Listening: Andrew Explains the Commons (It Could Happen Here)

Oct 30, 2022 • 28 min

Andrew walks James and Gare through the history and theory of the institution of the Commons.

Andrew Explains the Commons (on Youtube as Andrewism)

Principles to Self-Govern Managing the Commons

1. Boundaries of users and resource are clear

2. Congruence between benefits and costs

3. Users had procedures for making own rules

4. Regular monitoring of users and resource conditions

5. Graduated sanctions

6. Conflict resolution mechanisms

7. Minimal recognition of rights by government

8. Nested enterprises

Clearly defined boundaries
having a clear sense of the structure and characteristics of the resource system itself by those involved: the appropriators of the commons, the people who are directly accessing the commons
in individual instances of common pool of resources, whether it be a forest, or a fishery, or a lake or groundwater basin, the people most directly accessing those that that segment of the commons/that system/that common pool resource, need to have a clear sense of exactly what that resource entails the limits of that resource – the renewability of that resource, and who is involved in withdrawing from and sustaining that resource so that they’re able to collaborate.
Elinor Ostrom talks about the Tragedy of the commons
- everybody’s just this isolated actor, not communicating at all, not collaborating
- End up like the tragedy of the commons, where the system is depleted, because nobody has a sense of what anybody else is doing because there’s no open channel of communication

Appropriation and provision rules of the commons are compatible with local conditions.
with consensus, with this institution of collective decision making people will be able to come up with and modify the rules as it suits their situations and suits their shift in circumstances
need to have some sense of shared norms and developing those shared norms over time regarding behavior, reputation and one’s reputation will play a role
If you are going to be consistently violating the commons rules, they’re going to be social consequences
just because the commons exists doesn’t mean that people are free of the consequences of how they use those commons
- just because you can cut down all the trees in the forest doesn’t mean you’re free of the consequences from cutting on the trees that for your actions is still going to have consequences, whether it be environmental, or social.
- that’s also why 80% of the planet’s biodiversity is being protected by a very small percentage of indigenous people, because they are on the ground, because they are interacting with the systems in real time, they’re able to respond directly and quickly to changes in that biodiversity, to changes in behaviour, in order to maintain and sustain that system.

collective decision making power to establish those rules
an institution in place that those who are drawn from the commons are able to come together and discuss the rules of the commons, how they’re going to draw from the commons, how are they going to deal with the commons, how are they going to deal with each other as they deal with the Commons

monitoring to ensure those rules are compatible with people and conditions
monitoring the system continuously, you begin to learn what rules work, and what rules don’t.
you can adapt your rules to suit the circumstances to suit how people actually behave, which is something that centralized and hierarchical institutions have a bit of trouble doing.
Whereas the pyramid structure of a hierarchical and centralized organization, the further up the pyramid/centralized, the more power there is, but also less information.
- because the narrowing of the pyramid leads to less and less information from the bottom filter and up to the top.
- when you have these centralized institutions, rules are a lot more rigid, because they’re not able to respond quickly and effectively.
- indigenous groups and anybody who is grounded in the local context is able to most effectively engage and respond because they have access to that information,
  - they’re able to see the shocks to the system, the buffers, what works, what doesn’t
  - permaculturists are able to have these intensive systems because they are constantly monitoring the feedback that that gets in from their systems.

accountability and systems of accountability, through graduated sanctions
graduated sanctions to ensure that rules kept up with and the comments are protected from potential threats
empathy should be maintained throughout the process
when you have a system in which a lot of people are dependent on the sustainability, not just people alive right now, but generations to come (and that’s not something we’re accustomed to thinking about), need to have standards and protections in place
can’t do as the capitalists do

conflict resolution mechanisms because humans are going to human
We live in a society and society includes conflict, conflict is not always necessarily a bad thing.
- But it’s a thing and you can ignore it and expect it to go away.
Humans are going to human, you know, we make mistakes, we have disagreements
- there needs to be some sort of means of discussing and resolving conflict in a healthy and effective way.
A lot of communities egalitarian communities throughout history, have used some sort of system of mediation. There’s also arbitration, which tends to be more common in state societies.

freedom to organize, particularly in the fragile early stages of establishing these projects
this principle is the basis upon which the other principles rest.
In some places, people have a lot of autonomy to self organize free of state control.
In other places, there’s a lot of state encroachments on the commons, because that has been the mission of the states to further their tendrils in every sphere of life and existence.
one of the end goals, the complete abolition of the state.

e.g.: a particular community is accessing a commerce institution that other communities are accessing, or if the commons that a group of communities are accessing are a part of a larger regional Commons/archipelagic Commons/or Continental Commons they want to have means of collaboration
bottom up organizations – maintain the power the local level while coordinating these larger scale Commons
ensuring that there’s a smooth running and smooth communication between the appropriators, (people involved)