Knowledge politics, vulnerability and recognition-based justice: Public participation in renewable energy transitions in India

Energy Research & Social Science 71 (2021) 101824

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Research & Social Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/erss

Knowledge politics, vulnerability and recognition-based justice: Public participation in renewable energy transitions in India Poonam Pandey a, Aviram Sharma b, * a b

DST-Centre for Policy Research, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India School of Ecology and Environment Studies (SEES), Nalanda University (NU), Rajgir, Dist: Nalanda, Pin – 803116 Bihar, India

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Renewable energy Recognition-based justice Vulnerabilities Knowledge politics Public participation

Public participation plays a crucial role in achieving Renewable Energy Transitions (RET). Existing research on energy transitions suggests that for seeking the active participation of all stakeholders, transition frameworks must be sensitive to the dynamic and complex interplay of power and agency. Knowledge politics that determine terms of engagement within energy transition projects often enable asymmetric agency resulting in vulnerability, exclusion and injustices. However, very little is known about how vulnerable and marginal groups resist sub­ version and re-define terms of engagement. This paper presents three cases of RET projects from India to engage with the interplay of knowledge politics, vulnerability and recognition-based energy justice. The cases bring comparable insights from RET projects on three different energy sources (second-generation bioethanol, advanced biogas and solar micro-grid), initiated by the government, industry and non-governmental actors in India. Based on the qualitative, empirical data gathered through semi-structured interviews, focus group dis­ cussions, and ethnographic field observations, we argue that non-participation is a mode of resistance against subversive knowledge politics. Despite projected benefits and “apparent needs”, people do not accept the predefined roles and identities prescribed for them in RET projects. In contrast, vulnerable and marginal social groups mobilize their agency by framing needs and priorities in relation to situated as well as emergent social, political and ecological identities and demand for recognition-based energy justice.

1. Introduction Transition to the renewable energy-based economy is one of the most critical sustainability goals in today’s time [1–5]. The heavy reliance of modern societies on fossil fuel-based economy makes this transition an extremely difficult and complex process. The transition demands pro­ found and long-term changes in the ways social, economic and political life is organized around energy [6–9]. Active participation of the people who would be impacted through these transitions is a pre-requisite for successful energy transition [10–13]. Non-participation of the local community in Renewable Energy Transition (RET) projects might lead to their delay, halt and eventual failure. Existing research on partici­ pation in energy transitions suggests that for seeking the active partic­ ipation of all stakeholders, energy transition debates must be sensitive to the imperatives of energy justice, diversity of situated perspectives, and the dynamic and complex interplay of power and agency [12–18]. People’s participation is subject to their material, discursive and affec­ tive entanglements with energy systems and how well are their needs

integrated in RET projects [19]. Social agency and participation of local groups are often restricted by knowledge politics that creates asymme­ tries of power by positioning science and technology (S&T) as episte­ mologically superior to other ways of knowing and being in the world [20]. This paper discusses three cases from India to argue that in order to understand (non) participation of marginal communities in RET pro­ jects, a focus on knowledge politics, manifested as contested ways of framing, validating and evaluating needs, priorities and roles of people, is imperative [14,21–23]. Marginal groups, in the three cases, felt that their interests are not represented through S&T led framings and eval­ uation systems. These groups argue for the recognition of their identi­ ties, shaped by situatedness in particular social, political and historical context, as a basic premise for articulating needs and their roles in RET projects. Recognition and inclusion of peoples’ situated knowledge [24] is thus, the key for just RET. STS studies on public controversies around energy, agriculture, and health have shown that knowledge is socially constructed. Contestations along the lines of expert versus lay opinion, facts versus values, and

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Sharma). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101824 Received 12 May 2020; Received in revised form 11 October 2020; Accepted 15 October 2020 Available online 28 October 2020 2214-6296/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

P. Pandey and A. Sharma

Energy Research & Social Science 71 (2021) 101824

discussed in section three. Section four presents the three empirical cases, section five fleshes out the findings and situate them in the broader debate on energy transition and energy justice, and section six offers the concluding remarks.

scientific versus other forms of knowledge constitute the politics of knowledge [16,18,21,25]. The questions of “whose knowledge counts” in defining needs and priorities, who decides which pathways to take, and who wins and loses in energy transitions are vital in understanding the mechanisms of exclusion and de-valuation, implemented through epistemic practices [22,26]. The demand for recognition-based justice in RET becomes a way of acknowledging the vulnerabilities created by devaluation, dis-respect and misrepresentation of the identities and worldviews of marginal communities [27–29]. The paradigm of technological fixes and market solutionism within which the existing knowledge politics is situated often undermine issues of public participation and justice [20,30]. In this paradigm, scientific knowledge is presented as an apolitical and neutral form of authority, whereas peoples’ knowledge is devalued as mere perception and un­ founded beliefs [31]. Needs are seen as abstract and universal, which are to be met by appropriate technological solutions and market provisions. Vulnerabilities, which result from systemic inequalities and historicallysituated experiences of social exclusion, are presented as new opportu­ nity to expand and reach the people at “the base of the pyramid” and “below the radar” of the market [32–33]. The agency of the people in such formulations is depoliticized; predominantly expressed as tech­ nology “users” and “non-users” and in economic terms as “haves” and the “have-nots” [34]. If operated within the dominant techno-market solutionism para­ digm, RET based interventions may end up reproducing old patterns of environmental and energy injustices along with creating new vulnera­ bilities [13]. For example, participants might be devalued as mere suppliers of raw material, passive users and consumers [35–36]. Simi­ larly, non-participation could be interpreted due to ignorance or lack of “right” information among participants of risks and potential benefits. Such formulations severely limit the capacity and subvert the agency of participants and non-participants, to actively contribute to renewable energy transitions, beyond these conventional roles [14]. However, very little is known about how local people respond to these mechanisms of social control, de-valuation, and misrepresentation [23,37]. Engaging with the “asymmetries in the flow of social agency” could be a useful heuristic in understanding the power dynamics and mecha­ nisms of social control and exclusion embedded in energy in­ frastructures [14]. For distributional justice aspects of RET, this heuristic can help in designing better policies with a situated and embedded understanding of needs and vulnerabilities. For procedural justice, it could be useful in critically analyzing the medium and design of participatory processes [18,29,34]. Consequently, a focus on the ways in which individuals and social groups mobilize specific social, cultural and political identities to compensate asymmetries in the agency is crucial for ensuring recognition-based justice. In this paper, we will engage with the ways in which local people deal with the hegemony and knowledge politics of techno-economic paradigm and navigate through the asymmetries of social agency. How does the demand for recognition-based justice respond to vulner­ abilities created by RET projects? What kind of identities do people mobilize in relation to questions of energy transitions? In what context? To what ends? The three cases that we discuss in this paper are RET projects based on second-generation bioethanol, advanced biogas, and a solar micro-grid. We will argue that rather than accepting and partici­ pating in technocratic and market-based solutions, social groups de­ mand for recognition-based justice in RET. These debates will broaden the horizons of recognizing actors and agency beyond the idea of “people” as mere consumer waiting for techno-economic fixes, and “poor” as disempowered passive user or receiver of benefits from RET projects. These examples draw attention towards the need for main­ streaming questions of relational identity, dignity and recognition-based justice in shaping participation and inclusion in renewable energy transitions. The paper is divided into six sections. The next section presents the conceptual framework. The research setting and methodology are

2. Energy transitions for whom? Knowledge politics, vulnerability and recognition-based justice RET aim for ensuring “sustainable and accessible energy for all” [38–39]. There is a growing interest in energy transition scholarships to engage with energy justice literature [40–41]. This interest arose from the observation that if ethics and justice questions are ignored, transi­ tions might reinforce injustices. Similarly, the lack of support from local communities might halt the progress of RET projects [23,30]. A need is also felt to gather more insights from non-western contexts where sus­ tainability goals are often side-lined or bypassed to achieve develop­ mental objectives [21,42]. Although not exclusive to these three categories, the energy justice literature mainly breaks down the idea of “sustainable and accessible energy for all” into distributional, procedural and recognition-based justice [18,43–44]. Sharing a legacy with environmental justice and social movements literature [45–46], energy justice studies have created a niche of its own [18,47–50]. Conceptually, distributional justice is associated with the concerns around the distribution of “goods” and “bads” in energy provisions and infrastructure. The procedural justice implies that there should be fairness in the mechanism that ensures in­ clusion in energy access. Recognition-based justice acknowledges the relevance of people’s identities and ensures recognition and represen­ tation in the decision-making process [18,48,51–52]. Majority of the empirical research available in energy justice domain primarily focus on distributional and procedural aspects of energy justice [15,30,47,53]. These categories of justice are intricately interlinked; earlier, the ques­ tion of recognition was broadly understood within the distributive and procedural framework [28]. However, making recognition-based justice as a co-fundamental category in energy justice framework is essential to unpack how class inequalities and social, political and cultural hierar­ chies simultaneously operate in contemporary societies [28]. A focus on recognition-based justice is also crucial to engage with the knowledge politics and how it leads to an asymmetric flow of agency during con­ flicts and contestations over priorities in RET. Cognition and recognition are processes that shape people’s identity and behaviour [54]. At the same time, identity is not fixed but subject to change contingent on cognitive, social, political, historical and cultural factors [55–56]. For instance, the participation processes that are designed for enabling RET may themselves result in emergence, assembling or construction of certain individual or group identities [37,55–56]. Taylor ([57]:25) argues that identity as an individual or group’s understanding of who they are is fundamentally shaped by “recognition or its absence, often by the misrecognition of others”. Nonrecognition or misrecognition can be exclusionary, oppressive, and can inflict harm and injustice [29,51,57]. Miranda Fricker [27] argues that the struggle for recognition lies at the core of knowledge politics, where non-recognition and misrecognition through everyday epistemic prac­ tices could lead to exclusion and subordination. Kumar et al. [17] show that access to energy within a local context and its use is not uniform and contingent on power dynamics associated with identities of caste and gender. The failure to recognize or misrecognize people’s identity may result in demeaning and devaluing their agency resulting in dis-interest and non-participation in local renewable energy projects. Knowledge here is understood more broadly as a complex interplay of values, experiences and practices that guide people’s actions and decisions [20,41]. It means that what counts as valid knowledge and ways of knowing (epistemology) is deeply rooted in worldviews and ways of seeing (ontologies) [58]. People understand and intervene in reality from their situated onto-epistemological positions [24,59]. A point to note here is that not all epistemologies and ontologies are 2

