DOCSLIB.ORG

Defining Natural Resources As Common Goods

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Defining Natural Resources As Common Goods Leuphana University of Lüneburg Faculty of Sustainability Institute for Environmental Chemistry Bachelor Thesis DEFINING NATURAL RESOURCES AS COMMON GOODS 1st Supervisor: Dr. Alexa K. Lutzemberger 2nd Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Ruck Submitted by: Sarah Holzgreve Registration No 3015127 Spangenbergstraße 67, 21337 Lüneburg [email protected] Major Environmental Sciences 26th January 2015 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank Alexa K. Lutzemberger and Franziska Lichter for their support in clearing my thoughts; Silke Helfrich, David Bollier, Elinor Ostrom and all those working to make the commons visible for the transformative sparks they send into the world; The staff from UBA for bringing people of different backgrounds together in the 2nd European and National Resources Forum in Berlin, inviting to a student workshop and thus putting all the pieces together and on-the-ground; And all those working tirelessly towards a sustainable resources use and a global transformation towards cultures of strong sustainability and connectedness. Im Grunde sind es immer die Verbindungen mit Menschen, die dem Leben seinen Wert geben. - In the end, it always are the relationships with people that give live it's value. -Wilhelm von Humboldt- 2 Sarah Holzgreve Defining Natural Resources as Common Goods 26.01.2015, Lüneburg TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................2 Abstract..........................................................................................................................................6 1. Introduction................................................................................................................................6 2. Perspectives on Natural Resources............................................................................................8 a) Why Consider Natural Resources as Commons?..............................................................8 b) A Systematics of Natural Resources...............................................................................12 c) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Framework.............................................................14 3. Perspectives on Common Goods..............................................................................................17 a) A Systematics of the Commons......................................................................................18 a) A Systematics of the Commons......................................................................................19 b) A Combined Commons Definition for Sustainable Resource Use?.................................32 c) A Framework of Commons Terminology........................................................................40 4. Bringing Together: Natural Resources and Common Goods....................................................50 a) Combining Perspectives with Millennium Assessment Framework...............................50 b) Defining Natural Resources, Defining Common Goods..................................................54 c) Defining Natural Resources Cornerstones in Common Goods.......................................59 5. Identifying Natural Resources as Humanity's Common Goods.................................................64 a) A Flowchart of Humanity's Common Goods...................................................................64 b) Identification and Classification (Table).........................................................................68 c) Table Evaluation.............................................................................................................75 d) Definitions' Implications.................................................................................................79 6. Discussion of Methodology and Findings.................................................................................80 a) Methodology..................................................................................................................80 b) Risen Questions..............................................................................................................83 c) Validity of Findings.........................................................................................................85 d) Scientific Relevance........................................................................................................86 7. Concluding: a Commons Perspective on Natural Resources....................................................87 References....................................................................................................................................89 Appendix 1. Glossary....................................................................................................................92 Statutory Declaration...................................................................................................................96 ILLUSTRATION INDEX Illustration 1 (own source 2015, based on “the story of stuff” project): Product value chain and life cycle........................................................................................................................................11 Illustration 2 (own source 2015): Resource System, resource pool and resource unit.................12 3 Sarah Holzgreve Defining Natural Resources as Common Goods 26.01.2015, Lüneburg Illustration 3 (Diagram based on ffu/IFOK commissioned by the BMU, 2012): Diagram of natural resources and resources treated in ProGress...............................................................................14 Illustration 4 (Millennium Assessment 2005): Linkages between Ecosystem Services and Human Well-being....................................................................................................................................16 Illustration 5 (De Moor 2011): classical economics framework on types of goods categorised into excludability and rivalry of use/ substractability..........................................................................21 Illustration 6 (own source 2015, analogy based on Helfrich et al 2014): House of Traditional Commons displaying key elements of a commons-definition in tradition of Ostrom..................27 Illustration 7 (own source 2015, cf. Helfrich et al 2014): Categorisation of common pool goods beyond natural resources.............................................................................................................28 Illustration 8 (own source 2015): Commons properties in terms of resource, people and regulations...................................................................................................................................40 Illustration 9 (De Moor 2011): New and traditional commons in the goods´ framework after type of resources..................................................................................................................................42 Illustration 10 (own source 2015): A framework of commons terminology.................................47 Illustration 11 (own source 2015): Three exemplary cases in the Commons' Framework...........49 Illustration 12 (own source 2015): Basic Definition of a Commons. If one component is missing, the resource is not (yet) a common good....................................................................................56 Illustration 13 (own source 2015): Scales of natural resources in a commons.............................57 Illustration 14 (own source 2015): commons' resources and commons' perspectives from local to global level...............................................................................................................................58 