Localized in Form, Centralized in Practice: SDG Localization, Ambiguous Politics and the Marginalization of Pastoral Commons in Arunachal Pradesh, India

Introduction

SDG localization – the adaptation of the global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to local contexts – has long been promoted as a solution for aligning universal agendas with local needs (Moallemi et al., 2020). Yet what does “localization” entail in complex socio-ecological settings and commons-based systems? We argue that what is often labeled as localization in practice results in a terrain of ambiguity, where top-down development interventions persist under the language of local empowerment. Without fundamentally ceding authority or engaging enduring community institutions, SDG localization in such cases becomes a mirage – a lost opportunity to truly empower commons institutions through the sustainable development agenda (Guha & Chakrabarti, 2019).

Tawang district in Arunachal Pradesh exemplifies these tensions and the mechanisms involved. Nestled in India’s eastern Himalayas along the Tibetan border, Tawang is a strategically sensitive and ecologically rich region spanning roughly 2,172 km² (Devi et al., 2025). Over half of the district is under forest cover (54% as of 2017) with only about 23 people per square kilometer. Large swathes of its forests and alpine grasslands have been traditionally governed by indigenous institutions. For generations, Monpa have managed these commons through cultural practices and customary institutions in ways that balance livelihoods with conservation, echoing principles of community participation and ecosystem stewardship embedded in the SDGs (Singh & Sureja, 2006). Historically, this indigenous governance of forests and pastures maintained a resilient socio-ecological system, aligning local well-being with the spirit of global sustainability goals (Singh et al., 2018).

Over the past decades, however, such systems have come under strain from rapid infrastructure expansion, a boom in tourism, and shifting consumption patterns (Mitra & Lama, 2013). A surge in resource extraction including commercial logging has begun to undermine livelihoods and ecological stability. The India State of Forest Report (2017) recorded a net loss of 190 km² of forest in Arunachal Pradesh in the early 2010s, more than double the loss in the previous assessment, with Tawang alone losing 49 km² (about 2% of its forests) between 2011 and 2017. This accelerated deforestation, far outpacing the state’s average decline, illustrates the mounting tension between development pressures and conservation goals in the region.

Not only forests but also high-altitude grassland commons are at stake, as they remain central to Monpa livelihoods and identity. The Monpa practice of transhumant pastoralism – seasonal yak herding – provides subsistence resources (meat, dairy, wool) and is deeply entwined with cultural and spiritual life (Singh et al., 2018). Yaks are more than mere livestock; they carry symbolic importance in Monpa Buddhism, with yak skulls and horns often kept in households as sacred objects believed to confer protection (Ning, 2003). Access to these alpine pastures has traditionally been regulated through community councils such as the Mangma (village council), which enforce norms on grazing rotation and resource sharing to prevent overuse, effectively sustaining the commons over centuries.¹ This indigenous management regime co-evolved with Tawang’s fragile environment, embedding conservation within social and spiritual practice. Today, however, Monpa pastoralism faces a host of external pressures – from the effects of climate change on pasture availability and the depletion of resources by commercial extraction, to the incursion of roads, markets, and other infrastructure into these once-remote areas (Nori, 2019).

Compounding the challenge, grassland ecosystems in India have long been miscast in policy discourse as “wastelands,” (Lahiri & Reddy, 2025) a misnomer that belies their critical role in sustainable livelihoods and ecosystem services. Colonial-era land policies and postcolonial development agendas largely neglected pastoral commons, leading to chronic underinvestment and the erosion of traditional governance arrangements. In places like Tawang – where community-based rules once managed resources prudently – the imposition of external land-use categories and centralized conservation models have disrupted age-old stewardship practices (Kothari et al., 2015). Adding to these stresses is the intensification of state-driven development tied to national security in the Himalayan frontier. In Tawang, new roads, military installations, and proposed hydropower projects have been introduced in the name of security and economic growth (Bej, 2020). While these interventions bring improved connectivity and some livelihood opportunities, they also accelerate land-use change and habitat fragmentation. Local communities have voiced strong concerns. The Monpa monks at the Gorsam monastery and villagers in Zemithang have organized protests large dams planned on the Tawang Chu and Nyamjang Chu rivers, viewing them as existential threats to sacred landscapes and traditional livelihoods. These flashpoints of conflict, pitting local conservation values and spiritual reverence for nature against top-down development schemes, underscore the growing contestation surrounding “sustainable development” in India’s fragile mountain regions. Tawang’s recent experience is emblematic of broader transformations across the Himalayan commons, which are undergoing rapid socio-cultural, political, and environmental change (Davis et al., 2021). This complex context sets the stage for examining how global sustainability frameworks like the SDGs are being translated or mis-translated on the ground.

Global policy discourse increasingly recognizes that local action is pivotal for achieving the SDGs: roughly 65% of the SDGs’ targets are estimated to depend on roles played by subnational governments and communities (Reddy, 2016). Reflecting this, a growing body of scholarship explores the “localization” of SDGs from various angles. In India, scholars have examined strategies for vernacularizing global goals within municipal governance (Jain et al., 2018), while Kumar and Anand (2023) and Laskar (2025) evaluate progress on SDG indicators in the context of the Northeast. Other studies emphasize the integration of indigenous and local knowledge as a tool for SDG localization (Dasgupta et al., 2023) and offer practical roadmaps for implementation on the ground (Singh & Rahman, 2021). There is also attention to the roles of local authorities in steering SDG efforts (Guha & Chakrabarti, 2019) and the implications of infrastructure-led development for meeting sustainability targets (Hartley, 2022). Despite these varied contributions, a notable gap remains in the literature: few studies have examined the interplay between formal SDG localization initiatives and the governance of commons. It is not well understood whether and how the pursuit of SDGs through government-led localization engages with traditional commons management systems or leverages community-based institutions that have long underpinned sustainability at the grassroots level.

