International Journal of the Commons
Vol. 12, no 2 2018, pp. 217–250
Publisher: Uopen Journals
URL:http://www.thecommonsjournal.org
DOI: 10.18352/ijc.852
Copyright: content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
ISSN: 1875-0281
Catalyzing self-governance: addressing multi-faceted collective
action dilemmas in densely settled agrarian landscapes
Laura German
Department of Anthropology and Center for Integrative Conservation Research, University of
Georgia, Athens, GA 30605, USA
lgerman@uga.edu
Abstract: This paper summarizes lessons learnt from efforts to pilot institutional
innovations to address locally salient natural resource management challenges in
the eastern African highlands, where dense human settlement and steep slopes
lead to a tight coupling of interactions among adjacent land users, landholdings
and property regimes. The collective action problems present in these heterogeneous landscapes include common pool resource dilemmas, as well as other “commons-like problems” involving shared or intertwined interests that cut across a
range of property regimes. By creatively embedding design principles derived
from long-enduring common property regimes into facilitation strategies, solutions to longstanding, relatively intractable resource management challenges (e.g.
pest management, excess run-off) were forged through collective choice arrangements. Solutions involved not just restricting access and creating incentives for
users to invest in a shared resource (e.g. through clear allocation of rights and
duties), but negotiating creative solutions to match provisioning with diverse
forms of benefit or to minimize/offset losses that would otherwise accrue from
efforts to minimize harm to others. The paper’s contributions are threefold. First,
it illustrates how self-governance is not just a feature of long-enduring common
property regimes, but may be catalyzed in many situations in which it is absent.
It also illustrates the applicability of Ostrom’s design principles in complex and
heterogeneous landscapes involving a diversity of natural resource forms, tenure
regimes and collective action problems. Finally, it illustrates the crucial importance of bringing an institutional lens to bear on classic “technological” challenges such as soil erosion control, pest management and on-farm biodiversity
conservation.
Keywords: Collective
self-governance
action,
eastern Africa,
micro-politics,
process,
218
Laura German
Acknowledgements: First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge the
contributions made by regional research team members in laying the conceptual
groundwork for the program as a whole, and by national site teams who collaborated in the design of interventions and facilitated their testing on the ground.
While the theorization of the experiences in this article is my own, the design and
testing of interventions and documentation of lessons learnt was a broad-based
collective endeavor focused at site team level. Furthermore, with linguistic barriers largely restricting my own contributions to the site team level (facilitating
planning, accompanying process interventions as an observer, and then facilitating post-process reflection and re-planning), credit for the actual facilitation
of community-level processes falls fully to researchers and extension personnel
within the respective benchmark sites. As such, this paper is in many ways coauthored by them. The names, areas of expertise and organizational affiliations
of 25 core collaborators are profiled in the introductory material for the book
Integrated Natural Resource Management in the Highlands of Eastern Africa:
From Concept to Practice (German et al. 2012), which profiles the methodological and process innovations of AHI’s journey from inception. I would also like to
acknowledge the intellectual leadership of the late Dr. Ann Stroud,1 who served as
Regional Coordinator of AHI from 1998 to 2006 and provided both direction and
inspiration for this work. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Jürgen Hagmann
for instilling in Ann, and indeed all of us, the commitment to “enter the system”
rather than study it as detached observers. This work would not have been possible without the sustained financial contributions to AHI from the International
Development Research Centre and the Swiss Agency for Development and
Cooperation, or the small grant from the Collective Action and Property Rights
program of the CGIAR focused on the collective action component of this work.
Finally, I would like to thank the insightful comments of two anonymous reviewers and the corresponding Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Michael Schoon.
1. Introduction
Institutions have long been recognized as both driver of and solution to environmental challenges (Hardin 1968; Ostrom 1990; Young 2003). Failure to effectively
regulate rates of extraction of renewable resources; to address the exclusion and
rivalry challenges of common pool resources; to close loops for non-renewable
resources; to limit pollutants to biodegradable materials or keep effluent within the
limits of what aquatic ecosystems or the global climate system can absorb; and to
reconcile competing interests in land and resources underlie many contemporary
resource tragedies (Feeny et al. 1990; Bavington 2010). Problems of fit, or the (in)
congruity between ecosystem properties and attributes of the institutions created
to guide human interactions with these biophysical systems (Young 2003, 378),
1
† Died May 2007.
Catalyzing self-governance
219
abound. This calls for new types of institutional responses. Institutional reforms
are called for not only because institutions are thought to be the sources of these
problems, but because institutional solutions provide one of the primary hopes for
addressing them (Young 2003).
The work of Ostrom and the wider community of students and scholars
whose work speaks to hers have shown how communities of users can selforganize to manage common pool resources sustainably by agreeing among
themselves how to regulate resource access and use (Ostrom 1990). Yet it
leaves largely unanswered the questions of what happens when these systems
break down; whether self-governance is a viable option for addressing emergent
environmental challenges at diverse scales; and whether it can be catalyzed
where absent. These questions are often asked in scholarship of the commons
yet addressed only theoretically (see, e.g. McGinnis and Ostrom 1992; Schlager
2004), while efforts to put design principles into practice in community-based
projects tend to lack a research component to harvest lessons learnt. This paper
seeks to address these questions while bridging the theory-practice divide by
exploring the role of process innovations in catalyzing self-governance where
it is absent, and bringing research into the design of interventions and observation of the dynamics of community-based innovation processes. Process innovations as applied here are deliberate facilitation strategies designed to bring
social theory to bear on social learning, organizing and action at community or
organizational levels.
The paper explores these questions in the highlands of eastern Africa, where
high population density and steep slopes lead to tightly coupled interactions
among adjacent landscape units and diverse property regimes. Lessons are drawn
from an ecoregional research program operating in multiple benchmark sites in
the region from the mid 1990s to the late 2000s, and aiming to support highland
residents to address environmental challenges of local concern. It demonstrates
that many of the challenges typically viewed by agricultural research and extension organizations and NGOs as biophysical problems to be addressed through
technological solutions, such as soil erosion, crop pests and diseases, involve
collective action dilemmas that call for institutional responses. Failure to recognize this undoubtedly constrains the effective resolution of the environmental
challenges facing local resources users, and contributes to the ongoing failure of
interventions.
Following a literature review, in which the work of commons scholars and
theoretical discussions of process are reviewed, the methodology is discussed.
Results are then presented in two sections: a summary of collective action
dilemmas identified in the diagnostic phase of the project, and an analysis of
changes induced through process innovations for select case studies in which
land users were involved in a series of steps of deliberation, negotiation and
planning to facilitate their own solutions to identified dilemmas. The paper
concludes with a discussion of lessons learnt and their implications for policy
and practice.
220
Laura German
2. Literature review
2.1. Lessons from long-enduring common property regimes and collective
action scholarship
Common pool resources may be defined by two important characteristics that
make their sustainable management particularly challenging (Berkes et al. 1989;
Feeny et al. 1990). The first is low excludability, in which the physical nature of
the resource makes it costly, and sometimes virtually impossible, to control access
by potential users. The second is high subtractability or rivalry, a situation in which
each user is capable of subtracting from the welfare of other users. Subtractability
leads to the potential for divergence between individual and collective rationality, in which the benefits accruing to individuals extracting one more unit of a
resource come at the expense of collective interests in sustaining that resource
(Feeny et al. 1990). Yet as highlighted by many scholars, these “collective action
dilemmas” have been addressed by diverse institutional arrangements. It is thus
essential to separate the intrinsic nature of the resource (common pool) from the
properties of the regimes that govern the use of that resource (Ostrom 1986).
Most institutional scholars recognize four tenure or resource management
regimes which vary according to the “structure of rights and duties characterizing the relationship of individuals to one another with respect to that particular
environmental resource” (Bromley 1991, 22; see also Feeny et al. 1990). They
include state property, private property and common property, in which ownership and use rests in the hands of the state, individuals or corporations, and a
specified user group, respectively. The fourth is open access – in which there are
no rights, duties or authority system (Feeny et al. 1990; Bromley 1991). Any one
of these may be applied to the governance of common pool resources, and with
the exception of open access (which tends to fail in ensuring sustainable use)
there is no simple one-to-one relationship between property-rights regime and
outcome (Feeny et al. 1990). Success (and failure) may be found under all three
of these regimes, not only the two recognized by Hardin (state, private). This
observation has not been duly reflected in environmental scholarship, policy and
practice. Recognition of common property or “limited-access commons” has been
overlooked by institutional scholars historically (Demesetz 1967; Hardin 1968)
and remains unrecognized in government policy and practice in many countries.
Some scholars attribute this failure to the tendency to view property as a thing
rather than a social relationship2 (Ostrom 1990; Bromlely 1991).
Through detailed study of long-enduring common property regimes (CPRs),
Ostrom (1990) further identifies the properties of the regimes that have managed
resources sustainably under common property arrangements. While there is some
ongoing debate over their completeness, Ostrom’s initial principles are largely
validated by Cox et al. (2010) – who offer a more disaggregated formulation of
2
And to the subsequent failure to understand the distinction between the properties of a resource and
the properties of the institutional overlay or regime (e.g. Hardin 1968).
Catalyzing self-governance
221
them (see Appendix). In considering the possibility of catalyzing collective action
where it is absent, it may be worth looking beyond the features of successful, longenduring CPRs, to the diversity of dilemmas faced by non-cooperating groups and
the diversity of mechanisms through which successful collective action may in
turn emerge. Heckathorn identifies several different causes of social dilemmas,
including “issues of coordination, in bargaining over how gains are to be divided,
or in lack of trust that the other will cooperate” (Heckathorn 1996, 253). It would
seem that interventions to address these dilemmas should target the source of the
constraint.
2.2. Beyond discrete tenure regimes and apolitical renderings of property
While self-organization and the principles underlying it have been used to debate
the relative merits of distinct property regimes (e.g. Feeny et al. 1990; Bromley
1991), there has been less effort to explore the relevance of these ideas to interactions between distinct property regimes or to hybrid property forms. This reflects
a wider tendency in both government policy and institutional scholarship to think
of property regimes, ownership, and public and private forms of organizing as
discrete and mutually exclusive domains (Bromley 1991; Ostrom and Hess 2008;
Sikor et al. 2008). The remarkable persistence of the notion of discrete property regimes is curious in light of the long history of scholarship recognizing
blurred boundaries (“impure public goods,” “property continua”); public interests
in private property; the restrictions and obligations that often accompany the use
of private land; the social costs incurred from individualized decision-making in
the absence of such restrictions;3 the benefits of negotiated and flexible access to
private and common property; and the differentiated bundle of rights and rights
holders that define property (Hume 1740; Pigou 1932; Coase 1960; Olson 1965;
Bromley 1991; Schlager and Ostrom 1992; Blewett 1995; Cornes and Sandler
1996; Thebaud and Batterbury 2001; Krier 2009).
