Sub-theme 11. Advances in Frameworks and Theory
Panel 11.5.
Seeing commons as a process: The Commonisation-decommonisation perspective
In a recent book ‘Making Commons Dynamic’, Nayak and Berkes (2021) underscore the need to search for theory that is useful to understand commons as a process. To highlight the process aspect of commons, they used two related concepts – commonisation and decommonisation. Commonisation is understood as a process through which a resource gets converted into a jointly used resource under commons institutions and collective action that deal with excludability and subtractability. Decommonisation refers to a process through which these essential characteristics are lost. Commonisation and decommonisation may have multiple manifestations, which has subsequently motivated several scholars to frame these terms in different ways. The negotiations to address contestations happen through the coming and working together of people within the non-human context, defined as a process of commoning. The actors who actively engage in the commoning processes can be seen as the commoners. Extreme forms of decommonisation forces the commons into non-commons. Even though, decommonisation is pervasive and deeply entrenched, commoners have used decommonisation as opportunity to strengthen commonisation. This reinforcement of commonisation in the face of decommonisation threats has been discussed as re-commonisation, (re)commonisation and new-commonisation. Success in this type of commonisation processes can bring in place new common- pool resources. In certain contexts, the very resource around which commonisation and decommonisation processes revolve often remains elusive, leading to the suggestion that they are ephemeral commons. As an extension of the meaning of ephemeral commons, some scholars use the term “uncommon” common- pool resource to explain unusual resources that have come to be managed as commons. Scholars who coined these terms will be invited to present papers in this session. They will analytically expand these novel terms as a way to further our understanding of commons as a process and reflect on theorising commonisation-decommonisation as an analytical tool to examine multiple possibilities around making or breaking the commons.
Panel 11.5. A
1. Making Commons Dynamic: Advances in commons theory through commonisation-decommonisation perspective
University of Waterloo, Canada
The need to search for theory that is useful to understand commons as a process is important. To highlight the process aspect of commons, I use two related concepts – commonisation and decommonisation. Commonisation is understood as a process through which a resource gets converted into a jointly used resource under commons institutions and collective action that deal with excludability and subtractability. Decommonisation refers to a process through which these essential characteristics are lost. Commonisation and decommonisation may have multiple manifestations with significant implications for the evolution of commons theory.
This paper provides a rudimentary understanding of commonisation and decommonisation, and explores the empirical basis of how resources are commonised and decommonised. Specific focus will be on the role of multilevel internal and external drivers in shaping commonisation and decommonisation processes, and their key implications for commons governance. It highlights the contributing issues and dynamics associated with the processes of commonisation and decommonisation in geographically diverse social, cultural, ecological and political contexts, and explore their theoretical and empirical bases. The goal is to theorize the concepts of commonisation and decommonisation as an analytical tool to understand commons as a dynamic process and help examine multiple possibilities on making or breaking the commons.
2. Impact of Lamu Port on Mangrove Cover Change through Climate Justice Lens, Lamu County, Kenya
University of Nairobi, Kenya
The Kenya Government is currently developing a new deep-sea Lamu port at Manda Island, Lamu County, Kenya. The port that began in 2016 is part of the ongoing $24bn Lamu Port South Sudan Ethiopia Transport (LAPSSET) corridor programme. When complete, in 2030, the port will be the largest deep-sea port in East and Central Africa with cargo projected capacity of 40 million tons per year. Though good economically, the ongoing dredging of 32 deep-sea berths, 18m deep, 400m-long and the 6kms coastline with deep sheltered bay and wide channels of 1.5km causeway on a 1,000 acres along the Indian Ocean will significantly affect marine ecosystem especially mangrove. Mangrove plays myriad role of carbon sequestration, fish breeding, coral reefs and more specifically, to the community that depend on mangroves for a living. The objectives of this study were to map the locations of mangrove and to analyze mangrove change for the Lamu port from 2010-2019 using different LANDSAT sensors (TM, ETM+ & OLI), Geographic Information System (GIS) and Remote Sensing Data. The overall accuracy of satellite imagery processing was 85% on Kappa coefficient of 0.90. The findings of this study showed a 10% total area mangrove cover for the Lamu port in 2010. A steep decline of (88%) was also recorded in 2019. This was attributed to the ongoing port construction and, in order to mitigate the devastating impact of climate change, the government need to actively partner with locals and all stakeholders for the restoration of mangrove ecosystem in Lamu.
