Panel 9.2. Power Dynamics and Social Inequalities in Commons Governance

Nobel laureate and commons scholar Elinor Ostrom found that trust, reciprocity, and institutions are key for managing and conserving environmental commons such as natural resources. Yet, more research is needed for understanding what factors might motivate and sustain collective action for creating commons produced through commoning such as climate justice? Commoning is a phenomenon where actors create new shared and relational processes, redesign institutions such as norms and rules around a shared interest to serve a common good, as well as develop new imaginaries of sharing and caring. Thus, care unfolds not only as a motivation for climate justice but also embeds itself in commoning to sustain a sense of community and support.
In our research on youth groups in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), we uncover the practices of care that emerge at the intersection of commoning and climate justice through an intersectional lens of race, gender, immigration status, and sexuality, by applying Fisher and Tronto's ethic of care that includes actions of the powerful such as caring about and caring for, and actions of the less powerful such as caregiving and care-receiving. In doing so, we draw attention to uneven power dynamics in youth groups.
Our findings highlight the multi-dimensionality and complexity of care through intersecting identities and experiences of young people who are actively developing new ways of fostering resilience and creating inclusive spaces for sustaining commoning for climate justice. At the same time, uneven power dynamics in caregiving between White people and racialized people in youth groups suggest that even the practice of youth-led commoning can reproduce and maintain patterns of marginality. Our findings provide new insights about the connections between commoning and care for building and maintaining relationships and trust for motivating and sustaining long-term collective action.

Commoning is expected to shape both individual subjectivities and relationships, creating possibilities for broader social transformation (Dombroski et al. 2023; Singh 2017; Varvarousis and Kallis 2017). These processes include recognition—or intentional creation—of interdependency through sharing something and the development of a sense of mutuality, both toward one another and in the joint responsibility for whatever they share. Care is widely recognized as important in commoning, and commoning as being 'care-'full' or full of care (inter alia, Dombroski et al. 2019; Gibson-Graham et al. 2013; Lejano 2023; Sciarelli 2024; Trogal 2017; Williams 2020). At the same time, blind spots and inequalities that bedevil care work also occur within commoning, as in society more broadly (Anderson and Huron 2023; Blau 2021; Nightingale 2019; Noterman 2016; Tummers and MacGregor 2019).

To make sense of the varied relations among commoning, caring, and subjectivity, we consider both the various forms or “phases” of care acknowledged in the literature (Fisher and Tronto 1990; Tronto 2013) and those observed in settings where caring and commoning involve strangers (e.g., Alam and Houston 2020; Huron 2015). We demonstrate that only "caring with" necessarily supports commoning, given how it both arises from and (re)produces interdependency, which fosters a sense of mutuality. We suggest that caring with not only supports commoning but is an inherent – albeit not the only – component of commoning.

We then identify conditions associated with caring with and commoning in the context of open urban spaces. Caring with in socially open contexts depends on its visibility and organization. In these settings, the visibility of collective care supports recognition of sharing and interdependency, whereas organizing care in ways that are inclusive and non-hierarchical fosters relationships based on mutuality. Differential care may support commoning by welcoming people to participate in taking and giving care, allowing them to "become commoners" (Singh 2017; cf., Dombroski et al. 2018). Differential "caring with," however, threatens commoning, especially over the long term, because it involves hierarchy (cf., Noterman 2016). An exploration of the commoning practices of two movements associated with urban green spaces in Montréal illustrates variation in caring within commoning, as well as how the visibility and organization of caring influence commoning and socio-natural relations.

