Session 9. 9. B.

Rewilding activities in Europe have been focusing on the reintroduction of so-called “keystone species” to territories where they have been absent for centuries. Most notably, the European bison has been part of a continental-scale initiative to repopulate its former grazing grounds, from Portugal to Siberia, for the last thirty years. As much as re-establishing the population of an almost lost species, rewilders argue for multiple ecological benefits that come along with its presence in ecosystems.
In the USA, projects of reintroducing the buffalo to its former territories are being led by indigenous communities on their lands. The example of the Wind River Tribal Buffalo Initiative is one of many bison rematriation projects whose main objective is to reconnect Native American communities to their long-lost relatives. These initiatives present an opportunity to generate new meanings around the notion of commons.
With this presentation we will therefore question what status bison are given in different countries across the world, focusing especially on fieldwork in Switzerland and the USA. How can we share space with this “megafauna” in landscapes that are overly anthropogenic. What conflicts emerge when these initiatives are undertaken? Can we imagine a future where bison would be part of commons and share resources with humans? What new perspectives on commoning initiatives can we learn from so-called “bison rewilding” projects and how can we make these projects beneficial to human communities as well as non-human entities.

What are the implications for institutional analysis and governance if commons are (or are believed to be) co-created – including through cooperation, competition, mutual adjustment, social learning, and collective self-regulation – by the choices of multiple types of beings and not only humans? And what if not only humans are considered to have rights, duties, desires, strategies, roles, and other attributes? Could considering some nonhumans as commons actors help regenerate and sustain social-ecological systems by improving understanding and governance?

This paper explores from an Ostromian institutionalist perspective a range of arguments and issues relevant to these questions. In doing so we draw on ideas including from indigenous ontologies, sacred ecology, land ethics, environmental philosophy, rights of nature, (re)wilding, and complexity science, and on empirical findings from the life and cognitive sciences. Reciprocity and strategic behaviour in social-ecological dilemma situations are considered, as are other relationships of interdependence and cooperation including those involving interspecies mutualism, niche construction, and keystone species in ecosystems. Conceptualisation of humans and nonhumans as commons actors is explored from the perspectives of both institutional researchers and those engaged in commoning. Issues and arguments are examined in the context of illustrative cases, including of multispecies cooperation and ecological regeneration. Implications for improving institutional analysis and governance of environmental commons are discussed.

As a society, we are faced with a critical dilemma. While the current pattern of economic growth is getting increasingly unsustainable (and more so ecologically), low or negative rates of economic growth can have adverse social impacts. The efforts designed for economic well-being seem counterproductive to the poor and marginalised and make them more vulnerable. The inexplicable damage being done to the rural infrastructure (land and water) along with the complete lack of recognition of the traditional knowledge and siloed thinking has further pushed the country deep into the swamp of environmental degradation.

The central question being explored in the paper is if an alternative economic model (circular rather than linear) is necessary! Especially when common resources are degrading at an alarming rate; impacting the very survival of the dependent communities. The paper explores how circularity principles when applied in market models lead to the shortening of value chains (burning less fossil fuel), conservation and governance of commons (forest, water bodies), enhancing dignity among smallholder producers, and recognising women as a key stakeholder in economic activities and being the contributors to family incomes.

The paper further stresses the point (through extensive field research) that an alternative model emulating the principle of circularity is essential for the survival of the rural economy. More so for countries where the predominant population lives in rural areas and common resources contribute significantly to their livelihood. It positions ‘Circularity’ as being very fundamental to economic models (and not as an afterthought) that act as a catalyst for the conservation of common resources like forest and water. It provides enough examples as to how marketplaces (built on the principles of circularity) enable conservation while ensuring adequate economic opportunities for the most disadvantaged-like women and tribal.