Ostrom, Elinor. 2005. *Understanding Institutional Diversity*. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/unf_research/54.

Ostrom, Elinor. 2009. *A Polycentric Approach for Coping with Climate Change*. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/480171468315567893/pdf/WPS5095.pdf.

Ostrom, Elinor. 2012. "Agir à plusieurs échelles pour faire face au changement climatique et à d'autres problèmes d'action collection." *Institut Veblen pour les réformes économiques*. https://www.veblen-institute.org/IMG/pdf/agir Contre_Contre_changement_climatique_ostrom2.pdf.

Ostrom, Elinor. 2020. "Elinor Ostrom Speaks about Property Rights." *Journal of Private Enterprise* 35 (3): 7-12.

Ostrom, Elinor, and Xavier Basurto. 2011. "Crafting Analytical Tools to Study Institutional Change." *Journal of Institutional Economics* 7 (3): 317-43.

Payre, Renaud, and Gilles Pollet. 2013. *Socio-histoire de l'action publique*. Paris: La Découverte. https://doi.org/10.3917/dec.payre.2013.01.

Picavet, Emmanuel, Danièle Bourcier, Jacques Chevallier, Gilles Hériard-Dubreuil, and Sylvain Lavelle. 2021. *Dynamiques du commun: Entre etat, marché et société*. Paris: Éditions de la Sorbonne. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-03230331.

Porter, Doug, and Michael Watts. 2017. "Righting the Resource Curse: Institutional Politics and State Capabilities in Edo State, Nigeria." *Journal of Development Studies* 53 (2): 249-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2016.1160062.

Pousson, Alain. 2005. "L'effectivité des droits sociaux fondamentaux dans une économie de marché globalisée." In *Le Droit saisi par la Morale*, edited by Jacques Krynen, 83-112. Toulouse: Presses de l'Université Toulouse 1 Capitole. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.puc1680.

Ridde, Valéry, and Jean-Pierre Olivier de Sardan. 2022. "The Development World: Conflicts of Interest at All Levels." *Revue internationale des études du développement* 249: 247-69. https://doi.org/10.4000/ried.1530.

Rigot, Sandra, and Dominique Plihon. 2022. "Le rôle stratégique des intermédiaires financiers publics face à la transition énergétique." *Finance et communs: Pour une réappropriation collective de la finance*. https://www.ritimo.org/Le-role-strategique-des-intermediaires-financiers-publics-face-a-la-transition.

Risse, Thomas, and Ursula Lehmkuhl. 2006. "Governance in Areas of Limited Statehood—New Modes of Governance? Research Program of the Research Center (SFB) 700." https://doi.org/10.17169/refubium-22684.

Rochfeld, Judith, Marie Cornu, and Gilles J. Martin. 2021. "L'échelle de communalité. Propositions de réforme pour intégrer les biens communs en droit." *IRJS* 17-34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352694162_L%27echelle_de_communalite_-_Propositions_de_reformes_pour_integrer_les_biens_communs_en_droit.

Rose, Carol. 1986. "The Comedy of the Commons: Custom, Commerce, and Inherently Public Property." *University of Chicago Law Review* 53 (3): 711-81. https://doi.org/10.2307/1599583.

Salah, Mahmoud Mohamed. 2002. *Les contradictions du droit mondialisé*. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Trosa, Sylvie. 2017. "L'intérêt général: Une réalité introuvable?" *Gestion & Finances Publiques* 3: 82-7. https://doi.org/10.3166/gfp.2017.00053.

Turnbull, Colin M. 1983. *The Mbuti Pygmies: Change and Adaptation*. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. https://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/document?id=fo04-005.

Van de Walle, Nicolas. 2003. "Presidentialism and Clientelism in Africa's Emerging Party Systems." *Journal of Modern African Studies* 41 (2): 297-321. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022278X03004269.

Vanuxem, Sarah. 2018. *La propriété de la terre*. Marseille: Éditions wildproject.

Villalón, Leonardo A., and Rahmane Idrissa. 2020. "Democratic Struggle, Institutional Reform, and State Resilience in the African Sahel." https://www.africabib.org/rec.php?RID=A00006075.

Weinstein, Olivier. 2013. "Comment comprendre les 'communs': Elinor Ostrom, la propriété et la nouvelle économie institutionnelle." *Revue de la régulation. Capitalisme, institutions, pouvoirs* 14. https://doi.org/10.4000/regulation.10452.

World Bank. 2017. *World Development Report 2017: Governance and the Law*. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2017.

Xifaras, Mikhaïl. 2004. *La propriété. Etude de philosophie du droit*. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Young, Crawford. 1997. *The African Colonial State in Comparative Perspective*. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
# Funders' Attitudes, Perceptions, and Actions: Taking Inspiration from the Commons-Based Approach

Stéphanie Leyronas and Sophie Salomon

## Introduction

In this final chapter, we take the discussion a step further by analyzing our practices as funders. It seems necessary for us to examine our epistemological preconceptions and to ask ourselves why we encounter difficulties and resistances when trying to support commons that are facing complex social dilemmas in Sub-Saharan Africa. By and large, we are bound by dominant universalist norms, despite substantial efforts to take local contexts into account (see chapter 2). In concrete terms, we are obliged to confront our “managerialist” approaches (Dar and Cooke 2013; Gulrajani 2011), which are manifest in the pressing need to achieve results, the emphasis placed on deliverables, the pressure to disburse funds, short-term time horizons, and the widespread use of conceptual frameworks defined ex ante that are not reexamined before the funding comes to an end.

African intellectuals are calling for a new founding narrative of African development from Africans themselves (Alao 2019; Mbembe 2021; Ngozi Adichie 2013; Nubukpo 2022; Sarr 2019; Wiredu 2004). However, governance in Sub-Saharan Africa is strongly under the influence of actors from abroad (Devarajan, Dollar, and Holmgren 2002; Lavigne Delville 2011). Between 2000 and 2020, official development assistance allocated to Sub-Saharan Africa more than tripled, from US$20 billion to over US$66 billion.¹ This subregion is the largest recipient of global official development assistance, with its share accounting for 41 percent of the total amount (OECD 2022). We are aware of the various critiques of aid, which are not new. These center on risks of interference, conflicts of values, the asymmetry of the relationship, its questionable effectiveness, and the potential presence of concealed geopolitical and economic
intentions (Andrews 2009; Ferguson 2006; Lavigne Delville and Abdoulkader 2010; Mosse 2004; Moyo and Ferguson 2010; Olivier de Sardan 2021 in particular). We are also familiar with the principles of renewed commitment, which are relatively widely accepted. These involve taking the context into account, starting from the needs on the ground, working toward the long term, accepting risks, and adopting flexible and tailored approaches (Mélonio, Naudet, and Rioux 2022; World Bank 2017). Despite this, it remains unclear how these principles should be implemented, and changes prove limited.

We do not pretend to be able to offer a comprehensive solution here. On the other hand, it seems to us that the collective action at the heart of African commons opens up a field of thought, or at least avenues of inquiry and forms of inspiration, for development aid actors. It is therefore on the basis of the reflections in this book and the field experience of the Agence française de développement (AFD) (French Development Agency) that we examine the underlying principles and scope of a “commons-based approach” for funders working in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The commons-based approach for funders has three objectives. The first objective is to enable us to support existing African commons without undermining them (see chapter 6). The second objective is to create the conditions for the emergence of new commons in Sub-Saharan Africa. The third and final objective is to enable the emergence of “commoning” based around complex societal issues that are currently only being dealt with by public authorities or by the market, or not being dealt with at all. This is a pragmatic approach that does not seek to idealize commons or present them as the ultimate solution to the continent’s challenges. In fact, it has already been thought out and experimented with by development actors.

