The Commons as a culture - 8 commoning principles adopted from E.Ostrom

[Anna Betz]

Eight Points of Reference for Commoning (by German Commons Summer School 2012)

How Commons can flourish.

Elinor Ostrom and others have formulated eight design principles for the shared use of resources, based on a huge number of case studies from around the world. They continue to be of great significance for the commons movement.

Our perspective is the perspective of active commoners, meaning the people who create the commons. We are above all concerned with creating spaces for commoning and cooperation. Concerning the resources themselves, we are more interested in how to preserve and use them, than in making distinctions between material and non-material, traditional or new commons. We therefore refer to all types of commons here.

We therefore used Ostrom’s design principles as the framework for the following points of reference and hope that commoners will find them useful for reflecting on their own practice, by asking to what extent these statements are accurate in their own situation.

8 Commoning Principles,  adopted from Elinor Ostrom's design principles by the German Commons Summer School, 2012

Commons do not exist in a perfect world, but rather in one that is hostile to commons. Therefore it is important that commoners be aware of the treasure they hold in their hands, to preserve it and help it flourish.

1.  As a commoner I clearly understand for which resources I need to care for and with whom I share this responsibility.Commons resources are those that we create together, that we maintain as gifts of nature or whose use has been guaranteed to everyone.

2.  We use the commons resources that we create, care for and maintain. We use the means (time, space, technology, and the quantity of a resource) that are available in a given context. As commoner I am satisfied that there is a fair relationship between my contributions and the benefits I receive.

3.  We enter into or modify our own rules and commitments, and every commoner can participate in this process. Our commitments serve to create, maintain, and preserve thecommons to satisfy our needs.

4.  We monitor the respect of these commitments ourselves and sometimes we mandate others whom we trust to help reach this goal. We continually reassess whether our commitments still serve their purpose.

5.  We work out appropriate rules for dealing with violations of our commitments. We determine whether and what kinds of sanctions shall be used, depending on the context and severity of a violation.

6.  Every commoner can make use of a space and means for conflict resolution. We seek to resolve conflicts among us in an easily accessible and straightforward way.

7.  We regulate our own affairs, and external authorities respect that.

8.  We realize that every commons is part of a larger whole. Therefore, different institutions working at different scales are needed to coordinate stewardship and to cooperate with each other.

German version (from which this is the translation) are here: http://neu.webcoach.at/w16/commons/index.php/Acht_Punkte 

[Claudius Peter van Wyk]

Those principles from Elinor Ostrom are a fine platform, Anna.

[Alia Aurami]

I have some questions, sparked by these principles which I am glad some folks are thinking about, as the complexity of "commons" as a culture is emerging for humans.

2.  We use the commons resources that we create, care for and maintain. We use the means (time, space, technology, and the quantity of a resource) that are available in a given context. As commoner I am satisfied that there is a fair relationship between my contributions and the benefits I receive.

Can you unpack the sentence in bold? I just don't have a sense of what it looks like in specifics of life.

4.  We monitor the respect of these commitments ourselves and sometimes we mandate others whom we trust to help reach this goal. We continually reassess whether our commitments still serve their purpose.

I am super-sensitive on the issue of voluntariness, my antennae are always out for hints of anything which might point to non-voluntary matters, so I wonder what "mandating others" means.....

Thanks for sharing this from that group, Anna!!

[Alia Aurami]

I do remember this network is for action-related matters, not general discussions of commoning, so please let me know if my comments here and on George's recent blog are not appropriate for this network. I did attempt to directly respond to the material posted....but I want to respect the 'culture' and goals of this network.

[George Por]

Alia wrote:

I am super-sensitive on the issue of voluntariness, my antennae are always out for hints of anything which might point to non-voluntary matters, so I wonder what "mandating others" means.....

Being super-sensitive to that is a great service to the community because any non-voluntary arrangement between members would risk to destroy the commons by bringing back the obsolete, "so 20th century" mode of organizing based on command, hierarchy and intimidation. That's just to preface what I want to say about the phrase that Alia picked up "sometimes we mandate others whom we trust to help reach this goal."

The German commoners, who developed the document that Anna posted, wrote in its introduction:

We used Ostrom’s design principles as the framework for the following points of reference and hope that commoners will find them useful for reflecting on their own practice, by asking to what extent these statements are accurate in their own situation. 

So the 8 points are not Ostrom's commons design principles but a group of commoners interpreting them for their context, and using them as an opener further critical reflections and conversations; just what we do here.

The original document is in German, a language I don't speak and it arrived to us in a version translated by a German commoner. That makes me wonder whether the "we mandate others" is a correct translation. If we can get hold of the original text, maybe Anna can look it up to see whether "mandate" is the right verb in English.

Meanwhile, I post below the original,  uninterpreted version of the Ostrom principles for comparison.

Design Principles for "Common Pool Resources" Institutions

1. Define clear group boundaries.

2. Match rules governing use of common goods to local needs and conditions.

3. Ensure that those affected by the rules can participate in modifying the rules.

4. Make sure the rule-making rights of community members are respected by outside authorities.

5. Develop a system, carried out by community members, for monitoring members’ behavior.

6. Use graduated sanctions for rule violators.

7. Provide accessible, low-cost means for dispute resolution.

8. Build responsibility for governing the common resource in nested tiers from the lowest level up to the entire interconnected system.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom#Design_Principles_for_CP...

[Anna Betz]

I have also given more context/introduction to the work by the German School, in the opener of this discussion, and added a link to their website.

[Anna Betz]

The word 'beauftragen' that was translated with 'to mandate' could also be translated into: 'instruct' or 'assign'  or 'given to do'.  It doesnt really leave the option to opt out freely. Although it is not the same as 'to order' someone to do something, it is not voluntary either and implies having been given a task to do. 

Alia, your super-sensitivity touched an important and interesting point about voluntariness and non-voluntary matters. It needs clarifying. 

Commoning for me is linked to accountability that we offer but not to a command and control structure.

[George Por]

Of course in the process of coordinating work in the commons, we can make requests to fellow commoners, but its implication is that it can be freely accepted OR declined, whereas neither the "mandate" nor the "assign" would imply the same kind of open-endedness.

[Alia Aurami]

Oh, OK, there is enough clarity around this for me to rest easier. There is really no sense in which "assign" or  instruct or "give to do" is the kind of mandating outside of my concept of "voluntary." For me "non-voluntary" means via government, or some other use of actual force where the risk of non-compliance is death, imprisonment, or fine (or in some cases, exile or torture.). 

Of course, within non-governmental "mandates" there are degrees of voluntariness I suppose. Depends on the risk of refusing. If the risk of refusing is exile from a group seemingly necessary for one's survival, or a group which is beloved, or is losing one's job,  then "voluntary" is different from my refusing to take on a task the group is asking me to do.

So yeah, I think there is a spectrum which can be defined by what is risked by refusal of a "mandate." Or the other translations. 

My impression was that the whole notion of commons was built on a 'cultural" foundation of valuing Life, valuing individuals as well as group, respect, goodwill, etc. so those all point to "voluntary" as a collateral value.  So you are confirming that for me.

Nothing in the original activated my antennae, LOL!!

Thank you both so much for  prompt and generative responses!!!! The blog is enriched by your additions, Anna!