"Securing the Commons: Polycentric Approaches in India" - Ruth Meinzen-Dick SIG 2015 Workshop "Integrating Multi-level Governance into the Post-2015 Development Agenda: Opportunities, Trade-offs, and Implications", Nov 9-10, 2015

1. Securing the Commons:
Polycentric Approaches in India
Ruth Meinzen-Dick
IFPRI SIG 2015 Workshop
November 9-10

2. 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

3. 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)

4. Landscape mosaics:
Commons and
private resources

5. 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

6. Aligica and Tarko 2012

7. 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 change
power,outcomes,andgender
Adapted from Carlisle and Gruby 2015

8. 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)

10. Netmap exercises

12. 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

13. 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?

14. 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?

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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