Depleting urban urban water bodies.docx
Depleting Commons -Deleting Commons, in Indian cities
Abstract:
Natural and built heritage common property resources are referred as Common Property Resources (CPR)
or Commons for short. These resources located in cities over centuries, is the focus. Encroachment of
these commons by relatively recent migrants leading to deletion of CPR permanently from city
landscapes is as major concern for some urban governments battling to reclaim them.
Their deterioration is seen as an interdisciplinary issue. Each discipline approaches its importance, from
its own perspective and therefore proposes its solution from the disciplinary point of view. It is seen as a
cultural resource by anthropologists, socio-economic and political resource by sociologists, economic
resource by economists, planning resource by urban planners, ecological resource by ecologist and more
recently climate change concern by natural scientists. This inter disciplinary confusion of approaches and
solutions results in projects impossible implementation. The challenge is to provide a unified theory to
take the city forward.
Depleting Commons -Deleting Commons, in Indian cities
Introduction:
Common property resources or commons are publicly owned and privately used resources. Typically,
these resources are not owned by any one, but used by whoever chooses to access them. The lands on
which these resources exist are not owned by any land owner. Encroachment of these lands in urban areas
be it built heritage, water bodies or minor forests that come within the boundaries of fast expanding cities
in India is a major issue that we are dealing with in all Indian cities. Increasing pace of urbanization in
developing countries like India is a reality. With increasing urbanization and fast urban development of
cities, over the past few decades, these commons either are already within the boundaries of cities or
become part of the newly drawn boundaries of expanding urban cities in developing countries the world
over, including India. While India is fast urbanizing, this is occurring mainly in its minor towns, where
the boundaries of these common property resources are not well demarcated and their ownership not well
established.
With expanding cities they face ‘orphan child syndrome’. Their old use and users are considered by city
planners as no longer relevant and there is no well-articulated new use for them. The lands they occupy
becomes a precious commodity as the city engulfs them. Commons begin quickly to deteriorate and even
deleted from cityscape over time due to encroachment of slums. The argument proposed is the political
economy one, status of these commons in an urban context transforms into land as commodity, to be
quickly encroached for housing and work, by new migrants creating slums. They come in search of
employment and jobs. These are migrants are new ‘vote banks’ for the emerging politicians (Jankowick
W 2010) in democracy like India.
Deterioration of commons in urban cities is seen as an interdisciplinary issue. Each discipline approaches
its importance, from its own perspective, as a cultural resource by anthropologists, socio-economic and
political resource by sociologists, economic resource by economists, planning resource by urban planners,
ecological resource by ecologist and more recently climate change concern by natural scientists.
Cultural Resource for Anthropology:
For anthropologists, they are rare and precious cultural resource created and located historically in cities,
they are fast depleting as a result of planned city development and cannot be recreated once destroyed.
Anthropology as one of the human sciences deals par excellence with rare and precious material/
resources (Mead, 1971). It deals with vanishing people and vanishing ways of life and therefore the
lifeworld created by communities who live in it. We have the necessary methodologies and tools to
holistically reconstruct these human communities living in and using resources and sustaining them over
time. These common property resources are cultural and historical in nature, covering natural and built
heritage and give the cities their unique identities. Typically fishing crab and mollusk collection, hunting
of birds and minor animals, grazing and grass collection for weaving mats and feeding animals, and small
timber, growing /collecting fruits and vegetables during summer season around water bodies and in minor
forests in rainy season are typical livelihood activities of poor landless communities like tribal
communities and scheduled castes, which they could consume or sell in markets. They in addition to the
labor for which they may get paid in cash or kind, they involve themselves in spare time in these activities
on commons, in India. As the village grows into towns besides these earlier mentioned uses, the water
bodies are used by washer community and the minor forest produce like grass, leaves berries roots etc. are
sold in markets Thus their importance and relevance does not reduce, as long as these communities
continue to subsist on the produce. The public heritage buildings or the built heritage usually
representative of a past glory are equally rare and precious cultural commodity especially for the pride
and identity of the future generation. Over time, use of these commons and the communities who used
them and the purpose for which they are used in the past, may undergo changes. There would be new uses
and new users, but their continued existence and maintenance in urban context is equally relevant today
as for the future generation as a rare and precious cultural commodity. Understanding persistence of these
commons against all odds over time as a result of their cultural creation and recreation is of interest to
anthropologist.
India is a signatory to the UNESCO cultural heritage conservation accord and has a commitment to
conservation of natural and built heritage conservation where ever they are located. Location of these
commons in cities is an important dimension, giving rise to complexity of conserving them for the future
generations. The Commons focused here are both natural and built heritage resources and are culturally
created at certain points in history. They have survived centuries of changes in the city governance and
political regimes. This is highlighted in three case studies that I have highlighted in other papers.
Socio-economic and political resource for social scientists:
With expanding city boundaries and pressure of migrants from hinterlands in search of jobs and economic
stability, the lands occupied by these commons are of much greater value than the resources they hold on
them. These lands are converted into slums, housing that the poor migrants can afford with inadequate
physical infrastructure (Chakrabarty, K. 2015). What is interesting is the settlement patterns that emerge
(Weinstein, L. 2014). The communities from the same region of migrants settle closer to each other and
the caste and occupation profile predominates the settlements. This is one way of ensuring social security
of new immigrants. Some of these lands is converted into commercial and industrial enterprise for
gaining economically (Kosambi, M. 1994). Typically small scale chemical and hazardous industries are
first to develop. With the region caste and occupation specific settlements patterns, comes development of
stores/shops for their typical every day needs for food from their regions and their need to celebrate their
typical festivals. Very quickly their religious places like temples and mosques come up (Bapat, J. and
Pande, S. 2012). Thus there is a ready to use ‘vote bank’ for political capital in cities’ local elections in a
democracy like India (Jankowick W c2010).
Economic resource for economists:
The most comprehensive documentation of economic benefits of commons in India is in rural area by
Porf. N S Jodha (1986) in this article argued that public policies and programs after independence
affecting waste lands have by and large ignored the fact that waste lands are the common property natural
resources used by the landless. He quoted the example of 80 villages in 21 Districts of seven states in
India were these commons contributed to income generation and employment of rural poor Ranged
between Rs. 530 to Rs 780 monthly income. In Rajastan before independence they were very well
maintained by the rulers as they had the recognized authority and the power to enforce the rules they had
laid down for the use of commons for grazing and collection of minor resources by the villages in its
neighborhood.
The article goes on to point out that the Common Property resource benefits more to the poor small
farmers dependent on rain fed agriculture by allowing them to dedicate all their lands to farming
including cash crops. The supply of fodder for grazing from CPR sustains their draft animals. Dry banks
of rivers ponds and lakes are used during summer for growing off season crops like vegetables fruits and
farming. An integrated production strategy of crop livestock and trees & bushes in dry areas ensures
sustainability and viability of dry land farming by small and marginal farmers. CPR contribute to nutrition
of poor families by facilitation food collection in forests ponds and other sources. Hence he had
recommended conservation and better management policies of waste lands and environment in dry
regions of the country to ensure economic support for the marginal groups in rural India.
Similar usage of these commons wherever they are not fully encroached continue to be made by the
indigenous communities as mentioned earlier in this article and besides this new use like washing
vehicles and water tankers, (illegally drawing water for use in formal colonies where there is water
shortage during summer season) are new typically urban uses (Field observation 2017 Hyderabad).