Illustration 15 (own source 2015): Flowchart for identification of systematic resource scale and services.........................................................................................................................................66 Illustration 16 (own source 2015): Flowchart for resource identification as Common Goods and Common Pool Resources..............................................................................................................67 Illustration 17 (own source 2015): Combined Flowchart of resource properties for identification. .....................................................................................................................................................67 Illustration 18 (own source): Flowchart of CPR's collective governance and correlating terms...68 Illustration 19 (own source 2015): Natural resources' of global significance under local commoning ..................................................................................................................................79 4 Sarah Holzgreve Defining Natural Resources as Common Goods 26.01.2015, Lüneburg INDEX OF TABLES Table 1: Design Principles for Successful Management of Common Goods.................................25 Table 2: Degrees of Cornerstones Importance (1 to 4) and Specification in the Commons- Definitions....................................................................................................................................33 Table 3: Levels of commons cornerstones importance in differing backgrounds and their expressions...................................................................................................................................37 Table 4: Characteristics of Common Goods on a Gradient...........................................................45
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Critique of John Stuart Mill Chris Daly
    Southern Illinois University Carbondale OpenSIUC Honors Theses University Honors Program 5-2002 The Boundaries of Liberalism in a Global Era: A Critique of John Stuart Mill Chris Daly Follow this and additional works at: http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/uhp_theses Recommended Citation Daly, Chris, "The Boundaries of Liberalism in a Global Era: A Critique of John Stuart Mill" (2002). Honors Theses. Paper 131. This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the University Honors Program at OpenSIUC. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of OpenSIUC. For more information, please contact [email protected]. r The Boundaries of Liberalism in a Global Era: A Critique of John Stuart Mill Chris Daly May 8, 2002 r ABSTRACT The following study exanunes three works of John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Utilitarianism, and Three Essays on Religion, and their subsequent effects on liberalism. Comparing the notion on individual freedom espoused in On Liberty to the notion of the social welfare in Utilitarianism, this analysis posits that it is impossible for a political philosophy to have two ultimate ends. Thus, Mill's liberalism is inherently flawed. As this philosophy was the foundation of Mill's progressive vision for humanity that he discusses in his Three Essays on Religion, this vision becomes paradoxical as well. Contending that the neo-liberalist global economic order is the contemporary parallel for Mill's religion of humanity, this work further demonstrates how these philosophical flaws have spread to infect the core of globalization in the 21 st century as well as their implications for future international relations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Contribution of Higher Education to Public and Common Good(S), East and West
    Tsinghua University Institute of Education Seminar 1 on 21 June 2019 The contribution of higher education to public and common good(s), East and West Simon Marginson Department of Education, University of Oxford ESRC/HEFCE Centre for Global Higher Education Higher School of Economics, Moscow The problem of ‘public’ or ‘social’ goods in higher education We can think we can measure private goods associated with higher education, such as augmented earnings … (though the extent to which they are really caused by the higher education? that’s another story …) … but public good, or public goods, or ’social goods’, are more elusive, especially goods collectively consumed. These public goods tend to be under-recognised, and hence are probably under-funded and under-provided The contribution of higher education to public and common good(s), East and West • Contributions of higher education – individual and collective • Higher education as a public sphere • Higher education as public good(s) - Economic definition - Political definition - Combining the two definitions • Higher education as common good(s) • Global public and common good(s) in higher education • Concepts of ‘public’ and ‘common’ in China Mapping the contributions of higher education: Individualised and collective Individualised 1 Individualised national goods 2 Individualised global goods Greater agency freedom Cross-border mobility and Better social position employability Augmented earnings and Communications facility employment rates Knowledge of diverse Lifetime health and financial languages and cultures outcomes, etc Access to global science national global 3 Collective national goods 4 Collective global goods Ongoing development of Universal global science professions/occupations Diverse knowledge fields Shared social literacy, Common zone of free critical opportunity structure inquiry Inputs to government Systems for exchange, Stronger regions, cities collaboration, mobility collective 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Privatization of Governmental Services, Assets and Functions the Privatization Study Was Adopted at the League Lost and Jobs May Be Cut
    LWVUS Privatization Study: Privatization of Governmental Services, Assets and functions The Privatization study was adopted at the League lost and jobs may be cut. In some instances, this may of Women Voters of the United States convention in have a detrimental effect on the “common good” or 2010. Our study and consensus meetings are scheduled public well-being. for March 13 and April 10. One state, for instance, has declared as a matter of state Scope of the Privatization Study: law and policy that “using private contractors to provide public services formerly provided by state “The purpose of this study is to identify those employees does not always promote the public interest. parameters and policy issues to be considered To ensure that citizens …… receive high quality public in connection with proposals to transfer services at low cost, with due regard for tax payers…… federal, state or local government services, and the needs of public and private workers, the assets and/or functions to the private sector. (legislature) finds it necessary to regulate such It will review the stated goals and the privatization contracts throughout the state.” community impact of such transfers, and identify strategies to ensure transparency, Those promoting privatization claim that: accountability, and preservation of the • the private sector can provide increased efficiency, common good.” better quality and more innovation in services than the Today many nations are faced with financial challenges. government; In the United States these problems are apparent at the • a smaller government will reduce costs to the federal, state and local levels. Encouraged by taxpayer; proponents of a conservative political philosophy, • less regulation will provide a better environment for many people look to privatization as a simple answer to business, thus creating more jobs.
