TABLE OF CONTENTS

BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………..27

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

1) Hypothesis:

The Commons should be protected as they are beneficial to the humans and to the
ecology.
 2) Scope and limitation:

In the present research paper, the focus has primarily been on the concept of the
Commons. The secondary focus has been on understanding the Commons with respect
to the process of globalisation and governance. Also the scope of this research paper is
limited to the study of Commons in India only.

3) Research Questions:

The following are the set of research questions which have been addressed
throughout this research paper and a sincere attempt has been made to answer them:

1) Should the Commons as a system of managing the natural resources be continued

in the future?
2) Are the Commons beneficial to the humans and the ecology?
3) How and by whom should the Commons be governed?
4) How has globalisation affected the Common Property Resources?

4) Methodology:

This research paper has been written in a descriptive and analytical method.

5) Sources of data:

The researcher has used both primary and secondary sources of data.

6) Mode of Citation:

A uniform mode of citation has been used throughout this research paper.

7) Chapterisation:

2
Chapter 1 deals with the different perspectives on the Common Property Resources.
It includes the legal, economic, social and environmental perspectives on the
Commons.

Chapter 2 covers the Common Property Resource in relation to India with respect to
the process of globalisation and governance. In this chapter case studies are used to
study Commons in relation to India.

Chapter 3 presents an Alternative view on Common Property Resource according to

the researcher which is supported by a case study by scholar Emmanuel Bon.

Chapter 4 deals with the future of the Commons in light of the various factors
affecting it, especially the process of globalisation and governance. It also includes
few solutions to the problem of degradation and decline of the Common Property
Resource in India.

INTRODUCTION

This project is primarily concerned with the Commons or the Common Property
Resources as they are popularly known worldwide. Also the co-relation between
commons and the process of globalisation as well as governance is examined.

3
Common Property Resource can be defined as those resources which are used by
members of a community in a mutually exclusive manner without any individual
ownership rights, wherein rules for the use of the common resource are framed by the
members of the community themselves. Examples of common property resource
include common grazing grounds, water bodies, certain types of forests and village
panchayat lands.1

The Common Property Resources do not exist in isolation that is to say that there are
other factors apart from the people’s participation that affects them. Two of these
factors which play a prominent role insofar as affecting the Common Property
Resources are concerned are the process of globalisation and governance. It shall be
the endeavour of the researcher to understand the above mentioned two factors in
relation to the way that they affect the Commons. With the growing globalisation,
India, as a member state has had to confirm with international bodies like the World
Trade organisation in so far as areas such as agriculture are concerned. This in turn has
brought to the fore the issue of the Common Property Resource as a safety mechanism
to ensure that the livelihoods of Indian farmers are not adversely affected.
The issue of governance in relation to Commons is also very important as it
determines the efficiency of the Common area insofar as its management and usage is
concerned.

The Common Property Resource has been understood from different perspectives.
These perspectives include legal, economic, political, social and psychological
perspectives. In this research paper an attempt has been made to gain a broader
understanding of the Commons through the inclusion of some of these perspectives
economic, legal, social and psychological perspectives. Also an attempt has been
made to reconcile the different perspectives mentioned above into the legal
perspective.

The Common Property Resource is examined with respect to Globalisation and

governance on a global level and as well as national level that is in relation to India.

1
Environmental Economics: An Indian Perspective, pg.201 ( Rabindra N. Bhattacharya, New Delhi:
Oxford University Press, 2001).

4
Also the popular mainstream views on Commons along with the alternative views are
presented. Finally the future of the Commons in the light of process of globalisation
and governance policies is discussed.