The strength of this approach stems from the critical analysis it draws on, which is based on identifying a relationship between resources, actors, and rules for governance. This is not seen as something that is fixed in advance. By starting from commons-based practices that are already in use, it becomes possible to assess the collective action problem, to define what “commoning” really means, and to identify the resources concerned and the actors who depend on them. It creates spaces for action that follow a polycentric logic (see chapter 6) that empowers stakeholders to carry out their tasks in their own surroundings and provides them with the human and material means to accomplish them (Delay, Aubert, and Botta 2020). In this way, the commons-based approach focuses on the process of taking action. It complements two approaches that we have been promoting for several decades by taking the opposite tack. The first is participatory governance, which is mostly carried out within institutional frameworks, organized by the promoters of “development projects”² or decision-makers who lay down the rules (who is to participate and how, on what collective problem, with what resources). Then there are community development policies that are
based on processes of decentralizing the management of a certain number of
resources in the territories, independently of the historical trajectories of the
social formations themselves. These approaches are the subject of a large body
of critical literature on the “injunction to participate” and “associationalism”
that are prevalent in Sub-Saharan Africa (Cooke and Kothari 2001; Kumar
2003; Mansuri and Rao 2013; Olivier de Sardan 2022).

The commons-based approach is first and foremost a reflexive approach with regard to our attitudes and practices (Aubert and Botta 2022; Fontaine 2021). This approach is capable of generating not only new forms of knowledge but also innovative ideas and a better understanding of the issues related to collective action. It is based on the idea that people within institutions (commons actors, public actors, funders) can adopt multiple positions (participation in action, a reflexive attitude, knowledge construction, formalization of tools) and that this multipositioning makes mutual learning possible (Perrin 2019). It is based on a prior understanding of the assumptions or even prejudices (whether they are conscious or not) that guide our activities and that come into conflict with the expectations and needs of commons in a context of social change (Fontaine 2022; Leyronas, forthcoming).

The commons-based approach can in no way be prescriptive. It is not about
dictating what to do or how to do it, but rather about allowing each person to
seize these questions and these sources of inspiration on a case-by-case basis
and to experiment with alternative (or simply different) ways of doing things.
Some issues may well lend themselves to this, others not so much. This also goes
for the contexts. Beyond the positioning of the institutions themselves (funding institutions or local public institutions), it is the people involved with these
institutions who will determine how experimental the approach is, whether
they are “reformers from within” (Olivier de Sardan 2022) or “development
artists” (Naudet 1999). This chapter thus proposes four sources of inspiration
that can be applied independently. They address changes in attitudes, interpretations, methods, and tools. Each of these sources of inspiration is illustrated with
concrete examples that embody principles specific to commons.

Source of Inspiration 1—Moving Away from an
Assumption of Institutional Uniformity to the Recognition
of the Diversity of Practices

Our actions are based on a predominant concept of rationality, one based
on individualization, utilitarianism, formalism, and predictability. This form
of rationality is directly linked to the possibility of profitability or return
on investment (economic rationality), to a legal formalism linked to modern law and its codification (legal rationality), and to bureaucratic political
administration (political rationality) (Weber 2019). This rationality translates
directly into our relationship to institutions, with a tendency toward isomor-
phism (DiMaggio and Powell 2000), and into our relationship to property,
understood in its exclusive and individual dimensions (Xifaras 2004). It is
values such as progress, mastery of nature, and economic efficiency (Santos
2016) that are at the heart of the interpretive frameworks, analyses, diagno-
ses, and evaluations that we make use of in adopting a normative perspective
(Rist 2007). These values form our frameworks for acting, and we tend to
consider behaviors whose underlying goals and representations do not fit into
them to be “irrational,” even though these frameworks are supposed to pro-
vide a collective understanding of the activity (Trosa 2017). These values and
references are propagated on a daily basis in the lives of Sub-Saharan African
populations, either through the presence of public agents in the field, or the
presence of proxies such as local nongovernmental organizations, or through
the daily practices of increasingly urbanized, educated, and interconnected
populations (Darbon 2014).

Commons are developed on the basis of a procedural and context-aware
rationality (Chanteau and Labrousse 2013). It is procedural, or instrumental
(Lévi-Strauss 2021), because actors engage in “bricolage” (forms of tinker-
ing), not according to a goal and a trajectory defined ex ante but by proceed-
ing along paths that include processes of constant trial and error to adjust to
unforeseen consequences. It is context aware, because commons presuppose
a deliberative dimension (see chapter 1) that involves requirements, which
vary in the extent to which they can be formalized, such as ethics, politics,
tradition, solidarity, reciprocity, trust, commitment, and reputation. This does
not mean that there are no individual strategies or forms of utilitarianism.
Nonetheless, decision-making patterns are based on considerations and
objectives that fall under the right to exist (see chapter 6), and economic
activities and market mechanisms are thus subordinated to social relations
and interdependent ecological relationships (Aubert et al. 2017). Property is
viewed not as an exclusive right of the owner, whether public or private, but
as a bundle of distributed rights. This therefore takes the social function of
property into account (Orsi 2014).

A commons-based approach may involve the following (box 7.1):

* Preventing the tendency toward institutional isomorphism that funder activity can create by making it possible to explore flexible and pragmatic institutional arrangements that recognize the diversity of existing forms of commons

* Questioning the relationship with property by considering it as a bundle of distributed rights and obligations, which may or may not be formalized
BOX 7.1

**Access to Medicines—A Bundle of Rights Approach to Intellectual Property**

The consequences of the COVID-19 (coronavirus) health crisis illustrated a high level of inequality in terms of the state of public health and hospital systems, as well as the numbers of medical staff, beds, prevention tools, and treatments that were available. It has given rise to an unprecedented international response in the provision and development of medical products (medical equipment, diagnostic tests, drugs, and vaccines). Debates have focused on whether there is a need for exclusive intellectual property through patents as a vehicle for innovation or whether intellectual property should be abolished in order to secure access for the greatest number of people.

Certain experiments are exploring different paths by adopting commons-based approaches that operate at two levels (Abecassis et al. 2019). The first level consists of modulating the various attributes of intellectual property in order to put them at the service of access for the most deprived populations. In concrete terms, this means using bundles of rights to think about the rights to be protected and the agreements that must be put in place in this regard between pharmaceutical companies, public health authorities, and international organizations. The second level consists of the mobilization of coalitions of actors (international organizations, public authorities, pharmaceutical companies, funders, doctors, producers, patients) that aim to find affordable and manageable treatments in the social, economic, logistic, and climatic conditions of African countries.

