integrated natural resource management, a question of property pnstitutions (rohlmann)

8/11/2019 Integrated Natural Resource Management, A Question of Property Pnstitutions (Rohlmann)

1/9

Integrated Natural Resource Management - A Question of Property Institutions?Author(s): Monika RohlmannSource: GeoJournal, Vol. 29, No. 4 (April 1993), pp. 405-412Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41145935.

Accessed: 04/09/2014 02:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Springeris collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to GeoJournal.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/41145935?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/41145935?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer


2/9

GeoJournal

9.4

405-4

12

405

1993

(Apr)

by

Kluwer

Academic Publishers

Integrated

atural

Resource

Management

A

Question

of

Property

nstitutions?

Rohlmann,

Monika,

York

University,

700 Keele

Street,

North

York,Ontario,

M3J

P3,

Canada

ABSTRACT:Natural esourcemanagementscommonlyescribedsa means o chievingenvironmentalonservation.

ntegrated anagement,

s a

process

which xtends cross

recource

isciplines

nd

ectors,

ithinnd between

overnment

nd

privaterganizations,

and

with ims set for ocial and economic

hange,

as been difficulto

achieve. everal

reasons re

possible;

however,

roperty

nstitutions

ppear

o be

of foremost

nfluence.

Drawing

pon

field

tudy uring

hich he nuvialuis

a

Canadian nuit

ociety)

ommon

property

ystem,

heCanadian

overnment's

tate

ropertyegime,

nd he

private roperty

of citizens

were

evaluated,

conclusionss reached:

revailing roperty

ystems reatly

influence he achievement

f

integrated

atural

esource

management.

he common

property

ystem

fthe

nuvialuit ostersn

integrated

pproach,

ne

which s ess

ikely

o

emerge

under tate

or

private ropertyegimes.

Whether

ntegrated

atural esource

management

eads

to what s

popularly

ermed nvironmetal

onservations

beyond

he

scope

of

his

aper. owever,

t eems hat he ims f nvironmentalonservation

re

ikely

to be

achieved nder

ny

ne of the hree

roperty

nstitutions:

ommon, rivate,

r tate.

Introduction

The belief hatthenatural nvironment

eeds to be

managed

nd

thathumans re the

agents

by

whom

this

management

houldbe

accomplished

s

ageold.

Today,

he

need for

nd means of natural esource

management

re

described n terms of

ecological

approach, ntegrated

methods,

and sustainable

development.

These

terms

continue o breed he

misconception

hat umans

manage

nature

-

that it is all a matterof

manipulating

he

characteristicsnd behaviours of

plants

and animals.

Natural esource

management,

owever,

hould

rightly

e

called human

management ,

or

ts nfluence an

only

e

directed t the characteristicsnd behaviours f humans.

Failure to understand nd address the needs of

this

fundamentalbservation

s

perhaps

asic

to the fact hat

there are many more examples of environmental

degradation

than there are of real

environmental

conservation.

Human attitudes and

behaviours toward natural

environmentsre

expressedprimarily

s

components

f

two variables:

ocietal values and

property

nstitutions.

Societalvalues

represent

ow a

relationship

s

perceived;

property

nstitutions

epresent

ow these

perceptions

re

definedn

terms f

use,

access,

nd

ownership.

study

f

property

nstitutionswould

therefore

rovide

a

link

between conomics

what

s

valued)

and

human

ehaviour

(what

s

acted

upon)

toward henatural

nvironment.uch

a

study

has been undertaken

n this

paper,

n which

propertynstitutionsre assessed for

their nfluence n

integrated

atural esource

management.

Research Methods

The field

study

sought

to examine three

different

property regimes

in relation to natural resource

management.

number f factors ere

mportant

n

the

selection of

study ocation(s), primary

f which

was

accessibility

o each of the

property ystems:

ommon,

private,

nd state.The field

tudy

was thereforcearried

out

in

the Inuvik

region

of the Northwest erritories

(NWT),

Canada. The author

gained accessibility

o ex-

amining

common

propertyystem

nder he nuvialuit

RegionalClaim,

private

roperty

ia

the residents

f

the

Townof

nuvik,

nd state

property

iaFederalCrown and

management

ystems.

nterviews

ere

completed

with

1

respondents

ach

representing

ne of three

property

institutions. ll

empirical

research and

analysis

was

undertaken

using

qualitative

methods

(cf. Kirby

and

McKenna

1989).

A

literature

eview,

egun prior

o the field

tudy

nd

carriedout

more

extensively

hereafter,rovided

egal,

economic,

nthropological

nd

philosophical erspectives

to

the field

nalysis.

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Thu, 4 Sep 2014 02:49:31 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/9

406

GeoJournal

29.4/1993

Property

nstitutions

nd Environmental ehabilitation^

Property

s

both

a

right

nd an

institution.

t is a

conceptthat is controversialecause it underliesthe

means

nd actions

f a whole

society,

nd these

purposes

change

ver

ime;

s

they

hange,

ontroversy

rises bout

what he

concept

f

property

s

doing

nd

what

t

ought

o

be

doing MacPherson

978).

As a

right,

roperty ay

be

defined

n both

egal

nd

moral erms.

Many

would

ay

hat

the

right

f

property

olds its foundation

n the

basic

presumption

of an

individual's

right

to

life

(eg,

MacPherson

978;

roudhon

970).

his

right

o

life s not

simply

o

mere

xistence,

utto a

fully

uman ife:

good

life.Therefore he

right

o

property

xists

n such social

guarantees

fhuman

ociety

s theCanadian

Billof

Rights,

and

in

recently-proposed

mendments

o

the Canadian

Constitution.

roperty

husbecomes

legal right

hen

t

carrieswith t an enforceable laimof legal dimensions.

