1. 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

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

3. 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)

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. 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

7. 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)

9. Cherukoripalle, Karnataka
Grazing lands

10. 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.

11. 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’.

12. 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’.

13. 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’.

14. 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

15. 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?

16. 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?

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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