P. Pandey and A. Sharma

Energy Research & Social Science 71 (2021) 101824

equally empowered in a given social setting. Depending on the existing power dynamics, not only do some forms of knowledge become domi­ nant, but they also serve as the lens to assess other onto-epistemological positions [58,60]. In the global south, the institutional structure and relations of power and hegemony within which S&T is historically embedded are widely known to create asymmetrical agency and exclusion [61]. By explicit or implicit privileging of scientific knowledge over other ways of knowing and strong state support for technological fixes and market solutions to social problems, the hegemony of S&T is variously performed at multiple sites [62–64]. To counter this hege­ mony, scholars in the field of environmental justice, developmental studies and STS, have argued for openness, acknowledgement, inclu­ sion, and participation of diverse groups, knowledge systems and worldviews in the design of developmental projects [20,26,65–68]. Owing to differences in onto-epistemological positions and asymmet­ rical social agency, mere extending an invitation for all groups to participate in decision making is not enough for meaningful engagement of local groups in energy transitions. Along with ensuring social inclu­ sion through procedural justice, a mechanism that builds trust and creates space for the recognition of onto-epistemological knowledge positions are crucial [58,69]. There could be multiple aspects that drive contestations and conflict in knowledge politics [70]. Contestations could be about technology, technological system or policies driving it. Conflicts might also result in relation to the framing of problems and solutions, underlying values, allocation of roles and responsibilities, and mechanisms through which knowledge is considered legitimate [70–71]. In this paper, the main question for knowledge politics revolves around how needs and prior­ ities are defined, who defines them, and with what source of legitimacy. Different framings of needs and priorities result in tension between dominant assumptions which shape RET projects and the lived experi­ ences of local people. For instance, S&T led innovations in RET projects are projected as the solution for energy security and clean energy challenges. These narratives frame needs as abstract and universal [72]. On the contrary, for local groups, needs are derived from the entan­ glement of everyday practices, experiences and relationships that are politically sensitive, powerfully aligned and historically contingent [19]. In the context of the global south, local energy needs are articu­ lated in terms of the lived experience of vulnerabilities created by in­ equalities instituted through colonial and developmentalist agenda. Needs are also not fixed but subject to change depending on a multi­ plicity of factors, including the technological innovation and market intervention that aims at meeting these needs. The absence of recognition-based justice considerations in energy transition frameworks impacts the renewable energy project in three ways. First, the non-participation of local actors is crudely understood as “deficit” in their understanding of the RET. The deficit model assumes that the renewable energy-based systems reflect one homogenous environmental vision, which is pre-defined and uniform across society. The “deficit” view is based on the hegemony of certain forms of knowledge (such as science and technology) that create “others” by degrading and devaluing non-conventional expertise and knowledge [20]. Those who do not subscribe to such homogenous visions are labelled as “ignorant”, “misinformed” and “uneducated” [55]. Contrary to the deficit view, scholars have argued that the environmental values are not pre-given but instead socially constructed [14]. People ascribe to different meanings of environment contingent on relational interactions of their identity with local, natural, cultural and historical context [73–74]. To understand non-participation, it becomes crucial to unpack what normative values guide energy transitions and whose knowledge and worldview counts for decision-making [14,21]. Secondly, simplifying people’s identities in terms of a “disembodied, rational actor interested in abstract universals” might lead to the abandonment of renewable energy projects ([19]:13–14). The neolib­ eral turn in global history is marked by emerging trends of new com­ plexities in the categories and relationship of state, corporate and

citizens [75–76]. For example, in countries like India, in cases of high technology sector such as biotechnology and genetics, the state has emerged as a new enterprise with maximum investment and stake in these industries [77]. Similarly, the hybrid governance models [78] (discussed in detail in the solar micro-grid case) brings together state, civil society and corporate ideologies. These changes have further complicated the categories of citizen and consumers [36]. Adopting new energy-efficient technologies available in the market becomes synony­ mous to being a “good” citizen. The merging of the categories of the citizen with the consumer may have detrimental impacts for the coun­ tries of the global south, where a large proportion of the marginalized population is still dependent on welfare schemes of the state and public distribution system. Scholarship in the field of energy justice has argued for a rethinking of identities of “consumers”, “citizen”, and “rational economic agents” [36]. These studies advocate for consideration of identities shaped by complex relational entanglements of diverse and embodied subjectivities with vulnerability [79]. By acknowledging and engaging with the messy, contingent and intersectional relational identities, renewable energy transitions could be made more socially desirable and resilient [21]. Finally, the non-recognition of the dynamism and diversity of peo­ ple’s needs in relation to their identities in RET projects may create new vulnerabilities for local groups. Kumar et al. [38] in their study of six countries of the global south showed how top-down RE project create new vulnerabilities and how local people hack them to address their needs. For projects focussed on RET, not addressing these vulnerabilities might result in non-participation. For the renewable energy transition to be effective, rather than thinking of societal needs as objective and universal entities, needs should be seen as context-specific and dynamic [72,80]. It would also mean that the agency of people and their will­ ingness to participate in innovation processes are also subject to their perception of the needs and how they could be met [19,80]. Scholars working in the energy and development sector have warned about the elite capture of projects; where often proposed interventions have pro­ vided little to no benefits to marginalized communities [23,81]. In this paper, we add to the ongoing debate that engages with the agency of marginal communities in re-negotiating their needs, priorities and roles in developmental projects [23,37]. 3. Research setting, data collection and methodology In this study, we present the findings from three separate renewable energy projects from rural India. These three projects were envisioned and conducted separately. In an International Conference on Respon­ sible Innovation in New Delhi (India), where the authors of this paper participated and presented their findings, it became apparent that the three cases have interesting parallels along the lines of knowledge pol­ itics and recognition-based justice. In the wake of the discussion, we decided to do a comparative, cross-cutting analysis of these three RET projects. The first two cases involve farmers from the western state of Punjab. The third case is from the eastern state of Bihar. Cases from Punjab and Bihar presents different scenarios in terms of resource use, energy infrastructure, social setting, historical contingencies and eco­ nomic development [37,82–83]. The studies in Punjab are based on two projects where efforts were made towards transitioning to a bio-based economy. The projects involved setting up of 2G bioethanol and advanced biogas plants based on surplus rice straw. In the third case (from Bihar), an international NGO (Greenpeace) and its associates set up a solar micro-grid to provide power to the village community [84]. The individual cases were analyzed for generating comparative and cross-cutting themes along with the three interventions [16,38]. The energy justice and knowledge politics framework were employed to analyze the qualitative data using interpretative social science methods [16,37,85–87]. The interpretive methods are particularly useful in understanding the opinion, under­ standing, attitudes and perceptions of individuals and social groups in 3