Approaches to addressing the social costs of individualized action4 have been
much debated. Privatization was once thought to be the ideal approach to internalizing costs and benefits, because it ties each owner’s actions to consequences
that only the owners themselves would incur (Demsetz 1967; Krier 2009). Yet
even with individually owned parcels of land, it is still unlikely that all costs and
benefits of the owner’s uses will be felt exclusively by him, her or them (Krier
2009). Others have argued for privatization because it minimizes the transaction
costs associated with negotiating more equitable solutions (Olson 1965; Demsetz
1967). A parallel idea was explored in the scholarship of Ronald Coase, who drew
on the notion of reciprocal cost to argue for negotiated solutions to externality
3
Most notably, externalities, or situations in which “the action of one economic agent influences
the utility of another, and there is no mechanism for compensation” (Cornes and Sandler 1996, 5).
4
Note that Bromley takes issue with the notion of social cost, stating what is actually at issue in
environmental disputes is that the “private interest of one party (Alpha) is against the private interest
of another (Beta)” (Bromley 1991, 19).
222
Laura German
problems between the two parties, over government intervention. Rather than
framing the problem as avoiding harm to the aggrieved party, Coase argued for
having regard to the total effect of solutions on both parties. For Coase, this was
best achieved by assigning individual property rights in a way that minimizes the
transaction costs of making decisions about the way a resource is used, and letting
the market do the rest – typically through direct negotiation of contract-type solutions (Coase 1960). Yet this begs the question of what motivations would guide
private landowners to engage in negotiations to internalize costs. With property
rights typically conveying not just the right to benefit oneself but also a right
or privilege to harm others (Demsetz 1967; Bromley 1991), there are as many
reasons why holders of these rights would choose not to internalize externalities.
While economists have tried to address this question through a focus on transaction costs and utility,5 more critically informed social scientists point to the
political dynamics of institutions and property. There is increasing recognition
that property rights are not just neutral instruments that help to convey expectations which can reasonably be held with respect to one’s dealings with others
(Demsetz 1967) or the result of “voluntary exchanges between relatively equal
actors who are seeking mutually welfare-enhancing outcomes” (Gibson 1999,
11), but a terrain of struggle at all levels of social organization – from families
to communities, social classes and states (Peluso 1993; Ribot and Peluso 2003;
Robbins et al. 2009; Sikor and Lund 2009; Hall et al. 2011; Hardin 2011; Borras
and Franco 2012). Even under private ownership, externalities cannot therefore
be assumed to be resolved through open negotiation of costs and benefits on an
even playing field. These perspectives highlight the role that individuals play in
structuring institutions that benefit them; their differential access to resources
that enable them to do so; and the uneven distributive outcomes of the institutional arrangements that often result (Bromley 1991; Knight 1992; Gibson 1999).
Yet there are also social and institutional forces within society that have a bearing on the likelihood of such equity-enhancing transactions, from emotions to
social bonds; reputation and social status; social conventions, norms and institutions; and state laws governing public accountabilities (Hand 1986; Knight 1992;
Flam 2000). With these factors highly context-specific, it is impossible to predict based on a simple cost-benefit calculus the circumstances under which the
costs and benefits of social interdependencies surrounding resources and property
will motivate actions that accommodate multiple interests in land. And with the
stakes for human societies and the ecological processes we are a part of so incredibly high, there is a need to consider what factors might push things in the right
direction. Much has been said about design principles and “rules of the game”.
Less has been said about the role of facilitated change processes in enabling selforganization to emerge, or the extent to which these can be structured to induce a
more equitable distribution of costs and benefits.
5
Demsetz (1967), for example, argues that to internalize an externality the gains from internalization
must exceed the cost of a transaction in the rights between the parties (Demsetz 1967).
Catalyzing self-governance
223
2.3. Process in conservation and development
One of the earliest treatments of process in the encounters between local communities and outside agents of change was Paolo Freire’s book, Pedagogy of the
Oppressed (Freire 1970). While conceptualized within the realm of education
rather than community “development”, the method and substance of Freirean pedagogy makes it an essential point of reference for those interested in processes of
local empowerment. He coins the word conscientização or critical consciousness
to refer to the processes by which the oppressed, “recognize the causes of their
oppression, so that through transforming action they can create a new situation,
one which makes possible the pursuit of a fuller humanity” (47). For Freire, this
occurs through praxis: “reflection and action upon the world in order to transform
it” (51). Crucial to the appropriation of such ideas within development circles,
Freire seeks to break down unequal relations of knowledge and authority separating teachers and students (or outside change agents and land users), by engaging
in pedagogies with, not for, the oppressed. He asserts that neither holds the key to
liberation, but that it emerges in dialogue.
Early treatments of process in conservation and development also focused on
moving away from top-down models of development to ones in which local actors
were the primary agents in their own development. Despite his own acknowledged indebtedness to Freirean pedagogy6 and others writing on process from
within development circles (e.g. Biddle and Biddle 1965), Robert Chambers is
widely recognized as pioneering these ideas. His writing on reversals in development learning and management (Chambers 1983) and farmer and community
participation (Chambers 1994a,b) are unparalleled in their influence on development practice. While Chambers stressed the need for multifaceted changes
among development professionals (personal awareness, concepts, values, behavior) (Chambers 1997), his most enduring and widespread contributions were
methodological. He advanced Participatory Rural Appraisal, “a growing family of approaches and methods to enable local people to share, enhance and
analyze their knowledge of life and conditions, to plan and to act” (Chambers
1994a, 953). To differentiate this from the vast majority of research methods
which remain extractive in nature, PRA methods are perhaps best thought of as
process – defined here as a planned and facilitated set of interactions among members of a community, organization or other collectivity designed to catalyze social
learning, planning and action. The 1980s and 1990s witnessed a proliferation of
approaches to community participation and empowerment, from those to enhance
farmer participation (on-farm research, farmer participatory research, participatory technology development) (Farrington and Martin 1987; Byerlee and Tripp
1988; Walters-Bayer 1989; Haverkort et al. 1991; Chambers 1994) to paradigms
6
Their 1965 book, “The Community Development Process: The Rediscovery of Local Initiative”,
defines process as “a progression of events that is planned by the participants to serve goals they
progressively choose” (Biddle and Biddle 1965, 79).
224
Laura German
for conservation and environmental management (adaptive collaborative management, community-based natural resource management, co-management, community conservation) (Murphree 1995; Buck et al. 2001; Horwich and Lyon 2007).
The unbridled enthusiasm that accompanied early efforts was quickly met
with disillusionment, as critiques of participatory process highlighted the potential for participation to constitute more “tyranny” than empowerment as change
processes are subject to manipulation by outside actors and interests (Cooke and
Kothari 2001). Critiques have highlighted absence of democratic process and
limited local ownership of projects; accountability to outside actors and their
conceptions of development or conservation; failure to address complex power
dynamics and changing entitlements; forms of patronage and control embedded
in development practice; and negative social and economic outcomes (Stirrat and
Henkel 1997; Thompson and Homewood 2002; Campbell and Vainio-Mattila
2003; Mosse 2005; Goldman 2011; Greiner 2012). Other authors have highlighted the role of process in producing obedient knowledge and subjectivities
(Gibson and Marks 1995; Agrawal 2005; Igoe et al. 2009) – a possibility that
Freire recognized long ago.7 Recent writings in the social sciences have also situated decentralized and participatory trends within wider economic restructuring,
as a response to popular uprisings following the neoliberal reforms of the 1980s
(Hilgers 2010). Decentralized governance processes must therefore not only be
seen as a way to make governance more responsive to the people (World Bank
2000; Ribot 2004), but also as a way to ‘accommodate potentially explosive
political forces’ (World Bank 2000, 107) and to bolster popular legitimacy for
undemocratic policies through discourses of procedural legitimacy (Ferguson
1995). Thus, process must be seen not just as a way to enhance local control or
to handle complexity and uncertainty in conservation and development (Mosse
et al. 1998), but as a tool with the potential for complex and contradictory roles
in these arenas – ones which depend deeply on the context, how methodological tools are deployed, and the capacities and ideological alignments of outside
facilitator-practitioners (see, for example, Bell 1994). The question addressed
here is whether that tool, wielded in such a way as to acknowledge the political
dynamics and uneven stakes of institutional change, can be used responsibly
while achieving more equitable cost-benefit distributions in the environmental
arena.
3. Methodology
3.1. Program context and research sites
The experiences profiled in this paper took place in the context of the African
Highlands Initiative (AHI), an ecoregional research program established in 1995
7
Drawing on Hegel, Freire states, “if what characterizes the oppressed is their subordination to the
consciousness of the master, … true solidarity with the oppressed means fighting at their side of
transform the objective reality which has made them these ‘beings for another’” (Freire 1970, 49).
Catalyzing self-governance
225
as a collaborative initiative between the Consultative Group for International
Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and the Association for Strengthening
Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA) to improve
livelihoods and reduce environmental degradation in the densely-settled highlands of eastern Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda). AHI had just
completed Phase II, during which time the program had established select
benchmark sites in each country to serve as living laboratories for the development and testing of approaches for integrated natural resource management
before institutionalizing their use in key partner organizations (Figure 1). In
recognition that many evironmental challenges involved processes playing
out beyond the farm level (where efforts had focused to date), the program
underwent a shift in focus in Phase III from farm to “watershed” level innovations. With the nexus of decision-making and action shifting from household
to landscape level, a new research component was added on understanding and
catalyzing collective action. This paper reports on the work that falls under this
theme.
Figure 1: Focal countries and AHI benchmark sites.
