Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Beyond the Biophysical pp 193–214Cite as

Common Property Regimes: Taking a Closer Look at Resource Access, Authorization, and Legitimacy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Understanding common property regimes, i.e., the systems and institutions through which access to shared natural resources is governed, is critical to ensuring that these resources are used in equitable and sustainable ways. With an estimated five billion hectares of natural resources managed through such tenure regimes, the significance of the commons cannot be understated. Where common property regimes are strong, they provide the rules and enforcement mechanisms that allow rural people to access natural resources in ways that increase livelihood opportunities (such as grazing, fishing, or the collection of forest products for household use or sale), while ensuring environmental sustainability. Where these regimes are weak or undermined by their nonrecognition by more powerful actors, households and communities may lose access to the unique benefits offered by the commons – such as secure access to water and pasture in drought-prone environments, or the means to sustain resources for community use through protection against outside encroachment. When the commons are eroded through their privatization or government appropriation, many of these benefits – often critical for reducing poverty and vulnerability – are lost. This chapter presents a synthesis of findings from case studies on common property from 20 countries, which considered a diversity of resources including forests, rangelands, and fisheries. It highlights a variety of sources of authority for common property regimes, illustrates the different ways through which individuals and groups gain access to natural resources through these tenure regimes, and discusses key challenges and adaptations that were observed in the case studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In Segun Guillermo Valera, a campesino community in Peru, common-use land managed as common property makes up 79 percent of the community’s total area, with the remaining 21 percent managed by individual families (Burneo 2005). Similar examples were provided by cases from Cameroon, India, Nepal, South Africa, and Zimbabwe.

  2. 2.

    Under-provision here refers to potential overconsumption, i.e., where individuals or households that access the commons consume resources at a level that is less than optimal for the group as a whole. This reflects the challenge set forth in the Prisoner’s Dilemma, in which the absence of norms to govern resource consumption within the group provides a negative incentive to individual users to overconsume, because they have no assurance that other individuals will not also overconsume. Common property regimes address this challenge by establishing norms and enforcement mechanisms that prevent overconsumption, allowing group members to instead use resources at a level that would be optimal for the group as a whole (see Ostrom et al. 1994, pp. 9 and 61).

  3. 3.

    The complete framework, as well as the case studies which were contributed, is available at www.landcoalition.org (Fuys et al. 2008).

  4. 4.

    Reciprocity was also evident in a study of irrigation as common property in Japan, even though the common property institutions in this case were based on a statutory framework rather than customary laws. Among Japan’s collective irrigation associations, rules concerning common water resources are rarely violated, in part because reciprocity and group identity are strong norms in rural Japanese society (Sarker 2005).

  5. 5.

    For more information on the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act and its implementation, see www.pafid.org, www.tebtebba.org and www.ncip.gov.ph.

  6. 6.

    In this chapter, decentralization refers to the delegation of state powers, such as the authority to establish laws or generate public revenue, to local government. Devolution refers to the transfer of rights and responsibilities from central government to community-based institutions, such as resource user associations (see Ribot 2002).

  7. 7.

    “With the change in government in Ethiopia in 1991, the country has pursued an ‘ethnic federalism’ approach to governance whereby administrative boundaries (Regions) were redrawn along broad ethnic lines … While the current Ethiopian constitution indicates that all land belongs to the state, much power has been given over to these ethnic regions to govern their own affairs … The constitution also gives the regions the power to recognize customary dispute resolution mechanisms” (Unruh 2005, p. 3).

  8. 8.

    For more information on PPSHK’s activities in West Kalimantan, see www.jeef.or.jp/EAST_ASIA/indonesia/PPSHK.html, www.landcoalition.org/partners/ppppshk.htm.

  9. 9.

    A “*” before title indicates that the paper was one of the 41 case studies contributed to this initiative and cited in: Fuys A., Mwangi, E., & Dohrn, S. (2008) Securing Common Property Regimes in a Globalizing World: Synthesis of 41 Case Studies on Common Property Regimes from Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America. Knowledge for Change series, #3. Rome, Italy: International Land Coalition (ILC). Available at: http://www.landcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/ilc_securing_common_property_regimes_e.pdf (Last accessed Feb. 28, 2010).