CHAPTER 1
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON COMMONS

There are many perspectives regarding the Commons and their utility. These
perspectives also include the element of governance and its role in the management of
the Commons. Through these different viewpoints our understanding regarding the

5
Commons is augmented and it thus aids in striving towards a holistic approach in
understanding the commons.

The following are some of the prominent perspectives on the Commons:

Economic Perspective

According to the economic perspective, Common Property Resource can be defined as

“a property on which well defined collective claims by an exclusive group are
established, the use of resource is subtractive, having the characteristic of a public
good as indivisibility.”2

In light of this definition two questions need to be examined in respect of Commons,

that is, in which situation does the Commons assume significance as a form of
resource management? The other question to be asked is how does it materialise?3

The answer to the first question mentioned above lies in viewing Commons as a case
that is pertaining to scale of economies. In such a situation both ‘carrying capacity of
the resource’ and ‘efficiency criteria’ have to be taken into account. In this scenario
after a certain period of time, lets say point ‘a’, Common Property Resource is
preferable to private property or open access system because of more efficiency
insofar as land productivity is concerned after a certain point ‘a’, for instance. The
answer to the second question is somewhat related to the answer to the first question,
that is, the materialisation of the Commons depends on the failure of the private
resource in relation to its efficiency, for example, as to its output. Another important
reason for the emergence of Commons can be attributed to failure of the state to
effectively manage the resource as a public resource.4

Garrett Hardin argues against the Common Property Resources in his famous article
titled “Tragedy of the Commons” in which he traces the first beginnings of the
recognition of the concept of tragedy of the commons in the year 1833 by a
mathematician by the name of William Forester Lloyd. He said that the main point to
2
Supra note 1 at pg. 200.
3
Supra note 1 at pg. 204.
4
Supra note 1 at pg.205.

6
be noted in the remarkable tragedy is not the unhappiness but rather the absence of any
remorse in the working of things.5

Hardin further explains the tragedy of Commons by giving the example of a

pastureland accessible by all the members of a local community. He states that it is
expected normally that each herdsmen will keep as many herds on the Common
pastureland as is possible for him to keep. According to him in this scenario every
rational herdsmen will try to increase his profits. The herdsmen therefore will engage
in a kind of utility based analysis in which they shall be concerned with the question
that what shall be the utility to them of adding an additional animal to their existing
group of herd? He goes on to state that there will be both a positive utility +1 of
adding another animal to herd by a herdsmen and he will be able to increase his
overall profits and a negative utility which would be related to the overgrazing by the
additional animal added to his group of herd. But the negative utility of -1 will be
shared by all the other herdsmen as well. So in effect, the person who increases his
herd size will suffer only a fraction of -1 utility arising out of overgrazing by extra
animal added by them to his herd. Therefore, the net effect of adding one more animal
into his herd will be overall positive. On this basis, Hardin argues that every rational
herdsman will continue to increase the size of his herd for his personal benefit but at
the cost of common detriment of the community as a whole. This ultimately will lead
to everybody’s ruin according to him. He further added that “freedom in commons
brings ruin to all.”6

The researcher humbly submits that he disagrees with the above mentioned views of
Garrett Hardin on Commons as according to the researcher Hardin in his analysis
based on tragedy of Commons related to economic principles of utility somewhat
overlooks the fact that traditionally the community based people using Commons have
been able to make an organised use of their Common resources through their customs
and practices which ensured in most cases that the Commons as a resource is not
overexploited by any member(s) of their community. Hardin does mention in his
article about the system of Commons working properly in the past due to the prospect
of “tribal wars, disease, poaching” keeping the population of both humans and animals

5
Garrett Hardin, “The Tragedy of Commons”, pg. 1244, 162(3859) Science, 1968.
6
Id.

7
in control. But this analysis fails to account adequately for the inherent rationality in
the human beings which should have lead to the occurrence of the ‘tragedy of
commons’ in the first place, in the traditional communities using Commons as argued
by Hardin himself.

Further the argument of the researcher is backed by the World Bank discussion papers
titled “The Management of Common Property Natural Resource” in which it is stated
that commons is misunderstood in context of a regime for managing natural resources.
One of the major fallacies in this context is dubbing of areas where there is no
“management regime” in position as a Common Property area by development
planners among other individuals. It is further stated that the false picture is complete
with the citation of “inevitable tragedy of Commons.”7

This paper goes on to state how Hardin’s metaphor of the ‘tragedy of commons’
confuses the open access system of resource management with the Common Property
Resource as a system for the management of resources, thereby not accepting the
possibility of the community resource users to come together to frame a set of rules
and regulations with respect to the usage of the Common Property Resource in a
harmonious manner in which there is no misuse of the common property.8

Social Perspective

According to noted environmentalist N. S Jodha, Common Property can be generally

defined as “those resources in which a group of people have coequal use rights.” He
further says that in relation to Indian villages, the examples of Commons include
community pastures, waste lands, community forests, village ponds, rivers and
threshing grounds. Jodha focuses on the importance of the Common Property
Resources in the developing countries because of the huge dependence of the rural

7
Daniel W. Bromley and Michael M Cernea, The Management of Common Property Resources, pg. 1
(Washington: The World Bank, 1989).
8
Ibid at pg.6.

