The commons???

The “Commons” ???
IDS 330 “Environmental Leadership”
Fall 2020
Tom Moritz, Adjunct Professor

What is “the commons”?
“Ultimately there is but one ‘commons,’ it includes nature
as it existed before fences and walls, borders and laws,
the high seas, the skies, the air we breathe – and its
remnants are now found within the world’s more than
120,000 protected areas (about 10 per cent of the earth’s
terrestrial surface) and in the wild populations of plants
and animals that still survive – and it includes millions of
years of naturally selected genetic experience carried by
each human being and by our fellow organisms.
“[But] …‘the commons’ also includes our human heritage of
knowledge and wisdom gained through thousands of year
of learned experience by human cultures and gained
through hundreds of years of the more or less methodical
culture of science.
– TD Moritz “Conservation Partnerships in the Commons? Sharing data and
information, experience and knowledge, as the essence of partnerships,”
http://www.eco-index.org/search/pdfs/moritz_english.pdf

“Property Rights”
“Property and Ownership”
[First published Mon Sep 6, 2004; substantive revision Sat Mar 21, 2020]
“Property is a general term for rules governing access to and control of land and other
material resources…
“Because these rules are disputed, both in regard to their general shape and in regard to
their particular application, there are interesting philosophical issues about the justification
of property. Modern philosophical discussions focus mostly on the issue of the
justification of private property rights (as opposed to common or collective property).
“ ‘Private property’ refers to a kind of system that allocates particular objects like pieces
of land to particular individuals to use and manage as they please, to the exclusion of
others (even others who have a greater need for the resources) and to the exclusion also
of any detailed control by society. Though these exclusions make the idea of private
property seem problematic, philosophers have often argued that it is necessary for the
ethical development of the individual, or for the creation of a social environment in which
people can prosper as free and responsible agents.”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/property/

United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization:
“Land Tenure”
Land tenure
3.1 Land tenure is the relationship, whether legally or customarily defined, among people, as individuals or groups, with
respect to land. (For convenience, “land” is used here to include other natural resources such as water and trees.) Land
tenure is an institution, i.e., rules invented by societies to regulate behaviour. Rules of tenure define how property rights
to land are to be allocated within societies. They define how access is granted to rights to use, control, and transfer land,
as well as associated responsibilities and restraints. In simple terms, land tenure systems determine who can use what
resources for how long, and under what conditions.
3.2 Land tenure is an important part of social, political and economic structures. It is multi-dimensional, bringing into play
social, technical, economic, institutional, legal and political aspects that are often ignored but must be taken into account.
Land tenure relationships may be well-defined and enforceable in a formal court of law or through customary structures in
a community. Alternatively, they may be relatively poorly defined with ambiguities open to exploitation.
3.3 Land tenure thus constitutes a web of intersecting interests. These include:
Overriding interests: when a sovereign power (e.g., a nation or community has the powers to allocate or reallocate land
through expropriation, etc.)
Overlapping interests: when several parties are allocated different rights to the same parcel of land (e.g., one party may
have lease rights, another may have a right of way, etc.)
Complementary interests: when different parties share the same interest in the same parcel of land (e.g., when members
of a community share common rights to grazing land, etc.)
Competing interests: when different parties contest the same interests in the same parcel (e.g., when two parties
independently claim rights to exclusive use of a parcel of agricultural land. Land disputes arise from competing claims.)
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4307e/y4307e05.htm

“3.6 The right that a person has in an object such as land may be considered as property. The
range of property is extensive and includes, for example, intellectual property. In the case of land
tenure, it is sometimes described more precisely as property rights to land. A distinction is often
made between ‘real property’ or ‘immovable property’ on the one hand, and ‘personal property’
or “movable property” on the other hand. In the first case, property would include land and
fixtures (buildings, trees, etc) that would be regarded as immovable. In the second case, property
would include objects not considered fixed to the land, such as cattle, etc.
3.7 In practice, multiple rights can be held by several different persons or groups. This has given
rise to the concept of ‘a bundle of rights’. Different rights to the same parcel of land, such as the
right to sell the land, the right to use the land through a lease, or the right to travel across the
land, may be pictured as ‘sticks in the bundle’. Each right may be held by a different party. The
bundle of rights, for example, may be shared between the owner and a tenant to create a leasing
or sharecropping arrangement allowing the tenant or sharecropper the right to use the land on
specified terms and conditions. Tenancies may range from formal leaseholds of 999 years to
informal seasonal agreements. If the farm is mortgaged, the creditor may hold a right from the
‘bundle’ to recover the unpaid loan through a sale of the mortgaged property in the case of
default. A neighbouring farmer may have the right from the ‘bundle’ to drive cattle across the land
to obtain water at the river. Box 1 gives some examples of rights.”
United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization:
“Land Tenure”

