose cooperative institutions in southwest and facing shared challenges although in differentiated Ethiopia, fisheries associations in the Philippines, and ways (e.g. differences between men and women). This Gotong Royong in Indonesia are place-based institu- facilitates openness in discussions. The embeddedness of tions which demonstrate distinctive mechanisms that community-level institutions in local social relations can potentially promote inclusion and participation, helps foster agency, accountability, and ownership over and can enable small-scale food producers to act against initiatives. However, such a dynamic is also embedded in transformation risks. These institutions are the primary broader social relations (e.g. Manlosa et al. 2021). As venues in which food producers, who are not often multiple scales become involved and asymmetry in present in higher level decision-making, are able to power relations increase (e.g. small-scale aquatic food articulate and discuss livelihood challenges, explore producers and local government representatives) in potential solutions, pool resources, and mobilise for multi-actor relations, trust and openness may shift and more environmentally friendly and equitable food sys- take a longer time to build depending on the histories of tem practices. While community-level institutions may those who are interacting. Relatedly, whether commu- lack the resources and power to influence food system nity-level institutions function in a bottom-up or top- transformations at a large scale, they also make possible down manner influences the above-mentioned strengths. the emergence of hybrid governance formations or col- The bottom-up institutions in the Ethiopian and laborative state-community arrangements. Such Philippine food systems demonstrated better outcomes arrangements provide community-level institutions than the centralised revitalisation of Gotong Royong in with access to resources, expertise, wider networks, Indonesia. In the latter case, a top-down intervention, in and political power that they can draw on to co-create combination with altered property rights and weakening and co-implement new initiatives. Some of these initia- norms of cooperation, failed to foster accountability and tives have been helpful in mitigating transformation ownership in canal management. risks in the case studies, for example, by bringing atten- Community-level institutions of food systems in the tion to issues of social differentiation and inequalities. study areas exhibit ability to foster and strengthen the Given the central importance of community institutions agency of local food producers and this is strengthened in fostering inclusion and foregrounding the needs and when they are connected to higher level institutions solutions to food system challenges, as well as their which can facilitate access to more resources and higher ubiquity in the Global South, understanding institutions authority. Higher level institutions can thus promote and how they function should be among the first steps in local food producers’ agency by creating enabling envir- any transdisciplinary engagement. Questions around onments, and providing support for the successful func- which institutions are already working towards addres- tioning of community-level institutions. However, since sing sustainability challenges and amplifying the bene- higher level institutions also have their own agendas, fits, while seeking to understand and change institutions community actors need to navigate how they take advan- that are reproducing unsustainability needs to be more tage of opportunities as they arise, without being co- central in any transdisciplinary engagement whether in opted by the interests and means of the higher level the food sector or other sectors. This will require bring- actors, and how to ensure harmonious working relations ing in institutional expertise both in research and prac- even in the face of differences in priorities or conflicts. tice in transdisciplinary teams. Transdisciplinary research can help promote agency of small scale food system actors by fostering opportunities Notes to strengthen existing social connections and to help establish missing ones. Importantly, many community- 1. Food systems consist of the interconnected activities level institutions have already predetermined agenda dri- that encompass the production of food up to its con- ven by the actors’ own experiences. Transdisciplinary