References

A “*” before title indicates that the paper was one of the 41 case studies contributed to this initiative and cited in: Fuys A., Mwangi, E., & Dohrn, S. (2008) Securing Common Property Regimes in a Globalizing World: Synthesis of 41 Case Studies on Common Property Regimes from Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America. Knowledge for Change series, #3. Rome, Italy: International Land Coalition (ILC). Available at: http://www.landcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/ilc_securing_common_property_regimes_e.pdf (Last accessed Feb. 28, 2010).

  • AFRA (2005). *Securing tenure at Ekuthuleni. Case Study submitted for the joint study Rural common property in a perspective of development and modernization. Pietermaritzburg, South Africa: Association for Rural Advancement (AFRA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A. (2001). Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Development, 29(10), 1649–1672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aredo, D. (2005a). *Fuzzy access rights in pastoral economies: Case studies from Southern Ethiopia. Case study submitted for the joint study Rural common property in a perspective of development and modernization. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Addis Ababa University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aredo, D. (2005b). *Property rights, customary institutions, and conflict: The case of the southern Pastoral areas of Ethiopia. Case Study submitted for the joint study Rural common property in a perspective of development and modernization. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: University of Addis Ababa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachir, A., Vogt, G., & Vogt, K. (2005). *Cooking stones to extract the juice: 5 years of autonomous common property resources management at Takiéta. Case study submitted for the joint study Rural common property in a perspective of development and modernization. Niger: CRAC-GRN/SOS-Sahel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bigombé Logo, P. (2003). The decentralized forestry taxation system in Cameroon: Local management and state logic. Environmental Governance in Africa Working Paper No. 10. Washington, DC: WRI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, D. (1991). Environment and economy: Property rights and public policy. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, J. W. (1995). Legal bases for the management of land-based natural resources as common property. Rome: FAO, Forests, Trees and People Programme.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chidhakwa, Z. (2005). *Local management of indigenous fruit trees as common property in North East Zimbabwe. Case study submitted for the joint study Rural common property in a perspective of development and modernization. Zimbabwe: Southern Alliance for Indigenous Resources (SAFIRE).

    Google Scholar 

  • Colfer, C. J. P., & Capistrano, D. (2005). The politics of decentralization: Forests, power and people. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dangbégnon, C. (2005). *Land tenure systems and pastoral resources management in Chabe community, Benin. Case study submitted for the joint study Rural common property in a perspective of development and modernization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burneo de la Rocha, Z. (2005). *La Propiedad Colectiva de la Tierra: Las Comunidades Campesinas del Peru. Case study submitted for the joint study Rural common property in a perspective of development and modernization. Lima, Peru: Centro Peruano de Estudios Sociales (CEPES).

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Gregorio, M., Hagedorn, K., Kirk, M., Korf, B., McCarthy, N., Meinzen-Dick, R., & Swallow, B.M. (2008). Property rights, collective action and poverty: The role of institutions for poverty reduction. CGIAR System-wide Program on Collective Action and Property Rights (CAPRi). Washington, DC: IFPRI (Series: CAPRi Working Paper, no. 81).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, T., Dolsak, N., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2002). Introduction: The drama of the commons. In E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolsak, P. C. Stern, S. Stonich, & E. U. Webers (Eds.), The drama of the commons. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. (2002). Land tenure and rural development. Rome, Italy: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuys A., Mwangi, E., & Dohrn, S., (2008). Securing Common Property Regimes in a Globalizing World: Synthesis of 41 Case Studies on Common Property Regimes from Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America. Knowledge for Change series, #3. Rome, Italy: International Land Coalition (ILC). Available at: http://www.landcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/ilc_securing_common_property_regimes_e.pdf (Last accessed Feb. 28, 2010).

