The Challenge of Common-Pool Resources (original) (raw)

In 1 9 87 , the World Com m ission on Env ironm ent and Dev elopm ent (WCED) released its sem inal report, Our Common Future, which created a serious discussion about how we should engage in sustainable dev elopm ent of the world's future, including how to address global resource sy stem s, or " com m ons. " 1 In the two decades that followed, hum ans hav e failed to halt the tragedy of m assiv e ov erfishing of the oceans, m ajor deforestation, and excessiv e dum ping of carbon dioxide in the atm osphere. Howev er, in som e specific niches, such as the Maine lobster fishery , the com m ons are in better condition today than they were a decade or two ago. Part of the reason for the m ixed results is that m ost com m on-pool resources differ v astly from one another. Many gov ernm ent officials and policy analy sts' adv ocacy of a single idealized solution for all of these resources has been a key part of the problem instead of the solution. 2 Further, m any of the m ost pressing problem s future generations will face are on a global scale. Establishing effectiv e gov ernance arrangem ents on this scale has prov ed to be m ore difficult than on a local scale. As the WCED noted in its report, " the traditional form s of national sov ereignty are increasingly challenged by the realities of ecological and econom ic dependence. Nowhere is this m ore true than in shared ecosy stem s in 'the global com m ons.' " 3 Yet the WCED, headed by then–Norwegian Prim e Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, challenged scholars, public officials, and citizens to recognize that we all share a com m on future. That future is sev erely threatened, howev er, if we do not focus on how to protect our com m on heritage while endeav oring to achiev e greater econom ic returns for the peoples of the world. The WCED conceiv ed " env ironm ent " as where people liv e, and " dev elopm ent " as how people try to im prov e their liv es. In Our Common Future, the com m ission wrote, " Hum anity has the ability to m ake dev elopm ent sustainable—to ensure it m eets the needs of the present without com prom ising the ability of future generations to m eet their own needs. " 4 William Clark of the Harv ard Kennedy School of Gov ernm ent ev aluated the im pact of the Brundtland Com m ission's work for Environment a decade after its release. 5 Clark reflected that m any disappointm ents, resignations, and increased cy nicism were expressed at the international m eetings held to ev aluate progress toward sustainable dev elopm ent. In addition to the m ajor disappointm ents of the decade, Clark found som e m ore optim istic dev elopm ents. To see these, he argued, requires a shift in perspective from the current short-term, global view of international environmental diplomacy to longer term and more local views of sustainable development. These views cannot be found in any one spot.. .. The pictures they provide are, of course, mixed, with their own share of environmental horrors, economic greed, and program failures. But compared with 20, 10, or even 5 years ago, the extent to which notions of sustainability have entered mainstream development thinking is astounding. 6