Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics

Volume 80, Number 1, January-March 2025

The Indian Society of Agricultural Economics

85th Annual Conference

November 11-13, 2025, CCSHAU, Hisar (Haryana)

The Indian Society of Agricultural Economics (ISAE) is pleased to announce its 85th
Annual Conference at Hisar, Haryana, from November 11-13, 2025. This Conference
is being organised by Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University
(CCSHAU), Hisar, Haryana. Prof. H.R. Sharma, Former Pro Vice-Chancellor of the
Central University of Himachal Pradesh, Dharamshala and Former Professor & Head
of the Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension Education and Rural
Sociology, CSK Himachal Pradesh Agricultural University, Palampur, is the
Conference President. Dr. S.K. Pahuja, Dean, College of Agriculture, CCSHAU, will
be the Local Organising Secretary of the Conference.

Conference Themes Dates to Remember

1. Rural Transformation and Inclusive • Last date for Paper Submission

Development July 31, 2025

2. Reimagining Commons and

Governance: Pathways to Institutional
Innovations • Communication from ISAE on
the acceptance of the Paper
3. WTO, Economic Growth and August 31, 2025
Environmental Sustainability:
Navigating the Intersection

Conference Duration
The Conference will be held for three days, i.e., November 11-13, 2025. As the
Conference will start at 9.30 am on 11th November, the delegates and participants are
advised to reach Hisar by the evening of 10th November 2025 and schedule their
departure in the evening of 13th November or the following day.
230 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

Submission of Papers for the 85th Annual Conference

The conference is open to research scholars from both India and abroad. The papers
may relate to India at the micro, macro, or regional levels. The papers should be
submitted at isaeindia1939@gmail.com. The contributed papers should not exceed
8000 words, including references, tables, graphs and appendices. The papers should
follow the current writing style of The Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics
(IJAE). For further details, please visit the website http://www.isaeindia.org. All papers
should include a summary/abstract of not more than 200 words. Based on the
recommendations of the Rapporteurs, a decision will be made on the acceptance of the
submitted papers for presentation at the conference. As recommended, all accepted
papers will be published in the Conference Number of the IJAE either in full length or
in the summary form. While the authors are encouraged to submit multiple papers for
the Conference, only one full-length paper will be published by any author, either as a
first or co-author. The authors must ensure that their papers are original and have been
thoroughly checked for plagiarism, and they must give an undertaking while submitting
the papers. The authors are solely responsible for any violation with respect to
plagiarism.
Dr N.A. Mujumdar Award
The Indian Society of Agricultural Economics (ISAE) gives Dr. N.A. Mujumdar Prize
Award to young scholars below 40 years. The Award is given for the best paper on
each Conference theme.
ISAE Fellow
The Society awards Fellowships to senior Indian scholars who have made outstanding
contributions to the field of agriculture and rural development. A separate call for the
Fellowship and complete guidelines for the nominations and details will also be
available on our website www.isaeindia.org.
Presentations by Ph.D. Scholars
A special session will be organized for the Ph.D scholars from different
Universities/Colleges to showcase their research. An award will be given to the three
best Ph.D presentations. It is mandatory for Ph.D. Scholars who present their papers to
be a member of the Society. The Ph.D scholars can submit a one-page abstract of their
presentation and bring the PowerPoint slides to the Conference Venue. The
presentation may be based on their Ph.D. research or any relevant topic pertaining to
Agricultural Economics. The abstract should be submitted through e-mail,
isaeindia1939@gmail.com by September 30, 2025.
Professor S.S. Johl Award for the Best Ph.D. Thesis in Agricultural Policy
The Society has instituted the Prof. S.S. Johl Award since 2024 to encourage
outstanding original research on agricultural policy during doctoral research. The
 SUGGESTIVE OUTLINES FOR 85TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE 231

Award will consist of a Citation. A separate call will be made on this Award, and the
details will be uploaded on our website www.isaeindia.org.
D.K. Desai Prize Award
Dr D.K. Desai Award is given annually. The award will be presented during the 85th
Annual Conference for the best article published (except the conference papers) in the
Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics in 2024.
Dr Anamitra Saha Prize Award
Dr Anamitra Saha Prize Award is given annually. The award will be presented during
the 85th Annual Conference for one of the best articles published (except the conference
papers) in the Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics in 2024. The preference is
given to the article published in the areas of economics of cultivation and farming and
the economics of forestry, social forestry and farm forestry.
Dr S.R. Sen Prize Award
This is a biennial award constituted by the Society since 1995. The award is given for
the outstanding book published on Agricultural Economics and Rural Development by
an Indian author below the age of 45 years. The members are encouraged to nominate
the books for this Award.
Professor Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Prize Award
This is also a biennial award. The award is given by the Society for outstanding
contributions by Indian scholars in the field of Agricultural Economics. The award will
be presented during the 85th Annual Conference of the ISAE. A separate call will be
made for this award, and the details will be uploaded to our website.
Travel Grants for Young Scholars
The Society will provide travel grants to the young scholars to encourage them to
participate in the 85th Annual Conference at Hisar. Approximately 20 such travel grants
will be given, depending on the funds available with the Society. The travel grants will
preferably be given to the members of the Society, especially the life members. The
details will be uploaded on our website.
Registration Fee Exemption for the Students
The Society will encourage the host institute to exempt the registration fee of a limited
number of students to enable them to participate in the 85th Annual Conference at Hisar.
The details will be uploaded on our website.
232 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

