Securing the Future

Production of conventional proteins (including both meat and seafood) contributes significantly to climate change and other environmental and social impacts. Transitioning to a food system based on alternative proteins has thus been globally advocated to alleviate the externalities while feeding the growing world population. However, the transition to alternative proteins is ubiquitous with complexities and challenges. Sustainability transition literature provides critical insights into sustainable pathways, but it tends to focus on European countries and a few key sectors but neglect food systems. To overcome these gaps, an operational approach is developed in this paper to examine the influence of key factors driving and hindering the transition to an alternative protein food system in Singapore. A conceptual framework adapting elements of Multi-Level Perspective (MLP), Technological Innovation System (TIS) and Social Practice Theory (SPT) has been developed. 16 in-depth interviews, 170 consumer surveys and desk research were performed to empirically test this framework. The results are that landscape factors such as climate change, food security and COVID-19 are exerting pressure on the food production regime, creating opportunities for alternative protein niches to break through. Political actors in Singapore respond favourably through establishing the “30 by 30” goal, which targets to produce 30% of Singapore’s food needs locally by 2030 (Lim, 2021). Governmental strategies are targeted at nurturing the niches, protecting them from the selection pressures embedded in the regime. As an agricultural-neutral city-state, local meat producers possess little power to resist. However, governmental strategies exhibit insufficient attention paid to the intersection between regime and consumer practices. Subsequently, regime rules remain largely intact, providing little impetus for local food processing companies or consumers to adopt alternative proteins. Moreover, legitimation bestowed by the political actors is nascent and hence, the strength of the innovation system, whilst demonstrating huge growth potential, is in its infancy stage. Consequently, the niches are underdeveloped to destabilise the regime or close the gaps in the regime created by landscape factors. Hence, “Transformation” path is currently happening as moderate landscape pressure is occurring at a time when the niches are still underdeveloped with little adjustments observed in the regime (Geels & Schot, 2007). Niches are exhibiting symbiotic relationships with the regime as they are increasingly adopted into the regime (Geels & Schot, 2007). As landscape pressure intensifies and political support strengthens further, more adjustments in the regime may emerge. “Transformation” may thus give way to “Reconfiguration” pathway.