This is the case of the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative (DNDi). Because they mainly affect poor populations, so-called neglected tropical diseases are overlooked by pharmaceutical companies as a result of a lack of market demand and return on investment. Since 2003, the DNDi has been setting up collaborative research platforms in countries affected by these diseases in order to develop accessible medical solutions for the populations concerned. To do this, the foundation negotiates with pharmaceutical companies for access to some of their resources, including molecules that can serve as the basis for the development of new treatments. Various situations arise depending on whether a patent has been filed on the molecule or whether the laboratory is interested in the molecule for future developments. The laboratory holding the rights can, for example, relinquish its rights to all the applications resulting from the research or retain rights to just some of them. The motivation of laboratories to cede part of their rights can be multiple, ranging from the benefits derived from a corporate social responsibility strategy to the shifting of risk to the DNDi concerning molecules on which they are not ready to make any investments. The DNDi therefore proposes an original and creative conception of intellectual property. Its differentiated allocation makes it possible to implement a range of legal solutions based on bundles of rights designed to develop new treatments and to promote the widest possible access to them among disadvantaged populations (Coriat, Legroux, and Leyronas 2020). For example, in November 2018, the European Medicines Agency issued a favorable opinion for the registration of fexinidazole, a new drug to combat sleeping sickness (or human African trypanosomiasis), which had been the result of a partnership between the DNDi, the French pharmaceutical company Sanofi, and experts from endemic countries (see chapter 1).
## Source of Inspiration 2—Shifting from Top-Down Observation to an Embedded Approach

Funders rely on concepts and principles that are intended to be universal (Hugon 2011). This attitude manifests itself in the perpetuation of dominant economic and social models, whose promotion is justified by the need to guarantee universal rights and principles. The Sustainable Development Goals are a major expression of this (Mélonio, Naudet, and Rioux 2022). These models, which are employed in a normative manner (Rist 2007), are the subject of much criticism, particularly in the work of development anthropology, which seeks to identify particular aspects of the institutions that are unique to different societies and to take into account the interpretations and meanings of activities, and which favors the qualitative approach. Even when organizations are interested in the local level, this reliance on universalism leads them to favor processes of expansion (increase in activity) or duplication (replication of the model) with a view toward “scaling up.” This inevitably introduces a distance between funders and actors, which is seen as guaranteeing a certain objectivity and axiological neutrality (Fontaine 2022). However, this distance becomes a challenge when the funders are part of the game of power, have their own values and objectives, and are subject to multiple constraints (Rottenburg 2009).

On the contrary, commons that are being developed in Sub-Saharan Africa are experimenting with a relationship to territory based on proximity and diversity (Fontaine 2022). Proximity is a key factor because commons are appropriately situated and are built on the commitment of stakeholders to an explicit and context-sensitive purpose (Aubert and Botta 2022). They are based on an understanding of institutional diversity and are organized across multiple spatial scales with horizontal modes of dissemination (see chapter 6).

A commons-based approach may consist of the following (box 7.2):

* Rejecting any position that creates distance and adopting the perspective of an embedded actor by bringing the objectives and constraints of the funders into the discussion with actors

* Basing projects on the principles of codesign and subsidiarity, by adopting a facilitating, even intermediary position, including in the area of monitoring and evaluation

* Encouraging actors to express the desires of the collective, guiding activity in a polycentric way by creating spaces for dialogue before and during projects

* Supporting the deployment of commons at different scales by creating the conditions for their dissemination through processes of mutual inspiration (dissemination and sharing of knowledge and know-how) and cooperation, as well as by facilitating their inclusion in public policy dialogues
BOX 7.2

A Commons-Based Approach to Energy Access Issues in
Sub-Saharan Africa

Despite sustained international efforts, there are still 840 million people in the world who do not have access to electricity and 2.7 billion people who cook using traditional biomass. Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for 70 percent of the global deficit. Public, private, and civil society actors are developing solutions for access to electricity (grid extensions, decentralized systems) that bring into play the principles of a commons-based approach, either in theory or in practice. This approach is reflected at several levels (Baudé, Leyronas, and Gasc 2020).

The commons-based approach to energy access issues is above all based on the degree to which the principle of subsidiarity is applied. A wide range of user engagement modalities is possible: identification of sites, selection of delegates, monitoring of service operation, interfaces between delegates and users, collecting suggestions and identifying new services to be developed, conflict resolution, and referral to external authorities in case of problems.

The commons-based approach also results in specific institutional and contractual forms of collective action. In its most accomplished form, this may involve the establishment of a collective committee of users who delegate the provision of the service and the maintenance of the facilities to a local operator (as in the cooperative model developed in Burkina Faso [see Baudé, Leyronas, and Gasc 2020]). Other approaches allow users to exercise varying degrees of control over infrastructure management. This management can be entrusted to a local energy provider (this is the model of the decentralized multiservice energy platforms, or light cafes, supported by Electriciens sans frontières in rural Madagascar) or to a delocalized service company (as in the scheme adopted by the French association GRET in the context of the Rhyviere project to develop mini-hydroelectric networks in rural municipalities in Madagascar).

In each case, the commons-based approach opens up spaces for reflection in the face of the many challenges identified in rural electrification projects: ownership of the projects by the local community, which is a key condition for success; proper maintenance of the installations; limiting fraud and unpaid bills as well as preventing and managing conflicts; and, finally, investment in other social spaces through the development of relevant initiatives that respond to the needs of the inhabitants of the territories (health, education, or access to water). In this way, it leads actors to think about the transition from projects aimed at technical achievements (with the objective of bringing electricity to a given area) to initiatives that have an impact on a wide range of dimensions of sustainable development.
## Source of Inspiration 3—Changing a Results-Based Culture into One Supporting the Process

The activities of funders are based on what Santos (2016) refers to as the “monoculture of linear time,” that is, a relationship to a causal understanding of time according to which history only has one meaning and one direction. This representation has two consequences. The first consequence is that it presupposes that certain countries are ahead of time, along with the types of knowledge, institutions, and forms of sociability that they control. According to this temporal logic, anything that is asymmetrical vis-à-vis that which is considered “forward” is seen as “backward.” The second consequence is that it leads to a mechanical apprehension of change in the sense that value is only appreciated at the end of a predetermined process. This representation of time is manifest, for example, in the logic of “projects,” which is the preferred mode of intervention for the majority of funders in Sub-Saharan Africa. A project is based on a characterization of the initial situation, the projection of a final outcome (motivated by its importance), the implementation of the means necessary to achieve this final outcome (whose effectiveness and efficiency are measured), and the use of tools to justify the action a priori or a posteriori with regard to its effect, or even its potential or estimated impact and its expected or observed sustainability.³

The types of commons in Sub-Saharan Africa are, on the other hand, undergoing constant mutation. They do not have a predefined goal but build a path via deliberation on their objectives and means, depending on their environment (Chanteau and Labrousse 2013). They also take place over long periods of time. Finally, they produce not only “results” but also, and more important, a social process through the “commoning” of collective action.

A commons-based approach may take the form of the following (box 7.3):

* Moving from a quantitative and “managerialist” approach based on achievements to a process-based approach, one that is necessary for transversality

* Recognizing the value of processes of “commoning” (organizational innovations, the empowerment of individuals, the transformation of narratives, developing methodologies, sharing knowledge), beyond material achievements

* Accompanying “commoning” by relying on specific actors (facilitators, discourse mediators, holders of commons) and ad hoc tools (tools for analysis, for grasping the issues at stake, for understanding motivations, for facilitation and coordination)
BOX 7.3

**Support for "Commoning"—Approaches and Tools That Are Already in Use**

The Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement (CIRAD) (Agricultural Research Center for International Development) is developing game-based methods and tools to support the participation of users with divergent interests and heterogeneous capacity in adaptive resource co-management. The game allows for the manipulation of possibilities in a protected situation and the ability to act on parameters with the hope of achieving results (Rouchier 2018). In an "engaged research" approach, CIRAD encourages the co-construction of the game and simulation medium by the participating individuals (Bousquet, Antona, and Daré 2022; d'Aquino 2016; Le Page et al. 2022). A game session is a simulation in which each person has autonomy in making decisions. In this sense, it is an example of "commoning" (Aubert and Botta 2022).

