Beyond harvests in the commons: multi-scale governance and turbulence in indigenous/community conserved areas in Oaxaca, Mexico

Abstract

Some important elements of common property theory include a focus on individual communities or user groups, local level adjudication of conflicts, local autonomy in rule making, physical harvests, and low levels of articulation with markets. We present a case study of multi-scale collective action around indigenous/community conserved areas (ICCAs) in Oaxaca, Mexico that suggests a modification of these components of common property theory. A multi-community ICCA in Oaxaca demonstrates the importance of inter-community collective action as key link in multi-scale governance, that conflicts are often negotiated in multiple arenas, that rules emerge at multiple scales, and that management for conservation and environmental services implies no physical harvests. Realizing economic gains from ICCAs for strict conservation may require something very different than traditional natural resource management. It requires intense engagement with extensive networks of government and civil society actors and new forms of community and intercommunity collection action, or multi-scale governance. Multi-scale governance is built on trust and social capital at multiple scales and also constitutes collective action at multiple scales. However, processes of multi-scale governance are also 152David Bray et al.necessarily "turbulent" with actors frequently having conflicting values and goals to be negotiated. We present an analytic history of the process of emergence of community and inter-community collective action around strict conservation and examples of internal and external turbulence. We argue that this case study and other literature requires an extensions of the constitutive elements of common property theory.

Ecological variability and rule-making processes for forest management institutions: a social-ecological case study in the Jalisco coast, Mexico

“…The most closely related attribute can be 'productivity of system' but it does not really fit with the ecosystem service concept. The focus on physical resources and extraction activities from the CPR theory has left strict conservation activities less understood in SES framework (Bray et al 2012). One important step to understanding the management of CPR and their institutions is to identify which ecosystem services are perceived and used by local people .…”

“…One important step to understanding the management of CPR and their institutions is to identify which ecosystem services are perceived and used by local people . Recognition of these ecosystems services at different scales also enhance multi-level governance of resources (Bray et al 2012) and the explicit inclusion of these services in the SES framework as a category of the resource system is important.…”

From a Given to a Construct

“…However, the implications of common property management in contexts of cultural preservation and sharing are not considered. In fact, 'realizing income from these sources requires deep involvement in multi-scale governance for the owners of the conserved resource to realize any monetary benefit from the ''products''' (Bray et al 2012). Agrawal (2001) identifies four relevant variables to the successful governance of the commons: the character of the resource system (different kinds of heritage entities), the user group (communities, tourists, experts and entrepreneurs), the institutional arrangements (UNESCO, national and regional frameworks) and the external environment (macropolitics, social and market functioning, etc.).…”

Multi-level governance of forest resources (Editorial to the special feature – Part 2)

“…In discussing the results, the author contends that the differences are partly a result of the distinct internal governance of each type of FA, but that there are also multiple other factors at play, such as style of leadership and the historical and political-economic contexts within which the FAs have evolved. This article provides an interesting perspective to complement an article published in Part I of the Special Issue (Bray et al 2012). GarciaLopez also provides a clear indication of where more research is needed to better understand MLG of forest resources including the factors influencing the success or failure of different linkages, the need to better understand the distinctions…”