Details for Society’s Membership and Fee Payment

The membership fee for the ISAE is as follows:

Life Membership Fee : Rs. 7500

Annual Membership Fee : Rs. 1500
Student Membership Fee : Rs. 1000

The fee may be paid through NEFT/RTGS and the details are given below:

Account Name : The Indian Society of Agricultural Economics

Account Number : 54025434745
Bank Name : State Bank of India
Branch : M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai, India
IFSC Code : SBIN0020634
MICR Code : 400002467

Please send the scanned payment proof to our email isaeindia1939@gmail.com.

Key Contact Persons for the 85th Annual Conference

President of ISAE

Prof. Dinesh K. Marothia

Indian Society of Agricultural Economics,
C-104, First Floor, Sadguru Complex I,
Near Vagheshwari, Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg,
Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400 063
Email: presidentisae1939@gmail.com

Conference President

Dr. H.R. Sharma

Former Pro Vice-Chancellor
Central University of Himachal Pradesh, Dharamshala &
Former Professor & Head
Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension
Education and Rural Sociology
CSK Himachal Pradesh Agricultural University, Palampur - 176 062
Email: hansrajsharma1955@gmail.com
 SUGGESTIVE OUTLINES FOR 85TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE 233

Local Organizing Secretary

Dr. S.K. Pahuja

Dean, College of Agriculture,
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University,
Hisar – 125 004.
Email: dcoag@hau.ac.in

Hon. Secretary and Treasurer

Dr. Kamal Vatta

Professor
Department of Economics and Sociology,
Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana – 141 004.
Email: secretary.isae@gmail.com
234 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

SUGGESTIVE OUTLINES ON CONFERENCE THEMES FOR POTENTIAL

CONTRIBUTORS
THEME I
RURAL TRANSFORMATION AND INCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENT

Rural transformation refers to processes and dynamics of economic, social and

political changes and development in rural communities. It encompasses structural
changes, occupational diversification, consumption changes, and changes in inter- and
intra-community relations and their dynamics, going beyond programmes' driven rural
development. It need not always be a positive change accompanying rural development
(Majumdar, 2020). Rural transformation can help reduce social inequalities,
deprivation and poverty and lead to human development and sustainable well-being
(Wang et al., 2023).
Multiple factors determine the pace and pattern of rural transformation.
Technology is one of the important determinants of the nature and scale of rural
transformation (Biggs et al., 2011). In an agrarian context, rural transformation is also
seen as agribusiness development leading to a process of commercialization and
industrialization of rural production through ‘appropriationism’ and ‘substitutionism’
wherein the former refers to the use of technology to appropriate or extract as many
resources as possible like green revolution or artificial insemination in livestock, and
the latter (substitutionism) to moving away from a direct and linear dependence on
agriculture to utilize alternate means of producing food and fibre like enzymes or other
non-cultivated sources of vitamins and protein, e.g. lentils composed from sources
other than farm produced pulses. Both processes highlight the increasing role of
biotechnology, leading to a process of ‘bio-industrialization’ (Goodman et al., 1987).
The role of information and communication technology (ICT) in rural
transformation is also important as various types of technologies have penetrated rural
areas and households, like mobile telephony and internet access, which have far-
reaching implications for different dimensions of rural development including gender,
education and awareness about health and nutrition. The process of rural
transformation can be a pathway to accomplish Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) like the reduction of poverty in all forms, end hunger, achieve food security
and improved nutrition; and promote sustainable agriculture; ensure healthy lives and
promote well-being for all at all ages; promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable
economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all and reduce
inequality.
The direct and indirect interface of corporate agencies in India’s rural and
agribusiness sector has implications for various rural stakeholders and issues like
incomes, livelihoods, exclusion/inclusion, institutions and sustainability (Dutta, 2019;
Singh, 2012; Surabhi, 2021; Sutradhar and Das, 2020). It is essential to ask whether
corporate agencies can play a transformational role in people’s livelihoods or if they
 SUGGESTIVE OUTLINES FOR 85TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE 235

are only transactional in their operations to leave behind an unchanged condition or

