Transformative Change: The Alternatives
Transformative change is forming systems and societies that are different to the status quo. Here, we present a series of four blogs regarding this topic: i) The system, ii) The system and nature, iii) The alternatives, iv) Creating change.
We recognise that this series is influenced by our own lived experiences. For full disclosure, these lived experiences have taken place in the Global North, by two white women. We fully acknowledge others have had, and continue to have, different experiences and we would love to open up a discussion around how we can make transformative changes that are just and sustainable.
Key points
The planet is currently facing many different, but interrelated, problems (environmental, economic, social and political), arguably due to the continued narrative of a nature-society dualism and a fixation on economic growth.
However, there are a wealth of democratic and sustainable alternatives already in action around the globe.
Participatory processes can be used to actively engage citizens in decision-making.
A circular economy (which aims to reuse as many resources as possible), or preferably an economy based on degrowth (where production and consumption are downscaled) represent possible economic alternatives.
Ecovillages are communities which are managed through participatory processes and aspire for sustainability in four dimensions: social, cultural, ecological, and economical.
Convivial (living with) Conservation is an approach which hopes for a post-capitalist future that rebels against the continued narrative of a nature-society dualism.
We believe that nurturing and growing these pockets of resistance can and will create a more just and sustainable world.
In Article1 we reviewed the history and features of capitalism and neoliberalism. In Article 2 we explored how current understandings of nature and society do not recognise the need for holistic solutions that move past economic growth. In this article we will discuss some alternative ways of approaching democracy, economics, living and conservation which could be seen as paths towards, and the end points of, transformative change. We will also explore how these alternatives are beneficial for the environment, and therefore, us.
The planet today faces many ill-defined environmental, economic, social and political problems, involving numerous stakeholders with differing values i.e. ‘wicked problems’. The alternatives we present here are not perfect, universal solutions; they are not without their drawbacks; and cannot be established overnight to create the just and sustainable world we want for tomorrow. However, they represent possibilities, paths we can take to start the journey towards transformative change, and maybe even destinations. We present them here to spark your thinking: what aspects of these alternatives would work for you; where could they be put in place at local and regional scales near you, but also globally; what will you value when working towards, and when you’re part of, an alternative system; what are you aiming for; and most importantly, do you believe the world can be a more sustainable and just place for the integrated whole that is nature and society? (Spoiler: We think ‘YES’!)
First, we turn to democracy. Democracy is the want for freedom and equality between people, whereby power is held by elected officials or the citizens themselves. Here, we look at participatory processes which shift power and decision-making from elected officials to citizens. Participatory processes are used to address social and environmental issues in a range of geographical and economic contexts and are usually implemented through grassroots movements. The broad spectrum of participatory approaches, including citizens’ assemblies and community-based conservation, embody key principles such as recognising the right to participate, inclusivity of all relevant stakeholders and learning from local knowledge and diversity.
Participatory budgeting (PB) is one example of these participatory processes. PB gives citizens the power to decide how budgets in their neighbourhood, city, or even state, should be allocated. The size of the budget and how much power is given to citizens can differ across geographic location. One of the most famous examples of PB is that of Porto Alegre in Brazil. At its peak, in 2002, 17,200 citizens directly allocated $160 million of public money (around 40% of the total budget) through structured processes of discussion and voting. Initially, PB was put in place to counteract corruption, distrust of the government and the political and socio-economic exclusion of the city’s poorest citizens. Although it succeeded in many ways (e.g. by providing local infrastructure and services for the poorest, and disrupting clientelist relationships), PB was suspended in 2017. A recent report by the World Resource Institute attributed this to a political shift in 2016, whereby PB fell out of favour and the amount of funds available decreased.
PB can benefit the environment both indirectly and directly. A recent study assessing PB in Porto Alegre showed that basic needs such as water and sanitation, housing, education and transport were the top priorities for citizens. Providing these basic needs has positive, indirect effects on the environment: less pollution from inadequate sewage management and treatment; more individuals using public transport instead of their own personal vehicles etc. It’s interesting to note that, in Porto Alegre, once these basic needs were met, green spaces were prioritised above other kinds of services, such as health, industry and commerce. In the Global North, an evaluation of PB in England showed that direct environmental improvements (e.g. tree and shrub planting and the maintenance of public spaces) represented the third most prioritised theme to which money was allocated. Local authority expenditure for the same year placed the environment sixth in terms of budget allocation. If given the choice, citizens will often prioritise the environment (once their basic needs are met), perhaps more so than their elected counterparts.
