SOCIO-ECONOMIC METHODOLOGIES

FOR NATURAL RESOURCES RESEARCH

BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES

PRA TOOLS USED FOR RESEARCH

INTO COMMON POOL RESOURCES

Czech Conroy

Natural Resources Institute

The University of Greenwich

Published by Natural Resources Institute

© The University of Greenwich 2002

The Natural Resources Institute (NRI) of the University of Greenwich is an

internationally recognized centre of expertise in research and consultancy in the
environment and natural resources sector. The Institute carries out research and
development and training to promote efficient management and use of renewable
natural resources in support of sustainable livelihoods.

Short extracts of material from this publication may be reproduced in any non-
advertising, non-profit-making context provided that the source is acknowledged as
follows:

CONROY, C. (2002) PRA tools used for research into common pool resources.
Socio-economic Methodologies for Natural Resources Research. Best Practice Guidelines.
Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute.

Permission for commercial reproduction should be sought from the Managing

Editor, University of Greenwich at Medway, Chatham Maritime, Kent ME4 4TB,
United Kingdom.

Production of this publication was funded under Project R6800 by the Natural
Resources Systems Programme of the United Kingdom’s Department for
International Development. The Department for International Development can
accept no responsibility for any information provided or views expressed.

Copies of this publication can be obtained by writing to NRI Catalogue Services,

CAB International, WALLINGFORD, Oxon OX10 8DE, UK. When ordering,
please quote BPG12.

Natural Resources Institute

ISBN 0 85954 496-6

University of Greenwich, a registered charity and company limited by guarantee, registered in England
(Reg. No. 986729). Registered Office: Old Naval College, Park Row, Greenwich, London SE10 9LS.
1 PRA Tools Used for Research into Common Pool Resources

INTRODUCTION

What are common pool resources?

The abbreviation CPR is sometimes used to refer to ‘common pool resources’ and
sometimes to ‘common property regimes’: occasionally, a hybrid of these two terms,
i.e. common pool regimes or common property resources, is used. This guide
follows the convention adopted by some researchers/scholars of separating the
resource from the property regime, and only uses the abbreviation CPR to refer to
the resource – i.e. common pool resources.

Common pool resources have two key characteristics, namely:

• it is difficult to physically exclude potential users from them; and

• their consumption is subtractable: i.e. increased consumption by one agent

implies that less is available for others.

Common pool resources occur at different scales, which can be categorized as micro,
meso and macro. The various types of CPRs at the micro level include common
pasturelands, small forests and small surface water bodies. At the meso level CPRs
include large rivers and lakes, forests and mountains or mountain ranges, some of
which transcend national boundaries. At the macro level CPRs are sometimes
referred to as the global commons, i.e. the earth’s oceans, atmosphere and weather
system. This report is primarily concerned with CPRs at the micro, or local, level.

Common property regimes can be defined as ‘institutional arrangements for the co-
operative (shared, joint, collective) use, management and sometimes ownership of
natural resources’ (McKean, 1995). In these regimes, no member of the user group
has the right to exclude others, but the group has the right to exclude non-members
from the use of the resource. Membership of the user group is usually contingent on
having a presence in a location close to the relevant CPR, with the members living
and/or owning land in that location.

Common pool resources have come under increasing pressure in recent decades,
with the growth of human and livestock populations. These pressures have been
exacerbated by a general trend towards privatization, both legal and illegal, as
common lands become fenced off and converted to agricultural use. Where they
existed in the past, many traditional management systems have broken down. As a
result, both land-based and water-based CPRs have tended to become degraded and
have shrunk in area. During the last 10–15 years, international development agencies
and some developing country governments have been attempting to rehabilitate
CPRs, and to improve people’s access to them, by promoting shared or joint
management regimes, particularly in relation to forests.

