{"title":"集体森林与社区在中国产权改革的法律前沿","authors":"Pingyang Liu, N. Ravenscroft","doi":"10.1080/07329113.2021.1872007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Collective forests have long played an important economic, cultural and social role in the remote mountainous areas of China, especially before the Open and Reform Period. However, the centrist legal framework for managing and utilizing the collective forests was not sufficiently well developed to meet the demands of all community members, which led to largely unfettered overuse and illegal logging. This “tragedy of the commons” meant that the traditional human-forest connections that were so important in these areas gradually collapsed, to be replaced by self-interest. This situation informed a period of property rights reform in which steps were taken to introduce a form of legal pluralism that could improve both security of tenure and forest management. Using a study of Hongtian Village in Southern China, where forest tenure reform started, we argue that pluralist collective action is essential in order to identify grass-root solutions to the management of the forest commons. This involves the use rights for collective forests being separated from those of ownership, with the former distributed to households, according to their own, local, rules. While this new pluralist approach to forest tenure fostered renewed confidence in the potential for collective forestry to underpin community prosperity, the paper goes on to show how renewed top-down intervention, this time to promote a more ecological approach to forest management, has once again undermined the significance of people-forest relationships. We conclude by arguing that forests are very much at the frontier of property rights reform in China, because their effective governance depends utterly upon ensuring a plural approach to regulation that central authorities are currently unwilling to legitimate.","PeriodicalId":44432,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Collective forests and the community at the legal frontier of property rights reforms in China\",\"authors\":\"Pingyang Liu, N. Ravenscroft\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/07329113.2021.1872007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Collective forests have long played an important economic, cultural and social role in the remote mountainous areas of China, especially before the Open and Reform Period. However, the centrist legal framework for managing and utilizing the collective forests was not sufficiently well developed to meet the demands of all community members, which led to largely unfettered overuse and illegal logging. This “tragedy of the commons” meant that the traditional human-forest connections that were so important in these areas gradually collapsed, to be replaced by self-interest. This situation informed a period of property rights reform in which steps were taken to introduce a form of legal pluralism that could improve both security of tenure and forest management. Using a study of Hongtian Village in Southern China, where forest tenure reform started, we argue that pluralist collective action is essential in order to identify grass-root solutions to the management of the forest commons. This involves the use rights for collective forests being separated from those of ownership, with the former distributed to households, according to their own, local, rules. While this new pluralist approach to forest tenure fostered renewed confidence in the potential for collective forestry to underpin community prosperity, the paper goes on to show how renewed top-down intervention, this time to promote a more ecological approach to forest management, has once again undermined the significance of people-forest relationships. We conclude by arguing that forests are very much at the frontier of property rights reform in China, because their effective governance depends utterly upon ensuring a plural approach to regulation that central authorities are currently unwilling to legitimate.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44432,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.2021.1872007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.2021.1872007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
Collective forests and the community at the legal frontier of property rights reforms in China
Abstract Collective forests have long played an important economic, cultural and social role in the remote mountainous areas of China, especially before the Open and Reform Period. However, the centrist legal framework for managing and utilizing the collective forests was not sufficiently well developed to meet the demands of all community members, which led to largely unfettered overuse and illegal logging. This “tragedy of the commons” meant that the traditional human-forest connections that were so important in these areas gradually collapsed, to be replaced by self-interest. This situation informed a period of property rights reform in which steps were taken to introduce a form of legal pluralism that could improve both security of tenure and forest management. Using a study of Hongtian Village in Southern China, where forest tenure reform started, we argue that pluralist collective action is essential in order to identify grass-root solutions to the management of the forest commons. This involves the use rights for collective forests being separated from those of ownership, with the former distributed to households, according to their own, local, rules. While this new pluralist approach to forest tenure fostered renewed confidence in the potential for collective forestry to underpin community prosperity, the paper goes on to show how renewed top-down intervention, this time to promote a more ecological approach to forest management, has once again undermined the significance of people-forest relationships. We conclude by arguing that forests are very much at the frontier of property rights reform in China, because their effective governance depends utterly upon ensuring a plural approach to regulation that central authorities are currently unwilling to legitimate.
期刊介绍:
As the pioneering journal in this field The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law (JLP) has a long history of publishing leading scholarship in the area of legal anthropology and legal pluralism and is the only international journal dedicated to the analysis of legal pluralism. It is a refereed scholarly journal with a genuinely global reach, publishing both empirical and theoretical contributions from a variety of disciplines, including (but not restricted to) Anthropology, Legal Studies, Development Studies and interdisciplinary studies. The JLP is devoted to scholarly writing and works that further current debates in the field of legal pluralism and to disseminating new and emerging findings from fieldwork. The Journal welcomes papers that make original contributions to understanding any aspect of legal pluralism and unofficial law, anywhere in the world, both in historic and contemporary contexts. We invite high-quality, original submissions that engage with this purpose.