    [Show full text]
  • Commons-Based Peer Production and Artistic Expression
    NMS0010.1177/1461444813511929new media & societyKostakis and Drechsler 511929research-article2013 Article new media & society 2015, Vol. 17(5) 740 –754 Commons-based peer © The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permissions: production and artistic sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1461444813511929 expression: Two cases nms.sagepub.com from Greece Vasilis Kostakis Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia; P2P Lab, Ioannina, Greece Wolfgang Drechsler Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia Abstract This essay narrates, from a creator-observation perspective, the production of two works of fiction, a book of short stories and a play, based on the principles and technologies of Commons-based peer production. This is potentially interesting from both the Commons-based peer production and the literary perspective. Even though both seem well-matched by their prima facie lack of profit orientation, Commons- based peer production case studies rarely deal with fiction, and regarding plays, artistic creativity is still mostly associated with one, maybe two authors. After tracing and analysing the Commons-based peer production phenomenon, the case studies show concretely the fate of the specific projects as well as how, nowadays, people can get involved in collaborative artistic projects inspired and catalysed by Commons-oriented principles and technologies. Keywords Arts, collaboration, commons, distributed creativity, literature,
    [Show full text]
  • Reestablishing the Commons for the Common Good
    Reestablishing the Commons for the Common Good Howard Gardner Abstract: For individuals living in a small community, the notion of “common good” seems almost nat- ural; it can be thought of simply as neighborly morality. However, in a complex modern society, it is far more challenging for individuals to de½ne and agree upon what is the common good. Nonetheless, two Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/daed/article-pdf/142/2/199/1830201/daed_a_00213.pdf by guest on 29 September 2021 contemporary roles would bene½t from embracing a broader sense of the good: 1) membership in a pro- fession; and 2) membership in a polity. Drawing on ½ndings from the GoodWork Project, I describe how the common good can become a guiding value in the professional and civic realms; discuss threats to such guiding values; and suggest some ways to promote the common good in contemporary American society. As high-end primates, human beings in earlier eras presumably had some notion of “common good.” Parents made sacri½ces for their children, and later in life, the favor was often returned. Siblings and more distant relatives cared for one another and, perhaps, for a broader group of persons. Precisely when such solidarity transcended blood relationships will likely never be known. The work of anthropologist Robin Dunbar hints at the scope of early conceptions of the common good.1 Dunbar argues that individuals can comfortably maintain relationships with up to 150 people: the maximum HOWARD GARDNER number of individuals in a clan or small tribe who , a Fellow of see each other regularly, and whose behavior– the American Academy since 1995, is the John H.
    [Show full text]
  • Four Basic Notions of the Common Good
    St. John's Law Review Volume 75 Number 2 Volume 75, Spring 2001, Number 2 Article 16 Four Basic Notions of the Common Good Brother Daniel P. Sulmasy O.F.M. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FOUR BASIC NOTIONS OF THE COMMON GOOD BROTHER DANIEL P. SULMASY, O.F.M.t INTRODUCTION I am delighted to be here among lawyers-it is a rare opportunity for a physician. I am very grateful to John Coughlin, my brother, for asking me to think about the common good. I told him that I never think about the common good and in trying to get me to be a better Franciscan he asked me to do so. I think it flows well from what Professor Harper just spoke to us about. I am going to talk about different ways of thinking about this term common good. The term is frequently tossed about these days, both inside and outside Catholic circles. The term "common good" has a lot of different kinds of meanings and they are not always clearly distinguished. I would like to try to bring a little more conceptual clarity by describing four basic notions of the common good. Each is going to have two subtypes; this makes it a little complex.