Common pool resources, such as pastures and forests, are usually used in an
apparently unregulated fashion commonly described as ‘open access’. Nevertheless,
shifting groups (e.g. particular castes, villages or state agencies) may lay different
claims to diverse resources (e.g. grazing, non-timber forest products, timber), and vie
for access, control and use.
PRA Tools Used for Research into Common Pool Resources 2

Why researchers should be aware of common pool resources

Common pool resources are an important topic for research in their own right, since
they can play a major role in people’s livelihoods, particularly those of the poor. This
is reflected in the fact that the Department for International Development (DFID) has
forestry and fisheries research programmes, and that research on CPRs is also funded
by other programmes, such as the Livestock Production Programme (LPP) and the
Natural Resources Systems Programme (NRSP).

Common pool resources are also potentially important as a factor influencing crop
production and animal husbandry. In recent years, increasing emphasis has been
placed on understanding the context within which applied renewable natural
resources (RNR) research is being undertaken, even when that research has a narrow
focus. This is because research that does not take proper account of the context is
liable to be misplaced or to come up with inappropriate recommendations. The
context that researchers are expected to consider has broadened during the last
25–30 years: from cropping systems, to farming systems and – most recently – to
livelihood systems.

Within DFID’s Sustainable Livelihoods Framework, CPRs are one form of natural
capital to which people may have access. The nature of that access will vary, however,
depending on the nature of the structures and processes in place, including policies,
legislation and customary rights. Common pool resources often make substantial
contributions to the livelihoods of rural people, especially small and marginal
farmers, pastoralists and rural landless labourers.

Contributions of common pool resources to livelihoods

In general terms, CPRs:

• widen the range of income-generating activities available to people in rural areas;

• provide inputs to agriculture;

• provide inputs to the home;

• provide environmental services;

• serve as a safety net for people in drought years, in terms of income generation
and/or food supply.

Income-generating activities Common activities based on CPRs include the

collection and sale of: firewood, leaves made into plates and cups, fruits, grass for
fodder, grass for thatching, honey and fish. Grass and tree fodder may also be fed to
small ruminants, which can be a significant source of income, especially for the poor.

Direct inputs to agriculture Wood from forests is used in making agricultural

implements and bullock carts and in fencing off fields, while water from surface
water bodies or underground aquifers may be used for irrigation. Forage from forests
and non-forest land-based CPRs is needed to feed livestock, some of which are an
integral part of agricultural systems. Drinking water for livestock is another
3 PRA Tools Used for Research into Common Pool Resources

prerequisite for their maintenance that often comes from CPRs, such as rivers, village
ponds and tanks.

Direct inputs to the home Water and various fruits from CPRs are consumed by
humans, while firewood is essential for cooking food. Wood and grass for thatching
are used in house construction and maintenance, and wood is also used in furniture
making.

Environmental services Forests act as a sponge when it rains, regulating water flows,
preventing flash floods and prolonging the period during which surface water is
available. Where forests are on sloping land (e.g. hillocks) near to farmers’ fields they
also prevent stones and poor quality soil being washed off the slopes and deposited
in these fields, while supplying nutrients to the fields in the form of leaf litter.

A safety net for people in drought years Since forests are relatively resilient in the
face of drought, many forest-based income-generating activities can continue when
crop production has failed. In addition, some communities in forest areas fell trees
in extreme drought years and sell the wood or firewood to generate income. Forests
and other common lands may also be a source of emergency foods, such as weeds,
tubers and mammals.

Common pool resources often contribute substantially to poor people’s

employment, income and assets accumulation in several direct and indirect ways.
They can reduce income disparities between the landless and near landless, on the
one hand, and the land rich, on the other. The degree and nature of CPRs’
contribution to livelihoods varies tremendously from area to area, and social group
to social group, depending upon the availability of, quantity and quality of these
resources, and the socio-cultural traditions of the communities.

SYNTHESIS OF RECENT WORK AND ISSUES

There are two separate bodies of work that are relevant: work that has applied visual
participatory rural appraisal (PRA) methods to natural resources; and work on CPRs
that has examined their contribution to livelihoods. Each of these includes some
material on the use of PRA methods to generate information about the contribution
of CPRs to livelihoods.

