Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Polycentric governance of commons through multi-stakeholder platforms: insights from two case studies in India

  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Commons governance is complex and polycentric, involving a range of actors, working at different scales with different concepts of development, and different types of power. Multistakeholder platforms (MSPs) have generated considerable attention as a way to address these tensions among multiple and overlapping decision-making centers operating on different administrative levels. Yet establishing MSPs that effectively involve community, various government actors, and private sector actors is far from straightforward. This paper analyzes the Indian NGO Foundation for Ecological Security’s (FES) experience of strengthening polycentric governance through case studies of two MSPs in Gujarat and Odisha working at the block (sub-district) level—encompassing multiple communities situated around a commons landscape. We gather information from a variety of sources including a survey of MSP participants, focus groups and semi-structured interviews with stakeholders, media articles, as well as institutional knowledge such as FES project reports. By analyzing local environments, institutional arrangements, stakeholder interactions, governance processes and the evolution of MSPs in the two cases, it distills lessons on the tangible and intangible benefits of multi-stakeholder engagement, scale, and enabling conditions useful for scaling up MSPs. We argue that the groundwork carried out to build community-level collective action supports effective polycentric governance of resources on the landscape-level, especially through block-level MSPs that facilitate inter-community collaboration and learning, strengthening local voices and building trust between stakeholders over time. The cases also highlight that MSPs can evolve in different ways as the various actors interact and exercise influence. External actors like NGOs thus play an important role as facilitators and through mobilizing communities to help them claim their agency. We find that nesting village-level institutions in federations and federations in larger MSPs is important for robust and sustainable collective action and bridging sectoral and institutional boundaries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Source: Ratner et al. (2022)

Fig. 2

Source: Authors (FES)

Fig. 3

Source: Authors (FES)

Fig. 4

Source: Authors (FES)

Fig. 5

Source: Illustrated by authors, from FES survey of MSP participants in Santrampur, Gujarat; February 2016

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data is not publicly available due to ethical restrictions. The data contains information that could compromise the privacy of research participants who did not give written consent for their data to be shared publicly.

Notes

  1. According to the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO, 1998), Commons refer to “all such resources which are accessible to the whole community and to which no individual has exclusive property rights.” In the context of rural India these include village pastures and grazing grounds, village forests and woodlots, protected and unclassed government forests, waste lands, common threshing grounds, watershed drainage, ponds and tanks, rivers, rivulets, water reservoirs, canals, and irrigation channels.

  2. The study was conducted using a qualitative research design where the sample size is based on ‘saturation’ (i.e. interviewing enough participants until answers and themes converge), rather than a typical representative sample size required for quantitative sampling.

  3. Despite that, the Krushak Mela in Odisha case is included in our research because it illustrates broader sectoral issues, the diversity of stakeholders and tensions involved.

  4. Interview with community members (MSP attendees), March 2019.

  5. Refer back to the “action resources” in the MSP action arena in Fig. 1, which affects MSP interactions and outcomes.

  6. Refer back to the “rules” of the MSP action arena in Fig. 1, affecting MSP interactions and outcomes.

  7. Based on semi-structured interviews with community members (MSP attendees).

  8. Semi-structured interviews with federation members and FES team members.

  9. Based on semi-structured interviews with community members (MSP attendees) and federation members.

  10. Based on FGD with federation members.

  11. Refer back to the “actors” of the MSP action arena in Fig. 1, affecting MSP interactions and outcomes.

  12. Refer back to the “rules” of the MSP action arena in Fig. 1, affecting MSP interactions and outcomes.

  13. Based on FGD with federation members.

  14. Based on interviews with FES team members.

  15. The Times of India. December 2018. ‘Krushak Melas need to be more informative for farmers’ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhubaneswar/krushak-melas-need-to-be-more-informative-for-farmers/articleshow/67199278.cms.

  16. 10 Based on focus group with federation members.

  17. Based on interviews with FES team members working with federations.

  18. Based on FGD with federation members.

  19. Based on interviews with community members (MSP attendees) and federation members.

  20. Based on interviews with federation members and community members.

  21. Based on FGD with federation members in Odisha.

References

  • Acosta, M. (2019). The role of Multi-stakeholder platforms for creating an enabling Climate Change Policy Environment in East Africa. In T. Rosenstock, A. Nowak, & E. Girvetz (Eds.), The climate-smart agriculture papers. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92798-5_23

  • Akhmouch, A., & Clavreul, D. (2016). Stakeholder engagement for inclusive water governance: “Practicing what we preach” with the OECD water governance initiative. Water, 8(5), 204. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8050204