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-21315-3_68

“Enclosure”
“Enclosure was one of the most important formative processes in the evolution of the
landscape of England and Wales.
“The term ‘enclosure’ has been used in a variety of different ways and it is important
to establish the meaning that is used in this book. Although enclosure has tended to
become synonymous in common usage with physically shutting off a piece of land
with a fence, hedge or wall, its historical, legal meaning was rather different. In this
latter sense, enclosure involved the removal of communal rights, controls or
ownership over a piece of land and its conversion into ‘severalty’, that is a state
where the owner had sole control over its use, and of access to it.
“Land could be ‘open’ (unfenced) but nevertheless held in severalty, or fenced off but
‘common’. Legally, the distinction between ‘common’ and ‘severalty’ was clear and
enclosure was the process by which the one became the other. This last is the
definition which we adopt.”
-- RJP Kain, J Chapman and RR Oliver The Enclosure Maps of England and Wales, 1595-
1918, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/27713/excerpt/9780521827713_excerpt.pdf

“Enclosure” (cont.)
“Jeanette Neeson, for example, argues that a pro-
enclosure lobby wished to change the social structure
of rural England, a view trenchantly expressed by E. P.
Thompson in his famous dismissal of enclosure as ‘a
plain enough case of class robbery’. As another
example, Robert Allen develops the view expressed
by Jim Yelling that old open field rents were generally
below the marginal productivity of the land and
concludes that enclosure offered the means by which
this extra income could be diverted to the landlord.”
-- RJP Kain, J Chapman and RR Oliver The Enclosure Maps of England and
Wales, 1595-1918, Cambridge University Press, 2004
http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/27713/excerpt/9780521827713_excerpt.pdf

http://pages.uoregon.edu/kimball/images/mfgR/skzR.ENG.enclosures.1700-1800-Conzen.jpg

An Enclosure
Act 1812
http://assets.cambri
dge.org/97805218/2
7713/excerpt/97805
21827713_excerpt.p
df

An Enclosure Map 1846
“Fig.1 Extract from Nottingham Common Fields enclosure
map accompanying the 1846 award, properties in Derby
Roads Fields laid out as streets with Wellington Circus at
the core.
http://assets.cambri
dge.org/97805218/2
7713/excerpt/97805
21827713_excerpt.p
df
“Freemen of Nottingham”

“The Goose and the Commons”
“The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
But leaves the greater villain loose
Who steals the common from beneath the goose.
“The law demands that we atone
When we take things we do not own
But leaves the lords and ladies fine
Who take things that are yours and mine.”

William Cronon: “Changes in
the Land: Indians, Colonists and the Ecology of
New England”
“The difference between Indians and Europeans was not that one had
property and the other had none; rather, it was that they loved
property differently… Speaking strictly in terms of pre-colonial New
England, Indian conceptions of property were central to Indian uses
of of the land, and Indians could not live as Indians had lived unless
the land was owned as Indians had owned it. Conversely, the land
could not long remain unchanged if it were owned in a different way.
The sweeping alterations of the colonial landscape… were testimony
that a people who loved property little had been overwhelmed by a
people who loved it much.”
--pp 80-81

“Usufruct”?
“Southern New England Indian Families enjoyed exclusive use of their
planting fields and of the land on which their wigwams stood, and so
might be said to have “owned” them. But neither of these were
permanent possessions. Wigwams moved every few months, and
planting fields were abandoned after a number of years. Once
abandoned, a field returned to brush until it was re-cleared by
someone else and no effort was made to set permanent boundaries
around it that would hold indefinitely for a single person. What
families possessed in their fields was the use of them…”
William Cronon: “Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists and the Ecology of New England” p62

