School of Earth and Environment
SUSTAINABILITY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Property rights in UK uplands: the
implications for mana...
School of Earth and Environment
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT
Changing and competing demands
• Biodiversity, amenity, water, carb...
School of Earth and Environment
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT
What are property rights?
• Recognised authority to undertake parti...
School of Earth and Environment
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT
Research conducted in 3
upland locations
School of Earth and Environment
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT
Owner Proprietor Claimant Authorized User Authorized
Entrant
Access...
School of Earth and Environment
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT
Water
companies
Forestry
(private)
Agriculture
(owned) Grouse
moor ...
School of Earth and Environment
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT
Water
companies
Forestry
(private)
Agriculture
(owned) Grouse
moor ...
School of Earth and Environment
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT
Mixed property rights regime
• Private property – grouse
• Private-...
School of Earth and Environment
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT
Implications for policy and management
• Unclear how successful mix...
School of Earth and Environment
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT
Implications for policy and management
• Unclear how successful mix...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Property rights in UK uplands: implications for management and policy

977

Published on

Presentation by Claire Quinn to Moors for the Future conference, November 2010. Government has created mixed private-state regimes where government tries to represent the interests of other groups rather than giving them rights directly. They may have potential to deal with the issue of multiple uses and users. Will need appropriate regimes for different goods and services. But to overcome the inevitable conflicts there will need to be appropriate links between them (cannot necessarily maximise for all across the same landscape, may need to prioritise in certain areas or optimise across the range). Management needs to adapt to new demands as new services such as carbon storage become important.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
977
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Rural areas are subject to changing and often competing demands
    Not just production anymore, now includes biodiversity, amenity, water quality, carbon
    Traditionally the focus was on producing private goods - sheep or grouse
    But these other services are not private goods, the benefits are shared with others
    Public goods (non subtractable and non exclusive) - amenity
    Common pool resources (subtractable and non exclusive) - water catchments
    To manage rural areas sustainably to meet these demands we need diverse and complex management regimes
    In such systems, who should have rights to make decisions about management?
  • Property rights are central to these kinds of debates
    Property rights are the recognition of authority to undertake particular actions in specific domains
    Rights are organised into regimes
    Private property regimes result when all rights are held by individuals or organisations
    Internalise costs and benefits so can provide incentives for the production of certain goods
    E.g. research on soil conservation around the world has shown that private tenure leads to investment
    Benefits can be realised by the investor
    But don’t always lead to sustainable management or conservation practices in the case of CPR or public goods since the benefits are shared
    This is where we see
    State property - rights vested in the state (quite often these are held in trust for the public)
    Common property regimes - shared rights where rules determine access, use and management
  • This research conducted as part of the RELU funded Sustainable Uplands project
    Interested in the property rights distribution between stakeholders in uplands
    And what that can tell us about management for different goods and services
  • Framework used to analyse property rights
    Access - rights to access resources for non-subtractive uses
    Withdrawal - rights to capture resource units
    Management - make decisions about improvements and resource allocation
    Exclusion - decide who can have access, withdrawal or management rights
    Alienation - sell or transfer rights
    Way these are arranged creates different rights holders
    Authorised entrant, Authorised user, claimant, proprietor, owner
  • Not all these property rights holders are evident in the uplands
    Owners dominate
    Some stakeholders occupy more than one category depending on the local conditions - water companies
    No evidence of claimant rights for any stakeholders
    But the River Basin Management Plans under the WFD will give water companies claimant rights over water catchments
  • The state has had a significant impact on property rights
    Access, withdrawal and management
    Important for sustainable management
    lack of claimant rights for stakeholders
  • Government has created mixed private-state regimes where government tries to represent the interests of other groups rather than giving them rights directly
    Problem - resistance of land owners
    Private property rights for resources such as grouse and grazing
    Private-state regimes for biodiversity - restrict and influence withdrawal and management rights
    Incentives for land owners to produce these services (Environmental Stewardship)
    No incentives for others – amenity/recreation value
    Should rights be private in this way? Some argue not - should be distributed among a broader range of stakeholders with interests in improving their production - most stakeholders can’t negotiate management rights
    Potential for common property regimes to develop - RBMP
    No management regimes as yet for other services such as carbon storage
  • Not clear as yet how successful this mixed regime will be in the longer term (v. little research carried out to date on mixed tenure)
    But they may have potential to deal with the issue of multiple uses and users
    Will need appropriate regimes for different goods and services
    But to overcome the inevitable conflicts there will need to be appropriate links between them (cannot necessarily maximise for all across the same landscape, may need to prioritise in certain areas or optimise across the range)
    Management needs to adapt to new demands as new services such as carbon storage become important
  • Property rights in UK uplands: implications for management and policy

    1. 1. School of Earth and Environment SUSTAINABILITY RESEARCH INSTITUTE Property rights in UK uplands: the implications for management and policy Dr Claire Quinn Research Fellow
    2. 2. School of Earth and Environment FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT Changing and competing demands • Biodiversity, amenity, water, carbon, sheep, grouse • Some are public goods • Some are common pool resources • Need management regimes that deal with multiple uses and users • Who does/should have rights in these management regimes?
    3. 3. School of Earth and Environment FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT What are property rights? • Recognised authority to undertake particular actions in specific domains Property rights regimes • Private property – all rights held by individuals • State property – held in trust for the public • Common property – shared rights
    4. 4. School of Earth and Environment FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT Research conducted in 3 upland locations
    5. 5. School of Earth and Environment FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT Owner Proprietor Claimant Authorized User Authorized Entrant Access X X X X X Withdrawal X X X X Management X X X Exclusion X X Alienation X Schlager & Ostrom 1992
    6. 6. School of Earth and Environment FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT Water companies Forestry (private) Agriculture (owned) Grouse moor owners Forestry (state) Agriculture (tenants) Water companies (Elsewhere) Recreation/ Tourism Access X X X X Withdrawal X X X Management X X Exclusion X X Alienation X
    7. 7. School of Earth and Environment FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT Water companies Forestry (private) Agriculture (owned) Grouse moor owners Forestry (state) Agriculture (tenants) Water companies (Elsewhere) Recreation/ Tourism Access CROW Act 2000 Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 Withdrawal Environmental designations (SSSI and SPA) Management SSSI and SPA designation Moorland Management plans Water Framework Directive and water resources legislation Exclusion Access decisions curtailed by the CROW Act and Land Reform Act Alienation
    8. 8. School of Earth and Environment FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT Mixed property rights regime • Private property – grouse • Private-state property – biodiversity • Common property – water catchments What about other services e.g. Carbon?
    9. 9. School of Earth and Environment FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT Implications for policy and management • Unclear how successful mixed regimes are • Recommendations • Appropriate regime for private, common pool and public goods • Appropriate links between regimes • Management needs to be flexible to adapt to new demands
    10. 10. School of Earth and Environment FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT Implications for policy and management • Unclear how successful mixed regimes are • Recommendations • Appropriate regime for private, common pool and public goods • Appropriate links between regimes • Management needs to be flexible to adapt to new demands
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×