This article seeks to address that gap by investigating whether and how current processes of SDG localization in India create opportunities to recognize, strengthen, or revitalize commons-based livelihoods. We focus on the high-altitude grassland commons of the Monpa people in Arunachal Pradesh as a critical case. The central question guiding the study is to what extent localization efforts in practice involve or impact the governance of commons and the well-being of communities who depend on them. In a country as vast and diverse as India, effective localization is indeed vital for tailoring broad sustainability frameworks to a mosaic of local realities and needs. However, the direction, politics, and efficacy of these efforts cannot be taken for granted, especially when it comes to reconciling multiple governance orders, incorporating traditional ecological knowledge, and addressing grassroots concerns. We argue that what is being promoted as SDG localization in India often amounts to a mirage of ambiguous localization. In practice, ostensibly “localized” development initiatives tend to repackage top-down programs in the rhetoric of local empowerment without genuinely sharing power or integrating indigenous institutional frameworks.

To substantiate this argument, we combine policy analysis with ethnographic field evidence. First, we critically examine the discourse and institutional mechanisms of SDG localization at national and state levels in India, paying special attention to how (if at all) these frameworks envisage the inclusion of community-managed commons. Second, we present an in-depth case study based on fieldwork in Tawang, where Monpa herders’ livelihoods are intimately tied to the governance of grassland commons. Methodologically, the research follows a mixed-method approach. In 2023–2024, this involved qualitative field investigations in Tawang, including participant observation and semi-structured interviews with Monpa pastoralists (in Zemithang and surrounding villages), village elders (gaon burahs), and local officials from the Tawang administration and forest department. These interactions provided insight into community practices, perceptions of development schemes, and the evolving role of local governance in resource management. In parallel, we analyzed policy documents and program archives such as records from the Government of India’s Vibrant Villages Programme and various SDG-aligned development projects in the district, to understand how the language and objectives of the SDGs are being interpreted and operationalized at the local level. By combining on-the-ground perspectives with documentary analysis, the study traces how global sustainable development goals are being vernacularized (translated into local practice and vernacular) in Arunachal Pradesh, while also illuminating the socio-ecological significance of grassland commons in this process.

Particularly, our analysis revolves around several SDG targets; SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 15 (Life on Land) – examining how these goals are framed in policy and whether they align with or diverge from the realities of indigenous grassland management. Despite the SDGs’ emphasis on inclusion and sustainability, we find scant evidence of traditional ecological knowledge being incorporated into official development programs, and only limited involvement of local communities in SDG-related planning or decision-making. This top-down pattern of “localization” suggests that current approaches may be overlooking valuable opportunities to empower local institutions and reinforce commons stewardship as part of the sustainable development agenda.

By centering on the Monpa community and their high-mountain commons, this study contributes to broader debates on sustainable development and environmental governance. It highlights the often under appreciated role that commons institutions play in achieving global sustainability goals, especially in indigenous and marginal contexts. In doing so, the article illustrates both the potential and the pitfalls of the SDG framework when applied on the ground. Ultimately, we contend that prevailing SDG localization practices risk bypassing or marginalizing customary commons governance and thus forfeit a critical opportunity to leverage time-tested community management systems in the pursuit of sustainability into the quest for inclusive, sustainable development.

Localized in Form, Centralized in Practice: The Ambiguities of SDG Localization through India’s Flagship Schemes

SDG localization commonly understood as adapting the global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to fit local contexts—has emerged as a crucial strategy to translate the UN’s Agenda 2030 into practice. The idea is that national and subnational authorities tailor global targets and implementation mechanisms to address specific local socioeconomic and environmental challenges (Fulgenzi, 2024). In theory, effective localization can empower local authorities and communities by placing subnational governments at the forefront of sustainable development outcomes (Reddy, 2016; Annan-Aggrey & Arku, 2024). Aligning global goals with local priorities is expected to foster community buy-in, legitimacy, and a sense of ownership over development initiatives (Moallemi et al., 2020). Accordingly, the literature portrays SDG localization as an inherently multi-level, multi-stakeholder process spanning all sectors of society and levels of governance (Bilsky et al., 2021). Indeed, by 2020 more than 100 countries had begun localizing the SDGs (Carlsen & Bruggemann, 2022). A frequently cited example is Ghana, where roughly 78% of SDG targets were integrated across 138 local governments, coinciding with notable improvements in social outcomes (Akrofi, 2024). Such global uptake underscores the promise that adapting global goals to local realities can accelerate progress on complex challenges like poverty, inequality, and environmental sustainability in ways that a one-size-fits-all approach cannot (Moore, 2015).