P. Pandey and A. Sharma

Energy Research & Social Science 71 (2021) 101824

orders for legal action against farmers who were found guilty of burning agricultural residues.1 The threat of criminalization and legal action has put enormous pressure on the farmers [94]. It was assumed that the procurement of surplus straw by the industry in such a scenario would prevent the farmers from burning the straw. Based on the urgency of straw disposal for the farmers, there were speculations that farmers would even be willing to give-away the straw for free, in return of in­ dustry providing them services for clearing the fields. The bioethanol initiatives framed straw as “waste”, straw burning as a “problem” that could be dealt with by technological fix and market solutions [94–96]. However, from the worldview of farmers, rather than being a prob­ lem, straw burning is the “only” solution they have, in order to prevent themselves from falling prey of systemic vulnerabilities, livelihood challenges and distress of modern agriculture [94–96]. Rather than the quick technological fix of bioethanol production, farmers framed their needs and priorities in relation to systemic vulnerabilities of modern agriculture. Straw burning, as told by the farmers, was acquired as a practice parallel to the initiatives of intensive agriculture back in the 1960s. With the increase in the use of chemical fertilizers replacing manure based on straw and machinery replacing farm animals, the local use for agriresidue has gone down drastically. Technological and policy in­ terventions have tied the majority of Punjab agriculture in a tight rice–wheat rotation cycle with a small window of 10–15 days for straw disposal. The debts and loans taken for agricultural inputs, every year, makes it practically impossible for farmers to take any chances for experimenting with straw disposal [94,96]. Neither did the promise of 2G bioethanol as the “solution” for straw burning stopped the farmers from burning the straw, nor did widespread criminalization and imprisonment. On the contrary, there are multiple YouTube videos where leaders of farmer organizations are actively setting fire to rice straw in a conventional way in front of news reporters and camera.2 3 The industrial actors keen to set up 2G bioethanol plants were seemingly annoyed and confused by this attitude of the farmers. In a policy meeting with different stakeholders, the industry actors re­ ported that the availability of a sustained supply of biomass at an affordable price has emerged as the most significant impediment for the bioethanol supply chain. In the panel comprising of major industry representatives involved in setting up 2 G bioethanol plants in different parts of India, one of the participants expressed his frustrations about the slow progress in setting up a biomass supply chain. He said that “well if the straw is really a waste shouldn’t it be available to us for free or for a negligible price” and urged the state governments to intervene in the negotiations with farmers and come up with a consistent pricing mechanism for straw (Industry representative, Delhi, 10 Aug 2019). Our discussion with farmers revealed that divergent from the policy idea of “waste” associated with economic value, the surplus straw and its burning had acquired a symbolic value. Rather than being a “waste”, straw is more of a “nuisance” for them, which means that its value is contingent on the availability of better solutions. In the present context, burning of straw has become an instrument of dissent against the state and public disregard for vulnerabilities of agricultural systems. There are multiple challenges, in terms of substantial input costs, time and labour constraints, and incompatible outputs, which force the farmers to burn the surplus straw [92,94]. Among the multiple competing vul­ nerabilities that demand farmer’s attention on a daily basis, the liveli­ hood vulnerabilities often win over the health and environmental problems of straw burning [94]. A farmer summing up the discussion on

the three cases [85,87]. We conducted in-depth structured interviews, semi-structured interviews, life-history interviews, focus group meet­ ings/discussions [38] with key stakeholders in Delhi (scientists, gov­ ernment officials, and industry representatives) and different villages of Punjab (farmers and local entrepreneurs) and South Bihar (farmers, sharecroppers, agrarian labours). Participant observation was simulta­ neously used to collect relevant information during the field visits. The field data was supplemented with government and media reports available on these topics to support the cases. In total, the study relies on interactions with around 200 actors over four years (2015–2019) period. Their responses were audio-recorded and transcribed. The study offers empirical novelty as we collected data from several marginalized (chronically poor workers from scheduled castes) rural communities using the qualitative tools [87]. Often the opinions and views of such communities are under-represented in studies conducted on more dominant and common groups (such as scientists and urban consumers). The solar off-grid case has substantial inputs from women of marginal­ ized communities; however, gender dimension remains severely underrepresented in biogas and 2G bioethanol case. Further studies to un­ derstand the marginalization of women-farmers in Punjab could help enrich the recognition-based justice debate. The in-depth qualitative insights [88] obtained from these interviews were used to analyze the three cases. The cross-case analysis, allowed as to identify variations and similarities among the two regions and these three cases [89]. However, in these three cases, we did not engage with the temporal variations over longue duree. Some of these RET in­ terventions are still in operational mode and requires long-term engagement. Longitudinal studies may yield diverse insights on how the RET proponents drew lessons from specific cases. Due to the quali­ tative, case study approach, we believe, the findings cannot be overstretched, as the focus was more on generating deeper insights rather on making broad generalizations [87]. 4. The three cases 4.1. 2 G bioethanol and dignity of farmers In 2009, India came up with the National Biofuel Policy (NBP) that envisioned 20% blending of ethanol with petrol by 2017. The policy aimed to switch towards bio-based fuels to promote clean energy, en­ ergy security and reduce import expenditure on fossil fuels. This target failed miserably (around 2% blending target was met) due to inadequate availability of ethanol. In 2018, the NBP was revised with the new target of 20% ethanol blending by 2030. To bridge the gap between demand and supply the new policy envisioned a biofuel economy based on converting “waste to wealth” [90]. The framing of agricultural and forest residues as “waste” available to be converted into bioethanol ignored the diverse relational ecologies in which they are embedded [91]. The initiatives for supporting the innovation ecosystem of 2G ethanol are primarily framed as a techno-economic endeavour to ach­ ieve energy security and clean energy [90]. There are promises for huge investments from the government as well as industry to support R&D and development of the most efficient technology for bioethanol pro­ duction [90]. In these technocratic calculations, the supply chain for feedstock (agricultural residues) was widely presumed unproblematic. These presumptions were based on the idea that farmers will be willing to participate in the RET projects as suppliers of biomass to the industry. It was assumed that setting up of bioethanol plants in rural areas would be in the interest of the farmers, who are currently struggling to dispose of the surplus straw. In the absence of appropriate disposal mechanisms, millions of metric tonnes of rice and wheat straw are being burned in northern India annually, causing lots of problems and controversies [92]. Farmers are often found at the centre of these controversies where they are blamed for causing air pollution and health challenges for the urban and rural citizen [93–94]. Over sensitization of the issue by the media and citizen litigation against farmers has resulted in government

1 https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2019/11/03/Punjab-fines-nearl y-3000-farmers-for-stubble-burning.html last accessed on March 20, 2020. 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87qZOSfvdD0 last accessed on March 25, 2020 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y8z5bw9GO4 last accessed on March 25, 2020

4

P. Pandey and A. Sharma

Energy Research & Social Science 71 (2021) 101824

the groups’ behalf expressed that “the biggest sufferers in this whole dynamic, even for the negative environmental and health impacts of straw burning, are the farmers and their families (because of their direct and first exposure), but no one is paying attention to them” (Farmers’ Dialogue, 28 Nov 2016). The farmers said that they are continuing straw burning as an expression of their dissent and protest towards government orders of legal action against farmers for burning straw. The criminalization of straw burning has damaged the dignity and identity of farmers as the “food producers of the nation”. The farmers of Punjab are traditionally known for their progressiveness, entrepreneurship and taking pride in the identity of a “farmer”. Scholarly studies in Punjab has shown that these characteristic cultural features of Punjab are some of the signifi­ cant factors that had led to widespread adoption and success of gov­ ernment programmes on agricultural modernization [94,96–97]. Farmers often take pride in asserting their identity as the “food producers for the nation”. At the peak of food grain production in the 1960s, the second Prime Minister of India called the farmers “national heroes”.4 A farmer explained that “farmers in Punjab actively supported the government during the phase of the Green Revolution. They have played a major role in bringing the country out of famines and food shortages and making it self-sufficient in food” (Farmers’ dialogue, 28 Nov 2016). During the discussions, farmers repeatedly emphasized on their identity as “national heroes” and “service to the nation”. However, the recent public outrage towards them for straw burning and the labels of “culprits” and “irresponsible” actors have undermined their contri­ bution. This misrecognition and loss of moral authority has made farmers vulnerable to exploitation and left them in dismay. Throughout our fieldwork, we repeatedly heard the plea for respecting the identity and dignity of farmers. One of the farmers put this in the form of a question in front of us. He said, “is this the way the government and people of the country are rewarding our service to the nation” (Farmer interview, village Bahawalpur, 28 Nov 2016). The difference in positions of industry and farmers in framing the needs and role of farmers in the bioethanol project has resulted in conflicts and disagreements. As discussed above, both these groups have separately appealed to the government to pay attention to their respective concerns and intervene to resolve the conflict. However, so far both the groups are standing firmly by their positions, leading to continuing incidences of straw burning and challenges for the imple­ mentation of biofuel policy and RET projects. This emphasis of the farmers on the historically situated under­ standing of their vulnerabilities, needs and identities calls for a rethinking of the underlying assumptions associated with bioethanol project. Non-participation in such projects is not due to ignorance or lack of information. Instead, for farmers, it is a way of contesting dominant claims about their needs and roles and mobilizing dissent to demand due recognition in RET.

