Abstract
While the performance of self-help groups as institutions for natural resource management and livelihood generation leaves much to be desired, the more traditional institutional arrangement for reconciling these objectives, in the form of common property land resources, is gradually being undermined. In this chapter, the authors examine this institutional lacuna in the context of Karnataka. Common property land resources (CPLRs) are defined as all common land resources to which the public or some communities have de facto access, irrespective of the rights of exclusion, management or alienation. The wider academic literature contains debates about the usefulness of CPLRs, with advocates pointing to CPLRs as social safety nets, and critics favouring privatisation and individual land grants on the basis of efficiency, especially in light of increasing developmental pressures and consequent markets for land. How the problem is framed (CPLRs for what?) and how institutional arrangements are taken into account in evaluating economic outcomes of current and alternative models of CPLR governance will critically influence the outcome of this debate. There is enormous diversity and complexity in tenure regimes under the broad category of CPLRs and wide variation in their spatial distribution. Temporally there are evidences for consistent decline in certain CPLRs due to state give aways and for declining CPLR dependence as well, although this is sometimes a consequence of privatisation. The historical endowment of CPLRs varies geographically and temporally, and they generate significant use and non-use values at local and global scales. Using a clear normative framework, the chapter looks at the drivers of change in the extent and condition of CPLR, as well as at the ecological and distributional impacts of these changes. This chapter then looks at the governance reforms that may be necessary to manage and prevent conversion of CPLRs as well as to revive stakeholder interest. While examining these debates in the context of Karnataka’s CPLRs, we find an undiminished need to have well-managed rural CPLRs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
We do not include ‘commonly held or managed’ agricultural lands, as there are almost no examples of this left in Karnataka state today. We also do not include seasonally open access resources, such as post-harvest agricultural lands, which may be important in some states and for some communities (Beck and Ghosh 2000), but seem still a smaller part of the issue of CPLR management and conversion. Finally, we do not focus on urban parks or other urban commons, and also do not include underground mineral resources in any direct discussions.
- 2.
Or common pool, which makes exclusion difficult and de facto access easy.
- 3.
Which corresponds to whether the user has only ‘rights of withdrawal’ or also ‘of management’, ‘of exclusion’ and of ‘alienation’.
- 4.
As is now beginning to happen under the Forest Rights Act 2006.
- 5.
- 6.
Whether the kavals ever served as commons in the true sense is debatable given that they were set up to meet the needs of the king’s special livestock (Nadkarni 1990). It has been argued, however, that the specially bred livestock served as a public resource (for breeding) and that some grazing was permitted in these lands (Krishna Murthy 1989; Bandyopadhyay et al. 1988).
- 7.
The Forest Rights Act 2006 has the potential to rectify some of these missing rights, but it is not making any headway on this issue in Karnataka.
- 8.
For instance, the case of encroachment of forests by large coffee planters in Chickmagalur district involved powerful political figures and hence could not be pursued vigorously by the Forest Department, in spite of Supreme Court pressure to do so.
- 9.
- 10.
As Nadkarni et al. (1989) put it, communities were alienated from management, not from use.
- 11.
Witness the repeated efforts by industries to gain ‘leases’ in common lands for commercial plantations.
References
Agrawal, A., & Ostrom, E. (2001). Collective action, property rights, and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Politics & Society, 29(4), 485–514.
Anonymous. (2010). Unscrupulous mining lobby. Economic and Political Weekly, XIV(29), 9.
Bandyopadhyay, J., Reddy, S. T. S., & Shiva, V. (1988). Amruth Mahal Kavals: An approach to conservation and development. Dehra Dun: mimeo, Research Foundation for Science and Ecology.
Baviskar, A. (2012). India’s changing political economy and its implications. In Anonymous (Ed.), Deeper roots of historical injustice (pp. 33–45). Washington, DC: Rights and Resources Initiative.
Beck, T., & Ghosh, M. G. (2000). Common property resources and the poor: Findings from West Bengal. Economic and Political Weekly, 35, 147–153.
Beck, T., & Nesmith, C. (2001). Building on poor people’s capacities: The case of common property resources in India and West Africa. World Development, 29(1), 119–133.
Bhagavan, M. R., & Giriappa, S. (1987). Class character of rural energy crisis: Case of Karnataka. Economic and Political Weekly, 22(26), A-57–A-69.
Chopra, K., & Dasgupta, P. (2008). Nature of household dependence on common pool resources: An empirical study. Economic and Political Weekly, 43(8), 58–66.