226
Laura German
3.2. Methodological approach
Rather than drawing on conventional research methods to understand the system
but not intervene, or seek to intervene without any systematic method for capturing
lessons learnt, we were to employ action research (Checkland 1991; Checkland and
Holwell 1998). Rather than studying systems, we were to enter them and engage
in change processes in partnership with highland residents (Hagmann and Chuma
2002). Since there was limited methodological guidance on how to go about this
or how to do it in the context of a watershed management program, much of our
early efforts were focused on developing an institutional infrastructure for social
learning and innovation at watershed, site team and regional levels, and then using
this to operationalize an approach to participatory watershed or landscape management itself (see German et al. 2007a; German and Stroud 2007). A grant from the
Collective Action and Property Rights (CAPRi) system-wide program helped us to
articulate the role of collective action within this program-wide context. Yet with
much of the writing on collective action emphasizing its abstract principles (Olson
1965; Lichbach 1996) or focused on successful cases of self-organization (Ostrom
19908), we were left largely to our own devices in figuring out where collective
action might be desired by the resource users themselves or how to catalyze collective action where absent. As part of the CGIAR, we were also expected to use
action research not only as a participatory approach to addressing environmental issues of local concern, but to generate generalizable lessons in the form of
“global public goods” (conceived of as research products – publications, technologies, methodologies, etc. – with a value beyond the direct research sites). Thus,
the work consisted of a multi-layered approach in which participatory processes
of problem identification, planning, implementation and monitoring at community
level served as the central axis of innovation, onto which a layer of systematic
observation was added to facilitate the generation of lessons for a global audience
(German et al. 2012; see also German and Stroud 2007).
Action research is defined here as a collective, iterative, self-reflective (and
ideally, critically reflexive) form of inquiry undertaken by participants in a social
learning and change process, and oriented towards addressing a collectively perceived problem or enhancing the understanding of practice in order to improve
practice (drawing on McCutcheon and Jung 1990; Kemmis et al. 2014; Herr
and Anderson 2015). It thus involves both theory and practice (Baskerville and
Wood-Harper 1996; Avison et al. 1999), “simultaneously assist[ing] in practical
problem-solving and expand[ing] scientific knowledge, as well as enhance[ing]
the competencies of the respective actors” (Hult and Lennung 1980, 1). The iterative nature of action research is widely understood to involve cycles of planning
a change, acting and observing the processes and consequences of the change,
8
See also the Digital Library of the Commons (https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/); International Forestry Research Institute (http://www.ifriresearch.net); and the Collective Action and Property Rights
Program (http://capri.cgiar.org).
Catalyzing self-governance
227
reflecting on these processes and consequences, re-planning, acting and observing, and so on (Colfer 2005; Kemmis et al. 2014). It is widely recognized as
“inquiry that is done by or with insiders to an organization or community, but
never to or on them” (Herr and Anderson 2015, 4). However, the need to generate
global public goods in addition to localized problem solving makes it useful for
our purposes to differentiate community-based action research or “participatory
action learning” from the action research undertaken by outside researchers (see
German and Stroud 2007; German et al. 2012) – as the research and learning are
oriented towards common as well as distinct purposes. The common purpose is
figuring out to solve a site-specific problem of local (common or differentiated)
concern; yet onto that is layered a purpose of generating lessons and public goods
(e.g. methodologies) of interest to a global audience.
Researchers schooled in positivist as well as poststructuralist research traditions struggle with the epistemological and political dimensions of action research.
The ‘validity problem’ has been the focus of criticism by the former, given limited replicability and formal data collection. To address the need to keep one’s
“intellectual bearings in a changing situation”, Checkland and Holwell suggest
generating a ‘‘recoverable research process” through advanced declaration of the
epistemology in terms of which findings will count as knowledge (Checkland and
Holwell 1998, 13, 9). In addition to specifying an area of concern (participatory
INRM rooted in locally salient problems), a framework of ideas (watershed/landscape, collective action, institution, power) and a methodology (action research),
as these authors suggest, we employed an additional set of tools to document lessons being learnt at community and site team levels. These included participatory
monitoring and evaluation, in which land users identified and monitored change
in perception-based variables and site teams used a process documentation tool
for systematic reflection and documentation. While the former focuses more on
intermediate outcomes, the latter emphasizes process (methods as planned, methods as revised during implementation to account for unexpected challenges); outcomes (what went well, what did not go well); the relationship between them
(what should be adjusted next time, based on immediate outcomes); and lessons
learnt (including, crucially, about process itself). As such, evidence that any given
outcome had been achieved resides in the process (whether the specified aims of
the intervention had been achieved, according to participants); what was documented about it by the research team; and the results of participatory monitoring.
The political, ontological and intersubjective dimensions of the process raised
by poststructuralist perspectives are the more challenging to address. While processes were intentionally designed to surface divergent interests or ‘stakes’ surrounding identified environmental concerns and to foster negotiation between
diverse interest groups (see below), these critiques are addressed only implicitly
– by grounding problem framing, planning and monitoring as much as possible in
local languages and deliberative processes.
These processes for working with groups of land users to support their own
self-led change process while deriving wider lessons served as a generic method-
228
Laura German
ological scaffolding within which the work on collective action was to take place.
This involved two key steps. First, it was widely understood that for collective
action to be an achievable goal, it was essential to ground the local innovation
process in issues of concern to local residents. Second, we needed to design and
test a facilitation process to catalyze collective action among watershed residents
to address identified concerns. The first required a participatory process of problem identification and prioritization to identify locally salient concerns. For this,
site teams employed socially-disaggregated focus group discussions to surface
issues of concern, using pre-tested questions (see German et al. 2007b for details).
In recognition of the heterogeneity of interests and values within local communities (Brosius et al. 1998; DeFilippis et al. 2010) and of the need for collective
action or “self-organization” to be driven by a common purpose (Olson 1965;
Ostrom 1990), a second step in participatory problem identification involved
socially-disaggregated ranking of the concerns identified in the first step. Issues
of high priority across lines of difference – whether gender, age, landscape location or other factors – were considered to have high potential for collective action.
Issues prioritized highly by only some groups were also considered to be worthy
of consideration.
To design a facilitation process to catalyze collective action among watershed
residents in addressing prioritized issues, we looked to collective action theory
(Olson 1965; Ostrom 1990; Lichbach 1996) – drawing most heavily on the work
of Ostrom, as well as team members’ experience in community organizing. For
each issue selected for further action, a detailed planning process was carried out
in each benchmark site – first among site team members, and then with community members. In addition to participatory planning processes within community
fora (where institutional dimensions to the problem were left largely unexplored),
select issues were targeted for a more in-depth look at the institutional dimensions to the problem. The question guiding this work was, “If local residents are
motivated to address this issue, as suggested by the participatory problem diagnosis and ranking, why are they not already self-organizing to address it?” Was it
a simple issue of the transaction costs of organizing exceeding any benefits to be
gained from organizing? Or were there reasons also not to cooperate? For each
issue or concern, we therefore conducted a situation analysis to understand the
dynamics involved. Interest groups were systematically identified and consulted
ahead of time, so as to identify their interests and positionality with respect to
the identified issue and to engender trust in the process. This was followed by
the facilitation of a multi-stakeholder negotiation in which the interests of identified parties were brought to the table, with the aim of forging ‘socially-optimal’
solutions based on the principle of minimum harm. The facilitation strategy thus
sought to intentionally surface divergent interests in land, and to foster negotiated
outcomes among diverse interest groups.
In certain types of collective action dilemmas, one party was found to benefit
from the status quo (even if harming the other party), and thus have an incentive not to engage in actions to minimize harm as solving the problem would
Catalyzing self-governance
229
often require curtailing actions that provide important benefit streams. To offset
these costs, solutions often involved the identification of livelihood alternatives
that would complement institutional solutions (German et al. 2009). If a solution
could be forged through dialogue, the agreement was further articulated through
a set of negotiated (collective choice) rules to govern the rights and duties of each
party, and sanctions for non-compliance. In some circumstances, participants
expressed an interest in formalizing these agreements through local government
recognition of community by-laws; in others, there was a preference for informal
arrangements and “moral persuasion”. In each instance, an implementation and
monitoring plan was established to clarify actions, responsibilities, a timeframe
and how both actions and their effectiveness would be monitored.
If we are to map this generic process onto identified design principles of
long-enduring common property regimes, it is possible to see how the facilitation process is designed to engender many of the principles that emerged organically through processes of self-organization among users (Table 1). For example,
stakeholder identification and consultation played a similar role to the specification of boundaries of the user group and the issue of concern, akin to Principle
1A. Stakeholder analysis and negotiation support were also designed to foster
a mutually acceptable re-negotiation of rights and duties (and their underlying
cost-benefit distributions), in line with principle 2B (congruence between appropriation and provision rules), and provided an opportunity for the formulation of
collective choice rules (Principle 3) – including those related to sanctions for noncompliance (Principle 5). The development of plans for participatory monitoring
and evaluation also helped incorporate a monitoring component into implementation for some of the issues (Principle 4).
4. Results
Results are presented in two parts. The first section summarizes the landscapelevel concerns identified by local residents during participatory problem identification, which are explored in terms of the underlying collective action dilemmas
that have served to inhibit their effective resolution in the past. The second section
describes site team experiences in catalyzing self-governance around a sample of
these identified concerns.
4.1. Identified collective action dilemmas
Within many of the landscape-scale “environmental” problems identified by local
residents (e.g. excess run-off, declining water quality), it was possible to identify
collective action problems or social dilemmas which were operational and hindering efforts to self-organize. These may be defined as situations in which multiple
individuals would benefit from a certain action, but for which the associated cost
or incentive structure make it implausible that any individual would take initiative
to solve it alone; or where there is a divergence between individual and collective
rationality (where actions that are individually rational lead to suboptimal out-
Facilitation step(s)/technique(s)
Explanation
1: Boundaries (emphasis
on boundaries of
users)
2: Congruence (emphasis
on appropriation and
provision)
Identification of “stake”-holders, or those with
divergent interests vis-à-vis the issue at hand
While distinctive in form from the Ostrom principle, the purpose is the same: to identify
those individuals whose involvement is needed to address the issue at hand.
Stakeholder analysis (Who gains/loses what?)
− Stakeholder consultation
− Negotiation support to identify institutional
and technological solutions (by-laws, cost
minimization efforts)
Each of these steps is designed to match the benefits to any given party with the costs to
that party. Stakeholder analysis enabled the identification of who gains and loses what
from the status quo, and from any effort to address the problem. Stakeholder consultation
aims to minimize the perceived risks of engaging in voluntary negotiations, for example by
agreeing on procedural elements or establishing principles or criteria to guide negotiations.
