On the Polycentric Approach to
Governing Climate Change.
Ignazio Musu,
Ca’ Foscari University of Venice,
Venice International University
musu@unive.it
1
How effective would polycentric approaches be in
reaching solutions to climate change?
• Elinor Ostrom (2009, 2012): polycentric system as a
complex hierarchical organization of nested layers of
governance, giving to each level well defined and
not overlapping tasks.
• In Ostrom the idea of polycentric system is strictly
linked to common management of common-pool
resources.
• Communities do not operate in a vacuum; they are
part of a larger institutional framework.
2
Common management.
• Climate change: common management of
atmosphere as a global diffuse common-pool
resource requires cooperation between states.
• Ostrom (1990, 2002, 2005, 2009): conditions
(institutional and behavioral) required for a
successful common management of common-pool
resources.
• More difficult to be implemented for global
common-pool resources.
3
Institutional conditions (I) .
1. Definition of resource physical and ecological
features and available technologies.
In climate change uncertainty:
• about physical and environmental characteristics
(spontaneous and acceptable thresholds on
temperature increase);
• on future technological opportunities.
4
Institutional conditions (II)
2. Participation in defining and modifying rules for
appropriating resource flows (emissions).
• In climate change: difficulties of defining global
emission targets and/or rules to determine a price
of carbon (carbon tax or carbon allowances).
3. Implementation of a monitoring and an incentive
compatible sanctioning system.
• In climate change: lack of global institutions
emerging from appropriate, stable and
enforceable agreements.
5
Behavioral conditions (I).
1. Sustainability considered important for all users’
targets.
In climate change:
• low willingness of countries to share benefits from
reducing GHGs’ emissions;
• national considerations prevail (CDM and air
pollution in China).
6
Behavioral conditions (II).
2. Adequate stock of social capital in terms of reciprocal
trust.
• In climate change: debate between developed and
developing countries.
3. Limited differences in size and power.
• Not existing among states: large differences in the
size and power.
4. Homogeneity.
• Cultural, social and political heterogeneity across
states.
7
Why a polycentric approach (also “regime complex”,
Keohane and Victor, 2011: Abbott, 2011).
• For a successful bottom-up process towards global
governance.
• To implement at the lower levels the strategies
eventually to be decided at a global level.
• Potentially more fruitful than a mere global-scale
approach (Cole, 2011; Ostrom, 2009, 2012a, 2012b;
Stern, 2011).
8
Objectives:
• Consistency between national and global strategies
and behaviors.
• Gradual progress towards wider coalitions: extending
networks among countries (carbon market
experiments).
• Need of selecting the most viable strategies for
cooperation: emission control coordination or
technological cooperation?
9
• Consistency between government decisions and
communities’ and individuals’ behaviors.
• Effects of climate change global, but causes
mostly at a small scale (consumers, firms, utilities,
municipalities).
• Measure of policies effectiveness: ability to
affects relevant behaviors.
• With citizens’ support: policies more effctive, less
invasive.
• Process from local levels (local communities,
cities, or both): building a network to the national
level.
10
Reality rich of positive examples:
• community decisions in urban traffic effective
although not taken with the primary object of
reducing CO2 emission (primarily aimed at
reducing air pollution);
• local policies to promote energy efficiency
projects and renewable energies with
experiments of distributed energy generation;
• participation of traditional indigenous
communities in sustainable agriculture and forest
management
11
Conclusions.
• International agreements not successful without
a polycentric approach.
• Building a polycentric approach requires
integrating:
• community and local initiatives,
• individual governments’ policies,
• the way they use market opportunities.
12