3. What makes a common pool resource uncommon? Vicuña management and the re invigoration of indigenous communities
CONICET, Argentina
Local people´ s perceptions, beliefs and views on wildlife change over time. However, in the case of vicuñas, they were highly regarded by local herders since the early development of pastoralism and are still considered “the herds of the Gods” by most local Andean communities. While significant literature on traditional commons deals with fisheries, forests, water management, irrigation and animal husbandry, wildlife use has not been as widely explored. Although vicuñas can be considered an “uncommon” common pool resource (CPR), they do exhibit the two principal characteristics of CPRs: (a) exclusion or the control of access of potential users is difficult; and (b) each user is capable of subtracting from the welfare of all others. Both characteristics shape the history of vicuña use and conservation. According to Nayak and Berkes ( 2011), ‘ commonisation ’ refers to a process through which a resource gets converted into a jointly used resource under commons institutions that deal with excludability and subtractability, and “ decommonisation ” refers to a process through which a jointly used resource under commons institutions loses these essential characteristics. In this presentation we provide a historical background on the decommonisation processes that led vicuñas to their near extinction following the Spanish Conquest in the Andean Region. We then present their recent commonisation processes, as well as their environmental and socio-political impacts. The question of what makes an uncommon common pool resource is further explored as well as the uniqueness of this model which turned it into one of the rare success stories in international conservation.
Panel 11.5. B
1. The Dynamics and Performance of Marine Tourism Commons (MTC) in the Karimunjawa Island Marine National Park, Indonesia
1Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Germany, 2University of Waterloo, Canada,
This presentation applies the “commons” framework to a coral reef ecosystem of the Karimunjawa Island Marine National Park (or KNP in short), an emerging marine tourism area. We refer to this as a new common-pool resource, the marine tourism commons (MTC). In this case study, we find that the MTC experience a changing set of resource regimes since the past three decades (1982-2014) and undergo a dynamic institutional process which offers insights to the two concepts of commonisation and decommonisation. By further applying Ostrom’s Social Ecological System Framework (SESF) to the case study, the study analyses a set of 29 multitier variables that points towards a weak institutional performance in managing the coral reef for marine tourism: Non-cooperative behavior of the resource users – the Tourist Guides – operating within a failing marine governance system hinders that the limited number of coral reef snorkel and diving spots can be managed as a common-pool resource and might experience destructive use in future.
2. Struggles of Commonisation and the Corporate Food Regime
University of Waterloo, Canada
Alternative food movements continue to come up against the oppositional stronghold of the corporate food regime. Alongside the political and economic endeavours of neoliberalism, the corporate food regime has infiltrated and converted food systems, shaping them into highly privatized and globally dependent systems. Upheld on the foundational commodification of land, labour, and food, this regime is the antithesis of commonisation as it pushes against food commons and food as commons. Despite the ‘highly efficient’ systems that the corporate food regime has created, there continues to be a failure to achieve food security goals. Food-sharing models have emerged as impromptu solutions to this failure, yet they have mixed success as they struggle for support in the highly controlled food arena. With this, food-sharing models will be assessed in systems dominated by the corporate food regime in hopes of identifying points at which commonisation can be strengthened and achieved.
3. The commonisation of the urban waste cycle: opportunities and limits of the commons perspective in the Italian case
Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Italy
The urban waste governance system intersects many heterogeneous rights and interests at a global level, such as environmental and health protection, sustainability of the development model and capability to preserve resources for future generations, but also the labour claims of waste pickers and, on the other side, the economic profitability of enterprises producing recycled materials on the market. These rights and interests produce multiple lines of conflict. In fact, «waste is not essentially dirty or priceless, but rather an arena through which classification, social boundaries and state-making take place». (Shireen Mirza, 2020).
Secondly, the issue of governance of the urban waste life cycle questions us on the nature of this resource. Can waste be classified as a public or private resource? If it is conceivable that the two dimensions can co-exist – for example in the processes that transform the waste into a recycled good – is it also possible to reason in terms of commons? What are the limits? In the age of “Wasteocene” (Armiero 2021), the waste itself is certainly a common disease. However, efficient governance of a resource that can produce globally negative externalities is fundamental. We address the perspective of commonisation processes from the possible theoretical difference between co-appropriators, where collaboration produces direct advantages for the participants, and commoners, where advantages of efficient governance are necessarily more extensive (Micciarelli, 2018). We will focus on the Italian waste management case, as a paradigmatic example of a hybrid institution between commonisation and decommonisation.