Negotiations themselves, guided by the principle of minimum harm, aim to balance the costs
and benefits of action by mitigating harm done (e.g. through efforts to mitigate the costs of
curtailing certain land uses); balancing concessions or provisioning with anticipated benefits;
or allocating the costs of provisioning (often in the form of labor) to those standing to benefit
from that action. Note: Each of these actions also contributes to aspects of principle 2A
(congruence of costs and benefits with local social conditions).
Similar to the Ostrom principle, the idea is to have all of those affected by the operational
rules to participate in formulating them.
As with Ostrom, emphasis is placed on compliance with agreed actions (monitoring of users).
It also emphasizes effectiveness in resolving the problem, yet this is not always defined in
terms of resource condition; another common indicator was the mitigation of livelihood costs.
The negotiation of rules includes the negotiation of consequences for non-compliance.
The negotiation process also involves forging agreement on the means of enforcement
– whether through formal state recognition of formulated by-laws, or self-enforcement.
The participatory nature of this process in some cases gives rules and/or their enforcement
a ‘graduated’ character – with sanctions or enforcement procedures adapted to the
circumstances at hand.
Unlike Ostrom’s principles, conflict resolution was integrated into the process as a means of
enabling the emergence of collective action during the planning process (in the stakeholder
analysis and negotiation support stages), rather than something that comes afterwards.
Nevertheless, such mechanisms are likely to evolve as part of the monitoring process.
3: Collective choice
arrangements
4: Monitoring
− Negotiation support (negotiated rule
formulation)
− Monitoring plan included as one output of
the negotiation
5: Graduated sanctions
− Negotiation support (negotiated rules on
consequences for non-compliance, and
means of enforcement)
6: Conflict resolution
mechanisms
− Stakeholder analysis
− Negotiation support
Laura German
Design principle
230
Table 1: Relationship between facilitation steps and Ostrom’s design principles.
Catalyzing self-governance
231
comes for all) (Olson 1965; Heckathorn 1996; Ostrom 2000). Yet these were not
the only types of dilemmas identified by resource users for which collective action
would be a suitable antidote. Others involved interests that cut across discrete
property units and regimes.
Four categories of collective action problems were identified, as follows (see
also Table 2):
1. Common pool resource challenges. This first set of issues involved classic dilemmas surrounding the management and sustainability of common
pool resources, such as the difficulty of exclusion, high subtractability,
and the inability to control free riders in both appropriation and provisioning. These dilemmas were prevalent in rangelands (in the form of nutrient
mining and deforestation); in the extirpation of culturally important indigenous tree and fodder species; in the degradation of springs (from run-off
and biological contamination resulting from the failure to separate human
water from livestock); in the management of community woodlots (theft);
protected area management (exclusion practices); and the management of
community infrastructure and livestock (low provisioning).
2. Inefficiencies of individualized action. Other collective action problems
involved the effect of transaction and start-up costs inhibiting the evolution of collective action around issues of common concern, despite the
gains in efficiency or effectiveness that would result. In such cases, failure
to act collectively tended to result in limited returns on financial or labor
investment. The most prominent example was pest management, in which
the scale of intervention (plot/farm) is poorly matched to the scale of the
problem (landscape and beyond) and thus highly inefficient, if not downright ineffective. Other concerns related to the failure to access resources
(e.g. draft power) that might otherwise be accessible through the pooling
of financial capital to increase buying power through shared ownership
(albeit at some risk).
3. Externalities. A number of identified concerns involved externalities, in
which the “utility” or welfare of some land users was affected by actions
not under his/her control, because land use decisions were made by private
land users who fail to consider the social costs of their actions (e.g. van
den Bergh 2010). With high population densities and steep slopes contributing to the tightly coupled interactions among adjacent landscape units,
interactions among adjacent units of (mostly private) property were highly
salient concerns among watershed residents. Concerns falling in this category involved interactions between two identifiable units of adjacent private property (e.g. crop destruction from stray fire or livestock, tree-crop
competition), diffuse interactions between units of private property across
the landscape (e.g. excess run-off, burial of fertile valley bottom soil from
hillside erosion, pests), externalities from private to common property
Identified concern
Country
Common pool resource challenges
Loss of indigenous tree
Ethiopia (Ginchi)
species
Low soil fertility in
outfields
Ethiopia
Loss of indigenous crop
and fodder species
Ethiopia (Areka)
Declining water quality in
springs
Ineffective regulation of
access to protected areas
Low investment in the
management of shared
resources
Theft of trees from village
woodlots
Ethiopia (Ginchi)
Ethiopia, Uganda
Tanzania
Tanzania
Shortage of oxen
Ethiopia (Ginchi)
Nature of the dilemma
Failure to adequately address the exclusion problem, coupled with the institutional uncertainties associated
with periods of institutional uncertainty associated with regime change (feudal to socialist to capitalist), have
led to loss of all indigenous trees outside of protected areas and sacred forests
Seasonal transitions between private cropland and open access grazing in outfields induces nutrient mining
by incentivizing landowners to extract all crop residue before liberating private cropland for communal
grazing. Absence of institutions to regulate dung collection and the use of dung as cooking fuel exacerbates
this by encouraging dung extraction from outfields.
The combined effects of drought and failure to regulate access to communal grazing areas has resulted in
the loss of indigenous fodder species important to livestock. Absence of collective in-situ conservation of
indigenous landraces, valued for their greater adaptability to suboptimal growing conditions, has contributed
to their loss in the face of government extension services and food insecurity (seed consumption).
Failure to regulate use among users and by livestock undermines water quality by failing to separate drinking
areas for livestock and human use.
Local land users have no incentive to invest in a resource that they have been excluded from, yet the state
has limited capacity (and incentive) to exclude – resulting in state-induced “tragedies”*.
Collective action surrounding shared resources (community bull, maintenance of community roads and
schools, mill) suffers from low levels of provisioning*.
Constraints to, and high cost of, exclusion; failure to adequately curtail free riding*.
– Individualized efforts to police fields at night to avoid crop loss from porcupine is costly (in time, health
consequences) and often ineffective as porcupines travel up to 14 km in a night (Areka).
– Erosion of traditional ecological knowledge among the youth has reduced collective action in pest control,
undermining the effectiveness of these practices and contributing to the incidence of cutworms (Tanzania).
Private ownership of oxen makes access to draft power inaccessible for most families; collective ownership
and use was seen as a possible solution.
Laura German
Inefficiencies of individualized action
Pest management
Ethiopia,
Tanzania
232
Table 2: Collective action dilemmas present in AHI benchmark sites.
Identified concern
Externalities
Loss of seed and fertilizer,
destruction of property,
from excess run-off
Reduced crop productivity
from boundary trees
Country
Nature of the dilemma
Ethiopia,
Tanzania, Uganda
Limited incentive to invest in drainage structures among upslope farmers (where water damage is less of
a problem) exacerbates uncontrolled run-off to downslope farmers. Addressing the problem requires the
coordination of drainage among all landowners, even those with limited incentive to invest.
Landowners’ interests in securing farm boundaries and minimizing competition between trees and their
own cropland cause them to locate woodlots along their farm boundary, increasing tree-crop competition on
adjacent farmland*.
Advanced stages of erosion on upper slopes means that soil deposited in valley bottoms (where cash crops
are grown) is now infertile. Addressing the problem requires the cooperation of owners of hillslope plots
who stand little to gain, while scale-dependencies increase the magnitude of the challenge.
Failure of private landowners to invest in activities to ensure fire does not pass farm boundaries, and the
costs (in labor, fodder access) of regulating livestock movement, increases the incidence of crop loss on
neighboring farms*.
Landowners’ interest in maximizing yield from fast-growing trees by locating woodlots near springs conflicts
with collective interests in safeguarding the water supply for humans and/or livestock*.
Eucalypts planted to clearly demarcate/safeguard the boundary of a national park generate externalities for
neighboring communities, such as the drying of springs or competition with adjacent cropland*.
Ethiopia (Areka),
Tanzania
Burial of fertile valley
bottom soil from erosion
Tanzania
Crop destruction from stray
fires and livestock
Tanzania
Drying of springs from
fast-growing trees
Externalities from trees
marking protected area
boundary
Pest management
Ethiopia,
Tanzania
Tanzania
Ethiopia (Areka)
Common interests in state or private property
Limited/inequitable access
Uganda
to resources from protected
areas
Inequitable access to
Ethiopia (Areka)
government extension
services
Pest management
Ethiopia (Areka)
Catalyzing self-governance
Table 2: (continued)
Landowners growing crops not susceptible to vertebrate pest damage have limited incentive to invest in pest
control, yet with pests crossing farm boundaries their failure to act has consequences for other land users.
233
Indigenous communities evicted from a national park face the threat of physical violence when attempting
to access culturally important resources, yet outsiders with no customary claims are able to secure access
through bribes*.
Failure to establish institutions to self-govern exogenous development resources, coupled with the preference
among extension agents to work with “innovative” male farmers, has resulted in elite capture of government
extension by wealthy male farmers.
Those with coveted knowledge on traditional pest management practices have no incentive to share their
knowledge with others, as they are often paid to help others with pest control*.
234
Laura German
(e.g. drying of springs from the cultivation of fast-growing trees on private
land), and negative externalities from the management of state property
(e.g. negative effects of fast-growing trees marking national park boundaries on adjacent cropland and common property). These dilemmas, manifested as complaints about the actions of upslope or adjacent land users,
were found to have negative effects on agricultural productivity, returns
on investment, and access to basic resources (e.g. water for domestic use).
4. Failure to consider common interests in state and private property. A final
category involved lesser known concerns that could be classified as common interests in state and private property. While externalities could be
lumped in this category, the items classified here are distinct from externalities in their tendency to be defined in terms of concern over limited
access to these resources rather than harm done through their management. In the context of state property, this included limited (and inequitable practices associated with) access to culturally important non-timber
forest products in protected areas formerly occupied by indigenous groups
and governed under customary norms of tenure; and inequitable access to
public services (e.g. government extension services). Yet it also related
to the intellectual property of individual watershed residents who were
found to hold coveted knowledge of interest to others (e.g. the most effective local pest control practices).
It is important to recognize the overlapping nature of items falling within this
and other themes, with some issues defined by more than one set of features. For
example, there is some overlap between externalities and common interests in
private property. Yet this overlap is incomplete, as illustrated by shared interests
in intellectual property associated with highly specialized knowledge on pest control. While there is also some overlap between common pool resource management challenges, externalities and common interests in state property in the case
of protected area management, the issue can be broken down into components
that map more readily onto discrete themes.
The tendency to treat collective action problems as those that lead to suboptimal outcomes for all (Ostrom 2000) requires mention of a number of situations
in which solutions to highly salient problems failed to emerge not because of
the classic collective action problems or dilemmas (transaction costs, divergence
between individual and collective rationality), but because the status quo is conferring some (often economic) advantage to one of the parties. In such cases,
those deriving benefit streams from actions that are otherwise harmful to other
parties have at least some incentives not to engage in collectively negotiated outcomes. In such cases, collective action is unlikely to emerge in the absence of a
re-definition of property rights (Bromley and Hodge 1990) or bargaining over the
re-distribution of gains and losses. These have been marked with an asterisk in
Table 2.
Catalyzing self-governance
235
The diversity of collective action challenges identified by watershed residents
illustrates that the challenge is not just one of “individual decisions cumulating
to a tragic overuse and the potential destruction of an open-access commons”
(Ostrom et al. 1999, 278, in reference to Hardin 1968), but the absence of institutional solutions to induce individuals (or state management agencies) to account
for the social costs of their management decisions, to reconcile competing interests in the benefit streams emanating from private property and the commons, or
for neighbors to cooperate in optimizing returns from private property. Problems
of subtractability and free riding are features found not just in common pool
resources, but in different degrees across a range of resource forms and property
regimes, and are joined or compounded by externalities or simple inefficiencies
associated with individualized action. With such issues not featuring much in the
institutional literature, it begs the question of what the solutions to such dilemmas
might look like in practice.
4.2. Catalyzing self-governance
This section explores select case studies from Table 2 to illustrate the dynamics
through which collective action emerged or failed to take root through process
innovations.
4.2.1. Externalities and common interests in private property: damage to
private property from excess run-off
In the participatory diagnosis of landscape-level NRM concerns, excess run-off
emerged as a prominent concern of land users. With problem framings steeped
in crisis narratives surrounding population growth and land degradation (Tiffen
et al. 1994; Blaikie 1985) and long frustrated by farmers’ apparent indifference,
many site team members expressed surprised by farmers’ apparent concern with
“soil erosion”. Yet the framing of the problem differed both between sites and
between farmers and researchers in each site. In Ginchi, a participant in a focus
group discussion raised the issue of “loss of seed and fertilizer from excess runoff” as a concern. Later on, as the site team sat together to make sense of findings,
one team member had documented this as “soil erosion.” Present in the focus
group discussion and recalling the initial framing, I asked them to reflect back
on the farmer’s own words, and whether the two were in fact the same thing.
This conversation led to multiple realizations. First, the issue as expressed by the
farmer reflects a concern about the immediate economic costs of excess run-off
rather than loss of soil per se – which plays out over longer time frames. While
soil fertility was raised as a concern in several sites, it was not always linked to
erosion per se (in Areka, it was instead linked to changing government policy on
fertilizer subsidies – leading farmers to make fewer soil amendments, and leaving
the soil “addicted” to fertilizer once the subsidies dries up).
Secondly, if we are to view the issue through a lens of differentiated interests or ‘stakes’, misinterpreting farmers’ motivation as one of avoiding soil
236
Laura German
loss would mislead us into thinking that the primary motivation for intervention would lie with those experiencing the highest rates of soil loss historically
– typically upslope farmers. After looking into the institutional nature of the
challenge and associated collective action dilemmas, we came to realize that
the primary motivation for intervention tends to lie instead with farmers on the
lower slopes who experience the greatest losses (loss of or damage to seed,
fertilizer, crops, built infrastructure). Yet even this interpretation oversimplifies
things. Movement of soil across the landscape also matters, and how people at
different landscape locations experience the phenomenon depends not only on
the landscape location of their homes and fields but on the nature of the soil
being deposited. Soil deposition in downslope locations and valley bottoms in
Lushoto was initially experienced by those farming these areas as beneficial,
given the high fertility of the deposited topsoil. In later stages, however, they
complained of fertile valley bottoms (where the main cash crops are grown)
being buried by infertile subsoil. Soil deposition was no longer advantageous
to these farmers.
So how do these differentiated interests play into addressing the problem
expressed by farmers? First, viewing the issue as an exclusively biophysical
problem obscures the differentiated costs and benefits associated with the current situation and any efforts to address the “problem”. Furthermore, by viewing
it as a problem of soil loss rather than destruction of property or “soil gain”,
we misidentify those most likely to be motivated to invest in efforts to address
it. In the case of excess run-off, while downslope farmers are experiencing
most harm, “soil conservation” (infiltration and drainage) structures are actually needed on the upper slope – creating an imbalance in those bearing the
costs and those reaping the benefits of intervention. In Kabale, this problem was
addressed by facilitating negotiations between upslope and downslope farmers.
Upslope farmers had no interest in investing in structures on their land because
they had little to benefit from them, would have to allocate scarce land to these
structures, and they are labor-intensive to build. The negotiated solution was for
downslope farmers to do the hard work of building check-dams on these farmers’ fields, thereby minimizing the costs associated with action. This resulted in
major increases in farmer investment in water management structures as compared to prior efforts emphasizing a purely technological approach to problem
diagnosis and planning (with water trenches expanding anywhere from 47%
to over 2000% in different villages). Participatory by-law reforms allocating
duties to all hillslope farmers to build infiltration and drainage structures on
their land stood as a backdrop to these processes, and may well have incentivized upslope farmers to participate despite the costs to land area. Yet the primary
lessons from this case relate to the need to look beyond narrow framings of the
problem (“soil erosion”) to farmers’ own concerns; to view the problem and
interventions through an institutional lens; and to adequately understand differentiated interests and concerns to ensure that congruence between costs and
benefits (Principle 2B) is built into solutions.
Catalyzing self-governance
237
4.2.2. Inefficiencies of individualized action and common interests in
private land: control of vertebrate pests in Areka
Areka has long been recognized as a region of food insecurity, and targeted for
food aid (Balta 2016). One of the most salient concerns raised by farmers in this
site was crop damage from the crested porcupine, which not only resulted in major
losses of important staple crops but was associated with a heavy labor burden and
health problems linked to household efforts to police fields at night. With porcupines known to travel long distances in search for food (up to 15 km in a single
night9), individualized efforts to control the pest on very small plots (<0.5 ha on
average) were extremely inefficient.
On the surface, this appears to be an issue for which interests of all farmers
would be aligned. Yet by taking an institutional approach to problem identification and planning as outlined in the methodology – in particular the stakeholder
analysis and consultation, we were able to identify two collective action dilemmas. The first was associated with the crops grown by different farmers: some
grew crops highly susceptible to porcupine, while others grew crops that are
rarely affected. This made for highly uneven incentives for “provisioning”, in
the form of labor investment into porcupine control. The second dilemma was
that associated with the unevenness of local knowledge on porcupine control
– with one or two farmers widely recognized as being particularly skilled at
porcupine control. Often paid to control porcupine on their neighbors’ fields,
they were reluctant to share their coveted knowledge. Yet effective control of the
pest at landscape level depended on it. A third pseudo-dilemma also arose with
respect to farmers’ uneven participation in the Safety-Net Program, a cash-forwork program that pays food insecure households for time allocated to public
works (roads, schools, etc.). Households ineligible for this program were initially
uncooperative, arguing that it was the responsibility of Safety-Net farmers alone
to carry out community development works (German et al. 2012). Negotiation
support strategies targeted these collective action dilemmas by bringing diverse
interest groups to the table.
Further planning with those knowledgeable about local control methods highlighted the need to adapt the control method to particular landscape niches, for
example graveyards where digging is not possible. A list of landscape level “treatments” was therefore devised and applied on designated “mass mobilization” days
(Begashaw et al. 2007). Short training sessions were given by farmers knowledgeable about local control efforts and by site team members knowledgeable
about chemical control methods, and agreements were reached on who is to contribute to which control methods in which landscape niches. Local by-laws were
formulated to support the actions agreed upon through targeted negotiations and
through village-level planning of the coordinated application of different control
9
http://www.arkive.org/north-african-crested-porcupine/hystrix-cristata/video-09a.html (accessed
June 12, 2017).
238
Laura German
methods in different niches.10 Negotiations in this site assumed the form of “moral
persuasion” (local government to watershed residents, and among residents themselves) rather than neutral facilitation of dialogue, and were thus less effective in
balancing differentiated interests and concerns and ensuring congruence between
the costs and benefits of action. Negotiations with those knowledgeable of local
pest control methods led to these individuals bearing the costs of action (foregone
future income streams) for the benefit of the majority, and negotiations surrounding the Safety Net program led to the joint conclusion that porcupines are a problem to both parties and affect each group equally, requiring efforts by all. Yet the
intervention was hugely successful in addressing the problem. 958 porcupines
were killed or trapped during the month when crop damage is typically at its peak,
and farmers reported 80% reductions in crop damage, reduction in illnesses due
to weather exposure, and – perhaps most salient in the minds of local residents – a
reduction in time spent policing fields at night.
This case study highlights the need to look beyond discrete property regimes
to the common interests at stake in the management of private land. It also highlights the inefficiencies of individualized action for certain types of environmental challenges. Where these inefficiencies are of significant magnitude, they may
serve as a powerful constraint to mobilizing behind a common cause – even despite
the incongruencies between provisioning and the resulting benefit streams. As for
the principles of long-enduring common property regimes, this case illustrates
the benefits of acknowledging divergent stakes in the negotiation process and
resulting by-laws (Principles 1A and 3) in engendering buy-in to collective action
processes. This last finding resonates with the finding that procedural forms of
legitimacy often serve to offset limitations in substantive legitimacy (Suchman
1995). The case also illustrates the need to match the scale of the institutional
solution to the scale of the problem, which is broadly in line with Principle 1B.
4.2.3. Managing exclusion in common pool resources and common interests
in state property: from conflict to co-management in Mount Elgon National
Park
People-park relations surrounding Mount Elgon have a troubled and at times violent history. The mountain’s forests and moorlands were once inhabited by Benet
hunter-gatherers. When the British declared the area a Crown forest and gazetted
it as a forest reserve in the 1930s, they rendered ongoing occupation and use of
the reserve illegal with the stroke of a pen. Yet through an informal understanding, customary residents were allowed to continue hunting and gathering in the
forest and cultivating the moorlands – an arrangement that had been fairly effective in keeping forests intact (German et al. 2012). When the area was designated Mount Elgon Forest Park in 1983, all people still residing within the park’s
boundaries were forced to leave. When it was later designated a National Park, the
10
Prior to doing so, team members looked into the protected status of porcupine to ensure they are
not endangered. Classified as Least Concern on the IUCN Red List, the control efforts proceeded.
Catalyzing self-governance
239
park’s management shifted from the Forest Department to the Uganda Wildlife
Authority – leading to tighter restrictions on access. Grazing and cultivation in
the moorlands were banned, and any remaining houses burnt down – further souring relations between customary users and the Ugandan government. While local
forest guards came to accept bribes from local elites (many of them from ethnic
groups with no customary claims to the area) to harvest resources illegally, Benet
women entering the park to gather forest products without paying bribes were
physically abused. A government-induced resource tragedy was in the making
(see Feeny et al. 1990; Bromley 1991; Blewett 1995).
Here, the roots of the collective action dilemma are largely ideological: ideologies linked to Western notions of wilderness and the nature-culture dichotomy,
and negative stereotypes about the harmful effects of local resource management
practices. By forcefully removing not just Benet residents but also their institutions from forests and rangelands, any existing controls on access were eroded.
Being replaced by state institutions unable to regulate access (address the exclusion challenge) on their own, the area was now being exploited not just by neighboring Benet communities with customary rights in the area, but by outsiders. The
primary collective action dilemma thus existed at the level of park guards, whose
personal interests trumped the collective interests of both the Benet and the wider
conservation community. In the process, both conservation and livelihood aims
were undermined.
The intervention consisted of efforts to consult both sides on their views
and grievances. We found that those at higher levels within UWA were highly
motivated to address the exclusion problem as well as to implement co-management policies passed in 1995 but never implemented on Mount Elgon due to the
extreme animosity marking UWA’s relationship with local communities. Part of
this motivation stemmed from an ongoing court case brought by the Benet against
the Government of Uganda. Early steps in the process involved trust-building
and sensitization on the perspectives of the other party. To engage in dialogue,
UWA wanted some assurance that biodiversity conservation would be pursued
as a “bottom line” objective in the process. The Benet were seeking recognition for their customary rights to the area and grievances, as well as concrete
livelihood improvements. A first gesture of reconciliation was needed to break
the impasse. In need of wood and fodder, community members had expressed an
interest in seedlings being grown in UWA nurseries – providing one such opportunity. Following the provision of seedlings to the community, a multi-stakeholder
dialogue was scheduled and facilitators worked with both parties ahead of time to
prepare for dialogue. Community members were asked ahead of time to identify
and consider how to best to advance their interests while posing no significant
threat to the conservation objectives of UWA. During the meeting, the two interest groups successfully negotiated rights and duties for co-management, legalizing rights to harvest certain non-timber forest products (e.g. honey, bamboo
shoots) in exchange for community assistance in reporting illegal activities within
park boundaries. This case study illustrates how conflict resolution may be needed
240
Laura German
as an input to self-organization (or co-management) as well as a product of it
(Principle 6). To move beyond the impasse in this case, it was also necessary to
address head-on the perceived or real risks of engagement keeping people from
dialogue – whether by acknowledging UWA’s concerns over bottom lines or considering the implications of engagement for the Benet’s court case. It also illustrates the crucial importance of getting the boundaries between “legitimate users”
and “nonusers” right (Principle 1A). By failing to differentiate between those with
legitimate historical claims to the area and others, UWA had compromised their
ability to effectively regulate access by tapping into the interests of local people to
also defend their interests by restricting access to outsiders. Yet for local community members to engage in such provisioning, it was necessary to restore benefit
flows of value to them by involving them in the modification of rules governing
access (Principles 2B and 3).
4.2.4. Common pool resource challenges: resource degradation in hybrid
tenure regimes in Ginchi
In Ginchi site, extensive unfenced outfield areas are nutrient-poor and almost
devoid of trees. Most “investments” (manure, high-value crops, trees) are channeled to fenced infields located adjacent to homesteads. Farmers identified multiple problems associated with outfield management: declining quality and quantity
of water in springs, loss of indigenous tree species, loss of seed and fertilizer from
excess run-off, low soil fertility, and feed and fuel shortage (in order of importance). Institutions play a decisive role in shaping the status quo. While infields are
always managed as private property, tenure regimes in outfields rotate both spatially
and seasonally – involving various combinations of private farmland, restricted
access grazing (common property) and unrestricted grazing (open access). During
the rainy season, villages designate some hillslopes for annual crop production in
private plots and others for restricted access grazing, switching them during the
subsequent rainy season. With the absence of rules governing dung collection, all
dung that falls in the restricted access grazing areas is collected for fuel and for soil
fertility amendments for nutrient-rich infield plots – mining outfields of nutrients.
During the dry season, both areas (private farmland, restricted access grazing) shift
to open access, with livestock free to roam between villages. Before liberating
private cropland to open access, livestock are left to graze crop residues as a way
to privatize benefit streams. Nutrients are further mined through this process. With
the absence of perennial vegetation, fertilizers that are applied are readily washed
away through run-off. In this site, integrated approaches involving perennial vegetation and/or soil bunds to enhance infiltration; drainage ditches to channel water
from fields; and cash crops (to incentivize investments) were envisioned to address
the identified problems in an integrated manner. Farmers had gone on a cross-site
visit to a region of Ethiopia famous for its soil and water conservation and outfield
innovations, and were enthusiastic to apply some of the lessons back at home.
However, the complexity of the institutional challenge proved too great to overcome for most of the outfield challenges.
Catalyzing self-governance
241
Broadly speaking, the two main interest groups identified through the stakeholder analysis include village residents and outsiders, with whom norms of reciprocal grazing access prevail. Yet shifting from open to restricted access commons
in the dry season was not seen as feasible given the loss in reciprocity that would
ensue with neighboring villages (and related benefit streams) and the difficulty of
regulating access with the main road passing through the village. Farmers then
considered the possibility of establishing trees (e.g. apple) and “soil conservation”
(water infiltration) structures through a gradual approach, one small area of the
catchment at a time, by restricting all livestock (even village livestock) until trees
matured enough to resist trampling and browsing. Yet collective action dilemmas also emerged in an abstract sense in the course of planning. Those farmers
with infields in the designated area were seen as gaining an unfair advantage by
grazing their livestock on other people’s fields without reciprocating for a period
of time, something that was flatly rejected. Finally, it was agreed that common
drainage ditches would be established, cutting across farmers’ fields. Yet even
there, collective action dilemmas emerged from farmers’ resistance to allocate
a portion of their barley plots to these structures. While it may have been in the
interests of all to better manage drainage, it was in the interests of none to host
the structures required to do so. What this case study illustrates is that failure to
effectively reconcile the costs and benefits associated with institutional innovation (Principle 2B) may pose insurmountable barriers to addressing even highly
salient environmental challenges, even when motivations exist to do so. This is in
part shaped by the nature of the collective action dilemma. When these dilemmas
are compound and multi-faceted, as illustrated here, they are extremely challenging to address even through institutional approaches. This case also highlights
the level of theoretical and methodological sophistication required of the facilitation team, in understanding the nature of collective action challenges, how they
constrain options for institutional innovation, and its implications for the creative
management of the deliberative process.
5. Discussion and conclusions
Work by political scientists and others has highlighted the ability of self-organized
groups of resource users to sustain common pool resources through self-governance arrangements, thus questioning widespread assumptions about the harm
caused in communal management and the inevitability of public and private property regimes. Elinor Ostrom’s work, in particular, highlighted key design principles that enabled groups of users to overcome collective action dilemmas and
in so doing, sustain both the resource and local livelihoods (Ostrom 1990). This
paper explores the relevance of Ostrom’s design principles not in sustaining longenduring common property regimes, but in catalyzing solutions to entrenched
environmental challenges where self-governance is weak or absent. It explores
this question in the context of an ecoregional research-for-development program
operating in eastern Africa, the African Highlands Initiative.
242
Laura German
The paper illustrates that beneath challenges which are widely perceived to
be biophysical in nature and thereby best suited to technological solutions (soil
erosion, pest management, etc.), are a suite of incentive structures and social
dynamics which have served as barriers to the resolution of concerns that are
otherwise highly salient locally. Within each of these environmental challenges
lie collective action dilemmas that call for social and institutional responses. Yet
such responses must not just be built on apolitical understandings of institutions
which assume voluntary exchanges between relatively equal actors with a common purpose of mutually welfare-enhancing outcomes (Gibson 1999). Rather,
they must explicitly recognize the distributive nature of the status quo, and the
re-distributive nature of efforts to modify it. Without efforts to proactively surface divergent interests and foster negotiations surrounding the acceptability of
redistributive options, the costs of innovation will be too high – thereby hindering
efforts to address identified problems. Failure to recognize the inherently social
and political underpinnings of “environmental” challenges undoubtedly constrains their effective resolution, and contributes to the ongoing failure of technological solutions – such as the decades-long, largely unsuccessful effort to get
farmers to adopt soil conservation technologies.
The nature of identified collective action dilemmas was highly variable. Some
involved classic exclusion and subtractability challenges associated with common
pool resources, such as rangeland degradation, extirpation of culturally important
indigenous tree and fodder species, and spring degradation. Other dilemmas were
found to involve classic externality problems shaping interactions among adjacent units of private property (e.g. farm boundary management, pest management,
drainage), or externalities between private farmland and common pool resources
(e.g. springs found within private farmland) or between public and private property regimes (e.g. people-park interactions). Still others involved inefficiencies
of individualized action, or common interests in the management or allocation
of state or private property. The challenge is therefore not just one of “individual
decisions cumulating to a tragic overuse and the potential destruction of an openaccess commons” (Ostrom et al. 1999, 278, in reference to Hardin 1968), but the
absence of institutional solutions to induce individuals or households to account
for the social costs of their natural resource management decisions, to reconcile
competing interests in the benefit streams emanating from individual and communal landholdings, or for neighbors to cooperate in optimizing returns from their
investments in private property. Difficulty of exclusion and subtractability are
features found not just in common pool resources, but in different degrees across
a range of resource forms and property regimes, and are joined or compounded by
externalities or simple inefficiencies associated with individualized action. Thus,
the hard-earned lessons surrounding common pool resources may have a wider
relevance beyond the commons and discrete property regimes.
