User level rules of procedures, bylaws and local convention for CPRs

Local communities in the sub-basin depend to a great extent on CPRs such as water, fish and wetlands. In earlier days, these resources were managed and governed collectively by local groups. These groups used to define the resource boundaries, access and withdrawal rights to these resources. Local leaders selected by the community members prepared draft rules and regulations which were approved by the community members as bylaws for the use of CPRs.

However, in recent times the top down resource governance structure covered up the potential roles that could have been played by the local bylaws.

The user level arena is a playing field where formal laws and regulations, informal customary laws and multiple stakeholders interact to come up with certain resource governance outcomes. Local by-laws are one potential means of enhancing trust through the development and official sanctioning of collective choice rules (German et al. 2010). Local conventions operate at the social baseline more so than the formal bylaws. Their legitimacy is, therefore, recognized by the stakeholders, and, in terms of peaceful enforcement, only this legitimacy matters (Alinon and Kalinganire, 2008). Local bylaws can facilitate and strengthen partnerships between the natural resource governing bodies and local resource users, connect the decentralized bodies to their constituents at the local level. They can also result from local processes that fill an institutional vacuum created by the absence or weakness of Federal or State laws regarding local resource use (Markelova and Swallow, 2008).

Community bylaws governing Common-Pool Resources

The failure of top-down approaches in the regulation and administration of natural resources has increased attention on the role of decentralized administrative structures, user groups, and customary governance institutions. And yet, community by-laws are at the core of many governance structures that frame the access, use, and conflict resolution around CPRs across Ethiopia and elsewhere in Africa (Markelova and Swallow, 2008).

158

Community bylaws in this research context stand for the binding rules and regulations enacted by the local community as ‘local convention’ or with the support of decentralized authority like kebele administrators. These bylaws are designed by the community members for the community itself. These conventions are the bases to bind the local community members for the management and governance of their commons. The drivers of community bylaws to exist are the need for social and economic integration as with traditional systems such as ‘Equb’ and ‘Edir’, and the need to handle disputes and conflict over natural resources.

The household survey and focus group discussion results suggested that, in the study area different community bylaws such as fishery management and utilization bylaws that regulate CPR management and governance exist. But they are not as effective as they were in the past. Resource scarcity, population pressure and lack of support from the formal governance structure are considered as the main factors that affect community bylaws. As population increases, competition over resources increases and resource users were tempted to break their own bylaws. Ultimately, trust and traditional moral values of community members start to decline and these traditional moral values that used to be vital to bind the society together are on the verge of losing ground.

In recent times, customary laws that were common to the rural community to protect natural resources are now challenged by greedy individuals and those who are trying to secure livelihoods (landless and youths). For instance, the common customary laws that were used in Lake Tana sub-basin include:

 It was forbidden to cut a big tree in their locality (like Common Assembly Areas) which serves as a shade for community gathering and livestock. In some areas community members consider the trees as sacred,

 It was not allowed to graze the wetlands and communal grazing fields during rainy season,

159

According to key informants, those who did not abide by the local bylaws were judged by the customary courts. These courts are not established by law, despite their constitutional recognition. They are only recognized, not created, by law. The authority of these courts stems from tradition and local customs. These courts have evolved from traditional elder councils, which do not have legal authority, but carry moral force and still operate widely as primary decision-makers in rural areas throughout Ethiopia.

Box2: Community bylaws for wetland protection

Conflict has detrimental, negative and destructive powers, but conflict can also be a key driver of change. In some cases, the outcome of conflicting situation over the use of wetland resources urged the local users to establish bylaws to protect and conserve their sub-watershed. For instance, community members in Takusa district, Chemhera kebele developed community bylaws that allowed them to become legal entities in the eyes of the kebele council. They realized that they could not manage these challenges on their own and looked to engage other stakeholders such as the kebele council. Then the kebele council (ye kebele mikir bet) approved the bylaws and had started using bylaws for them to protect their unwise use of wetlands. They enacted rules that regulate access and use of CPRs and guarantee their peaceful utilization in their sub-watershed. As a result rules have been made when to use, how to use, how much to use and sanctions for rule breaking etc. For instance the new rules prohibit free grazing during summer season instead they introduced the cut and carry system to feed their animals. The process however was not very short. The process of bylaws formulation started at kebele (sub-watershed) level. A committee elected by the community and representing different villages in the sub-watershed drafted the proposed bylaws and they were discussed by the community members. After the draft was agreed by the sub-watershed community, it was forwarded to the kebele council and administration. At the beginning, the kebele administrators were reluctant towards the formulation and approval of the bylaws but the community members were very keen to have their own rules to protect their commons. Though not yet approved by the district court, the community members are using the bylaws to govern their commons. Eventually, other communities of the 6 adjacent sub-watersheds adopted their neighboring sub-watershed bylaws.

Source: Author, 2011

160

In Lake Tana sub-basin, customary/traditional courts are known as ‘shimgilina’ or ‘Ye akababi Dagna’. Community elders (locally called ‘Ye ager shimagiles’) are assigned to judge the cases within the community. Mainly they are involved in conflict resolution related to land and land based resource disputes, and other social disputes in their respective community. However, the co-existence of two sets of norms, customary and legal, has influenced the development and refinement of community by-laws, some that had existed for centuries and others that have been recently established. In some localities, customary institutions were outright pushed aside, while others have been successful in harmonizing customary and statutory laws (Markelova and Swallow, 2008).

However, as community elders of all sampled districts agreed, local conventions endorsed by the community members were challenged and not fully accepted by some members of the community (particularly youths) as they were before. The reasons are firstly, there was no or minimal support from the government to approve as soon as possible and support the local conventions. Kebele administrators and district officials considered those who were self-motivated groups to conserve their commons and opposed development pressures on CPRs as anti-development. As a result some of the greedy individuals were using this gap as an advantage to misuse the CPRs. Secondly younger generations who are mostly landless were not willing to comply with the local convention assumed to be devised by community elders.

As a result, they are in continuous dispute with the community members. They are claiming the wetlands and other protected areas for cultivation. Thirdly, the existing community organizations were too weak to exercise their collective leadership over their CPRs. Weak community organizations and bylaws mean that local people are not knowledgeable about their CPRs and their right and they lack the capacity to devise sound community bylaws and norms for managing their CPRs; this resulted in inability to control illegal encroachment of the valuable resources in their locality.

161