model to attract the attention of the government for devising mecha­ nisms to support the scaling up of this model. For diversifying and decentralizing clean energy options, the research team was interested in understanding the most efficient mechanism through which rural re­ sources could be mobilized to produce and distribute clean energy at the local level. These biogas plants would be based on non-food feedstock, particularly rice straw and other agricultural residues. Under the framework of Responsible Research and Innovation, the research team was required to engage different actors in an inclusive and deliberative dialogue. However, contrary to the mandates of Responsible Innovation for upstream engagement in defining needs and priorities [19,98–99], the social science research team was only involved after the technology was developed and ready for deployment and diffusion. Despite its emphasis on inclusion and public engagement, the dominant assump­ tions behind the design of this RET project was top-down, linear, technoscientific fixes for social problems. In these assumptions’ needs were generalized and farmer community was imagined as a homogenized group. It was envisioned that advanced biogas would solve the problems of timely straw disposal, and farmers will be willing to supply surplus straw as a raw material in return for clean energy or economic gains. However, our interactions with farmers in the villages of Punjab revealed the superficiality of these assumptions. Owing to their experi­ ential expertise, gained as a result of witnessing the failure of multiple developmental projects focussed on biogas over the past decades, farmers showed very little interest for advanced biogas as a solution to the problem of straw burning. The promotion of community biogas plants has a long history in India [100]. These plants had limited success due to caste-based social stigma associated with handling human waste. The majority of animal waste during earlier decades was consumed as an organic manure for agriculture. However, in recent years policy actors have shown renewed interest in biogas. The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), Government of India has started several programs to support community and individual owned biogas plants. The MNRE promoted rural biogas plants as a mechanism for rural empowerment and decreasing energy dependence on fossil fuels. How­ ever, due to limited focus and expenditure on maintenance of these plants by the government, availability of local expertise for repair and maintenance became a significant factor in their propagation in rural areas. Countywide these programs have received mixed success. Our fieldwork in selected rural areas of Punjab revealed many defunct and very few functional biogas plants based on animal waste. Majority of farmers who once had a biogas plant (and which is now defunct) re­ ported multiple maintenance problems associated with running the plant. On the ground level, biogas as a decentralized and self-reliant mode of energy production is tied to the image of an outdated and defunct model. In our interaction with farmers who practised technol­ ogy and input-intensive agriculture, biogas was often designated as the “bullock cart” technology, which denotes backwardness as opposed to the progressive technologies such as aeroplane [95]. When we asked these farmers about their opinion on setting up a biogas plant as a means to provide clean energy and solve the problem of straw burning, they often rejected it. They questioned why “we wanted the village people to go back while the whole world is moving forward” (Farmers’ dialogue, 28 Nov 2016). The biggest reason for dis-interest in the biogas plant was the lack of need. Over the years, the government of India has promoted subsidized Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) cylinder for rural household use to pro­ mote “smoke-free” cooking fuel.5 LPG has visually demonstrated the idea of “clean” energy.6 Due to a successful implementation of clean fuel programmes in rural areas of Punjab, subsidized LPG is readily avail­ able. As a result, farmers preferred smooth supply of LPG over the

4.3. Biogas and farmers as “ecological beings” As part of a Dutch Research Organization funded project, this study advanced a collaboration of social scientists and industry actors for exploring the possibility of setting up biogas plants in rural Punjab as examples of Responsible Innovation. The industry partner for the project was the Indian wing of a Dutch Chemical Company which has developed a technology to convert agricultural residue into biogas. Over a course of two years (2015–2017), the plan was to set up a demonstration plant by using the industry’s proprietary technology and engage the local com­ munity as suppliers of feedstock as well as consumers of biogas. The successful operation of the demonstration plant would be then used as a 4 https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/how-lal-bahadur-shastri-s-jai-jawa n-jai-kisan-will-be-raked-up-in-2019-lok-sabha-elections-1132272–2018-01–11 accessed on March 25, 2020.

5

Ujjwala Yojna - https://pmuy.gov.in/ last accessed on March 25, 2020 There are studies that report considerable improvement in the health of rural women and children with the use of LPG. 6

5

P. Pandey and A. Sharma

Energy Research & Social Science 71 (2021) 101824

messier experience they have had with biogas previously. As LPG got visually associated with the idea of “clean” energy, the ecological value of biogas did not gain much currency among the majority of farmers who predominantly used chemical fertilizers and burned the straw. However, there is a small but growing number of organic/natural7 farmers in these villages who appreciated the environmental benefits of biogas over the “clean” LPG. However, in their worldview straw burning or straw disposal is not at all a problem to be solved by the technological fix of advanced biogas. Natural farmers utilize straw as mulch to serve as food for soil micro-organism. For natural farmers, the needs and prior­ ities are defined in relation to the devaluing and disrespect of their knowledge and demand for support of organic agriculture. Natural farming is an emerging phenomenon in Punjab, mostly, as a response to rising agricultural distress and discontents with the stateindustry complex led modern agriculture. Most of the natural farmers have recently switched from chemical to natural agriculture. Few elderly farmers always resisted the idea of modern chemical-based agriculture. These farmers continued with traditional seeds, natural fertilizers and manure and natural pesticide management systems. These farmers had strong ideological positions regarding agricultural prac­ tices. They proudly identified themselves as natural farmers. The farmers who have recently switched to natural farming noted specific triggers in their life histories which made them move away from chemical-based agriculture. The common feature in all the stories was the destruction of nature, decreasing soil fertility and productivity, overdependence on state subsidies, rising input costs, crop failures due to climate and market uncertainty leading to accumulation of debts, loss of community values and sometimes suicide or illness of a family member or neighbour. Natural farmers expressed that their identity and dignity is based on breaking away from the exploitative state-corporate nexus and finding alternate ways of doing agriculture. They promoted communityoriented ways of seed production, and distribution of food grains through local markets and informal networks. Farmers who shift from chemical-based to natural farming are themselves prone to multiple vulnerabilities due to uncertainties about adopting new ways of prac­ tising agriculture, lack of sufficient support from the government and unstable market. Farmers reported that there is a substantial loss of yield in the first three years of production and lesser returns. Not only is this shift considered challenging by the majority of farmers; farmers still practising chemical methods often associate it with going “backwards”. However, to avoid criminalization, many chemical farmers tried natural farmers’ way of disposing of straw (mulching) but incurred microbial infestation and crop losses. As the practices of mulching are embedded in values, ecological relationships and the ownership of knowledge; “deskilled” chemical farmers failed to embrace these practices of straw disposal. The technological treatment of straw to produce biogas in an in­ dustry owned, engineered and controlled environmental set-up with the help of engineered micro-organisms stood utterly opposite to the natural farmers’ worldview of ecological sensitivity. For natural farmers, the straw is the property of the soil, and it has to be returned to it for forging a relational connection between soil, micro-organisms and humans. Their philosophy of agriculture prioritizes mutual respect for each

other’s capacities and limits. As a result, the practice of agriculture en­ tails “care”, “dependence” and “nurturing” rather than “control” and “exploitation”. Farmers mobilized cultural notions of “mother earth” to explain their averseness to chemical fertilizers and pesticides. One of the farmers criticized chemical farmers for making their mother earth “drug addict” and “giving her cancer” (Farmer, 28 Nov 2016, Bahawalpur). Another organic farmer explained that “the practice of organic agri­ culture is a way of life which requires patience and close attention to­ wards the rhythm of nature and attuning the farmer as well as their agriculture to that pace and rhythm” (Farmer, 15 Sept 2017, Delhi). Natural farmers took great pride in talking about diverse species of friendly organisms residing on their farm that help to enrich the soil naturally. The farmers expressed their dependence on these organisms for collectively practising agriculture. For this purpose, straw has to be made available to the micro-organisms. The relational sensitivity of organic farmers towards agriculture and ecology does not automatically translate into a preference for biogas. In the worldview of organic farmers, there is no surplus straw that could to be made available to the biofuel industries. For organic farmers, diverting straw from their fields to produce biogas through industrial and engineered micro-organisms, interferes with the “nurturing” of the soil organisms and would disrupt the “natural” ecological processes. The commitment of organic farmers to ecological citizenship [101] makes them disinterested in participating in industrial biogas programmes. This case shows that needs defined in relation to top-down as­ sumptions about local realities and technological fix (biogas) made no sense either for chemical farmers or natural farmers. For both groups of farmers, the experiential expertise gained by previously failed biogas projects made them very sceptical of this solution. Along with this, the easy access to LPG makes biogas undesirable for both groups of farmers. There is an ecological appeal of biogas for natural farmers. However, the relationships of care, within which natural farming practices are embedded, does not allow the farmers to divert straw from field microorganism to industrial micro-organisms. Along with this, because of being embedded within the exploitative relations of state-industry complex, straw-based biogas falls into sharp contradiction with the worldview of natural farmers. These farmers rely on their own values and knowledge system to manage surplus straw. Natural farmers argued that rather than supporting exploitative agriculture that damages envi­ ronment, and bioenergy solutions to remediate straw burning, govern­ ment and industry should recognize, support, and empower natural farmers. Existing state and market infrastructure devalue natural pro­ duce and create vulnerabilities for natural farming by restrictive rules and regulations. The recent policy interventions and industry initiatives in the bio-energy domain created new vulnerabilities for farmers by increasing competition for land, water, labour and other resources. Natural farmers demanded recognition-based justice for their ontoepistemic positions in advanced biogas based agri-energy futures envi­ sioned by state and industry. Non-participation, of farmers in strawbased biogas project, results from a mismatch in defining needs and priorities and a clash of underlying value systems. This mismatch finally resulted in disinterest and abandonment of RET project by the industry. 4.3. Solar micro-grid and assertion of marginal identities Greenpeace India, with the help of a couple of other civil society organizations (BASIX and CEED), installed a solar micro-grid in 2014 in a small village named Dharnai in Jehanabad District of South Bihar.8 The

7

The organic farmers are generally those who have a certification for their produce as ‘chemical free’ from an authorized certification agency. These farmers are strongly connected to a booming organic agriculture industry. Natural farmers, although, they practice chemical free agriculture, they do not have any certification and as a result not so closely connected to a national or international market network. Among the farmers we interviewed for this study, all of them practiced chemical free agriculture but a very small majority had the certification. Thus, we would prefer to use the term natural farmers as an umbrella term for organic farmers as well as other farmers who practice chemical free agriculture.