Ostrom (1990) has focused on what principles commoners tend to require in order to succeed and be sustainable. More recent research has started to identify patterns of commoning that include “how” people work/ are together (Bollier & Helfrich 2019). Bollier and Helfrich (2019) have focused on how commoning is mainly about the maintenance of relationships. It is in this context they have identified different ways of what I call “working togetherness” such sociocracy and consent. While Habermann (2024:15) highlights how “commoning means taking care in common of the needs of life, and/ or reproducing them” and offers a theoretical analysis of the intersection of commoning and exploitation from an intersectional perspective, empirical analyses on the nexus between collective ways of working and caring from an intersectional perspective are still missing. In this article, I explore commoners’ reflections on their “working togetherness”; including potentials and also limitations on intersectional and just transformations - and how those moving within commoning spaces feel about them in terms of their creation of fair(er) relationships. The basis of these findings is a growing data set on commoners in and around Berlin, Germany.

Contemporary social movements often realize power as they “scale up” –convincing ever-larger swathes of population to unite in actions and demands for change from powerful entities. This outward-facing action contrasts with another kind of social movement activity: building and sustaining local institutions for self-determination and self-governance. We call this work commoning. Commoning is particularly relevant for structurally marginalized communities in a neo-colonial world. Comunidades por la Autonomía (Communities for Autonomy) is an informal, volunteer organization founded in 2023 by Indigenous Mexican activists to assist Indigenous communities in the Yucatan peninsula in developing robust institutions as a form of territorial defense and self-determination. In this research, we (self-) examine the inward-focused commoning work of Comunidades por la Autonomia and its engagement of insights from the Ostrom school of commons research. We then relate this inward-focused commoning activism to the outward facing work of social movement power-building and policy change.

New York’s Hudson River watershed governance system is situated in one of the nation’s largest toxic superfund sites that has resulted in environmental injustices for communities living alongside the river. State agencies, regional civil society organizations, research institutions, local governments, and not-for-profit organizations play an important role in multi-faceted processes of watershed governance in the Hudson River Watershed (HRV). In this paper, we present preliminary results of our ongoing engagements with key decision-makers in watershed governance in the HRV. Much of the existing literature on power in collaborative watershed governance critiques their tendency to create uneven power distribution and potential for environmental injustices or elite dominance. However, a genuinely collaborative governance approach would ideally include mechanisms that allow marginalized groups to escape these constraints, enabling them to govern themselves more effectively. We seek to broaden understanding of how structures of governance shape power dynamics and the ongoing efforts to incorporate diverse actors, knowledge, and perspectives in the HRV. In the process, we seek to advance debates on power, inequality, and justice in watershed governance.

While Bangladesh is reported as doing well in food production, there is increasing concern that this essentially deltaic and highly climate-vulnerable country will face steep challenges in food governance and productivity. Anthropogenic drivers shaped by narrow economic goals and sectoral policies have deeply altered Bangladesh’s food systems since the early 1960s and partly led to adverse outcomes. By combining policy and institutional analysis and primary research in Shyamnagar Upazila in Satkhira district in the southern coastal deltas, we revisit two key transitions, poldering and commercial shrimp farming, to reveal how diverse economic, social, and political factors have shaped the efficiency, inclusivity, and sustainability of agri-food systems. These complex interactions between agrifood systems, the broader ecology, and heterogeneity in poverty, gender, and other social identities are poorly understood and accounted for in policies and program interventions. This has resulted in unequal conflicts and contestations around critical resources, which impact most marginalized groups, also because policy incoherence encourages collusion between local elites and local decision-makers for resource appropriation and control. Conceptually, a social-ecological systems (SES) framework would identify these complexities. However, SES approaches tend to be technocratic and overlook the overtly economic framing of natural resources governance, diversity among local communities, and the politics of resource appropriation. This gap can be remedied by merging SES thinking with a critical political ecology lens to trace the historical, scalar, and deeply intersectional nature of socio-ecological relations.