Application of visual PRA methods to natural resources

Forests
Participatory rural appraisal methods have been used more in relation to forests than
to any other CPR. Two general references that are easily obtainable are the books by
Donald Messerchmidt (1995) and by Jane Carter (1996).

Common grazing areas

There are no references exclusively on this subject. However, three references on the
use of PRA methods with livestock-keepers include guidance (and examples) on the
use of certain visual methods in relation to CPRs (IIED, 1994; Waters-Bayer and
Bayer, 1994; Conroy, 2001). Relevant methods that are described include natural
resource maps highlighting grazing areas (and sometimes water points) and seasonal
PRA Tools Used for Research into Common Pool Resources 4

feed calendars showing how sources and/or types of forage vary over the course of a
year.

Water resources
Two issues of PLA Notes, published by IIED, are relevant here: Community Water
Management (IIED, 1999), and Participation and Fishing Communities (IIED, 1997).
These describe the use of PRA methods and participatory planning and
development in relation to these resources. Two manuals are also available that
provide guidance on the application of PRA methods in relation to coastal fisheries
(Townsley, 1993; Ward and Jeffries, 2000).

Research on CPRs and livelihoods

Most published work is in the form of case studies of the situation in one or a few
villages or localities. Sometimes there are also national or regional overviews, as
illustrated by the case of India (Jodha, 1986; Osman et al., 2001). Succinct general
summaries are also available of the contributions to livelihoods of forests (Arnold,
1998b), aquatic resources (Townsley, 1998) and water resources (Soussan, 1998). A
number of current research issues associated with CPRs and livelihoods will now be
described.

Assessing the contribution of CPRs to livelihoods

The growing prominence of livelihoods approaches in development has led to
renewed interest in this topic. In some regions, such as southern Africa, the
contribution of CPRs to livelihoods has been under-researched and underestimated,
at least until recently (Shackleton et al., 2000). In others, such as India, there has been
research in the past, but this needs to be updated since the situation can change quite
rapidly over a decade or two (Adolph et al., 2001).

One reason why the contribution of CPRs has been underestimated is that there has
been a focus on direct use (for subsistence) and monetary benefits, and a neglect of
non-market values such as aesthetics, shade, sacred areas, existence values and
ecological services (Shackleton et al., 2000). Further work is needed on estimating the
importance of these non-market values.

Much of the research on the African commons has tended to focus on certain
resources or habitats in a ‘sectoral’ manner and to neglect the multiple-use character
of most African commons (Cousins, 2000). The shift in focus to livelihoods
necessitates more holistic analyses, and this may enable the identification of key
strategic entry points for enhancing common pool resources more generally.

Differentiating between different groups

There has been a tendency in much of the research on CPRs to look at their
contribution to communities in general, without distinguishing between different
groups within the communities, as can be seen from the following three examples. In
the case of CPR research in Africa generally “insufficient attention [has been] paid
to socio-economic differentiation within rural society” including gender dimensions
of use of the commons (Cousins, 2000). A similar situation has prevailed in India in
relation to shared forest management, where studies have generally failed to examine
“who, within communities and households, has gained and who has lost by class,
5 PRA Tools Used for Research into Common Pool Resources

caste, ethnicity and gender” (Sarin et al., 1998). In the case of water resources there
has been a focus on the physical availability of water, and a neglect of the social,
economic and institutional factors that determine whether and how particular
households have access to the resource (Soussan, 1998).

Effective management of CPRs

To sustain and enhance the contributions of CPRs to livelihoods requires their
effective management. Although there are cases of CPRs being appropriately
managed under common property regimes, these tend to be exceptions. The state has
often been nominally responsible for managing many CPRs, such as forests; but state
management has generally been ineffective, with the exception of some high priority
areas, such as national parks and reserves. Most CPRs have not been actively
managed, and their use can be described as open access.