8

BASIX is a livelihood promotion institution established in 1996 (refer https://www.basixindia.com/). Centre for Environment and Energy Develop­ ment (CEED) is an environmental NGO (Refer - http://ceedindia.org/). For more details on Dharnai project refer http://dharnailive.in/blog/5 last accessed on March 25, 2020. 6

P. Pandey and A. Sharma

Energy Research & Social Science 71 (2021) 101824

national and regional media projected it as the first solar village in the country. The solar micro-grid in Dharnai was established as a hybrid model [37,78]. In this hybrid model, the NGO and civil society organi­ zations took the lead role in installing, maintaining and governing the solar micro-grid with the help of the local community. The hybrid model was devised as a self-sustaining model, which was supposed to generate finances for the maintenance by charging the users [84]. The users were envisioned as customers, and village level users’ associations were supposed to regulate the use of the solar grid. The hybrid model was promoted as an exemplar for rural electrification in Bihar [102]. Dharnai received electricity from the solar micro-grid after almost a gap of thirty years. Like many other villages in South Bihar, access to grid-connected electricity ceased in the 1990s in Dharnai. During the last few decades, Bihar earned the dubious distinction of being one among the least electrified states in India [82]. Thus, the solar off-grid experi­ ment generated a lot of interest among many stakeholders. The solar energy was supposed to eradicate the energy poverty [44] of Dharnai. According to the Census of India (2011), Dharnai has 205 ha of land and a population of 3,207 inhabitants. The village harboured farmers from the dominant upper caste, a sizeable community of other backward class (OBC) and scheduled castes (SC).9 The village had four neighbourhoods, which were predominantly divided along caste lines. Most of the in­ habitants of Dharnai were dependent on agriculture. We analyzed, how the farming families from the upper caste and the agrarian labours from the scheduled caste (SC) negotiated the arrival of solar micro-grid in Dharnai. Both the communities faced perennial issues related to lack of access to electricity but in different ways. Some of the well-off families from the upper caste installed Solar Photo Voltaic cells on their rooftop to fulfil their basic electricity needs much before the arrival of solar micro-grid in the village. However, rooftop solar panels had not been adopted by all the upper caste families. The economically poor SC community, mostly comprising of agrarian labourers and informal sector workers were entirely dependent on Kerosene for indoor lighting and they do not had access to any other modern energy sources. Greenpeace and partners promoted the hybrid model with two funda­ mental presuppositions; first, they assumed the villagers are “customers in waiting” as the solar off-grid will address their energy poverty and second, the villagers will actively participate in the governance if it will be ably guided by the civil society actors during the installation phase. The evidence from the fieldwork suggests that these technoeconomic [103] assumptions hadn’t worked at the local level in South Bihar. It was interesting to find out that there was no demand for solar grid among the general masses in the village. A small group of young farmers from the upper caste were relentlessly trying to get conventional grid-based electricity before the initiation of the solar project in their village. The other communities were not actively pursuing the demand for grid connection. Getting proper access to modern electricity was a distant dream for many of them. The villagers were not in unison for solar micro-grid. However, once the solar grid was installed many families along all social groups subscribed the solar energy for resi­ dential purpose. Yet, with all the efforts of technology providers, there were many nay-sayers among the different social groups. Greenpeace invited the former Chief Minister (CM) of the State to inaugurate the solar micro-grid in August 2014. During the inauguration, several members from the upper caste farming families and SC community demanded the former CM to provide “real energy and not this fake en­ ergy”. The former CM accepted the demand, and within a month, the village was reconnected with the conventional grid. This shift led to a decline in the number of solar grid connections from 255 to 120 households. Many of the farming families abandoned the solar connec­ tion after this event, and no new household demanded solar energy.

More importantly, almost all the families from the SC community gave up the solar connection after the village got connected with the con­ ventional grid. The early adopters from the upper caste farming families continued to use the solar panels as the solar energy augmented their overall en­ ergy requirement. The relatively well-off families from the farming communities were comfortable with the idea of buying their electricity from the solar grid. The SC families completely abandoned the solar connection. The tariff (around 1 dollar per month) was quite high for them, and the electricity offered through the solar grid (18 W) was not sufficient enough to meet their diverse energy needs. The SC families argued that they should get electricity from the conventional grid and the solar grid was not a permanent solution to their energy poverty. They asserted that they come from the weakest sections of the society, and the state should own the responsibility to meet their basic energy requirements. The SC families argued that they were incapable of paying for the user’s charges on their own. They rejected the idea of becoming the customer in the hybrid model. Several of them were uncomfortable with the idea of user groups and were worried about the “elite capture” [81] of the user groups by the dominant farmers/communities. Rather than participating in reforming the user’s group by asserting their choices, they preferred to abandon the use of solar energy and declined to participate in the governance of solar micro-grid. A new energy user group, without the baggage of the social hierarchy, solidarity and ani­ mosity, was difficult to get developed in the socially divided and un­ equal society of rural South Bihar. Rather than accepting the identity of consumer ascribed to them, they preferred to assert their political identity as citizens. In South Bihar, the marginalized communities have been able to assert their political identity up to some level over the last two decades because of mass political mobilizations and the rise of identity-based politics. However, social changes and political mobili­ zations have not yet yielded desired results at the local level in radically altering the existing social dynamics. Poverty is rampant and socioeconomic divide along caste, class, and geographical lines are enormous. The promoters of hybrid governance model, conceived the local community as groups waiting to get involved around a particular cause, leaving behind their shared inharmonious past. The divisions and fis­ sures among the rural groups made it extremely difficult to develop the user groups. Collective user groups based on neo-liberal rationalities [37,103] cannot be thrust from outside on societies, which are deeply divided and hierarchical. Contrary to the neo-liberal economic ratio­ nality, the social and political ideals have more significantly shaped the group behaviour of rural populace in South Bihar. Instead of partici­ pating in a common user group, they preferred to stay out. The majority of the farmers and agrarian labours did not saw solar grid as a solution to their energy poverty and a mean to fulfil their energy needs. They demanded grid connectivity from the state and overlooked the potential of the solar grid in meeting their energy requirements. The project proponents conceptualised the energy needs of the rural public in an abstract and context-independent manner [72], which was rejected at the local level. The SC families notably rejected these neo-liberal for­ mulations and laid their trust in the state apparatus to help them meet their energy requirements. Who decides for whom, becomes a critical question in such context [22]. The vulnerability of the SC community and other poor farming families in terms of access to energy did not get resolved through the hybrid solar off-grid project. The non-recognition of vulnerabilities or misrepresentation of this group as energy con­ sumers was resisted and rejected by the marginalized rural commu­ nities. The rural populace asserted their political identity as marginalized citizens and demanded the right to development from the state actors. The demand for recognition of the marginal identity of the participants in the solar micro-grid case pushed the idea of recognitionbased justice as a crucial feature for ensuring participation of margin­ alized local groups in RET projects/programmes.

9 Scheduled Caste refers to social groups which were considered “untouch­ able” by the Hindu Society and they are among the most disadvantaged socioeconomic groups in India.