However, realizing this promise is not straightforward. Scholars note that widely varying local contexts and capacities make it difficult to uniformly achieve SDG targets at the subnational level (Guha & Chakrabarti, 2019; Bilsky et al., 2021). The SDGs’ broad, integrated agenda can clash with immediate local priorities, forcing trade-offs that may sideline more transformative or long-term objectives (Bandari et al., 2024). Moreover, many local governments—especially in developing countries lack the funding, data, and institutional capacity to effectively implement and monitor localized SDG initiatives (Tan et al., 2019). These practical constraints highlight the tension between global ambition and local realities in SDG implementation. There is also an emerging debate on how the SDGs are being localized in practice. Proponents contend that localization is essential for making the SDGs relevant in diverse settings and can spark bottom-up innovation and participation (Bilsky et al., 2021; Jain et al., 2021). Critics, however, warn that current approaches to localization risk becoming overly technocratic. For example, Fisher and Fukuda-Parr (2019) highlight that SDG implementation has been dominated by quantitative indicators and technocratic planning, which “may lead to the neglect of human development and capability principles and concerns that can be intangible or difficult to measure” (Fisher & Fukuda-Parr, 2019). They argue that an excessive focus on metrics and rankings reframes development as a technical, numbers-driven exercise that may “alter power relations, affect the distribution of resources, re-organize national and local priorities, create perverse incentives for performance, and produce narratives that shape thinking and communication” (Fisher & Fukuda-Parr, 2019). In other words, a narrow emphasis on measurable outcomes might sideline critical local needs and voices not easily captured by global indicators. Similarly, Mulder (2023) observe that top-down management of SDG programs by international agencies or central authorities often undermines true localization, as it shifts decision-making power away from local actors (Mulder, 2023). Such centralized control can result in less effective projects that ignore context-specific conditions. Notably, the COVID-19 pandemic inadvertently demonstrated the benefits of empowering local stakeholders: when international experts withdrew due to travel restrictions, many local actors assumed greater decision-making roles, leading to more contextually appropriate collaborations and innovations in SDG implementation (Mulder, 2023). This experience lends weight to arguments by Bilsky et al. (2021) and others that genuine bottom-up engagement and locally driven monitoring can enhance participation and networked problem-solving in pursuit of the SDGs.

A parallel strand of research highlights gaps in understanding SDG localization as a political–institutional process. Many studies focus on specific goals or technical facets of implementation while overlooking how translating a global agenda into national and local practice is inherently political (Oldekop et al., 2016). The SDGs represent a global commitment that must be carried out through domestic policy processes, yet few analyses examine how global goals are negotiated, “owned,” or even distorted within national and subnational institutions (Fukuda-Parr, 2017). Fundamental governance questions—who holds responsibility, how resources are allocated, and whose voices count in setting local SDG priorities—remain underexplored (Ciambra, 2024). Notably, only a handful of studies explicitly use the lens of “localization” when examining SDG implementation, and those tend to concentrate on narrow aspects. For example, research often emphasizes aid delivery mechanisms or city-level case studies (Valencia et al., 2019), scrutinizes the proliferation of indicators and “governance by numbers” (Fisher & Fukuda-Parr, 2019), or promotes systems thinking at the local level (Tan et al., 2019). These contributions are valuable but do not fully probe the friction points that arise when lofty global ambitions confront local realities within government frameworks (Massey, 2009).

Recognizing this gap, recent scholarship calls for more nuanced inquiry into the multi-level governance of SDGs one that interrogates how institutional structures, power relations, and policy interpretations shape localization outcomes (Moallemi et al., 2020; Meuleman, 2022). Responding to this need, the analysis around Monpas of Tawang examines SDG localization through three interrelated lenses: centralization, ambiguation, and politicization (Mulder, 2023). We consider how authority and decision-making tend to gravitate towards central governments (centralization), how unclear or shifting interpretations of SDG targets and responsibilities create ambiguity (ambiguation), and how political interests and power struggles influence SDG implementation on the ground (politicization). This framework is designed to uncover structural challenges that purely technical evaluations might overlook. It also explicitly accounts for the interactions between formal SDG programs and local commons governance systems, offering a richer understanding of why well-intentioned global goals can falter or become contested in practice. In line with the United Nations’ acknowledgement that the 2030 Agenda must be adapted to “different national realities, capacities and levels of development” (United Nations, 2015), our approach treats SDG implementation as not just a technical exercise but a profoundly political process. It underscores how attempts to achieve the SDGs often reshape rather than simply fill the space between international guidance and local agency.

Localizing SDGs in India

In India, the localization of the SDGs is largely pursued through a slate of national flagship programs that are held up as proxies for local development, albeit with intrinsic limitations. Initiatives such as the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) and Swachh Bharat Abhiyan have become emblematic of India’s efforts on key goals related to infrastructure (SDG 9), sanitation (SDG 6), and poverty alleviation (SDG 1). PMGSY, for example, has markedly improved rural road connectivity, enhancing villagers’ access to markets, education, and health services. The Swachh Bharat (“Clean India”) campaign is widely credited with dramatically reducing open defecation and heightening public hygiene awareness across the country. Yet these schemes are evaluated mainly by simple output metrics—kilometers of road built, numbers of toilets constructed rather than by any qualitative assessment of local needs and outcomes as perceived from below. This approach reinforces a technocratic gaze consistent with Fisher and Fukuda-Parr’s (2019) critique of metric-driven governance, wherein development is reduced to a technical challenge divorced from its social and political context.

A similar pattern is evident in other major programs folded into India’s SDG narrative, such as the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY), and Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY). These schemes address goals spanning decent work (SDG 8), housing (SDG 11), and financial inclusion (SDG 1.4) boasting impressive aggregate achievements—billions of person-days of wage labor provided, hundreds of millions of bank accounts opened, and millions of affordable housing units built. However, their inclusion in SDG reporting seldom asks whether such outputs align with locally defined priorities or bolster long-term community resilience. MGNREGA, for instance, is implemented nationwide with a largely uniform design, leaving little scope to integrate local ecological needs or seasonal vulnerabilities into its project planning. This one-size-fits-all deployment of development schemes creates a risk for a disconnect between a centralized template and the diverse environmental realities of India’s regions. Likewise, PMAY’s success is primarily gauged by the count of houses delivered, with minimal attention to whether those houses are culturally appropriate, climatically suitable, or spatially integrated into their communities.