Ecological justification by ecologists:
Social Ecological studies that emphasize conservation of natural resources by protecting indigenous
cultures and knowledge are supported by eminent biologist Prof. Madhav Gadgil and Subhash Chandran
(1992). They also focused in rural India and pointed to the Devrai or sacred groves. These were small
patches of forests that are one of the finest example of traditional cultural conservation practices.
In all
states in the country there are sacred groves found where there is a tradition of protecting sacred trees.
They are never cut down and the animals living in it are not hunted. The groves are known by different
names in different states but the practice keeping a patch of land as natural habitat or wild jungle is
associated with mother Goddess Bhagavati. They form part of every agricultural settlement. These dense
woods formed the first inspiration for the temples of the south. The dark tall and cool interiors of a temple
replicate the insides of the sacred groves. They function as centers of biodiversity. Their existence also
supports water bodies and streams who would dry without these dense forests. They contribute to
conservation of genetic diversity and gene pool conservation of forests in the Western Ghats of the
country. Thus forests in the form of original jungles contribute to the environment and water bodies’
conservation where ever they stand. The Bishnois of Rajasthan are known to protect dears from being
hunted as a cultural belief. Thus natural commons have untold and equally un quantified or un measured
benefits that are not fully understood (Inglis J 1993) or documented.
Built heritage as commons:
So far all the interdisciplinary literature covered here is dealing with common property natural resources
that cover inland water bodies like lakes ponds and river beds or small and minor forests. Definition of
commons includes ‘cultural resource’ accessible to all members of society. These resources are held in
common, not owned privately therefore they can be classified as commons. Hence built temples, mosques
churches tombs, royal palaces, all get classified under built heritage. In the olden time these public
building were located in lands that were owned by religious or administrative entities. The surrounding
lands and private donations and sometimes taxes collected contributed to their up keep. Temple lands
managed by Devadasi’s in south India contributing to temple maintenance is a very well documented
example. Tombs are located in the lands belonging to the Church or Masjid according to the religions
respectively. Their upkeep is thus managed by the believers of those religions. Administrative buildings of
specific reigns are managed through the taxes collected by the rulers and so on. All these building start to
deteriorate over time, as the reign comes to an end or the prosperity of the patrons declines. But they
reflect the architectural beauty of an eras and as a cultural artifact that cannot be replicated and hence
worth preserving. It is these public building heritages monuments and statues that are referred to here as
built heritage.
Built heritage is in the form of a monument or complex of buildings and ruins, so declared by
Archeological Survey of India (ASI) or accepted by the local communities as having cultural religious or
historical significance. Some of these are promoted as conservation efforts initiated by the British in 1947
in India (Chainani S 2007). To the extent that these are public spaces have heritage value and considered
significant by the surrounding settlements and people in the city at large, they are built heritage spaces in
urban areas.
Historically only archeological survey of India selected and labeled certain built sites as heritage sites and
made efforts to restore structures that these sites covered. These included the monument and its prescient.
Some of these sites happen to be in rural areas. This process still continues. Thus rural built heritage does
exist and is recognized and labeled but compared to what is available only a few of these built heritages
are marked. At the same time UNESCO is active in conservation of heritage in India through their various
projects. Both these agencies do not differentiate between urban and rural sites.
Climate change concern by natural scientists:
Typically environmental impact of climate change is increase in frequency of extreme climate events
causing more frequent natural disasters. Melting of polar ice caps and snow mountains and increase or
decrease in frequency of rainfall and uncertainty in predictability of rainfall, leading to draughts or
flooding is the expected consequence of climate change in tropical developing countries like India.
Human settlements particularly high density settlements in urban areas, ecological systems that provide
resource base and public health are likely to be deeply affected. Disruptions to life, property and resources
in these densely populated urban systems due to the effects of climate change can severely destabilize the
fabric of economic life, not only for individuals, businesses and groups, but for entire regional systems.
These threats are starkly magnified in emerging economies like India where millions live and work in
densely populated urban agglomerations. In these rapidly growing existing cities and emerging new cities,
moreover, deep spatial and economic inequalities make the distribution of climate risks even more
uneven, thus intensifying urban vulnerability.
Besides the impact on economic competitiveness, the indirect impact of frequent flooding in class I and II
cities in India is mainly health impacts of epidemics and infectious water borne diseases. Increase in of
infectious diseases and vector borne diseases in high density, low income groups of people living in
slums. Only preventive measures in dense populations is by ensuring adequate physical infrastructure
particularly related to drinking water, waste water, solid waste management.
Climate change will bring two potentially significant development challenges to less developed countries
(LDCs). First, the nature and extent of the weather and climate related stressors already affecting
vulnerable populations in LDCs such as crop losses, displacement, and lack of access to clean water that
may lead to poverty, famine, and even death will become more severe under climate futures. Second,
development policy will have to pay attention to specific vulnerabilities associated with the sensitivity of
particular populations to climate impacts that may not have been in the agenda in the past. These include
taking care of people living in coastal areas, lowlands, drought, and flood prone regions or people whose
livelihoods directly depend on resources that are going to be negatively affected by climate change
especially in urban slums. (UNCCC 2011)
Reduction of carbon di oxygen is one way to deal with climate change issues, second is to deal with
earthquakes, floods and water shortages and finally waste water and solid waste disposal. Sustainable
urbanization (Ahluwalia M 2012). First requires reducing use of electricity based on fossil fuels in
buildings and reducing the energy used in urban transportation, both of which contribute to sustainability
by containing CO2 emissions. The other two relate to construction standards for buildings and rain water
management. Finally waste water reuse and recycle and segregation with ‘waste to energy’ are known
solutions but difficult to implement. Empowering the local governance systems to ensure implementation
is one way out.
In order to foster environmentally sustainable development in cities it is necessary to differentiate
between green areas and areas that support nature (Inglis J. 1993) There is a need to rescue and extend
natural resources within city borders that support wide range of biological life forms like fish, other water
animals, birds, land animals, cattle and plants supported by these areas.
Green areas typically refer to a park is a public space created and maintained by the city planners with the
help of the people living in its neighbourhood. In the first half of the twentieth century a theory on nature
in cities was represented by the idea of garden city thus guaranteeing contact with nature in urban life, by
incorporating parks gardens and urban boulevards applied in English cities. This was applied by British in
third world cities they colonised. In fact there are many places in cities where plants and trees grow
without human interface such as ruins and other deserted sites which can serve as a depot for rare seeds
and plants.
All these micro and mini forest areas and water bodies have positive environmental advantage to human
habitation even in cities. Water bodies and micro forests reduce excessive temperature rise by means of
evaporation via the vegetation, improve moisture oxygen and positive effect on circulation of air and help
fight dust. Besides improving air quality these areas contribute to the balance of hydrological systems,
through percolation and infiltration to retain rain water. They are also important as habitat for animals and
birds who have survived urban growth and even have adjusted to city environment. They are habitats for
animals such as possums bandicoots mongoose snakes and rabbits in these lakes, birds and fish in these
lakes. But urban greenery cannot be used to solve urban environmental problem only disguise it.
