Polycentricity And Multi Stakeholder Platforms Governance Of The Commons In India

Commons governance is complex and polycentric, involving a range of actors, working at different scales with different concepts of ‘development’, and different types of power. Multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPs) have generated considerable attention as a way to address these tensions among multiple and overlapping decision-making centers operating on different administrative levels and scales. Yet establishing MSPs that effectively involve both community, government, and private sector actors is far from straightforward. This paper analyzes the Indian NGO Foundation for Ecological Security’s (FES) experience of strengthening polycentric governance through case studies of two MSPs in Gujarat and Odisha, at the block (subdistrict) level—a meso-level encompassing multiple communities situated around a commons landscape (hill range or small rivulet). By comparing local environments, institutional arrangements, stakeholder interactions, governance processes and the evolution of MSPs in the two states, it distills lessons on the tangible and intangible benefits of multi-stakeholder engagement, scale, and enabling conditions. We argue that the groundwork carried to build community level collective action supports effective polycentric governance of resources on the landscape level, especially through block-level MSPs that facilitate inter-community collaboration and learning, strengthening local voices and building trust between stakeholders over time. The cases also highlight that MSPs can evolve in different ways as the various actors interact and aim to influence the agenda. External actors like NGOs thus play an important role as facilitators and through mobilizing communities to help them claim their agency.

How could having farmers play experiential games contribute to improving groundwater governance? These games are an example of an innovative procedure, a policy instrument or institutional tool, which those involved in improving groundwater governance could use to understand their problems and opportunities; consider and possibly agree on norms or rules that might avoid aquifer depletion, and create shared gains that use water more productively. Institutional tools for groundwater governance could help deal with complex nexus linkages and achieve gains such as transitions to solar-powered pumping, aquifer recharge and storage to buffer against drought, and protecting and regenerating ecosystems. The concept of a groundwater governance toolbox offers a metaphor for thinking about the variety of policy instruments available and how they might be chosen, combined, and adapted to create customized toolkits to solve problems and achieve gains in specific contexts. New policies are typically layered on top of existing sets of institutions that govern relationships between people and water. This makes it crucial to understand existing knowledge and institutions and how those may interact with institutional changes. The thesis of the paper is that institutional tools need to be combined and crafted to fit contexts, including political economy constraints, opportunities, and solutions.

Common pool land and water resources in India play vital, but often overlooked, roles in livelihoods and ecosystem services. These resources are subject to the authority of various government departments and are often managed in ways that result in uncertain tenure for the people who depend on these resources for fodder, fuel, water, and other products. An Indian NGO, the Foundation for Ecological Security (FES), has developed a process for “commoning” -- assisting communities to secure the commons by forming inclusive local institutions to manage the resources, and to work with different government departments to gain stronger rights to the commons. This paper applies polycentricity theory to examine the institutional arrangements that govern the commons in FES sites in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka states and assesses relationships that may affect commons management. It draws on key informant interviews and village-level social network mapping exercises (Net-mapping) to show the complex flows of resources, information, and influence related to the commons among habitation-level organizations, local government, resource agencies, the rural employment guarantee program (MGNREGA), and NGOs. This paper discusses the potential of this methodology as a diagnostic tool to help understand community perceptions of the role of various stakeholders in overall governance of the commons, and can provide guidance for interventions to help communities to strengthen their tenure on the commons and management of those resources.

World's foremost experts explain how polycentric thinking can enhance societal attempts to govern climate change, for researchers, practitioners, advanced students. This title is also available as Open Access.

"Multi-stakeholder governance is a fresh approach to the development of transnational public policy, bringing together governments, the private sector and civil society in partnership. The movement towards this new governance paradigm has been strongest in areas of public policy involving global networks of stakeholders, too intricate to be represented by governments alone. Nowhere is this better illustrated than on the Internet, where it is an inherent characteristic of the network that laws, and the behaviour to which those laws are directed, will cross national borders; resulting not only in conflicts between national regimes, but also running up against the technical and social architecture of the Internet itself. In this book, Jeremy Malcolm examines the new model of multi-stakeholder governance for the Internet regime that the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) represents. He builds a compelling case for the reform of the IGF to enable it to fulfil its mandate as an institution for multi-stakeholder Internet governance."--Provided by publisher.

Governments and consumers expect internet platform companies to regulate their users to prevent fraud, stop misinformation, and avoid violence. Yet, so far, they've failed to do so. The inability of platforms like Facebook, Google, and Amazon to govern their users has led to stolen elections, refused vaccines, counterfeit N95s in a pandemic, and even genocide. Such failures stem from these companies' inability to manage the complexity of their userbases, products, and their own incentives under the eyes of internal and external constituencies. The Networked Leviathan argues that countries should adapt the institutional tools developed in political science for platform governance to democratize major platforms. Democratic institutions allow knowledgeable actors to freely share and apply their understanding of the problems they face while leaders more readily recruit third parties to help manage their decision-making capacity. This book is also available Open Access on Cambridge Core. For more information, visit https://networked-leviathan.com.