Participatory processes also benefit nature by fostering feelings of stewardship and empowering individuals to create radical change. Linguist and philosopher, George Lakoff, argues that environmental action can be inspired by reframing individuals as environmental stewards of the planet, which participatory processes actively do. (Although we, as the authors, agree with the sentiment of Lakoff’s discussion, we do not fully accept the label of ‘environmental stewards’ as its definition implies humans caring for their 'property', reinforcing the hierarchical view that humans are above nature.) As we, and others argue, radical change that transitions from a dependence on growth is needed for a sustainable and just world. This radical change “must be collective, informed and genuine for it to turn out positively”. Participatory processes provide an existing mechanism to empower large numbers of people in a meaningful way on socio-ecological issues.
Now, we will look at two proposed economic alternatives: decoupling and degrowth. International institutions and industries are increasingly recognising that current rates of natural resource use and environmental degradation are unsustainable. Some think decoupling offers a solution, whereby the growth of the economy is 'decoupled' from resource availability and the environment, meaning the former can grow, without detriment to the latter. One way of doing this is by building a circular economy. A circular economy takes the current linear model of ‘take-make-use-dispose’ and turns it into a circular model of ‘make-use-reuse-remake-recycle’ (see image below). Three principles encapsulate a circular economy: it designs out waste by optimising reuse possibilities; it differentiates between consumable materials that can safely be returned to the environment and durable materials that cannot but which are designed for reuse; and lastly, the energy needed for these processes is made renewable.
Numerous cities, countries and companies are committed to moving towards a circular economy. Partnerships across the Global North and South have formed for the purpose of knowledge exchange and engagement. Even some celebrities are adopting circular economy practices. The clothing line owned by rapper Pharrell Williams, ‘RAW by the Ocean’, uses Cradle to Cradle Certified denim. This is made from organic cotton and a degradable stretch fibre, is produced using 70% less water (than the previous version of the material), and the dyeing process uses less dye and chemicals, no salts and produces no salt by-product (compared to traditional processes). However, it is clear that traditional circular economy models value economic growth and viability, over sustainability. As ‘RAW by the Ocean’ states, their use of circular mechanisms is to ensure they are “a denim brand in 20, 50 or even 100 years from now”. This focus on economic growth is environmentally detrimental as it contributes to biodiversity loss (through increased resource consumption and emissions).
To counteract the decoupling narrative, we introduce degrowth. Degrowth looks to create societies that are sustainable, sufficient and live with nature by, for example, downscaling production and consumption. It also aims to use democratic institutions to foster a more equal distribution of resources by local economies undergoing trade. Unlike decoupling, degrowth challenges Gross Domestic Product (“monetary value of all finished goods and services made within a country during a specific period”) as a measure for success. It also recognises the need to move past the nature-society dualism; to understand that human beings are part of nature and to change our societies to reflect this.
Some criticise the degrowth movement as a “delusion” arguing that leaving growth behind will halt societal progress. However, degrowth at the grassroots level has already begun. Downscaling of production and consumption can be seen in the Global North through the exponential decrease in meat consumption; the push to fly less, embodied by the Flygskam (meaning “flight shaming” in Swedish) movement; and the pressure on fast fashion to become more sustainable. Proposals for a degrowth society, are, again, already happening, including the reduction of advertising: the city of Grenoble in France became the first ad-free city in 2015. Reductions in production and consumption benefit the environment by producing and using less emissions and resources, for example, meat substitutes produce one tenth of the greenhouse gases compared to meat.
The applicability of decoupling and degrowth in the differing contexts of the Global North and Global South is disputed. Some argue decoupling, and not degrowth, is needed for the Global South so economic growth can continue. Others believe degrowth gives the Global South true transformative potential by providing the opportunity to restructure current narratives and avoid the unintended consequences of capitalism: depression, anxiety, stress.
Next, we’ll discuss alternative ways of living at the local level. Although there are a myriad of different nuances and approaches that can be taken e.g. Transition Towns, co-operatives, communes etc., we will focus on ecovillages. The Global Network of Ecovillages was formed in 1995, comprising projects across the Global North and Global South. Today, it includes around 10,000 communities and associated projects. Ecovillages are defined as communities managed through participatory processes that aspire for sustainability in four dimensions:
Social e.g. “inclusive, responsive and transparent decision-making”;
Cultural e.g. “respecting cultural traditions that support human dignity”;
Ecological e.g. “moving towards 100% renewable energies”;
Economical e.g. “reconstructing the concepts of wealth, work and progress”.