  • Galudra, G. (2005). *Land tenure conflicts in Halimun area: What are the alternative resolutions for land tenure conflicts? Case study submitted for the joint study Rural common property in a perspective of development and modernization. Bogor, Indonesia: World Agroforestry Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghate, R. (2005). *A community case study: Self-initiated forest management in Saigata. Case study submitted for the joint study Rural common property in a perspective of development and modernization. Nagpur, India: The Institute for Research and Development (SHODH).

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzman, W. (2005). *Propiedad colectiva, Zonificación y Ordenamiento Territorial: Estudio de caso en Bosques Inundables de Aguaje (Mauritia flexuosa) en la Comunidad Nativa de Parinari, Loreto, Perú. Case study submitted for the joint study Rural common property in a perspective of development and modernization. Peru: Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonia Peruana (IIAP).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamadoun, M. (2005) *La propriété rurale commune dans la Zone Nord du Mali (Région de GAO). Case Study submitted for the joint study Rural common property in a perspective of development and modernization. Mali: Université Mandé Bukari.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, C. (2006). Definitions. Digital library of the commons. http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/cprdef

  • Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (2003). Ideas, artifacts and facilities: Information as a common pool resource. Duke Law Journal, Vol. 66, pp. 111-145. Durham, NC: Duke University.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Land Coalition (2008). Report on IASC 2008: Connecting local experience of global challenges. Rome: ILC. http://www.landcoalition.org/pdf/08_NCP_08_07_reflections%20on%20IASCP_MT.pdf International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Washington (Last accessed Feb. 28, 2010).

  • Karangathi, J. (2005). *A case study on common property tenure system (Kenya). Case study submitted for the joint study Rural common property in a perspective of development and modernization. Molo, Kenya: Mau Community Forest Association (MACOFA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kijtewachakul, N. (2005). *Common property and complexity of local rights system in Sopsai watershed, Nan Province, Northern Thailand. Case study submitted for the joint study Rural common property in a perspective of development and modernization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, C., & Nongkynrih, K. (2005). *Customary tenurial forest practices and the poor in Khasi – Jaintia Society of Meghalaya. Case study submitted for the joint study Rural common property in a perspective of development and modernization. Delhi, India: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and North Eastern Hill University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mbog, S. (2005). *Reflexion sur la propriété Rurale Commune dans une Perspective de Développement et de Modernisation: le cas du Cameroun. Cameroon: Organisme de Développement, d’Etude, de Formation et de Conseils (ODECO).

    Google Scholar 

  • Meinzen-Dick, R., & Di Gregorio, M. (2004). Collective action for property rights and sustainable development: Overview. Collective action for property rights and sustainable development. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

    Google Scholar 

  • Meinzen-Dick, R., Mwangi, E., & Dohrn, S. (2006). Securing the commons. CAPRi policy brief 4. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). http://www.capri.cgiar.org/pdf/polbrief_04.pdf.

  • Meinzen-Dick R., Pradhan, R., & Di Gregorio, M. (2005). Understanding property rights. In E. Mwangi (Ed.), Collective action for property rights and sustainable rangeland management (pp. 3–4). Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mgugu, A. T. (2005). *Rural common property in a perspective of development and modernisation: Case from Zimbabwe. Case study submitted for the joint study Rural common property in a perspective of development and modernization. Zimbabwe: The Platform on Women’s Land and Water Rights in Southern Africa (WLWRSA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mwebaza, R. (2000). *Land rights of the Karamajong pastoral minority in Uganda. Case study submitted for the joint study Rural common property in a perspective of development and modernization. Kampala, Uganda: Uganda Land Alliance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ngaido, T. (2005). Can pastoralist institutions perform without access options? In: E. Mwangi (Ed.), Collective action for property rights and sustainable rangeland management (pp. 9–10). Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ngaido, T, & McCarthy, N. (2005). Institutional options for managing rangelands. In E. Mwangi (Ed.), Collective action for property rights and sustainable rangeland management (pp. 13–14). Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