Development planning by Urban planners:
Indian urbanization has followed the planned urbanization approach soon after independence and over the
last ten years 2000-2010 onwards has taken into account issues arising out of climate change and
sustainable development. Meera Kosambi (1994) believes that urban planning has an ideological
underpinning and political context. The modernist approach to city planning is that it is a specialist
activity and there is a belief in expert knowledge in drawing of the plans, zoning of activities in cities and
avoidance of slums. Once drawn the job of the planner is complete. Slums developed on vacant
vulnerable lands like marshes, water bodies and minor urban forests. With increasing urbanization slum
growth in cities increased upto to 30 to 35%. Urban development for people living in slums in India can
be broadly divided into three distinct phases. Between the emergence of cities till 1970s with increasing
number of migrants coming into cities rise in slums was a major problem faced by cities in India, when
almost nothing was done except provision of public toilets and public water taps. From 1970-1990 with
increasing number of residents living in this situation of inadequate infrastructure of water and sanitation
the authorities felt obliged to provide water and sanitation in the residence for those who could afford to
pay for it. 1990 to 2000 there is a willingness on part of authorities to face the problem explicitly with
actions ranging from infrastructure improvement to providing cheap multistoried housing for people
residing in slums for those who are willing to pay for this. (Satterthwaite D 2016)
Programs adopted by India under a mission approach for urban development, more recently under the
Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) Phase I and phase II (Gokarn N. 2005) issues of
urban growth through Infrastructure development and decentralized urban local governance were
addressed. Both these programs spanning from 2002 to 2007 and later has allocation for urban commons
in the form of natural lakes ponds river fronts and built heritage. A total of about 14 percent of budget was
allocated to these commons in phase I. With change in government the Phase II of the program changed
to urban housing. But phase I related to urban commons was not very successful either barely two percent
of the budget was spent and the rest was spend on building additional physical infrastructure around these
commons instead of directly spending on conserving the commons. But emphasis on decentralized
governance that the program had was a step in right direction.
Conceptualizing Commons:
‘Common Property (Natural) Resources’ or commons as they are popularly known has been an issue
discussed in the rural context in the early 70 till mid 80’s in academics, think tanks, and policy makers in
the context of rural development. Julian Inglis (Ed “traditional ecological knowledge 1993) in the
conference proceeding refers to Canadian experience. Indigenous community knowledge about local
ecology and its sustainable natural resource use has to be reconciled with policy for their economic
development. In dryer climates like India typically they would cover grazing and fallow lands and minor
forests, water bodies and various waterfronts like rivers, sea shores and ocean beaches etc; and I include
built heritages sites like temples palaces tombs etc. past regimes, under this category of commons, if a
more liberal criteria of defining commons is applied. Protection of these lands and spaces from
privatization and justification of keeping them as common lands is what the debate was all about. It was
argued that these commons have multiple benefits for the small and marginal farmers in rural areas. They
add to their quality of life. Allow them to adopt multiple strategies of risk minimization in rain fed
agricultural lands, and economic incomes derived by marginal farmers in India tends to outdo any poverty
alleviation programs that the government had introduced.
‘Tragedy of Commons’ proposed by Garrett Hardin (1968) in his epoch making article are one of the most
debated concepts in various environmental social sciences, of the late 80s in across the globe. Disciplines
of economics anthropology rural sociology political sciences agrarian studies to name a few debated on
various aspects of these concepts. CPR debate is equally relevant to India. Most important contribution
was by Prof. N S Jodha’s article about six Indian states where he guided the work of International
Research Institute for Semi Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) on commons he published in Economic and Political
Weekly (EPW) ( 1989) was widely read and quoted in India.
Common Property Natural Resources or commons as they are popularly called refer to land or resources
belonging to or affecting the whole of a community. The commons are the cultural and natural
resources accessible to all members of a society, including natural materials such as air, water, and a
habitable earth. These resources are held in common, not owned privately but used by all who need it.
Another definition of commons ‘tract of land owned or used
jointly by the residents of a community, usually a central square or park in a city or town’ thus including
urban commons in the definition.
The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory of a situation within a shared-resource system where
individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common
good of all users by depleting or spoiling that resource through their collective action. The concept and
name originate in an essay written in 1833 by the Victorian economist William Forster Lloyd, who used a
hypothetical example of the effects of unregulated grazing on common land (then colloquially called "the
commons") in the British Isles. The concept became widely known over a century later due to an article
written by the ecologist Garrett Hardin in 1968. (Hardin, G (1968). "The Tragedy of the
commons". Science. 162 (3859): 1243–1248). In this context, commons is taken to mean any shared and
unregulated resource such as atmosphere, oceans, rivers, fish stocks.
In 1968, ecologist Garrett Hardin explored this social dilemma in his article "The Tragedy of the
Commons", published in the journal Science.(1978). The essay derived its title from the pamphlet by
Lloyd, which he cites, on the over-grazing of common land.
Hardin discussed problems that cannot be solved by technical means, as distinct from those with solutions
that require "a change only in the techniques of the natural sciences, demanding little or nothing in the
way of change in human values or ideas of morality". Hardin focused on human population growth, the
use of the Earth's natural resources, and the welfare state. Hardin argued that if individuals relied on
themselves alone, and not on the relationship of society and man, then the number of children had by each
family would not be of public concern. Parents breeding excessively would leave fewer descendants
because they would be unable to provide for each child adequately. Such negative feedback is found in
the animal kingdom. Hardin said that if the children of improvident parents starved to death, if
overbreeding was its own punishment, then there would be no public interest in controlling the breeding
of families. Hardin blamed the welfare state for allowing the tragedy of the commons; where the state
provides for children and supports over breeding as a fundamental human right, Malthusian catastrophe is
inevitable. In addition, Hardin also pointed out the problem of individuals acting in rational self-interest
by claiming that if all members in a group used common resources for their own gain and with no regard
for others, all resources would still eventually be depleted. Overall, Hardin argued against relying
on conscience as a means of policing commons, suggesting that this favors selfish individuals – often
known as free riders – over those who are more altruistic.
In the context of avoiding over-exploitation of common resources, Hardin concluded by
restating Hegel's maxim (which was quoted by Engels), "freedom is the recognition of necessity". He
suggested that "freedom" completes the tragedy of the commons. By recognizing resources as commons
in the first place, and by recognizing that, as such, they require management, Hardin believed that humans
"can preserve and nurture other and more precious freedoms".
In addition, Hardin also pointed out the problem of individuals acting in rational self-interest by claiming
that if all members in a group used common resources for their own gain and with no regard for others, all
resources would still eventually be depleted. Overall, Hardin argued against relying on conscience as a
means of policing commons, suggesting that this favors selfish individuals – often known as free riders –
over those who are more altruistic. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons, referred to
23/2/2017)
Solution to the tragedy:
An obvious solution to this tragedy of commons in ‘comedy of commons.’ (This is literary opposite of
tragedy hence I suggest ‘celebration of commons’ as an action component.) It implies that higher the
resource is used, more the benefit to each one, who uses it. In certain cases, exploiting a resource more
may be a good thing. Carol M. Rose, in an 1986 article, discussed the concept of the "comedy of the
commons", where the public property in question exhibits "increasing returns to scale" per additional
usage, in that the more people use the resource, the higher the benefit to each. Rose cites as examples
commerce and group recreational activities. According to Rose, public resources with the "comedic"
characteristic may suffer from under-investment rather than over usage. (Rose, Carol M. (1986). "The
Comedy of the Commons: Commerce, Custom, and Inherently Public Property". Faculty Scholarship
Series, Yale Law School. Paper 1828. )
In a more contemporary and equally controversial proposition by Allen Savoy Zimbabwe's foremost land
degradation expert has come up with a readily available solution for reversing the spread of deserts
around the planet and slowing climate change in the process: He wants to let cows and sheep eat their
way through the problem. He suggested in Ted talk on You-tube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=vpTHi7O66pI) of reversing the trend of desertification by mimicking the role of wild herds, by
domestic herds. He has been studying the spread of deserts for more than 50 years. He has been practicing
what he preaches for last 30 years and is founder of Savoy Institute. He came to a surprising conclusion
about how best to bring back grasslands and in the process help address poverty and social breakdown in
some of the poorest corners of the planet. He turned to holistic management of livestock like cattle and
sheep, overriding his own belief that grazing animals had been part of the problem when it came to green,
fertile lands widely becoming barren and dry. Savory said the annual rite of movement through a region
by large herds actually protects the environment. A wildebeest migration in central Africa, for instance,
eats up grasses as it moves along and leaves behind a protective layer of trampled dung, dust and soil.