What is “usufruct” ?
“usufruct: in Roman-based legal systems, the
temporary right to the use and enjoyment of the
property of another, without changing the character
of the property. “
-- Encyclopedia Britannica
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/620455/usufruct

“Land Tenure” ?
“…it was European rather than Indian definitions of land tenure that
led the English to recognize agricultural land as the only legitimate
Indian property…
The implication was that Indians did not own any other kind of land:
clam banks, fishing ponds, berry-picking areas, hunting lands, the
great bulk of a village’s territory…”
William Cronon: “Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists and the Ecology of New England” p. 63

The “Tragedy of the
Commons”???

A Review of the Text --
Garrett Hardin:
“The Tragedy of the Commons”

Garrett Hardin:
“The Tragedy of the Commons” (1968)
“We can make little progress in working toward optimum population
size until we explicitly exorcize the spirit of Adam Smith in the field of
practical demography. In economic affairs, The Wealth of Nations
(1776) popularized the "invisible hand," the idea that an individual
who "intends only his own gain," is, as it were, "led by an invisible
hand to promote . . . the public interest”. Adam Smith did not assert
that this was invariably true, and perhaps neither did any of his
followers. But he contributed to a dominant tendency of thought
that has ever since interfered with positive action based on rational
analysis, namely, the tendency to assume that decisions reached
individually will, in fact, be the best decisions for an entire society. “
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full

“The rebuttal to the invisible hand in population control is to be found in a scenario first sketched in a
little-known pamphlet (6) in 1833 by a mathematical amateur named William Forster Lloyd (1794-
1852). We may well call it "the tragedy of the commons," using the word "tragedy" as the
philosopher Whitehead used it (7): "The essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in
the solemnity of the remorseless working of things." He then goes on to say, "This inevitableness of
destiny can only be illustrated in terms of human life by incidents which in fact involve unhappiness.
For it is only by them that the futility of escape can be made evident in the drama."
The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that
each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement
may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the
numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes
the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality.
At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.
As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less
consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility
has one negative and one positive component.
1) The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all
the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.
2) The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal.
Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any
particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of Ã¢ÂˆÂ’1.
Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible
course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another... But this is
the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the
tragedy.”
Garrett Hardin:
“The Tragedy of the Commons” (1968) (cont.)

“The Commons”
“Ultimately there is but one commons, it includes
nature as it existed before fences and walls, borders
and laws, the high seas, the skies, the air we breathe
– and its remnants are now found within the world’s
more than 100,000 protected areas (about 10 per
cent of the earth’s terrestrial surface) and in the wild
populations of plants and animals that still survive –
and it includes millions of years of naturally selected
genetic experience carried by each human being and
by our fellow organisms. “
-- Thomas Daniel Moritz, “Conservation Partnerships in the Commons? Sharing
data and information, experience and knowledge, as the essence of
partnerships,” Museums International, No. 224 (Vol. 56, No. 4, 2004) ª UNESCO 2004

https://www.britannica.com/science/carrying-capacity

“…the oceans of the world continue to suffer from the survival of the
philosophy of the commons. Maritime nations still respond
automatically to the shibboleth of the ‘freedom of the seas.’
Professing to believe in the ‘inexhaustible resources of the oceans,’
they bring species after species of fish and whales closer to
extinction.”
“Tragedy of the Commons”

Sardines and Monterey
“The West Coast Pacific sardine fishery was first
developed during World War I to fill an increased
demand for nutritious food that could be canned and
easily carried onto battlefields. The fishery rapidly
expanded, and by the 1940s Pacific sardine supported
the largest fishery in the Western Hemisphere, with
approximately 200 active fishing vessels. Sardines
accounted for almost 25 percent of all the fish landed
in U.S. fisheries. Unfortunately, by the 1950s the
resource and the fishery had collapsed and remained
at low levels for nearly 40 years.”
http://www.fishwatch.gov/seafood_profiles/species/sardine/species_pages/pacific_sardine.htm

Stephen Palumbi – “Hope for the Oceans: The Recovery of
Monterey Bay”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wNzm9v31sI