sumption, including the processing, distribution, and marketing of food (Ericksen 2008). Food systems are engagement can support this by enabling the articulation the broad contexts in which our case studies are of this agenda to higher level governance and ensuring embedded, but the analyses focus mostly on conditions that these are not lost or co-opted. Moreover, community related to food production and food marketing. institutions in the case studies are also actively working to 2. Our use of the term Global South is informed by the address the risks of transformation in response to the work of Pereira et al. (2020). We view it as a useful ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 13 review on transdisciplinary coastal research in the classification while acknowledging its tensions and Global South. United Kingdom: Ecosystems and People. limitations. We use it as a broad category to refer to Béné C, Fanzo J, Haddad L, Hawkes C, Caron P, the three countries included in this study. However, Vermeulen S, Herrero M, Oosterveer P. 2020. Five prio- we are aware that the term should be used with atten- rities to operationalize the EAT–Lancet commission tion to differentiation in social-ecological contexts and report. Nat Food. 1(8):457–459. doi:10.1038/s43016- we have taken care to highlight these in our work. 020-0136-4. Béné C, Oosterveer P, Lamotte L, Brouwer ID, de Haan S, Prager SD, Talsma EF, Khoury CK. 2019. When food Acknowledgments systems meet sustainability–current narratives and implications for actions. World Dev. 113:116–130. We thank local residents in the study areas in Ethiopia, the doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.08.011. Philippines, and Indonesia from whom we learned so much. Work in the three case studies was funded by Bennett NJ, Blythe J, Cisneros-Montemayor AM, Germany's Federal Ministry of Education and Research Singh GG, Sumaila UR. 2019. Just transformations to (BMBF) under the theme Bioeconomy. sustainability. Sustainability. 11(14):3881. doi:10.3390/ su11143881. Blythe J, Silver J, Evans L, Armitage D, Bennett NJ, Moore M-L, Morrison TH, Brown K. 2018. The dark Disclosure statement side of transformation: latent risks in contemporary No potential conflict of interest was reported by the sustainability discourse. Antipode. 50(5):1206–1223. author(s). doi:10.1111/anti.12405. Brandt P, Ernst A, Gralla F, Luederitz C, Lang DJ, Newig J, Reinert F, Abson DJ, von Wehrden H. 2013. A review of Ethics declaration transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecol Econ. 92:1–15. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.008. All case studies included here underwent a review and Chambers JM, Wyborn C, Klenk NL, Ryan M, Serban A, were approved by the respective Ethics Committees of Bennett NJ, Brennan R, Charli-Joseph L, Fernández- Leuphana University Lüneburg and the Leibniz Centre Giménez ME, Galvin KA, Goldstein BE. 2022. Co- for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT). All case studies productive agility and four collaborative pathways to obtained the approval of local authorities and were based sustainability transformations. Global Environ Change. on the informed consent of all study participants. Prior to 72:102422. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102422. each interview or focus group discussion, the authors Chambers JM, Wyborn C, Ryan ME, Reid RS, Riechers M, explained the purpose of the study, asked for informed Serban A, Bennett NJ, Cvitanovic C, Fernández- consent while making clear that participants have the Giménez ME, Galvin KA, Goldstein BE. 2021. Six right to decline to answer a question or stop the interview modes of co-production for sustainability. Nat Sustain. at any time, informed about the mode of recording and 4(11):983–996. doi:10.1038/s41893-021-00755-x. how data will be anonymised, and answered any question Chappell MJ. 2018. Beginning to end hunger. In: Beginning from the participants. Informed consent was requested and to end hunger. Oakland, California: University of given verbally to appropriately adhere to cultural California Press. sensibilities. Clément CWY. 2019. Hybrid governance as rural develop- ment: market, state, and civil society in Correns, France. In: Peter Andrée, Jill K. Clark, Charles Z. Levkoe and ORCID Kristen Lowitt. Civil society and social movements in food system governance. United Kingdom: Routledge; Aisa O. Manlosa