That protective layer, it turns out, is vital for healthy soils that trap carbon, break down methane and
produce more grasses every year to feed returning grazers. In turn, those herds feed predators like lions,
cheetahs and, human beings. Thus desert dweller have no choice but to depend on grazing animals for
food where 75% of their diet constitutes animal meat.
Savory decided to mimic the great herds of old, which have died out in many regions or persist in far
reduced numbers, with managed "strategic" herds of grazing vegetarians. The sheep and cattle picked for
the project, if managed properly using fanned grazing strategy, would theoretically bring nature back to
its normal cycle in semiarid regions where rains for part of the year are followed by long dry spells. He
has succeeded in his experiments across the continents in the world. Use livestock bunched and moving
as a proxy for former moving herds and predators. Thus culling of herds to maintaining optimal stalk is
equally important as bunching of the stocks.
A practice followed by nomadic herding tribes in India in foot hills of Himalayas, who graze sheep and
plateau of Western Ghat’s rain shadow side called Gavali Dhangars who graze cow herds. These Gavali
Dhangars, traditionally are shepherds, cowherds, buffalo keepers, blanket and wool weavers, butchers and
farmers, in Mharashtra state. They were listed as Scheduled Tribe in Indian schedule, but 2011 census
showed them to be listed as scheduled caste.
Savory's experiments with livestock have reversed degraded dry lands in Zimbabwe, Mexico, the Horn of
Africa and Argentina where overgrazing has been a major cause of the creeping advance of deserts
worldwide, but new management techniques might make livestock part of the solution. (‘Can Livestock
Grazing Stop Desertification?” Scientific American Colin Sullivan, ‘ClimateWire’ on March 5, 2013)
Way forward:
But all these concepts apply to rural areas and quote examples from rural areas. The issue of urban
commons is far more complicated. Lands associated with CPR in Urban areas are seen as an economic
asset for the price it can get and not for the built or heritage resources it currently has, by city
administrators, development planners and people who come to live on it (encroached slum dwellers) from
other regions. But the original settlers are never asked what it means to them? The pride and value they
put on their historical survival through different regime changes.
Planned development approach to cities has come for heavy criticism since the 90s due to project delays,
incomplete or slow projects, difficult to implement projects, cost over runs etc. It is critical of the basic
planning approach to urban development (Kohl J and McCool S 2016) where plans are drawn by a team
of technical experts for the future of a city. That is to assume that city plan is a rigid document. This
assumption itself, needs to be questioned. The authors go on to state the planner ought to master
communication skills like dialogue conflict resolution and group facilitation in planning. They claim that
planning is a continuous ever changing and ongoing process that lives on indefinitely. Planner therefore
should be a good listener and implementer of what people want and accept changes in what they want
over time. The procedures that are to be followed is demonstrated through the use of communication
skills, in continuous planning of a city planner if a plan has to become a success in cities. The approach
suggests training the planner in communication skills: dialogue, negotiation conflict resolution etc. to
communicate with people involved in planned development in their neighborhood.
Philosophical Anthropology proposes a general theory of communication with a practical intent. It is, to
use an everyday life analogy, like quilting. We anthropologist who study small communities holistically
are best suited to draw small patterns in the quilt, that are whole and complete and they are replicated or
not, in other parts of the city. This elaboration of theoretical perspective and its possible application in
urban commons is elaborated in another paper.
Map 1: Hyderabad Hydrology
References:
Ahluwalia Montek Singh Sustainable Urban Environment Regional Capacity Building and Knowledge
Dissemination Workshop with focus on Preparing for the Urban Challenges of the 21 st Century (Focus:
Sustainable Cities) Workshop Proceeding, ICRIER Delhi. June 17-18, 2013
Bapat Jyotsna and Pande Suchi Urban Governance Issues and the
Sacred Canopy. Sudershan Ratna and Pande Suchi (ed) ‘Issues of urban Governance’ Institute of Social
Studies Trust (ISST) Publication. Delhi. 2013
Chakrabarty, Kakali, Land, people and power : an anthropological study of emerging mega city of new
town, Rajarhat. Anthropological Survey of India. Gyan. New Delhi. 2015.
Chainani Shyam Heritage and Environment: An Indian Diary. The Urban Design Research
Institute. November 2007.
Gadgil Madhav and Subash Chandran M D. Sacred Groves. (Special issue on Indigenous vision: People of
India, Attitudes to the environment.) India International Centre Quarterly Vol. 19, No. 1/2, pp. 183-187.
1991.
Gokarn, Nitin “Expanded coverage through deep reforms: Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal
Mission (JNNURM) for Indian cities” Asian Development Bank Presentation 2005.
Hardin, Garette. ‘The Tragedy of the commons’. Science. 162 (3859): 1243–1248. 1968
Harody Jorge and Satterthwaite, David. Squatter Citizen: life in Urban Third world. Earth scanm
Routledge, New York first published1989, 2013 edition.
Inglis, Julian T. (ed)Traditional ecological knowledge. International Program on Ecological Knowledge and
International Development Research Centre. 1993
Jankowick William Caste, politics, and criminality in urban India. In George Gmelch, Robert V. Kemper,
Walter P. Zenner. (Edited) “Urban life : readings in the anthropology of the city” Edition 5th ed. Long
Grove, Ill. : Waveland Press, c2010.
Jodha N S ‘Common Property Resources and Rural Poor in Dry Regions of India’ Economic and Political
Weekly Vol. 21, No. 27 (Jul. 5, 1986), pp. 1169-1181)
Jodha N S Common Property Resources and Rural Poor in Dry Regions of India. Economic and Political
Weekly Vol. 21, No. 27 (Jul. 5, 1986), pp. 1169-1181. 1989.
Kohl Jonathan and McCool Stephen Future has other plans-Planning holistically to conserve Natural and
Cultural Heritage. Golden Co, Fulcrum Publishing, USA 2016
Kosambi Meera. Urbanization and urban development in India. Indian Council of Social Science
Research. New Delhi : c1994.
Mead Margaret Anthropology Sociology and Psychology (Chairman’s speech) in ‘Environment and society
in Transition’ in Annals of academy of science Vol, 184, 1971
Rose, Carol M. (1986). The Comedy of the Commons: Commerce, Custom, and Inherently Public
Property. Faculty Scholarship Series, Yale Law School. Paper 1828. 1986.
Sullivan Colin ‘Can Livestock Grazing Stop Desertification? Scientific American Climate Wire. March 5,
2013.
Satterthwaite David. ‘New Urban Agenda’ Environment and Urbanization 28,1,April 2016
Weinstein Liza The Durable Slum Dharavi and the right to stay put in Globalizing Mumbai. Globalizing
and Community Vol 23 Series Ed. Susan E Clarke University of Minnesota, Minnesota press. Minnesota
USA 2014
- Model Heritage Regulation: Town and Country Planning organization. Minstry of Urban Development
Government of India 2011
- Climate Change and Cities: First Assessment Report of the Urban Climate change research network.
edited by Cynthia Rosenzweig, William D. Solecki, Stephen A. Hammer, Shagun Mehrotra, UNCCC
2011
-
Savoy, Allen. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI) viewed on March 2017
Abstract:
Natural and built heritage common property resources are referred as Common Property Resources (CPR)
or Commons for short. These resources located in cities over centuries, is the focus. Encroachment of
these commons by relatively recent migrants leading to deletion of CPR permanently from city
landscapes is as major concern for some urban governments battling to reclaim them.