Programs targeting food security and public health exhibit the same top-down orientation. The Public Distribution System (PDS), POSHAN Abhiyan, and the National Food Security Act, for example, are frequently cited as advancing SDG 2 (zero hunger) by expanding access to subsidized grains and nutrition services. While these initiatives have certainly broadened coverage, they often perpetuate structural inefficiencies an overreliance on intermediaries, chronic supply-chain leakages, and weak integration of nutrition objectives. One local interlocutor in Zemithang noted that “households sometimes resell part of their rationed grain”, explaining that “we can only eat so much rice, and we need other things too.” Likewise, under SDG 3 (health), the flagship Ayushman Bharat insurance scheme has extended healthcare coverage to millions, yet it remains plagued by disparities in access, variable quality of care, and limited reach in rural areas. These gaps show that simply retrofitting existing programs to SDG targets does not automatically produce inclusive or context-responsive outcomes. The prevailing pattern is still a top-down framing of development, where initiatives are matched to SDGs after the fact rather than co-designed with local communities from the start.

India’s approach to the environmental and climate-related SDGs (notably SDG 13 on climate action and SDG 15 on life on land) similarly reflects a centralized framework that often sidelines local knowledge. Flagship conservation initiatives like Project Tiger and the Wildlife Protection Act have indeed helped protect forests and wildlife, but often at the expense of pastoralist and indigenous communities whose customary resource rights are curtailed in the process (Jhala et al., 2025). These trade-offs exemplify a broader structural exclusion of community-managed commons from official sustainability efforts. For instance, alpine and grassland ecosystems critical to pastoral livelihoods remain officially classified as “wastelands,” a label that obscures their ecological value and importance for local communities (Lahiri et al., 2023). Policy blind spots also extend to other dimensions of biodiversity: semi-domesticated keystone species like the yak, integral to high-altitude pastoral cultures, are omitted from national wildlife protection schedules—highlighting a lack of integrative planning that bridges formal conservation and traditional knowledge. When the yak was declared as a conserved species in Arunachal Pradesh before the visit of Dalai Lama in 2017, this was more for political reason where a nonhuman cows (in the plains) and yaks (in the mountains) were used as objects to create homogenized political subjects (Gohain, 2021). Even India’s climate adaptation agenda tends to be standardized. The National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) and its subsidiary missions (such as the National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture) promote resilience in generic terms, leaving adaptation to country’s diverse agro-climatic zones as a space of ambiguity. This uniform approach risks imposing one-size-fits-all solutions where finely tuned, locale-specific strategies are direly needed for the inclusion of commoner perspectives such as the transhumance practices by Brokpas.

Coordination of the SDGs is managed in a top-down fashion: its governance approach prizes uniformity, scale, and administrative control. At the state level, Departments of Planning or analogous agencies act as nodal points for the 2030 Agenda, mapping each SDG target to relevant departmental programs and tracking progress through standardized channels. While this SDG apparatus has delivered some measurable progress, it has not fundamentally altered how development initiatives are conceived or implemented centrally. The flagship schemes described above—deployed under the banner of “localizing” the SDGs—largely amount to repackaging existing programs without substantial shifts toward participation, contextual adaptation, or decentralization. In effect, there is a convergence between rhetorical localization and operational centralization in India’s SDG efforts. Implementation often oscillates between the lofty ambitions of the global goals and the inertia of domestic bureaucratic routines, leaving limited space for genuine grassroots innovation.

This disjuncture between the rhetoric and practice of localization is increasingly acknowledged by observers. Despite policy ambitions extolling multi-level governance and community involvement, in practice SDG localization in India has so far been treated “first and foremost as a matter of statutory roles and responsibilities” (Kandpal & Okitasari, 2023). The national strategy essentially translates into a top-down delegation of tasks, delineating which level of government or department is responsible for what—rather than any real transfer of decision-making power to local bodies. Such an approach may ensure a common structure for tracking “progress,” but it misses the spirit of true localization, which could demand far more devolution of authority and flexibility to adapt initiatives to specific local needs.

India’s experience thus offers a compelling case of localization in form but centralization in practice. This paradox is especially pronounced given India’s vast size and diversity. The country was an early adopter of the SDGs in 2015 and has since woven the global goals into its national development planning (Sachs et al., 2019). The government’s policy think tank, NITI Aayog, has spearheaded these efforts: it mapped each SDG to existing government schemes, established elaborate progress metrics and dashboards, and coordinates across ministries and states to drive implementation (Inampudi & Gaurav, 2024). From the outset, Indian policymakers highlighted localization as a cornerstone of Agenda 2030, recognizing that pronounced regional disparities demanded tailored solutions (Elamon & KU, 2023). In line with this intent, certain institutional innovations have been introduced. For example, all states and union territories are now rated under a common “SDG India Index” that ranks their performance on the Goals—a mechanism intended to institutionalize localization through standardized indicators and a spirit of competitive federalism (Ghosh et al., 2019).

Yet even with these efforts, the outcomes of India’s SDG drive have been decidedly mixed, exposing a gap between ambitious policy intent and actual impact on the ground (Priyadarshini & Abhilash, 2020). The SDGs in India are still largely pursued via technocratic, programmatic means—emphasizing data collection, index rankings, and bureaucratic coordination—while sidestepping deeper questions of power-sharing, local priority-setting, and accountability. The prevailing narrative of implementation carries what Priyadarshini & Abhilash (2020) characterize as an “anti-politics” bias: development is framed through technocratic metrics and performance indicators, a discourse that obscures the inherently political nature of deciding whose development counts, on whose terms, and with whose voice. In effect, the very call for “localization” risks being co-opted into a depoliticized management exercise rather than serving as a transformative shift toward empowering local communities and their own visions of sustainability.

Reconceptualizing Localization: SDGs from the perspective of Monpa Pastoral Commons for Sustainable Grassland Governance

This reflection from a Monpa herder in Zemithang village encapsulates the community’s intimate connection with the surrounding high-altitude meadows—a landscape central to livelihoods across Northeast India. In Arunachal Pradesh, common grazing lands serve multiple purposes for local communities. The state’s rich cultural and ecological diversity is reflected in its many indigenous peoples including the Monpas, Sherdukpens, Nyishis, Apatanis, and Tagins – each with distinct cultures and livelihood strategies closely tied to the region’s varied environments, from high-altitude meadows to subtropical forests. Among these communities, the Monpas of Tawang especially the Brokpa sub-group of pastoralists – stand out for their adaptive high-altitude pastoralism centered on yak herding, which is not merely an economic activity but a way of life. Yaks provide meat, milk, fibre, and manure, making yak husbandry a primary source of subsistence and income in these high-altitude areas (Joshi et al., 2020). Beyond their material contributions, yaks symbolize wealth, status, and familial prosperity among the Monpas. For instance, in Monpa marriage customs a groom’s family’s affluence is often gauged by the number of yaks they own, and yaks are sometimes exchanged as part of marriage arrangements – a practice underscoring that owning yaks carries not only economic value but also social prestige. Yaks also hold spiritual significance. They feature prominently in religious ceremonies and symbolic representations, reinforcing their centrality in Monpa identity and cultural heritage (Wiener, 2013).

Brokpa pastoralists have historically practiced transhumance—seasonal migrations with their herds of yaks and sheep (with a few cattle) between alpine meadows at roughly 4,000–4,500 meters elevation. They collectively manage grazing lands as commons, a traditional system vital for sustainable resource use in the harsh Himalayan environment. This communal management allows pastures to regenerate and livestock to thrive (Pandey et al., 2021). In recent years, however, migratory patterns that once maintained ecological balance have been increasingly disrupted by climate variability, land-use changes, and restrictive conservation policies (Singh et al., 2018). For example, well-intentioned regulations have prohibited customary practices like controlled pasture burning and imposed limits on seasonal livestock movement. Inadvertently, these policies have led to shrub encroachment on grasslands and accelerated soil degradation, because the ecosystem misses the rejuvenation that traditional practices once provided (Khalid et al., 2021). Brokpa herders are already witnessing the effects of these environmental changes and policy constraints on the ground. As one herder lamented, “Nowadays we have to travel long distances to graze our livestock; the yaks are getting malnourished.” He described how the search for adequate fodder has lengthened their migratory routes. Another noted that “the mortality rate of yaks has increased due to longer summers,” linking higher yak deaths to climate change, as extended warm seasons shrink the available high-altitude pastures. These observations highlight how shifting climatic patterns and external restrictions together squeeze traditional grazing resources, challenging the sustainability of the pastoral way of life.

Despite these challenges, the Monpas continue to practice a sophisticated system of commons management that balances ecological sustainability with cultural continuity. Central to this system is the concept of communal land known as Mangsa (from Mang, meaning “community,” and Sa, meaning “land”), which is governed by customary rules and collective oversight. A traditional institution called the Mangma – essentially a community council which oversees resource distribution and enforces norms for grazing and forest use. Under the Mangma’s guidance, activities such as livestock grazing, firewood collection, and timber harvesting are carefully regulated. For instance, specific areas and seasons are designated for firewood collection, and there are strict limits on the number of trees each household may cut for timber; villagers must seek the Mangma’s permission before felling trees. These local rules prevent overexploitation of the commons and ensure that resource use remains within sustainable limits. Such governance exemplifies a decentralized, community-based mechanism that upholds principles of equity (allocating resources fairly and preventing any one family from monopolizing communal assets) and sustainability (protecting the long-term health of shared pastures and forests).

From this perspective, the Monpas’ indigenous commons governance directly embodies the Sustainable Development Goals’ (SDGs) emphasis on inclusive, participatory, and sustainable resource management. India’s official SDG localization discourse similarly highlights decentralization and community participation. However, in practice the implementation of SDG-related programs in regions like Arunachal Pradesh remains heavily centralized and oriented around formal administrative structures. Government plans tend to focus on officially recognized local bodies (such as gram panchayats), largely overlooking traditional institutions like the Mangma that have long managed communal resources at the community level. This oversight is a critical gap: by sidelining indigenous governance systems, policymakers miss a key opportunity to integrate time-tested local knowledge and commons practices into modern sustainability frameworks. Recognizing and supporting the Mangma’s role in regulating resource use and ensuring equitable access to common goods could greatly enhance the effectiveness of SDG initiatives. Instead, the lack of formal recognition for such institutions limits their contribution to broader sustainability goals. Excluding community-based systems like the Mangma underscores how a top-down approach to sustainable development – even one that rhetorically champions localization and decentralization – can undermine the very principles of community empowerment and ecological stewardship that the SDGs promote.