Enforceability,owever,

s not

the sole characteristic

f

a

legally-sanctioned

ight,

or

enforceability

epends

on

society's

elief

hat

t s a moral

ight

lso.

Property

s an

enforceable

laim

because it is believed

to be a

moral

human

ightMacPherson

978).

Property ights

predominantly

ocus on

what the

common

aw calls

real

property :

holder's

elationship

to

a

parcel

f and

Scott

1983).

Thus,propertyights

ave

come to

be

synonymous

with landed

property ights,

although

t shouldbe

remembered

hat

and

s but one

of

many things

o

which humans

can

and

have

assigned

propertyights;

ome of

heother

hings

re other

umans

(slavery),

nimals,

manufactured

oods,

and

intellectual

reasonings.

A

property

nstitution

s a

political

nd social

entity

o

structuring

he

relationships

etween

eople

and between

people

and

resources,

n this

case

natural

resources.

Property

nstitutions erive

their

meaning

from

their

particular

tructuring

f

rights

Bromley

1991). Hence,

there are

four

classifications

f

property

nstitutions:

private,

tate,

ommon,

pen

access.

Legitimization

f

any

property

nstitution

s a feature

hich s

argely

etermined

by

the

government

n

power.

or

example,

he Canadian

government

or

many ears

efused o

discuss

he

concept

and

arrangement

f a common

roperty

ystem

s

part

f

aboriginal

and

claims.

and

claims,

uch s

the

nuvialuit

Final

Agreement

(Indian

Affairs

and

Northern

Development 984)

which

ontain

he

notion

f common

property

management,

re

dependant

on the Federal

government's

ontinueing

respect

and

support.

The

Federal

government

hrough

ts

manner f

treatment

nd

1}

The

goal

of

natural

esource

management

s

more

correctly

identified

s

environmental

ehabilitation

ather than

environmental

onservation

r

preservation,

ecause

t occurs

after

hefact .

Management

ctivities

re concerned

rimarily

with he

control

f

impact

nd

the

fixing-up

f

natural

environments.

y

concerning

tself

with the

natural

environment

nly

fter

thas

been

nfluenced

y

human

ctivity,

natural

esource

management

rimarily

trives

o

accomplish

environmental

ehabilitation.

discourse

has a

powerful

nfluenceon

legitimizing

property

nstitution.

The institutionf

property

s different

rommere

possession,which haracterizeshe ocial relationsmong

primitive

nd

non-human

ocieties.

he fact

hat ll forms

of ife

re

instinctively

ropelled

oward oodwhich

hey

possess

and

ingest,

s what

LeFevre

(1966)

believed

to

define

property

elationship.

eFevre

failed

o draw

distinction

between

property

nd

possession.

The

distinction

ies

with he fact hathumans

have what no

other entient

eing

has:

political

nstitutions.

nstitutions

have been sanctioned

ith he

power

o enforce

he deals

of human

society.

What

distinguishes

roperty

rom

possession

n Western

ocieties,

s that

roperty

s a

claim

which

willbe enforced

y ociety

Harpar

974).

ossession,

which describes

one

creature's

physical

power

over

another,

stablishes

nly

the

presumption

f

ownership.

Property stablishesexclusivity of ownership ia an

enforceable

laim.

Private

roperty

Private

roperty

s the most

familiar

ropertyegime

and

includes

not

only

individual,

ut also

corporate

ownership arrangements.

Under

a

private

property

institution

t s

usually single

ndividual

ho

makes

man-

agement

nd

nvestment

ecisions.

rivate

roperty

s the

primary

nstitution

f

capitalist

ountries

nd,

ndeed,

s a

prerequisite

n the

development

f

capitalist

markets.

Since the 1700s

and

through

o

present

imes,

private

propertyontinues obe consideredhebasisof iberty

n

the

developed

countries

f the

world

Ryan

1987).

State

Property

Property

o which

the

state

(ie government)

as

ownership

nd

management

ontrol

s

generally

efined

s

state

roperty.

tate

property

ncludes

uch

reas

s natural

parks,

boriginal

nd

military

eservations,

nd

federal/

provincial

rown

ands.

t also

includes

ands

not

directly

managed

or controlled

y

the

state

eg,

oil

or mineral

leases).

Resources

which

are

indirectlymanaged

or

controlled

hrough

ease to

groups

or

individuals

re

termed

usufructuaryights

nd

are

established

for

a

specific

eriod ftime Bromley 991). ucharrangements

remove

most

managerial

iscretion

rom

the

user

(or

leaser),generally

onvey

no

long-term

xpectations,

nd

therefore

ontinue

o be

classified

s

state

property.

Common

Property

Common

property

ituations

re

really

the

private

properties

f

a

group.

Under

such

a

regime

of

group

ownership,

he

behaviours

f

ll members

f

he

group

re

subject

to

accepted

rules,

with actions

being

closely



4/9

GeoJournal 29.4/1993 407

Fig

1

The

property

ontinuum

nd the

right

o

possession

monitored

by

all

group

members.

Common

property

situations

ave a cultural ontext

which s

compatible

nd

indeed

necessary

or he effective

ontinuance

f such a

regime.

Many

of the

modern-day

and claims

by

aboriginal roups

fall under uch a

property egime.

Open

Access

The ast

ategory

f

property,

pen access,

s

frequently

confused

with

that of common

property.

What

distinguishes

n

open

access

regime,

however,

s the

complete

bsenceof

propertyights.

hiswould

be true

or

such

regions

nd resources

s the

high

seas, global

air

masses,

tc.

Similarly,

atural

esources

which re

subject

to therule f

aptureeg,

oil

and natural

as)

which

elong

to no one

until

hey

re

n someone's

physical ossession

are considered

pen

access

resources.