CIRAD has also developed a methodological guide for use by Agence française de développement (AFD) staff and their local partners (Aubert et al. 2019). This guide suggests operational tools and support methods for integrating the commons-based approach into the preparation, monitoring, and evaluation of development projects financed by the AFD and involving land and natural resource management issues. The guide shows that, even if it does not immediately seem like the most satisfactory way to operationalize commons, the project approach used by funders can be mobilized as a starting point. It outlines concrete procedures in methodological information sheets that can be used at different stages of the project being funded. The commons-based approach is built on the following steps: making an inventory of the ecological and social alliances present in the project's zone of influence and assessing whether it is advisable to involve the people who sustain them (the "holders of commons") in the project, providing methodological support to one or more holders of commons in order to involve them in the co-construction of a territorial project at the scale of the communities they lead and alongside the project team, providing support to the holders of commons in order to specify the actions to be considered, and collectively specifying the conditions for implementation and laying the foundations for a system of monitoring and evaluation by and for the stakeholders in commons.

GRET, a French nongovernmental organization for international solidarity, has been examining its role as a facilitator for processes leading to the emergence of commons since 2019.ª It has set up a space for operational experimentation with a commons-based approach with the support of AFD funding. This approach is deployed in natural resource, service, and territorial management projects in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Republic of Congo, Haiti, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Mauritania, and Senegal. It aims to support local actors in the construction of shared governance methods throughout the process, but also to promote collective learning and to foster a new level of expertise for GRET agents so that they can make the necessary changes to their approach in order to offer this support.

<footnote>a. https://gret.org/en/taking-a-commons-based-approach-methods-of-action-for-the-benefit-of-all/.</footnote>
* Limiting ex ante and ex post impact assessment processes and the use of predetermined aggregate targets and indicators by questioning our understanding of the very notion of “success”⁴

* Providing actors in commons with the possibility of analyzing and adapting their objectives and actions in itinere, by setting up monitoring and evaluation systems designed, supplied, and used by these actors

* Accepting things not being finished, mistakes, and even failures by making it possible for actors in commons to experiment so they can figure out the institutional arrangements that they feel are best adapted to the resource systems that they manage and to the territories in which they are rooted

## Source of Inspiration 4—Switching from Expert Knowledge to Pluralist Knowledge

Funders mobilize knowledge that favors macro-analyses, quantitative approaches, cross-sectional comparisons, and the use of external expertise and scientific knowledge (Naudet 2021). In Sub-Saharan Africa, this relationship to knowledge is something that is imposed upon people and tends to render other sources of knowledge invisible (Santos 2016).

In the commons that take place in Sub-Saharan Africa, knowledge is distributed locally instead. Commons are nourished by the “ability of different forms of knowledge to coexist, with the understanding that they are equal in dignity” (Fontaine 2022). These are social forms of knowledge (e.g., ancestral, folk, and spiritual knowledge), which produce the diversity necessary to learn from experience (Ostrom and Basurto 2011) and engage in transformative processes (Bousquet et al. 2022).

A commons-based approach could involve the following (box 7.4):

* Questioning our epistemological position, by recognizing the diversity of forms of knowledge and types of otherness, along with their modes of construction and their modes of legitimization

* Designing devices, methods, and tools that allow us to share as well as receive multiple kinds of knowledge and experience, in addition to that which is offered by specialized expertise
BOX 7.4

Mobilizing Multiple Forms of Knowledge—The “Learning Territories” Approach

The “learning territories” approach is based on the idea that transforming the way people learn is a lever for the transformation of society as a whole (Andriantsimahavandy et al. 2020). It promotes the co-construction of knowledge by using innovative pedagogical approaches involving public officials, specialists (consultants or researchers), and actors in commons (see chapter 4). It entails creating the conditions for changing individual attitudes and breaking down silos; accompanying stakeholders in broadening their interpretations of an issue and creating new ways of thinking; anticipating the systemic impact of political decisions in the short and long run; rapidly producing shared knowledge and adapted, context-sensitive solutions; and, finally, reinventing modes of collaboration and project implementation in the service of a collectively defined goal. It requires a participatory and committed attitude from stakeholders at every level: first, to encourage them to revise their ways of thinking about the world and how they project their own local practices and, second, to ensure that they can find their proper role and mode of expression.

The “learning territories” approach therefore makes it possible to create the conditions for the emergence of “commoning.” It is simultaneously part of an institutional process (source of inspiration 1), a process of constructing a collective imaginary (source of inspiration 2), and one of sharing multiple types of knowledge (source of inspiration 4).

Since 2021, the AFD Campusª has been experimenting with the deployment of the “learning territories” approach. This approach has been tested, for example, in Mauritius with a view to co-constructing a platform for dialogue between public policy and citizens on biodiversity issues. It has been initiated at a territorial scale in Senegal, in the Kédougou region, with the aim of identifying knowledge, know-how, and interpersonal skills, but also the things that are vital and shared and that which needs to be regenerated, improved, and supported. It also seeks to create a continuous and instructive dialogue both with and among local actors. This should lead to the co-construction of solutions that are appropriate to the local challenges of accelerating transitions and of boosting their territories.

a. https://www.afd.fr/fr/campus-afd.

Conclusion

We are well aware that the changes in interpretations and attitudes that we have outlined here are difficult for both funders and public actors. The present strategic and operational frameworks within which their efforts are carried out do not lend themselves to this process. In view of the ecological and social crises that the continent is facing, the commons-based approach appears to offer several new opportunities. Its plasticity opens up the field of possibilities for reflection
and experimentation beyond the traditional divisions between the market and the state, the public and the private, individual interest and collective commitment, “bottom-up” and “top-down” approaches, and the local and the universal. It is true that at present, it remains in an experimental stage and that work must continue, involving all stakeholders and all forms of expertise (people involved in commons, the research community, affected populations, and political and social forces). However, African commons, both in the practices they employ and in the values they embody, are now more than ever a source of inspiration for facing the challenges of collective action raised by the complex issues (whether local or global) that we are all confronted with.

## Notes

1. Figures from World Bank: Net official development assistance received (constant 2020 US$) - Sub-Saharan Africa.

2. A “development project” is characterized by a set of activities that meet pre-defined objectives; the resources made available, particularly in terms of financing; and the components that combine technical achievements (infrastructure, for example) and forms of support (human, technical, and financial resources) to ensure the proper implementation of the project and the sustainability of the funded projects.

3. *Relevance* refers to the appropriateness of the action taken with regard to the objectives and issues decided upon at the outset. *Effectiveness* refers to a comparison made between the expected achievements and objectives of the project and what is concretely achieved. *Efficiency* examines the relationship between the means implemented and their costs, on the one hand, and the results obtained, on the other. *Impact* refers to the long-term outcomes (or expected outcomes), whether these are positive or negative, primary or secondary, that can be reasonably attributed either in part or in whole to the project. These can be attributed either directly or indirectly (direct and indirect outcomes) to the project and can be intentional or unintentional in nature (expected and unexpected outcomes). *Sustainability* is defined as the longevity of the benefits resulting from a development project after the work itself has ended.

4. Ostrom (2011) identifies six ways of gauging the performance of a particular institutional arrangement, noting that no one dogma should prevail and that those ways can be defined, chosen, and selected in each situation by the actors themselves. *Efficiency* consists in producing more from the same amount of resources. *Equivalence* consists in observing the ratio between the costs and benefits of participation in the institution. *Redistributional equity* judges performance according to the satisfaction of everyone's needs and may come into conflict with the efficiency criterion. *Accountability* is a question of decision-makers taking into account the preferences and choices of community members. *Conformance* consists in ensuring that the rules are consistent with the values of local actors. For Ostrom, *sustainability* refers to the ability to cope with unforeseen events and changes in the context or condition of the resource.
## References

Abecassis, Philippe, Jean-François Alesandrini, Benjamin Coriat, Nathalie Coutinet, and Stéphanie Leyronas. 2019. "DNDi, a Distinctive Illustration of Commons in the Area of Public Health." AFD Research Papers 93. https://dndi.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/CommonsAreaPublicHealth_AFDResearchPaper_2019.pdf.