Recognizing this disconnect, scholars have called for more inclusive approaches that bridge traditional and state-led management systems. Farooquee and Rao (2001), for example, argue that conservation efforts in the region should prioritize community-driven strategies, explicitly integrating Brokpa herders’ traditional ecological knowledge with modern land management practices. Similarly, Arora & Mishra (2019) emphasizes that grasslands should be recognized as an ecologically valuable category in national conservation policies, to ensure that pursuing SDG targets does not inadvertently marginalize indigenous institutions and livelihoods. More broadly, experts contend that aligning global sustainability goals with local realities is crucial for equitable outcomes; Sachs et al. (2019) suggest that a policy framework respecting local governance and cultural contexts is key to achieving sustainable development in places like Northeast India. Yet despite such recommendations, current planning documents and indicator frameworks – including Tawang’s recent “Vibrant Village” plans associated with SDG localization – do not reflect a truly grounded approach to ecological governance or sustainable livelihoods. Official plans make little mention of customary practices or the environmental role of yak pastoralism, thereby overlooking the sustainable practices that have long underpinned local livelihoods. In other words, the way SDGs are being “localized” in this area has thus far failed to engage with indigenous resource management strategies or to appreciate their broader environmental significance. Ironically, Monpa pastoralists’ customary practices directly contribute to multiple SDGs – a fact that merits far greater attention in development planning. For example, Monpa yak pastoralism advances several global goals in tangible ways: SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) – Sustainable yak rearing bolsters food security by providing reliable nutrition (meat and dairy) and livelihoods for local communities. SDG 8 – (Decent Work and Economic Growth) Yak-based pastoralism underpins the regional economy through dairy, meat, and wool production and related trade. SDG – 15 (Life on Land) Community stewardship of high-altitude grassland commons helps conserve mountain ecosystems and biodiversity. Through rotational grazing and seasonal resting of pastures, the Brokpas prevent overgrazing and land degradation, preserving soil fertility and native vegetation. Alpine meadows also function as carbon sinks, enhancing the landscape’s resilience to climate variability. Involving local people as active stewards of yak herds and grassland ecosystems is therefore crucial to ensuring that land-use practices remain sustainable, culturally appropriate, and economically viable over the long term. Despite these advantages, commons-based customary management receives only limited attention in current SDG localization strategies. These shortcomings highlight the need to examine how and why such proven indigenous systems have been neglected in contemporary sustainable development planning, despite their clear relevance for achieving more inclusive and resilient outcomes.

Global Goals, Local Contradictions: Centralized SDG Implementation and the Marginalization of Commons in Arunachal Pradesh

Arunachal Pradesh’s pursuit of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) illustrates a striking paradox in development planning. On paper, the state has embraced the “localization” of global goals, formally aligning 15 out of 17 SDGs with its planning framework even earmarking a portion of its budget for local bodies under the so-called SPICE model (Sustainable, Participatory, Inclusive, Comprehensive, and Empowerment). Village councils (Panchayati Raj Institutions) are encouraged to prepare plans around nine standardized parameters of “localized SDGs” employing slogans such as “clean and green village” and “healthy village” that ostensibly capture holistic development. However, this top-down application of a global agenda has resulted in a clear disjuncture between policy rhetoric and ground realities. In practice, the SDGs appear to serve as buzzwords and bureaucratic checkboxes rather than actionable guides for sustainable change. One district official candidly noted during an interview that “many projects branded as SDG initiatives – new roads, for instance – are driven more by strategic or political motives than by local needs”, highlighting how global goals can be invoked to justify centrally determined agendas. The result is a localization façade: development plans usually refer to the SDGs, yet tangible changes on the ground remain elusive and misaligned with the pressing concerns of local communities.

These disconnecting practices are particularly evident in the treatment of Arunachal Pradesh’s commons, the shared forests, grasslands, and water sources that form the backbone of indigenous livelihoods. In Tawang, for example, traditional practices like yak rearing and community-managed grazing, which are central to the Monpa people’s economy and culture, receive scant attention in official development schemes. Such omissions represent lost opportunities: ignoring communal pasture management means missing a chance to tackle SDG targets on climate action and ecosystem conservation in a locally meaningful way. Plans brim with references to new cash crops or tourism infrastructure but say little about protecting sacred forests or sustaining age-old pastoral traditions. This one-size-fits-all approach to “sustainability” – exemplified by generic directives for a “green” or “poverty-free” village – often fails to engage with what sustainability means in communities like the Monpas’. As a result, critical socio-ecological values are sidelined or simply rendered invisible in the SDG discourse. An elderly herder in Tawang poignantly observed that development rarely considers what will happen “if the forests vanish,” underscoring that officials seldom ask the questions that truly matter on the ground. While reports and indices celebrate improvements in infrastructure or sanitation, they overlook the decline of cattle herds and the erosion of communal lands – symptoms of a deeper sustainability crisis that statistical progress reports cannot capture.

Crucially, indigenous governance institutions that historically managed these commons have been marginalized under the current SDG implementation regime. For instance, the Monpa’s traditional village council, the Mangma, long responsible for regulating pasture use and mediating resource conflicts, has been effectively sidelined by centralized decision-making. In one recent case, a road construction project sliced through a high-altitude grassland despite the Mangma’s objections. Local warnings about grazing loss and ecological disruption were overridden by a top-down “developmental mandate”. This pattern reflects a broader political hierarchy in which community-based management is treated as an obstacle to progress rather than an asset. Ironically, excluding local councils and customary practices runs counter to the SDGs’ own principle of “leaving no one behind,” which calls for inclusive governance (United Nations, 2015). When traditional custodians of the land are kept out of the planning process, development not only alienates the very people it aims to help, but it also weakens the stewardship of common-pool resources that has sustained these communities for generations. What might appear as successful localization in bureaucratic reports – funds disbursed, trainings conducted, committees formed – belies a reality of diminished local control over resources, environmental degradation and a growing disconnect between state interventions and community well-being.

Another facet of this disconnect between global goals and local realities is seen in the type of development being prioritized. Many government schemes rolled out in the name of SDG localization promote individualized, market-oriented livelihoods at the expense of communal resilience. Programs like the Chief Minister’s Sashakt Kisan Yojana scheme train rural youth for road construction jobs and encourage cash crops such as bamboo for sale. While such initiatives can yield short-term income boosts, they subtly pull labor and attention away from collective practices like yak herding or cooperative farming. Communal traditions and knowledge which have long underpinned both livelihood and environmental balance in these highlands are increasingly overshadowed by wage labor and commercial enterprises. This shift reflects a familiar development trajectory where infrastructure and economic growth are valued over ecological sustainability, traditional livelihoods and cultural continuity. As roads reach remote villages, young community members find it easier to take up day labor or migrate to towns, often viewing traditional pastoralism as financially unviable. Such trends are frequently celebrated as “progress,” yet they come with the unspoken cost of eroding community-managed commons and social fabrics. For instance, state forestry policies that designate grazing lands as “wastelands” – implying they are unused and unproductive – have justified restricting community access to pastures, even though these grasslands are rich ecosystems vital for carbon sequestration and biodiversity. Treating common lands as empty or expendable spaces betrays a flawed understanding of local ecology. It ignores that these landscapes carry deep cultural significance and act as safety nets for village communities during times of scarcity. The neglect of pastoral commons in SDG programs thus not only undermines environmental goals (like climate adaptation and sustaining life on land) but also frays the communal networks that make villages resilient faced with complex socio-environmental challenges. Development, as currently practiced, seems to be dislocating the very commons that could be key to a sustainable and inclusive future.

