Kusumanto, Yanti (T.)

Studies of the commons predominantly focus on identifying and testing the ‘right’ governance conditions. In Indonesia, so-called ‘design principles’ are embedded into policies aimed at the forest commons, but lack attention to the ‘why’, ‘who’, and ‘how’ the commons are shaped and governed, i.e., processes of commoning. Addressing these questions repositions relational dimensions between ‘commoners’, ‘non-commoners’, and the State, elucidating dynamics between human and non-humans, and provides insights into broader implications of commons governance.

We argue for centering the processes and practices of commons governance, including a focus on the abandonment of the commons; as well as for more explicitly understanding and nurturing the corollary movements towards commoning. As (participatory action) researchers we aim to at once diagnose and facilitate the shaping of conditions that enable commoning processes to emerge among existing and new commons. In this presentation, we underscore our position by critically reflecting on longstanding engagements in Adaptive Collaborative Management (ACM) projects initiated by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) in the early 2000s.

Past research views ACM as “an emergent governance approach for complex social-ecological systems that connects the learning function of adaptive management with the linking function of co-management.” We reflect on these learning and linking modalities and scrutinize the added value of fostering enabling conditions for commoning. We specifically seek answers on the extent to which ACM enables conditions for commoning to take shape as a social practice as well as the ways it catalyzes rules and procedures for use, distribution, stewardship, and responsibility for given resources.

We examine two Indonesian cases from Jambi (central Sumatra) and Sulawesi through their attendant commoning processes, specifically the who’s, why’s, and how’s. Doing so allows us to focus on both the possibilities of ACM while also remaining clear-eyed on what gets overlooked in shaping the conditions of commons governance.

An attribute of the ‘wickedness’ of the flooding problem of Greater Jakarta is the diversity of pathways that are pursued by different stakeholders in responding to changing flooding contexts. Yet whatever pathway is followed, most solutions tend, borrowing Rittel and Webber’s wicked problem terminology, to be a ‘one-shot operation’: solutions are expected to immediately resolve the flooding problem. Nonetheless, solutions may have unanticipated negative consequences leading to new problems. Another attribute of Jakarta’s flooding problem is temporal uncertainty: it is not clear how long a given flood event would continue or when a new event could occur again. This implies that in seeking solutions ‘there is no stopping rule’ because there is no point in time that establishes that the handling of the flooding is complete. Moreover, Jakarta’s flooding problem is complicated due to emerging challenges of land subsidence and climate change.

A team of multi-disciplinary (action) researchers conducted a thought experiment in seeking solutions for the Jakarta flooding problem. The team recommends the initiation of water commons nested platforms for shaping excellent learning conditions that stimulate creativity in and discovery of new problem framings and solutions outside the policy system and, hence, are independent from existing flood policies. For existing policies and institutional mandates could hinder decision-makers and planners in learning new perspectives and in experimenting with joint partnerships with stakeholders including local communities, civil society groups, businesses, and others. Flood policy options or alternative policy measures resulting from the platform processes are eventually mainstreamed in existing flood policies.