Their deterioration is seen as an interdisciplinary issue. Each discipline approaches its importance, from
its own perspective and therefore proposes its solution from the disciplinary point of view. It is seen as a
cultural resource by anthropologists, socio-economic and political resource by sociologists, economic
resource by economists, planning resource by urban planners, ecological resource by ecologist and more
recently climate change concern by natural scientists. This inter disciplinary confusion of approaches and
solutions results in projects impossible implementation. The challenge is to provide a unified theory to
take the city forward.
Depleting Commons -Deleting Commons, in Indian cities
Introduction:
Common property resources or commons are publicly owned and privately used resources. Typically,
these resources are not owned by any one, but used by whoever chooses to access them. The lands on
which these resources exist are not owned by any land owner. Encroachment of these lands in urban areas
be it built heritage, water bodies or minor forests that come within the boundaries of fast expanding cities
in India is a major issue that we are dealing with in all Indian cities. Increasing pace of urbanization in
developing countries like India is a reality. With increasing urbanization and fast urban development of
cities, over the past few decades, these commons either are already within the boundaries of cities or
become part of the newly drawn boundaries of expanding urban cities in developing countries the world
over, including India. While India is fast urbanizing, this is occurring mainly in its minor towns, where
the boundaries of these common property resources are not well demarcated and their ownership not well
established.
With expanding cities they face ‘orphan child syndrome’. Their old use and users are considered by city
planners as no longer relevant and there is no well-articulated new use for them. The lands they occupy
becomes a precious commodity as the city engulfs them. Commons begin quickly to deteriorate and even
deleted from cityscape over time due to encroachment of slums. The argument proposed is the political
economy one, status of these commons in an urban context transforms into land as commodity, to be
quickly encroached for housing and work, by new migrants creating slums. They come in search of
employment and jobs. These are migrants are new ‘vote banks’ for the emerging politicians (Jankowick
W 2010) in democracy like India.
Deterioration of commons in urban cities is seen as an interdisciplinary issue. Each discipline approaches
its importance, from its own perspective, as a cultural resource by anthropologists, socio-economic and
political resource by sociologists, economic resource by economists, planning resource by urban planners,
ecological resource by ecologist and more recently climate change concern by natural scientists.
Cultural Resource for Anthropology:
For anthropologists, they are rare and precious cultural resource created and located historically in cities,
they are fast depleting as a result of planned city development and cannot be recreated once destroyed.
Anthropology as one of the human sciences deals par excellence with rare and precious material/
resources (Mead, 1971). It deals with vanishing people and vanishing ways of life and therefore the
lifeworld created by communities who live in it. We have the necessary methodologies and tools to
holistically reconstruct these human communities living in and using resources and sustaining them over
time. These common property resources are cultural and historical in nature, covering natural and built
heritage and give the cities their unique identities. Typically fishing crab and mollusk collection, hunting
of birds and minor animals, grazing and grass collection for weaving mats and feeding animals, and small
timber, growing /collecting fruits and vegetables during summer season around water bodies and in minor
forests in rainy season are typical livelihood activities of poor landless communities like tribal
communities and scheduled castes, which they could consume or sell in markets. They in addition to the
labor for which they may get paid in cash or kind, they involve themselves in spare time in these activities
on commons, in India. As the village grows into towns besides these earlier mentioned uses, the water
bodies are used by washer community and the minor forest produce like grass, leaves berries roots etc. are
sold in markets Thus their importance and relevance does not reduce, as long as these communities
continue to subsist on the produce. The public heritage buildings or the built heritage usually
representative of a past glory are equally rare and precious cultural commodity especially for the pride
and identity of the future generation. Over time, use of these commons and the communities who used
them and the purpose for which they are used in the past, may undergo changes. There would be new uses
and new users, but their continued existence and maintenance in urban context is equally relevant today
as for the future generation as a rare and precious cultural commodity. Understanding persistence of these
commons against all odds over time as a result of their cultural creation and recreation is of interest to
anthropologist.
India is a signatory to the UNESCO cultural heritage conservation accord and has a commitment to
conservation of natural and built heritage conservation where ever they are located. Location of these
commons in cities is an important dimension, giving rise to complexity of conserving them for the future
generations. The Commons focused here are both natural and built heritage resources and are culturally
created at certain points in history. They have survived centuries of changes in the city governance and
political regimes. This is highlighted in three case studies that I have highlighted in other papers.
Socio-economic and political resource for social scientists:
With expanding city boundaries and pressure of migrants from hinterlands in search of jobs and economic
stability, the lands occupied by these commons are of much greater value than the resources they hold on
them. These lands are converted into slums, housing that the poor migrants can afford with inadequate
physical infrastructure (Chakrabarty, K. 2015). What is interesting is the settlement patterns that emerge
(Weinstein, L. 2014). The communities from the same region of migrants settle closer to each other and
the caste and occupation profile predominates the settlements. This is one way of ensuring social security
of new immigrants. Some of these lands is converted into commercial and industrial enterprise for
gaining economically (Kosambi, M. 1994). Typically small scale chemical and hazardous industries are
first to develop. With the region caste and occupation specific settlements patterns, comes development of
stores/shops for their typical every day needs for food from their regions and their need to celebrate their
typical festivals. Very quickly their religious places like temples and mosques come up (Bapat, J. and
Pande, S. 2012). Thus there is a ready to use ‘vote bank’ for political capital in cities’ local elections in a
democracy like India (Jankowick W c2010).
Economic resource for economists:
The most comprehensive documentation of economic benefits of commons in India is in rural area by
Porf. N S Jodha (1986) in this article argued that public policies and programs after independence
affecting waste lands have by and large ignored the fact that waste lands are the common property natural
resources used by the landless. He quoted the example of 80 villages in 21 Districts of seven states in
India were these commons contributed to income generation and employment of rural poor Ranged
between Rs. 530 to Rs 780 monthly income. In Rajastan before independence they were very well
maintained by the rulers as they had the recognized authority and the power to enforce the rules they had
laid down for the use of commons for grazing and collection of minor resources by the villages in its
neighborhood.
The article goes on to point out that the Common Property resource benefits more to the poor small
farmers dependent on rain fed agriculture by allowing them to dedicate all their lands to farming
including cash crops. The supply of fodder for grazing from CPR sustains their draft animals. Dry banks
of rivers ponds and lakes are used during summer for growing off season crops like vegetables fruits and
farming. An integrated production strategy of crop livestock and trees & bushes in dry areas ensures
sustainability and viability of dry land farming by small and marginal farmers. CPR contribute to nutrition
of poor families by facilitation food collection in forests ponds and other sources. Hence he had
recommended conservation and better management policies of waste lands and environment in dry
regions of the country to ensure economic support for the marginal groups in rural India.
Similar usage of these commons wherever they are not fully encroached continue to be made by the
indigenous communities as mentioned earlier in this article and besides this new use like washing
vehicles and water tankers, (illegally drawing water for use in formal colonies where there is water
shortage during summer season) are new typically urban uses (Field observation 2017 Hyderabad).
Ecological justification by ecologists:
Social Ecological studies that emphasize conservation of natural resources by protecting indigenous
cultures and knowledge are supported by eminent biologist Prof. Madhav Gadgil and Subhash Chandran
(1992). They also focused in rural India and pointed to the Devrai or sacred groves. These were small
patches of forests that are one of the finest example of traditional cultural conservation practices.
