The Tragedy is not of the Commons

It's what we've done "to" the commons

The loss of Mongolia's precious grasslands isn't a function of self interest "in" the grasslands. It's the inevitable consequence of extractive supply systems that assume nature is boundless, wreaking unavoidable damage to one of the Earth's most precious common resources.

The tragedy isn't "of" the commons. It's what our economic system does "to" the commons.

The tragedy of the commons

Aristotle and others describe "the Tragedy of the Commons" as being an inevitable outcome of self interest trumping collective benefit.

"That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Every one thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and only when he is himself concerned as an individual." - Aristotle in Politics

Broadly, the idea is that if several people have unrestricted access to a common resource, greed and self interest will kick in and the result will be the depletion or destruction of the common resource. The typical example would be a common pasture.

Tragedy - when the feeling's gone and you can't go on

The idea of a "tragedy" is that the bad thing is completely unavoidable. It doesn't matter what you do, the outcome will be the same miserable end.

If you've been lucky enough to study tragedy in some form (for me it was a lot of unhappy German authors) you'll know that there is a point somewhere in the story where all the elements slot into place and the doom conclusion cannot be stopped.

Mongolia's grasslands are commons

But they weren't always.

There's a distinction in all the debates around Tragedy of the Commons between shared resources subject to open access agreements, and true "commons" - resources that benefit everyone (or most everyone).

For hundreds of years Mongolia's grasslands were healthy, shared pasturelands where herders made agreements at a community level to make sure that they weren't stressing the pasture too much. These rangeland user agreements have many names and have been effective for vast swathes of time.

But everything started to change firstly with the advent of climate effects. In Mongolia the average temperature is now 2.24°C higher than it was in 1940. Weather has become more unpredictable. Warmer. Colder. Wetter. Drier. Windier. No rain. Massive downpours. Horrific winter mortality.

But since the early 2000's the impacts of climate have been exacerbated by a massive uptick in livestock volume driven by volume demand for cashmere.

Extractive volume vs grasslands

Global cashmere volume has increased more than 6X since 1990

In 1990 there were less than 4,000 tons of greasy cashmere produced globally.

In 2023 it was more than 25,000 tons

Mongolian cashmere volume has increased more than 7X since 1990

In 1990 Mongolia produced 1,500 tons

In 2023 it was just under 11,000 tons

Mongolian livestock volumes have increased (goats by 5X)

From c26 million in 1990 to around 65 million in 2023 (after a peak a couple of years earlier)

The number of goats has gone from around 5 million to 25 million over the same period.

The result is accelerated degradation and income dependency

Since 2015 the amount of grassland that is classified as "healthy" in Mongolia has declined from around 75% to around 16%. That's millions of hectares degraded. Animal numbers have peaked - with every more frequent catastrophic winters driving widespread mortality. Plant cover is decreasing, there are more bare patches, less grass, less carrying capacity and still more livestock to feed than the rangeland can support.

More perniciously the herders have been driven into an economic trap, becoming ever more dependent on volume cashmere for income, focusing less on other income sources as cashmere has come to dominate.

But cashmere has become a volume game. The chains not only mimic commodity chains, they are commodity chains. Raw prices are driven downwards, input costs keep rising, the only rational economic choice is more goats.

This is a tragedy not made in the commons

The effect is devastating.

It's what Cedric and others call Schrödinger's Goat.

The rational economic choice is more goats, even if it is an irrational environmental choice.

The rational environmental choice is fewer goats, even if it is an irrational economic choice.

So the need to survive financially is driving the destruction of the very land that the herding communities depend on.

Not, as Aristotle would attest, because of self interest at an individual level, but because at a macro level our supply chains are asking more from the landscape than the landscape can support.

The tragedy is what we've done - and keep doing - to the Commons.

The drivers of the desecration of these commons are in our extractive economic system.

The systemic solution - it's not a tragedy because it's not inevitable

The pathway to a brighter future is necessarily a systemic approach.

1. a redesigned form of commons management

2. supply systems in synch with nature

3. finance that values stewardship

Commons management

The first part is where the Good Growth team are focused right at this moment. The herder communities that we are working with are developing with us new models of collective management. These models build on what worked in the past - community agreements on pasture management - but go further to take into account the new degraded context.

The aim is to strengthen the landscape community as the driving force for regeneration within a specific geography. Instead of just practising rotational grazing the community take collective steps to reduce intensity, to practice stewardship, to diversify income and above all to become a source of value creation.

It's a step into new territory for everyone. Going beyond the protocols around shared pastures to something much more restorative. There are big challenges (especially economic and how to manage livestock reduction across communities) as well as opportunities (new income streams) and above all new ways of working together.

More on this emerging model as we go - but the step into collective management of degraded landscape is a shift to managing the commons.

This approach marries centuries of traditional wisdom with the tools and techniques needed to tackle rangeland degradation. We've partnered with URECA, a Mongolian tech start up, to pioneer community led monitoring approaches. These handheld technologies directly support herders in embracing stewardship - it's an inclusive approach that does not come (as pure satellite monitoring approaches do) at the expense of community disengagement.

Supply systems in synch with nature

But collective management on its own won't solve the economic trap that is driving the "tragedy". What's needed is a reimagining of supply systems away from single chains that foster dependency towards living networks that can adapt and shift to regulate the volume and value of materials as landscape capacity adapts and shifts.

This concept - that business systems should mimic nature - is where the tragedy becomes avoidable. If healthy landscapes are diverse and adaptable then healthy business systems are also diverse and adaptable.

This points towards a collaborative approach where multiple value chain actors combine to recognises and support stewarding landscape communities. We're some way down the track with this design process (which we call Kerkulan) and are aiming to showcase a kind of minimum viable project at COP17 (the desertification one) that is to be held in 2026 in Mongolia.

The theme that brings the actors together in this collaboration is a shift back to "quality" - where "quality" embraces healthy landscapes, healthy animals, healthy communities and technical qualities.

Cashmere volumes have grown by several orders of magnitude, but cashmere technical quality has not kept pace. When the chain is driven by a per KG price volume and weight takes precedence over quality. But the truth is that better cashmere means less cashmere in total but also less cashmere per goat.

A system that recognises and values a shift to quality will trigger a move away from ever higher volumes by making it financially advantageous to do "value" - lower livestock numbers, exemplary animal welfare, landscape stewardship, and a diversity of income and livelihoods that are in synch with the landscape.

There are a few players in the fashion world (and beyond) that recognise this strategic shift and who will be the drivers of collaborative change.

Finance that is designed for Nature

If the key to long term systemic sustainability is a redefined concept of value that is rooted in collaborative systems, then the fuel for that value comes from a financial mechanisms that equally reflect that kind of collaborative approach. Lots of different types of capital coming together in a co-ordinated way to bring a joined up approach to landscape investment and landscape "value".

Together we can reverse the tragedy

In a sense there's a very simple conclusion to all of this.

The thing that has screwed up the rangelands of Mongolia, as well as grassland systems all over the world, is the extension of a highly transactional industrial model that is intrinsically extractive.

We take from nature at scale. But selectively. It's both destructive and wasteful.

The selective focus on single commodities drives a monoculture and an income dependency which traps rural communities into activities that further harm the grasslands, simply to keep afloat.

That's the tragedy of the commons.

But the thread that runs through the solution at landscape level, at supply system level, at finance level, is collaboration. Working together to address the challenges, and at the same time building and demonstrating a new model of value.

Aristotle was half right. It is an economic system that encourages maximising volumes that drives the degradation of the commons.

But it's not a tragedy.

It's not inevitable.

We can fix it - if we work together.