Taken together, these dynamics point to what we term ambiguous localization in Arunachal Pradesh’s context – a process where the language of global sustainability is adopted, but meaningful power-sharing and context-specific adaptation are largely absent. In theory, localizing the SDGs should align international goals with local priorities, bridging scales of governance in a collaborative manner. However, centrally defined targets and indicators often collide with or simply bypass local perspectives, creating a kind of “scalar dissonance”. The priorities set by national and state authorities – from boosting GDP and building highways to increasing dairy yields – do not necessarily match what remote indigenous communities identify as their most urgent concerns (Jasanoff, 2010; de León Escobedo, 2023). This misalignment leads to fragmented outcomes: for example, an SDG-driven pasture development scheme might measure success by number of cattle vaccinated or volume of fodder distributed yet fail to address why pastoral livelihoods are threatened. Structural issues like encroachment on grazing routes, unclear land tenure, or changing climate patterns are downplayed. Likewise, localization often unfolds as a bureaucratic exercise rather than an inclusive dialogue to engage with root causes. State directives prompt districts to file reports, tick off metric boxes, and hold training workshops, but there is little room (or incentive) for grassroots innovations or feedback loops that might alter the course of implementation. Success is measured by administrative compliance for instance meetings held, data reported rather than tangible improvements in community life (Khalid et al., 2021). Finally, and perhaps most concerning, is the epistemic erasure built into this process: the knowledge and practices of local communities are frequently overwritten by “universal” development models. For instance, the Monpa’s centuries-old system of rotational grazing and reverence for certain forests does not neatly fit into the state’s framework for economic development and clean environments, and thus it is glossed over or treated as irrelevant in official plans. Government functionaries, operating under pressure to meet targets, often default to external “best practices” and SDG benchmarks that sideline what they consider “informal” local inputs. This technocratic gaze strips away crucial context – spiritual values tied to the land, unwritten rules of resource sharing, community rituals of conservation – effectively diminishing the role of indigenous institutions in shaping sustainable outcomes (Arora & Mishra, 2019). In short, the SDG localization process in Arunachal Pradesh results in ambiguous and self-contradictory processes: it talks inclusion and sustainability, but practices centralization and standardization, its scalar dissonance inadvertently maintaining the very power imbalances and exclusions that sustainable development rhetoric aims to dissolve.

This article argues that without a conscious course correction, the “localization” of SDGs will remain a largely cosmetic exercise – a procedural façade that repackages business-as-usual development in the language of sustainability. Achieving the transformative vision of the 2030 Agenda requires more than scattering global slogans into state plans or old wine in new bottles by linking existing schemes to SDG labels. It demands a fundamental reorientation of development governance. Firstly, local communities and their institutions must be brought to the center of decision-making. Empowering bodies like the Mangma (rather than bypassing them) and respecting community-defined norms for resource use would ground the SDGs closer to local reality and environmental justice agendas. Secondly, the management of commons should be recognized as a cornerstone of sustainable development in this region. Instead of viewing common lands and traditional practices as antiquated or hindrances to progress, policymakers should see them as assets to leverage. Protecting high-altitude grasslands, supporting yak herders’ cooperatives, and legally securing communal tenure rights are not ancillary to goals like climate action, food security, or biodiversity – they are essential to achieving these goals in a place like Arunachal. Finally, the metrics and accountability mechanisms of SDG programs need to be reimagined. Universal targets and indices must be balanced with qualitative indicators that capture community well-being, cultural integrity, and ecological health. Regular forums for feedback where villagers, not just officials, evaluate the impacts of development – could ensure that adaptation is continuous and reflective of on-the-ground lessons. In essence, true localization is not about downscaling global targets; it is about uplifting local voices and tailoring solutions to the complex socio-ecological tapestry of the region. Arunachal Pradesh’s experience so far shows that centralized execution, if left unchecked, can subvert the very intent of the SDGs, reducing a visionary agenda to tick-box reporting exercise. Breaking out of this pattern will require political will to devolve power, integrate indigenous knowledge systems, and build cross-scale partnerships that hold everyone accountable – from the village council to the state capital for sustaining the commons. Only by bridging the current gaps in participation, coordination, and transparency can the state transform SDG localization from a bureaucratic formality into a meaningful driver of inclusive and ecologically sound development. This study, through its analysis of policy discourse and the lived realities of the Monpa community, highlights that such a reorientation is not only necessary but possible. It is a call to rethink development from the ground up to ensure that global goals truly resonate with local commons and the communities that depend on them.

