Symmetries and Asymmetries in Collective Management: Comparing Effects on Resilience and Rural Development in Galician Common Lands and the Brazilian Extractive Reserves

Abstract

This study aims to comparatively analyse cases involving Galician common lands (MVMC) in Spain and the Extractive Reserves (RESEX) in Brazil, from the new perspective of community resilience in sustainable rural development. We studied the role of the state in legal transformations regarding land use and management to understand changes in access to and use of common resources, as well as to describe how relationships are established among user groups. The results are based on the analysis of 55 semistructured interviews with people from seven communities with common lands in Spain and information gathered through Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) techniques and interviews at the Riozinho da Liberdade Extractive Reserve in Acre (Brazil). Field work for the study was done in May 2013, April to June 2014 and February 2015. The research uncovers the frailties and strengths of the main management patterns in each reality. The two cases are marked by strong state intervention to regulate conditions of use and the implementation of management models in these areas. In both, the perceived economic importance of natural resources as a source of revenue was also a common point, though tenure of these resources became effective in different ways. The importance of ensuring access to land as a way of maintaining the freedom and autonomy of the user group was also prominent in both cases and should be seen as a crucial factor for economic and social development. Finally, the normative and practical arrangements found in MVMCs and RESEX areas present a good strategy for rural development based on relationships among user groups and shared land management organization patterns.

A meta‐analysis of SES framework case studies: Identifying dyad and triad archetypes

“…This pattern is an important reminder that those rules determining how actors go about implementing governance and harvesting common‐pool resources (GS5) is embedded in a broader set of norms shaping community interactions (A5). This resonates well with those branches of CPR research addressing the role of reciprocity and community in collective action (Lobo et al., 2016; Partelow, 2020; Partelow & Nelson, 2018; Tadie & Fischer, 2017), showing how the same rules can perform differently in different communities (Carrillo et al., 2019; De Moura et al., 2021; Wallrapp et al., 2019).…”