Viewed

n a

property

ontinuum

Fig

1),

the

property

systems

an be

readily

ontrasted

y

heir

arying

ights

o

possession.

mportant

n

understanding

ropertyystems

is that here renot

ust

four

ifferent

inds.Rather

here

are a multitudefpropertyystemsll along heproperty

continuum, anging

rom haracteristcs

f

open

accessto

those of

private roperty.

Property

nstitutions:

An

Examination

of

Their Evolution

There are

generally

hree views

as to the

origin

of

property

nstitutions

n

general:

(1)

that

property

institutionsre

purely

ultural

rtifacts

eg, Jorgensen

1990;

Pejovich

972;

cott

988;

User nd Bankes

1986); 2)

that

roperty

nstitutionsvolved

pontaneously

s did

the

concepts

f

anguage

nd

money

nd that

he

development

of

property

ights

was

part

of the natural volution

of

human ocietyeg,Bromley 991;Demsetz1967;Lefevre

1966;

Letourneau

901;

Marriot

985;

Scott

1983);

and

3)

that

roperty

nstitutionsvolved s a meansto economic

efficiency

nd societal aw and order

eg,

Lord

1985;

Paul

and Dickman

1990;

Riches

1982;

Stevenson

991;

Yandle

1983).

The difference etween the first wo views for the

origin

f

property

nstitutionss

one based

primarily

n

definition.

ultural haracteristicsre

commonly

efined

as

pertaining

o allocations f

time and resourceswhile

social characteristicsnclude those elements

which

represent

change

n

norms, deals,

values,

etc.

Riches

1982).Earlier,

roperty

as

defined s

being

a means to

organizing

he

relationshipsmong

people

in

regard

o

resources

of

perceivedvalue;

therefore, roperty

s a

societalcharacteristic.

The third iew

gives

property

s a means

to economic

efficiency.

uman abour

eing

he

predominant

eature

f

prevailing

economic

systems,

the third

perspective

therefore

uggests

abour s the

basis of

property.2)

abour,

however,

s a means o

possession

ot

necessarilyroperty.

Furthermore,f labour s all thatcounts, hen humans

would be

sanctioning

hievery

nd warfare

Schmid

987).

Rather,

t is

argued

hat

property

erives

ts

content

nd

validity

rom

he choices

that

ociety

makes

n

regard

o

what efforts

hould count

ie,

be

rewarded)

nd

which

should not.

t further

mphasizes

he

origin

f

property

institutionss

being

a

component

f societal

evolution.

The Evolution

of

Property

nstitutions n National

Society3)

Canada

shares numerous

characteristics

ith other

developed

countries4)

of the

world,

but

the most

fundamental f these are capitalismand democracy.

Capitalism

s based on

the

concept

f

private roperty;

nd

it s the deal of

democracy

hich

egitimizes

he

reign

f

the

private

ndividual

n a market

conomy. griculture

s

what

many

esearchers elieve

prompted

he evolution

f

the

English Anglo-Saxon)

property

ystem;

nd

it has

been

proposed

hat

rivate

roperty

s the

myth

n which

democracy

s based.

It s a common

iew n societies f

Anglo-Saxon

rigin

that he

development

f fixed

griculture

s

closely

ied o

the

development

of

property

nstitutions

n natural

resources.

t s with

griculture

hat

tbecame

necessary

o

regulate

he

right

o landed

propertyLetourneau1901).

Propertyrights

in

agriculture

ecured

tenure,

gave

incentive o abour,nd ncreased roductivityRyan 987).

As

agricultural roperty

ecame

organized

and trans-

2)

John ockewas he

rincipal

dvocate f he

opular

otion hat

property

erivedts oundation

n

abour

ie,

hat he nvestment

of time nd effort

y

an individual

ave

them

wnership

r

property

ights).

3)

National eferso the

propertyystem redominant

n

outhern

Canada. t s

system

hich hares ommon ootswith he

Anglo-

Saxon viewof

property.

4)

Developed

ountriesre those

having high

tandard f

iving

and which

ave, hroughapital

nd killed

abour chieved he

full

evelopment

fresourcesnd ndustries.

xamples

nclude

Canada,

United

tates,

Great

Britain, apan,

tc.



5/9

408

GeoJournal 29.4/1993

ferable

by inheritance,

t also became

increasingly

alienable nd divisible.

he division f andfor

griculture

had other benefits s

well: social

evolution,primarily

throughthe subordination f nature to humankind

(Pejovich1972). oday,

and s no

longer

direct

nput

o

the market

ystem;rather,

t is an

indirect

ommodity,

important

ecause

all

other

citvities f

capitalist

ociety

take

place upon

it

(Goldberg1974).

While

capitalist

marketshave theirbasis in

private

property,

t s

democracy

hich

ives

he

ystem

f

private

property

egitimacy.

ore

correctly,

emocracy

s based

on

the

myth

f

private

roperty. yths

re created

from

collection of

shared

images, symbols,

haracters,

nd

modes of

action within

society;

heyrepresent

deals

(Innes

1990).

The

nstitutionf

private

roperty

s

such

n

ideal.

As an

emerging

ation n

the

mid-1800s,

anada

sanctioned

hefarmers

the dealcitizen

Innes 1990).

The

farmer was perceived as politically independent,

responsible,

conomically

roductive, orally

espectable.

When

the first

uropeans

rrived nd settled n

Canada,

there

was no

necessity

o

definingroperty

ights,

ecause

the land

and its

resources

ppeared

to be of infinite

quantity.

owever,

s

settlement

ontinued, ressure

o

allocate and and

natural

esources

mounted nd

property

institutionsnd

rights

ecame established.

he

myth

f

the

good

farmer

revailed

nd farmerswere

granted

large

ections f

and t

generous rices.

ven

today,

hen

farmers

epresent

small

roportion

f

Canadian

ociety ),

agricultural

ubsidies

continue; they

are

supportedby

public

rhetoric

egarding

he

family

arm.