7

P. Pandey and A. Sharma

Energy Research & Social Science 71 (2021) 101824

4. Discussion

energy needs are met by LPG. Thus, they show no interest in biogas initiatives of the industry. However, if these initiatives are framed in relation to local needs and vulnerabilities, there might be a better pos­ sibility for chemical farmers to participate in advanced biogas devel­ opment. For example, biogas value-chain can be reframed in relation to farmers’ concerns about decreasing soil fertility and high input costs. Thus, rather than consumers of biogas, chemical farmers can supply straw to get organic manure from the biogas industry in return. This model is being employed on a small scale by a few local entrepreneurs who have set up small scale biogas plants based on straw. These entre­ preneurs have reframed biogas as a “soil fertility enhancing plant”. The embeddedness of these entrepreneurs in the local community makes them more trustworthy in the eyes of the chemical farmers as compared to the industry and government. For organic farmers, needs are framed in relation to their concerns about rising agricultural distress, degradation of the environment and their identity as relational, ecological beings. Within this frame, caring about ecological relationships becomes the top priority. As the industryled development of biogas is incapable of engaging with their concerns and ways of knowing about the ecology, these projects fail to impress them. The advanced biogas adds new vulnerabilities by creating competition for scarce resources such as land, water, labour and straw. By offering to convert straw to manure through industrial processes, the advanced biogas damages the existing relational identity of farmers as knowledgeable ecological beings, disrupts their relationship with soil microbes and interferes with the “natural” cycle of straw management. In the agri-energy futures envisioned in relation to biogas, natural farmers lose their onto-epistemic knowledge position and are devalued as mere suppliers of feedstock. As a result, despite its ecological appeal, these farmers prefer to stay out of RET based on biogas. For the marginal communities in the case of solar micro-grid, the needs and priorities for energy are framed in relation to the identities that are shaped by everyday lived experiences of oppression and marginalization in a hierarchical social setting. The pre-given identity of “unserved customers” homogenizes the rural community as a group waiting to receive developmental benefits by any means. The project increased the vulnerability of the marginal community, first, by making them prone to struggle for energy access and governance in a setting (solar energy users’ group) with pre-existing social biases against them. Secondly, the identity of an “unserved customer” is antagonistic to their identity as marginalized citizens with rights. As marginalized commu­ nities, their energy needs were being partially or fully fulfilled by the state through welfare-based mechanisms. Such state interventions added little economic burden on these rural communities. The hybrid model did not recognize the vulnerability and marginalization of the rural populace. Due to the non-recognition of their identity and rights within the hybrid models, these groups registered their protest by not participating in the governance of solar off-grid and abandoning the use of solar energy. A common feature among the three cases was that the nonparticipation of local actors in RET projects is firmly grounded in a lack of trust in such initiatives. There is a vast reservoir of studies on failed projects in developmental settings [37,91,104–105]. When the top-down, technocratic solutions fail to address the local socioenvironmental problems, such projects often get abandoned or reappropriated. Such failures have contributed to the apprehension of local groups about the impacts of RET projects. For chemical farmers, the lack of trust in bioenergy solutions is based on the fear of exploitation by corporates due to loss of moral authority and experiential expertise based on previously failed interventions. For users of solar micro-grid and biogas, the distrust was associated with the durability of technology for long term use. For natural farmers, lack of trust lies in the difference in value systems and ideology. Based on the unpleasant experiences of intensive, chemical-based agriculture, they doubted the capacity of state-corporate nexus in recognizing and valuing their knowledge system and ensuring environmental sustainability.

Energy transition debates are increasingly focussing on distribu­ tional and procedural aspects of justice while paying relatively less attention to recognition-based justice [15,30,47,53]. These different aspects of energy justice are intricately intertwined. Thus, a lack of focus on recognition-based justice might disrupt distributional and procedural justice and vice versa. The three-energy transition-related cases from India discussed above provide empirical and practical evidence for the need to strengthen recognition-based justice within the energy transi­ tion frameworks. In all the three cases discussed in this paper, the project agenda is designed within the techno-economic framework. Be it 2G bioethanol, advanced biogas or solar micro-grid case, complex societal problems such as straw burning and energy access are framed in terms of tech­ nological fixes and market solutions. Rather than being recognized as the bearers of relevant knowledge about their own needs and priorities, local groups are constituted as homogeneous beneficiaries of such pro­ jects as consumers, or suppliers of raw materials or both. These as­ sumptions, inherent in the design of RET projects, results in an asymmetric flow of agency privileging S&T based knowledge and expertise over others (such as experiential knowledge and expertise). As a result, they face resistance and rejection from local communities. Reflections and critical engagement with the underlying assumptions and inherent knowledge politics of RET projects are required to enable just energy transitions. By ignoring the situated and embodied accounts of local needs and priorities of specific groups, the change that RET projects aim to bring might be superficial, short-lived, or it may even create new vulnerabilities and challenges. We argue that non-participation in RET projects, despite the benefits advertised by the project proponents for local groups, is a form of mobilizing agency to resist subversion by dominant frameworks. To remediate loss of social agency instituted by dominant knowledge pol­ itics, marginal groups assert their identity and demand for recognitionbased justice. Identities are constituted by complex entanglements and continuous negotiations between the self, community and the sur­ rounding [28,57]. They are formed in response to existing vulnerabil­ ities within the system and at the same time, could be mobilized to respond to new and emergent vulnerabilities [21]. The three cases demonstrate how local groups frame their needs and priorities in relation to their identities in order to negotiate between existing and emerging vulnerabilities. There is an apparent mismatch between the needs and priorities envisioned in RET projects and those framed by the local group. For farmers concerned about managing the surplus straw in the case of 2G bioethanol, needs and priorities are framed in relation to the systemic vulnerabilities that they have become prone to by adopting modern agriculture. While the “goods” of this modernization are shared by state, corporates, consumers and farmers alike, the “bads” are directed only towards the farmers. The diversion of straw for bioethanol production temporarily relieves farmers from the stress of timely straw disposal. However, it does not address the systemic vulnerabilities that lead them to burn the straw in the first place. The 2 G bioethanol project creates new vulnerabilities by presenting them as “culprits” of air pollution saved by techno-scientific and industrial intervention. This framing of their identity exposes farmers to possible exploitation by the corporates. The demand for symbolic or cultural change as a means for recognition based injustice has profound material and discursive implications for knowledge politics [28]. A shift in the recognition from “culprits” of producing pollution to “national heroes” producing food for the country, gives farmers more bargaining power in asserting their demands and priorities in the bioethanol value chain. In the advanced biogas case, the mismatch in framing needs and priorities results in dis-interest from chemical farmers and conflict in underlying values systems is the cause of non-participation from natural farmers. Although chemical farmers need innovative ways to dispose of surplus straw, there is no apparent need for biogas because the domestic 8

P. Pandey and A. Sharma

Energy Research & Social Science 71 (2021) 101824

frameworks [16,40,47]. We particularly focussed on the injustices executed through knowledge politics, which privileges some ways of knowing over others, in defining needs, priorities and roles for partici­ pants. This paper contributes to the growing literature on the innovative ways in which less powerful and vulnerable groups mobilize their agency in countering hegemonic practices [23,29,37]. The study shows that by not participating in RET projects, local groups rejected the preconceived, abstract and homogenizing notions of their needs and iden­ tities. Non-participation of local actors in RET might lead to significant challenges and even failure of such projects. As a result, rather than looking at non-participation as a response guided by emotions, igno­ rance or lack of proper information and awareness, we argue that a deeper engagement with the knowledge politics and agency of vulner­ able groups is required. The paper unpacked non-participation to show how RET projects create new challenges and vulnerabilities for local groups by ignoring socially and culturally situated articulations of needs and identities. By providing moral authority and experiential expertise, situated articulations of identities enable less powerful groups in coun­ tering dominant claims. As a result, a focus on recognition-based justice as a mode of empowerment may ensure better participation in RET. Further research is required to understand if empowerment through recognition-based justice leads to wider social acceptance of RET. Research is also required do understand how dominant groups with dominant knowledge claims respond to the empowerment of less powerful groups through recognition-based justice and what new spaces, identities and modes of engagement emerge in these processes.

Table 1 The findings from the three energy transitions cases. 2G Bioethanol

Advanced Biogas

Solar Micro-Grid

Initiative

GovernmentIndustry

Industry

NGOs and Civil Society

Knowledge Politics (contested framings of needs and priorities, and role of actors)

Problem of straw burning solved through technological fix (2G bioethanol) versus problem of systemic vulnerabilities needing deeper reflection on agrarian systems. Farmers as suppliers of feedstock, economic agents vs farmers as dignified, central agents in agrienergy complex.

Problem of straw burning solved through technological fix (advanced biogas) versus problems and vulnerabilities caused by nonrecognition of alternate knowledge system to remediate straw burning. Farmers as “ecofriendly consumers” and “suppliers of feedstock” to farmers as knowledgeable agents.

Problem of generalized unmet energy needs solved by technomanagerial fix (solar grid) versus accentuated vulnerabilities due to nonrecognition of social hierarchies and power dynamics in RET projects. Poor as “unserved” customers vs poor as marginal groups constituted by economic as well as social and cultural injustices

Vulnerability (Pre-existing)

Stress caused by need for timely disposal of surplus straw Loss of identity and dignity

Distress caused by modernization of agricultural systems Disruption of natural ecological relationships

Energy access

Non-participation Farmers as “national heroes”, “food producers for the nation”

Non-participation Farmers as knowledgeable agents and ecological beings outside statecorporate nexus

Vulnerability (due to RET)

Impact on RET Identity based recognition

Funding

Resource constraint exacerbated by neglect of sociopolitical identity Non-participation “Poor” as the representative of systemic, social and cultural oppression and systemic neglect by the state

The Biogas case was funded by Netherlands Organization for Scien­ tific Research [Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onder­ zoek], grant number 31399300, and 2 G Bioethanol case was funded by Government of India, DST-STI research fellowship. Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Source: Authors.