Discussion

The practice to “localize” the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in India reveals tensions between universal agendas and on-the-ground realities in regions like Arunachal Pradesh. In principle, localization means adapting global targets to regional and community contexts, aligning them with subnational priorities and governance structures. National policy makers and international agencies portray this process as a cornerstone for inclusive development, emphasizing that local action is pivotal for achieving about 65% of SDG targets. Arunachal Pradesh, a biodiverse frontier state with strong indigenous institutions, would seem an ideal space for such alignment. Yet, in practice, the implementation of global goals here remains highly centralized, revealing a deep disconnect between top-down development programs and the local socio-ecological systems they aim to support. This discrepancy lies at the heart of the paper’s concern: despite official rhetoric of empowerment, the current politics of ambiguity governing SDG execution often sidelines community voices and customary commons governance, leading to “disconnected realities” on the ground. At a broad level, the politics of localizing global goals in Arunachal Pradesh has meant that central authorities retain outsized control over development agendas shaped by universalist values rather than socio-ecological complexity. Instead of fostering genuine power-sharing, localization has frequently unfolded as an administrative exercise driven by centrally defined targets and state-level bureaucratic procedures. This mismatch reveals a profound form of scalar dissonance – a misalignment between the scales of global/national policy and local realities more attuned to meeting statistical targets than to empowering communities. In theory, achieving the SDGs calls for multi-level governance and context-sensitive adaptation (e.g. engaging Panchayats, traditional councils, civil society). In practice, however, centrally defined plans often clash with or simply overlook local perspectives on sustainability. Global goals are being localized in name, but not in spirit. This centralized execution of supposedly “local” development is evident from planning to implementation: national and state SDG strategies rely on standardized metrics for economic growth and infrastructure, leaving scant room for indigenous priorities or ecological governance.

Arunachal Pradesh’s experience vividly illustrates these contradictions. The state’s SDG Action Plan, for example, mirrors national blueprints with its emphasis on building roads, expanding financial access, and other measurable outputs. While such goals align with India’s overall development narrative, they tend to marginalize place-based needs. Ecological concerns central to local people like conserving high-altitude forests, grasslands, and sustaining indigenous livelihoods receive perfunctory attention. One case in point is a state program aimed at “modernizing” pastoral livelihoods in Tawang: it offered fodder subsidies and veterinary services to yak herders yet failed to address the deeper drivers of pastoral decline, such as shrinking grazing areas, restrictive conservation policies, and climate variability. Herders still face encroachment on traditional pastures and uncertain access to resources, issues the program glossed over. Rather than recognizing traditional pastoralism as an adaptive communal system that contributes to ecosystem resilience, the intervention remained disconnected from the material realities of land tenure and customary rights. Such examples underscore how a disconnect in priorities can render well-intentioned initiatives ineffective. Policies conceived in distant offices often misread local complexities, implementing “one-size-fits-all” solutions in a landscape of diverse communities and ecologies. The “dislocated commons” phenomenon is an especially troubling outcome of this centralized approach. Arunachal’s rural communities have long managed shared resources forests, grazing lands, water sources through customary rules and collective institutions. These commons are not just economic assets but foundations of cultural identity and ecological knowledge. Yet top-down SDG programs and state-led development projects tend to bypass or undermine these local governance systems. Formal government bodies and private investors dominate decision-making, while indigenous councils like the Mangma (which traditionally regulates grazing commons in Tawang) are largely sidelined.

This marginalization of community institutions goes hand in hand with a technocratic view of land and resources. For instance, critical grassland commons that sustain pastoral livelihoods are still officially classified as “wastelands” by policymakers, a label that ignores their importance for carbon sequestration, biodiversity, and climate adaptation. Such mis-categorization reflects a broader pattern: indigenous socio-ecological systems are rendered invisible or unimportant in the eyes of centralized planners. Studies of Himalayan development similarly note that state-led interventions impose hegemonic visions that marginalize local perspectives and knowledge, flattening the complex human–environment relationships at play. In Arunachal, the rush for roads, hydropower dams, and militarized infrastructure is often justified as necessary for “sustainable development,” despite habitat fragmentation and displacement. These processes illustrate how commons are dislocated – literally and figuratively – when global goals are pursued through centralized frameworks alone. The rich, context-specific practices that once balanced livelihoods and conservation are eroded or pushed to the margins under the pressure of uniform development schemes.

Concluding remarks: Ambiguous Localization

Taken together, these dynamics reveal ambiguous localization at work. Officially, the SDGs in Arunachal Pradesh are presented as if they were being achieved “the local way,” responsive to grassroots needs. Much of what is called localization amounts to old-style top-down development dressed in the language of community empowerment. This ambiguity is not a mere semantic issue, but a substantive loophole: it allows authorities to claim alignment with global sustainability ideals while proceeding with business-as-usual governance. Indeed, what passes for localization often repackages top-down development initiatives in the language of local empowerment, without fundamentally ceding control or adequately engaging existing community institutions. The outcome is a kind of development mirage. It gives the impression of progress and inclusion, but on closer inspection the fundamental power structures and approaches have barely changed. Far from devolving decision-making, the process reinforces central authority – a pattern that ultimately obscures ongoing marginalization of those very communities and commons that sustainable development is supposed to uplift. In short, the localization of SDGs in Arunachal is caught in a paradox: it must empower local actors to succeed, yet it has largely ignored or overruled them in practice. Consequently, SDG implementation in the state has become a “mirage of localization,” wherein the appearance of inclusive, localized progress masks a reality of centralized execution and disempowerment of local socio-ecological systems. This is not to dismiss the potential relevance of the SDGs, but to draw attention to the pathways or mechanisms through which support to commons are lost in translation. Only by confronting the political and institutional disconnects and politics of ambiguity, the gap between rhetoric and reality – can we envision more genuine forms of localization that truly empower communities and protect the commons. In the case of Tawang, Arunachal Pradesh, recognizing these gaps is a first step toward re-centering development on those who live with and depend on the land, rather than treating them as mere targets of global goals and centrally defined development schemes. Such a reorientation is essential if the promise of the SDGs is to be realized in a manner that strengthens, rather than erases, the rich socio-ecological fabric of India’s frontier regions.