The degradation of forests and other CPRs has led to recognition that the state
cannot protect and manage them alone, and that local people must be involved. This
recognition has spawned a wide range of initiatives to promote community
management. These include CAMPFIRE and related initiatives in southern Africa
and joint forest management in India and Pakistan. Particularly during the last
decade, there has been a growing body of research on indigenous management
systems and on the functioning of the new initiatives in shared management of
CPRs.1

One issue that has been highlighted in recent research is the importance of having a
supportive enabling environment (regarding relevant policies, laws and procedures) if
CPR management is to be effective. For example, there is often a lack of clarity in
respect of rights to CPRs, and this contributes to inappropriate land use and
management practices, and to ineffective rural governance (Cousins, 2000).
Governments have an important role to play in creating such environments, and in
ensuring that relationships between state agencies and communities managing CPRs
are positive.

Conflict avoidance and management

It appears that competition and resource-related conflicts are on the increase in
Africa and elsewhere, and this trend is likely to continue as pressures on CPRs
intensify. In the absence of effective institutional arrangements for their
management, these can undermine the sustainable management of CPRs. This has
drawn researchers’ attention to the nature of CPR-related conflicts and into how
conflicts can be managed most effectively (Conroy et al., 2001; Warner, 2001).

PRA METHODS, COMMON POOL RESOURCES AND

LIVELIHOODS

Introduction
This section touches on some general aspects of PRA. Readers are encouraged to
refer to other sources for further information about PRA (Nabasa et al., 1995; Pretty

1
For example, participatory forest management in India: Conroy et al. (1999); Jeffrey and Sundar (1999), Khare et al.
(2000); Sarin et al. (1998); Saxena (1997).
PRA Tools Used for Research into Common Pool Resources 6

et al., 1995). Researchers interested in following participatory approaches in other

aspects of their work should consult other guidelines in this series: for technology
development (Sutherland, 1998) and for monitoring and evaluation (Guijt, 1999).

Where researchers are interested in getting a general overview of a topic or a resource

that is not specific to each household, ‘visual PRA tools’ can provide a sound
qualitative picture relatively quickly. More formal methods tend to take longer to
apply and to be more expensive, and for many types of research they may not be
necessary. Even where they are necessary it is often useful to begin with PRA
methods, then to follow up with the other methods later once the former have
provided a general understanding of the situation.

In PRA visual techniques (e.g. maps and diagrams) are used because they encourage
people to get involved in the process, to express the information in a way that is
easily intelligible to them, to discuss issues amongst themselves, and to add to, refine
and correct this information. When people have made the diagram or map it
provides a useful basis for questions and discussion. There may be high levels of
illiteracy among disadvantaged groups, especially women. Where this is the case, by
utilizing symbols, rather than words and numbers, mapping and diagramming make
it possible for these people to be involved in the process as much as literate people.

Visual techniques are part of the suite of techniques used in PRA. However, PRA is
more than a collection of techniques. It is a general approach whose effectiveness
depends heavily on the attitude of its practitioners: it will only work well if they
listen to and respect the views of the local people with whom they are working
(Chambers, 1997).

Principles of PRA
PRA has a few basic principles or characteristics. One is that it should not be
conducted in a hurried way. A second principle of PRA/rapid rural appraisal (RRA)
is ‘triangulation’ which basically means cross-checking information from different
sources and using different approaches. The reason for doing this is that without
cross-checking there is a danger of producing findings that are not entirely correct.
This can be due to misunderstandings between the survey team and the participants,
only getting part of the picture, participants deliberately giving false information, or
unrepresentative individuals dominating discussions.

A third principle of PRA/RRA is ‘optimal ignorance’. This means that development

professionals only seek information about things that are relevant to their aims, and
to the level of detail that they require, rather than collecting information that is not
relevant, even if they find it interesting personally. One important reason for
adopting this principle is that the time of the local people (particularly women) is
precious. Another reason is that experience has shown that the collection of large
amounts of detailed, quantitative information during the diagnostic or needs
assessment phase tends to create problems in data management and analysis.