    Google Scholar 

  • Obaikol, E. (2005). *Common property resource management in Uganda: The Legal and institutional framework. Case study submitted for the joint study Rural common property in a perspective of development and modernization. Kampala, Uganda: Associates for Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obaikol, E., Kamusiime, H., & Rugadya, M. (2005). *Rural common property resources management in Uganda: A case study of community Forest Management in Budongo – Masindi District. Case study submitted for the joint study Rural common property in a perspective of development and modernization. Kampala, Uganda: Associates for Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, games and common pool resources. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otsuka, K., & Place, F. (2001). Issues and theoretical framework. In K. Otsuka & F. Place (Eds.), Land tenure and natural resource management: A comparative study of agrarian communities in Asia and Africa. Baltimore, MD and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribot, J. (2002). Democratic decentralization of natural resources: Institutionalizing popular participation. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Technology Adaptation in Smallholder Agriculture: A Review of Issues and Empirical Methods. Washington, DC: IFPRI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santosa, A., Ramdhaniaty, L. N., & Nurhawan, R. (2005). *Community, halimun area and common property. Case study submitted for the joint study Rural common property in a perspective of development and modernization. Bogor, Indonesia: Indonesian Institute for Forest and Environment (RMI).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarker, A. (2005). *Land improvement districts as irrigation common-pool resources in Japan. Case study submitted for the joint study Rural common property in a perspective of development and modernization. Brisbane, Australia: University of Queensland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlager, E., & Ostrom, E. (1992). Property rights regimes and natural resources: A conceptual analysis. Land Economics, 68, 249–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seki, E. (2005). *Community action toward buyout of land in Scotland. Case study submitted for the joint study Rural common property in a perspective of development and modernization. Aberdeen, Scotland: University of Aberdeen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrestha, B. (2005). *Rural common property under leasehold forestry in Nepal. Case study submitted for the joint study Rural common property in a perspective of development and modernization. Kathmandu, Nepal: Mobilization and Development (MODE).

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, S. (2002). *Conflicts and disturbance – A reason to change: lessons from community based natural resource management institutions in Orissa, India. Case study submitted for the joint study Rural common property in a perspective of development and modernization. Orissa, India: Foundation for Ecological Security (FES).

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M. (2005). *Review of shifts in tenure systems over Botswana’s common rangelands, and the policies that have encouraged these shifts. Case study submitted for the joint study Rural common property in a perspective of development and modernization. Gaborone, Botswana: Indigenous Vegetation Project, United Nations Development Program (UNDP).

    Google Scholar 

  • Unruh, J. (2005). *Common property and conflict in Ethiopia: The case of the Afar, Somali, and Karamojong cluster pastoralists. Case study submitted for the joint study Rural common property in a perspective of development and modernization. Montreal, Canada: McGill University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vay Ganon, M. (2005). *Formas de Tenencia Colectiva de la Tierra en Guatemala. Case study submitted for the joint study Rural common property in a perspective of development and modernization. Mazatenango, Guatemala: Asociación Comité de Desarrollo Campesino (CODECA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wily, L. A. (2006). Land rights reform and governance in Africa: How to make it work in the 21st century? UNDP Discussion Paper (March 2006). New York, NY: UNDP.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Church World Service, 475 Riverside Drive, Suite 700, New York, NY, 10115, USA

    Andrew Fuys

Authors
  1. Andrew Fuys
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephan Dohrn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Fuys .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Research (CIFOR), Center for International Forestry, Jalan CIFOR, Bogor Barat, 16115, Indonesia

    Laura A. German

  2. School of International Development &, Global Studies (SIDGS), University of Ottawa, Cumberland Street 550, Ottawa, K1N 6N5, Canada

    Joshua J. Ramisch

  3. Inst. Poverty, Land &, Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), University of the Western Cape, Bellville, 7535, South Africa

    Ritu Verma

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fuys, A., Dohrn, S. (2010). Common Property Regimes: Taking a Closer Look at Resource Access, Authorization, and Legitimacy. In: German, L., Ramisch, J., Verma, R. (eds) Beyond the Biophysical. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8826-0_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation