P2P Foundation:Sandbox: Difference between revisions

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
In the sandbox you can '''play''' with ''wiki syntax'' and more.
In the sandbox you can '''play''' with ''wiki syntax'' and more.
We have abundant reminders, both during the 2008
biennial conference and in the news that many local
commons are under threat. I realize that this is nothing
new—we’ve had examples of almost 500 years of
enclosures of one type or another, in this country alone.
But the processes are accelerating as dramatically higher
food and fuel prices create increased demand for land to
produce both food and agrofuels. The price of rice, for
example, has doubled in the last five months, and many
other key food prices have been increasing rapidly.
While enclosures of the commons may lead to intensification
of production of these commodities, we also need
to ask at what cost, and to whom? In many cases it is
the very poorest people who lose out, and many subsistence,
environmental, and even spiritual values that are
hard to quantify and price are lost.
It isn’t just at the local level: we also have growing
evidence of global commons under threat. The IASC
has been addressing global commons issues since at least
1996, but it is good that it is a focal point of this conference.
The atmospheric commons is one of the most
critical examples, going beyond loss of air quality to
wholesale climate change. The collapse of ocean fisheries
also calls for urgent attention, as does the loss of
genetic resources. The loss of biodiversity in terms of
wild species of flora and fauna does receive some
attention, but loss of agrobiodiversity is also a matter for
serious concern, as the local landraces and “orphan
crops” like leafy vegetables, roots, tubers, or medicinal
plants are lost. This is part of our common human
heritage, and can have serious repercussions for the
resilience of world food systems.
Let’s look for a minute at some of the challenges posed
by the “new commons”. Our name change and the
expansion of our mission to include these other types of
commons has increased concern with these issues, but
also to furthered opportunities to learn across resources.
Again, in both the news and the papers of this conference
we have examples of: enclosure (and expansion) of
urban parks, gardens, and neighborhood improvements;
ICT (information communications technology)-related
commons such as bandwidth for internet and cell phones,
or the internet itself; debates over intellectual property
rights over music, crafts, books or text on the internet,
and even genetic resources.
Information and knowledge open up whole new realms
for exploration of the commons. In April this year I
attended an international conference on agricultural
innovation systems. People at this meeting are dealing
with issues like how to foster and spread innovation—
whether by farmers, scientists, businesses, or partnerships
of these. Increasingly, there are group-based approaches
to not only extension information systems, but also
participatory plant breeding or other types of knowledge
generation and application. I was struck by how relevant
the analyses of the commons are for addressing the
problems with which they are grappling, and when I
mentioned some of what we have found about managing
commons, I got a lot of requests to point them to this
literature, and grateful responses saying how useful this is.
The list goes on, but let me now turn to what I mean by a
Strategy for the Commons.
A Strategy for the Commons
Confronted with these challenges, we can either sit back
and bemoan the “tragedy of the commons,” or we can
bemoan the loss of the commons, whether local or global,
“old”, or “new”, or we can try to do something about it.
But what?
Now I am not going to suggest any kinds of panaceas,
simple solutions, and I don’t mean to imply that any of
these apply everywhere. But I do suggest that elements
of this Strategy for the Commons include:
Continue the learning
Share our knowledge
Put it to use
As IASC and as individual members we will each play
different roles in this, but let us look at the components of
each of these elements, and how they interconnect.
Continue the learning: across disciplines, resources and
countries. It is quite appropriate that our new acronym
spells out “I ASK.” Study both successes and failures.
Look for underlying principles as well as local specificities.
Think about what lessons will apply to the next
situation, especially to the “new commons.”
I don’t see this learning as being in conflict with action.
As an applied researcher myself, I firmly believe that
sound theory and research methods are critical for getting
a better understanding of what is going on as a basis for
policies and practice. But I’ve also found that many of
the best theoretical insights (and many methodological
innovations) come from engaging with people in the field,
which forces us to confront the limitations of our pared
down conceptual models.
That’s also often the most fun part. Last year, right at
this time, I was back in Sananeri, the irrigation tank in
India where I began my study of the commons, 25
years before (which, in turn, was right near my home
town where I grew up). It reminded me of how
exciting that feeling of discovery was. I had been
hearing about the famous farmer managed irrigation
systems in Bali and Nepal, but was told they didn’t
exist in India, and this tank was government managed,
but I was curious about how the tanks operated, so I
did some interviews before starting on what was to be
the “real” topic of my masters’ thesis. Imagine that
feeling of discovering a very active local association
managing the tank, and then, as I dug deeper, to find
out that what I had been taught about the core of
irrigation association activities was incomplete, because
it had focused only on the internal activities, and not the
efforts the group made to acquire water or liase with
(lobby) the state.
But as exciting as that learning can be, it can’t end
there. We need to: Share our knowledge, among our
membership, but also more broadly. The Commons
Digest and the International Journal of the Commons
are good tools for this. I realize that it’s ironic that the
IASC, with so many scholars of the commons who
know all about free rider problems, make our materials
available as open access, but the reason is that we
believe it is essential to share our knowledge on these