Alao, Abiodun. 2019. *A New Narrative for Africa: Voice and Agency*. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429277313.

Andrews, Nathan. 2009. "Foreign Aid and Development in Africa: What the Literature Says and What the Reality Is." *Journal of African Studies and Development* 1 (1): 8–15.

Andriantsimahavandy, Sylvia, Raphaël Besson, Laëtitia Manach, and Stéphane Natkin. 2020. "Comprendre la dynamique des écosystèmes apprenants en Afrique." https://www.afd.fr/fr/ressources/comprendre-la-dynamique-des-ecosystemes-apprenants-en-afrique.

Aubert, Sigrid, Martine Antona, François Bousquet, Camilla Toulmin, and Patrick d'Aquino, Technical Committee on "Land Tenure and Development." 2017. "Opportunités et défis d'une approche par les communs de la terre et des ressources qu'elle porte." https://www.foncier-developpement.fr/wp-content/uploads/Approche-par-les-communs-de-la-terre2.pdf.

Aubert, Sigrid, Patrick d'Aquino, François Bousquet, Martine Antona, and Camilla Toulmin, eds. 2019. *L'approche par les communs de la terre et des ressources qu'elle porte: Illustration par six études de cas*. Paris: AFD and MEAE. https://www.foncier-developpement.fr/wp-content/uploads/CTFD-Regards-sur-le-Foncier-6-Approche-par-les-communs.pdf.

Aubert, Sigrid, and Aurélie Botta, eds. 2022. *Les communs: Un autre récit pour la coopération territoriale*. Versailles: Éditions Quæ.

Baudé, Stéphane, Stéphanie Leyronas, and Jérémy Gasc. 2020. "Renouveler les approches de l'accès à l'énergie. Propositions de mobilisation des communs pour favoriser et encadrer la subsidiarité." AFD Policy Paper No. 5, 1–32. https://www.afd.fr/fr/ressources/renouveler-les-approches-de-lacces-lenergie.

Bousquet, François, Martine Antona, and William Daré. 2022. "Analyser et s'engager." In *Les communs: Un autre récit pour la coopération territoriale*, edited by Sigrid Aubert and Aurélie Botta, 161–81. Versailles: Éditions Quæ.

Bousquet, François, Tara Quinn, Frédérique Jankowski, Raphaël Mathevet, Olivier Barreteau, and Sandrine Dhenain. 2022. *Attachements et changement dans un monde en transformation*. Versailles: Éditions Quæ. http://publications.cirad.fr/une_notice.php?dk=601831.

Chanteau, Jean-Pierre, and Agnès Labrousse. 2013. "L'institutionnalisme méthodologique d'Elinor Ostrom: Quelques enjeux et controverses." *Revue de la régulation*. *Capitalisme, institutions, pouvoirs* 14. https://doi.org/10.4000/regulation.10555.

Cooke, Bill, and Uma Kothari. 2001. *Participation: The New Tyranny?* London: Zed Books.

Coriat, Benjamin, Nadège Legroux, and Stéphanie Leyronas. 2020. "Innover pour permettre l'accès à des produits thérapeutiques de première nécessité." AFD Policy Brief No. 2, 1–2. https://www.afd.fr/fr/ressources/innover-pour-permettre-lacces-des-produits-therapeutiques-de-premiere-necessite.
d'Aquino, Patrick. 2016. "TerriStories, un jeu au service de l'invention collective dans les politiques publiques." *Revue internationale animation, territoires et pratiques socioculturelles* 10: 71-80. https://doi.org/10.55765/atps.i10.579.

Dar, Sadhvi, and Bill Cooke. 2013. *The New Development Management: Critiquing the Dual Modernization*. London: Zed Books.

Darbon, Dominique. 2014. "Politiques publiques sectorielles dans les États et sociétés fragiles et science politique." In *Une action publique éclatée? Production et institutionnalisation de l'action publique dans les secteurs de l'eau potable et du foncier (APPI). Burkina Faso, Niger, Bénin*, edited by Héloïse Valette, Catherine Baron, François Enten, Philippe Lavigne Delville, and Alicia Tsitsikalis, 121-26. Nogent sur Marne: GRET.

Delay, Etienne, Sigrid Aubert, and Aurélie Botta, Technical Committee on "Land Tenure and Development." 2020. "Defining and Implementing a Land-Based Commons Approach." https://www.foncier-developpement.fr/wp-content/uploads/2020_Briefing-note_Delay-Aubert-Botta-VF.pdf.

Devarajan, Shantayan, David R. Dollar, and Torgny Holmgren. 2002. "Aid and Reform in Africa." https://doi.org/10.1596/0-8213-4669-5.

DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 2000. "The Iron Cage Revisited Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields." In *Economics Meets Sociology in Strategic Management*, edited by Joel A. C. Baum and Frank Dobbin, 143-66. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-3322(00)17011-1.

Ferguson, James. 2006. "The Anti-Politics Machine." In *The Anthropology of the State: A Reader*, edited by Aradhana Sharma and Akhil Gupta, 270-86. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Fontaine, Geneviève. 2021. "Les communs de capabilités: Des questions à se poser pour mettre en France efficacement une approche radicale et transformative de la transition." https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03139617.

Fontaine, Geneviève. 2022. "Du social au commun: Des conditions favorables au changement de paradigme." In *Du social au commun: Un changement de paradigme. Regards croisés en droit, économie et philosophie*, edited by Celine Jouin, Muriel Gilardone, and Marie Rota, 2-26. Nancy: Institut de Recherches sur l'Évolution de la Nation et de l'État. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03815717.

Gulrajani, Nilima. 2011. "Transcending the Great Foreign Aid Debate: Managerialism, Radicalism, and the Search for Aid Effectiveness." *Third World Quarterly* 32 (2): 199-216.

Hugon, Philippe. 2011. "Les sciences sociales africaines à l'épreuve des projets de développement." *Cahiers d'études africaines* 202-3: 331-52. https://doi.org/10.4000/etudesafricaines.16662.

Kumar, Nalini. 2003. *Community-Driven Development: Lessons from the Sahel—An Analytical Review*. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/757811468006644217/pdf/11130278070Sahel.pdf.

Lavigne Delville, Philippe. 2011. "Vers une socio-anthropologie des interventions de développement comme action publique." PhD dissertation, Lumière University Lyon 2.

Lavigne Delville, Philippe, and Aghali Abdoulkader. 2010. "A cheval donné, on ne regarde pas les dents: Les mécanismes et les impacts de l'aide vus par des praticiens
nigériens.” *Etudes et travaux* 83: 1–114. http://www.lasdel.net/images/etudes_et_travaux/Les_mecanismes_de_l_aide.pdf.

Le Page, Christophe, William Daré, Martine Antona, and Sigrid Aubert. 2022. “Se confronter à la cogestion adaptive.” In *Les communs: Un autre récit pour la coopération territoriale*, edited by Sigrid Aubert and Aurélie Botta, 183–205. Versailles: Éditions Quæ.

Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 2021. *Wild Thought: A New Translation of 'La Pensée sauvage.'* Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Leyronas, Stéphanie. Forthcoming. “Déconstruire la vision occidentalo-centriste du développement par une approche par les communs.” In *Horizons et défis du Commun: Institution et transmission d'une dynamique sociale émergente*, edited by Hervé Brédif, Danièle Bourcier, Gilles Hériard-Dubreuil, Sylvain Lavelle, and Emmanuel Picavet.