As Canada

has become

more

rbanized

hroughout

he

twentiethentury, newversion f themythhas been

formulated

Innes

1990).

nthis

ersion,

he

good

farmer

has

been transformed

o includethe suburban

home

owner.While

suburbanhome

ownersno

longer

make a

living

from the

land, they

are still the

symbol

of

independence,

social

responsibility, amily ife,

and

personal

uccess.

The

farmer

nd

the suburban

ome owner re

part

f

the shared

mages

of

society

epresenting

ot

only

the

valuesheld n

property,

ut

thevision f

democracy

tself.

The

very

words

by

which he farmer nd

the suburban

homeowner re

described re lso

commonlymployed

n

the

description

f

democracy:political ndependency,

social

responsibility,

conomic

productivity,

moral

respectabilityInnes 1990). ndeed,

here re othermeans

to

achieving

democratic

ociety

han

byprivate roperty

(co-ownership

r

common

property,

or

example).

The

institutionf

private roperty

s

popularly

een

as a

way

f

maintaining

democratic

ociety

ecause

it s associated

with

myths

hatwere entral

n the

arly ears

f

European

colonization

n

NorthAmerica.

During

Canada's

ongoing

onstitutionaliscussions

f

the

1980s

and

early 990s,

call has been made for

he

5)

In

1990,

to

4

out of

every

00 Canadian familieswas a

farming

family.

n

1885,

0 out of

every

00 families

armed

Canda

Year

Book

1990).

revision f the CanadianCharter f

Rights

nd Freedoms

(1982),

to include an individual's

right

to

property

(Freeman1991).

he

request

or

reater

efinitionf ndi-

vidual propertyights mphasizes hat the paradigm f

privateproperty

ontinues o be central o

right-wing

democratic

ociety

n

Canada.

The Evolutionof

Property

nstitutions

n

Canadian Ab-

original ociety

There

are

generally

wo views as to

the

origin

f a

property

nstitution n

natural

resources

among

the

aboriginal eoples

of Canada:

(1)

that an

institution f

property

as

always

xisted nd isevidentnthe

hunting

territoriesnd

the

sharing

f meat

n

aboriginal

ocieties

(eg, Cummings

974;

Letourneau

901;

cott

1988;

Usher

andBankes1986);and (2) that n institutionfproperty

began developing only recently,

s southern

society

increasingly

ncroaches n

traditionally

sed lands and

water

eg,

Altman

nd Peterson

988;

Riches

1982).

The first iew s

commonly

eld

by

hose

who makeno

distinctionbetween the

concepts

of

property

nd

possession.

As

previously efined,

roperty

s

possession

plus

the

acknowledgement

f such

possession y society

whichwill

defend ndividual

r

group

ossession.

Reports

of and

ownership,

ool

ownership,

nd

kill

wnership

ave

been

readily

aken as evidence that an institution f

property

xists

in

land and

natural resources.

These

observations,

owever,

ive

examples

f

aboriginal

se of

force

n

order o secure

possession,

ot

property

Altman

andPeterson 988;Riches1982).Propertysmuch ess an

element of force and

more one of

administrative

procedure,

iven

to

regulating

uman

relationship

nd

summarizing

hevaluesofthecollective.t s

very

ifficult

to

generalize

the

concept

of

property

cross

various

aboriginal

ocieties,

owever,

t

might

e

summarizedhat

hunter-gatherer

ocieties contain

primarilyxamples

of

possession,

not

property.

That

the nstitutionf

property

s recent

n

Canadian

aboriginal

ocieties

ppears

o be a more correct iew

n

light

of the definitions

rovided

earlier.

Many

factors

external to the traditional

ifesyle

eg,

commercial

resource

development,

he demand forfish nd animal

resources

n

Canada and

abroad,

nd non-native emands

for

and

ownership)

re

pressuringboriginal eoples

to

define themselves n terms

negotiable

with national

society.

t has been a matter f the natives

fitting

heir

views

nto those of national

ociety

nd not vice versa.

The Institution

f

Property

nd

Environmental ehabilitation

There

s no

easy

differentiation

o be

drawn etween

aboriginals

nd

non-aboriginals

ith

regard

o what is

commonly

ermed

nvironmentalonservation

nd what

has

herein

een described s environmentalehabilitation.

The

challenge

s to

forego

he

endency

o select

property



6/9

GeoJournal

29.4/1993

409

institution

r

society

for its

apparent

nfluence on

conservation/rehabilitationnd

nstead o

nterpreteople

and their

relationship

mong

each other and toward

naturalresources. t is people who are the important

variable;

there s

nothing

nherent n a resource or a

society

which determines

bsolutely

he nature of

the

property

nstitution

Gibbs

and

Bromley 989);rather,

t s

the human-humannd

human-nature

elationships

hich

determine

society's otential

o achieve nvironmental

conservation/rehabilitation.

Characterized

y

differences

n

economy

nd

social

values the

property ystems

of

aboriginal

and non-

aboriginal

Canada continue to

evolve and establish

qualifying

rends.

Co-management eg,

the Inuvialuit

Fisheries Joint

Management Committee,

composed

equally

of

government

nd

Inuvialuit)

s a

powerful

example

of the two societies

merging

with

respect

to

propertynstitutions.n SouthernCanada, failure of

capitalist

market

sytems

to

provide adequate

environmental

controls,

indifferent

esponse

from

government

ntervention nd

increasing

consern of

Canadiansfor ffective atural esource

management

re

pushing

or lternativenstitutions

Chorpra

t al.