issues so that we can build on each other’s work and
put it to use for addressing the problems and seizing the
opportunities that the commons present. This knowledge
is too precious to hoard.
We also need other ways to share this knowledge
outside our Association. I ask each of you to look for
opportunities to disseminate an understanding of the
commons. Each of you is a member of other communities
of practice, and can serve as a bridge, a transmission
point, a boundary spanner.
Put our knowledge to use. I know many of us are
engaged in direct work with local communities to
enhance management of the commons, or providing
information, such as about the extent or “value” of the
commons (whether in economic, environmental, or
other terms), and in many cases also working with
communities to advocate for their rights,
We also have a lot to offer to help those working on
global commons challenges. And if they don’t seek us
out, we shouldn’t be shy about putting forward what
we have learned and how it can be used. That requires
going out to where they are: beyond our own publications
to the things they read or pay attention to, such as:
briefs that trade in some of the scholarly language for
understandability by a wider audience, and which relate
to the global issues they are grappling with; and contact
with the media (which may also involve some of those
trade-offs). But we also need to address policy at
various levels. Let me give some examples.
We have heard this week about efforts
in England to advocate for stronger legal
rights for the commons, both on behalf
of individual local commoners and for
the broader public interest. The 2006
Commons Act is a very important
accomplishment in this regard. But as
we have also heard, the law is (almost)
nothing without implementation, and that
requires a lot of work on the part of
national government departments, local
government bodies, commons councils,
and members of the communities, who
will exercise their duties as well as their
rights.
For those who wonder whether our association’s name
change—dropping the “property” from our name—
implies any less commitment to work on property rights,
let me assure you that it doesn’t. Owen Lynch’s work in
a number of countries provides an approach in working
for legal reforms to strengthen community-based property
rights. He notes that: “As an initial step, this can be
accomplished by creating a legal presumption of local
community ownership wherever such evidence exists”
(CIEL 2002: 7). But he also notes that private rights are
often stronger than public or “commons” rights, which
are easier to expropriate or reallocate without due
process and compensation. Rather than having individual
privatization, collective and community-based
rights can be legally recognized as private property
rights, which would give the right-holders more leverage
with outside interests, including government or rival
claimants. Such legal recognition can also strengthen
community bargaining power with businesses that might
provide capital, knowledge, or market access so that the
community gets a higher share of the value of the product,
enhancing both their livelihoods and their prestige.
I won’t say it is easy to engage with policy, or that we’ll
always get it right. It’s usually easier to criticize than to
create, and for many of us, our training stresses
critical thinking. It can be scary. But if we don’t help
shape policy, others will, and they are likely to have
less understanding of the commons.
After doing the study of Sananeri tank, I was involved
in some of the work that tried to synthesize
across cases of farmer managed irrigation, and began
to challenge the World Bank and other development
agencies for irrigation projects that vested all authority in the state, rather than building in
farmer participation and even management
of the systems. So it was with a
lot of trepidation that I found out that
“my tank,” Sananeri, had been included
in a European Union project
for tank rehabilitation, that had required
the registration of a tank
association in each site, and gave a
matching grant to support the
association’s activities. My visit last
year was over a decade after that
project, and I was nervous about what
that had done to the tank. Having
become a bit jaded about the outcome
of development projects over the intervening years,
imagine my pleasant surprise to find that this (and cell
phones) had actually made it much easier for the
association to operate. The involvement of a local
university and NGO in “organizing farmers” under the
project had certainly contributed to the good outcomes.
There were, however, some indications that
there might be some equity problems resulting, either
from this policy or from other changes going on in the
area. Some of my Indian collaborators have been
investigating, and just this week I got the preliminary
results. So the cycle continues… from research, to
policy, to research on the outcomes of policy…to
better policy?
Being strategic about having a policy impact also
means forging appropriate partnerships, which may
be with civil society organizations, governments, aid
agencies, or even the private sector. For example,
shall we accept Bakary Kante’s offer to forge a
partnership between UNEP and IASC to address
some of the combined challenges of sustainability,
linking environment to poverty reduction?
Conclusion
These are some of the elements of being strategic to
defend and enhance the commons.
The IASC is itself a commons. Whether we achieve
anything depends on what we all contribute, but I also
think that there is a kind of multiplier effect when we pool
our efforts. So let me end with an invitation, a call to all
of you to contact members of the council or secretariat if
you have ideas that you would like IASC to take forward.
I may be dreaming, but I would like to see that when we
meet again in two years, the widespread connotation of
the “commons” is not a tragic relic of the past, but a
vibrant hope for our shared future. And furthermore, that
as an Association and as individuals, we will have contributed
to making this happen.
For Further Reading:
Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science
162 (3859): 1243-1248.
CIEL (Center for International Environmental Law).
2002. Whose Resources? Whose Common Good?
Washington DC: CIEL.
R.MEINZEN-DICK@CGIAR.ORG

Revision as of 02:07, 8 November 2008

In the sandbox you can play with wiki syntax and more.