Here are some links to videos that are relevant to the discussion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwaNZgY9PCQ&feature=endscreen&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQlXwE-0um0

In the case of common-pool resources, the Tragedy of the Commons has largely been a bogey.

In the case of the global financial crisis, the Tragedy of the Commons has been true. Here’s a video on that

Riza,

“Macro-centric governance should be the background fabric that decides the final outcome of result nationally, the KPIs”

Here’s a link to a paper by Jaliya Medagama, who once served as the Secretary to the Ministry of Irrigation, Power and Energy. http://publications.iwmi.org/pdf/H001399.pdf

This paper looks at government intervention in the area of Village Irrigation Rehabilitation Programs to improve performance. From the word go, the VIRP suffered from a lack of information as well as farmer participation. Since the rehabilitation process and water management were viewed separately and administered by two different departments, it messed up the capacity of the farmer organisation to manage the system. It finally led to greater dependence on the government.

The Canadian management scholar Henry Mintzberg once quipped that every failure in implementation is by definition, a failure of formulation. This golden rule applies to the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Report, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, Government intervention in formulation of the VIRP and for any other thing that involves formulation and planning.

The rules and information required to regulate, manage and improve the performance of common-pool resources is very complex. There is hardly any empirical studies to show that government intervention and regulation will lead to better performance. Indeed, the empirical data that is available state that sustainable improvements in performance can only be achieved by farmers themselves engaging in collective action. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that “each stakeholder would pull strings to safeguard their interest” in the abscence of macrogovernance and guidance when it comes to common-pool resources, which over time have been remarkably well-managed. Ostrom won the Nobel Prize for that. And that’s why my alter ego is fashioned along those lines.

Unfortunately, governments have not been able to keep their hands off the cookie jar. Nor have you. I am calling into question some of the cunsel that you expound here in this forum. I hope I have managed to brew enough trouble.

Thank you Keynes, for the video presentation on Polycentric Governance. I have mixed feelings about this concept. This is not the ideal universal (one shot)solution to the problem that we have today.

We should know that the contemporary society is compartmentalised and found with clearly defined boundaries. They are a residue of a once homogenous society. The sri Lankan society in the pre-colonial period was more homogenous and governance was organic and (somewhat) polycentric though such concept was not prevalent.

Further in macro-centric governance there would be access to information, research, technology and technocrats to identify issues and find solutions. This again may be not the ideal solution.

Similarly polycentric governance will have multiple stake holders lacking expertise and technical resources. In the prevailing compartmentalised society, potentially, each stakeholder would pull strings to safeguard their interest in the absences of CONSENSUS + MACRO GOVERNANCE AND GUIDANCE.

Therefore to arrive at a reasonable solution we need three actors to play in tandem. (1)Polycentric governance should be localised. (2)Macro-centric governance should be the background fabric that decides the final outcome of result nationally, the KPIs. (3) Formulating a sustainable society with its three pillars of Society +Economy +Environmet be congruent and concentric to underpin the system of governance. These three aspects marching on a timeline would confluence to effective management.

– C.S.Holling and Gary K. Meffe in Command and Control and the Pathology
of Natural Resource Management.

The idea that Sri Lanka should be self-sufficient in every single food is a dangerous obsession. If such an idea is extended to all the countries in the world, then there will be no international trade in food; and countries will not be able to reap the benefit of comparative advantage in production.

North Korea, with its Juche Idea, epitomizes food security to be achieved by self-sufficiency. Look what happened to them!

At the height of World War II, Britain decided to outsource its food production to Australia and concentrate on what Britain did best – making ammunition and eventually giving us the BSA motorcycle. Britain did this even though Nazi Monsun U-boats infested the Pacific Ocean. Britain’s decision to outsource food production to Australia is captured in the 2008 film titled Australia, starring Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman.

A worldview that advocates “utility as the best merit”, will never find enough resources to feed the fire of collective desire of the wold.

If push does not work, only alternative is to pull back.

Thanks!

There are those who oppose climate change conferences for reasons other than yours. Elinor Ostrom, for example, is skeptical of climate change conferences and government regulations because they do not know how to regulate common-pool resources such as forests and water basins.

The problem is your singular panacea of government regulation for problems related to the ecology. A polycentric approach to addressing the problem of the commons is a far better and pukka approach than government regulation… well, that’s what the research shows. Here’s a nice video on this http://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=1223

One billion people on earth don’t have enough food right now. It’s estimated that by 2050 there will be more than nine billion people living on the planet. We need to treat climate change not as a long-term threat to our environment but as an immediate threat to our security and prosperity.
We need a “third industrial revolution,” just the way Chris Huhne, strongly expressed. A green revolution. It will transform our world towards a low-carbon, cleaner energy and greener growth. Sustainability is all about rising now and care for now.
shelton Dharmaratne.
[email protected]

“Failure of missions of Climate Conferences” is a general statement and refers particularly to Kyoto, Copenhagen, South Africa & etc. These conferances aught to be decisive in bringing about changes in the world. Unfortunately global consensus is lacking particularly due to backstepping and back stabbing by some of the countries due to economic and geopolitical reasons.

Why I call these ‘a failure’ is because these Conferences are high powered deliberations by international scientific bodies and regional and global think tanks and their NGO associates. Deplorably, the outcomes of these poorly evolved to translate as policies, programmes and regulations in UN member countries to effectively respond to the problems at hand. The socalled developed and democratic countries with all their resources failed to agree to limit their rape of the planet. But set agendas for small and weak nations to limith their growth a kind of a post modern ‘Apartheid’.

Hence countries in the good spirit of Environmental Championship and to insulate themselves of the impending dangers of CC should develop their own local agendas and regulations to protect their interests.

The position papers, deliberations and research material hitherto presented in the conferances if relevant should be used to develop local agenda and regulations rather than re-inventing the wheel. Therefore what is imperatively relevant now is to translate the available knowledge into practices and protect the planet by our country(ies) by responsible behaviour.

As pointed by Senanayake, extraction of water for commercial use and for export in particular should be strictly monitored by the State Stakeholding Agencies like BOI, CEA, Geological Survey Dept and National Water Resources authorities, local authorities etc. They should strictly monitor the extracted quantities against the exported quantities as a yardstick. Also must insist on periodic EIA from the business organisation.
Definitely extraction would reduce the water table levels in the region and lead to ‘depletion. This will disrupt local agriculture and rural settlements as the time goes.

The environmental damage caused by extraction should be estimated in terms of physical and social cost and such FDI’s should be charged on the basis of ‘polluter pay for pollution’. If this goes unmonitored, the sad consequence would be a chain reation of water depletion – failing agriculture – lack of and pollution of drinking water – unemployment – migration – desertification. This is a vicious chain unless seriously addressed.

In the long run the state should discourage such FDI’s that affecte a nation’s sustainability.

Yes Eureka, System thinking is vital irrespective of conflict ridden or not a country is. However, since resources are limited it is imperative that they are sustainably managed, otherwise, absence of sustainable management of resources would be the cause for new conflicts.