1989).

As

attitudes

hange,

roperty

nstitutions ust

change.

Integration: Key

Element n NaturalResource

Management

The

concept

of

intergrated

esource

management

s

most

xplicitly

efined

y

Mitchell

1986)

who details our

characteristics

nique

to this

approach. irst,ntegration

requiresthat the plan or programhave more than a

singular

urpose,

hat t be achieved

hrough

variety

f

means,

nd utilizevarious

trategies

or he nvolvement

and collaboration f

participants. econdly, ntegration

requires

he

blending

fvarious esource

ectors. he third

requirement

tates hat

esource

management

e utilized

as a mecheanism or ocial and

economic

change.

And

lastly, hroughout

he entire

rocess,

ne must trive or

accommodation nd

compromise.

Mitchell's deas for

ntegratedmanagement

hare a

certain

ommonality

ith imilar

pproaches6).

sing

the

ideas of Mitchell

1986)

and

Vallentyne

nd Beeton

1988),

a

series of indicators ave

been defined o

more

fully

describe the

framework f

integrated

atural

resource

managementuppliedbyMitchell. ab 1summarizeshe

relevant

omponents

nd their

bjectives.7)

Societal

Characteristics The

Key

to

Integration

Notes from

he Field

Study

The Field

Study

llowed for a number

of

variables

related

to

landed

property

and

natural resource

management

o be assessed

cross hree

roperty

egimes:

state

crown),private

nd,

common.All these

property

systems

re

egally

ecognized

n

Canada

by

tatutes f

aw.

Legal recognition

s

really

a means

by

which

society

distinguishes property

nstitutionrommere

possession.

The Field

Study

sought

to document

popular

perceptions f the three propertynstitutions. ab 2

summarizes the

legal,

cultural,

nd

natural resource

management

ariables ssessed

by

the Field

Study.

he

table

further

rovides

n

interpretation

f

each variable

under hethree

roperty

nstitutionsxamined nd

allows

for

omparisons

nd contrasts

etween he institutions.

An

overview f the

legal

property

ariables ssessed

immediately

ighlights

wo

differences.

irst,

he

power

o

designate

ccess and

use

restswith

he

respective

wners

in

all but the case of

privateproperty.

his is because

private roperty

s

closely

ontrolled

y

the

municipality

and

many oning

nd

by-law

estrictions

mpinge

n the

owner's

reedom o

designate

ccess and use.

Second,

t s

only

under

the

Inuvialuit

property ystem

that lands

cannot e sold. nuvialuit eneficiaries,itherndividually

or

collectively

re

legally

orbidden o sell

their

ands. n

the

remaining

hree

egal

variables,

ignificant

ifferences

arise

only

with

respect

to the number of

individuals

allowed access and use. The Field

Study

found the

Inuvialuit o hold a

negotiable,

ess

protective osition

with

egard

o the access and use of their

ands,

han

he

more defensive

osition

maintained

y private roperty

owners.

lthough

nterviewees entioned everal ules s

to their

ersonal

se of tate

ands,

none had ever ncoun-

teredor

was awareof access restrictionso state

property.

The next ix

variables oncernhow the

egal

property

situations

nterpreted

ithin he

respective

ocieties. he

difference etween the

system

becomes more

complex

and somesignificantharacteristicsrehighlighted.ules,

for

example,

under the Inuvialuit

ystem

ended to be

more social than

legal,

whereas the

private

nd

state

systems

were

highly ependent

n

legal

rules.

Although

the

Field

Study

ound

hat

he number f

explicit

ormal

rules within

the

Inuvialuit

system

to be

increasing,

adherence o

implied

ocial rules was stillmuch

greater

that nder ther

ropertyystems.

imilary,

ifferencesn

rule

enforcementnd

decision-makingapacities

howed

greatercommunity

nvolvementwithin the Inuvialuit

structures han the

private

or

state

systems.

Private

propertyystems

iffered rom

tate structures

nlyby

showing reater

ocialrule

development

nd

enforcement.

Natural esource

management

ariables re

covered

n

the ramaining ine variables.Again,primaryifferences

between he

ystems

merged

egarding

he

frequency

nd

persistence

of social

involvement.

For

example,

participation

n

community

ommittees or ariousmatters

is

present

nly

withthe

private

nd

Inuvialuit

roperty

6)

Other uthors

who have

written

bout the dea

of resource

integration:

nderson

1985)

(multiple

bjective

planning):

Osherenko

1988)

(co-management);

allentyne

nd

Beeton

(1988) ecosystem

pproach

o

management).

7)

The

components

re not

further

escribed

n

this

rticle.t is

hoped

hereader an

acquire

ufficient

nderstanding

rom

he

table nd

he

descriptions

ontainedherein.ee

Mitchell

1986)

or Rohlmann

1992)

f

greater xplanation

s

required.



7/9

4 10

GeoJournal

29.4/1993

Fig

2

Property

institutions

and their

potential

for

achieving integrated

natural

resource

management

based on analysis nd discussion of

the Field

Report

systems.nput

o state

roperty

anagement

as

typically

absent.Similar bservations ere noted with

respect

o

rights

f enforceable

ecision-making.

irect ndividual

participation

n

decision-making

as absent

under

the

state, resent

nder

rivate,

ut most

prevalent

nder he

Inuvialuit

roperty ystem.

n

summary,

he Inuvialuit

property ystem continually

ncludes methods and

strategies

which

highlight community (Inuvialuit)

participation.