In all
states in the country there are sacred groves found where there is a tradition of protecting sacred trees.
They are never cut down and the animals living in it are not hunted. The groves are known by different
names in different states but the practice keeping a patch of land as natural habitat or wild jungle is
associated with mother Goddess Bhagavati. They form part of every agricultural settlement. These dense
woods formed the first inspiration for the temples of the south. The dark tall and cool interiors of a temple
replicate the insides of the sacred groves. They function as centers of biodiversity. Their existence also
supports water bodies and streams who would dry without these dense forests. They contribute to
conservation of genetic diversity and gene pool conservation of forests in the Western Ghats of the
country. Thus forests in the form of original jungles contribute to the environment and water bodies’
conservation where ever they stand. The Bishnois of Rajasthan are known to protect dears from being
hunted as a cultural belief. Thus natural commons have untold and equally un quantified or un measured
benefits that are not fully understood (Inglis J 1993) or documented.
Built heritage as commons:
So far all the interdisciplinary literature covered here is dealing with common property natural resources
that cover inland water bodies like lakes ponds and river beds or small and minor forests. Definition of
commons includes ‘cultural resource’ accessible to all members of society. These resources are held in
common, not owned privately therefore they can be classified as commons. Hence built temples, mosques
churches tombs, royal palaces, all get classified under built heritage. In the olden time these public
building were located in lands that were owned by religious or administrative entities. The surrounding
lands and private donations and sometimes taxes collected contributed to their up keep. Temple lands
managed by Devadasi’s in south India contributing to temple maintenance is a very well documented
example. Tombs are located in the lands belonging to the Church or Masjid according to the religions
respectively. Their upkeep is thus managed by the believers of those religions. Administrative buildings of
specific reigns are managed through the taxes collected by the rulers and so on. All these building start to
deteriorate over time, as the reign comes to an end or the prosperity of the patrons declines. But they
reflect the architectural beauty of an eras and as a cultural artifact that cannot be replicated and hence
worth preserving. It is these public building heritages monuments and statues that are referred to here as
built heritage.
Built heritage is in the form of a monument or complex of buildings and ruins, so declared by
Archeological Survey of India (ASI) or accepted by the local communities as having cultural religious or
historical significance. Some of these are promoted as conservation efforts initiated by the British in 1947
in India (Chainani S 2007). To the extent that these are public spaces have heritage value and considered
significant by the surrounding settlements and people in the city at large, they are built heritage spaces in
urban areas.
Historically only archeological survey of India selected and labeled certain built sites as heritage sites and
made efforts to restore structures that these sites covered. These included the monument and its prescient.
Some of these sites happen to be in rural areas. This process still continues. Thus rural built heritage does
exist and is recognized and labeled but compared to what is available only a few of these built heritages
are marked. At the same time UNESCO is active in conservation of heritage in India through their various
projects. Both these agencies do not differentiate between urban and rural sites.
Climate change concern by natural scientists:
Typically environmental impact of climate change is increase in frequency of extreme climate events
causing more frequent natural disasters. Melting of polar ice caps and snow mountains and increase or
decrease in frequency of rainfall and uncertainty in predictability of rainfall, leading to draughts or
flooding is the expected consequence of climate change in tropical developing countries like India.
Human settlements particularly high density settlements in urban areas, ecological systems that provide
resource base and public health are likely to be deeply affected. Disruptions to life, property and resources
in these densely populated urban systems due to the effects of climate change can severely destabilize the
fabric of economic life, not only for individuals, businesses and groups, but for entire regional systems.
These threats are starkly magnified in emerging economies like India where millions live and work in
densely populated urban agglomerations. In these rapidly growing existing cities and emerging new cities,
moreover, deep spatial and economic inequalities make the distribution of climate risks even more
uneven, thus intensifying urban vulnerability.
Besides the impact on economic competitiveness, the indirect impact of frequent flooding in class I and II
cities in India is mainly health impacts of epidemics and infectious water borne diseases. Increase in of
infectious diseases and vector borne diseases in high density, low income groups of people living in
slums. Only preventive measures in dense populations is by ensuring adequate physical infrastructure
particularly related to drinking water, waste water, solid waste management.
Climate change will bring two potentially significant development challenges to less developed countries
(LDCs). First, the nature and extent of the weather and climate related stressors already affecting
vulnerable populations in LDCs such as crop losses, displacement, and lack of access to clean water that
may lead to poverty, famine, and even death will become more severe under climate futures. Second,
development policy will have to pay attention to specific vulnerabilities associated with the sensitivity of
particular populations to climate impacts that may not have been in the agenda in the past. These include
taking care of people living in coastal areas, lowlands, drought, and flood prone regions or people whose
livelihoods directly depend on resources that are going to be negatively affected by climate change
especially in urban slums. (UNCCC 2011)
Reduction of carbon di oxygen is one way to deal with climate change issues, second is to deal with
earthquakes, floods and water shortages and finally waste water and solid waste disposal. Sustainable
urbanization (Ahluwalia M 2012). First requires reducing use of electricity based on fossil fuels in
buildings and reducing the energy used in urban transportation, both of which contribute to sustainability
by containing CO2 emissions. The other two relate to construction standards for buildings and rain water
management. Finally waste water reuse and recycle and segregation with ‘waste to energy’ are known
solutions but difficult to implement. Empowering the local governance systems to ensure implementation
is one way out.
In order to foster environmentally sustainable development in cities it is necessary to differentiate
between green areas and areas that support nature (Inglis J. 1993) There is a need to rescue and extend
natural resources within city borders that support wide range of biological life forms like fish, other water
animals, birds, land animals, cattle and plants supported by these areas.
Green areas typically refer to a park is a public space created and maintained by the city planners with the
help of the people living in its neighbourhood. In the first half of the twentieth century a theory on nature
in cities was represented by the idea of garden city thus guaranteeing contact with nature in urban life, by
incorporating parks gardens and urban boulevards applied in English cities. This was applied by British in
third world cities they colonised. In fact there are many places in cities where plants and trees grow
without human interface such as ruins and other deserted sites which can serve as a depot for rare seeds
and plants.
All these micro and mini forest areas and water bodies have positive environmental advantage to human
habitation even in cities. Water bodies and micro forests reduce excessive temperature rise by means of
evaporation via the vegetation, improve moisture oxygen and positive effect on circulation of air and help
fight dust. Besides improving air quality these areas contribute to the balance of hydrological systems,
through percolation and infiltration to retain rain water. They are also important as habitat for animals and
birds who have survived urban growth and even have adjusted to city environment. They are habitats for
animals such as possums bandicoots mongoose snakes and rabbits in these lakes, birds and fish in these
lakes. But urban greenery cannot be used to solve urban environmental problem only disguise it.