Damodaran, A. (1987). Structural dimensions of fodder crisis: A village study in Karnataka. Economic and Political Weekly, 22(13), A-16–A-22.
Dilip Kumar, P. J., Nagaraj, S., Lélé, S., & Shashidhar, K. S. (2005). Induction, development and impact of GIS/RS facility and applications in Karnataka Forest Department: Assessment of past and ongoing programmes and strategic planning for the future (Evaluation Project Report No. PCCF(EWPRT)/EVAL.PROJ/001/2005-06). Bangalore: Karnataka Forest Department.
FSI. (2007). State of forest report 2007. Dehra Dun: Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.
Gadgil, M., & Subash Chandran, M. D. (1989). On the history of Uttara Kannada Forests. In J. Dargavel, K. Dixon, & N. Semple (Eds.), Changing tropical forests: Historical perspectives on today’s challenges in Asia, Australia and Oceania (pp. 47–58). Canberra: Centre for Resources and Environmental Studies, Australian National University.
Hegde, R., Prakash, S., Achot, L., & Bawa, K. S. (1996). Extraction of non-timber forest products in forests of Biligiri Rangan Hills. India. 1. Contribution to rural income. Economic Botany, 50(3), 243–251.
Hiremath, S. R. (Ed.). (1997). Forest lands and forest produce – As if people mattered (1st ed.). Dharwad: NCPNR, SPS, JVS, JVA, FEVORD-K.
ISEC and NST. (1998). People’s database on land tenure, land-use, and land cover for land resource management: Results of a pilot study in Dakshina Kannada district. Guruvayanakere, D. K. District: Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore and Nagarika Seva Trust.
Iyengar, S. (1989). Common property land resources in Gujarat: Some findings about their size, status and use. Economic and Political Weekly, 24(25), A67–A77.
Jodha, N. S. (1986). Common property resources and rural poor in dry regions of India. Economic and Political Weekly, 21(27), 1169–1181.
Jodha, N. S. (1987). A case study of the decline of common property resources in India. In P. Blaikie & H. Brookfield (Eds.), Land degradation and society (pp. 196–207). New York: Methuen.
Jodha, N. S. (1990). Rural common property resources: Contributions and crisis. Economic and Political Weekly, 25(26), A65–A78.
Kanbargi, S., & Kanbargi, R. (1991). Emerging development and declining CPRs: Is it necessarily an evil. Bangalore: Seminar on Towards Greening India’s Wastelands, ISEC.
Kiran Kumar, A. K., Lele, S., & Shivashankar, P. (2008). Impact of irrigation-led agricultural development on use of common lands in dry regions of Karnataka, India. In Anonymous (Ed.), Insights from the field: Studies in participatory forest management in India (pp. 110–134). New Delhi: RUPFOR, Winrock International India.
Krishna Murthy, T. S. (1989). History of Amruth Mahal Kaval Lands in Karnataka. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Rangelands Revegetation Project. Bangalore.
Lélé, S. (1994). Sustainable use of biomass resources: A note on definitions, criteria, and practical applications. Energy for Sustainable Development, 1(4), 42–46.
Lélé, S. (2001). Linking ecology, economics, and institutions of village-level forest use in the Karnataka Western Ghats. Project Report. Bangalore: Institute for Social and Economic Change and Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security.
Lélé, S. (2006, July 21). Linking ecology, economics, and institutions of village-level forest use in the Karnataka Western Ghats. Sahyadri E-News.
Lele, S. (2012). Economic incentives for forest management. In Anonymous (Ed.), Deeper roots of historical injustice (pp. 101–124). Washington, DC: Rights and Resources Initiative.
Lélé, S., Bawa, K. S., & Gowda, C. M. (2004). Ex-post evaluation of the impact of an enterprise-based conservation project in BRT Wildlife Sanctuary, India. The Commons in an Age of Global Transition: Challenges, Risks and Opportunities, 8th Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, Oaxaca.
Lélé, S., Kiran Kumar, A. K., & Shivashankar, P. (2005). Joint forest planning and management in the eastern plains region of Karnataka: A rapid assessment. CISED Technical Report. Bangalore: Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development.
Lélé, S., Rajashekhar, G., Hegde, V. R., Kumar, G. P., & Saravanakumar, P. (1998). Meso-scale analysis of forest condition and its determinants: A case study from the Western Ghats region, India. Current Science, 75(3), 256–263.