Reflectingn the ocietal ifferencesighlightednthe

Field

Study,

t

appears

that the

capacity

o achieve an

intergrated

pproach

o natural esource

management

s

influenced

y

prevailing

roperty

nstitutions.n thebasis

of the Field

Study,

nd other

onclusions rawn

rom he

literature,roperty

nstitutions

ay

e rankedwith

egard

to their

potential

o achieve an

integrated pproach

o

natural

resource

management. ig

2

represents

uch a

ranking

xercise. he

property

ontinuum

nd its

ranking

was derived

by

comparing

he variablesof

property

institutions

n Tab 2 to the indicators f

integrated

resource

management

n

Tab 1.

What this conclusion

rgues

s that

the

potential

or

integratedatural esourcemanagementncreases nder

common

propertyystem

nd decreasesunder stateor

private property ystem.

The

property

ariables most

relevant o thecontext

oncern,

henature f

he

property

Tab 1

The

components

and indicatorsof INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Component

Indicators

Multiple Purpose

-

Nature

of

inter-

and

infra-departmental

disciplinary)

involvement

(coordinated

and

(fulfilling ultiple bjectives

s collaborative s.

disjointed

ction

when

conceiving, esigning, mplementing

olicies,

programs,

defined

y

agency(ies)

within

projects;

multi-disciplinary

s.

single-purpose

ctivity).

similar

resource

ector)

Multiple

Means

and

Strategies

-

Range

of actions considered

(direct

vs.

indirect

ction;

multifacetted

s.

singular pproach;

(how

objectives

re

realized)

dynamic

vs.

static;

functional

nd

adaptive

vs.

rigid).

Multiple Participant trategies

-

nature nd pervasiveness fpublicand private ector nteraction/involvementhenconceiving,

(by

whom

objectives

re

designing,

mplementing

policies,

programs,projects (nature

and function

of

institutional/

accomplished)

community

ommittees,

boards or

other

iaison

strategies.

Blending

of

Resource Sectors

-

definition f resource

selective

[restrictive]

s.

comprehensive).

(fulfilling ultiple bjectives

s

-

definition f resource area

in

which

direct

nd indirect

oncern s held

multi-sectoral

s.

single

defined y agencies

of

different

sector

activity).

resource

ectors)

-

data

management

multi-sectoral

s.

single

sector

analysis).

Mechanism for

Social

and

-

type

of

policies

instituted

reactive

vs.

proactive)

Economic

Change

*

-

definition f

management

goals (focused

and

selective

vs. broad and

vague)

(why bjectives

re

put

in

place)

-

definition

f conservation

oals

(defined

n

social

and

economic

parameters

s.

biological

terms

only)

-

consideration of alternative

ypes

of resource

development

to meet

management

goals

Accommodation

and

Compromise

-

decision-making

apacity consensus

vs.

adversarial)

(the

human

setting

n which

-

type

of forums for discussion

(joint

committees,

boards,

vs.

highly

elective,

exclusionary

it all takes

place) membershipgroups).

-

problem

olving trategies

technical

data

gathering

s. nteractive iscussion

vs. use of

power eg

decision

made

predominantly

y

head

of

department

with little or

no data

gathering

or

discussion]

in decision

making

process)

- capacityto cope withchange (stable and flexible vs. unpredictable nd unadaptable)

Sector

Discipline

RESOURCE SECTORS:

Renewable

Resource

-

flora

-

energy

solar,

wind)

-

fauna

-

soils

-

water

-

air

Non-renewable

Resource

-

energy

hydrocarbons)

-

minerals

-

geologic

(landscape)

Human

Resource

-

culture

-

politics

-

society

-

legislation

Economic

Resource

-

money

-

institutions

-

technology



8/9

GeoJournal 29.4/1993

41 1

Tab 2 Three

types

of

property egimes

and the

variables assessed

regardingrespective

property

nstitutions

nd

integrated

natural

resource

management

Variable State Land outside PrivateProperty InuvialuitSettlement

egion

in Town

7.1(a)

7.1(b)

Nature of the

-

exclusive and transferable

-

non-exclusive

and

transferable

-

exclusive

and

non-transferable

property ight

Access

rights

-

all

persons (unrestricted)

-

designated

individuals

only

-

all

Inuvialuit beneficiaries

(restricted)

designated

individuals

only

(restricted)

Use

rights

-

all

persons (restricted)

-

designated

individuals

only

-

all Inuvialuit &

designated

(restricted)

individuals

only

restricted)

Type

of natural

-

exclusive

(state)

-

exclusive

(state)

-

exclusive

(Inuvialuit)

resource

rights

-

preferentialInuvialuit)

-

preferentialindividual)

Way

of

defining

-

resource for economic and

-

an economic

entity

-

a means to

controlling

property strategic

enefit

development

Existence

of

rules

-

legal

-

legal,

-

some

social

-

social,

-

legal

Participation

n rule/

-

relevant

gov't departments

-

municipal

councillors

-

selected Inuvialuit

policy

determination

-

selective

Inuvialuit

nput

Means to rule

-

bywildlife nd land

-

by courts

-

by neighbours

enforcement

regulators

-

by

town

management

-

by community

-

by

courts

-

by

Renewable Resource

Committees

-

by

courts

Ways

of

monitoring

nd

-

hunting

icenses

-

security

urveillance

-

hunting

quotas

and boundaries

influencing

ehaviors

-

public

information

-

community

watch

groups

-

community

bservations

of others

-

fines

-

fines

-

fines

Right

to enforceable

-

Various federal

departments:

-

municipal

councillors

-

select

community

members

decision-making

DIAND, EMR, F&O, RR,

EC

-

mayor

-

Chairperson

IGC,

IRC,

-

respective dept.