  • Carlisle, K., & Gruby, R. L. (2019). Polycentric systems of governance: A theoretical model for the commons. Policy Studies Journal, 47(4), 927–952. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cockburn, J., Rosenberg, E., Copteros, A., Cornelius, S. F., Libala, N., Metcalfe, L., van der, B., & Waal (2020). A Relational Approach to Landscape Stewardship: Towards a New Perspective for Multi-actor collaboration. Land, 9(7), 224. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9070224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • d’Armengol, L., Castillo, M. P., Ruiz-Mallén, I., & Corbera, E. (2018). A systematic review of co-managed small-scale fisheries: Social Diversity and Adaptive Management improve outcomes. Global Environmental Change, 52(May), 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.07.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Montalvo, U. W., & Alaerts, G. (2013). Leadership in Knowledge and Capacity Development in the Water Sector: A Status Review. Water Policy, 15(S2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2013.109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Gregorio, M., Hagedorn, K., Kirk, M., Korf, B., McCarthy, N., & Meinzen-Dick, R. (2008). Property Rights, Collective Action, and Poverty: The Role of Institutions for Poverty Reduction. CAPRi Working Paper No. 81. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

  • Faysse, N. (2006). Troubles on the way: An analysis of the challenges faced by multi-stakeholder platforms. Natural Resources Forum, 30(3), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2006.00112.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FES (Foundation for Ecological Security) (2018). Strategy for Block Planning. Anand, Gujarat.

  • FES (Foundation for Ecological Security) Annual report 2017-18. Anand, Gujarat. https://fes.org.in/resources/annual-reports/annual-report-2017-18.pdf.

  • FES (Foundation for Ecological Security) (2016). Nested Commoning: Practicing Polycentric Governance in India. FES working paper 36. Anand, Gujarat.

  • FES (Foundation for Ecological Security) Annual report 2012-13. Anand, Gujarat. https://fes.org.in/resources/annual-reports/annual-report-2012-2013.pdf.

  • Forest Survey of India (2017). India State of Forests Report 2017. Ministry of Environment and Forests. http://fsi.nic.in/isfr2017/odisha-isfr-2017.pdf.

  • GoI (Government of India) (2009). Second Administrative Reforms Commission Fifteenth report – States and District Administration. Government of India. Retrieved from https://darpg.gov.in/sites/default/files/sdadmin15.pdf.

  • GoI (Government of India) (2007). Second Administrative Reforms Commission Sxith report – States and District Administration. Retrieved from https://darpg.gov.in/sites/default/files/local_governance6.pdf.

  • Government of Odisha (2015). Odisha agriculture statistics 2013-14. Directorate of Agriculture & Food Production, Odisha. http://agriodisha.nic.in/content/pdf/Agriculture%20Statistics_2013-14.pdf.

  • Harilal, K. (2013). Confronting Bureaucratic Capture Rethinking Participatory Planning Methodology in Kerala -. Economic and Political Weekly, 48(36). Retrieved from https://subscription.epw.in/journal/2013/36/special-articles/confronting-bureaucratic-capture.html.

  • Hart, A. K., McMichael, P., Milder, J. C., & Scherr, S. J. (2016). Multi-functional landscapes from the grassroots? The role of rural producer movements. Agriculture and Human Values, 33(2), 305–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9611-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoogesteger, J. (2013). Trans-Forming Social Capital around Water: Water user Organizations, Water rights, and Nongovernmental Organizations in Cangahua, the Ecuadorian Andes. Society and Natural Resources, 26(1), 60–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.689933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IUCN (International Union of Conservation of Nature) (2012). Collaboration and multi-stakeholder dialogue: A review of the literature Version 1.1. https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/import/downloads/collaboration_and_multi_stakeholder_dialogue.pdf.

  • Kerr, J. (2007). Watershed Management: Lessons from Common Property Theory. International Journal of the Commons 1 (1): 89. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.8.

  • Kusters, K., Buck, L., De Graaf, M., Minang, P., Van Oosten, C., & Zagt, R. (2018). Participatory planning, monitoring and evaluation of multi-stakeholder platforms in integrated landscape initiatives. Environmental Management, 62(1), 170–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lokot, M., & Wake, C. (2021). The co-production of research between academics, NGOs and communities in humanitarian response: A practice guide. London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

  • Meinzen-Dick, R., Chaturvedi, R., Kandikuppa, S., Rao, K., Rao, J. P., Bruns, B., & ElDidi, H. (2021). Securing the commons in India: Mapping Polycentric Governance. International Journal of the Commons, 15(1), 218–235. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.1082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudaliar, P., & Koontz, T. (2018). The Muting and Unmuting of Caste across Inter-linked Action Arenas: Inequality and collective action in a community-based Watershed Group. International Journal of the Commons, 12(1), 225–248. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagendra, H., & Ostrom, E. (2012). Polycentric Governance of multifunctional forested landscapes. International Journal of the Commons, 6(2), 104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NSSO. (1998). Common Property resources and Village Facilities, NSS 54th Round: Jan 1998-June 1998. National Sample Survey Office, M/o Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI). Government of India (GOI).