Lélé, S., & Rao, R. J. (1996). Whose cooperatives and whose produce? The case of LAMPS in Karnataka. In R. Rajagopalan (Ed.), Rediscovering cooperation (Vol. II, pp. 53–91). Anand: Institute of Rural Management Anand.
Manor, J. (2007). Change in Karnataka over the last generation: Villages and the wider context. Economic and Political Weekly, 42(8), 653–660.
Menon, A., & Lobo, V. (2008). The changing face of the commons, national workshop on ‘Beyond JFM: Rethinking the forest question in India’. New Delhi: Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development and Winrock International India.
Menon, A., & Vadivelu, A. (2006). Common property resources in different agro-climatic landscapes in India. Conservation and Society, 4(1), 132–154.
Murali, K. S., & Setty, S. (2001). Effect of weeds Lantana camara and Chromelina odorata growth on the species diversity, regeneration and stem density of tree and shrub layer in BRT sanctuary. Current Science, 80(5), 675–678.
Nadkarni, M. V. (1990). Use and management of common lands: Towards an environmentally sound strategy. In C. J. Saldanha (Ed.), Karnataka state of environment report IV (pp. 31–53). Bangalore: Centre for Taxonomic Studies, St.Joseph’s College.
Nadkarni, M. V., & Pasha, S. A. (1993). Social forestry in Karnataka. In C. J. Saldanha (Ed.), Karnataka: State of environment report – VI (pp. 41–53). Bangalore: Centre for Taxonomic Studies, St.Joseph’s College.
Nadkarni, M. V., Pasha, S. A., & Prabhakar, L. S. (1989). The political economy of forest use and management. New Delhi: Sage.
Nagendra, H., & Gokhale, Y. (2008). Management regimes, property rights, and forest biodiversity in Nepal and India. Environmental Management, 41, 719–733.
ODA. (1992). Evaluation of the Karnataka social forestry programme. Evaluation Report. New Delhi: Overseas Development Agency (now Department for International Development).
Pasha, S. (1991). Sustainability and viability of small and marginal farmers: Animal husbandry and common property resources. Economic and Political Weekly, 26(13), 27–30.
Purushothaman, S., Hegde, S. S., Patil, S., & Kashyap, S. (2009). People’s perception of benefits from a protected catchment: A case study of Gundal Command in Karnataka. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 64(4), 573.
Rehel, S., Varghese, A., Bradbear, N., Davidar, P., Roberts, S., Roy, P., & Potts, S. (2009). Benefits of biotic pollination for non-timber forest products and cultivated plants. Conservation and Society, 7(3), 213.
Robinson, E. J. Z. (2008). India’s disappearing common lands: Fuzzy boundaries, encroachment, and evolving property rights. Land Economics, 84(3), 409–422.
Saxena, N. C., Sarin, M., Singh R. V., & Shah T. (1997). Independent study of implementation experience in Kanara Circle. Review Committee Report. Bangalore: Karnataka Forest Department.
Schlager, E., & Ostrom, E. (1992). Property-rights regimes and natural resources: A conceptual analysis. Land Economics, 68(3), 249–262.
Shaanker, R. U., Ganeshaiah, K. N., Krishnan, S., et al. (2004). Livelihood gains and ecological costs of non-timber forest product dependence: Assessing the roles of dependence, ecological knowledge and market structure in three contrasting human and ecological settings in south India. Environmental Conservation, 31(03), 242–253.
Shetty, H. R. (1988). Study on working of Forest Panchayats: Uttara Kannada district – Karnataka State. Report submitted to Karnataka Forest Department, SWED Forest, Bangalore?
Someshwar, S. (1995). Macro policies, local politics: The official and the clandestine processes of deforestation in the Western Ghats of South Kanara, India. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.
Srinidhi, A. S., & Lélé S. (2001). Forest tenure regimes in the Karnataka Western Ghats: A compendium (Working Paper No. 90). Bangalore: Institute for Social and Economic Change.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer India
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lele, S., Purushothaman, S., Kashyap, S. (2013). Village Commons, Livelihoods and Governance: An Assessment of Karnataka’s Experience. In: Purushothaman, S., Abraham, R. (eds) Livelihood Strategies in Southern India. Springer, New Delhi. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-1626-1_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-1626-1_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New Delhi
Print ISBN: 978-81-322-1625-4
Online ISBN: 978-81-322-1626-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)