Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

How does common property rights in private land work??


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

How does common property rights in private land work??

  1. 1. Course Title: Dryland Philosophy Topic: Creating Common Grazing Rights on Private Land Parcels Assignment compiled by: Pauline Gitonga (PhD Student) Dryland Resource Management Doctoral Programme University of Nairobi, Department of Land Resource and Agricultural Technology
  2. 2. Outline of Presentation The presentation will address the following course outline topics: 1. Property Rights of Natural Resources 2. Land rights reforms 3. Resource management and governance
  3. 3. Introduction Property rights are the access rights to a stream of benefits from a given set of resources. Property rights are derived from the people’s culture or community’s rules (Ostrom, 1990). Characteristics of property rights: 1 .Duration 2.Flexibility3. Exclusivity 4.Quality of title 5. Transferability and 6.Divisibility (Meyer, 2001).
  4. 4. Introduction cont.. Common grazing resources are comparable to institutions and have the following characteristics (Ostrom, 1990; Bhim,2001) 1.They are shared in a consensual manner 2.They are a means of monitoring and enforcing compliance to rules among group members, ranging from mild, informal sanctions to stringent, formal ones. Three levels of enforcement are possible: 3.Institutions tend to distribute benefits unequally among group members it is not a 50-50 share it is a consensual share
  5. 5. Introduction cont.. Most pastoralist groups, like the Samburu of northern Kenya, have historically accessed natural resources such as pasture, forest and water through communal management systems Communal management systems consist of local institutions that regulate access to and use of resources by delimiting the user group, establishing rules for accessing and withdrawing resources, monitoring how resources are used and sanctioning violators of rules.
  6. 6. Introduction cont.. They facilitate cooperation thus enabling pastoralists to survive in fragile environments subject to periodic crises such as drought and disease. Systems are not static and have changed over time in response to both external and internal factors (Sandford 1983, Behnke et al., 1993). Many pastoral systems are examples of successful common property management systems.
  7. 7. Historical institutions that shaped property rights of land tenure system in Samburu Colonial era British colonial regime altered Kenyan pastoral system through restrictions on grazing and limits on livestock holdings (destocking) The overall perception of this era was that ecosystems occupied by pastoralists had the capacity to support stable populations of herbivores and plants but the irrationality of pastoralist’s communities (over grazing and over stocking activities) prevented establishment of equilibrium conditions (McCabe, 1990; Behnke et al., 1993)
  8. 8. Historical background cont.. Post-Independence era The independent Kenyan government developed land adjudication policies in pastoral areas (1960s and 1970s). This lead to the establishment of group ranches and in Siambu, Samburu district, privatization of 23 individual parcels of land (Lesorol, 2003; Mwangi 2007). Privatization shifted de jure control over land from the community to individual land owners and created new land use activities - large-scale cultivation, rental and sale of land. Privatization of land in Samburu emerged out of social conflict among groups with different interests and differential bargaining power. Internal and external factors to the community contributed to this change.
  9. 9. Current land use and land Tenure system (year 2000 and beyond) The Siambu community were satisfied with private land ownership due to the added autonomy they had over land use decisions (Lesorogol 2003) livestock continued to graze in the privatized area of Siambu, in the early 2000s There were no particular set of rules regulating grazing access. However in 2006 new rules begun to emerge that established a communal control over grazing access in the privatized area (Lesorogol, 2008).
  10. 10. A re-emerging Commons? A hybrid land tenure system is formed New grazing rule emerged in Siambu due to disputes over 1. Public paths 2. Use of wheat stubble. The new rules were; 1. Reciprocal grazing access-anyone who wants to graze their livestock on others’ private parcels must allow others’ to graze their livestock on his parcel. 2. Enclosure as a two-way process: if someone fences their parcel, they may exclude others from grazing on it or charge a fee for grazing access. However, that individual cannot freely graze their livestock on others ‘parcels.
  11. 11. In conclusion These rules were consistent with efforts to combat free-riding on the commons, with the twist that the commons in this case was private land that was not legally a commons The new grazing rules in Siambu is an intriguing case of institutional innovation and discounts the theory that private rights are more desirable and efficient when compared to common/public good rights.
  12. 12. Suggested Research areas There is a need to document the implementation and enforcement processes of the new rules so as to enable a better understanding of the hybrid land tenure system (public-private situation). The impact of the new rules on actual land use practice and the economic and social consequence is another key area for further investigation. The impact of the new rules in addressing the gender disparity in Samburu community The impacts of the new constitution decentralization system on the hybrid system will it be more powerful under the decentralized system of governance?
  13. 13. REFERENCES Behnke, R., I. Scoones, C. Kerven, ed., 1993. Range Ecology at Disequilibrium: New Models of Natural Variability and Pastoral Adaptation in African Savannas. London: Overseas Development Institute. Bhim, A., (2001). Research Proposal on impact of CPR Institutions on Community-Based Forest Management in Nepal. Research Proposal for the Award for Outstanding Research on Development Third Annual Global Development Network Conference Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
  14. 14. References cont…. Garret, H., (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science New Series: 162; 3859: 1243-1248. Koch, J, (2008). Perspective on access to and management of natural resources. Working paper number 2008/8. Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS). McCabe, T., 1990. Turkana Pastoralism: A Case Against the Tragedy of the Commons. Human Ecology, vol. 18 (1): 81-103. Meyer, N., (2001). Property rights: A primer. University of Idaho. Mwangi, E. 2007. The Puzzle of Group Ranch Subdivision in Kenya’s Maasailand. Development and Change 38(5): 889-910.
  15. 15. References cont.. Lesorogol, C. 2003. Transforming Institutions: Inequality and Land Privatization. American Anthropologist 105(3): 531-542 2005a. Experiments and Ethnography: Combining Methods for Better Understanding of Behavior and Change. Current Anthropology, 46(1): 129-136. 2005b. Privatizing Pastoral Lands: Economic and Normative Outcomes in Kenya. World Development 33(11): 1959-1978. 2008a. Contesting the Commons: Privatizing Pastoral Lands in Kenya. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  16. 16. References cont… Lesorogol, C; 2008b. Land Privatization and Pastoralist Well-being: A Longitudinal Analysis in Kenya. Development and Change 39(2): 309-31. 2009. Creating Common Grazing Rights on Private Parcels: How new rules produce incentives for cooperative land management.Forthcoming in: Marshall, R. (ed.) Cooperation in Economic and Social Life. Altamira Press.
  17. 17. References cont.. Ostrom, E., (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press. Sandford, S.1983. Management of Pastoral Development in the Third World, New York: Wiley. Scoones, I. (ed), 1994. Living with Uncertainty, London: Intermediate Technology. Spencer, P., 1965, The Samburu: A Study of Gerontocracy in a Nomadic Tribe, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Thornton, P. K., R. B. Boone, K. A. Galvin, S. B. BurnSilver, M. M. Waithaka, J. Kuyiah, S. Karanja, E. Gonzalez-Estrada, and M. Herrero. 2007. Coping strategies in livestock- dependent households in east and southern Africa: A synthesis of four case studies. Human Ecology 35:461-476.