What Are Common Property Resources?
Common Property Resources (CPRs) are non-exclusive resources shared among a defined group of co-owners, typically within a community. Unlike private property, where an individual or family holds exclusive rights, CPRs are collectively managed. Examples include:
Community forests
Grazing grounds
Rivers and ponds
Marine areas
These resources are governed by community-established rules, ensuring equitable access and sustainable use. According to Elinor Ostrom, a pioneering economist, CPRs rely on collective management to prevent overuse, challenging the notion that privatization is the only solution for resource management.
(toc) #title=(Table of content)
Types of Rights in Common Property Resources
Managing CPRs involves a bundle of rights that dictate how resources are accessed and used. According to Schlager and Ostrom (1992), these rights include:
Access: The right to enter a resource, such as a forest or pond.
Withdrawal: The right to extract products, like fishing or collecting fuelwood.
Management: The right to regulate use and improve the resource, such as planting trees or clearing weeds.
Exclusion: The right to determine who can access the resource, like barring outsiders from a village forest.
Alienation: The right to sell or lease collective-choice rights, such as awarding a fishing contract.
Each right comes with responsibilities. For instance, a community might allow fishing in a pond but restrict it to specific days to ensure sustainability. These rules are often enforced through cultural practices or community councils, fostering collective responsibility.
Types of Users in CPR Systems
Different users hold varying levels of rights over CPRs. Schlager and Ostrom (1992) categorize users as follows:
Authorized Users: Hold access and withdrawal rights, e.g., fishermen or fuelwood collectors.
Claimants: Have access, withdrawal, and management rights, such as members of a Joint Forest Management Committee.
Proprietors: Possess management and exclusion rights, like a village Panchayat deciding who can access resources.
Owners: Hold all rights, including alienation, allowing them to sell or lease resource rights.
This hierarchy ensures that resource management aligns with community needs while preventing overuse.
Matrix of Rights Associated with Positions |
|---|
Position |
Owner |
Proprietor |
Claimant |
Authorized User |
The Tragedy of Commons: Myth or Reality?
In 1968, biologist Garrett Hardin introduced the Tragedy of Commons, a concept suggesting that open-access resources are doomed to overexploitation. Hardin used the example of a grazing pasture where each herdsman, acting in self-interest, adds more animals, ultimately depleting the resource. This overuse occurs because individual gains outweigh the shared loss, leading to resource collapse.
However, Hardin’s theory was based on unregulated open-access resources, not true CPRs, which are governed by community rules. Elinor Ostrom challenged this view, demonstrating that communities worldwide have successfully managed CPRs through self-regulation. For example, villages in India set rules on how much forest produce can be collected, ensuring sustainability. Ostrom’s work, which earned her a Nobel Prize, highlights the effectiveness of collective management over privatization or state control.
De Facto vs. De Jure Rights
CPRs are governed by two types of rights:
De Facto Rights: Unwritten, culturally accepted rights based on community practices. For example, neighboring villages may have understood boundaries for grazing lands.
De Jure Rights: Legally recognized rights enforceable in court, such as a government designating a forest as a “village forest” under the Indian Forest Act.
De facto rights, while effective within communities, lack legal backing and can be overridden by state laws, as seen during colonial times when British laws negated community rights to forests. Today, converting de facto rights to de jure rights is crucial for protecting community access.
Institutional Factors in CPR Management
Effective CPR management requires robust institutions to:
Authorize and secure resource use for a specific group.
Set and enforce rules to govern use.
Monitor compliance and resolve conflicts.
For example, a council of village elders might regulate forest produce collection or fishing rights. In some communities, caste or gender-based inequalities influence resource access, highlighting the need for inclusive governance.
Common Property vs. Common Pool Resources
While often used interchangeably, Common Property and Common Pool Resources differ:
Common Property: An institutional arrangement where a group holds a bundle of rights, with defined rules and restricted access.
Common Pool Resources: Resources like groundwater or wildlife that are difficult to divide or manage privately due to high ownership costs or indivisibility.
Open-access resources, lacking defined users or rules, are prone to overuse, unlike CPRs, which are regulated by communities.
The Impact of Privatization and State Control
Historically, colonization and modern policies have shifted CPRs toward privatization or state control. In India, British laws prioritized land ownership, often negating community rights to resources like forests or water. Privatization can lead to exclusion, limiting access for marginalized groups, while state control may lack the capacity to regulate low-productivity areas effectively.
Ostrom’s research suggests that community-managed CPRs are often more sustainable than privatized or state-controlled systems. Privatization may prioritize short-term gains, while collective management incentivizes long-term sustainability.
Why Common Property Resources Matter
CPRs are critical for community livelihoods, especially in rural areas. They provide essential resources like water, fuelwood, and grazing land, supporting millions globally. Effective CPR management:
Ensures equitable access.
Promotes sustainable resource use.
Strengthens community cohesion through collective decision-making.
By understanding and supporting CPR systems, we can address environmental challenges and promote sustainable development.
Conclusion
Common Property Resources are a cornerstone of sustainable resource management, balancing community needs with environmental preservation. From the types of rights outlined by Schlager and Ostrom to the debunking of the Tragedy of Commons, CPRs demonstrate the power of collective governance. As we navigate modern challenges like privatization and climate change, learning from successful CPR systems is more important than ever. Want to dive deeper? Share your thoughts in the comments or explore more resources on natural resource management at Elinor Ostrom’s publications.
FAQ
What are Common Property Resources?
CPRs are shared resources like forests or ponds managed collectively by a community with defined rules and rights.
What is the Tragedy of Commons?
The Tragedy of Commons, proposed by Garrett Hardin, describes the overexploitation of open-access resources due to individual self-interest.
How did Elinor Ostrom contribute to CPR research?
Elinor Ostrom demonstrated that communities can sustainably manage CPRs through self-regulation, challenging the need for privatization.
What are de facto and de jure rights?
De facto rights are unwritten, culturally accepted rights, while de jure rights are legally recognized and enforceable in court.