    [Show full text]
  • IP Rights Vs. the Common Good: Can the Government Bring Them Together to Fight COVID-19?
    April 2020 IP Rights vs. the Common Good: Can the Government Bring Them Together to Fight COVID-19? As the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic spreads across the United States and the world, some companies and individuals are taking action to provide medicines and medical supplies to care for patients who have been infected and to protect others from becoming infected. At the same time, governments, universities, and the private sector are researching treatments and vaccines to halt the outbreak. Examples of patent holders moving against these activities have made news in legal outlets.1 After all, a benefit of patenting your invention is the right to exclude others from manufacturing or selling it without your permission. However, these stories raise concerns that patent rights could be used to hinder the pursuit of potential solutions vital to ending the world crisis. While many patent holders would be proud if their technology alleviated suffering caused by a pandemic, they have often invested millions of dollars (or more) in research and development—e.g., for drug treatments or ventilator systems. Even if they could justify waiving patent licenses to address a worldwide health crisis, many are concerned that doing so would not only result in a loss of reasonable profit, but also diminish the value of their intellectual property (IP) going forward. Competing humanitarian, civic, and commercial duties can place well-intentioned companies in a bind. How can they allow their technology to be made, used, and sold by others to address a crisis and yet still recoup investments, protect IP, and generally behave as a responsible and profitable business? The federal government’s authority over patent rights may be able to untie this knot.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainability and Common-Pool Resources: Alternatives to Tragedy
    PHIL & TECH 3:4 Summer 1998 Carpenter, Common-Pool Resources/36 SUSTAINABILITY AND COMMON-POOL RESOURCES: ALTERNATIVES TO TRAGEDY Stanley R. Carpenter, Institute of Technology ABSTRACT The paradox that individually rational actions collectively can lead to irrational outcomes is exemplified in human appropriation of a class of goods known as "common-pool resources" ("CPR"): natural or humanly created resource systems which are large enough to make it costly to exclude potential beneficiaries. Appropriations of common-pool resources for private use tend toward abusive practices that lead to the loss of the resource in question: the tragedy of the commons. Prescriptions for escape from tragedy have involved two institutions, each applied largely in isolation from the other: private markets (the "hidden hand") and government coercion (Leviathan). Yet examples exist of local institutions that have utilized mixtures of public and private practices and have survived for hundreds of years. Two problems further exacerbate efforts to avoid the tragic nature of common- pool resource use. One, given the current level of knowledge, the role of the resource is not recognized for what it is. It is, thus, in a fundamental, epistemological sense invisible. Two, if the resource is recognized, it may not be considered scarce, thus placing it outside the scrutiny of economic theory. Both types of error are addressed by the emerging field of ecological economics. This paper discusses common pool resources, locates the ambiguities that make their identification difficult, and argues that avoidance of a CPR loss is inadequately addressed by sharply separated market and state institutions. When the resource is recognized for what it is, a common-pool good, which is subject to overexploitation, it may be possible to identify creative combinations of public and private institutions that can combine to save that resource.