Ministers

and RRC's

Liaison

strategies

-

management

and

planning

-

advisory

boards

-

community

orporations

communittees

-

management

and

planning

committees

Public and

private

-

public

sector consulted

for

-

public

sector consulted for

-

Inuvialuit

consulted for

sector nvolvement

implementation

implementation

conception

and

implementation

-

some

consultation with

-

other

private companies

private

ector

for consulted for

mplementation

implementation

Data

management

- multi-sectorial - multi-sectorial - multi-sectorial

(renewable, non-renewable)

(human, economic)

(renewable, non-renewable,

human, economic)

Type

of

policies

-

broad,

reactive

-

selective,

reactive

-

broad,

reactive

Way

of

defining

-

futureuse

-

efficient se

-

controlled use

conservation

goals

-

multiple

use

-

community

welfare

Decision-making

-

adversarial

-

adversarial

-

consensus

process

Means to

dispute

-

decision

by

Minister

-

decision

by mayor

-

community

onsultation

resolution

-

public hearings

-

public hearings

-

public

hearings

-

community

onsultation

-

decision

by IGC, IRC,

EIRB or

arbitration oard

Problem-solving

-

use of

power

-

use

of

power

-

interactive

iscussion,

data

strategies

gathering,

se of

power

Capacity

to

cope

-

unadaptable

-

unpredictable,unadaptable

-

stable,

flexible

with

change

** The SettlementRegion is composed of 7.1a) and 7.1(b) and Federal as well as Yukon and Northwest erritoriesovernmentands

**

Inuvialuit

7.1

a)

lands are fee

simple

lands

including

ights

o

subsurface resources.

7.1(b)

are fee

simple,

surface

rights

nly.

**

Nature of

Property

ight

means whether he

agency

has

exclusive or non-exclusive

ights

o

designating

ccess and

use and whether

the land

can be sold

by

that

agency ie,

transferable s.

non-transferable).

**

Restricted nd

unrestricted

n

reference

o access and use

indicateswhether here

re

specific

ules of who can enter he and and

how the lands can be used.

Typically

here are no rules

pertaining

o who s

allowed access but in

most cases

potential

uses are

carefully

ontrolled.

**

Inter nd

Intra

Departmental

Activities,

Management Actions,

Liaison

Strategies,

ublic and Private

ector

nvolvement,

tc

ie,

all

the

remaining

variables

listed)

are further

utlined

in

Tab 1.

**

DIAND, EMR,

F&O, RR,

EC are abbreviations or he

following: epartment

f ndian Affairs

nd Northern

evelopment;

Energy,

Mines and

Resources;

Fisheries and

Oceans;

Renewable

Resources;

EnvironmentCanada.

**

IGC,

IRC, RRC's,

EIRB are

abbreviations or he

following:

nuvialuit

Game

Council,

nuvialuit

RegionalCorporation,

enewable

Resource

Committees,

Environmental

mpact

Review

Board.

Source:

Information as

gathered

orm

he

analysis

of nterviews

ompleted

n nuvik

nd

Tuktoyaktuk,

WT, May

to

August,

991. his

is

a shortened

version of the

original

table.



9/9

41 2 GeoJournal

29.4/1993

right degree

of

exclusivity

nd

transferability),

he

numberof

people

to whom access

and use

rights

re

granted,

s well as the number f

people

to

whom the

capacity f enforceable ecision-makings granted.t is

recognized

hat he

concept

f

ntegrated

atural esource

management

s a tool.

It is

related

to the

concept

of

environmentehabilitation

conservation),

ut

does not

necessarily

guarantee

it.

Indeed,

environmental

rehabilitation an be achieved under

any

one of

the

propertyystems,

ut the ikelihood hat

t s achieved

n

an

integrated

manner ncreases as one moves

toward

common

roperty

anagement

n the

property

nstitution

continuum.

Conclusion

Integrated

esource

management

s a

concept ikely

o

be

at

the

forefrontf Western atural esource ssues

n

the comingdecade. Though t has appeared n various

literature or

manyyears, nly

recently

ave therebeen

examples

f ts active

mplementation.

n

trying

o

define

the barriers o its successful

use,

property

nstitutions

appear o be central o the ntegrated odel.Thisfactors

exemplified,

erhaps

most

clearly,

n the Canadian

North

where

boriginal

nd national

management

egimes

nd

property

nstitutions oexist and

in

many

instances

overlap.

The Inuvialuit

rovide good

example

hat ommon

property

anagement

ystems

re a viable ndworthwhile

means to environmental

ehabilitation.t further

uggests

that and mustbecome more

than n economic

unit,

n

itemof commerce.

What

Leopold (1949)

discussed

more

than 0

years go

still olds rue

oday:

he and-relations

primarily economic, entailing privileges

but not

obligations. edefining

roperty

ights

n

ntegrated

erms

means

defining

ot

only

he llowable enefits ut lso

the

ensuingobligations.

References

Altman,

.;Peterson,

.:

Rights

oGame nd

Rights

oCash

Among

Contemporary

ustralian

unter-Gatherers.

n:

Ingold,

T.;

Riches, D.; Woodburn,

.

(eds.),

Hunters

nd

Gatherers:

Property,

ower nd

Ideology,

p.

75-94.

Berg,

Oxford 988.

Anderson,

M.S.:

Multiple

Objective Planning:

ts Potential

Application

or

ntegrated

esource

lanning

n

Alberta.

n:

Conferenceroceedings

n

Hinton,

B.

Alberta

Forestry,

and and

Wildlife,

985.

Bromley,

.W.: Environment

nd

Economy: roperty ights

nd

Public

olicy.

asil

lackwell,xford,K.; Cambridge,

ass.

991.

CanadaYear ook

990.Ministerf

upply

nd

Services,

ttawa 989.