Auroville founded in 1968 in the state of Tamil Ndau, India comprises 2,400 inhabitants, of which around a third are Indian. The main aim of Auroville is transformation of consciousness, as its inhabitants believe radical outer change cannot be possible without radical inner change. Alongside this, the ecovillage conducts research into sustainable living and the “future cultural, environmental, social and spiritual needs of mankind”. In terms of environmental practices, Auroville has over 60 natural wastewater treatment systems meaning water can be reused for other purposes. The Pitchandikulam Forest and Bio-Resource Centre looks to conserve remaining pockets of tropical dry evergreen forest through erosion control, watershed management and reforestation.
The Global Ecovillage Network is developing an Impact Assessment Tool that will enable ecovillages to identify their contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals. Preliminary research showed that, for example, 90% of ecovillages work actively to sequester carbon in soil and biomass. A further 95% engage in advocating for human rights, the rights of communities and the rights of nature.
Ecovillages, and similar concepts like Transition Towns, have been criticised as they do not seek to change the capitalist system at large, they still reside within and interact with an economy that prioritises growth. Furthermore, they do not clarify how localism will lead to widespread change. However, they have been shown to be more environmentally sustainable than business-as-usual communities, with some seeing them as a potential transition state, a “pioneer species”, creating a growing network of radical thinking which provides opportunities for structural change.
Lastly, we will look at a large-scale approach that encompasses some of the alternatives previously discussed, but with a focus on conservation. Convivial (living with) Conservation aims for a post-capitalist conservation that is part of a society based on degrowth and challenges the prevalent narrative of a nature-society dualism (as we saw Moore argued in Article 2). By envisioning nature and society as one this approach acknowledges that in order to transform the ecological sphere, we must also transform the economic, social and political spheres.
The recent book, “The Conservation Revolution: Radical Ideas for Saving Nature Beyond the Anthropocene” by Bram Buschar and Robert Fletcher, details the approach. Five key elements of convivial conservation are proposed:
Moving from protected spaces (that reinforce a nature and society dualism), towards spaces where nature is promoted “for, to and by humans” p163;
Recognising that we must save and celebrate not only non-human nature, but also human nature;
Transforming tourism from brief observations of distant nature to long-term, just engagement with local nature;
Departing from the consumption of romanticised nature to an everyday appreciation of, and resulting, deeper connection with nature;
Shifting thinking from the commodification of nature to the preservation of things that are valued.
Alongside this, the authors suggest concrete actions that can be taken to move towards convivial conservation. These include returning protected areas and their ownership to local people and creating future landscapes that, for example, encourage coexistence and shift finance away from tourism and market-based instruments, which, we add, have shown to be unstable by the current pandemic. One critique of Convivial Conservation questions how sustainable food systems will operate within the approach. It has also been said that the language used by the authors is, at times, not distant enough from the nature-society dichotomy they wish to counteract with their thinking, for example, the use of the word “hybridity” p131 which implies the existence of pure i.e. pristine nature.
As part of this approach, the project ‘Towards Convivial Conservation: Governing Human-Wildlife Relations in the Anthropocene’ (CONVIVA) started in 2018. This project looks to investigate and learn from instances of co-existence with, and reintroduction of, apex predators by “integrating global and local data and knowledge” from different contexts in both the Global North and South. Amongst other activities, Convivial Conservation researchers, with the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, are exploring future paths for environmental conservation in the Netherlands where economic growth is not the primary goal.
Here we have summarised some alternatives to the status quo that are, in fact, taking place today. As we’ve seen greater democratic engagement, divergent economic models, different approaches to communal living and holistic ways of practising conservation can act as steps towards transformative change. Large-scale change may seem an impossible task but we believe that nurturing and growing these pockets of resistance can and will create a more just and sustainable world. But what’s your part in this? What can you do within yourself and what actions can you take to help with this transformation? Our fourth, and final, article will explore how you can be a change-maker.
We proposed some questions at the beginning of this article: what aspects of these alternatives would work for you; where could they be put in place at local and regional scales near you, but also globally; what will you value when working towards, and when you’re part of, an alternative system; what are you aiming for; and most importantly, do you believe the world can be a more sustainable and just place for the integrated whole that is nature and society? We would love to hear your comments either related to the questions above, or generally about the articles.
We are very interested to hear what people think about this topic!
Alice Lawrence and Kathleen Drake
Images in order:
Comments