http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8058-412X pp. 183–200. Stefan Partelow http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7751-4005 Cockburn J, Schoon M, Cundill G, Robinson C, Aburto JA, Tolera Senbeto Jiren http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5905- Alexander SM, Baggio JA, Barnaud C, Chapman M, Garcia Llorente M, García-López GA. 2020. Maraja Riechers http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3916-8102 Understanding the context of multifaceted collabora- Adiska Octa Paramita http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7164- tions for social-ecological sustainability: a methodology for cross-case analysis. Ecol Soc. 25(3). doi:10.5751/ES- 11527-250307. CSA, WFP. 2014. Comprehensive Food Security and References Vulnerability Analysis (CFSVA). A joint publication between the Ethiopia Central Statistical Agency and the Abson DJ, Fischer J, Leventon J, Newig J, Schomerus T, World Food Programme. http://www.csa.gov.et,http:// Vilsmaier U, von Wehrden H, Abernethy P, Ives CD, www.wfp.org/food-security/ Jager NW, Lang DJ. 2017. Leverage points for sustain- Dajka J-C, Woodhead AJ, Norström AV, Graham NA, ability transformation. Ambio. 46(1):30–39. doi:10.1007/ Riechers M, Nyström M, Belgrano A. 2020. Red and s13280-016-0800-y. green loops help uncover missing feedbacks in a coral Albertus M. 2021. Property without rights: origins and reef social–ecological system. People Nat. 2(3):608–618. consequences of the property rights gap. Cambridge, doi:10.1002/pan3.10092. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Davis B, Lipper L, Winters P. 2022. Do not transform food Anaya FC, Espírito-Santo MM. 2018. Protected areas and systems on the backs of the rural poor. Food Secur. 14 territorial exclusion of traditional communities. Ecol (3):1–12. doi:10.1007/s12571-021-01214-3. Soc. 23(1). doi:10.5751/ES-09850-230108. Derwort P, Jager N, Newig J. 2019. Towards productive Baumann L, Riechers M, Celliers L, Ferse S. thisissue. functions? A systematic review of institutional failure, its Anticipating and transforming futures: a literature 14 A. O. MANLOSA ET AL. Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, causes and consequences. Policy Sci. 52(2):281–298. Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ. 2012. Transdisciplinary doi:10.1007/s11077-018-9339-z. research in sustainability science: practice, principles, Desmarais AA. 2008. The power of peasants: reflections on and challenges. Sustain Sci. 7(S1):25–43. doi:10.1007/ the meanings of La Vía Campesina. J Rural Stud. 24 s11625-011-0149-x. (2):138–149. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.12.002. Lawless S, Cohen P, McDougall C, Orirana G, Siota F, Egli L, Meyer C, Scherber C, Kreft H, Tscharntke T. 2018. Doyle K. 2019. Gender norms and relations: implica- Winners and losers of national and global efforts to tions for agency in coastal livelihoods. Maritime Stud. reconcile agricultural intensification and biodiversity 18(3):347–358. doi:10.1007/s40152-019-00147-0. conservation. Glob Chang Biol. 24(5):2212–2228. Leeuwis C, Boogaard BK, Atta-Krah K. 2021. How food doi:10.1111/gcb.14076. systems change (or not): governance implications for Ericksen PJ. 2008. Conceptualizing food systems for global system transformation processes. Food Secur. 13 environmental change research. Global Environ Change. (4):761–780. doi:10.1007/s12571-021-01178-4. 18(1):234–245. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.09.002. Loos J, Abson DJ, Chappell MJ, Hanspach J, Mikulcak F, FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, WHO. 2020. The state of food Tichit M, Fischer J. 2014. Putting meaning back into security and nutrition in the World 2020. Transforming “sustainable intensification”. Front Ecol Environ. 12 food systems for affordable healthy diets. Rome: FAO. (6):356–361. doi:10.1890/130157. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, WHO. 2021. The state of food Lotz-Sisitka H, Mukute M, Chikunda C, Baloi A, security and nutrition in the World 2021. Transforming Pesanayi T. 2017. Transgressing the norm: transforma- food systems for food security, improved nutrition and tive agency in community-based learning for sustainabil- affordable healthy diets for all. Rome: FAO. ity in southern African contexts. Int Rev Educ. 63 Feola G, Koretskaya O, Moore D. 2021. (Un) making in (6):897–914. doi:10.1007/s11159-017-9689-3. sustainability transformation beyond capitalism. Global Environ Change. 69:102290. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha. Manlosa AO, Hanspach J, Schultner J, Dorresteijn I, 2021.102290. Fischer J. 2019b. Livelihood strategies, capital assets, Gardner R, Ostrom E. 1991. Rules and games. Public and food security in rural Southwest Ethiopia. Food Choice. 70(2):121–149. doi:10.1007/BF00124480. Secur. 11(1):167–181. doi:10.1007/s12571-018-00883-x. Gurney GG, Mangubhai S, Fox M, Kim MK, Agrawal A. Manlosa AO, Hornidge A-K, Schlüter A. 2021. Institutions 2021. Equity in environmental governance: perceived and institutional changes: aquatic food production in fairness of distributional justice principles in marine Central Luzon, Philippines. Reg Environ Change. 21 co-management. Environ Sci Policy. 124:23–32. doi:10. (4):1–14. doi:10.1007/s10113-021-01853-4. 1016/j.envsci.2021.05.022. Manlosa AO, Schultner J, Dorresteijn I, Fischer J. 2019a. Hainzelin E, Caron P, Place F, Dury S, Echeverria R, Leverage points for improving gender equality and Harding A. 2021. How could science-policy interfaces human well-being in a smallholder farming context. boost food system transformation? Food Systems Sustain Sci. 14(2):529–541. doi:10.1007/s11625-018-0636-4. Summit Brief. Manlosa AO, Schultner J, Dorresteijn I, Fischer J. 2019c. Hakkarainen V, Daw TM, Tengö M 2020. On the other end Capital asset substitution as a coping strategy: practices of research: exploring community-level knowledge and implications for food security and resilience in exchanges in small-scale fisheries in Zanzibar. southwestern Ethiopia. Geoforum. 106:13–23. doi:10. Sustainability Science. 15(1):281–295. doi:10.1007/ 1016/j.geoforum.2019.07.022. s11625-019-00750-4. Meadows DH. 1999. Leverage points: places to intervene in Hardt MJ. 2009. Lessons from the past: the collapse of a system. USA: Sustainability Institute. Jamaican coral reefs. Fish Fisheries. 10(2):143–158. Milkoreit M, Hodbod J, Baggio J, Benessaiah K, doi:10.1111/j.1467-2979.2008.00308.x. Calderón-Contreras R, Donges JF, Mathias J-D, Hodgson GM. 2006. What are institutions? J Econ Issues. Rocha JC, Schoon M, Werners SE. 2018. Defining tip- 40(1):1–25. doi:10.1080/00213624.2006.11506879. ping points for social-ecological systems scholarship—an Jentoft S. 2004. Institutions in fisheries: what they are, what interdisciplinary literature review. Environ Res Lett. 13 they do, and how they change. Marine Policy. 28 (3):033005. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aaaa75. (2):137–149. doi:10.1016/S0308-597X(03)00085-X. Njuki J, Parkins J, Kaler A, editors. 2016. Transforming Jiren TS, Leventon J, Jager NW, Dorresteijn I, Schultner J, gender and food security in the global south. New York: Senbeta F, Bergsten A, Fischer J. 2021b. Governance Routledge. challenges at the interface of food security and biodiver- Partelow S, Schlüter A, Armitage D, Bavinck M, Carlisle K, sity conservation: a multi-level case study from Ethiopia. Gruby RL, Hornidge K, Le Tissier M, Pittman JB, Environ Manage. 67(4):717–730. doi:10.1007/s00267- Song AM, Sousa LP. 2020. Environmental governance 021-01432-7. theories: a review and application to coastal systems. Jiren TS, Riechers M, Bergsten A, Fischer J. 2021a. Ecol Soc. 25(4). doi:10.5751/ES-12067-250419. A leverage points perspective on institutions for food Partelow S, Schlüter A, O Manlosa A, Nagel B, Octa security in a smallholder-dominated landscape in south- Paramita A. 2022. Governing aquaculture commons. western Ethiopia. Sustain Sci. 16(3):767–779. doi:10. Rev Aquacult. 14(2):729–750. doi:10.1111/raq.12622. 1007/s11625-021-00936-9. Partelow S, Senff P, Buhari N, Schlüter A. 2018. Jiren TS, Schultner J, Abson DJ, Fischer J, Fang W-T. 2022. Operationalizing the social-ecological systems frame- A multi-level assessment of changes in stakeholder con- work in pond aquaculture. Int J Commons. 12 stellations, interest and influence on ecosystem services (1):485–518. doi:10.18352/ijc.834. under different landscape scenarios in southwestern Patel R. 2012. Stuffed and starved: the hidden battle for the Ethiopia. PLOS Sustain Transform. 1(5):e0000012. world food system-revised and updated. Brooklyn, New doi:10.1371/journal.pstr.0000012. York: Melville House. KKP. 2019. Laporan Tahunan Kementerian Kelautan dan Patterson J, Schulz K, Vervoort J, Van Der Hel S, Widerberg O, Perikanan Tahun 2019. 16:1–168. Adler C, Hurlbert M, Anderton K, Sethi M, Barau A. 2017. ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 15 Exploring the governance and politics of transformations Tacoli C, Agergaard J. 2017. Urbanisation, rural transfor- towards sustainability. Environ Innov Soc Transit. 24:1–16. mations and food systems: the role of small towns. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.001. London, United Kingdom: International Institute for Pereira L, Frantzeskaki N, Hebinck A, Charli-Joseph L, Environment and Development (IIED). Drimie S, Dyer M, Eakin H, Galafassi D, Toxopeus H, Kotsila P, Conde M, Katona A, van der Karpouzoglou T, Marshall F, Moore M-L. 2020. Jagt AP, Polzin F. 2020. How ‘just’ is hybrid governance Transformative spaces in the making: key lessons from of urban nature-based solutions? Cities. 105:102839. nine cases in the Global South. Sustain Sci. 15 doi:10.1016/j.cities.2020.102839. (1):161–178. doi:10.1007/s11625-019-00749-x. Veblen T. 1919. The place of science in modern civilization Prause L, Hackfort S, Lindgren M. 2021. Digitalization and and other essays. New York: Huebach. the third food regime. Agric Human Values. 38 Viana C, Coudel E, Barlow J, Ferreira J, Gardner T, (3):641–655. doi:10.1007/s10460-020-10161-2. Parry L. 2016. How does hybrid governance emerge? Rifai H, Hernawan UE, Zulpikar F, Sondakh CF, Ambo- Role of the elite in building a green municipality in the Rappe R, Sjafrie ND, Irawan A, Dewanto HY, Rahayu YP, Eastern Brazilian Amazon. Environ Policy Governance. Reenyan J, Safaat M. 2022. Strategies to improve manage- 26(5):337–350. doi:10.1002/eet.1720. ment of Indonesia’s blue carbon seagrass habitats in mar- Westley F, Olsson P, Folke C, Homer-Dixon T, ine protected areas. Coastal Manage. 50(2):93–105. doi:10. Vredenburg H, Loorbach D, Thompson J, Nilsson M, 1080/08920753.2022.2022948. Lambin E, Sendzimir J, Banerjee B. 2011. Tipping Scoones I, Stirling A, Abrol D, Atela J, Charli-Joseph L, toward sustainability: emerging pathways of Eakin H, Ely A, Olsson P, Pereira L, Priya R, van transformation. Ambio. 40(7):762–780. doi:10.1007/ Zwanenberg P. 2020. Transformations to sustainability: s13280-011-0186-9. combining structural, systemic and enabling approaches. West S, van Kerkhoff L, Wagenaar H. 2019. Beyond “link- Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 42:65–75. doi:10.1016/j. ing knowledge and action”: towards a practice-based cosust.2019.12.004. approach to transdisciplinary sustainability interven- Scott WR. 1995. Institutions andorganizations. London: tions. Policy Stud. 40(5):534–555. doi:10.1080/ Sage Publications. 01442872.2019.1618810. Scott JC. 2008. Seeing like a state. In: Seeing like a state. Whitfield S, Apgar M, Chabvuta C, Challinor A, Yale University Press. Deering K, Dougill A, Gulzar A, Kalaba F, Senff P, Partelow S, Indriana LF, Buhari N, Kunzmann A. Lamanna C, Manyonga D, Naess LO. 2021. 2018. Improving pond aquaculture production on A framework for examining justice in food system Lombok, Indonesia. Aquaculture. 497:64–73. doi:10. transformations research. Nat Food. 2(6):383–385. 1016/j.aquaculture.2018.07.027. doi:10.1038/s43016-021-00304-x. Shumeta Z, D’Haese M. 2018. Do coffee farmers benefit in food Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, security from participating in coffee cooperatives? Evidence Vermeulen S, Garnett T, Tilman D, DeClerck F, from Southwest Ethiopia coffee cooperatives. Food Nutr Wood A, Jonell M. 2019. Food in the Anthropocene: Bull. 39(2):266–280. doi:10.1177/0379572118765341. the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from Slikkerveer LJ. 2019. Gotong royong: an indigenous insti- sustainable food systems. Lancet. 393(10170):447–492. tution of communality and mutual assistance in doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4. Indonesia. In: L. Jan Slikkerveer, George Baourakis, Williamson OE. 2000. The new institutional economics: and Kurniawan Saefullah. Integrated community-mana- taking stock, looking ahead. J Econ Lit. 38(3):595–613. ged development. Cham: Springer. pp. 307–320. doi:10.1257/jel.38.3.595. Steffen W, Rockström J, Richardson K, Lenton TM, Zeweld W, Van Huylenbroeck G, Buysse J. 2015. Folke C, Liverman D, Summerhayes CP, Barnosky AD, Household food security through cooperative societies Cornell SE, Crucifix M, Donges JF. 2018. Trajectories of in northern Ethiopia. International Journal of the earth system in the anthropocene. Proc Natl Acad Development Issues. 14(1):60–72. doi:10.1108/IJDI-02- Sci. 115(33):8252–8259. doi:10.1073/pnas.1810141115. 2014-0014.

Journal

Ecosystems and People – Taylor & Francis

Published: Dec 31, 2023

Keywords: Nadia Sitas; Cooperation; community; food security; rules; society; sustainability

References

Leverage points for sustainability transformation
Protected areas and territorial exclusion of traditional communities
Five priorities to operationalize the EAT–Lancet commission report
When food systems meet sustainability–current narratives and implications for actions
Just transformations to sustainability
The dark side of transformation: latent risks in contemporary sustainability discourse
A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science
Co-productive agility and four collaborative pathways to sustainability transformations
Six modes of co-production for sustainability
Understanding the context of multifaceted collaborations for social-ecological sustainability: a methodology for cross-case analysis
Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis (CFSVA). A joint publication between the Ethiopia Central Statistical Agency and the World Food Programme
Red and green loops help uncover missing feedbacks in a coral reef social–ecological system
Do not transform food systems on the backs of the rural poor
Towards productive functions? A systematic review of institutional failure, its causes and consequences
The power of peasants: reflections on the meanings of La Vía Campesina
Winners and losers of national and global efforts to reconcile agricultural intensification and biodiversity conservation
Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental change research
(Un) making in sustainability transformation beyond capitalism
Rules and games
Equity in environmental governance: perceived fairness of distributional justice principles in marine co-management
On the other end of research: exploring community-level knowledge exchanges in small-scale fisheries in Zanzibar
Lessons from the past: the collapse of Jamaican coral reefs
What are institutions?
Institutions in fisheries: what they are, what they do, and how they change
Governance challenges at the interface of food security and biodiversity conservation: a multi-level case study from Ethiopia
A leverage points perspective on institutions for food security in a smallholder-dominated landscape in southwestern Ethiopia
A multi-level assessment of changes in stakeholder constellations, interest and influence on ecosystem services under different landscape scenarios in southwestern Ethiopia
Laporan Tahunan Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan Tahun 2019
Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges
Gender norms and relations: implications for agency in coastal livelihoods
How food systems change (or not): governance implications for system transformation processes
Putting meaning back into “sustainable intensification”
Transgressing the norm: transformative agency in community-based learning for sustainability in southern African contexts
Livelihood strategies, capital assets, and food security in rural Southwest Ethiopia
Institutions and institutional changes: aquatic food production in Central Luzon, Philippines
Leverage points for improving gender equality and human well-being in a smallholder farming context
Capital asset substitution as a coping strategy: practices and implications for food security and resilience in southwestern Ethiopia
Leverage points: places to intervene in a system
Defining tipping points for social-ecological systems scholarship—an interdisciplinary literature review
Environmental governance theories: a review and application to coastal systems
Governing aquaculture commons
Operationalizing the social-ecological systems framework in pond aquaculture
Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability
Transformative spaces in the making: key lessons from nine cases in the Global South
Digitalization and the third food regime
Strategies to improve management of Indonesia’s blue carbon seagrass habitats in marine protected areas
Transformations to sustainability: combining structural, systemic and enabling approaches
Improving pond aquaculture production on Lombok, Indonesia
Do coffee farmers benefit in food security from participating in coffee cooperatives? Evidence from Southwest Ethiopia coffee cooperatives
Trajectories of the earth system in the anthropocene
How ‘just’ is hybrid governance of urban nature-based solutions?
How does hybrid governance emerge? Role of the elite in building a green municipality in the Eastern Brazilian Amazon
Tipping toward sustainability: emerging pathways of transformation
Beyond “linking knowledge and action”: towards a practice-based approach to transdisciplinary sustainability interventions
A framework for examining justice in food system transformations research
Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems
The new institutional economics: taking stock, looking ahead
Household food security through cooperative societies in northern Ethiopia

Sign up for your 14-Day Free Trial Now!

Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.

System error. Please try again!

or

Continue with Facebook

Log in with Microsoft

By signing up, you agree to DeepDyve’s Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Already have an account? Log in

Cite

Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote

APA
Manlosa, A., Partelow, S., Jiren, T., Riechers, M., & Paramita, A. (2023). The role of institutions in food system transformations: lessons learned from transdisciplinary engagements in Ethiopia, the Philippines, and Indonesia. Ecosystems and People, 19(1), 1
MLA
Manlosa, Aisa O., Stefan Partelow, Tolera Senbeto Jiren, Maraja Riechers, and Adiska Octa Paramita. "The role of institutions in food system transformations: lessons learned from transdisciplinary engagements in Ethiopia, the Philippines, and Indonesia." Ecosystems and People 19.1 (2023)1.

Reference Managers
Export to EndNote
Export in RIS Format

Our policy towards the use of cookies

All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.

cookie policy

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The role of institutions in food system transformations: lessons learned from transdisciplinary engagements in Ethiopia, the Philippines, and Indonesia

The role of institutions in food system transformations: lessons learned from transdisciplinary engagements in Ethiopia, the Philippines, and Indonesia

The role of institutions in food system transformations: lessons learned from transdisciplinary engagements in Ethiopia, the Philippines, and Indonesia

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

References

Our policy towards the use of cookies