Development planning by Urban planners:
Indian urbanization has followed the planned urbanization approach soon after independence and over the
last ten years 2000-2010 onwards has taken into account issues arising out of climate change and
sustainable development. Meera Kosambi (1994) believes that urban planning has an ideological
underpinning and political context. The modernist approach to city planning is that it is a specialist
activity and there is a belief in expert knowledge in drawing of the plans, zoning of activities in cities and
avoidance of slums. Once drawn the job of the planner is complete. Slums developed on vacant
vulnerable lands like marshes, water bodies and minor urban forests. With increasing urbanization slum
growth in cities increased upto to 30 to 35%. Urban development for people living in slums in India can
be broadly divided into three distinct phases. Between the emergence of cities till 1970s with increasing
number of migrants coming into cities rise in slums was a major problem faced by cities in India, when
almost nothing was done except provision of public toilets and public water taps. From 1970-1990 with
increasing number of residents living in this situation of inadequate infrastructure of water and sanitation
the authorities felt obliged to provide water and sanitation in the residence for those who could afford to
pay for it. 1990 to 2000 there is a willingness on part of authorities to face the problem explicitly with
actions ranging from infrastructure improvement to providing cheap multistoried housing for people
residing in slums for those who are willing to pay for this. (Satterthwaite D 2016)
Programs adopted by India under a mission approach for urban development, more recently under the
Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) Phase I and phase II (Gokarn N. 2005) issues of
urban growth through Infrastructure development and decentralized urban local governance were
addressed. Both these programs spanning from 2002 to 2007 and later has allocation for urban commons
in the form of natural lakes ponds river fronts and built heritage. A total of about 14 percent of budget was
allocated to these commons in phase I. With change in government the Phase II of the program changed
to urban housing. But phase I related to urban commons was not very successful either barely two percent
of the budget was spent and the rest was spend on building additional physical infrastructure around these
commons instead of directly spending on conserving the commons. But emphasis on decentralized
governance that the program had was a step in right direction.
Conceptualizing Commons:
‘Common Property (Natural) Resources’ or commons as they are popularly known has been an issue
discussed in the rural context in the early 70 till mid 80’s in academics, think tanks, and policy makers in
the context of rural development. Julian Inglis (Ed “traditional ecological knowledge 1993) in the
conference proceeding refers to Canadian experience. Indigenous community knowledge about local
ecology and its sustainable natural resource use has to be reconciled with policy for their economic
development. In dryer climates like India typically they would cover grazing and fallow lands and minor
forests, water bodies and various waterfronts like rivers, sea shores and ocean beaches etc; and I include
built heritages sites like temples palaces tombs etc. past regimes, under this category of commons, if a
more liberal criteria of defining commons is applied. Protection of these lands and spaces from
privatization and justification of keeping them as common lands is what the debate was all about. It was
argued that these commons have multiple benefits for the small and marginal farmers in rural areas. They
add to their quality of life. Allow them to adopt multiple strategies of risk minimization in rain fed
agricultural lands, and economic incomes derived by marginal farmers in India tends to outdo any poverty
alleviation programs that the government had introduced.
‘Tragedy of Commons’ proposed by Garrett Hardin (1968) in his epoch making article are one of the most
debated concepts in various environmental social sciences, of the late 80s in across the globe. Disciplines
of economics anthropology rural sociology political sciences agrarian studies to name a few debated on
various aspects of these concepts. CPR debate is equally relevant to India. Most important contribution
was by Prof. N S Jodha’s article about six Indian states where he guided the work of International
Research Institute for Semi Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) on commons he published in Economic and Political
Weekly (EPW) ( 1989) was widely read and quoted in India.
Common Property Natural Resources or commons as they are popularly called refer to land or resources
belonging to or affecting the whole of a community. The commons are the cultural and natural
resources accessible to all members of a society, including natural materials such as air, water, and a
habitable earth. These resources are held in common, not owned privately but used by all who need it.
Another definition of commons ‘tract of land owned or used
jointly by the residents of a community, usually a central square or park in a city or town’ thus including
urban commons in the definition.
The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory of a situation within a shared-resource system where
individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common
good of all users by depleting or spoiling that resource through their collective action. The concept and
name originate in an essay written in 1833 by the Victorian economist William Forster Lloyd, who used a
hypothetical example of the effects of unregulated grazing on common land (then colloquially called "the
commons") in the British Isles. The concept became widely known over a century later due to an article
written by the ecologist Garrett Hardin in 1968. (Hardin, G (1968). "The Tragedy of the
commons". Science. 162 (3859): 1243–1248). In this context, commons is taken to mean any shared and
unregulated resource such as atmosphere, oceans, rivers, fish stocks.
In 1968, ecologist Garrett Hardin explored this social dilemma in his article "The Tragedy of the
Commons", published in the journal Science.(1978). The essay derived its title from the pamphlet by
Lloyd, which he cites, on the over-grazing of common land.
Hardin discussed problems that cannot be solved by technical means, as distinct from those with solutions
that require "a change only in the techniques of the natural sciences, demanding little or nothing in the
way of change in human values or ideas of morality". Hardin focused on human population growth, the
use of the Earth's natural resources, and the welfare state. Hardin argued that if individuals relied on
themselves alone, and not on the relationship of society and man, then the number of children had by each
family would not be of public concern. Parents breeding excessively would leave fewer descendants
because they would be unable to provide for each child adequately. Such negative feedback is found in
the animal kingdom. Hardin said that if the children of improvident parents starved to death, if
overbreeding was its own punishment, then there would be no public interest in controlling the breeding
of families. Hardin blamed the welfare state for allowing the tragedy of the commons; where the state
provides for children and supports over breeding as a fundamental human right, Malthusian catastrophe is
inevitable. In addition, Hardin also pointed out the problem of individuals acting in rational self-interest
by claiming that if all members in a group used common resources for their own gain and with no regard
for others, all resources would still eventually be depleted. Overall, Hardin argued against relying
on conscience as a means of policing commons, suggesting that this favors selfish individuals – often
known as free riders – over those who are more altruistic.
In the context of avoiding over-exploitation of common resources, Hardin concluded by
restating Hegel's maxim (which was quoted by Engels), "freedom is the recognition of necessity". He
suggested that "freedom" completes the tragedy of the commons. By recognizing resources as commons
in the first place, and by recognizing that, as such, they require management, Hardin believed that humans
"can preserve and nurture other and more precious freedoms".
In addition, Hardin also pointed out the problem of individuals acting in rational self-interest by claiming
that if all members in a group used common resources for their own gain and with no regard for others, all
resources would still eventually be depleted. Overall, Hardin argued against relying on conscience as a
means of policing commons, suggesting that this favors selfish individuals – often known as free riders –
over those who are more altruistic. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons, referred to
23/2/2017)
Solution to the tragedy:
An obvious solution to this tragedy of commons in ‘comedy of commons.’ (This is literary opposite of
tragedy hence I suggest ‘celebration of commons’ as an action component.) It implies that higher the
resource is used, more the benefit to each one, who uses it. In certain cases, exploiting a resource more
may be a good thing. Carol M. Rose, in an 1986 article, discussed the concept of the "comedy of the
commons", where the public property in question exhibits "increasing returns to scale" per additional
usage, in that the more people use the resource, the higher the benefit to each. Rose cites as examples
commerce and group recreational activities. According to Rose, public resources with the "comedic"
characteristic may suffer from under-investment rather than over usage. (Rose, Carol M. (1986). "The
Comedy of the Commons: Commerce, Custom, and Inherently Public Property". Faculty Scholarship
Series, Yale Law School. Paper 1828. )
In a more contemporary and equally controversial proposition by Allen Savoy Zimbabwe's foremost land
degradation expert has come up with a readily available solution for reversing the spread of deserts
around the planet and slowing climate change in the process: He wants to let cows and sheep eat their
way through the problem. He suggested in Ted talk on You-tube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=vpTHi7O66pI) of reversing the trend of desertification by mimicking the role of wild herds, by
domestic herds. He has been studying the spread of deserts for more than 50 years. He has been practicing
what he preaches for last 30 years and is founder of Savoy Institute. He came to a surprising conclusion
about how best to bring back grasslands and in the process help address poverty and social breakdown in
some of the poorest corners of the planet. He turned to holistic management of livestock like cattle and
sheep, overriding his own belief that grazing animals had been part of the problem when it came to green,
fertile lands widely becoming barren and dry. Savory said the annual rite of movement through a region
by large herds actually protects the environment. A wildebeest migration in central Africa, for instance,
eats up grasses as it moves along and leaves behind a protective layer of trampled dung, dust and soil.