This review examines the decolonisation process within North-South (N-S) research collaborations, specifically focusing on decolonised practices. It also briefly discusses the influence of institutional settings and power dynamics in ensuring decolonised practices. Our findings reveal that these elements significantly mould decolonisation practices, underscoring the need for a comprehensive understanding of the broader context in which these collaborations occur. Notably, we found a limited number of studies led by Northern researchers, and indeed fewer led by Southern researchers, who actively practice decolonisation in their N-S research collaborations. This raises crucial questions regarding the extent to which the voices, perspectives, and expertise of the South are included and valued in these collaborations. The review also highlights the need for increased efforts to promote South-led research and to challenge and transform the power dynamics that often marginalise Southern researchers and institutions.
We argue that a deep understanding of these dynamics is important for developing more equitable and inclusive decolonised research practices and for addressing the power imbalances that often characterise N-S research collaborations. The study concludes with a call for equal N-S research collaboration as a key strategy for overcoming the economic, social, and cultural boundaries often dividing Northern and Southern researchers. We argue that such partnerships are essential for fostering more inclusive and equitable research practices and advancing decolonisation. Incorporating insights from earlier work, we also highlight the importance of early and open communication, which aids decolonisation in N-S research collaborations. We note that protecting specific individuals within teams can lead to the omission of critical issues, potentially endangering the sustainability of relationships beyond the project's duration. We suggest creating dedicated time and space for discussions about strengths and weaknesses, thus enhancing N-S research collaborations and the decolonisation process.

The customary land ownership system entrenched in African societies means that chieftaincy continues to be powerful in decisions about land use and management of communal land. With chiefs as custodians of just under 80 percent of the land in Ghana, their responses to the government’s recent land-change initiatives (purportedly to advance development) raise several important questions about inequalities and the absence of democratic processes, particularly as the executive and judicial authority embedded in a single person allows custodians considerable powers in allocating or managing communal land. This paper draws on field research conducted in the Shae-butter-producing region of Northern Ghana to examine the impact of land-use changes on the livelihood of women Shae-butter producers in Northern Ghana, focusing on collective action responses to land custodial powers and decision-making. This paper explores how decisions around changes to communal lands threaten economic security, increase feelings of alienation, and reinforce gender inequalities in rural communities in Northern Ghana. I conclude by addressing how community members and the state should respond to better protect the interests of those whose livelihoods depend on access to communal land.

Amidst the growing environmental challenges in urban India, ecological restoration has emerged as a strategic response, with Bengaluru at the forefront, particularly through the rejuvenation of its historical, man-made lakes. However, critical scholarship reveals that these initiatives often perpetuate exclusionary practices, marginalizing traditional communities and the urban poor by restricting their access and rights to these commons, while privileging an elite, aesthetically oriented vision of urban environments. This article examines the ecorestoration of Kempambudhi Lake, one of Bengaluru’s oldest waterbodies, and analyzes how processes of exclusion and marginalization manifest within the project, thereby undermining the inclusive potential of an ecologically sensitive urban commons and transforming it into a contested social space.
Drawing on the theoretical framework of Situated Urban Political Ecology (SUPE), the article explores how power relations between the State, corporate actors, environmental NGOs (ENGOs), and local communities play out in the restoration process. The research adopts qualitative methodologies, including in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, oral histories, and spatial mapping of the lake.
The findings highlight two key factors exacerbating social-political contestations at the Kempambudhi Lake ecorestoration project. The first is the social fragmentation in civil society engagement – driven by caste-based politics, class hierarchies, migration trends, and encroachment disputes – that marginalizes the urban poor and traditional communities from accessing the lake and participating in the restoration under the guise of environmental protection. This fragmentation facilitates the consolidation of a State-Corporate-ENGO nexus, which brings a power shift in the project and widens the fragmentation among the local actors to monopolize the lake-space and promote a capital-intensive restoration model. This model prioritizes environmental aesthetics and economic enhancement, sidelining the ecological and social justice considerations.
Based on findings, the paper argues that ecorestoration process on the ground creates a “geometry of power” through the interaction between the state, market, and civil society actors, which potentially deepen the marginalization of alternative epistemologies and ecological practices around the lake. This power dynamic not only limits the lake’s potential as a common urban resource but also relegates environmental justice concerns to the periphery of the restoration discourse.

