SECURING COMMON PROPERTY
REGIMES IN A GLOBALIZING WORLD

Synthesis of 41 Case Studies on Common
Property Regimes from Africa, Asia, Europe
and Latin America.

• PREFACE
• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• INTRODUCTION
• ACCESS TO RESOURCES VIA COMMON PROPERTY REGIMES
• TENURE SECURITY UNDER COMMON PROPERTY REGIMES
• THREATS TO COMMON PROPERTY REGIMES
  - Markets
  - Demographic Factors
  - Legal and Governance
    Frameworks
  - Conflicts and Conflict
    Management
• EXAMPLES OF REFORM AND INNOVATION
• CONCLUSIONS
• REFERENCES
• ANNEX A: LINKS & DESCRIPTIONS OF CASE STUDIES
• ANNEX B: CASE STUDY FRAMEWORK
• ABBREVIATIONS
• Other Useful Resources on Common Property

INTRODUCTION

In many parts of the developing world, the rural poor increasingly depend on shared resources for their livelihoods. A growing number of studies demonstrate the significance of commonly held resources to rural lives and livelihoods (Beck and Nesmith, 2001; Jodha, 1992; Adhikari, 2005). While community- and county-level studies have provided important snapshots of particular places and resources, assessments of a more global nature are also necessary to help establish the extent of reliance on resources from the commons both for policy makers concerned with poverty reduction strategies, as well as those interested in the sustainable management of resources, and to identify trends and adaptations relevant to tenure security in the commons.

Recent years have seen a steady increase in the interconnectedness of developing and developed economies. In addition, social, economic and environmental crises (such as armed conflicts, oil price shocks and climate change) are affecting communities and countries worldwide. There is need for new cross-country comparisons to update our knowledge on common property and to provide some early insights in light of the rapidly changing social, economic and political conditions.

This synthesis paper gives an overview of main findings from 41 case studies on common property systems from 20 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America . Between June and September 2005, the CGIAR's Collective Action and Property Rights initiative ( CAPRi ) and the International Land Coalition (ILC) sent out a call for case studies to contribute to a joint study on "Rural Common Property in a Perspective of Development and Modernization."(1)The main purpose of soliciting case studies was to enable a general assessment of the current status of common property and to begin identifying lessons and interventions that can elevate the status of common property regimes, particularly in policy debates.

A total of 41 case studies were contributed by researchers, civil society organizations and government project officers.(2) These discussed examples of common property as it relates to a variety of resource settings, including forest and agro-forestry areas, pastures and rangelands, agricultural lands, and freshwater and marine resources.

This synthesis paper seeks to provide an overview of findings from these case studies. While this study is by nature quite broad, it is hoped to serve as a starting point for drawing out patterns and emerging concerns with regard to the broader goal of securing access and rights to resources via common property regimes, across different settings as well as across a range of natural resources. The first section outlines the study methodology, provides a definition of basic terms and reflects on why common property matters. The second section considers how groups and individuals gain access and rights to commons resources. The second and third sections treat the problem of tenure security for the commons, first by discussing how tenure security can be assessed and second by identifying factors and processes that jeopardize such security. The final section provides examples of some innovations intended to strengthen common property regimes. This is followed by a conclusion that distills the key lessons learnt from the case studies.

Methodology

Case study authors were asked to prepare their contributions based on a study framework that CAPRi and ILC prepared in collaboration with the FAO Land Tenure Service. In developing a common set of key questions, the case study analysis sought to allow for comparisons of cases across countries and resource-types. This framework identified two sets of questions related to common property regimes.(3)
The first set focused at the community level, and included:

• Which kinds of common property tenure arrangements exist, and what are their sources of legitimacy?
• How do households and communities define tenure relations and tenure security in the commons?
• What are uses of resources managed as common property, and to what extent are these related to livelihood or well-being?
• What are forms of community organization or power dynamics, and how do these interact with common property systems?
• What elements of common property tenure are performing effectively? What elements need to be improved?