“…cattlemen leasing national land on the western
ranges demonstrate no more than an ambivalent
understanding, in constantly pressuring federal
authorities to increase the head count to the point
where overgrazing produces erosion and weed-
dominance…”

“Oregon standoff: Who’s really getting hurt by federal grazing laws?“
By Alexandra Zavis Jan. 6, 2016
LA TIMES

“How much federally owned land is open for
grazing?”
“Two government agencies manage most of this land: The Department
of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management and the Department of
Agriculture’s U.S. Forest Service.
“Livestock grazing is permitted on about 155 million acres managed by
the Bureau of Land Management and 95 million acres of U.S. Forest
Service lands. The permits and leases issued to ranchers to graze their
livestock on these lands are generally valid for 10 years and can be
renewed if they abide by the government’s conditions.”
LA TIMES

America’s Public Grazing Lands…
LA TIMES

Grazing Fees: Private/Public
LA TIMES

Federal Grazing Fees Lowered in 2019
https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-and-forest-service-grazing-fees-lowered-2019

“Costs and Consequences: The Real Price of Livestock Grazing on America’s Public Lands,” by Christine
Glazer, Chuck Romaniello and Karyn Moskowitz The Center for Biological Diversity, January, 2015
https://www.biologica
ldiversity.org/program
s/public_lands/grazing
/pdfs/CostsAndConse
quences_01-2015.pdf

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/grazing/

“The amount and percentage of federally owned land in each state varies widely,
ranging from 0.3% of land (in Connecticut and Iowa) to 79.6% of land (in
Nevada). However, federal land ownership generally is concentrated in the
West. Specifically, 61.3% of Alaska is federally owned, as is 46.4% of the 11
coterminous western states. By contrast, the federal government owns 4.2% of
lands in the other states. This western concentration has contributed to a higher
degree of controversy over federal land ownership and use in that part of the
country. ”
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf

WESTERN FEDERAL
LANDS MANAGED
BY 5 AGENCIES
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/
misc/R42346.pdf

“SAGE BRUSH REBELLION”
???

https://www.hcn.org/articles/a-look-back-at-the-first-sagebrush-rebellion

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/War-in-the-West-The-Bundy-Ranch-
Standoff-and-the-American-Radical-Right

2nd Amendment “Patriots”
http://www.thenation.com/article/12-scariest-parts-new-report-bundy-
ranch-standoff/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/oregon-under-attack-anger-as-armed-white-
militia-takes-control-of-a-us-government-building-to-a6794421.html

PUBLIC LANDS
&
PROTECTED AREAS

“Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data”
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
2014
“The federal government owns roughly 640 million acres, about 28% of
the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States. Four major federal
land management agencies administer 610.1 million acres of this land
(as of September 30, 2015). They are the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS)
in the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Forest Service (FS) in
the Department of Agriculture. In addition, the Department of Defense
(excluding the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) administers 11.4 million
acres in the United States (as of September 30, 2014), consisting of
military bases, training ranges, and more. Numerous other agencies
administer the remaining federal acreage. ”

“Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data”
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
2014
“The lands administered by the four major agencies are managed for many
purposes, primarily related to preservation, recreation, and development of
natural resources. Yet the agencies have distinct responsibilities. The BLM manages
248.3 million acres of public land and administers about 700 million acres of federal
subsurface mineral estate throughout the nation. The BLM has a multiple-use,
sustained-yield mandate that supports a variety of activities and programs, as does
the FS, which currently manages 192.9 million acres. Most FS lands are designated
national forests. Wildfire protection is increasingly important for both agencies. The
FWS manages 89.1 million acres of the U.S. total, primarily to conserve and protect
animals and plants. The National Wildlife Refuge System includes wildlife refuges,
waterfowl production areas, and wildlife coordination units. In 2015, the NPS
managed 79.8 million acres in 408 diverse units to conserve lands and resources
and make them available for public use. Activities that harvest or remove resources
from NPS lands generally are prohibited.
”

“The National Parks present another instance of the working out of the
tragedy of the commons. At present, they are open to all, without
limit. The parks themselves are limited in extent--there is only one
Yosemite Valley--whereas population seems to grow without limit.
The values that visitors seek in the parks are steadily eroded. Plainly,
we must soon cease to treat the parks as commons or they will be of
no value to anyone.”