Mansuri, Ghazala, and Vijayendra Rao. 2013. *Localizing Development: Does Participation Work?* Washington, DC: World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-8256-1.

Mbembe, Achille. 2021. “Les nouvelles relations Afrique-France: Relever ensemble les défis de demain.” https://www.vie-publique.fr/rapport/281834-nouvelles-relations-afrique-france-relever-ensemble-les-defis-de-demain.

Mélonio, Thomas, Jean-David Naudet, and Rémy Rioux. 2022. “Official Development Assistance at the Age of Consequences.” AFD Policy Paper No. 11, 1–43. https://www.afd.fr/sites/afd/files/2022-10-05-32-30/pp11-official-development-assistance-age-of-consequences-melonio-naudet-rioux%20BATWeb.pdf.

Mosse, David. 2004. *Cultivating Development: An Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practice*. London: Pluto Press.

Moyo, Dambisa, and Niall Ferguson. 2010. *Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa*. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Naudet, Jean-David. 1999. “Les programmes d’appui à la petite entreprise en Afrique de la coopération suisse: De la démarche projet à la démarche d’accompagnement.” Dialogues, Proposals, Stories for Global Citizenship Blog, February 1999. http://base.d-p-h.info/en/fiches/premierdph/fiche-premierdph-4983.html.

Naudet, Jean-David. 2021. “Sahel: Are Donors Out of Touch with on-the-Ground Knowledge?” ID4D. https://ideas4development.org/en/donors-funds-on-the-ground/.

Ngozi Adichie, Chimamanda, TED Talks. 2013. “The Danger of a Single Story.” https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_ngozi_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story.

Nubukpo, Kako. 2022. *Une solution pour l'Afrique: Du néoprotectionnisme aux biens communs*. Paris: Odile Jacob.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2022. *Geographical Distribution of Financial Flows to Developing Countries 2022: Disbursements, Commitments, Country Indicators*. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/dac/geographical-distribution-of-financial-flows-to-developing-countries-20743149.htm.

Olivier de Sardan, Jean-Pierre. 2021. *La revanche des contextes. Des mésaventures de l'ingénierie sociale en Afrique et au-delà*. Paris: Karthala. https://www.academia.edu/47765745/La_revanche_des_contextes_DES_m%C3%A9saventures_de_l_ing%C3%A9nierie_sociale_en_Afrique_et_au_del%C3%A0.
Olivier de Sardan, Jean-Pierre. 2022. "La délivrance des biens d'intérêt général en Afrique. Pratiques palliatives, réformes de l'Etat et communs." Papiers de Recherche AFD 264, Paris. https://www.afd.fr/fr/ressources/la-delivrance-des-biens-d-interet-general-en-afrique-pratiques-palliatives-reformes-de-letat-et-communs.

Orsi, Fabienne. 2014. "Réhabiliter la propriété comme bundle of rights: Des origines à Elinor Ostrom, et au-delà?" *Revue internationale de droit économique* 3: 371-85.

Ostrom, Elinor. 2011. "Background on the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework." *Policy Studies Journal* 39: 7-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00394.x.

Ostrom, Elinor, and Xavier Basurto. 2011. "Crafting Analytical Tools to Study Institutional Change." *Journal of Institutional Economics* 7 (3): 317-43.

Perrin, Geneviève. 2019. "Les communs de capabilités: Une analyse des pôles territoriaux de coopération économique à partir du croisement des approches d'Ostrom et de Sen." PhD dissertation, University Paris-Est. https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-02513416.

Rist, Gilbert. 2007. "Development as a Buzzword." *Development in Practice* 17 (4-5): 485-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614520701469328.

Rottenburg, Richard. 2009. *Far-Fetched Facts: A Parable of Development Aid*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Rouchier, Juliette, IGDPE. 2018. "Les Serious Games et l'éducation au bien commun: L'exemple du jeu PollutionSolutions." https://www.economie.gouv.fr/igpde-editions-publications/larticle_n2#jeux,%20jeux%20s%C3%A9rieux,%20serious%20games.

Santos, Boaventura de Sousa. 2016. *Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide*. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.

Sarr, Felwine. 2019. *Afrotopia*. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Trosa, Sylvie. 2017. "L'intérêt général: Une réalité introuvable?" *Gestion & Finances Publiques* 3: 82-7. https://doi.org/10.3166/gfp.2017.00053.

Weber, Max. 2019. *Economy and Society*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wiredu, Kwasi, ed. 2004. *A Companion to African Philosophy*. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

World Bank. 2017. *World Development Report 2017: Governance and the Law*. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2017.

Xifaras, Mikhail. 2004. *La propriété. Etude de philosophie du droit*. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
# The Commons: Choosing Solidarity and Looking Ahead

Tanella Boni, philosopher, essayist, poet, and novelist, Côte d'Ivoire

"Bolo fila le be nyongon ko."

"One hand washes the other."

—Translated from Dyula, Côte d'Ivoire

The commons-based approach adopted within these pages introduces the reader to experiences and practices based on solidarity, sharing, and equal access to natural and intangible resources. It also addresses how the knowledge and skills that political decisions often neglect or exclude can be passed on.

What lies behind the word *commons* (often used in the plural form)? Ostrom's initial work led to the notion of commons being understood in terms of the management of renewable resources. That interpretation, alongside her later work, provides some context for the theoretical framework of the research contained within this book. However, applying the principle of commons to African practices in many different locations and countries is a significant undertaking. The results of the research presented in this book are surprising. Not only do they highlight the commonplace but vital practices that tend to go unnoticed because they have always been part of the way of life in some places, but they also reveal some innovative, experimental, and successful practices. A number of issues are addressed. Land ownership, housing, energy, and other important facets of daily life are analyzed in the place where they are actually happening.

Africa is a land of contrasts with an abundance of such experiences, but they are not widely known. In that context, are commons not examples of solidarity in action, self-governance, self-management, and sharing? In these ever-shifting societies where, from the past to the present day, identities are forever being reconstructed, **African men and women have not forgotten what they can create together, just as their parents and ancestors did.** Their participation in the commons movement reminds them of *who* they are
(or have become) in the places *where* they are, at the crossroads of several cultures, for example. They know that commons are everyday practices that are transformed by proposing new ways of living together in different kinds of rural and urban spaces. Commons have therefore created a space for themselves within contemporary lifestyles in new, unknown territories where ancient values are no longer deemed appropriate and every commodity and resource can be turned into merchandise.

## Solidarity in Action

African men and women do not think about colonialism every day. Often, they even forget about it. However, that era could be considered seminal in terms of how African decision-makers respond to “development aid.” It is as if, whenever a problem arises, their only answer is to seek help from funders or the world’s governing elite. That said, **viewing Africa through the lens of commons serves as a reminder that some local economic and social practices were a part of how people lived well before they encountered those from far away**—the colonists with their language, their culture, and their objects. Accounts of that unimagined head-on collision certainly still feed the collective imagination today. Scars from the violence that turned African societies upside down and destroyed much of the continent’s fauna and flora, sacred objects, works of art, primary forests, and biodiversity live on in people’s memories. The borders dividing cultural and linguistic regions add to their sense of anguish. However, although that encounter has left its mark on memories, awakens sciences from one generation to the next, and has brutally transformed how people live and inhabit the continent, all is not lost. A few intangible resources (tales, proverbs, adages, and other oral texts) containing life’s maxims are still rooted in the collective imagination.