The second set focused at the level of national laws and policies, and included:

• What are current state and policies, and how do they relate to common property systems?
• Are there institutions responsible for implementing policies on common property? If so, how are they performing?
• How does policy toward common property interact with national policy issues, e.g., agricultural production, urbanization, conservation?
• What challenges exist in terms of developing or reforming the national framework toward common property? What are alternative proposals for reforming laws, policies, and institutional arrangements?
• How what are rural people's associations, NGOs or other actors involved in efforts to reform common property arrangements?

Preliminary analysis of the case studies sought to identify and group together authors' key findings and recommendations, according to common themes from the proposed framework (i.e., forms of tenure arrangements, community organization and institutions, legal and institutional framework, resource use and management, changes and adaptations taking place, and opportunities or recommendations for policy reform). This qualitative information mapping formed the basis of the analysis presented in this synthesis paper. In addition, an internet forum on common property, involving case study authors and other participants, took place during September-October 2005, and comments from this electronic discussion were also incorporated into this synthesis paper.

Terminology: Tenure Systems and Resource Access via Common Property Regimes

This paper refers to a number of terms related to the study of tenure systems and access to land and resources via common property regimes. C ommon-pool resources (also referred to as CPRs) refer to natural resources where one person's use subtracts from another's use and where it is often necessary, but difficult and costly, to exclude other users outside the group from using the resource (Ostrom 2000; Ostrom et al 1994). (4) Common pool resources refer to the attributes or characteristics of a resource. Common property is "a formal or informal property regime that allocates a bundle of rights to a group. Such rights may include ownership, management, use, exclusion, access of a shared resource." (Hess 2006) The term common property regime represents a set of institutions, regulations and management practices subject to collective decision-making. In this sense, the term refers to the kind of tenure institutions that exist, not the resources themselves (Dietz et al 2002; Ostrom 2000).

It is important to note that while common property regimes are defined primarily in terms of collective rights, they may also represent a range of different rights for both individuals and groups such as access, withdrawal, management, exclusion, alienation (Schlager and Ostrom, 1992). As the case studies illustrated, these multiple rights to the same resource may also be exercised differently at different times; for example post-harvest access to farm fields by herders, or the breakdown of territorial borders among the Karamojong during wet seasons, or access to individually-controlled fruit trees during dry season in Muzarabani district of Zimbabwe, and the collection of bamboo on individually-owned land in northern Thailand. In some cases there is a distinct spatial element, such as when fallow land adjacent to private farmland is treated as individual property, while similar fallow lands, if contiguous, are treated as common property. This shifting in rights over time and space is captured by the 'tenure niches' concept (Bruce, 2000). In one case from Ethiopia , the author identifies the existence of "fuzzy access rights", in which hierarchies among different users are reflected in asymmetrical access rights, i.e., primary, secondary and tertiary rights to use rangeland and water that may vary depending on social and ecological circumstances (Aredo 2005a).

Common property regimes are also distinct from communal tenure , which refers more broadly to community-based tenure systems, in which some form of collective authority (e.g., an extended family, clan or other social grouping) holds allocation rights (Bruce 1999). Resources under communal tenure may, in practice, be used and controlled individually or collectively (Otsuka and Place, 2001). Within communal tenures, some portion of land and resources may be managed as common property, as was depicted in a number of the case studies. (5)

Livelihoods, Equity and the Commons: Why common property regimes matter

A large body of literature provides examples on the equity, efficiency and sustainability functions of common property regimes. Access to resources via common property regimes has been noted to sustain and even enhance the livelihoods of the rural poor, whether through domestic consumption or commercial use. Poor women in particular are important beneficiaries of access created via common property arrangements. In environments marked by seasonal and spatial variations in water and pasture, common property regimes allow recognized users to access these variable resources, but also to take advantage of economies of scale in the provisioning of services and infrastructure.