The paper also illustrates the utility of applying principles of long-enduring
common property regimes to contemporary resource challenges for which motivations for action exist, but institutional arrangements to translate those motivations
Catalyzing self-governance
243
into action are absent. This utility is not restricted to common pool resources, but
applies also to complex and heterogeneous landscapes involving a diversity of
natural resource forms, tenure regimes and collective action problems.
A look at the case studies presented in the article highlights a few fundamental lessons for catalyzing self-governance not just for common pool resources,
but across a diversity of hybrid regimes and coupled collective action dilemmas.
First, each case has its own unique dynamics, requiring that solutions be tailored to those dynamics. On the other hand, a set of generic facilitation strategies
informed by the principles of long-enduring common property regimes (and collective action challenges more generally) provide a basic scaffolding for processbased solutions to many of these challenges. This illustrates that many of the same
principles identified by Ostrom for long-enduring common property regimes are
also essential in moving beyond the impasse between motivation and action in
addressing collective action dilemmas across private property and hybrid tenure regimes. While for each case, certain of these principles stand out above the
others, a few of them are recurring across a diverse suite of collective action
dilemmas. The need for congruence between appropriation and provision rules
for all interest groups, and for those interest groups to negotiate collective choice
rules amongst themselves, are key. Crucially, collective action dilemmas seem
to remain intractable without Coasean-type solutions to negotiation that help to
bring the costs of collaboration and divergent interests to the surface, and to align
appropriation and provisioning in the process of forging solutions agreeable to all
interest groups. This is especially true for social dilemmas rooted in the (re-)distribution of benefits (and costs) (Heckathorn 1996). Here, appropriation must be
conceived of broadly as any of a number of benefits (e.g. resource access, reduced
labor or material losses, improved relations with neighbors), and provisioning as
costs – whether in the form of labor inputs, land loss, reduced benefit streams, or
ceding authority and control. The centrality of these two principles in particular,
and of the processes through which they are operationalized in forging solutions,
points to the micro-politics of resource management and to the crucial role of surfacing and enabling overt confrontation of competing interests in land in efforts
to address “environmental” problems.
Self-governance is thus not just a feature of long-enduring common property
regimes, but may be catalyzed in situations in which it is absent and to address
diverse types of collective action problems. Yet what is the feasibility of doing
so? The paper highlights that the design principles themselves – achieving congruence, using these negotiated agreements to formulate collective choices rules,
and monitoring planning and actions – raise their own set of practical barriers to
self-organized collective action. Here, the role of (external) facilitation was key
to overcoming these barriers in two important respects. First, outside facilitation helped to bear the transaction and start-up costs of collective organizing for
addressing identified collective action problems. It was also crucial in overcoming the tendency for latent conflict and entrenched interests in the status quo to
stymy the face-to-face interaction so essential for building trust and negotiat-
244
Laura German
ing solutions with acceptable re-distributive consequences (Ostrom and Walker
1997). Central to the latter was the design of facilitation strategies to identify
and bring those both harmed and benefiting from the status quo to the negotiating table, and the emphasis on minimizing costs to both parties while identifying
mutually acceptable solutions. Without such intentionality in the identification of
diverse interest groups and facilitated deliberation over the handling of the redistributive effects of institutional and technological change, process may simply
reinforce existing social hierarchies (Platteau 2000; Rydin and Pennington 2000)
or fail to bring change due to the perceived stakes for those deriving benefit from
inaction.
Yet what are the prospects for institutionalizing such an approach within local
communities or organizations? While building such capacity within rural communities would be ideal, the need for neutrality in the face of local political dynamics
may pose challenges to all but the most sociable, respected and local facilitators.
The alternative would be to equip organizations with a widespread presence in
rural landscapes, such as agricultural extension and resource management professionals, with new mandates (landscape, participation, equity), facilitation tools,
and the perspectives and ideological alignments required to deploy them in ways
that are sensitive to local social and political dynamics. Such a process would
require nothing less than a re-theorization of resource challenges and their causes,
to render visible their institutional and political dynamics and the promise of theoretically-informed facilitation processes in addressing them. While this is no easy
task, our experience suggests it is achievable – provided the organizational leadership is on board. While the choice involves clear trade-offs, the relative promise
of each is itself a question for further action research.
Literature cited
Agrawal, A. 2005. Environmentality: Community, Intimate Government, and the
Making of Environmental Subjects in Kumaon, India. Current Anthropology
46(2):161–190.
Avison, D. E., F. Lau, M. D. Myers, and P. A. Nielsen. 1999. Action Research.
Communications of the ACM 42(1):94–97.
Balta, A. 2016. Determinants of Rural Household Food Security in Wolaita Zone,
South Ethiopia. Journal of Poverty, Investment and Development 29:1–9.
Baskerville, R. and T. Wood-Harper. 1996. A Critical Perspective on Action
Research as a Method for Information Systems Research. Journal of Information
Technology 11(3):235–246.
Bavington, D. 2010. Managed Annihilation: An Unnatural History of the
Newfoundland Cod Collapse. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Begashaw, L., W. Mazengia, and L. German. 2007. Mobilizing Collective Action
for Vertebrate Pest Control: The Case of Porcupine in Areka. AHI Brief E3.
Bell, S. 1994. Methods and Mindsets: Towards an Understanding of the Tyranny
of Methodology. Public Administration and Development 14(4):323–338.
Catalyzing self-governance
245
Berkes, F., D. Feeny, B. McCay, and J. M. Acheson. 1989. The Benefits of the
Commons. Nature 340:91–93.
Biddle, W. W. and L. J. Biddle. 1965. The Community Development Process: The
Rediscovery of Local Initiative. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Blaikie, P. 1985. The Political Economy of Soil Erosion in Developing Countries.
London: Longman.
Blewett, R. A. 1995. Property Rights as a Cause of the Tragedy of the Commons:
Institutional change and the Pastoral Maasai of Kenya. Eastern Economic
Journal 21(4):477–490.
Borras, S. M. and J. C. Franco. 2012. Global Land Grabbing and Trajectories
of Agrarian Change: A Preliminary Analysis. Journal of Agrarian Change
12(1):34–59.
Bromley, D. W. 1991. Environment and Economy: Property Rights and Public
Policy. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell, Inc.
Bromley, D. and I. Hodge. 1990. Private Property Rights and Presumptive Policy
Entitlements: Reconsidering the Premises of Rural Policy. European Review of
Agricultural Economics 17(2):197–214.
Brosius, J. P., A. L. Tsing, and C. Zerner. 1998. Representing Communities:
Histories and Politics of Community-Based Natural Resource Management.
Society & Natural Resources 11(2):157–168.
Buck, L. E., C. C. Geisler, J. Schelhas, and E. Wollenberg, eds. 2001. Biological
Diversity: Balancing Interests through Adaptive Collaborative Management.
Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Byerlee, D. and R. Tripp. 1988. Strengthening Linkages in Agricultural Research
through a Farming Systems Perspective: The Role of Social Scientists.
Experimental Agriculture 24:137–151.
Campbell, L. M. and A. Vainio-Mattila. 2003. Participatory Development and
Community Conservation: Opportunities Missed for Lessons Learned? Human
Ecology 31:417–437.
Chambers, R. 1983. Rural Development: Putting the Last First. London: Longman.
Chambers, R. 1994a. The Origins and Practice of Participatory Rural Appraisal.
World Development 22(7):953–969.
Chambers, R. 1994b. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Analysis of Experience.
World Development 22:1253–1268.
Chambers, R. 1997. Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. London: IT
Publications.
Checkland, P. 1991. From Framework through Experience to Learning: The
Essential Nature of Action Research. In Information Systems Research:
Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, eds. H. E. Nissen, H. K.
Klein and R. Hirschheim, 397–403. North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers.
Checkland, P. and S. Holwell. 1998. Action Research: Its Nature and Validity.
Systemic Practice and Action Research 11(1):9–21.
Coase, R. 1960. The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law and Economics
3:1−44.
246
Laura German
Colfer, C. J. P. 2005. The Complex Forest. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for
International Forestry Research.
Cooke, B. and U. Kothari, eds. 2001. Participation: The New Tyranny? London:
Zed Books.
Cornes, R. and T. Sandler. 1996. The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and
Club Goods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cox, M., G. Arnold, and S. Villamayor Tomás. 2010. A Review of Design
Principles for Community-Based Natural Resource Management. Ecology and
Society 15(4):38.
DeFilippis, J., R. Fisher, and E. Shragge. 2010. Contesting Community: The Limits
and Potential of Local Organizing. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Demsetz, H. 1967. Toward a Theory of Property Rights. The American Economic
Review 57(2):347–359.
Farrington, J. and N. Martin. 1987. Farmer Participatory Research: A Review
of Concepts and Practices. Agricultural Administration Network Paper 19.
London: ODI.
Feeny, D., F. Berkes, B. McCay, and J. Acheson. 1990. The Tragedy of the
Commons: Twenty-Two Years Later. Human Ecology 18(1):1−19.
Ferguson, J. 1995. From African Socialism to Scientific Capitalism: Reflections
on the Legitimation Crisis in IMF-Ruled Africa. In Debating Development
Discourse: Popular and Institutionalist Perspectives, eds. D. Moore and G.
Schmitz, 129–148. New York: St. Martins Press.
Flam, H. 2000. The Emotional Man and the Problem of Collective Action.
Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Translation: Myra Ramos.
German, L. and A. Stroud. 2007. A Framework for the Integration of Diverse
Learning Approaches: Operationalizing Agricultural Research and Development
(R&D) Linkages in Eastern Africa. World Development 35(5):792–814.
German, L., H. Mansoor, G. Alemu, W. Mazengia, T. Amede, and A. Stroud.
2007a. Participatory Integrated Watershed Management: Evolution of Concepts
and Methods in an Ecoregional Program of the Eastern African highlands.
Agricultural Systems 94(2):189–204.
German, L., K. Mekonnen, J. Mowo, E. Geta, and T. Amede. 2007b. A SociallyOptimal Approach to Participatory Watershed Diagnosis. AHI Methods Guide
B2.
German, L., W. Mazengia, H. Taye, M. Tsegaye, S. Charamila, and J. Wickama.
2009. Minimizing the Livelihood Trade-offs of Natural Resource Management
in the Eastern African Highlands: Policy Implications of a Project in “Creative
Governance.” Human Ecology 38(1):31–47.
German, L., A.-M. Tiani, A. Daoudi, T. Mutimukuru Maravanyika, E. Chuma, C.
Jum, N. Nemarundwe, E. Ontita, and G. Yitamben. 2012. The Application of
Participatory Action Research to Climate Change Adaptation in Africa. Ottawa,
Canada and Bogor, Indonesia: International Development Research Centre and
Center for International Forestry Research.
Catalyzing self-governance
247
Gibson, C. C. 1999. Politicians and Poachers: The Political Economy of Wildlife
Policy in Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibson, C. C. and S. A. Marks. 1995. Transforming Rural Hunters into
Conservationists: An Assessment of Community-Based Wildlife Management
Programs in Africa. World Development 23:941–957.
Goldman, M. J. 2011. Strangers in their Own Land: Maasai and Wildlife
Conservation in Northern Tanzania. Conservation and Society 9:65–79.
Greiner, C. 2012. Unexpected Consequences: Wildlife Conservation and
Territorial Conflict in Northern Kenya. Human Ecology 40(3):415–425.
Hagmann, J. and E. Chuma. 2002. Enhanding the Adaptive Capacity of the
Resource Users in Natural Resource Management. Agricultural Systems
73(2002):23–39.
Hall, D., P. Hirsch, and T. M. Li. 2011. Intimate Exclusions: Everyday
Accumulation and Dispossession. In Powers of Exclusion: Land Dilemmas
in Southeast Asia, eds. D. Hall, P. Hirsch, and T. M. Li, 145–169. Honolulu:
University of Hawai’i Press.
Hand, J. L. 1986. Resolution of Social Conflicts: Dominance, Egalitarianism,
Spheres of Dominance, and Game Theory. The Quarterly Review of Biology
61(2):201–220.
Hardin, G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162:1243−1248.
Hardin, R. 2011. Concessionary Politics: Property, Patronage, and Political
Rivalry in Central African Forest Management. Current Anthropology
52(S3):S113–S125.
Haverkort, B., J. van der Kamp, and A. Waters-Bayer. 1991. Joining Farmers’
Experiments: Experiences in Participatory Technology Development. London:
IT Publications, 269.
Heckathorn, D. D. 1996. The Dynamics and Dilemmas of Collective Action.
American Sociological Review 61(2):250–277.
Herr, K. and G. L. Anderson. 2015. The Action Research Dissertation. London:
Sage Publications Inc.
Hilgers, M. 2010. The Three Anthropological Approaches to Neoliberalism.
International Social Science Journal 61(202):351–364.
Horwich, R. H. and J. Lyon. 2007. Community Conservation: Practitioners’
Answer to Critics. Oryx 41(3):376–385.
Hult, M. and S.-A. Lennung. 1980. Towards a Definition of Action Research: A
Note and Bibliography. Journal of Management Studies 17:241–250. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1980.tb00087.x.
Hume, D. 1740. A Treatise of Human Nature. 538 (Book 3, Part 2, § 7) (1740,
Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1965).
Igoe, J., S. Sullivan, and D. Brockington. 2009. Problematising Neoliberal
Biodiversity Conservation: Displaced and Disobedient Knowledge. Current
Conservation 3(3):24–26.
Kemmis, S., R. McTaggart, and R. Nixon. 2014. The Action Research Planner:
Doing Critical Participatory Action Research. Singapore: Springer.
248
Laura German
Knight, J. 1992. Institutions and Social Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Krier, J. E. 2009. Evolutionary Theory and the Origin of Property Rights. Law &
Economics Working Papers Archive: 2003-2009 Article 98.
Lichbach, M. I. 1996. The Cooperator’s Dilemma. Ann Arbor: The University of
Michigan Press.
McCutcheon, G. and B. Jung. 1990. Alternative Perspectives on Action Research.
Theory into Practice 29(3):144–151.
McGinnis, M. and E. Ostrom. 1992. Design Principles for Local and Global
Commons. Paper Presented at the Conference, ‘Linking Local and Global
Commons,’ Harvard Center for International Affairs, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
April 23–25, 1992.
Mosse, D. 2005. Cultivating Development: An Ethnography of Aid Policy and
Practice. London: Pluto Press.
Mosse, D., J. Farrington, and A. Rew. 1998. Development as Process: Concepts and
Methods for Working with Complexity. London and New York: Routledge/ODI.
Murphree, M. W. 1995. Optimal Principles and Pragmatic Strategies: Creating an
Enabling Politico-Legal Environment for Community Based Natural Resource
Management (CBNRM). Keynote address at the Conference of the Natural
Resources Management Programme, SADC Technical Coordination Unit
Malawi, USAID-NRMP Regional, Chobe, Botswana, 3rd April 1995.
Olson, M. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Ostrom, E. 1986. Issues of Definition and Theory: Some Conclusions and
Hypotheses. Proceedings of the Conference on Common Property Resource
Management, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 599–615.
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for
Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, E. 2000. Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms. Journal
of Economic Perspectives 14(3):137–158.
Ostrom, E. and C. Hess. 2008. Private and Common Property Rights. Encyclopedia
of Law & Economics. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. http://papers.ssrn.com/
sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1304699.
Ostrom, E. and J. Walker. 1997. Neither Markets Nor States: Linking Transformation
Processes in Collective Action Arenas. In Perspectives on Public Choice: A
Handbook, ed. D. C. Mueller, 35–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, E., J. Burger, C. B. Field, R. B. Norgaard, and D. Policansky. 1999.
Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges. Science
284(5412):278–282. DOI: 10.1126/science.284.5412.278.
Peluso, N. 1993. Coercing Conservation? The Politics of State Resource Control.
Global Environmental Change 3(2):199–217.
Pigou, A. 1932. The Economics of Welfare, 4th ed. London: Macmillan and Co.
Platteau, J.-P. 2000. Institutions, Social Norms, and Economic Development.
London: Routledge.
Catalyzing self-governance
249
Ribot, J. 2004. Waiting for Democracy: The Politics of Choice in Natural Resource
Decentralization. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
Ribot, J. C. and N. L. Peluso. 2003. A Theory of Access. Rural Sociology
68(2):153–181.
Robbins, P., K. McSweeney, A. K. Chhangani, and J. L. Rice. 2009. Conservation
as it is: Illicit Resource Use in a Wildlife Reserve in India. Human Ecology
37:559–575.
Rydin, Y. and M. Pennington. 2000. Public Participation and Local Environmental
Planning: the Collective Action Problem and the Potential of Social Capital.
Local Environment 5(2):153–169.
Schlager, E. 2004. Common-Pool Resource Theory. In Environmental Governance
Reconsidered: Challenges, Choices, and Opportunities, eds. R. F. Durant, D. J.
Fiorino, and R. O’Leary, 145–175. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schlager, E. and E. Ostrom. 1992. Common Property and Natural Resources: A
Conceptual Analysis. Land Economics 68(3):249–262.
Sikor, T. and C. Lund. 2009. The Politics of Possession: Property, Authority and
Access to Natural Resources. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.
Sikor, T., E. Varlosius, and W. Scheumann. 2008. Introduction: Public-Private
Relations and Key Policy Issues in Natural Resource Governance. In Public
and Private in Natural Resource Governance: A False Dichotomy? ed. T. Sikor,
1–20. London: Earthscan.
Stirrat, R. L. and H. Henkel. 1997. The Development Gift: The Problem of
Reciprocity in the NGO World. The Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science 554:66–80.
Suchman, M. 1995. Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches.
The Academy of Management Review 20(3):571–610.
Thebaud, B. and S. Batterbury. 2001. Sahel Pastoralists: Opportunism,
Struggle, Conflict and Negotiation: a Case Study from Eastern Niger. Global
Environmental Change 11:69–78.
Thompson, M. and K. Homewood. 2002. Entrepreneurs, Elites, and Exclusion
in Maasailand: Trends in Wildlife Conservation and Pastoralist Development.
Human Ecology 30(1):107–138.
Tiffen, M., M. Mortimore, and F. Gichuki. 1994. More People, Less Erosion:
Environmental Recovery in Kenya. Chichester: Wiley.
van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. 2010. Externality or Sustainability Economics?
Ecological Economics 69(2010):2047–2052.
Walters-Bayer, A. 1989. Participatory Technology Development in EcologicallyOriented Agriculture: Some Approaches and Tools. Agricultural Administration
Network Paper 7. London: ODI.
World Bank. 2000. World Development Report 1999/2000: Entering the 21st
Century. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Young, O. R. 2003. Environmental Governance: The Role of Institutions in
Causing and Confronting Environmental Problems. International Environmental
Agreements 3(4):377–393.
250
Laura German
Appendix
Table A1: Ostrom’s design principles of long-enduring common property regimes, as modified
by Cox et al. (2010).
Principle
Description
1A
User boundaries: Clear boundaries between legitimate users and nonusers must be clearly
defined.
Resource boundaries: Clear boundaries are present that define a resource system and
separate it from the larger biophysical environment.
Congruence with local conditions: Appropriation and provision rules are congruent with
local social and environmental conditions.
Appropriation and provision: The benefits obtained by users from a common-pool resource
(CPR), as determined by appropriation rules, are proportional to the amount of inputs
required in the form of labor, material, or money, as determined by provision rules.
Collective-choice arrangements: Most individuals affected by the operational rules can
participate in modifying the operational rules.
Monitoring users: Monitors who are accountable to the users monitor the appropriation and
provision levels of the users.
Monitoring the resource: Monitors who are accountable to the users monitor the condition of
the resource.
Graduated sanctions: Appropriators who violate operational rules are likely to be assessed
graduated sanctions (depending on the seriousness and the context of the offense) by other
appropriators, by officials accountable to the appropriators, or by both.
Conflict-resolution mechanisms: Appropriators and their officials have rapid access to low-cost
local arenas to resolve conflicts among appropriators or between appropriators and officials.
Minimal recognition of rights to organize: The rights of appropriators to devise their own
institutions are not challenged by external governmental authorities.
Nested enterprises: Appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution,
and governance activities are organized in multiple layers of nested enterprises.
1B
2A
2B
3
4A
4B
5
6
7
8