http://ournationalpar
ks.us/index.php/site/
story_issues/national
_parks_often_suffer_
from_their_own_pop
ularity

GATHERING, HUNTING,
FISHING & TRAPPING

“A hundred and fifty years ago a plainsman could kill an American
bison, cut out only the tongue for his dinner, and discard the rest of
the animal. He was not in any important sense being wasteful. Today,
with only a few thousand bison left, we would be appalled at such
behavior…”

“In a reverse way, the tragedy of the commons reappears in problems
of pollution. Here it is not a question of taking something out of the
commons, but of putting something in--sewage, or chemical,
radioactive, and heat wastes into water; noxious and dangerous
fumes into the air, and distracting and unpleasant advertising signs
into the line of sight. The calculations of utility are much the same as
before. The rational man finds that his share of the cost of the
wastes he discharges into the commons is less than the cost of
purifying his wastes before releasing them. Since this is true for
everyone, we are locked into a system of "fouling our own nest," so
long as we behave only as independent, rational, free-enterprisers.
“The tragedy of the commons as a food basket is averted by private
property, or something formally like it. But the air and waters
surrounding us cannot readily be fenced, and so the tragedy of the
commons as a cesspool must be prevented by different means, by
coercive laws or taxing devices that make it cheaper for the polluter
to treat his pollutants than to discharge them untreated.”
Garrett Hardin:
POLLUTION: “The Tragedy of the Commons” (1968) (cont.)

Elinor Ostrom
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/2009/ostrom-facts.html

“CPR’s” or “Common Pool Resources”
”The term ‘common-pool resource’ refers to a natural or
man-made resource system that is sufficiently large as to
make it costly (but not impossible) to exclude potential
beneficiaries from obtaining benefits from its use.”
Elinor Ostrom. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action
(Kindle Locations 516-518). Kindle Edition.

CPR’s (cont.)
”To understand the processes of organizing and governing
CPRs, it is essential to distinguish between the resource
system and the flow of resource units produced by the
system, while still recognizing the dependance of the one on
the other.”

“Resource Systems”
”Resource systems are best thought of as stock variables
that are capable, under favorable conditions, of producing a
maximum quantity of a flow variable without harming the
stock or the resource system itself. Examples of resource
systems include fishing grounds, groundwater basins,
grazing areas, irrigation canals, bridges, parking garages,
mainframe computers, and streams, lakes, oceans, and
other bodies of water.”
Elinor Ostrom. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Kindle Locations
519-521). Kindle Edition.

“Resource Units”
”Resource units are what individuals appropriate or use from
resource systems. Resource units are typified by the tons of
fish harvested from a fishing ground, the acre-feet feet or
cubic meters of water withdrawn from a groundwater basin
or an irrigation canal, the tons of fodder consumed by
animals from a grazing area, the number of bridge crossings
used per year by a bridge, the parking spaces filled, the
central processing units consumed by those sharing a
computer system, and the quantity of biological waste
absorbed per year by a stream or other waterway.”

“Stock” and “Flow”
”The distinction between the resource as a stock and the
harvest of use units as a flow is especially useful in
connection with renewable resources, where it is possible to
define a replenishment rate. As long as the average rate of
withdrawal does not exceed the average rate of
replenishment, a renewable resource is sustained over time.”

“Appropriation” and “Appropriators”
”….the process of withdrawing resource units from a resource system [is called]
"appropriation." Those who withdraw such units are called "appropriators.” One
term - "appropriator" - can thus be used to refer to herders, fishers, irrigators,
commuters, and anyone else who appropriates resource units from some type of
resource system. In many instances appropriators use or consume the resource
units they withdraw (e.g., where fishers harvest primarily for consumption).
Appropriators also use resource units as inputs into production processes (e.g.,
irrigators apply water to their fields to produce rice). In other instances, the
appropriators immediately transfer ownership of resource units to others, who are
then the users of the resource units (e.g., fishers who sell their catch as soon as
possible after arrival at a port).”