8
people on it for their subsistence. Thus, it takes care of the “production and
consumption” needs of the rural communities in many ways.9

Jodha also notes how the legal ownership of these Common Property resources rests
with the State but still in effect control over these resources in terms of their usage and
10
management rests with the local village communities. According to the humble
opinion of the researcher, the fact that the legal ownership of Commons rests with the
state is one of the primary reasons which leads to public intervention in the
management of the Common Property Resources in the name of general welfare of the
communities which are using these Common areas as well as the supposed revival of
Common Property Resources.

This in turn further leads to mismanagement of the Commons and their resultant
depletion because of alienation of the local community people from their traditionally
managed Common Property Resources through their customs and informal social
sanctions which is replaced by unenforceable legal and administrative processes.11

In another article relating specifically to wastelands as a Common Property Resource

of the village based communities, N.S Jodha states that privatisation of Commons on a
large level has lead to the decline of these areas. Also he argues that one of the major
reasons for the failure of the State sponsored efforts at development of wastelands is
the “missing stakeholder participation” of the local community people.12

Jodha also attributes the decline in the area of the Commons to factors such as
demography, ecology and market forces. According to him, the demographic factors
responsible for declining Commons area is population size of villages and the number
of households in a village. In the ecological factors, he includes the degree of sub-
marginal lands used as Commons and total area of the village. As far as market factors
are concerned, he says that the distance from the marketplace, the percentage of cash
crops grown in relation to the entire cropped area and level of communication services

9
N.S Jodha, “Rural Common Property Resources: Contributions and Crisis”, pg. 65, 25(26), Economic
and Political Weekly, 1990.
10
Id.
11
Supra note 9 at pg. 71.
12
N.S Jodha, “Waste Lands Management in India: Myths, Motives and Mechanisms”, pg. 469, 35(6),
Economic and Political Weekly, 2000.

9
available which are suitable to the market orientation of agriculture constitute
important parts of market factor.13

Environmental Perspective

The environmental perspective is very important to understand the issues of ecological

balance with regard to Common Property Resources and its governance models.

The constitutional law has a very important role to play insofar as protection and
maintenance of environment including natural resources and Common Property
Resources like rivers, common pasture lands and common forest lands among others.
The Indian Constitution like other Constitutions of the world incorporates sustainable
development as the main principle for governance of natural resources including
Commons.14

According to the author Md Zafar Mahfooz Nomani, “the relevancy and

comtemporaneity of environmentalism required to be heavily seated under
environmental policy and law. This can be achieved only when a significant number
of the people showing their political and ideological mind set become conscious of the
common stake of human being and moved to persuade the government to act in
conformity with ecological integrity, global commonality and universal heritage of
mankind.”

Legal perspective

The legal perspective in relation to the Common Property Resources stems primarily
from the Constitution of India. Moreover, this perspective covers “common benefit
sharing” and equal distribution of benefits available from the resources. It is also
mirrored through a number of laws including both legislative and administrative
processes at the central and the state level, started during the sixties and early part of
the eighties. An example of this legislation is the 73rd and 74th Amendments to the

13
Supra note 9 at pg. 72.
14
Md Zafar Mahfooz Nomani, “Enviro-Constitutional Ethos in Right Duty Discourse: Towards the
Creation of an Equitable and Sustainable Socio-Legal Order”, pg. 61, 1(1), Indian Journal of
Environmental Law, 2000.

10
Indian Constitution which ushered into the era of the local self government, thereby
giving local communities a greater role to play in the management of the natural
resources including the Commons.15

But at the same time the conflict between the State Sovereignty and the individual
Sovereignty exists very much in reality and it manifests itself through the “Eminent
Domain” of the State insofar as ownership of land is concerned and this extends to
Common Property Resources also. An example of the State using its power of
Eminent Domain is the case of the Narmada Valley project in which the adivasi
community was displaced by the Construction work of the Narmada Dam project.
These people who had been traditionally living in these areas in perfect harmony with
their natural surroundings and who used to worship the Narmada river and the forests,
were being unceremoniously forced to shift from the areas which was ‘home’ for
them. They were being uprooted from their traditional surroundings to which they
related completely to “resettlement” sites in another State by the government through
the use of its Eminent Domain power. The attitude of the government officials as well
as the project implementation authorities towards the adivasi is captured by the terse
words of a politician when he said that they are “rats who will be flushed out of their
rat-holes when the waters rise”. 16

But still the researcher is of the humble opinion that the role of the Indian Constitution
in dealing with the issue of security and other pertinent concerns of certain group of
persons such as the tribal and other marginalised groups of the society occupying the
Commons cannot be underemphasised just on the basis of question of the
implementation issues in some cases which nevertheless need to be addressed in the
near future. It is therefore also essential to go into the Constitutional provisions
regarding the Commons Property Resources in relation to the people that use them.

The Constitution of India provides in the Directive Principles of State Policy for the
primary principle of natural resource management, in the following Articles:

15
M.K. Ramesh, “ Legal Overview of the Natural Resource Management and the State Agricultural
Policy”, pg. 1-2, sourced from http://www.nlsenlaw.org/agriculture/articles/legal-overview-of-the-
natural-resource-management-and-the-state-agricultural-policy/ ( Visited on 27.7.09).
16
Jai Sen, “The reclaiming of eminent domain: The sovereignty of the people, the legitimacy of the
state, the relevance of the Narmada hearings”, sourced from
http://www.narmada.org/articles/JAI_SEN/reclaim.html (Visited on 28.7.09).

11
1) Article 39(b): distribution and control of the material resources of the community
are so distributed as best to subserve the common good.
2) Article 39(c): the operation of the economic system does not result in the
concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment.

The above mentioned provisions along with the provisions in relation to the
Administration of the Scheduled Areas and Scheduled tribes in the Fifth Schedule and
the Provisions in the Sixth Schedule relating to the Administration of Tribal Areas
help in giving a greater degree of autonomy and control over local resources by certain
specifically identified group of people like the tribal people. This means that there is
some degree of (much needed) protection available in the Indian Constitution to the
tribal communities to manage their Common Property Resources on which they
exercise joint co-equal control, according to their traditional customs and established
practises.17

The researcher with due respect to the above mentioned views submits that the above
mentioned provisions of the Indian Constitution have not been implemented
completely and that most of these provisions remain true only insofar as the
Constitutional scheme is concerned but when it comes to the Constitutional practice,
there is still much to be realised. As mentioned earlier the use of “Eminent Domain”
power by the State to displace people still very much continues to exist to the
detriment of the people including the people inhabiting the Commons. But at the same
time the importance of the legal perspective cannot be underscored as it lays down the
basic framework consisting of the ideals and objectives to be achieved which can
become a reality in the future through concerted action. This concerted action should
in the humble opinion of the researcher be based upon the attempt to integrate the best
of all the available perspectives including social, economic and legal perspective
among others. This would ensure that there is a broader and perhaps more holistic
understanding of the Common Property Resource related issues which in turn would
assist in overcoming the various hurdles associated with the Commons.

17
Supra note 14 at pg. 2.

12
Therefore, the researcher strongly believes that the different perspectives mentioned
above as well as other perspectives including political and psychological perspectives
must not be seen to exist in opposition to each other or as isolated from each other.
These different perspectives must not only amicably co-exist with each other but
rather go a step further and try to integrate themselves into a single framework. This
framework could be the legal framework which accommodates the positive points of
all the available perspectives on the Common Property Resource and its related issues.