worsen the context. The increasing role and engagement of new channels like direct
buying agencies, contract farming, online buyers, and private wholesale markets and
their implications for facilitating rural transformation need to be understood and
documented.
Many studies have shown that collectives like co-operatives and producer
companies empower marginalised producers and workers in multiple ways (Shah,
2016; Singh, 2023). The role of these organisations in transforming rural livelihoods,
including their negative outcomes for marginal farmers, landless workers and women,
needs to be examined (Breman, 1978 and 1990; Ebrahim, 2000; Visaria and Joshi,
2021).
From the perspective of agricultural development and rural transformation, the
role of APMC markets assumes significance as these agencies have been around for
decades across major states (Krishnamurthy, 2018). The role of these agencies
continues to be a live issue of policy and public discourse on agricultural market
reforms. The experience of these markets needs assessment as they are hubs of
interaction among rural producers, urban buyers and consumers. Similarly, village
panchayats and urban local bodies are constitutionally mandated bodies at the local
level and have powers in various area of local life and face issues of devolution of
funds, functions and functionaries across states with varied degrees of success. In
Adivasi areas, the role of state interventions like forest corporations, forest panchayats,
and the Forest Rights Act needs to be examined.
Public action in rural economy and society can also impact rural transformation
(Bhattarai et al., 2018; Murty and Reddy, 2017), which needs to be assessed for its
effectiveness and impact at national and state levels. The role of Civil Society
Organisations (CSOs) and other community organisations in facilitating and creating
enabling conditions for rural transformation is an equally important area of enquiry.
The state has implemented numerous programs and policies like MGNREGA, NRLM,
NFSA, and PDS to help the rural poor. There are programmes for economic
development like RKVY, PMKSY, DDUGKY, and PMGSY. The impact of such
initiatives on rural transformation and their inclusiveness needs to be examined to
improve their results. These multi-stakeholder approaches to rural transformation need
to be examined more holistically.
Several village studies have been carried out to assess the nature and level of
transformation and agrarian changes in rural areas, including the role of urbanisation
and migration (Choithani et al., 2021; Judit et al., 2017; Datta et al., 2014; Jodhika
2014; Himanshu et al. 2013; Rawal et al. 2008; Rigg, 2006). Agrarian structure
determines many aspects of rural transformation, and land is still central to it, though
it is not necessarily its ownership (Singh, 2020).
236 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

Social transformation issues like gender, caste and marginalised communities

and their changing dynamics, including access to resources like credit and other policy
support mechanisms, must be assessed for their last mile reach and impact. Despite
several interventions, rural development and transformation remain challenging with
the continued persistence of social inequalities and agrarian distress.
Given the above context, paper writers under this theme can examine various
issues falling under the broad aspects of rural transformation, leading to a
comprehensive understanding of the nature and pattern of the ongoing rural
transformation in India:
i. Livelihood diversification and increasing importance of non-farm sources
of income; informal and casual employment as drivers of rural income,
casualisation of workforce; and an increasing number of pluri-activity
households and its implications for the land market.
ii. Changing dynamics of rural labour market, rural wages, gender, assets
creation, household consumption, poverty, vulnerability, and income
inequality.
iii. Changing livelihood strategies and interventions as pathways to
rural/agrarian transformation at the village/household level, including
changes in agrarian structure, tenancy, interlinked agrarian markets,
agrarian distress, and depeseantisation and de-agrarianization.
iv. Micro/village level studies on the process of livelihoods increasingly
becoming de-linked from farming; poverty and inequality from land
ownership, and poverty and inequality from occupational diversification.
v. Diversification of agriculture, including crop and crop-related enterprises,
and off-farm diversification, including issues related to part-and full-time
farming.
vi. Drivers of rural transformation including the role of migration, gender and
caste; the emergence of rural towns as hubs of employment generation,
increased rural connectivity, mechanisation, technology, microfinance,
rural banks and skill development initiatives in hastening the process of
rural transformation.
vii. Role of different rural development programs and policies like
MGNREGS, NRLM, and NFSA-based PDS in facilitating the ongoing
process of rural transformation.
viii. Comparative analysis and assessment of the ongoing process of rural
transformation in India vis-à-vis rural transformation in other developing
economies in Asia and Africa.
 SUGGESTIVE OUTLINES FOR 85TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE 237

ix. Role of community institutions/organisations like FPOs, SHGs,

Cooperatives, APMCs, Panchayats and NGOs in rural transformation, and
constraints and issues of inclusion in the working of these bodies,
including their activities and projects in facilitating or constraining rural
transformation.
x. The nature and extent of participation of households of different
categories, including scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, religious
minorities, and landless and near landless, in the ongoing process of rural
transformation and its impacts on their livelihoods and levels of living.
xi. The effect of ongoing rural transformation at the
national/regional/state/district levels and impact of rural development as
measured by quantitative indicators including implications for attaining
SDGs.
REFERENCES
Bhattarai Madhusudan, P.K. Viswanathan, Rudra N. Mishra & Cynthia Bantilan (eds.) (2018). "Employment
Guarantee Programme and Dynamics of Rural Transformation in India: Challenges and Opportunities,
Springer,
Biggs, Stephen, Justice, Scott and Lewis, David (2011). Patterns of rural mechanisation, energy and employment in
South Asia: reopening the debate. Economic and Political Weekly, XLVI (9), 78-82
Breman, J (1978). Seasonal migration and co‐operative capitalism: The crushing of cane and of labour by the sugar
factories of Bardoli, Economic and Political Weekly, 13(31/33), 1317-1360.
Breman, J (1990). Even dogs are better off’: The ongoing battle between capital and labour in the cane‐fields of
Gujarat, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 17:4, 546-608,
Choithani Chetan, Robbin Jan Van Duijne, Jan Nizman (2021). Changing Livelihoods at India’s Rural-Urban
Transition, World Development, 146. 1-17.
Datta, Amrita, Gerry Rodgers, Janine Rodgers & BKN Singh (2014). Contrasts in Development in Bihar: A Tale of
Two Villages, The Journal of Development Studies, 50(9) 1197 -1208
Dutta, S (2019). Capitalist Development and Rural livelihoods, Economic and Political Weekly Vol.54 (26-27)June
29.
Ebrahim, A (2000). Agricultural co-operatives in Gujarat, India: Agents of equity or differentiation? Development in
Practice 10(2), 178-188.
Goodman, D, B Sorj and J Wilkinson (1987). From farming to biotechnology: A theory of agro-industrial development,
Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Himanshu, Lanjouw, P. and Murgan R (2013). Nonfarm Diversification, Poverty, Economic Mobility, and Income
Inequality: A Case Study in Village India, Agricultural Economics, 44, (4-5) 461-473.
Judit, J., Wichmann, B., and Brent, M. S. (2017). Characterizing Social Networks and their Effects on Income
Diversification in Rural Kerala, India, World Development, 94,. 375-392.
Jodhka S.S. (2014). Emergent Ruralities: Revisiting Village Life and Agrarian Change in Haryana, Economic and
Political Weekly, 49, 26/27, 7-17.
Krishnamurthy, M (2018). Reconceiving the grain heap: Margins and movements on the market floor, Contributions
to Indian Sociology, 52(1).
238 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

Majumdar, K (2020). Rural transformation in India: Deagrarianisation and the transition from a farming to a non-
farming economy, Journal of Developing Societies, 36(20),182-205.
Murty C S and M S Reddy (2017). AP Licensed Cultivators Act in Retrospect and Prospect, Journal of Land and Rural
Studies, 5(1), 1-11
Rawal V, M Swaminathan & Dhar, N S (2008). On Diversification of Rural Incomes: A view from Three Villages of
Andhra Pradesh, The Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 51 (2), 229–248.
Rigg, J. (2006). Land, Farming, Livelihood and Poverty: Rethinking the Links in Rural South, World Development, 34
(1), 180-202.
Shah Tushaar (2016). Farmer Producer Companies: Fermenting New Wine for New Bottles, Economic and Political
Weekly, Vol. 51, No. 8,Feb 20. pp. 15-20.
Singh, S (2012). New Markets for Smallholders in India. Exclusion, Policy and Mechanisms. Economic and Political
Weekly, 47(52),

Singh, S (2020). Ownership versus Control: The changing dynamics of land use in liberalised agricultural context of
India, in Mishra and Nayak (eds.) Land and livelihoods in Neoliberal India, Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan,
chapter 3,,57-70
Singh, S (2023). (Farmer) Producer Companies in India as New Generation Co-operatives: Case studies of performance
and Impact from West Bengal, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 94
(35).DOI:10.1111./apce.12436.
Surabhi, G (2021). Contract Farming in Southern India: Can the state make it beneficial for small farmers? Ph D thesis,
MIDS, University of Madras, August.
Sutradhar R and A Das (2020). Supermarkets and Rural inequality in India: A case study of reliance Fresh, Intl Jrl of
Rural Management, 16(1), 81-104.
Visaria, L and H Joshi. 2021. Seasonal sugarcane harvesters of Gujarat: trapped in a cycle of poverty, Journal of Social
and Economic Development 23(suppl.), 23(7), S113-S130.
Wang, D., Chen, C., & Findlay, C. (2023). A review of rural transformation studies: Definition, measurement, and
indicators. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 22(12), 3568-358