“Providers” and “Producers”
”The term I use to refer to those who arrange for the provision of a CPR is
"providers." I use the term "producer" to refer to anyone who actually
constructs, repairs, or takes actions that ensure the long-term sustenance of
the resource system itself. Frequently, providers and producers are the same
individuals, but they do not have to be… A national government may
provide an irrigation system in the sense of arranging for its financing and
design. It may then arrange with local farmers to produce and maintain it. If
local farmers are given the authority to arrange for maintenance, then they
become both the providers and the producers of maintenance activities
related to a CPR.”

Elinor Ostrom “The Future of the Commons: Beyond Market Failure and Government Regulation”
In The Future of the Commons, Institute of Economic Affairs London, 2012, p.73
“So let us look at the first tier of that framework. We can think broadly of a resource system and a
governance system - these are the sub-parts. A resource system sets conditions for an action situation,
but we can think of resource units as part of that. So when we talk about a forest, part of the resource
units are trees. If we talk about a fishery, the resource units are fish. They differ dramatically in their
characteristics, but both are the resource unit that is being harvested.
“We can also think of a wide diversity of actors who are participating in one or another of the action
situations that affect the long-term sustainability of that system. They act within the governance
system that sets the rules. This is a very broad framework, I am going to unpack it in a few minutes, but
it is now being used by a number of people for current studies. So how do the framework help us build
and test better theories?
“That is the third challenge that we are facing. And the important thing is that the framework helps
identify multiple variables that potentially affect the structure of action situations; the resulting
interactions between the governance systems; the actions of the resource users and the resource
system; and the outcomes in terms of the sustainable management of the resource.”
Governance Systems

“Exclusion”
”The relatively high costs of physically excluding joint appropriators
from the resource or from improvements made to the resource system
are similar to the high costs of excluding potential beneficiaries from
public goods. This shared attribute is responsible for the ever present
temptation to free-ride that exists in regard to both CPRs and public
goods. There is as much temptation to avoid contributing to the
provision of a resource system as there is to avoid contributing to the
provision of public security or weather forecasts. Theoretical
propositions that are derived solely from the difficulty of exclusion are
applicable to the provision of both CPRs and collective goods.”

1. Clearly defined boundaries
Individuals or households who have rights to
withdraw resource units from the CPR must be
clearly defined, as must the boundaries of the
CPR itself,
2. Congruence between appropriation and
provision rules and local conditions
Appropriation rules restricting time, place,
technology and/or quantity of
resource units are related to local conditions and
to provision rules requiring labor, material,
and/or money.
3. Collective-choice arrangements
Most individuals affected by the operational rules
can participate in modifying the operational
rules.
4. Monitoring
Monitors, who actively audit CPR conditions and
appropriator behavior, are accountable to the
appropriators or are the appropriators.
5. Graduated sanctions
Appropriators who violate operational rules
are likely to be assessed graduated
sanctions (depending on the seriousness and
context of the offense) by other appropriators,
by officials accountable to these
appropriators, or by both.
6. Conflict-resolution mechanisms
Appropriators and their officials have rapid
access to low-cost local arenas to
resolve conflicts among appropriators or
between appropriators and officials.
7. Minimal recognition of rights to organize
The rights of appropriators to devise their own
institutions are not challenged
by external governmental authorities.
For CPRs that are parts of larger systems;
8. Nested enterprises
Appropriations, provision, monitoring,
enforcement, conflict resolution, and
governance activities are organized in multiple
layers of nested enterprises.
“Design Principles illustrated by long-enduring CPR
institutions”
Elinor Ostrom : “Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action”
Chapter 3: “Analyzing Long-Enduring CPRs” p.90

Revised SES Framework
McGinnis, M. D., and E. Ostrom. 2014. “Social-ecological system framework:
initial changes and continuing challenges,” Ecology and Society 19(2): 30.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06387-190230

“2nd Tier
Design
Principles”
McGinnis, M.
D., and E.
Ostrom. 2014.
“Social-
ecological
system
framework:
initial changes
and continuing
challenges,”
Ecology and
Society 19(2):
30.
http://dx.doi.o
rg/10.5751/ES-
06387-190230

Ai Wei Wei
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpg2uvl1Rpc

The commons???

More Related Content

Similar to The commons???

More from Tom Moritz

Recently uploaded

The commons???