Women in many communities face systemic discrimination and structural inequalities that prevent them from fully accessing and controlling Commons like community forests. Historically relegated to subordinate roles, women are often seen as mere 'beneficiaries' or 'labourers' rather than ‘decision-makers’ and ‘stewards’. This exclusion from decision-making processes exacerbates their vulnerability to exploitation, violence, and denial of a dignified life. Yet, women's participation in the governance system is crucial for the sustainability and conservation of these Commons.

In India, the Forest Rights Act (2006) provides communities, including women, legal recognition and rights to conserve, manage, and govern community forests. However, women are often included in governance structures like Community Forest Rights Management Committees (CFRMCs) only symbolically. Their involvement is frequently tokenistic, with little genuine influence on decisions.

In the tribal-dominated villages of Dhenkanal district, Odisha, an initiative aimed to change this has been started by the Foundation for Ecological Security (FES) by encouraging women to take on leadership roles within the CFRMCs. The aim is to foster a mindset shift—encouraging them to question why they have been excluded from the decision-making process. When contested, women demonstrated deep ecological knowledge and a very close relationship with the forest. They identified a far greater number of species—140 to 150—compared to men, who identified only 90 to 100 species. While women are seen going to the forest for 180 to 190 days, men are seen going for 90 to 100 days, which is reflected in women's knowledge of the forest’s biodiversity, seasonal changes, and sustainable harvesting practices and proved invaluable in forest management discussions.

As a result, women now hold leadership positions in about 60 to 65 villages, playing an active role in forest protection, restoration planning, and governance. This shift not only empowers women but also strengthens the sustainability of community-managed forests. Valuing women’s contributions and ensuring their rightful place in governance structures is creating a just, inclusive, and effective resource management systems that benefit both communities and ecosystems.

Scholarly material on the boundary of the commons-based on its access regimes and institutional design are still minimal. This has been a point of contention by geographers such as David Harvey (Harvey, 2011), critiquing Ostrom for stating that Commons have boundaries (Ostrom, 2015). Some of the problems with such critique lie in the imprecision in the conceptualisation of commons that vary in different disciplines, where communal conception (resources open to all) is used interchangeably with the distributive conception (interest-based communities). The communal conception positions the sociability within the commons as an abstract notion of ‘the crowd’ and their right to access public goods where their interest are framed as universal statistics. Cohen frames communal commons as having obligations within institutional systems such as policy and law (Vrousalis, 2015) which is close to public good logic. Distributive conception (Hussain, 2018) articulates the commons as an environment where its members are interest-based (have clear common ground) and are engaged in direct interpersonal relations. The latter offers an environment for discussion and deliberation in the articulation of needs, resources, and self-governing regimes. As such, distributive commons will have various insides and outsides. As a paradigm that sits outside the open to all conception and private enclosure, how do we design the boundaries of the such commons? This paper will start by theoretically defining the difference between the communal and distributive commons to set the context for the discussion on boundaries. It positions the boundary as an institutional threshold with various boundary conditions that requires consideration in organisational design and governance. Although a larger set of considerations will be presented the following four elements will be discussed in detail: 1) Social access regimes, 2) Resource sharing practices, 3) Knowledge, and 4) boundaries as barriers to co-option by state or market.