  • Ostrom, V. (1999). ‘A Forgotten Tradition: The Constitutional Level of Analysis’. In Polycentric Governance and Development: Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, edited by M. D McGinnis, 151. University of Michigan Press.

  • Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the Institutional Analysis and. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00394.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patnaik, A., Ruivenkamp, G. T. P., & Jongerden, J. P. (2017). Marginalized community, space of commons and autonomy: The case of the Deccan Development Society in South India. Journal of Rural Studies, 53, 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.05.019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajesh, K., Palival, G., & Shukla, N. (2018). Strategy for Block Planning. Foundation for Ecological Security.

  • Ratner, B., Burnley, C., Mugisha, S., Madzudzo, E., Oeur, I., Mam, K., Rüttinger, L., Chilufya, L., & Adriázola, P. (2018). Investing in Multi-stakeholder dialogue to address Natural Resource Competition and Conflict. Development in Practice, 28(6), 799–812. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2018.1478950org/10.1080/09614524.2018.1478950.

  • Ratner, B., Jha, C., Rawat, S., Sarangi, S., Sinha Roy, S., Ralhan, R., & Stalls, S. (2021). Multi-actor platform design guide. Collaborating for Resilience.

  • Ratner, B., Larson, A. M., Sarmiento Barletti, J. P., ElDidi, H., Catacutan, D., Flintan, F., Suhardiman, D., Falk, T., & Meinzen-Dick, R. (2022). Building and sustaining multi-stakeholder platforms for natural resource governance: Lessons from eight landscape-level cases. Ecology & Society, 27(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13168-270202.

  • Ros-Tonen, M. A. F., Sunderland, T., & Reed, J. (2018). : From synergy to complexity: The trend toward integrated value chain and landscape governance. Environmental Management pp. 1–14.

  • RRI (Rights and Resources Initiative) (2015). Potential for recognition of community forest resource rights under India’s forest rights act: a preliminary assessment by, Vasundhara, Natural Resources Management Consultants. https://rightsandresources.org/wp-content/uploads/CommunityForest_July-20.pdf.

  • Sarker, A. (2014). Federated rural organization for governing the commons in Japan. Journal of Rural Studies, 36(1), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.06.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarmiento Barletti, J. P., & Larson, A. M. (2021). Multi-stakeholder forums and the promise of more equitable and sustainable land and resource use: Perspectives from Brazil, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Peru. International Forestry Review.

  • Sarmiento Barletti, J. P., Larson, A. M., Hewlett, C., & Delgado, D. (2020). Designing for engagement: A Realist synthesis review of how context affects the outcomes of multi-stakeholder forums on land use and/or land-use change. World Development, 127, 104753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tellis, W. M. (1997). Application of a case study methodology. The Qualitative Report, 3(3), 1–19. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol3/iss3/1.

  • Thiel, A., & Blomquist, W., and, D. Garrick (2019). Introduction. In A. Thiel, W. Blomquist, & D. Garrick (Eds.), Governing complexity: Analyzing and applying polycentricity) (pp. 1–18). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108325721.001.

  • Warner, J. F. (2006). More sustainable participation? Multi-stakeholder Platforms for Integrated Catchment Management. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 22(1), 15–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900620500404992.

  • Warner, J., Wester, P., & Bolding, A. (2008). Going with the Flow: River Basins as the Natural Units for Water Management? Water Policy 10 (SUPPL. 2): 121–38. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2008.210.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Natural Resources and Resilience Unit, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C, USA

    Hagar ElDidi & Ruth Meinzen-Dick

  2. Foundation for Ecological Security, Anand, Gujarat, India

    Shivanyaa Rawat, Rahul Chaturvedi & Richu Sanil

Authors
  1. Hagar ElDidi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shivanyaa Rawat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ruth Meinzen-Dick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rahul Chaturvedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Richu Sanil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hagar ElDidi.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

ElDidi, H., Rawat, S., Meinzen-Dick, R. et al. Polycentric governance of commons through multi-stakeholder platforms: insights from two case studies in India. Environ Dev Sustain (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04896-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04896-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation