COMMUNITY IN CONSERVATION

THEORETICAL

AGRICULTURE FOREST WATERSHED TENURE

AGRICULTURE

Altieri, MA, MK Anderson, et al. (1987). “Peasant agriculture and the conservation of crop and wild plant resources.” Conservation Biology 1: 49-58.

Barlow, C and SK Jayasurija (1986). “Stages of development in smallholder tree crop agriculture.” Development and Change 17: 635-658.

Brookfield, H and C Padoch (1994). “Appreciating agrodiversity: a look at the dynamism and diversity of indigenous farming practices.” Environment 36(5): 6-11, 37-45.

Brush, S (1975). “The concept of carrying capacity for systems of shifting cultivation.” American Anthropologist 77: 799-811.

Chapman, D and R Barker (1991). “Environmental protection, resource depletion, and the sustainability of developing country agriculture.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 39(4): 723.

Croll, E and Parker (1992). Bush Base and Forest Farm: Culture, Environment and Development. London, Routledge.

Falconer, J and JEM Arnold (1988). Forests, Trees and Household Food Security. London, Overseas Development Institute.

Gliessman, S (1992). “Agroecology in the tropics - achieving a balance between land-use and preservation.” Environmental Management 16(6): 681-689.

Agroecology is the application of ecological concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable agricultural systems. An agroecological approach to agriculture has special importance in the humid tropics where agricultural development and the preservation of tropical forests are most often in direct conflict. It is proposed that a more sustainable approach to development is needed, where agroecosystems depend on low external inputs, function more on the use of locally available and renewable resources, have benign impacts on the environment, and are based on the knowledge and culture of the local inhabitants. Examples of traditional agroecosystem management in Mesoamerica that can provide this basis are presented. The preservation of both biological and cultural diversity are integral to the long-term sustainable management of natural resources in the tropics. (Source)

Goodman, D and M Watts (1994). “Reconfiguring the rural or fording the divide? Capitalist restructuring and the global agro-food system.” Journal of Peasant Studies 22(1): 1-49.

Headland, TN and LA Reid (1989). “Hunter-gatherers and their neighbors from prehistory to the present.” Current Anthropology 30(1): 43-65.

Thrup, LA, S Hecht, et al. (1997). The Diversity and Dynamics of Shifting Cultivation: Myths, Realities and Policy Implications. Washington DC, World Resources Institute.

White, TA (1993). Integrating Sustainability into Agroforestry Projects: A Workshop Framework for NGO Program Managers. Washington, USAID.

FOREST:

Altieri, MA, MK Anderson, et al. (1987). “Peasant agriculture and the conservation of crop and wild plant resources.” Conservation Biology 1: 49-58.

Ascher, W (1995). Communities and Sustainable Forestry in Developing Countries. San Francisco, Institute for Contemporary Studies Press.

Balick, MJ (1994). Ethnobotany, drug development and biodiversity conservation-exploring the linkages. in Ethnobotany and the Search for New Drugs. G Prance, Ed. Chichester, Wiley and Sons.

Barlow, C and SK Jayasurija (1986). “Stages of development in smallholder tree crop agriculture.” Development and Change 17: 635-658.

Brondizio, E, E Moran, et al. (1996). “Land cover in the Amazon estuary: linking of the thematic mapper with botanical and historical data.” Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 62: 921-929.

Brookfield, H and C Padoch (1994). “Appreciating agrodiversity: a look at the dynamism and diversity of indigenous farming practices.” Environment 36(5): 6-11, 37-45.

Brush, S (1975). “The concept of carrying capacity for systems of shifting cultivation.” American Anthropologist 77: 799-811.

Chapman, D and R Barker (1991). “Environmental protection, resource depletion, and the sustainability of developing country agriculture.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 39(4): 723.

Croll, E and Parker (1992). Bush Base and Forest Farm: Culture, Environment and Development. London, Routledge.

Falconer, J and JEM Arnold (1988). Forests, Trees and Household Food Security. London, Overseas Development Institute.

Gliessman, S (1992). “Agroecology in the tropics - achieving a balance between land-use and preservation.” Environmental Management 16(6): 681-689.

Agroecology is the application of ecological concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable agricultural systems. An agroecological approach to agriculture has special importance in the humid tropics where agricultural development and the preservation of tropical forests are most often in direct conflict. It is proposed that a more sustainable approach to development is needed, where agroecosystems depend on low external inputs, function more on the use of locally available and renewable resources, have benign impacts on the environment, and are based on the knowledge and culture of the local inhabitants. Examples of traditional agroecosystem management in Mesoamerica that can provide this basis are presented. The preservation of both biological and cultural diversity are integral to the long-term sustainable management of natural resources in the tropics. (Source)

Goodman, D and M Watts (1994). “Reconfiguring the rural or fording the divide? Capitalist restructuring and the global agro-food system.” Journal of Peasant Studies 22(1): 1-49.

Headland, TN and LA Reid (1989). “Hunter-gatherers and their neighbors from prehistory to the present.” Current Anthropology 30(1): 43-65.

Thrup, LA, S Hecht, et al. (1997). The Diversity and Dynamics of Shifting Cultivation: Myths, Realities and Policy Implications. Washington DC, World Resources Institute.

White, TA (1993). Integrating Sustainability into Agroforestry Projects: A Workshop Framework for NGO Program Managers. Washington, USAID.

IRRIGATION/WATERSHED:

Coward, EW (1979). “Principles of social organization in an indigenous irrigation system.” Human Organization 38(1): 28-35.

Edwards, D, F Rosensweig, et al. (1993). Designing and Implementing Decentralization Programs in the Water and Sanitation Sector.

Lynch, BD (1985). Community Participation and Local Organization for Small-Scale Irrigation.

Narayan, D (1993). Participatory evaluation: Tools for managing change in water and sanitation. Washington, D.C., World Bank.

Describes the design of participatory monitoring and evaluation activities in the water supply and sanitation sector. Draws on experience gained during the past fifteen years in more than twenty countries. Examines the value of participatory evaluation and how it differs from traditional evaluation. Provides a complete framework of indicators for measuring progress in water supply and sanitation programs. Sets out three key objectives of water supply and sanitation programs--sustainability, effective use, and replicability--and for each provides a basis for selecting indicators and subindicators, targets, data required, what to monitor or evaluate, and methods of data collection. Discusses indicators and methods for assessing perceived change in the social, economic, health, and environmental conditions of a community and stresses the importance of assessing whether project resources and benefits are reaching women. (Econlit)

Ostrom, E (1992). Crafting Institutions for Self-Governing Irrigation Systems. San Francisco, ICS.

COMMUNITY IN CONSERVATION

THEORETICAL LAND TENURE/PROPERTY RIGHTS/COMMONS:

Agrawal, A (1994). “I don't need it but you can't have it: politics on the commons.” Pastoral Development Network 36a(July): 36-55.

Alcorn, J (1994). Tenurial rights and community based conservation. in Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation. D Western and RM Wright, Ed. Washington DC, Island Press.

Anderson, CL and E Swimmer (1997). “Some empirical evidence on property rights of first peoples.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 33(1): 1-22.

Why did the Western Apache allow individuals to own land, the Tzeltal only permit household ownership, and the Yucatec Maya share access within the community? This paper seeks to test a hypothesis of access rights across indigenous peoples, asserting that the choice of private, shared, or open access rights maximizes the resource's net value, rather than reflecting innate preferences for different property systems. This empirical work contributes to the literature with observations on over 40 early American groups. The cross-sectional study reveals how access rights differed across communities in response to the property's physical characteristics and community characteristics that affected the deadweight, governance, and exclusion costs of establishing and maintaining different access regimes. (Author)

Arnold, JEM (1993). “Management of forest resources as common property.” Commonwealth Forestry Review 72(3): 157-161.

Baland, J and J Platteau (1998). “Wealth inequality and efficiency in the commons, part II: the regulated case.” Oxford Economic Papers - New Series 50(1): 1-22.

Does more inequality lead to more efficiency in the management of common property resources? To answer this question, an attempt is made to develop relevant theoretical models and to articulate them with empirical evidence drawn mainly from social science studies. The paper is divided into two parts. In this, the second part, it is shown that inequality tends to amplify the distributive effects of regulation when the latter is carried out through the use of second best instruments. As a result efficiency gains from regulation must decrease as inequality increases, for all users to gain from such regulation. (Econlit)

Berkes, F, Ed. (1989). Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community Based Sustainable Development. London, Bellhaven.

Berkes, F, D Feeny, et al. (1990). “The benefits of the commons.” Nature 340(13): 91-93.

Blaikie, P and H Brookfield (1987). The degradation of common property and society. in Land Degradation and Society. P Blaikie, Ed. New York, Methuen Press.

Bromley, D, Ed. (1992). Making the Commons Work: Theory, Practice and Policy. San Francisco, Institute for Contemporary Studies.

Bromley, DW and M Cernea (1989). The Management of Common Property Natural Resources: Some Conceptual and Operational Fallacies. Washington, World Bank.

Chan, AH (1988). “Adapting natural resources management to changing societal needs through evolving property rights.” Review of Social Economy 46(1): 46.

Dahlman, C (1980). The Open Field System and Beyond: A Property Rights Analysis of an Economic Institution. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Fortmann, L and J Bruce (1988). Whose Trees? Proprietary Dimensions of Forestry. Boulder, Westview Press.