Bibliography
Harvey, D. 2011. The Future of the Commons. Radical History Review, Volume 2011, issue 109, Duke University Pres
Ostrom, E. 2015. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge University Press
Vrousalis, N. 2015The Political Philosophy of G. A. Cohen: Back to Socialist Basics. Bloomsbury Press.
Hussain, W., 2018. The Common Good. In: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1st ed. Toronto: Stanford University.
Popescu, G., 2018. Bordering and ordering the twenty-first century. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, In

Making a livelihood in the Sundarbans mangroves in the Gulf of Bengal has become increasingly challenging due to extreme poverty, frequent cyclones, tiger attacks, smuggling and organized crime by pirates, as well as historical marginalization rooted in colonial exploitation and exclusionary forest governance. In recent years, Bengal Tiger protection and climate-focused development interventions have emerged as a dominant strategy for mangrove governance, which many argue requires a careful re-assessment of their effectiveness and impacts. Grounded in qualitative methodology, with a conceptual focus on political ecology, this exploratory case study draws on six months of community-level fieldwork and aims to critically analyze the de facto challenges to resource access, rural social-political dynamics and everyday livelihood concerns and vulnerability of mangrove communities in the region.

This study finds that moneylending has become an instrumental strategy for managing increased government fees and revenues, as well as extra-legal expenses associated with harvesting trips. Moreover, moneylending not only shapes livelihood choices and options but also crucial for dwellers to survive seasonal hardship through non-harvesting periods and adapt to emergencies. For marginalized mangrove resource dwellers who depend on harvesting cycles, existing formal moneylending services offer ill-fitting timelines and inaccessible barriers such as high collateral deposits and legal documentation requirements. As an alternative, moneylenders have become important actors controlling rural cash supply and informal power in mangrove resource governance. The study outlines a debt trap related to the resulting high dependency on informal cash access, elite capture and local price control for forest resources, paired with systematic injustices and accountability gaps. In its conclusion, the paper raises the question of how effectively addressing local dwellers’ moneylending concerns may act as an indirect, or secondary tool in mitigating the growing overall livelihood vulnerability burden and conservation challenges in the region.

Key Words: brokers and middlemen, forest bureaucracy, maladaptation, micro-credit, co-optation, development

Multiple-use common-pool resources (CPRs) are used for activities such as irrigation, fishing, and recreation (Steins and Edwards, 1998; Meinzen-Dick and van Der Koek, 2001; Ramachandran, 2006). While collective rules and institutions are key for managing CPRs (Ostrom, 1990; Schlager and Blomquist, 1998; Agrawal, 2003), more research is needed on specific strategies employed by resource user groups with power asymmetries to access, use, and manage resources from multi-use commons. Limited research finds that less powerful users respond to domination through strategies such as silence, non-participation, or solidarity (Agrawal, 2002; Cleaver, 2002; Kashwan, 2016; Mudliar and Koontz, 2021). These strategies, termed “everyday politics” (Kerkvliet, 1999), are shaped by power dynamics, social relations, the perceived meaning and value of the resource, observations of behaviors, and life experiences (Edwards and Steins, 1998). This research, therefore, explores how groups with power imbalances (i.e., farmers and Dhinwars, an Indigenous fishing community) manage and access multi-use commons such as the Maji-Malguzari (MM) tanks in eastern Vidarbha, Maharashtra, India, for their livelihoods. MM tanks, dating to the 16th century, are used by both groups, with farmers seeking to appropriate water for paddy irrigation and Dhinwars seeking to maintain water levels for their fish stock. By employing Kerkvliet’s concept of everyday politics, focus-group discussions, and interviews reveal that while Dhinwars may endure unfair conditions, they also employ various resistance strategies against farmer domination. By examining everyday politics between different resource user groups, this study aims to deepen understanding of the interplay between domination and resistance in natural resource management.