The case studies which were contributed to this investigation reinforce these functions of common property. First, the cases illustrate how common property regimes can improve access by poor and vulnerable households to basic needs, including resources for household consumption. Access to common property may also serve as a "resource safety-net" for vulnerable households during difficult times, such as in the case of fruit trees in northern Zimbabwe , which are treated as common property during the dry season when there are fewer alternatives to fulfill nutritional needs (Chidakwai 2005). In drylands areas, common lands are also a key resource for grazing and watering livestock. A case study of pastoralist tenure and livelihood in Ethiopia documented the heavy reliance on herds as a main source of food and nutrition. In such situations, where access to common grazing lands and water sources is lost, food security may be jeopardized (Unruh 2005).

Access to basic needs: Case from Saigata village, India In one case from Saigata village, in the interior of India 's Maharashtra State , common forest areas provide 100 percent of fodder, fuelwood and timber. The market prices of these resources are between 20 and 100 percent higher outside the village, meaning that without a common property system to access shared forest resources, many village residents would have difficulty to access the same goods via the market (Ghate 2005).

Second, common property regimes provide a framework for generating income from small-scale commercial use of resources. Close to half of the case studies identified the importance of resources from the commons in generating incomes above and beyond subsistence level. Marketable goods include products that have been traditionally cultivated, as well as new ones being introduced, including cash crops. In one case from Akok village in southern Cameroon , for example, new cash crops such as cucumber and cocoa are now grown along with traditional products, such as cassava and plantain, on common forest lands (Mala 2005).

Common Property and "Livelihood Ripple Effects" Access to resources via common property regimes may have "livelihood ripple effects", in which access to the commons is linked to other aspects of local development. In one case of forest leasehold tenure in Nepal , some forest user groups have also become a point of organizing for microfinance and literacy activities, especially for women, providing a locus for community empowerment toward poverty reduction (Shrestha 2005). Other examples of how access to resources through common property systems has increased school attendance where children spend less time collecting fuelwood, or where families can draw on income from commercial production of resources from the commons to pay for school fees (Kumar and Nongkynrih; Shrestha 2005). By contrast, a case from Uganda notes that where communal land has become privatized, families may be forced to move to more isolated areas. This leads them to lose access to basic public services, such as health care, schools or roads (Obaikol 2005).

Finally, common property regimes may contribute to more environmentally-sustainable use of natural resources. Environmental degradation, such as deforestation, may take place where common pool resources are not adequately managed (i.e., de facto open access). Collective action, and supportive legal or policy frameworks, may contribute to more sustainable use of the resources from the commons ( Swallow, et. al. 2005; Bruce, 1999) .

In short, the case studies reinforce the common perception that vulnerable rural households benefit from secure access to the commons, particularly as a safety-net against extreme poverty. On its own, secure access to resources is not sufficient to reduce poverty, as access to other productive assets - human, physical, financial and social capital - is also critical. Nonetheless, given that the commons continue to play a primary role in the lives and livelihoods of the rural poor, common property regimes, especially if secure, remain significant to reducing poverty and sustainability of natural resource management. Whether and how common property regimes can perform this function effectively, including through adaptations to emerging pressures, will be the focus of this paper.

(1)In addition, an internet forum on common property, involving case study authors and other participants took place in September and October of 2005. Comments from this discussion were incorporated into this paper.

(2)A list of cases and authors is available in the Bibliography. All cases are currently available in Annex A , and will be published in electronic format as a compilation later this year. CAPRi and ILC wish to thank the case study authors and participants in the internet forum for their significant contributions and active roles in building up the analysis that is reflected in this paper.

(3) The complete framework, as proposed to case study authors, is included in the Annex section to this paper.

(4) See Digital Library of the Commons, in Annex B .

(5)The case of Segun Guillermo Valera, a campesino community in Peru , notes that 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 .