Gibbs, CJN and DW Bromley (1989). Institutional arrangements for management of rural resources: Common-property regimes. in Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community Based Sustainable Development. F Berkes, Ed. London, Bellhaven: 22-32.

Grima, APL and F Berkes (1989). Natural resources: access, rights-to-use and management. in Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community Based Sustainable Development. F Berkes, Ed. London, Bellhaven: 33-54.

Juma, C and JB Ojwang (1996). In Land We Trust: Environment, Private Property and Constitutional Change. London, Zed Books.

McCay, BJ and JM Acheson (1987). The Question of the Commons: The Culture and Ecology of Communal Resources. Tucson, University of Arizona Press.

McKean, M (1992). “Success on the commons: a comparative examination of institutions for common property resource management.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 4(3): 247-282.

National Research Council (1986). Proceedings of the Conference on Common Property Resource Management. Conference on Common Property Resource Management.

Ostrom, E and E Schlager (1995). The formation of property rights. in Rights to Nature: Ecological, Economic, Cultural and Political Principles of Institutions for the Environment. S Hanna, C Folke and K Maler, Ed. Washington DC, Island Press.

Ostrom, E (1992). “Community and the endogenous solution of commons problems.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 4(3): 343-352.

Runge, C (1986). “Common property and collective action in economic development.” World Development 14(5): 623-635.

Ruttan, L (1998). “Closing the commons: Cooperation for gain or restraint?” Human Ecology 26(1): 43-66.

Research concerning the value of communal resource management is limited in two respects. First, while many studies present evidence that communal management is common among traditional societies, a strong theoretical basis is lacking to explain why individuals participate in monitoring and sanctioning efforts. Second, few studies have actually demonstrated resource conservation. There are several ecological and economic reasons for thinking that groups may find it harder to design appropriate conservation measures than to prevent free-riding. However, if groups can surmount these problems, communal management may have advantages over privatization or government control. These arguments are illustrated using results from a pilot study of the communal management of mother-of-pearl shell (Trochus niloticus) in the Kei Islands of Eastern Indonesia. It is found that villagers successfully cooperate to defend access to and regulate their own harvest of trochus. In doing so, they are able to prevent fi ee-riding, and to provide themselves with a long-term source of cash income. However, it is here argued that their aim is "gain rather than restraint." (Journal)

Schlager, E, W Blomquist, et al. (1994). “Mobile flows, storage, and self-organized institutions for governing common-pool resources.” Land Economics 70(3): 294- 317.

Common-pool resources (CPR) are treated as if they were fully described by two characteristics-difficulty of exclusion and subtractability of yield. We focus upon two additional characteristics, mobile flows and storage in the resource. In examining CPR settings involving fisheries, irrigation systems, and groundwater basins, we find that users of these resources pursue different strategies and design different institutional arrangements depending upon whether the resource is characterized by mobile flows and/or storage. From this evidence, we develop a typology of CPRs that is useful for understanding and anticipating resource users' strategies in confronting and solving common-pool problems. (Source)

Schlager, E and E Ostrom (1992). “Property rights regimes and natural resources: A conceptual analysis.” Land Economics 68(3): 249-262.

The term "common-property resource" is an example of a term repeatedly used to refer to property owned by a government or by no one. It is also used for property owned by a community of resource users. Such usage leads to confusion in scientific study and policy analysis. In this paper we develop a conceptual schema for arraying property-rights regimes that distinguishes among diverse bundles of rights ranging from authorized user, to claimant, to proprietor, and to owner. We apply this conceptual schema to analyze

findings from a variety of empirical settings including the Maine lobster industry. (SSCI)

Singleton, S and M Taylor. (1992). “Common property, collective action and community.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 4(3): 309-324.

Swepston, L and R Plant (1985). “International standards and the protection of the land rights of indigenous and tribal populations.” International Labour Review 124(1): 91.

The fundamental right of indigenous and tribal populations to land and natural resources must be safeguarded if they are to survive as distinct cultural groups, or simply survive- at all. The article describes the problems encountered by these populations owing to continuing pressure on their lands, and discusses the way in which international standards do and should attempt to protect their rights. It analyses the existing ILO convention and Recommendation on the subject, and suggests what changes might be made to meet the needs of these people today. (SSCI)

Uphoff, N and J Langholz (1998). “Incentives for avoiding the Tragedy of the Commons.” Environmental Conservation 25(3): 251-261.

Efforts to protect vulnerable environmental resources have focused largely on legal prohibitions and sanctions or on economic rewards or penalties. The role and importance of social and cultural factors have been much less considered. While theoretical arguments have addressed whether state institutions must be involved in resource protection, or whether private incentives can be manipulated to achieve desired outcomes, this preoccupation with either public sector or private sector solutions to the problems of environmental conservation has caused a neglect of social values and community consensus. The analysis offered here seeks to enlarge the debate from being two-sided to three-cornered. (Journal)