Sustainability transitions are complex, involving multiple actors with diverse interests, making centralized control ineffective. Governance in such transitions is about coordination, learning, and enabling networks rather than command and control. The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in India exemplifies how network governance, trust, and shared learning drive sustainable agricultural change across multiple levels and actors.
Transitions, especially in sustainability, are complex processes that cannot be centrally managed or controlled like machines. They involve numerous actors with varying values, capacities, and interests, leading to resistance, path dependencies, and uneven impacts. This complexity raises the question: who leads these transitions, and can anyone truly manage them?
Governance in transitions is not about command and control but about coordination and facilitation among diverse actors. It creates spaces for learning, dialogue, experimentation, and alignment. Multiple actors operate at different levels, including government agencies (both central and local), private companies, investors, civil society groups, NGOs, activists, researchers, citizens, and international networks.
These actors often have differing views on what sustainability means and the pace of change. Therefore, governance focuses on creating shared visions, enabling experimentation, building trust, and scaling networks. This approach is often referred to as transition management or adaptive governance.
Transitions are emergent and contested processes. According to scholars like Show and Walker, they cannot be managed in the conventional sense. Instead, governance must be rethought as a way to foster collaboration and learning rather than exert control.
The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in India provides a real-world example of network governance in action. SRI is an alternative rice cultivation method that uses less water and fewer chemical inputs while emphasizing soil health and root development.
SRI was not a top-down government program nor a product of a single company. It began as a grassroots method and spread across India through a network of actors who believed in it and were willing to experiment and engage with farmers.
This network included:
There was no central authority directing the spread of SRI. Instead, trust, shared learning, farmer-to-farmer exchanges, and a shared narrative about reviving soil health and farmer dignity enabled SRI to scale across several Indian states.
The internet played a significant role in disseminating knowledge about SRI. Professor Norman Uphoff and Cornell University ensured that information on SRI was freely available online, documenting examples and stories globally for nearly two decades. This public repository acted as an innovation infrastructure, enabling diverse actors to interpret and advance the technology.
The evolution of SRI from 1999 to 2015 illustrates how transitions are co-created through networks and governed through enabling conditions rather than control.
Governing transitions involves navigating tensions such as:
Governance is also about power dynamics: who decides funding, whose voices matter, and what the future looks like.
In India, SRI's limited spread is partly due to insufficient investments in research and extension. Without careful governance, transitions risk becoming technocratic, driven by experts and institutions that exclude lived experiences.
Sustainability transitions must critically ask:
Inclusive governance ensures that transitions are equitable and reflect diverse perspectives, making them more resilient and effective.
Sustainability transitions, such as the adoption of SRI in India, demonstrate that governance is most effective when it is distributed, network-driven, and focused on enabling collaboration rather than control. By fostering trust, shared learning, and inclusive participation, governance can navigate the complexities of transitions and support sustainable change across multiple actors and scales.