Acknowledgements

Rather than dismissing the non-participation as ignorant behaviour, this lack of trust may be acknowledged as the indicator of experiential expertise of local actors [106]. Reconfiguring knowledge politics by ensuring recognition-based justice in setting priorities of energy transi­ tions (based on local and specific needs and vulnerabilities), could be an effective step in mitigating the trust-related concerns. In social settings that are highly unequal and diverse, reconfiguration of knowledge politics and ensuring recognition-based justice could not be easily accomplished. At the same time, homogenizing, top-down, technology and market-driven energy transitions based on disembedded expert knowledge increasingly face local resistance and non-participation. For ensuring just and sustainable transition to renewable energy, non-participation and resistance of local actors should not be merely seen as an “irrational” and “ignorant” response. It is crucial to understand the modes of associations through which local groups relate to change brought by new renewable energy projects. Acknowledging relational identities as a form of agency, mobilized to address vulnerabilities, could be the first step for opening-up of new platforms for reflexive engagements with knowledge politics within energy transitions. Table 1 schematically summarises the findings.

We would like to thank the Editor-in-Chief, Professor Benjamin Sovacool and the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on the earlier versions of the paper. References [1] F. Kern, A. Smith, Restructuring energy systems for sustainability? Energy transition policy in the Netherlands, Energy Policy (2008), https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.enpol.2008.06.018. [2] R. Kleijn, E. Van Der Voet, Resource constraints in a hydrogen economy based on renewable energy sources: an exploration, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. (2010), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.066. [3] J. Markard, R. Raven, B. Truffer, Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of research and its prospects, Res. Policy (2012), https://doi.org/10.1016/j. respol.2012.02.013. [4] J. Markard, The next phase of the energy transition and its implications for research and policy, Nat. Energy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-0180171-7. [5] K. Hansen, B.V. Mathiesen, I.R. Skov, Full energy system transition towards 100% renewable energy in Germany in 2050, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.11.038. [6] B.D. Solomon, K. Krishna, The coming sustainable energy transition: History, strategies, and outlook, Energy Policy (2011), https://doi.org/10.1016/j. enpol.2011.09.009. [7] K.S. Rogge, F. Kern, M. Howlett, Conceptual and empirical advances in analysing policy mixes for energy transitions, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. (2017), https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.025.

8. Conclusion In this paper, we analyzed three RET cases in India to add empirical insights to the growing body of literature on justice in energy transition 9

P. Pandey and A. Sharma

Energy Research & Social Science 71 (2021) 101824

[8] O. Osunmuyiwa, A. Kalfagianni, Transitions in unlikely places: Exploring the conditions for renewable energy adoption in Nigeria, Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.07.002. [9] F.R. Munro, Renewable energy and transition-periphery dynamics in Scotland, Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.09.001. [10] T. Moss, S. Becker, M. Naumann, Whose energy transition is it, anyway? Organisation and ownership of the Energiewende in villages, cities and regions, Local Environ (2015), https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2014.915799. [11] D. Bidwell, Thinking through participation in renewable energy decisions, Nat. Energy (2016), https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2016.51. [12] M.J. Burke, J.C. Stephens, Energy democracy: goals and policy instruments for sociotechnical transitions, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.erss.2017.09.024. [13] G. Ottinger, The winds of change: environmental justice in energy transitions, Sci. Cult. (Lond) 22 (2013) 222–229, https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09505431.2013.786996. [14] A. Stirling, Transforming power: Social science and the politics of energy choices, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. (2014), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.001. [15] S. Williams, A. Doyon, Justice in energy transitions, Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.12.001. [16] B.K. Sovacool, What are we doing here? Analyzing fifteen years of energy scholarship and proposing a social science research agenda, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. (2014), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.003. [17] A. Kumar, Justice and politics in energy access for education, livelihoods and health: how socio-cultural processes mediate the winners and losers, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.029. [18] K. Jenkins, D. McCauley, R. Heffron, H. Stephan, R. Rehner, Energy justice: a conceptual review, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j. erss.2015.10.004. [19] G. Di Giulio, C. Groves, M. Monteiro, R. Taddei, Communicating through vulnerability: knowledge politics, inclusion and responsiveness in responsible research and innovation, J. Responsible Innov. (2016), https://doi.org/10.1080/ 23299460.2016.1166036. [20] M. Leach, I. Scoones, B. Wynne, Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenges of Engagement, Zed Books, 2005. [21] M. Leach, I. Scoones, A. Stirling, Dynamic sustainabilities: Technology, environment, social justice, 2010. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849775069. [22] M. Leach, I. Scoones, Mobilising Citizens: Social Movements and the Politics of Knowledge, IDS Work. Pap. (2007). [23] C. Howe, D. Boyer, Aeolian extractivism and community wind in southern Mexico, Public Cult. 28 (2016) 215–235, https://doi.org/10.1215/089923633427427. [24] D. Haraway, Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, Free Association Books, 1991. [25] S. Epstein, Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge., Univ of California Press, 1996. https://doi.org/10.2307/2654506. [26] B de Sousa Santos, Another Knowledge is Possible: Beyond Northern Epistemologies, Verso, London, 2007. [27] M. Fricker, Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing, 2007. https:// doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001. [28] N. Fraser, A. Honneth, Redistribution or recognition?: a political-philosophical exchange, Verso, London, 2003. [29] G. Thomas, C. Demski, N. Pidgeon, Energy justice discourses in citizen deliberations on systems flexibility in the United Kingdom: Vulnerability, compensation and empowerment, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 66 (2020), https://doi. org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101494. [30] K. Yenneti, R. Day, Procedural (in)justice in the implementation of solar energy: The case of Charanaka solar park, Gujarat, India, Energy Policy (2015), https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.08.019. [31] A. Irwin, B. Wynne, Misunderstanding Science?: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, Cambridge University Press, London, 2003. [32] C.K. Prahalad, S.L. Hart, The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid, Strateg. Bus. 54 (2002) 54. [33] R. Kaplinsky, Schumacher meets schumpeter: appropriate technology below the radar, Res. Policy. (2011), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.10.003. [34] S. Arora, H. Romijn, The empty rhetoric of poverty reduction at the base of the pyramid, Organization (2012), https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508411414294. [35] M. Ryghaug, T.M. Skjølsvold, S. Heidenreich, Creating energy citizenship through material participation, Soc. Stud. Sci. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0306312718770286. [36] B. Lennon, N. Dunphy, C. Gaffney, A. Revez, G. Mullally, P. O’Connor, Citizen or consumer? Reconsidering energy citizenship, J. Environ. Policy Plan. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2019.1680277. [37] A. Sharma, ‘We Do Not Want Fake Energy’: The Social Shaping of a Solar Microgrid in Rural India, Sci. Technol. Soc. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0971721820903006. [38] A. Kumar, R. Ferdous, A. Luque-Ayala, C. McEwan, M. Power, B. Turner, H. Bulkeley, Solar energy for all? Understanding the successes and shortfalls through a critical comparative assessment of Bangladesh, Brazil, India, Mozambique, Sri Lanka and South Africa, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. (2019), https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.10.005. [39] M.J. Burke, J.C. Stephens, Political power and renewable energy futures: A critical review, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j. erss.2017.10.018. [40] J. K¨ ohler, F.W. Geels, F. Kern, J. Markard, E. Onsongo, A. Wieczorek, F. Alkemade, F. Avelino, A. Bergek, F. Boons, L. Fünfschilling, D. Hess, G. Holtz,

[41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73]