CHAPTER 2

COMMON PROPERTY RESOURCE IN RELATION TO

INDIA WITH RESPECT TO GLOBALISATION AND
GOVERNANCE

History of Common Property Resources

The Common Property Resource was a part of Indian property system since time
immemorial. Earlier they were regulated by way of the community control systems
which was decentralized and varied in character. Since the time of the British
Colonialism, around 1860, this policy was reversed and there was an increasing
interference of the State in the management of the Commons which included
conversion of Common Property Resources into government property resources. A
concrete example of the growing distancing of the Indian village based communities
from the Common Property resources is the British government’s policy of reserving
the forest for the purpose of generating revenue for dealing with the industrial and

13
commercial requirements back home. It also established the Forest Department in the
year 1894.18

The policy of State control over the natural resources including the Commons lead to
negative effect on the “close and living relationship” between the natural resources,
tribal population and the village based poor people who majorly dependent on these
resources for their subsistence. The British policies of “scientific management” were
focussed to benefit the tactical needs of the British but it also lead to the ruin of the
forest wealth of the rural communities whose natural way of life was badly affected
apart from subsistence problems which also cropped up for them as a result of the
disturbance of the delicate balance between environment and traditions and customs of
rural communities.19

Common Property Resource in India after Independence (Case Studies)

The extent of Common Property Resource in India after independence varies

noticeably from one state to another and it also varies over time. The following are the
four indicators on whose basis the Common Property Resources can be compared in
relation to the different states in India as also study the changes over time:20

1) Ratio of Common Property Resources to geographical area.

2) Per capita Commons area.

3) Ratio of Commons to wastelands.

4) Ratio of Commons in two time periods.

18
S.R. Hiremath, “Community Control”, pg. 1, sourced from http://www.nlsenlaw.org/cross-sectoral-
issues/cpr/community-control/ (Visited on 27.7.09).
19
Ibid at pg. 2.
20
Supra note 1 at pg. 209.

14
Using the above mentioned indicators to differentiate between the extent of the
Common Property Resource between states, the following are the key inferences
which can be drawn:21

1) The Common Property Resources as the percentage to the total geographical

area differs from 4 to 30 per cent in various states excepting the state of
Himachal Pradesh where there is the system of protected forest based Common
Property Resource. In stark contrast the states of the north-east and
mountainous regions, the non-forest Common Property Resources are
comparatively lesser.

2) It has been observed that there is a decline in the Common Property Resource
lands where community based rights exist. Moreover, there is also a decline in
the Per capita Commons land. It has been noticed that arid and semi-arid states
of Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Gujarat exhibit
more a more definite decline in the ratio of their Common Property Resources.

The present prevailing status of Commons is representative of an inseparable facet of

rural poverty in dry regions of India. The diminution of the Common Property
Resources is a significant pointer to the growing poverty of the rural regions. In this
regard the declining area under Commons and the increasing dependence of rural
populace on them for their survival is a more specific pointer to this growing
poverty.22

Among the many reasons recognized for the decrease in the area of the Common
Property Resource, prominent are the public interventions in managing Commons
relating to issues of governance, growing market forces (globalisation), population
growth and increasing technological changes for the management of the Commons.
As far as the issue of public intervention is concerned, it mainly relates to the
privatisation of Commons on a huge scale to supposedly benefit the ‘poor’ people.
The market force includes the commercialisation of the community based rural

21
Supra note 1 at pg. 210.
22
Supra note 9 at pg. 69.

15
villages and their subsequent integration with the conventional market which lead to
an increased pressure on the Common Property Resources and their resultant abuse.
Also higher population growths lead to a greater pressure on the Common Property
Resources. The substitution of the community based participation and initiatives with
technology based programmes and measures further lead to the marginalisation of the
rural based communities and Common Property Resources.23

Diagram showing the Process of Depletion of Common Property Resources in the

Dry Regions of India

23
Supra note 9 at pg. 69-70.

16
 Public
interventions

Shrinkage of
Common
Market Demographic
Property
Factors factors
Resources

Technological
factors

Sourced from N.S Jodha’s Rural Common Property Resources: Contributions and
Crisis, pg. 70.

The findings from a seven village case study of Common Property Resources carried
out by Tony Beck and Madan G Ghosh in the agro-ecological zones of the state of
West Bengal is presented here. This study of Commons in village areas of West
Bengal was carried out between the years 1993 and 1996. The primary findings of this

17
research carried out by the above mentioned, two scholars can be summarised in the
following points: 24

1) It was found that Common Property Resources continue to play a significant role in
the lives of the poor people in India as in the past notwithstanding the differences in
study methodologies and regional discrepancies.