The assertion that "the fisheries sector contributes significantly to global food sustainability" is well founded given the growing importance of fish as a key protein source for billions of people worldwide. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2020) highlights that “fish is not only the most traded and consumed goods globally but also a critical component in addressing food security challenges (FAO, 2020; Loring et al., 2019).” This is particularly significant for coastal and island communities, where fish is a primary dietary staple and a vital economic resource. Moreover, global fisheries and aquaculture production reached a new high of 214 million tonnes in 2020, a 65% growth from 2004 (FAO, 2022), This supports the importance of the fishery sector to global development. This means that prudent measures must be put in place to achieve sustainability. The purpose of this study is to investigate the nature of power relations in the co-management of fisheries in Ghana: Experiences of fisher in Komenda Edina Eguafo Aberim (KEEA) Municipality. The main focus is to provide insights into how power dynamics influence the effectiveness of co-management structures and the collaborations between fishers and policy-makers. The study employed a qualitative research approach and a single case design. In-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and participant observation were used to collect the data from fishers, community leaders, and fisheries officials. The study found that the delegated co-management structure designed to empower fishers and promote sustainable fisheries practices is entangled in a web of political influence. Indeed, co-management in the fishery sector is a network riddled with power imbalances. The study concludes by recommending that policymakers critically reassess the delegated co-management policy. This reassessment should employ a framework that focuses on uncovering and addressing power imbalances and structural inequalities to enhance effective co-management practices.

In rural Cambodia, inland freshwater and rice field fisheries are key sources of income, animal protein, and important ecosystem services. As the flood pulse in the Tonlé Sap floodplain recedes post-monsoon, leaving rice fields and local water bodies dry, Community Fish Refuges (CFRs) offer a promising path to sustain dry season fish stocks, aquatic biodiversity, and secure water for agriculture and husbandry. Their sustained physical integrity and productivity as multiple-use system depend on the ability of communities to collectively manage these systems. To explore whether the communities studied have been able to respond to the challenge of collectively managing CFR, we assessed two CFR sites established in 2016 by local and international organizations alongside government agencies. Our aim is to examine: 1) the presence, extent and effectiveness of collective action (CA) at the community level to manage CFR; and 2) the factors that either facilitate or inhibit CA in relation to CFR. We conducted a qualitative case study in two sites in Kampong Thom province between March and May 2023. These were chosen because, although they have similar ecological characteristics, they have different management outcomes according to the implementing international organization, WorldFish. This paper examines a process led by external actors seeking to reshape local behavior and existing institutional arrangements. The study reveals that centralized power structures, rural patronage politics, and limited peer-to-peer communication hinder villagers' participation and agency in managing Community Fish Refuges (CFRs) in Cambodia. These local power dynamics are tied to broader national politics, restricting villagers' ability to drive change and suggesting a need to reevaluate the CFR committee's structure to enhance legitimacy. While extended funding and well-informed external interventions are essential, the study questions the short-term feasibility of CA, emphasizing the critical role of contextual factors and policymakers' assumptions. The findings suggest that CFR governance challenges stem from complex external and internal constraints rather than inherently community limitations.

Patron-client relations have long played a significant role in influencing the management of fisheries and shaping fisherfolk livelihoods. Despite a vast literature on patron-client relations in fisheries, little literature explicitly examines how these relations influence fisheries co-management. This paper responds to this gap by reporting on research into how patron-client relations interact with fisheries co-management, with consequences for how fisheries co-management operates and performs. Taking Bangladesh as a case study, two examples of co-management supported by different donor-funded projects were investigated using a framework to analyse the nature and implications of patron-client relations on co-management. The research drew on the concepts of hidden and invisible power by Gaventa (2006) and the defining characteristics of patron-client relations and co-management to identify three key analytical themes: power relations; obligation and trust; and, cultural norms. The study found that the powerful non-fisherfolk senior males in the Panchayat (village-organization), the patrons in the studied areas, manipulated co-management structures and processes, used patron-client relations in the form of male community leaders (Panchayat)-fisherfolk links and developed informal rules to control access of the fisherfolk to fisheries and credit, to maintain their power and status. Patrons used existing systems of social status that set fishers at the bottom of social ranking and women largely away from public spaces, preventing the co-management systems from being inclusive and empowering. The research confirmed that patron-client relations within a fishing community can significantly shape externally-introduced co-management by influencing who is involved in fisheries co-management and how it functions.