Governance and the Commons in a Multi-Level World

Abstract

Multi-level governance may facilitate learning and adaptation in complex social-ecological circumstances. Such arrangements should connect communitybased management with regional/national government-level management, link scientific management and traditional management systems, encourage the sharing of knowledge and information, and promote collaboration and dialogue around goals and outcomes. Governance innovations of this type can thus build capacity to adapt to change and manage for resilience. However, critical reflection on the emergence of adaptive, multi-level governance for the commons is warranted. Drawing on examples from the North and South, the purpose of this review is to connect three complementary bodies of scholarship with insights for commons governance in a multi-level world: common property theory, resilience thinking and political ecology. From the commons and resilience literature, normative principles of adaptive, multi-level governance are synthesized (e.g., participation, accountability, leadership, knowledge pluralism, learning and trust). Political ecological interpretations, however, help to reveal the challenge of actualizing these principles and the contextual forces that make entrenched, top-down management systems resilient to change. These forces include the role of power, scale and levels of organization, knowledge valuation, the positioning of social actors and social constructions of nature. Also addressed are the policy narratives that shape governance, and the dialectic relationship among ecological systems and social change.

Multi-level governance for large marine commons: Politics and polycentricity in Palau's protected area network

“…While Johnson (2004) concludes that co-existence is more likely than convergence, 3 there is emerging interest in a third option: complementarity (e.g., Armitage, 2008;Clement, 2010;Campbell, 2007;Poteete, 2012). Poteete (2012) for example, brings together concepts across multiple disciplines, including critical human geography and Bloomington institutional analysis, to argue for broader perspectives on the multi-level institutions and multiple scale linkages characterizing CPRs.…”

Fishing for Fairness : Poverty, Morality and Marine Resource Regulation in the Philippines

“…Many analysts have argued strongly for the principles of 'good governance' that promote resilience, as articulated through the themes of adaptive co-management, polycentric governance, interactive governance and other related terms (Armitage 2008). Lebel et al (2006), for example, hypothesise that the existence of participation, polycentric and multilayered institutions, and accountable and just authorities can be associated with an increase in resilience for social-ecological systems.…”

We adapt … but is it good or bad? Locating the political ecology and social-ecological systems debate in reindeer herding in the Swedish Sub-Arctic

“…There have been numerous forays contesting the relative merits of political ecology (PE) and socialecological systems approach (SES) to understand human-nature relationships (Armitage 2007;Brown 2013;Cote and Nightingale 2011;CSD Conference 2013;Jagers et al 2012;Nadasdy 2007;Peterson and Hornborg 2012;Widgren 2012). Some contributions to what we call the PE:SES debate take a positive view by arguing that there are synergies to be reaped by combining the two approaches (Armitage 2007), while others (usually of the PE persuasion) take a more critical stance that hones in on what are seen as flaws or shortfalls in the opposing approach (Nadasdy 2007;Olsson et al 2015).…”

“…Some contributions to what we call the PE:SES debate take a positive view by arguing that there are synergies to be reaped by combining the two approaches (Armitage 2007), while others (usually of the PE persuasion) take a more critical stance that hones in on what are seen as flaws or shortfalls in the opposing approach (Nadasdy 2007;Olsson et al 2015).…”