Polycentric governance as an instrument for promoting benefit sharing

Polycentric governance as an instrument for promoting benefit sharing Presentation by: Busani Masiri & Nkosinomusa N. Ncube MONASH SOUTH AFRICA

BENEFIT SHARING The distribution of both the monetary and non-monetary benefits generated through the implementation of natural resources management programmes (Pham, et al., 2013) Two dimensions to benefit sharing: o The benefit and the associated beneficiaries o The sharing of the benefits (Chandrasekharan, et al., 2012)

THE ISSUE... o Conflicting interests and knowledge claims amongst stakeholders o Unjust distribution of benefits and involuntary risks o Lack of access to contextual knowledge o A top-down approach to decision making (Diduck, 2010)

WILDERNESS LAKES, WESTERN CAPE Sedgefield South Africa. 2015. Garden Route Lakes [Online]. Available: http://www.discover-sedgefieldsouth-africa.com/garden-route-lakes.html [Accessed 8 June 2015 2015].

WILDERNESS LAKES STAKEHOLDER MAP (ROSS, 2015) Wilderness Lakes stakeholder map (Ross, 2015)

THE KAFUE FLATS, ZAMBIA Map Key Cane Growers Area Under Sugar Cane 2015 Zambia Sugar Cane Area 16 729 ha Large Scale Outgrowers 8 950 ha Small Scale Outgrowers 2 834 ha Total Cane area 28 512 ha Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Perspectives, Prospects, Planning and Problems in River Basin Management and Development Perspectives [Online]. Available: http://www.fao.org/3/aad793b/ad793b04.htm [Accessed 10 June 2015].

PROBLEMS & CONSEQUENCES o Increased number of stakeholders of a resource means an increased value of resource units o Harvests withdrawn from a common pool resource affect other stakeholders *subtractability (Ostrom et al., 1994)

OPTIONS FOR BENEFIT SHARING MECHANISMS MONOCENTRIC GOVERNANCE POLYCENTRIC GOVERNANCE

POLYCENTRIC GOVERNANCE AS A SCHEME OF BENEFIT SHARING Polycentric governance systems are: o Systems in which political authority is dispersed to separately constituted bodies with overlapping jurisdictions that do not stand in hierarchical relationship to each other (Skelcher, 2005) o Multiple decision-making centres (Ostrom et al., 1961, Ostrom et al., 1999)

POLYCENTRICITY IN BENEFIT SHARING Creates opportunities for understanding and for servicing needs in spatially heterogeneous contexts (Imperial, 1999, Lebel et al., 2006, McGinnis, 1999) Polycentric governance spans across the two dimensions 1. The benefit and the associated beneficiaries 2. The sharing of the benefits (Chandrasekharan et al., 2012) through I. The way the beneficiaries self-organise II. The distribution of the benefits and the decision-making centre

Meta-identities for a stakeholder map (Ross, 2015)

POLYCENTRICITY IN BENEFIT SHARING o Helps solve collective-action problems by developing systems of governance at multiple scales with an emphasis on local participation (Berkes, 2002) o Important for handling scale-dependent governance challenges as well as cross-scale interactions (Ostrom, 2009)

POLYCENTRICITY IN BENEFIT SHARING o Harnesses local knowledge (Dietz et al., 2003, Hayek, 1937, Ostrom et al., 1993) o Communities can manage their interrelationships and natural resources o Larger group provides a platform for resource users to self-organise and develop networks (Ostrom et al., 1993) o Actors in the local space may be the more appropriate source of rule-making

POLYCENTRICITY IN BENEFIT SHARING o An example from the South African Sugar Industry o Self-organise to manage the risk to the benefit they draw from the industry a guaranteed market

POLYCENTRICITY IN BENEFIT SHARING o Legitimisation through recognition (Ostrom et al., 1993) o Creates opportunities for locally appropriate institutions to evolve o Tightens monitoring and feedback loops (Berkes, 2002) o The development of SUSFARMS in the SA Sugar Industry o Sugar Act (1936) (South Africa)

CONSTRAINTS TO INSTITUTIONALISING POLYCENTRIC GOVERNANCE o Concerns that polycentric institutions have an inefficient overlapping of co-ordination and administrative responsibilities o Assumption that locals lack capacity to self govern o Fear of decentralisation of power

LESSONS LEARNED FROM POLYCENTRIC SYSTEMS Multilayered institutions allow the possibility for level-dependent management interventions Indigenous knowledge is vital for successful natural resources management and benefit-sharing Polycentric institutional arrangements are important for equitable benefit sharing Examples from the South African sugar industry have shown that polycentric systems can be resilient and adaptive

