Securing the Commons: Polycentric Approaches in India

Ruth Meinzen-DickIFPRI SIG 2015 Workshop

November 9-10

Challenges of the commons• Security of tenure requires – External recognition – Internal governance• Provision rules governing investment• Appropriation rules governing withdrawal

• Therefore need to look at external (state, corporate) and internal (collective) institutions

Commons in Andhra Pradesh, India

• Mosaic of “forest” lands, “wastelands” and water resources interspersed with private agricultural lands

• Provide variety of goods and services (firewood, fodder, water, ecosystem services) as inputs to agriculture

• Officially state lands, but historically controlled by communities with variable effectiveness, inclusiveness of local institutions

• NGO activity, e.g. Foundation for Ecological Security (FES)

Landscape mosaics:Commons and private resources

Applicability of Polycentric Governance

• Spanning boundaries– Involving multiple institutions, actors

• State (different agencies)• Civil society (different types of groups)• Market, private sector

– Different levels– Different sectors– Different resources

• Addressing complementarities, tradeoffs, conflicts

Aligica and Tarko 2012

Elements of Polycentric Governance

• Multiple, semi-autonomous decision centers are nested, networked at various levels or scales

• Shared interests/need• Formal and/or informal mechanisms

exist for cooperation, coordination, conflict resolution and information sharing (manage trade-offs)– Arrangement is capable of changepo

wer

, out

com

es, a

nd g

ende

r

Adapted from Carlisle and Gruby 2015

Multiple, semi-autonomous decision centers

• State agencies• Forest Department (“owns” and regulates)• Revenue Department (“owns”)• Watershed management agency (resources)• MNREGA (resources)• Fisheries, Livestock, Horticulture, Minor Irrigation

• Local government: Gram panchayats, Gram sabhas (regulate, priorities for MNREGA)

• Village institutions e.g. watershed committee (social regulation)

• NGOs, e.g. FES (convening, capacity building)

Netmap exercises

Appropriation Rules for the Commons• Traditional village/user group institutions

• Variable rules (and enforcement) governing grazing, firewood, grasses

• Tank committees, hiring neerkattis• No rules for groundwater

• State institutions• Forest department regulations (restrictions on use)• Watershed department committees• Technical expertise

• NGO facilitated institutions• Aiming for inclusiveness of all in community• “Claiming” commons to restore, improve flows, agree on

provision, extraction rules• Watershed committees, groundwater budgeting

Provision: Investment in the Commons• Traditional shramadana by local groups—linked to

autonomous institutions, but not always effective• Watershed Development Programs

• Massive investments not maintained under state programs because of lack of effective rules for maintenance, appropriation of benefits

• Revised guidelines for State-NGO-community• MNREGA Rural Employment Guarantee program

• Objective: livelihoods (and asset-building)• Can be in all sectors (roads, schools, commons, pvt lands)

• Panchayats to prioritize, state agencies advise on technical feasibility, laborer groups negotiate

• Does this investment displace rule-making about maintenance, appropriation of benefits?

Multiple, semi-autonomous decision centers

√ Ability to make and enforce rules√ Knowledge of other decisionmakers and their

rules√ Linkages between local and higher level

institutions? Shared sense of purpose? Rights in relation to land/water and other natural

resource management? Sufficient resources and support for decision

centers (and capacity) (NGO facilitation role)? Whose interests are included/ excluded?

Formal/informal coordination mechanisms

• Formal or informal mechanisms exist for cooperation, coordination, and information sharing:√ Is there active collaboration/partnerships?√ Joint development of proposals/activities?√ Information exchange and access; technical

information? Lower level users involved in monitoring and

evaluation? Decision support and negotiation support

Arrangement is capable of change? Rules regarding use can change if necessary;

ownership of resources√ Responsive to ecological thresholds/

limitations√ Provides benefits to different users

• Need to consider issues of power, outcomes, and gender; formal and informal power

Questions and Implications for Action

Diagnosis of institutional arrangements:• What exists; What is needed• Sustainability of “mulitstakeholder platforms”, NGO

facilitation

What can be done to address institutional gaps?• Beyond panaceas• Organic, not mechanistic “engineering”• Skilled craftsmanship (“gardening”?)• Recognizing institutional investments as investments