I am looking for options of securing rights of the collective groups and individual members to collective resources such as water (tanks, ponds, etc), common land or invisible resources such as sub-surface or deep aquifers.
One of the tool seems to be village level byelaws to manage the collective resources.
Request members to share'your thoughts, examples and papers if any.
Regards
Subrata Singh ([email protected])
"The law locks up the man or woman. Who steals the goose from off the common. But leaves the greater villain loose. Who steals the common from off the goose."
The biggest problem is devising a means of eliciting reasonable behavior from the individuals who make up the group. The simplest device for doing this is a price for the use of the common resource. The purpose of this price is to allocate the common resource properly. For example, one could set a goal of a certain depth of pond water. Next, fiddle with the price until that goal is achieved.
There is a totally separate question as to what to do with the receipts from this pricing system. The members of the collective could vote on what to do with these receipts. For example, they could consider projects to maintain the common resource (e.g., fencing, etc.) and/or a range of other projects to do next. Alternatively, these receipts could be returned to the members of the cooperative according to some set system: equal shares or shares that reflect the degree of contribution to the cooperative (e.g., hours of work, etc.).
Bylaw or other legal tools are important methods to help protect or secure collective ownership of some resources. But, I think the fundamental way is to devise a well-functioning governance structure for that collective. It may need to involve economic organization in addition to social organization that forms the basis for the collective. For example, many villages (a natural social organization for the peasant collective) in Southern China form economic organization such as a village economic development corporation that owns collective land and/or other collective resources. Profits from the corporation may be distributed to the villagers, who also benefit from rising price of their shares of the corporation. In a word, institutional structure is very important to secure collective ownership in the face of the threat of "privatization" of the commons.
Thank you Dr. Peter for your views.
Dr. Peter,
I too agree that devising a means of eliciting reasonable behavior from the individuals who make up the group is important and a simple device for doing this is a price for the use of the common resource. Market mechanisms like pricing is effective but in many cases it benefits people who can afford. For groups too it is easier to provide benefits to the highest bidder.
But, as equal citizens all members have equal rights to use the common resources such as common grazing lands or common water resources. Further, as principles of good governance on needs to look at equitable sharing or appropriation, capacity of the resource to provide benefits or to maintain sustainable use.
I am exploring if byelaws can act as a tool to bring in the elements of good institutional and resource governance. Byelaws may act as mechanisms for protecting certain collective rights and functioning, providing rights to certain section of the community, regulate individual needs as against collective needs, etc. The example, one could set a goal of a certain depth of pond water to be retainer for domestic purposes could fit in well.
Looking forward to your views
Thank you Dr. Feng for your response. Totally agree to your point that institutional structure is very important to secure collective ownership in the face of the threat of "privatization" of the commons.
In India, historically the communities have used the common land and water resources to benefit from and depend on for their livelihood needs. But, these lands have been brought under the State as public trust resources to be managed for the benefit of the communities. However, these lands which are defacto commons are being allocated for various purposes displacing the community use.
In many community members have been conserving and managing the resource for their benefit, but do not have adequate tenure for the resource.
While formal tenure is important, I am exploring the effectiveness of bylaws as tool for establishing rights of the community as a whole as well as the rights of particular stakeholders within the collective. As you mentioned Bylaw or other legal tools are important methods to help protect or secure collective ownership of some resources - I was wondering how tenable would such bylaw be in terms of a legal instrument, though this could help as a means of social agreement between communities as well as within communities.
Request your views
Please let me address the issue of affordability. It is likely that the poorest among the population would receive a net inflow of income in addition to their water according to the system I have proposed above.
Next, let us consider the central point of a market versus a communist system of allocation. It is true that both can produce the same total use of the common property resource. One achieves this by quantity controls (e.g., each "person" gets an equal amount); the other achieves this by voluntary transactions (each person gets what he or she is willing and able to pay for). So with a market, the water or whatever is allocated to its most productive uses. In contrast, the communist system allocates the water equally across all uses. The communist system either undervalues the water (essentially wasting it) or it creates a black or grey market for water as water is traded beyond the water source. The problem with black and grey markets is that there are added transaction costs (e.g., decanting water into inefficiently sized containers).
So if you can eliminate the waste by utilizing a market system, there can be more for everyone.