    [Show full text]
  • Resolution for the Common Good
    1 APPROVED 2 For the Common Good 3 (Resolution of Witness: Requires 2/3 vote for passage) 4 5 Submitted by: Justice and Witness Ministries 6 7 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from 8 another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. Then the king will 9 say to those at his right hand,ACome, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit 10 the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry 11 and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a 12 stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick 13 and you took care of me. Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of 14 these who are members of my family, you did it to me. .@ Then he will say to 15 those at his left hand. AI was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and 16 you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, 17 naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit 18 me. .@ ATruly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you 19 did not do it to me.@ Matthew 25: 34-45 20 21 22 Summary 23 24 The Twenty-fifth General Synod calls upon all settings of the United Church of Christ to uphold 25 the common good as a foundational ideal in the United States, rejects the notion that government 26 is more unwieldy or inefficient than other democratic institutions, and reaffirms the obligation of 27 citizens to share through taxes the financial responsibility for public services that benefit all 28 citizens, especially those who are vulnerable, to work for more equitable public institutions, and 29 to support regulations that protect society and the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Eight Principles for Property Rights in the Anti-Sprawl Age
    William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review Volume 23 (1998-1999) Issue 3 Symposium 1999: Land Use for the 21st Century: The Next Frontier for Environmental Article 4 Law October 1999 Eight Principles for Property Rights in the Anti-Sprawl Age Eric T. Freyfogle Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr Part of the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Repository Citation Eric T. Freyfogle, Eight Principles for Property Rights in the Anti-Sprawl Age, 23 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 777 (1999), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr/vol23/iss3/4 Copyright c 1999 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr EIGHT PRINCIPLES FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE ANTI- SPRAWL AGE ERIC T. FREYFOGLE" I. THE PATH TO THE PRESENT In 1876 in Middlesex, England, a dispute broke out between the occupants of two adjoining houses on Hackney Road. One house, long used as a dwelling, was taken over by timber merchants who rebuilt it for commercial use. The merchants increased the height of the building and proceeded to store piles of timber on the rooftop. Next door lived the plaintiff who used the several fireplaces in his home for both heating and cooking. The effect of the timber merchants' extensive remodeling, along with the stored timber, was to block the winds that naturally blew across the neighborhood rooftops, thereby disrupting the draft of the plaintiffs chimneys. Smoke that had risen up for decades now blew down and into the plaintiffs house.
    [Show full text]
  • UNU/IAS Report the International Regime for Bioprospecting Existing Policies and Emerging Issues for Antarctica This Report Was Prepared By: Dagmar Lohan Sam Johnston
    UNU/IAS Report The International Regime for Bioprospecting Existing Policies and Emerging Issues for Antarctica This report was prepared by: Dagmar Lohan Sam Johnston We thank the following people for valuable contributions made: Mike Richardson Jill Barret Tony Poole Lyle Glowka Sarah Laird Glenys Parry Martin Smith The organisers and participants of the meeting “Bioprospecting in Antarctica” (an academic workshop) For further information, contact: United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies (UNU/IAS) 5–53–67 Jingumae, Shibuya–ku, Tokyo, 150–8304, Japan Tel +81–3–5467–2323, Fax +81–3–5467–2324 Email [email protected], URL http://www.ias.unu.edu Copyright © 2003 UNU/IAS All Rights Reserved Design by Brechtje Zoet UNU/IAS Report The International Regime for Bioprospecting Existing Policies and Emerging Issues for Antarctica August 2003 Contents 1 Introduction 5 2 Review of Biological Prospecting Activities in Antarctica 6 3 Overview of Biological Prospecting Trends Elsewhere 9 3.1 General Industry Trends 9 3.2 Bioprospecting for Extremophiles 10 4 Bioprospecting and the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) 11 4.1 Legislative Background 11 4.2 Activities of ATS Bodies 13 5 International Policies Governing Bioprospecting Activities 15 5.1 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 15 5.2 The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 17 5.3 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) 18 5.4 International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 19 5.5 The World Summit on Sustainable Development 19 6 Conclusion 20 7 Epilogue 22 Endnotes 23 1 Introduction An increasing amount of the scientific research on the flora and fauna of Antarctic is underway with a view to identifying commercially useful genetic and biochemical resources.
    [Show full text]
  • A Challenge to the Common Good Faith Reflections on Privatization Justice and Witness Ministries
    a challenge to the common good Faith Reflections on Privatization Justice and Witness Ministries The Values That Drive Privatization “Me First” vs. “Me and You” INTRODUCTION Gone are the days when compassion tempered competition. Advocates of American radical individualism paint govern- Ron Stief ment as a hindrance, rather than a help. An example is the The American Dream is a powerful concept for most peo- poll posted on the Web site of an Ohio member of Congress, ple in the United States. Individuals are counseled nearly a poll claiming that 44 percent of his constituents want to from birth to live by the value system that requires “pulling abolish the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the agency themselves up by their own bootstraps.” Children are taught charged with collecting the taxes that pay for government to believe that “the best way to get something done is to do services. Critics like this public official impugn government it yourself.” Members of American society consider them- without acknowledging that even if government and the selves rugged individualists; they are conditioned to equate IRS were eliminated, somehow society would still need to freedom with capitalism, placing ultimate trust in the mar- pay for services like roads, airports, prisons, the military, ket and believing that “what’s good for General Motors is safety-net services, health care, police, fire protection, and good for the country.” The American Dream is closely education. What if government were to contract out such linked with what is said to make America great—economic services to the private sector? Wouldn’t society still need to freedom and prosperity.
    [Show full text]