Official Government Wires
humanitarian news and analysis
a service of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

GLOBAL: Interview with Nobel prize winner Elinor Ostrom on climate

lead photo
JOHANNESBURG, 25 April 2012 (IRIN) - The governance of natural
resources like land, the oceans, rivers and the atmosphere, can affect
the impact of some of the world's biggest crises caused by natural
events like droughts and floods. How best to manage those resources has
been at the heart of the work by Nobel Prize winner (economics) Elinor

She has been looking at how communities across the world, from
developing and rural economies like Nepal and Kenya to developed ones
like the USA and Switzerland, manage their commonly shared resources
such as fisheries, pasture land and water sustainably.

Ostrom's faith in the ability of the individual and community to be
able to trust each other, take the right course of action and not wait
for governments to make the first move is pivotal to her thinking.

Ostrom works with the concept of "polycentrism", which she developed
with her husband Vincent Otsrom. She advocates vesting authority in
individuals, communities, local governments, and local NGOs as opposed
to concentrating power at global or national levels.

Ostrom recently suggested using this "polycentric approach" to address
4> man-made climate change. She talked to IRIN by email about
"polycentrism", Rio+20, climate change, trust and the power of local

Q: You have suggested a polycentric approach as opposed to single
policies at a global level to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Could
you explain how that would work? Do you think a similar approach would
work to get all countries and their people to believe in, and adopt,
sustainable development?

A: We have modelled the impact of individual actions on climate change
incorrectly and need to change the way we think about this problem.
When individuals walk a distance rather than driving it, they produce
better health for themselves. At the same time that they reduce the
amount of greenhouse gas emissions that they are generating. There are
benefits for the individual and small benefits for the globe. When a
building owner re-does the way the building is insulated and the
heating system, these actions can dramatically change the amount of
greenhouse gas emissions made. This has an immediate impact on the
neighbourhood of the building as well as on the globe.

'' the solutions
that are evolved by local people have a chance of being more
imaginative and better ways of solving these problems...
When cities and counties decide to rehabilitate their energy systems so
as to produce less greenhouse gas emissions, they are reducing the
amount of pollution in the local region as well as greenhouse gas
emissions on the globe. In other words, the key point is that there are
multiple externalities involved for many actions related to greenhouse
gas emissions. While in the past the literature has underplayed the
importance of local effects, we need to recognize - as more and more
individuals, families, communities, and states are seeing - that they
will gain a benefit, as well as the globe, and that cumulatively a
difference can be made at the global level if a number of small units
start taking action. We have a much greater possibility of impacting
global change problems if we start locally.

Q: The earth is our common resource system - yet many countries
including China and India feel they also have a right to grow, burn
coal to get to where the developed world is - how do you get them out
of that frame of mind without compromising the question of equity?

A: We may not be able to convince India and China of all of this. Part
of my discouragement with the international negotiations is that we
have gotten riveted into battles at the very big level over who caused
global change in the first place and who is responsible for correcting
[it]. It will take a long time to resolve some of these conflicts.
Meanwhile, if we do not take action, the increase to greenhouse gas
collection at a global level gets larger and larger. While we cannot
solve all aspects of this problem by cumulatively taking action at
local levels, we can make a difference, and we should.

Q: Do you think sustainable development did not gain much currency as
it was directed at governments and a top-down approach? You think the
world is about to repeat that mistake (if you would call it that?) at
Rio+20? What would you do - would you ever call such a gathering of

A: Yes, I do think that directing the question of climate change
primarily at governments misses the point that actions that reduce
greenhouse gas emissions must be taken by individuals, communities,
cities, states, residents of entire nations, and the world. Yet, it is
important that public officials recognize that there is a role for an
international agreement and that they should be working very hard on
getting an agreement that establishes international regimes that has a
chance to reduce emissions across countries.

Q: You are a great believer in ordinary people's ability to organize
and use their commonly shared resources wisely, but I take it that does
not work all the time? But ultimately collective action at the
grassroots can force change at the top?

A: I am a believer of the capabilities of people to organize at a local
level. That does not mean that they always do. There are a wide variety
of collective action problems that exist at a small scale. The
important thing is that people at a small scale, who know what the
details of the problems are, organize, rather than calling on officials
at a much larger scale.

Officials at a larger scale may have many collective-action problems of
their own that they need to address. They do not have the detailed
information about problems at a small scale that people who are
confronting those every day do have. Thus, the solutions that are
evolved by local people have a chance of being more imaginative and
better ways of solving these problems than allowing them to go unsolved
and eventually asking a much larger scale unit to solve it for them.

Q: This approach probably works better in a rural setting where there
is a sense of community and of a shared responsibility to take care of
their common resources. But how do you get that sense of ownership of
the planet in an urban setting?

Understanding Rio +20
Joined-up thinking
on water, energy and food
Sahel Crisis
Climate change

A: To solve these delicate problems at any scale requires individuals
to trust that others are also going to contribute to their solution.
Building trust is not something that can be done overnight. Thus, the
crucial thing is that successful efforts at a local scale be advertised
and well known throughout a developing country.

Developing associations of local communities, where very serious
discussions can be held of the problems they are facing and creative
ways that some communities, who have faced these problems, have adopted
solutions that work. That does not mean that the solutions that work in
one environment in a particular country will work in all others, but
posing it as a solution that fits a local environment and that the
challenge that everyone faces is to know enough about the
social-ecological features of the problems they are facing that they
can come up with good solutions that fit that local social-ecological

Q: I have been covering the recent drought in Niger - I came across
people who were going to pack up and leave their village for good.
Would that motivate people, countries, governments to take action to
reduce emissions? But how do you make people in Europe, the US or Asia
think about the people in Niger as their own?

A: There is no simple answer to this question. It is here that churches
and NGOs can play a particular role in knowing about the problems being
faced by villagers in Niger and other developing countries and trying
to help. They can then also write stories about these problems in a way
that people in Britain, Europe, and the US may understand better. It is
a problem in some cases that officials in developing countries are
corrupt, and direct aid to the country may only go into private bank
accounts. We have to rethink how we organize governance at multiple
scales so as to reduce the likelihood of some individuals having very
strong powers and capability of using their public office primarily for
private gain.

Q: Do you see the world moving in unison towards sustainability in the
next five years? Do you think the world is prepared to take on this
question and specially now when we are in a recession?

A: No, I do not see the world moving in unison. I do see some movements
around the world that are very encouraging, but they are nowhere the
same everywhere. We need to get out of thinking that we have to be
moving the same everywhere. We need to be recognizing the complexity of
the different problems being faced in a wide diversity of regions of
the world. Thus, really great solutions that work in one environment do
not work in others. We need to understand why, and figure out ways of
helping to learn from good examples as well as bad examples of how to
move ahead.


Read report online


[This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the United
Feedback | Terms &
Conditions | RSS feeds News
Feeds | About IRIN
| Jobs
| Donors



UPI distributes certain third party submissions from official government news agencies, such as this article. Since UPI does not control the material included in these submissions, UPI does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of the material in such submissions, and UPI does not endorse any of the views or opinions expressed therein.