That protective layer, it turns out, is vital for healthy soils that trap carbon, break down methane and
produce more grasses every year to feed returning grazers. In turn, those herds feed predators like lions,
cheetahs and, human beings. Thus desert dweller have no choice but to depend on grazing animals for
food where 75% of their diet constitutes animal meat.
Savory decided to mimic the great herds of old, which have died out in many regions or persist in far
reduced numbers, with managed "strategic" herds of grazing vegetarians. The sheep and cattle picked for
the project, if managed properly using fanned grazing strategy, would theoretically bring nature back to
its normal cycle in semiarid regions where rains for part of the year are followed by long dry spells. He
has succeeded in his experiments across the continents in the world. Use livestock bunched and moving
as a proxy for former moving herds and predators. Thus culling of herds to maintaining optimal stalk is
equally important as bunching of the stocks.
A practice followed by nomadic herding tribes in India in foot hills of Himalayas, who graze sheep and
plateau of Western Ghat’s rain shadow side called Gavali Dhangars who graze cow herds. These Gavali
Dhangars, traditionally are shepherds, cowherds, buffalo keepers, blanket and wool weavers, butchers and
farmers, in Mharashtra state. They were listed as Scheduled Tribe in Indian schedule, but 2011 census
showed them to be listed as scheduled caste.
Savory's experiments with livestock have reversed degraded dry lands in Zimbabwe, Mexico, the Horn of
Africa and Argentina where overgrazing has been a major cause of the creeping advance of deserts
worldwide, but new management techniques might make livestock part of the solution. (‘Can Livestock
Grazing Stop Desertification?” Scientific American Colin Sullivan, ‘ClimateWire’ on March 5, 2013)
Way forward:
But all these concepts apply to rural areas and quote examples from rural areas. The issue of urban
commons is far more complicated. Lands associated with CPR in Urban areas are seen as an economic
asset for the price it can get and not for the built or heritage resources it currently has, by city
administrators, development planners and people who come to live on it (encroached slum dwellers) from
other regions. But the original settlers are never asked what it means to them? The pride and value they
put on their historical survival through different regime changes.
Planned development approach to cities has come for heavy criticism since the 90s due to project delays,
incomplete or slow projects, difficult to implement projects, cost over runs etc. It is critical of the basic
planning approach to urban development (Kohl J and McCool S 2016) where plans are drawn by a team
of technical experts for the future of a city. That is to assume that city plan is a rigid document. This
assumption itself, needs to be questioned. The authors go on to state the planner ought to master
communication skills like dialogue conflict resolution and group facilitation in planning. They claim that
planning is a continuous ever changing and ongoing process that lives on indefinitely. Planner therefore
should be a good listener and implementer of what people want and accept changes in what they want
over time. The procedures that are to be followed is demonstrated through the use of communication
skills, in continuous planning of a city planner if a plan has to become a success in cities. The approach
suggests training the planner in communication skills: dialogue, negotiation conflict resolution etc. to
communicate with people involved in planned development in their neighborhood.
Philosophical Anthropology proposes a general theory of communication with a practical intent. It is, to
use an everyday life analogy, like quilting. We anthropologist who study small communities holistically
are best suited to draw small patterns in the quilt, that are whole and complete and they are replicated or
not, in other parts of the city. This elaboration of theoretical perspective and its possible application in
urban commons is elaborated in another paper.
Map 1: Hyderabad Hydrology
References:
Ahluwalia Montek Singh Sustainable Urban Environment Regional Capacity Building and Knowledge
Dissemination Workshop with focus on Preparing for the Urban Challenges of the 21 st Century (Focus:
Sustainable Cities) Workshop Proceeding, ICRIER Delhi. June 17-18, 2013
Bapat Jyotsna and Pande Suchi Urban Governance Issues and the
Sacred Canopy. Sudershan Ratna and Pande Suchi (ed) ‘Issues of urban Governance’ Institute of Social
Studies Trust (ISST) Publication. Delhi. 2013
Chakrabarty, Kakali, Land, people and power : an anthropological study of emerging mega city of new
town, Rajarhat. Anthropological Survey of India. Gyan. New Delhi. 2015.
Chainani Shyam Heritage and Environment: An Indian Diary. The Urban Design Research
Institute. November 2007.
Gadgil Madhav and Subash Chandran M D. Sacred Groves. (Special issue on Indigenous vision: People of
India, Attitudes to the environment.) India International Centre Quarterly Vol. 19, No. 1/2, pp. 183-187.
1991.
Gokarn, Nitin “Expanded coverage through deep reforms: Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal
Mission (JNNURM) for Indian cities” Asian Development Bank Presentation 2005.
Hardin, Garette. ‘The Tragedy of the commons’. Science. 162 (3859): 1243–1248. 1968
Harody Jorge and Satterthwaite, David. Squatter Citizen: life in Urban Third world. Earth scanm
Routledge, New York first published1989, 2013 edition.
Inglis, Julian T. (ed)Traditional ecological knowledge. International Program on Ecological Knowledge and
International Development Research Centre. 1993
Jankowick William Caste, politics, and criminality in urban India. In George Gmelch, Robert V. Kemper,
Walter P. Zenner. (Edited) “Urban life : readings in the anthropology of the city” Edition 5th ed. Long
Grove, Ill. : Waveland Press, c2010.
Jodha N S ‘Common Property Resources and Rural Poor in Dry Regions of India’ Economic and Political
Weekly Vol. 21, No. 27 (Jul. 5, 1986), pp. 1169-1181)
Jodha N S Common Property Resources and Rural Poor in Dry Regions of India. Economic and Political
Weekly Vol. 21, No. 27 (Jul. 5, 1986), pp. 1169-1181. 1989.
Kohl Jonathan and McCool Stephen Future has other plans-Planning holistically to conserve Natural and
Cultural Heritage. Golden Co, Fulcrum Publishing, USA 2016
Kosambi Meera. Urbanization and urban development in India. Indian Council of Social Science
Research. New Delhi : c1994.
Mead Margaret Anthropology Sociology and Psychology (Chairman’s speech) in ‘Environment and society
in Transition’ in Annals of academy of science Vol, 184, 1971
Rose, Carol M. (1986). The Comedy of the Commons: Commerce, Custom, and Inherently Public
Property. Faculty Scholarship Series, Yale Law School. Paper 1828. 1986.
Sullivan Colin ‘Can Livestock Grazing Stop Desertification? Scientific American Climate Wire. March 5,
2013.
Satterthwaite David. ‘New Urban Agenda’ Environment and Urbanization 28,1,April 2016
Weinstein Liza The Durable Slum Dharavi and the right to stay put in Globalizing Mumbai. Globalizing
and Community Vol 23 Series Ed. Susan E Clarke University of Minnesota, Minnesota press. Minnesota
USA 2014
- Model Heritage Regulation: Town and Country Planning organization. Minstry of Urban Development
Government of India 2011
- Climate Change and Cities: First Assessment Report of the Urban Climate change research network.
edited by Cynthia Rosenzweig, William D. Solecki, Stephen A. Hammer, Shagun Mehrotra, UNCCC
2011
-
Savoy, Allen. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI) viewed on March 2017