Securing the Commons in India: A Polycentric Approach Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Jagdeesh Puppala Rao, Rahul Chaturvedi, R Kaushalendra Rao and Sophie Theis Presentation at Land and Poverty Conference 2017: Responsible Land Governance— Towards an Evidence-Based Approach March 20-24, 2017 Washington, DC importance of collective action, Need to go beyond that to make sense of polycentric governance. Methods to address this—qual, quant, games, and action research

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 Approaches Devolution: transfer of rights (and responsibilities) from government to communities “Commoning”: claiming rights to the commons from below

Commons in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, 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, under different government departments, but historically controlled by communities with variable effectiveness, inclusiveness of local institutions MNREGA social protection program as new actor History of community organizations for commons management Programs organizing tree growers cooperatives, watershed committees 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

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 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)

Cherukoripalle, Karnataka Grazing lands

M Vyapulapalle, Karnataka Grazing and forest lands 2006 The forest land “stole” the trees therein: trees were planted as part of joint forest management matured, Forest Department had them harvested without sharing the benefits due to the community. This enraged the community and completely divested them of any interest in governing the forest.

Gajula Vari Palle (GVP) Thanda, Andhra Pradesh MNREGA since its inception, NREGA has played an important role in bringing government investments into rural areas and in creating lasting assets that contribute to natural resource governance. Another important agency in this village has been NABARD. This village is one of the beneficiaries of the Tribal Development Fund that was administered by NABARD in conjunction with FES. Through this project, horticulture was successfully promoted and the livelihoods of the households therein shored up. However, it has to be pointed out that the extent of dependence on commons in this habitation is not as high as that in the villages covered above. Once again, the farmers do not view themselves as sources of capacity or knowledge; rather they see themselves as suppliers of information and as recipients of wisdom from the ‘experts’.

Vepulapalle, Andhra Pradesh Common lands managed by Tree Growers Cooperative since its inception, NREGA has played an important role in bringing government investments into rural areas and in creating lasting assets that contribute to natural resource governance. Another important agency in this village has been NABARD. This village is one of the beneficiaries of the Tribal Development Fund that was administered by NABARD in conjunction with FES. Through this project, horticulture was successfully promoted and the livelihoods of the households therein shored up. However, it has to be pointed out that the extent of dependence on commons in this habitation is not as high as that in the villages covered above. Once again, the farmers do not view themselves as sources of capacity or knowledge; rather they see themselves as suppliers of information and as recipients of wisdom from the ‘experts’.

Vepulapalle, Andhra Pradesh Village tank since its inception, NREGA has played an important role in bringing government investments into rural areas and in creating lasting assets that contribute to natural resource governance. Another important agency in this village has been NABARD. This village is one of the beneficiaries of the Tribal Development Fund that was administered by NABARD in conjunction with FES. Through this project, horticulture was successfully promoted and the livelihoods of the households therein shored up. However, it has to be pointed out that the extent of dependence on commons in this habitation is not as high as that in the villages covered above. Once again, the farmers do not view themselves as sources of capacity or knowledge; rather they see themselves as suppliers of information and as recipients of wisdom from the ‘experts’.

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, biodiversity emphasis) Joint Forest Management (sharing of benefits) 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 Joint Forest Management MNREGA Rural Employment Guarantee program Objective: livelihoods (and asset-building) Can be in all sectors (roads, schools, commons, private 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 Linkages between local and higher level institutions Knowledge of other decisionmakers and their rules 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 for the commons What exists; What is needed Potential to tap into different resources vs transaction costs Importance of trust: long to build, quick to break What can be done to address institutional gaps? Sustainability of “multistakeholder platforms”, NGO facilitation Building capacity of communities to work with government Recognizing institutional investments as investments