2) The various studies and research work in the field of the Commons has shown use
and collection of Common Property Resources is primarily the work of women and
children of the village communities.

3) There is a systematic process of exclusion of the poor people from Common

Property Resources in India which is being shaped and helped by various processes
including liberalisation, marketisation, commodification and agricultural
intensification. These processes have been in operation since decades.

This study points out a very disturbing trend of the affluent people’s growing
domination of the Common Property Resources which was earlier used by the poor
people living in the rural communities. This process of increasing marginalisation of
the poor people insofar as their access to the Commons is concerned is being carried
out the process of privatisation and enclosing of Common Property Resources.
Moreover, the underprivileged rural people are being stopped from using Common
Property Resources in some cases by the affluent class of people. Apart from this other
factors which are leading to shrinkage in the Commons area according to this study
are the increasing strain on the Common Property Resources due to high population
growth rate. Also the study notes that earlier system of traditional control through
customs and social sanctions used for the management of the Common Property
Resources seem to be on the verge of collapse. All these factors cumulatively add up
and thus ultimately lead to the overall degradation of Common Property Resources.25

24
Tony Beck and Madan G Ghosh, “Common Property Resources and the Poor: Findings from West
Bengal”, pg. 148, 35(3), Economic and Political Weekly, 2000.
25
Id.

18
The Common Property Resource assumes more importance in the era of globalisation.
For instance a concrete example of the effect of globalisation on the Commons is the
World Trade Organisation’s Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) which stipulated the
quantitative restriction (QR) regimes removal. This policy would impact the
livelihood of many Indian farmers. To deal with the prospect of further
marginalisation of relatively poor Indian farmers and cultivators it is necessary that the
option of income diversification is made available in the form of Common Property
Resources so that the poor Indian farmers are not adversely affected by the removal of
the quantitative restriction. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop India’s
Common Property Resource structure along with the private agricultural lands in the
aftermath of the implementation of the Agreement on Agriculture.26

CHAPTER 3
AN ALTERNATE VIEW ON COMMONS

The researcher is of the humble opinion that the Common Property Resources has
been primarily viewed from the economic viewpoint of efficiency and utility by

26
A. Damodaran, “WTO Agriculture Agreement, Common Property Resources and Income
Diversification Strategy”, pg. 3633, 36(38), Economic and Political Weekly, 2001.

19
economists like Garrett Hardin. He has based his analysis of the Common Property
Resources on the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ which has been subsequently taken up by
other scholars in explaining in Concept of the Commons and more so in dismissing it
as a system which is doomed to fail sooner or later.

But this does not mean that there has been no other prominent viewpoint of
understanding the Common Property Resource system. For instance, the social
viewpoint primarily advocated by N.S Jodha in India deals with the social relevance of
the Commons in the life of the rural village based communities. He basically deals
with the importance of the Commons for the subsistence of the rural poor. He tries to
show the deep and intrinsic relationship between the rural communities and the natural
resources including the Common Property Resource which existed from the earlier
times (since hundreds of years ago). This intrinsic relationship according to Jodha is
being disturbed by the privatisation of the Commons and the growing alienation of the
rural people from their natural resources and their systematic exclusion from their
management. Thus, Jodha identifies the growing degradation and shrinkage of the
Common Property Resources with its mismanagement because of increasing use of
technology which is replacing the rural people’s traditional system of social sanctions
and customary laws which with which they used to mange their Common Property
Resource.

The researcher strongly believes that somewhere in the various prominent discourses
on Common Property Resources, the ecological perspective is found missing to some
extent. Although there is some mention of how the management and control of the
Commons by the rural communities would lead to a better management of the
Commons and thereby check the degradation of the environment as well by N.S Jodha
but by and large that arguments on Commons revolves around social considerations
involving the rural poor.

The researcher is of the humble opinion that ecological importance of the Common
Property Resource cannot be overlooked or be underemphasised. In this regard it is
important to note the significance of the Commons in the maintenance of the
ecological balance in the nature. At the same time, it is also needs to be recognised
especially by the government, that the traditional community based management of

20
the Commons with a few innovations in it keeping in mind the ever-changing
conditions effectuated by factors such as governance and process of globalisation
among others, would perhaps be one of the better suited approach if not the best
approach to deal with the growing ecological imbalances in nature.

As Anil Agarwal, an environmentalist said in one of the public meetings he addressed

that, “There is no pessimistic view about the people’s response to long term
environmental stress. Empirical case studies tell us that people respond positively to
crisis situations. The challenging question is: Are central government and public
agencies willing to understand, support adequately and encourage social engineering
mechanisms?”27

Therefore, the ecological perspective on the Common Property Resources also needs
to be kept in mind as one of the standpoints which advocates the continuing existence
of the Common Property Resources on the basis of the resultant benefits to the
ecology. Needless to add that this would become a reality only with the involvement
of the local rural based Communities participation in the administration of the
Commons as they are the ones who have been living in more or less complete
harmony with the nature.

CHAPTER 4
THE FUTURE OF THE COMMONS

The Common Property Resource’s future does not seem to be very bright considering
the framework in which it is rooted which includes intrusive State policies in the
management of the Commons, rampant privatisation of the Common Property
27
Emmanuel Bon, “Common Property Resources: Two Case Studies”, pg. 2572, 35(28), Economic and
Political Weekly, 2000.

21
Resources and overall disregard and overexploitation of the existing Commons. Apart
from these primary factors, there is also some other important factors contributing to
an uncertain future for the Commons which include the absence of any user based
lobby for advocating the significance of the Common Property Resource. Also issues
concerning the Commons don’t get much media attention and thus there is lack of
awareness among the public regarding the importance of the Common Property
Resource.28

In the opinion of the researcher a lot needs to be done in order to ensure that the
Common Property Resource as a system of land and natural resource management
does not fade into oblivion. The biggest stakeholders in this revival and resurgence of
the Commons will have to be the local rural community based people without any
doubt. But at the same time there has to be a realisation that there is an inherent need
for some change for ensuring that Common Property Resource system survives in the
future as well. This realisation must come to the local community people using the
Commons as they are the ones who have traditionally been involved in the
management of the Commons. The government on the other hand must also realise its
responsibility of giving autonomy to the local rural community people in the
management of the Commons and it would desist from unnecessarily interfering in the
governance of the Commons. It should not jump to conclusions of dismissing the
Common Property Resource as a failed system but rather it should see the continuing
existence of the Commons despite its shortcomings as a proof of its significance in the
lives of millions of the rural poor people living in the villages in India as also the
importance of Commons (when managed by local village communities in a traditional
way) in maintaining ecological balance.
According to the humble opinion of the researcher, only in the above mentioned
circumstances can there be some hope for the continued existence of the Commons in
the future.

28
Supra note 9 at pg.74-75.

22
 CONCLUSION

The Common Property Resource has existed in India since a very long time. But at the
same time it has remained quite dynamic insofar as it’s management, control and
governance is concerned. Traditionally, the Commons were managed almost
exclusively by the local community people situated mainly in the rural areas. These
local communities had their own mechanism of administering these Common Property

23
Resources which included their customary laws, traditional usage and system of social
sanctions. This ensured sustainability of the Commons and well as provision of a
livelihood support system for the rural community based people.

Later, with the advert of the British and colonialism of India in the 18th century, there
were major changes in the administration of the Common Property Resource areas.
There was a beginning of the policy of State interference in the governance and
management of the Common Property Resource regions which was to prove
disastrous in the long run and lay the foundation for the future degradation and
shrinkage of the Commons. Unfortunately, this policy of interference of the State into
the governance and management of the Commons continued even in the independent
India. The State policy of interference coupled with the factors of increasing
population, process of globalisation consisting of privatisation and marketisation are
some of the more significant factors adversely affecting the Common Property
Resource. This has lead to a situation where questions regarding the desirability of the
Commons have began to be raised. Much of the blame for the decline in the Commons
areas has been placed on the Common Property Resource as a form of resource
management system itself. It is in this respect that it becomes important to have a
balanced view or a holistic view regarding the Commons rather than just focussing on
the prevailing dominant viewpoints on the Commons. As a result a study of Commons
from different perspectives has been attempted.