10

S. Hyysalo, K. Jenkins, P. Kivimaa, M. Martiskainen, A. McMeekin, M. S. Mühlemeier, B. Nykvist, B. Pel, R. Raven, H. Rohracher, B. Sand´en, J. Schot, B. Sovacool, B. Turnheim, D. Welch, P. Wells, An agenda for sustainability transitions research: state of the art and future directions, Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions 31 (2019) 1–32, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004. P. Newell, D. Mulvaney, The political economy of the “just transition”, Geogr. J. (2013) https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12008. A. Mohan, K. Topp, India’s energy future: contested narratives of change, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.04.040. R.J. Heffron, D. McCauley, The concept of energy justice across the disciplines, Energy Policy (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.018. B.K. Sovacool, M.H. Dworkin, Energy justice: conceptual insights and practical applications, Appl. Energy (2015), https://doi.org/10.1016/j. apenergy.2015.01.002. J. Martinez-Alier, L. Temper, D. Del Bene, A. Scheidel, Is there a global environmental justice movement? J. Peasant Stud. (2016) https://doi.org/ 10.1080/03066150.2016.1141198. D. Schlosberg, Theorising environmental justice: the expanding sphere of a discourse, Environ. Polit. (2013), https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09644016.2013.755387. K. Jenkins, B.K. Sovacool, D. McCauley, Humanizing sociotechnical transitions through energy justice: an ethical framework for global transformative change, Energy Policy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.02.036. D. McCauley, R. Heffron, H. Stephan, K. Jenkins, Advancing energy justice : the triumvirate of tenets and systems thinking, Int. Energy Law Rev. (2013). B.K. Sovacool, I. Mukherjee, Energy. 36 (2011) 5343–5355, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.energy.2011.06.043. B.K. Sovacool, R.J. Heffron, D. McCauley, A. Goldthau, Energy decisions reframed as justice and ethical concerns, Nat. Energy (2016), https://doi.org/10.1038/ nenergy.2016.24. G. Walker, Beyond distribution and proximity: Exploring the multiple spatialities of environmental justice, Antipode (2009), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14678330.2009.00691.x. D. Endres, From wasteland to waste site: the role of discourse in nuclear power’s environmental injustices, Local Environ. (2009), https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13549830903244409. Y. Malakar, M.J. Herington, V. Sharma, The temporalities of energy justice: examining India’s energy policy paradox using non-western philosophy, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.11.002. P. Devine-Wright, Energy Citizenship: Psychological Aspects of Evolution in Sustainable Energy Technologies, in: Gov. Technol. Sustain., 2012. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781849771511. M. Michael, “What Are We Busy Doing?”: Engaging the Idiot, Sci. Technol. Hum. Values. (2012). https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243911428624. D.J. Hess, To tell the truth: on scientific counterpublics, Public Underst. Sci. (2011), https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662509359988. C. Taylor, The politics of recognition, in: New Context. Can. Crit., 1997. G. Valkenburg, A. Mamidipudi, P. Pandey, W.E. Bijker, Responsible innovation as empowering ways of knowing, J. Responsible Innov. (2020), https://doi.org/ 10.1080/23299460.2019.1647087. K. Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway, Duke University Press, 2007. https:// doi.org/10.1215/9780822388128-002. S. Fuller, Knowledge management foundations, Routledge (2012), https://doi. org/10.4324/9780080495996. S. Visvanathan, A Carnival For Science: Essays On Science, Technology, And Development, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1997. M. Pansera, R. Owen, Framing inclusive innovation within the discourse of development: insights from case studies in India, Res. Policy 47 (2018) 23–34. S. Jasanoff, The co-production of science and social order, in: States Knowl., 2004. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203413845. N. Cullather, Miracles of modernization: the green revolution and the apotheosis of technology, Dipl. Hist. (2004), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14677709.2004.00407.x. M. Pansera, R. Owen, Framing resource-constrained innovation at the “bottom of the pyramid”: Insights from an ethnographic case study in rural Bangladesh, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change. 92 (2015) 300–311. J. Scott, Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed, Yale University Press, 1998. A. Nandy, Science, hegemony and violence: A requiem for modernity, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1988. A. Escobar, Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the third world, 2011. https://doi.org/10.2307/3034652. S. Visvanathan, Knowledge, Justice and Democracy, in: Sci. Citizens Glob. Chall. Engagem., 2005. J.A. Andersson, J. Sumberg, Knowledge politics in development-oriented agronomy, in: Agron. Dev. Polit. Knowl. Agric. Res., 2017. https://doi.org/ 10.4324/9781315284057. P. Pandey, A. Sharma, NGOs, controversies, and “Opening Up” of Regulatory Governance of Science in India, Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. (2017), https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0270467619861561. G. Basalla, The evolution of technology, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9781107049864. S. Davoudi, Climate risk and security: new meanings of “the environment” in the english planning system, Eur. Plan. Stud. (2012), https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09654313.2011.638491.

P. Pandey and A. Sharma

Energy Research & Social Science 71 (2021) 101824 [93] P. Shyamsundar, N.P. Springer, H. Tallis, S. Polasky, M.L. Jat, H.S. Sidhu, P. P. Krishnapriya, N. Skiba, W. Ginn, V. Ahuja, J. Cummins, I. Datta, H.H. Dholakia, J. Dixon, B. Gerard, R. Gupta, J. Hellmann, A. Jadhav, H.S. Jat, A. Keil, J. K. Ladha, S. Lopez-Ridaura, S.P. Nandrajog, S. Paul, A. Ritter, P.C. Sharma, R. Singh, D. Singh, R. Somanathan, Fields on fire: alternatives to crop residue burning in India, Science 80- (2019), https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw4085. [94] P. Pandey, RRI’s commitment to care and vulnerability of agrarian systems: The ‘Problem’ of rice straw Burning in India, Sci. Technol. Soc. (2020), https://doi. org/10.1177/0971721820902965. [95] A. Mamidipudi, N. Frahm, Turning straw to gold: mobilising symmetry in responsible research and innovation, Sci. Technol. Soc. (2020), https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0971721820902964. [96] S. Singh, Crisis in Punjab agriculture, Econ. Polit. Wkly. 35 (2000) 1889–1892. [97] D. Gupta, Whither the Indian Village? Cultute and Agriculture in “Rural” India, Rev. Dev. Change 10 (2005) 1–20. [98] P. Pandey, G. Valkenburg, A. Mamidipudi, W. Bijker, Responsible research and innovation in the global south: agriculture, renewable energy and the pursuit of symmetry, Sci. Technol. Soc. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0971721820902961. [99] R. Owen, P. Macnaghten, J. Stilgoe, Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society, Sci. Public Policy (2012), https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs093. [100] T. Bond, M.R. Templeton, History and future of domestic biogas plants in the developing world, Energy Sustain. Dev. (2011), https://doi.org/10.1016/j. esd.2011.09.003. [101] M. Islar, H. Busch, “We are not in this to save the polar bears!” – the link between community renewable energy development and ecological citizenship, Innovation. (2016). https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2016.1188684. [102] A. Gurtoo, D. Lahiri, Empowering Bihar: Policy Pathways for Energy Access, (2012). [103] K. Birch, Techno-economic assumptions, Sci. Cult. (Lond). (2017), https://doi. org/10.1080/09505431.2017.1377389. [104] M. de Laet, A. Mol, The zimbabwe bush pump: mechanics of a fluid technology, Soc. Stud. Sci. (2000), https://doi.org/10.1177/030631200030002002. [105] R. Phadke, Assessing water scarcity and watershed development in Maharashtra, India: a case study of the Baliraja Memorial Dam, Sci. Technol. Hum. Values (2002), https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390202700203. [106] H.M. Collins, R. Evans, The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience, Soc. Stud. Sci. 32 (2002) 235–296.

[74] J. Xu, Environmental discourses in China’s urban planning system: A scaled discourse-analytical perspective, Urban Stud. (2016), https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0042098015571054. [75] B. Fine, A. Saad-Filho, Thirteen things you need to know about neoliberalism, Crit. Sociol. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920516655387. [76] M. Mazzucato, The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths, Anthem Press, London, 2013. [77] K. Sundar Rajan, Biocapital: The constitution of postgenomic life, Duke University Press, Durham, 2006. [78] A. Agrawal, M. Lemos, A greener revolution in the making? Environmental GOVERNANCE IN THE 21ST Century, Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 49 (2007) 36–45. [79] C.J. Preston, F. Wickson, Broadening the lens for the governance of emerging technologies: care ethics and agricultural biotechnology, Technol. Soc. (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2016.03.001. [80] S. Moore, Envisioning the social and political dynamics of energy transitions: sustainable energy for the mediterranean region, Sci. Cult. (Lond). (2013), https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2013.786994. [81] A. Dasgupta, V.A. Beard, Community driven development, collective action and elite capture in Indonesia, Dev. Change (2007), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14677660.2007.00410.x. [82] H. Oda, Y. Tsujita, The determinants of rural electrification: The case of Bihar, India, Energy Policy (2011), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.02.014. [83] N.K. Singh, N. Stern, The New Bihar: Rekindling Governance and Development, Harper Collins, Delhi, 2014. [84] Greenpeace, Dharnai live: media manual, (2014). [85] J. Goodman, Researching climate crisis and energy transitions: some issues for ethnography, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 45 (2018) 340–347, https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.erss.2018.07.032. [86] J. Goodman, J.P. Marshall, Problems of methodology and method in climate and energy research: Socialising climate change? Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 45 (2018) 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.08.010. [87] B.K. Sovacool, J. Axsen, S. Sorrell, Promoting novelty, rigor, and style in energy social science: Towards codes of practice for appropriate methods and research design, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 45 (2018) 12–42, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. erss.2018.07.007. [88] M. Moezzi, K.B. Janda, S. Rotmann, Using stories, narratives, and storytelling in energy and climate change research, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. (2017), https://doi. org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.06.034. [89] J. Gerring, What is a case study and what is it good for? Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. (2004) https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055404001182. [90] GoI, National Biofuel Policy, (2018). [91] J. Baka, What wastelands? A critique of biofuel policy discourse in South India, Geoforum (2014), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.08.007. [92] S. Kumar, D.K. Sharma, D.R. Singh, H. Biswas, K.V. Praveen, V. Sharma, Estimating loss of ecosystem services due to paddy straw burning in North-west India, Int. J. Agric. Sustain. (2019), https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14735903.2019.1581474.

Poonam Pandey is a post-doctoral fellow at DST-Centre for Policy Research, IISc, Ban­ galore, India. Her w Her work lies at the intersection of STS, innovation studies and development studies. Aviram Sharma is an Assistant Professor at the School of Ecology and Environment Studies at Nalanda University, India. His research primarily employs an inter-disciplinary approach and lies on the interface of science and technology studies, environmental studies, public understanding of science, and heterodox economics.

11