Chopra, K.;

Kadekodi, G.K.;

Murty,

M.N.:

Participatory

Development: eople

nd

Common

roperty

esources.

age

Publications,

ew

Delhi;Newbury ark,

alifornia 989.

Cummings,

.A.: Public

ands,

Native and Claims nd LandUse.

In:

Nelson,

.

G.; Scace,

R.

C.; Koui,

.

eds.),

Canadian

ublic

Land Use

in

Perspective,p.

206-237. ocial Science

Research

Council

f

Canada,

Ottawa

974.

Demsetz,

H.: Toward

Theory

f

Property ights.

American

EconomicReview

7(2):

347-359

1967)

Fisher,

.

C;

Krutilla,

.

.:

Managing

ublic

ands:

Assignment

f

Propertyights

nd Valuation f Resources.

n:

Haefele,

.T.

(ed.),

The Governance fCommon

roperty

esources, p.

35-

59. Resources

or he

Future.

Washington

974.

Freeman,

.: Ottawa

Aims Reformst

Strengthening

he Union.

Globe and Mail

Metro

dition,

l, September

5

(1991)

Gibbs, C.J.N.;

Bromley,

.W.: Institutional

rrangements

or

Management

f RuralResources:

ommon-property

egimes.

In:

Berkes,

.

ed.),

Common

roperty

esources:

cology

nd

Community-based

ustainable

Development,

pp.

22-32.

Belhaven,

ondon 1989.

Goldberg, . .: Economicsnd hePublic ands n Canada:Some

Criticisms,

xtensions,

nd Guidelines.

n:

Nelson,

.

G.;

Scace,

R.C.;

Koui,

. Canadian

ublic

Land Use in

Perspective,

p.

374-342.

ocial

cience esearch ouncil

f

Canada,

ttawa 974.

Indian Affairsnd

Northern

evelopment:

he Western

rctic

Claim:

The Inuvialuit

inal

Agreement.

ndian nd

Northern

Affairs

anada,

Ottawa 984.

Innes,

J.

.

Knowledge

nd

Public

Policy.

ransaction

ublishers,

New

Brunswick,

SA 1990.

Jorgensen,

.G.:

Oil

Age

Eskimos.

University

f

California

ress,

Berkeley

990.

Kirby,

.;

McKenna,

K.:

Experience,

esearch,

ocial

Change:

Methods

rom he

Margins.

aramond,

oronto 989.

Lefevre,

R.: The

Philosophy

f

Ownership.

ampart

College,

Larkspur,

olo. 1966.

Leopold,

.:

Sand

County

lmanac. xford

niversityress,

New

York 949.

Letourneau,

:

Property:

ts

Origin

nd

Development.

alter

cott,

London 1901.

Lord,

I.J.: Entrenchmentf

Property ights:

mplications

or

Government.

unicipal

World

5(6): 143;

157-158

1985)

MacPherson,

.B.:

Property:

ainstreamnd Critical ositions.

University

f Toronto

ress,

oronto

978.

Marriott,

.K.L.: Primitive

roperty,

red. .

Kotnman,

olorado

1985.

Mitchell,

.:

TheEvolution

f

ntegrated

esource

Management.

n:

Lang,

R.

ed.), ntegrated

pproaches

o Resource

lanning

nd

Management,

p.

13-26. anff entre or

ontinuing

ducation,

Banff,

lberta

986.

Osherenko,

G.: Can

Co-management

ave

Arctic Wildlife?

Environment0(6): 6-13;29-34 1988)

Paul,

E.

F.;

Dickman,

.

(eds.): Liberty,roperty,

nd theFuture f

Constitutional

evelopment.

tate

University

f New York

Press,Albany

990.

Pejovich,

.: Towards n Economic

Theory

f the Creation

nd

Specification

f

Property ights.

eview f Social

Economy

30(3):

309-325

1972)

Proudhon,

.J.:What

s

Property?

over,

NewYork 970.

Riches,

D.: Northern

omadic

Hunter-Gatherers:

Humanistic

Approach.

cademic

ress,

ondon

NewYork 982.

Rohlmann,

M.:

Integrated

atural

Resources

Management

A

Question

f

Property

ights?

Master's

hesis. ork

University,

Toronto,

anada

1992.

Ryan,

.:

Property.

niversity

fMinnesota

ress,Minneapolis

987.

Schmid,

.A.:

Property,

ower nd

PublicChoice.

Praeger,

ew

York 987.

Scott,

.:

Property

ights

nd

Property

rongs.

he Canadian

Journal

f Economics

6(4):

555-573

1983)

Scott,

: Property,ractice ndAboriginalights mongQuebec

Cre

Hunters.

n:

Ingold,

.; Riches,

.;

Woodburn,

.

eds.),

Hunters

nd Gatherers

:

Property,

ower

nd

deology, p.

35-

51.

Berg,

New

York

988.

Stevenson,

. G.:

Common

roperty

conomics:

General

heory

and

Land-Use

Applications.

ambridge

University

ress,

Cambridge

991.

Usher,

.

J.;

Bankes,

N.D.:

Property,

he

Basis

of nuit

Hunting

Rights

A New

Approach.

nuitCommittee

n

National

ssues,

Ottawa 986.

Vallentyne,

.R.;

Beeton,

A.M.: The

EcosystemApproach

o

Managing

umanUses

&

Abusesof

Natural esources

n the

Great

Lakes.

Environmentalonservation

5(11):

8-62

1988)

Yandle,

B.: Resource

Economics:

A

Property ights

erspective.

Journal

f

Energy,

aw and

Policy (1):

1-20

1983)

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Thu, 4 Sep 2014 02:49:31 AM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

integrated natural resource management, a question of property pnstitutions (rohlmann)

Documents