2.2 Transitions according to the leverage point theory

In previous Planetary well-being courses (in particular in section 5.5 of the Introduction to planetary well-being course,) we have been introduced to the leverage point theory. Leverage point theory can be used to recognize the factors that influence change in complex systems and how addressing these leverage points can be used to try to control the system's behavior. Leverage points can be likened to a set of tools that can each be used to do very different things; Donella Meadows, the developer of leverage point theory, has even compared the most important leverage points to a silver bullet or a magical spells encountered in stories. As such, leverage points are much more mundane, and they are often right in front of our eyes. The challenge is that the easy intervention and effective intervention are inversely related (those familiar with the Harry Potter saga will know that to master the most effective wizarding spells, it is not enough to just complete the entire Hogwarts curriculum; talent, training and the right mindset are also required). A superficial leverage point that practically invites intervention will not bring about a fundamental, system-wide change. In contrast, a leverage point deep in the center of the system, which is difficult to access, can trigger a series of transformative events that will transform the whole system’s functioning and structure.

Another challenge of using leverage points is that even if a leverage point is accessible, it may be intervened in a wrong way. An example of this is the replacement of fossil fuels used in transport with biofuels from annual crops, which in more detailed life-cycle analyses has not been proved to reduce emissions significantly, if at all (e.g., because of land-use emissions). In addition, it is more harmful in terms of biodiversity and food security impacts than previous fuel production.

Leverage point theory's perspective on changing the system includes 12 leverage points that can change the system if they themselves are changed. The leverage points are, in a way, situated at the end of a seesaw or a lever arm: the more powerful the leverage point, the harder it is to exploit. Later, in section four, we will discuss how different roles in human life may give access to different leverage points, including those that seem harder to reach.

The framework of thought created by Meadows was of a very general nature. In 2017, David Abson and his colleagues approached leverage point theory from socio-ecological sustainability research’s perspective. The researchers grouped Meadows' leverage points into four categories: parameters (indicators that define how a system can work, such as tax rates or energy efficiency), feedbacks, design and intent. Both Meadows and Abson and his colleagues point out that policy-making often focuses on superficial leverage points, such as financial subsidies, which do not change the system itself in a decisive way. Addressing superficial leverage points is like blowing into the surface of a river: it may seem that the air flow pushes the water upstream, but the ripples still drift with the river and the water continues to flow as before.

On the other hand, addressing the superficial leverage points can also trigger changes that help by providing additional time to make deeper changes, or that seep deeper through their side effects. For example, taking action to protect traditional biotopes on a farm (a parameter-level change), initially done to ensure obtaining environmental subsidies, can over time change the goals and values that drive the whole activity (an intention-level change), at least on this one farm, just as for some people the initial performance-oriented goal of running a marathon leads to deeper changes as they start to value their own health more.

The most significant force for change is found in the mass of water flowing beneath the surface – in the deep leverage points. These include, among others, latent values and prevailing worldviews that are very challenging to intervene in. The key contribution of leverage point theory to the sustainability transition is precisely to identify and make visible these deep forces of change. Tackling the environmental impacts of human activity that are central to the sustainability transition has proven to be extremely challenging, even though there are historical success stories of environmental protection. Some treaty-level achievements are also so recent that their impact is as yet unknowable. For example, in December 2022, the UN Biodiversity Conference in Montreal resulted in an agreement committing all countries to at least some form of protection of 30% of their land and marine areas by 2030. The achievement was immediately hailed as historic, but its real impact on biodiversity and the well-being of species will only become apparent during the decades to come.

Leverage point theory helps to understand how genuinely transitioning change could be made. The theory helps to identify system-specific needs for change and to understand how deep the impacts of different means of transition can reach. Leverage points are interlinked: one change can have ripple effects across the system. Given the complexity of socio-ecological systems, these consequences can also be unpredictable unless the characteristics, structure and functioning of the system are sufficiently well understood.

As an example of applying leverage point theory to the study of systems change, we use a study on the Ethiopian food system. Food security was presented in government policy programmes as a general objective of food production and consumption. However, a closer analysis revealed how in practice, rather than to support local food security, national policy sought to intensify agricultural production and shift towards cash crops (high value crops that are intended to be sold and are therefore produced on vast areas of arable land; in Ethiopia this means coffee, khat and eucalyptus).

At the same time, changes in formal institutions have run down communities' own informal institutions, which have been instrumental in promoting social sustainability goals and empowerment, for example through strengthening local support networks and knowledge sharing. On the other hand, the process of change, supported by public sector incentives and structural reforms, has been significantly slowed down by local communities' resistance to change, which is based on the desire to safeguard informal institutions and associated practices that support food security, such as collective farming, the continuity of local livelihoods and the diversity of food production.

The example of Ethiopia illustrates how deep-rooted mindsets govern the functioning of the system. The national objective of efficient food production for commercial purposes was ultimately more powerful than local objectives, and in the long run local communities seem to have had to adapt to a top-down driven change in food production. Why? Because the combination of intensive production and cash crops cultivation has gained a dominant position in the international politics as the best way to reform agriculture.

The food security objective is also subordinated to this objective: the logic is that improving people's livelihoods will help them to improve their food security. At the same time, this frame of thinking is so normalized that it is not questioned when policy reforms are made. Normalized general assumptions and the mindsets based on them are called paradigms, and they are the deepest of the leverage points. If the paradigm could be changed so that the food security of local communities and the resilience of the system were the most important values, and food security wouldn’t be reduced to just increasing GDP through exports, subsidizing cash crops would not be seen as a sustainable way to promote food security and policies would be different.

Leverage point theory helps to understand the consequences that changes in a system have on other parts of the system (and on leverage points) and to identify the points in the system from which a maximal change could be achieved effectively. The search for the most impactful point of change must also take into account the constraints of the current situation, which can make it unrealistically difficult to reach the deepest leverage points first. On the other hand, the generic nature of leverage point theory means that its basic structures do not include a description that would characterize in more detail the socio-technical systems of production and consumption, whose change is vital for the sustainability transition. Therefore, we now turn to another perspective developed in the field of systemic transition research. This perspective has emerged precisely from the need to understand the dynamics of change and governance of socio-technical systems.

Would you like to comment something on this section? Voluntary.