The Dyula proverb cited at the beginning of this afterword is one such maxim. It is an invitation to act in solidarity at all times. In English, it is rendered as **“one hand washing the other.”** What connects this proverb and an academic publication on commons? Initially, one might imagine that these two hands belong to the same person, someone in full possession of their faculties and able to take care of themselves without any outside assistance. I feel that the idea of assistance is important. It is about helping ourselves and not waiting for someone else to do it for us, be it in times of crisis, conflict, or peace. However, the image of those two hands is also a reference to a lifestyle based on a community providing itself with the means to survive. It recalls the kind of subsistence economy practiced on a small scale in rural areas, as well as within neighborhoods in large cities. In this context, the idea of solidarity is not limited to a rudimentary understanding of the subsistence economy. It is less restrictive
and more wide-ranging than that. It encompasses health, peace and harmoni-
ous relations, prosperity, well-being, and happiness. So, how can we go about
achieving happiness together through cooperation? That is indeed the question.

Self-Governance and Self-Management

This book provides a rigorous analysis of “commons,” a complex word that crops up from time to time in our conversations. It is about Africa in all its diversity, how Africa is inhabited, and the choices of its communities, alongside the choices of states and public policies. Undoubtedly, the latter can play many roles in “commoning”: they can assist commons, support them, unite them, or remain indifferent and even oppose them.

Let us not forget that **commons are also forms of social resistance when public policies are weak or nonexistent.** They want to be seen as local, deliberative, and participatory spaces that operate according to the laws and rules they choose for themselves and by themselves. That is why **self-governance and responsibility lie at the heart of commons.**

I believe that this Africa is far removed from the mythical version frozen in
time whose image continues to travel around the world. This is the Africa that
experienced colonization in its various forms, independence, and other more
recent episodes. This is the Africa that is still looking for itself today, the Africa
of cities and new technologies. This Africa is moving forward, but not in the
same way as the politicians awaiting development aid. **This commons-based
Africa thinks, moves, proposes, and invents while learning to be accountable for its actions.** Collective responsibility lies at the heart of “commoning.”

Commons are participatory spaces. This means that everyone accepts
responsibility for their own actions, discovers their own purpose, and follows
their own aspirations. However, they also respect the horizontal bonds they
share with the kindred spirits who are involved in the same exercise or struggle,
in order to **achieve big things on a small scale together.**

Other forms of commons tackling global challenges such as climate change and threats to the future of humanity are also possible. Again, local stakeholders play their own autonomous role alongside politicians and funders. **It seems to me that commons seek to start from a local perspective and carve out their own role, even making their own contributions to resolving global problems.**

Property and Commons

Commons help demonstrate how autonomous decision-making works and
how participatory spaces operate. In this book, life within commons is analyzed
from several complementary points of view. Each one provides a different perspective to better understand the rationale at work within these experiences, be they based on protecting renewable resources; managing urban environments, community ventures, or cooperatives; or providing knowledge and skills to a larger number of people, particularly online.

Empirical research is used to **challenge the notion of property** as conceived within the capitalist system. The latter holds that profitability is fundamental because “property” is owned by individuals, belongs to them, and can yield a profit for them according to their own desires. It is not something to be shared. Meanwhile, in a commons-based approach, everything is shared, from land ownership to intellectual property. Nothing is held back from the co-contributors and co-dwellers.

For example, the question of how a large number of people in Africa could receive vaccines made elsewhere became an issue during the pandemic. What should be done? **How can one go about democratizing both the things that ought to be democratized and the resources that can be too?** How can the inflexible notion of “intellectual property” be made to evolve? Are we ready to view “property” differently? To no longer see it as an attribute benefiting an individual and its rights holders or a private company and its shareholders? Commons seem to be a promising and necessary approach based on the principle of sharing and providing for the many, whatever patents need to be taken into account.

This reassessment of intellectual property could affect many areas. Free and creative knowledge can be used in the field of education and continuous learning, for example, which is advantageous to all. What is, and what will be, Africa's role in producing the kind of content that can be shared on a large scale? **Africa must play a role in creating and sharing academic, cultural, and educational content in different ways.** With its diverse and rich supply of knowledge and skills, it cannot continue simply acting as a consumer in all respects.

## Commons: Somewhere between Rural Life and City Life

Diverse and complex situations are never static, so commons should be considered through the lens of their history and evolution, located somewhere between rural life and city life. **Although they take inspiration from some community experiences inherited from the past, commons resolutely look to the future.** That is why the **reality of life within commons is unique**, although it needs to be understood from several points of view.

Although history lies at the heart of narratives about commons, one of the chief political experiences affecting the imagination of Africans is the idea of always feeling in “transition,” awaiting a better tomorrow. African countries
seem to be running after a “development” train they are trying to catch. At the moment, some believe they are “emerging.” According to the rhetoric of the good life relayed by the media that uses indicators for “measuring” development, a country possessing the means to solve its citizens’ fundamental problems is said to be “developed” or “emerging,” depending on which group of countries it is classified alongside. The present participle “developing”—emphasizing that this development or emergence is still in progress—demonstrates the extent to which this race remains incomplete. Numerous African countries therefore do not seem to have achieved all their aspirations. They are trying to reach a particular standard by any means possible, including international aid, even while the issue of debt hangs heavily over their fragile ability to repay, like a sword of Damocles.

Meanwhile, individuals act responsibly and organize themselves into groups or cooperatives to look after their own material and moral interests. Sometimes, this involves entire communities. In their local area, they provide themselves with the means to manage how they live and protect their natural and intangible resources. The role of commons is to **find new forms of solidarity beyond state borders.** There are some pitfalls to be avoided, such as withdrawing into one's own community to the detriment of all the others who must also share in collective experiences and resources.

Humans, like other living things, resist the violence that surrounds them through an awareness of their own vulnerability. The colonial period unsettled the collective imagination. It shaped generations endeavoring to discover who they were: men and women beset by doubts over their abilities and their responsibilities. Independence also contributed to compounding the gap between humans and the natural world thanks to some major infrastructure projects. Hopes have been broken, but they continue to be rebuilt in participatory and deliberative spaces, leaving their mark on daily life. Commons certainly cannot escape the distant influence of the colonial experience that has become part of the collective imagination, but they prioritize their autonomy while states continue to wait for international assistance. **They have therefore understood life's most important ingredient for current and future generations.**
# The African Commons at Global Crossroads

Thomas Mélonio, Economist, Executive Director of Innovation, Strategy, and Research at the Agence française de développement (AFD)

Kako Nubukpo, Economist, Commissioner responsible for Agriculture, Water Resources, and the Environment at the Commission of the Union économique et monétaire ouest-africaine (UEMOA) (West African Economic and Monetary Union)

> Given the severity of the [climate] threat, simply waiting for resolution of these issues at a global level, without trying out policies at multiple scales because they lack a global scale, is not a reasonable stance.

> —Ostrom (2009, 28)

Our current state of geopolitical fragmentation is making international cooperation more difficult, just when it is so necessary to protect global health, reduce climate change, and protect biodiversity. Recent history has shown to what extent states can turn inward when faced with urgent social issues. And yet, if we tackle the future from the perspective of a series of crises managed one after the other, a short-term outlook will systematically defeat any long-term one. The national view will defeat the international one. Privatization will overwhelm public goods. We will therefore imperil our chances of initiating the collective, multiscale, and multilevel action currently required to address the challenges facing us and to protect our global common goods.