************

THEME II

REIMAGINING COMMONS AND GOVERNANCE: PATHWAYS TO INSTITUTIONAL INNOVATIONS

Commons, or common-pool resources (CPRs), encompass a diverse array of

natural and cultural assets, including lands, forests, water bodies (such as wetlands,
streams, rivers, canals, irrigation channels, tanks, and reservoirs), fisheries (both inland
and maritime), wildlife, agro-biodiversity, sacred groves and natural sites (including
sacred hills, worship places, and mountains), and traditional collective knowledge.
These resources have historically been central to sustaining local livelihoods and
providing vital ecosystem services across the globe (Jodha, 1986; Singh, 1994;
Marothia, 2002, 2024). In particular, communities—especially in India and other
developing countries—have traditionally been the primary stewards of these commons.
However, over time, challenges such as weak property rights, ineffective institutional
frameworks, and the erosion of local governance systems have contributed to the
 SUGGESTIVE OUTLINES FOR 85TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE 239

widespread degradation of these resources, often pushing them into an open-access

state.
A key issue in commons research has been the confusion of open-access
situations with common-property resources, particularly in light of Garrett Hardin’s
(1968) concept of the "Tragedy of the Commons." Influenced by this misinterpretation,
many scholars and policymakers have proposed privatization or state control as
solutions to manage commons. However, resource economists and scholars from
diverse disciplines have increasingly challenged this view. They argue that the decline
of common-property regimes is not necessarily due to intrinsic flaws in the system but
rather the inadequacies in the specification of property rights and institutional
frameworks. Instead of dismantling community-based governance systems, reinforcing
property rights and institutional structures can enhance the sustainability of commons
management (Wantrup & Bishop, 1975; Ostrom, 1990; Bromley, 1989, 1992;
Marothia, 2002).
Elinor Ostrom’s groundbreaking work on commons and CPRs has significantly
shifted the approach to governance. In her 2009 Nobel lecture, Ostrom emphasized that
contemporary studies on institutional arrangements for managing CPRs and public
goods at various levels, both build on classical economic theory and develop new
theories to address issues that do not easily fit within the dichotomy of 'the market' and
'the state.' Researchers are moving away from simplistic models and adopting more
nuanced, complex frameworks to tackle the varied challenges faced by contemporary
societies. As Ostrom (2010) argues, humans possess intricate motivations, and they
create diverse institutional structures—whether private, governmental, or community-
based—that operate at multiple levels, yielding positive and negative outcomes (for
importance of Contextual Factors in Commons see Edwards and Steins, 1999).
Empirical studies, including those conducted in India, have shown that
commons can be managed sustainably under various property regimes—state,
common, or private. However, these resources remain susceptible to degradation.
Effective resource management often involves a combination of state, community, and
private governance, with these regimes intersecting and interacting in complex ways.
The primary governance models—state, private, common, and open-access (Bromley,
1989; 1991; 1992; Ostrom, 1990; Gibbs & Bromley, 1989)—have been further
elaborated by Townsend and Polley (1995), who emphasized the diverse ways in which
natural resource governance is shared among the state, communities, and private
groups across different levels of decision-making. Distributed governance, as defined
by these scholars, includes external collaborations between governments and local
communities and internal arrangements within local institutions or among resource
users. The interests and capacities of governments, local communities, and private
entities shape the effectiveness and outcomes of resource management (Townsend &
Polley, 1995; see Marothia, 2024 for applications of distribution and polycentric
governance frameworks in the Indian context).
240 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

Historically, agrarian societies relied on strong institutional frameworks to

manage natural resources. In India, resources such as land, forests, water, fisheries,
wildlife, and agriculture were traditionally viewed as community assets. Research
indicates that sustainable management of common property, especially in drought-
prone, flood-prone, and forested areas, enabled communities to adapt to environmental
challenges. However, in recent decades, the condition of these commons—particularly
their size, quality, and governance—has deteriorated. Demographic pressures, rapid
industrialization, and urbanization have placed increasing strain on land, forests, and
water resources. Additionally, the centralization of governance, along with
oligopolistic control over market-driven commons, has weakened the sustainability of
these resources and the effectiveness of their governance systems (Gupta, 1986;
Jodha,1986; Marothia, 2002).
Modern agriculture, particularly under private property regimes, has also
generated significant negative externalities. Technological advances in farming have
distanced agriculture from its natural ecosystems. Inputs such as bio-chemical,
biotechnological, and agro-mechanical innovations have disrupted the
interconnections between agriculture and ecosystems, often resulting in ecosystem
degradation. In adopting a reductionist approach, the field of agricultural economics
has tended to overlook the intricate relationships between agriculture and
ecosystems—land, water, forests, flora, and fauna—and their intrinsic value.

Reimagining Commons and Governance

Commons must be understood holistically, as they include tangible natural
resources like land, water, forests, and wildlife and intangible assets such as human-
made resources (e.g., cultural knowledge, digital resources, and even outer space).
While tangible commons—such as forests, groundwater, and community lands—are
more easily understood, intangible commons, such as traditional knowledge systems
associated with these resources, are equally vital. Community spaces, such as temples,
sacred groves, and areas used for social, religious, economic, and cultural purposes,
also form part of the commons. These spaces are governed by collective norms, which
are both traditional and evolving.
The study of the commons requires a paradigm shift. As Peter Linebaugh
famously stated, “There is no commons without commoning,” a notion expanded by
Johannes Euler: “There is no commoning without commons” (Euler, 2018). This
critique urges us to conceptualize commons not merely as resources but through the
social processes of "commoning." Euler challenges Ostrom's framework by advocating
for a broader view of commons beyond just "goods and services," encouraging a
reimagining of economic concerns such as productivity, income, and livelihood within
the context of commoning. The roles of technology, finance, and institutions in
 SUGGESTIVE OUTLINES FOR 85TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE 241

restoring and developing degraded commons should also be examined through this
broader lens.
The Need for Innovative Governance Institutions for Commoning
A comprehensive review of commons literature by Agrawal, Erbaugh, and
Pradhan (2023) identifies three critical areas for future research: (a) a stronger focus
on issues of power and equity, (b) applying insights from commons governance to new
societal spaces, and (c) advancing causal analysis using large-scale public datasets.
These areas provide valuable directions for developing innovative governance
frameworks for commons and commoning.
One promising avenue for governance is community stewardship, which
engages local stakeholders in managing commons through democratic decision-
making processes, ensuring sustainable benefits for future generations. This approach
is evolving, with ongoing field experiments offering valuable insights into its potential
(Foundation for Ecological Security, 2024 documented many cases on community
tenure security over commons). Another promising avenue is governance through
Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs), supported by constitutional amendments and acts
such as the Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act (1996) and the Forest
Rights Act (FRA, 2006), which provide a robust framework for grassroots natural
resource management. While the implementation of FRA has been inconsistent, with
a focus on individual forest rights (IFR) rather than community forest rights (CFR),
initiatives rooted in the principles of Gram Daan and Gram Swaraj demonstrate
promise, as seen in the case of Lekha-Menda in Gadchiroli, Maharashtra.
Themes for Exploration in the Conference
In line with the overarching theme of Reimagining Commons and Governance:
Pathways to Institutional Innovations, we invite papers that explore the following sub-
themes:
1. Dimensions of commoning and implications for commons/common pool
resources.
2. Commons, ecosystem services, and the commoning of agri-food systems.
3. Community stewardship and collective action for commons governance.
4. Relevance of institutional arrangements and property rights regimes in
managing village, peri-urban, and urban commons.
5. Techno-economic tools and frameworks for commons governance.
6. The role of the state and the market in commoning and commons governance.
7. Commons and livestock development, particularly small ruminants.
8. Commons and biodiversity conservation.
242 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

9. Collective traditional ecological knowledge and sustaining commons

10. Commons and the livelihoods of marginalized populations.
11. Commons for sustaining traditional food systems (e.g., tubers, aquatic crops,
aromatic and medicinal shrubs and herbs).
12. Sacred commons and ecosystem services derived by traditional/indigenous
communities.
13. Rural development programs and common lands (allotment and encroachment
issues).
14. Review of national and state land use policy in the context of commons.
15. Common lands and green energy and their impact on livelihoods and
populations.
REFERENCES
Agrawal, Arun, Erbaugh, James, and Pradhan, Nabin (2023). The Commons, Annual Review of Environment
Resources 2023. 48: 21.1-21.28.
Bromley DW (1989). Property Relations and Economic Development: The Other Land Reform. World
Development, 17: 867-77.
Bromley D W 1991. Environment and Economy: Property Rights and Public Policy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Bromley D W (ed.) (1992). Making the Commons Work, San Francisco: ICS Press.
Ciriacy-Wantrup, S V and R C Bishop (1975). Common Property as a Concept in Natural Resources Policy.
Natural Resources Journal, 15(4): 713-728.
Edwards, V.M. and N A Steins (1999). A Framework for Analysing Contextual Factors in Common Pool Resource
Research. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 1: 205-221.
Euler, Johannnes (2018). Conceptualizing the Commons: Moving Beyond the Goods-based Definition by Introducing
the Social Practices of Commoning as Vital Determinant, in Ecological Economics. 143(2018), pp 10-16.
Foundation for Ecological Security (FES) (2024). Our Commons: Celebrating Commoning and Community
Stewardship; Commons Convening - Illustrated Report, Collaborating for impact - Pathways from the
commons convening 2024 Report, Anand, Gujarat. Available at FES Website.
Gibbs, C J N and D W Bromley (1989). Institutional Arrangements for Management of Rural Resources: Common
Property Regimes. In Berkes, F. (ed.), Common Property Resource: Ecology and Community-Based
Sustainable Development, London: Belhaven Press, pp. 22-32.
Gupta, A K (1986). Socio-ecology of Stress: Why Do Common Property Resource Management Projects Fail? In
Proceedings of the Conference on Common Property Resource Management, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C: National Academy Press, pp. 305-322.
Jodha, N S (1986). Common Property Resources and Rural Poor in Dry Regions of India, Economic and Political
Weekly.
Marothia, D K (2002). (ed.) Institutionalizing Common Pool Resources, New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company.
Marothia, D K (2024). Multiuse Wetlands Governance- Challenges and Institutional Choices, London and New York:
Routledge
 SUGGESTIVE OUTLINES FOR 85TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE 243

Ostrom, E (1990). Institutional Arrangements for Resolving the Commons Dilemma: Some Contending Approaches.
In B.J. McCay, and J.M. Acheson (eds.), The Question of the Commons: The Culture and Ecology of
Communal Resources, 2nd ed., Tucson: University of Arizona Press, pp. 250-265.
Ostrom, E (2010). Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems. American
Economic Review, 100: 1-33.
Singh, K (1994). Managing Common Pool Resources: Principles and Case Studies. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press.
Townsend, R E and S G Polley (1995). “Distributed Governance in Fisheries”. In Susan Hanna, and Mohan
Munasinghe (eds.), Property Rights and the Environment – Social and Ecological Issues. The Beijer
International Institute of Ecological Economics and the World Bank, Washington, D.C., pp. 33-40.

************
THEME III
WTO, ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY: NAVIGATING THE
INTERSECTION

Sustainability issues related to trade and agricultural growth have been

intensely debated in the context of climate change and other environmental concerns
at various multilateral and regional forums, including the WTO, FAO, and OECD
(Bellmann, 2022; Ash & Cox, 2022). Generally, ‘sustainability’ in agriculture is
discussed through the lens of environmental concerns. ‘Sustainable Development’
emphasises the importance of integrating environmental protection, social equity, and
economic prosperity to create a more resilient, equitable, and prosperous future for
people and the planet (WTO, 2023). The economic and social dimensions, particularly
from a farmer-centric approach, are equally crucial, as highlighted under the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). For instance, SDG 2 aims to end hunger and
malnutrition while doubling small-scale farmers' agricultural productivity and income.
Agriculture that neglects to protect and enhance rural livelihoods, equity, and social
well-being will ultimately be unsustainable. Given the various economic and social
challenges faced by poor farmers, such as small landholdings, inadequate institutional
infrastructure, and market failures, any reform process aimed at regulating agricultural
subsidies must adopt a holistic understanding of ‘sustainability’, encompassing
economic, social, and environmental concerns. Furthermore, sustainability should not
be achieved at the expense of farmers' livelihoods or the viability of agriculture
(Sharma et al. 2024). In this light, food security and poverty concerns are as critical as
soil health and farm returns in pursuing sustainable agriculture.
The WTO provides a multilateral forum where members negotiate legally
binding commitments to curtail the flexibilities to provide agricultural subsidies. At the
12th Ministerial Conference (MC12), WTO members declared that they would make
progress towards the promotion of sustainable agriculture and food systems, as well as
resilient agriculture practices. The sustainability issue related to agriculture has been
244 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

discussed in different committees of the WTO in multilateral and plurilateral1 manner.

The Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Committee discusses issues related to
sustainable food systems. Interested members in the Committee on Trade and
Environment (CTE) are engaged in plurilateral discussions under Trade and
Environmental Sustainability Structured Discussions (TESSD) where, among others,
the environmental effects of agriculture subsidies are examined to reduce carbon
emissions to achieve climate goals under the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (Bacchus, 2023). Concurrently, the WTO members are
negotiating the disciplines on agriculture subsidies under the Committee on Agriculture
Special Session (CoASS). The relevant question is how can the multilateral and
regional agreements comprehensively facilitate economic, social, and environmental
sustainability? The AoA provides detailed provisions on domestic support, and
reduction in trade-distorting support is one of the objectives of the reform programme
through agriculture negotiations under Article 20. Notably, the preamble of the AoA
requires the reform programme to be made equitably and address the issues related to
food security and environmental protection. Additionally, it makes the Special and
Differential Treatment (S&DT) an integral element of the negotiations.
Some of the pertinent questions that link WTO, Economic Growth and
Environmental Sustainability include issues concerning agricultural subsidies, food
security, sustainable food systems, Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures, climate
change, environment-related trade measures, smallholder inclusivity, domestic and
international agricultural policies, and other policy concerns. Disciplining agricultural
subsidies is increasingly influenced by climate negotiations, which aim to alleviate
environmental concerns. This is evident from the discussions at the WTO, the
Conference of Parties (COP), and other multilateral organisations, including the
OECD, FAO, UNEP, and G20. Issues related to food security also, to a great extent,
influence the debate related to the linkage between the WTO, growth and sustainability.
Ensuring food security for the vulnerable section of society is another significant
challenge for developing countries, including LDCs. More than 735 million people, or
9.4 per cent of the world’s population, are estimated to suffer from hunger in 2023
(FAO, 2024). Given the undernourishment trend, achieving the sustainable
development goal (SDG) related to zero hunger by 2030 is difficult. More than 75
developing and least-developed countries at the WTO are demanding a permanent
solution to the issue of public stockholding for food security purposes (Sharma and
Shajahan, 2024). Despite intense discussions and multifaceted discussions across
international forums, there is a substantial divergence among members due to differing
national priorities.
In the upshot, many countries, including India, currently face the monumental
task of alleviating environmental concerns while safeguarding the needs and interests
of poor farmers and addressing the challenges of food insecurity. The thematic sessions
1
WTO plurilateral initiatives are discussions at the WTO in which only a subset of members are participating.
 SUGGESTIVE OUTLINES FOR 85TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE 245

seek to facilitate dialogue on the linkage between the WTO, trade agreements, and
agricultural growth to achieve comprehensive sustainability, addressing relevant
environmental, social, and economic concerns.
In this backdrop, the session invites papers on the following key questions and
other allied topics:
1. How can trade rules be reoriented to address the challenges of global hunger,
livelihood security, and climate change?
2. How can we ensure greater cohesion in discussions across parallel multilateral
forums on the interlinkage between agriculture, trade and sustainability?
3. What role can research and development in agriculture play in enhancing
sustainability, increasing productivity, and ensuring food security?
4. How can agricultural trade rules and policies incentivise innovations in
climate-resilient farming techniques and sustainable practices?
5. How can repurposing agricultural subsidies support social, economic and
environmental sustainability without adversely affecting food security?
6. How can countries implement policies that promote carbon sequestration in
agriculture while balancing trade competitiveness?
7. To what extent can unilateral measures such as EUDR promoting
environmental objectives act as disguised trade protectionism? What are the
possible impacts of such measures on smallholder agriculture, socioeconomic
inclusivity, and mitigating climate change?
8. How can international trade agreements be structured to address the unique
vulnerabilities of smallholders and resource-poor farmers while ensuring
inclusivity?
9. Should there be binding commitments on environmental sustainability within
trade agreements, and if so, how can they be enforced equitably?
10. What are the challenges, opportunities, and likely obligations for developing
and least developed countries under the multilateral trade and environment
negotiations?
11. What reforms are required to ensure a level playing field for low-income or
resource-poor farmers and address developing countries' concerns about
inherent imbalances in the AoA?
12. How can countries frame effective domestic policies to ensure food security
and balance socio-economic and environmental sustainability? What are the
significant factors that can influence such policy-making decisions?
13. How WTO trade related intellectual property rights can affect sustainable use
of medicinal flora in south Asia including sourcing, valuation, conservation
246 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

and pricing. What are the challenges in preserving community’s knowledge of

medicinal flora and ensuring equitable benefits to local and marginalized
communities under the multilateral trade regime?

REFERENCES
Ash, K, & Cox, A (2022). Desktop analysis of agricultural subsidies and environmental impacts.
https://iit.adelaide.edu.au/ua/media/1975/wp10-desktop-analysis-ash-and-cox-final-1.pdf
Bacchus, J (2023). Sustainability and the WTO Trading System, Background papers, Trade and Climate Change
Workshop. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Fc2Wh3BDT7am9Zmv7laNYAu3YvqdAegY/view?pli=1
Bellmann, C (2022). Trade and Sustainability in the Agricultural Sector: Options for Multilateral Trade Cooperation,
Forum on Trade, Environment and the SDGs, Policy Brief. https://tessforum.org/latest/trade-and-
sustainability-in-the-agricultural-sector-options-for-multilateral-trade-cooperation
FAO (2024). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World: Financing to end hunger, food insecurity and
malnutrition in all its forms. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/d5be2ffc-f191-411c-
9fee-bb737411576d/content

Sharma, S K, Mathur, P, Shajahan, A A, Ganti, L S, Goswami, A (2024). “WTO negotiations and repurposing
agriculture subsidies for a sustainable future”. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and
Economics, Springer, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10784-024-09643-z.
Sharma, S K, Shajahan, A A, (2024). “WTO and a Permanent Solution for Food Security: Striving for a Hunger-Free
World”. Food Security, Springer, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12571-023-01426-9 .
WTO (2023). Principles guiding the development and implementation of trade-related environmental measures,
Submission from the African Group. (G/AG/W/239).

************