Perhaps we need to change it: bc what we still need is this function: "State powers might set some standards for accountability, openness and transparency of structures and processes.
DB: But the whole issue of state power & the commons is a lot of speculative "shoulds" -- because the power to "protect & guarantee" is the power to dictate and control commons. What power dynamic, legal structures or analysis can assure that commoners retain their own moral and operational sovereignty vis-a-vis the state? I worry that "protect & guarantee" gives the state more authority over commons than it should have. "Nourish" is okay, but "steward" is more the job of commoners than the state, unless a "state trustee commons" is involved (i.e., state management of resources that belong to the general public).
How to call it? UNTERPIN & STEWARD or SUBSTANTIATE & STEWARD DB: Neither of these are quite right. NOURISH & STEWARD is best.
- Provide a state or transnational vehicle for commoners to come together to manage large-scale CPRs such as forests, mineral deposits, watersheds, the atmosphere and oceans. A state role is also needed to provide intersectoral and intergenerational stewardship of resources that individual commons may not be capable of managing. (BUT: How to reconcile indigenous or commons notions of justice and due process with those of the state or other commoners?)
Example of stewardship: Public Trusts, Public Domain, Commons Public Partnership [Stakeholder trust]]
to be discussed
we still need to work on this section