In terms of health, the closure of borders and attempts to procure the best vaccines during the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic demonstrated the prevalence of such national and regional interests. Some called for health products to be made common goods. However, although vaccine research, manufacturing, and marketing relied heavily on public money, in practice, health
products have remained the exclusive property of the pharmaceutical labora-
tories that hold the intellectual property rights and are subject to market regu-
lations. The wealthiest states sought to mitigate market failures by supporting
international mechanisms such as the ACT-A and COVAX initiatives to reduce
unequal access to vaccines. However, they could not prevent these inequalities
altogether. To make global health a common good, new research and develop-
ment models for medicines and health care products (and for vaccines, first
and foremost) must be considered, connecting innovation and access to as
many people as possible. Collective initiatives already exist and deserve our
attention—consider, for example, the ANTICOV consortium coordinated by
the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative (DNDi). This consortium consists
of nearly 30 global research and development organizations. They are collabo-
rating on one of the largest multicountry trials involving mild and moder-
ate cases of COVID-19. ANTICOV is therefore helping to rectify the lack of
clinical research carried out in Africa, Asia, and Latin America during the
pandemic.

In terms of the climate, the scientific reality of the current imbalance is
beyond doubt. However, in 2022, we observed an overwhelming return of fos-
sil fuel subsidies in reaction to the invasion of Ukraine and higher oil prices.
This is another example of social and economic crises disrupting attempts
to construct coherent and effective international action and endangering
our ability to achieve the Paris Agreement goals. The UN Climate Change
Conference (UNFCCC COP 27), held in Sharm el-Sheikh, the Arab Republic
of Egypt, in October 2022, did not report any clear progress in terms of reduc-
ing anticipated carbon emissions. However, it did recall the urgency of imme-
diate massive mobilization in the form of multiple communities. Within the
framework of her work on commons, Elinor Ostrom had already proposed
the notion of “polycentric governance” as a version of collective mobilization.
She was paving the way for entirely independent collective action on a variety
of scales to counteract the shortfalls of centrally defined policies and structur-
ally insufficient state resources.

Finally, in politics, we are witnessing increased criticism of nations, societ-
ies, and democratic practices, as well as the temptation of a form of illiberalism
making its presence felt across the world. However, at the same time, collective
modes of governance, operating at different scales, are engaging more effectively
with citizen participation, democratic decision-making mechanisms based on
deliberation, diversified methods for delivering public goods and services, and
“bottom-up” approaches.

Proposals such as withdrawing some goods from the market, polycen-
tric governance, new forms of democracy, and methods for delivering pub-
lic services should be discussed and, where necessary, critiqued. At any rate,
these forms of governance are too often ignored but deserve to be included in
international debates, if only to serve as sources of inspiration. Global governance may currently appear to be under severe pressure, but it would be hasty and inappropriate to conclude that this will always be the case. Nor would it be justifiable to become resigned to such a state of affairs. It is our belief that this kind of defeatist attitude does nothing to guarantee a better future for humanity or our planet.

African commons, operating at their own level, are paving the way for new perspectives and innovative thinking. They demonstrate that it is possible to inhabit the world differently, simultaneously protecting human and nonhuman communities and ecosystems. In that sense, this book should inspire us collectively to commit to doing what is necessary to reduce the risk of our global common goods being gradually destroyed. We believe that this goal is both necessary and realistic.

This book introduces the reader to a number of situations where commons can demonstrate their effectiveness—for example, management of land and natural resources against a background of growing demographic and security tensions. Land commons are a testament to what we might call the “intelligence of diversity” (diverse methods of access and use, as well as diverse authorities providing regulation). This is also true of urban commons whose structure takes the form of hybrid social and cultural places and technological innovation. These are spaces where social, educational, and environmental functions converge.

Mention should also be made of the quite remarkable potential of commons within the digital sector. Initial evidence of its potential can already be seen across the continent: digital archives sharing African knowledge, platforms for shared testimony following periods of violence, freely available educational material, and many other examples. The digital sector is particularly interesting because it reinvents the usual commons categories. First, it is not limited to a specific geographical location to the same extent so there can be a separation between contributors and users, on the one hand, and creation of original commons, on the other. Second, sharing digital common goods is very inexpensive so they have the potential to have a more significant impact through the circulation of methods for teaching a language, mathematics, or knowledge in general. Finally, within global digital commons (such as Wikipedia and OpenStreetMap), many communities form on the basis of specific resources—for example, Wikipedia communities focusing on a country or an African language, or groups contributing to the creation of major geographical databases in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The commons described in this book are home to innovative and inspiring experiences that make us question our traditional categories (public/private, private interests/public interest, state/market). Furthermore, they go beyond local/universal boundaries. They remind us that many African common goods
serve humanity as a whole. For example, the Congo Basin rainforest is the plan-
et's second green lung after the Amazon, not only in terms of its size but also
in respect of its ability to regulate the climate and the biodiversity to which it
is home.

These commons-based organizations are being set up against a background
of both failing states and failing markets. If we took them into account, we could
expect them to be substantially developed across the continent. It is our belief
that extensive and long-term social development in Africa based on commons
principles is entirely feasible and would be a step toward rapid growth of the
social economy. What singular political project for Africa could be underpinned
by the development of commons? What kind of alliance could be developed
between community groups and African states that protects commons while
preventing states from discharging all their responsibilities and duties onto
them? We believe in this revamped development narrative for Africa. This book
marks a first step along that path for its readers (researchers, decision-makers,
funders, and civil society stakeholders).

Beyond their own continent, African commons also encourage us to
consider the international policies and mechanisms to be implemented to
protect our global common goods by making us face up to the responsibili-
ties, vulnerabilities, and adverse effects involved. Indeed, for the first time,
this very issue, what António Guterres called a “Climate Solidarity Pact,”
was placed on the agenda of the official climate negotiations at COP 27.
Our most pressing challenge is to decide how the financial rules should be
changed to develop collective international finance capable of protecting
our global common goods.

Reference

Ostrom, Elinor. 2009. “A Polycentric Approach for Coping with Climate Change.” SSRN. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1934353.
ECO-AUDIT

*Environmental Benefits Statement*

The World Bank Group is committed to reducing its environmental foot-
print. In support of this commitment, we leverage electronic publishing
options and print-on-demand technology, which is located in regional hubs
worldwide. Together, these initiatives enable print runs to be lowered and
shipping distances decreased, resulting in reduced paper consumption, chem-
ical use, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste.

We follow the recommended standards for paper use set by the Green
Press Initiative. The majority of our books are printed on Forest Stewardship
Council (FSC)-certified paper, with nearly all containing 50-100 percent
recycled content. The recycled fiber in our book paper is either unbleached
or bleached using totally chlorine-free (TCF), processed chlorine-free (PCF),
or enhanced elemental chlorine-free (EECF) processes.

More information about the Bank's environmental philosophy can be
found at http://www.worldbank.org/corporateresponsibility.

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

green
press
INITIATIVE
*The Commons* explores the many forms of development being championed by Africa's residents, users, and citizens. In addition to managing property and shared tangible and intangible resources collectively, communities are experimenting with a concept of "commoning" founded on values such as community, engagement, reciprocity, and trust. In practice, their approach takes the form of land-based commons, housing cooperatives, hybrid cultural spaces or places for innovation, and collaborative digital platforms. The purpose of this book, where observation of historical and recent practices converges with new theories within commons scholarship, is not to promote commons themselves. Rather, it examines the tensions, drivers of change, and opportunities that surround commons dynamics in Africa. This book highlights the abundance of commons-based entrepreneurial processes in Sub-Saharan Africa and shows that partnerships between African public authorities and communities involved in the commons can be powerful drivers of sustainable development for the continent.

ISBN 978-1-4648-1960-5

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

AFD

AGENCE FRANÇAISE
DE DÉVELOPPEMENT

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

WORLD BANK GROUP

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

9 781464 819605

90000

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

SKU 211960