000			03716nam a22003137a 4500
001			66924
003			MX-TxCIM
005			20250807123651.0
008			231221s1991 uk ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
020			_a0-85074-119-X
022			_a0141-9668
040			_aMX-TxCIM
041			_aeng
082			_a346.04541 ARN
100	1		_aArnold, J.E.M. _932560
245	1		_aCommon property resource management in India
260			_aOxford (United Kingdom) : _bOFI, _c1991.
300			_avii, 51 pages.
490			_aTropical Forestry Papers _v24
520			_aThis study reviews the state-of-knowledge regarding common property resource (CPR) management in India, based on published and unpublished sources and discussions with researchers in this field in India.CPR usage occurs on lands under a variety of customary and formal tenure arrangements. These lands include panchayat and revenue lands, reserved and unreserved forest lands, and private agricultural land under seasonal fallow. There may be multiple use, for different products or by different groups, or at different times of the year.During the colonial and post independence periods, the uncultivated lands of India which have been used as CPRs have been progressively reduced, as they have been brought under government control or have been privatized. In the last forty years many traditional forms ofCPR management have weakened or collapsed owing to increasing population pressure, greater commercialization, certain public policies, technological change and environmental pressure.The importance of the remaining CPRs in terms of sustainability is basically twofold. First, they fill crucial gaps in the resource and income flows from other resources; providing complementary inputs into agricultural systems often critical to their continued functioning. Second, they are often a major source of support for the poor, who are particularly heavily dependent on CPRs, generally lack access to the resources necessary to develop privatized common land, and benefit considerably from the employment created by CPR management activities.The strong thrust towards bringing use of common resources under private or government control has often been based on a thesis which confuses degradation due to unregulated use under an open access situation for breakdown in CPR management arrangements. This misunderstanding has been compounded by a tendency to overlook reasons why the alternatives of private or state control may themselves not be sustainable or efficient, and the bias that can exist in property legislation in favour of private property.The pressures on remaining CPRs will undoubtedly further erode many existing CPR management practices and institutions. Nevertheless, examination of surviving indigenous regimes, and of promising new ones, has identified a number of features which appear to define conditions for viable and sustainable CPR management in appropriate circumstances. These centre round control and management by the user group, securing the rights of the latter to use of the resource, and defence of those rights against intrusion, and investment in outputs that users value and can manage. It is notable that some recent interventions which have been less successful in inducing sustainable communal management, such as most Social Forestry woodlot programmes, have not been consistent with these conditions.
546			_aText in English
650		7	_2AGROVOC _932561 _aCommon property
650		7	_2AGROVOC _910432 _aProperty
650		7	_2AGROVOC _929001 _aEconomic resources
650		7	_2AGROVOC _932562 _aProperty law
651		7	_2AGROVOC _93726 _aIndia
700	1		_aStewart, W.C. _932563
942			_2ddc _cWP _n0
999			_c66924 _d66916