The different perspectives on Commons include the economic, social, environmental,

political, psychological and legal perspectives. Out of these perspectives, the social,
economic, environmental and legal perspectives have been discussed in detail. One
important point to note in context of all these perspectives on Commons is that they
need to seen as complementing each other in some or the other way. Ultimately a time
shall come when all these perspectives can be integrated to form a single broad and
perhaps even holistic perspective on Commons. This perspective can perhaps be under
the framework of the legal perspective which would incorporate all the valuable and
important insights of the other perspectives for a better and much broader
understanding of the Commons.

24
Further, the Common Property Resources in India is sought to be studied in relation to
the process of globalisation and governance. This is attempted to be done with the help
of case studies carried out in India by scholars Tony Beck and Madan G Ghosh in the
state of West Bengal. Their case study brings to light some very interesting and as
well as disturbing trends about the Common Property Resource in India.

Towards the end of this research paper, an Alternate view is presented by the
researcher which calls for greater emphasis on the ecological perspective regarding the
Commons which involves the participation of the local rural village based
communities. By following this approach there is the dual benefit of sustainable use of
the Commons by the local rural communities for their sustenance and also an
ecological balance is maintained.

In the last chapter of this research paper, the future of the commons in light of a slew
of factors affecting it is discussed. The researcher concludes by stating that his
hypothesis statement that the Commons should be protected as they are beneficial for
the humans and the ecology stands proved in the light of various authorities cited by
the researcher as well as the arguments put forth by the researcher.

There is a lot of scope for development of Common Property Resource in India as

traditionally in the rural parts of the country natural resources were managed by the
local community rural people. It is particularly these people who need to be
empowered again so that they can effective manage and sustain the Commons. There
is definitely a change of mindset in dealing with issues of Commons insofar as the
State is concerned and it is this change which has a great potential for leading to the
revival of the Common Property Resource in India. The researcher firmly believes that
there can be a revival and better management of the Commons in India in the future,
given the growing awareness created by various scholars and environmentalists
including N.S Jodha regarding the significance of the Commons to both mankind and
the ecology.

25
 Bibliography

Books:
1) Environmental Economics: An Indian Perspective, (Rabindra N. Bhattacharya, New
Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001).

26
2) Daniel W. Bromley and Michael M Cernea, The Management of Common Property
Resources, (Washington: The World Bank, 1989).

Articles:

1) A. Damodaran, “WTO Agriculture Agreement, Common Property Resources and

Income Diversification Strategy”, 36(38), Economic and Political Weekly, 2001.

2) Emmanuel Bon, “Common Property Resources: Two Case Studies”, 35(28),

Economic and Political Weekly, 2000.

3) Garrett Hardin, “The Tragedy of Commons”, 162(3859) Science, 1968.

4) Md Zafar Mahfooz Nomani, “Enviro-Constitutional Ethos in Right Duty

Discourse: Towards the Creation of an Equitable and Sustainable Socio-Legal Order”,
1(1), Indian Journal of Environmental Law, 2000.

5) N.S Jodha, “Rural Common Property Resources: Contributions and Crisis”, 25(26),
Economic and Political Weekly, 1990.

6) N.S Jodha, “Waste Lands Management in India: Myths, Motives and Mechanisms”,
35(6), Economic and Political Weekly, 2000.

7) Tony Beck and Madan G Ghosh, “Common Property Resources and the Poor:
Findings from West Bengal”, 35(3), Economic and Political Weekly, 2000.

Online sources:

1) Jai Sen, “The reclaiming of eminent domain: The sovereignty of the people, the
legitimacy of the state, the relevance of the Narmada hearings”, sourced from
http://www.narmada.org/articles/JAI_SEN/reclaim.html.

27
2) M.K. Ramesh, “ Legal Overview of the Natural Resource Management and the
State Agricultural Policy”, sourced from
http://www.nlsenlaw.org/agriculture/articles/legal-overview-of-the-natural-resource-
management-and-the-state-agricultural-policy/.

3) S.R. Hiremath, “Community Control”, sourced from

http://www.nlsenlaw.org/cross-sectoral-issues/cpr/community-control/.

28