REFERENCES BERKES, F. 2002. Cross-scale institutional linkages for commons management: perspectives from the bottom up. In: OSTROM, E., DIETZ, T., DOLSAK, N., STERN, P. C., STONICH, S. & WEBER, E. U. (eds.) The drama of the commons. Washington D.C., USA.: National Academy Press. CASH, D. W. 2000. Distributed assessment systems: an emerging paradigm of research, assessment and decision-making for environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 10, 241. CHANDRASEKHARAN, B., DIJI,, CUNNINGHAM, E., MAIRENA,, GIMBAGE, M., KAJEMBE, G., NSITA, S. & ROSENBAUM, K., L., 2012. Benefit Sharing in Practice: Insights for REDD+ Initiatives. Washington, DC: Program on Forests (PROFOR) DIDUCK, A. 2010. The Learning Dimension of Adaptive Capacity: Untangling the Multi level Connections. In: ARMITAGE, D. & PLUMMER, R. (eds.) Adaptive Capacity and Environmental Governance. Heidelberg: Springer. DIETZ, T., OSTROM, E. & STERN, P. 2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302, 1907. ENSMINGER, J. 1990. Co-opting the elders: The political economy of state incorporation in Africa. American Anthropologist, 92, 662. FORSYTH, T. 2003. Critical political ecology: the politics of environmental science, London, UK., Routledge. HAYEK, F. 1937. Economics and knowledge. Economica, 33. HESS, C. & OSTROM, E. E. 2007. Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. IMPERIAL, M. T. 1999. Institutional analysis and ecosystem-based management: the institutional analysis and development framework.. Environmental Management, 24, 449. JOHNSON, R. N. & LIBECAP, G. D. 1982. Contracting problems and regulation: The case of the fishery. American Economic Review, 72, 1005. LEBEL, L., ANDERIES, J. M., CAMPBELL, B., FOLKE, C., HATFIELD-DODDS, S., HUGHES, T. P. & WILSON, J. 2006. Governance and the Capacity to Manage Resilience in Regional Social-Ecological Systems. Marine Sciences Faculty Scholarship, 52. LOW, N. & GLEESON, B. 1998. Justice, society, and nature: an exploration of political ecology., London, UK., Routledge. MCGINNIS, M. 1999. Polycentric governance and development: readings from the workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis., Lansing, Michigan, USA., University of Michigan Press. OSTROM, E. 2009. Polycentric systems as one approach to solving collective-action problems. In: SALIH, M. A. M. (ed.) Climate change and sustainable development: New challenges for poverty reduction. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. OSTROM, E., GARDNER, R. & WALKER, J. 1994. Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources, Ann Arbor, MI, University of Michigan Press. OSTROM, E., SCHROEDER, L. & WYNNE, S. 1993. Institutional incentives and sustainable development: infrastructure policies in perspective, Westview Press. OSTROM, V. 1997. The Meaning of Democracy and the Vulnerability of Democracies: A Response to Tocqueville s Challenge, Ann Arbor, MI, University of Michigan Press. OSTROM, V. 2008. The Political Theory of a Compound Republic: Designing the American Experiment, Lanham, MD, Lexington Books. OSTROM, V., TIEBOUT, C. M. & WARREN, R. 1961. The organization of government in metropolitan areas: a theoretical inquiry. American political science review, 55, 831. OSTROM, V., TIEBOUT, C. M. & WARREN, R. The organization of government in metropolitan areas: A theoretical inquiry. Polycentricity and local public economies: Readings from the workshop in political theory and policy analysis, 1999. University of Michigan Press, 31. PLATTEAU, J.-P. Community based development in the context of within group heterogeneity - paper presented at the Annual Bank Conference on Development Economics, Bangalore, India. 2003. PLATTEAU, J.-P. 2004. Monitoring elite capture in community-driven development. Development and Change, 35, 223. PHAM, T. T., BROCKHAUS, M., WONG, G., DUNG, L. N., TJAJADI, J. S., LOFT, L., LUTTRELL, C. & ASSEMBE MVONDO, S. 2013. Approaches to benefit sharing: A preliminary comparative analysis of 13 REDD+ countries. Working Paper 108. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR ROBBINS, P., HINTZ, J. & MOORE, S. A. 2010. Environment and Society, West Sussex, Wiley-Blackwell. ROSS, A. 2015. Perspectives of stakeholders on engagement around benefits and use of the Wilderness and Swartvlei lakes. Master of Science, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University. SKELCHER, C. 2005. Jurisdictional integrity, polycentrism, and the design of democratic governance. Governance, 18, 89. SNEDDON, C. & FOX, C. 2007. Power, Development and Institutional Change: Participatory Governance in the Lower Mekong Basin. World Development, 35, 2161. UNION, PARLIAMMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA 1938. Union Parliament of South Africa Debate on Sugar Bill (9 and 10 June 1936). Eshowe: Zululand Times WAMPLER, B. & MCNULTY, S. 2011. Does participatory governance matter? Exploring the nature and impact of participatory reforms.. Washington, DC.: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT www.watersecuritynetwork.org www.twitter.com/water_network Acknowledgement The project is funded by Lloyd s Register Foundation, a charitable foundation helping to protect life and property by supporting engineering-related education, public engagement and the application of research. For more information, see: www.lrfoundation.org.uk