General overview of visual PRA methods and common pool resources

The principal visual PRA methods of relevance to CPRs and livelihoods are:
‘mapping’ of the CPRs and other natural resources; ‘transect diagrams’; ‘bio-
resource flow diagrams’; ‘seasonal calendars’ showing which CPRs and CPR
7 PRA Tools Used for Research into Common Pool Resources

products are used at different times of the year; and ‘matrices’, in which different
livelihood activities, some CPR-related and some not, are scored and ranked for their
relative importance. In addition, 3-D models of watersheds have occasionally been
constructed by local people.

The drawing of the map or diagram is not an end in itself – it is a tool for facilitating
discussion, so once the map/diagram has been drawn it should be used as a basis for
asking questions. It may be necessary to make some revisions to take account of
points raised in the discussion. Generally speaking, people find it quite easy to make
maps of natural resources, and enjoy doing so. Seasonal calendars and matrix scoring
can be more challenging, since they involve quite detailed recall and quantification,
and facilitating their preparation can be quite a skilled job.

Natural resource mapping: maps and transect diagrams (see below) show ‘spatial
dimensions’ of CPRs and other resources. It is important to allow enough room (on
the ground) to show common pool (e.g. village ponds, rangelands, forests) and other
resources (private fields) around the village and some distance away from it. People
may forget to show certain resources on the map, in which case it will need to be
revised: thus, a copy of it should not be made until the discussion has been
completed.

Transect diagrams record information that has been collected on a transect walk2,
which often follows the preparation of a natural resource map. The map shows where
the different CPRs are located, and the route of the walk can be selected so as to take
in any CPRs that are relevant to the work being done.

In order to obtain some historical information and an idea of trends, villagers can be
asked to draw an historical transect. For example, an historical transect diagram of a
forest, showing the different tree and animal species found in different parts of the
forest, can be compared with a current one to see what changes have taken place.

Seasonal calendars show the ‘temporal dimension’ of resource use. They are
diagrammatic representations of the various activities, problems and opportunities
that occur at different times of the year, and which have an effect on people’s lives
and activities. They can be used to show when different CPRs and their products are
used, and how CPR-based activities fit in (temporally) with other livelihood
activities.

Matrix scoring and ranking is a useful tool for assessing the relative importance of
different activities in people’s livelihoods, including particular CPR-based ones. A
matrix is a double entry grid that can be used to analyse two sets of variables. Once
the main livelihood activities have been identified, participants should be asked what
criteria (the column headings in the matrix below are examples of criteria3) they
think are important when making comparisons between them. When these have

2
The walk itself is: (a) a form of direct observation of what is actually happening (e.g. are animals being grazed in the
forest, and is there any evidence that tree branches are being lopped?); and (b) a mobile interview, in that key
informants join the research team on the walk and answer their questions, while people encountered en route may
also be interviewed.
3
Other criteria that people sometimes use include: enterprise available most of the year, and flexibility (work can
easily be fitted in around other activities).
PRA Tools Used for Research into Common Pool Resources 8

TABLE 1: Scoring and ranking of livelihood activities

Activity Income Food Other Total score Overall
subsistence rank
products

Crop production 3 5 1 9 1

Animal husbandry 1 2 1 4 4

Wage labour 5 0 0 5 2
(non-agriculture)

Forest products 2 1 3 6 3

been agreed, the activities can be compared and scored, and then ranked in
importance.

A hypothetical example of this, based on work by the author with forest-dependent

communities in India, is given in Table 1. Scoring is on a scale of 0 to 5 (maximum).
It should be noted that the total scores for each enterprise will not necessarily
correspond with the rankings. This is because different criteria may have different
weights (importance) in the minds of the participants. In this example, wage labour
is ranked more highly than forest products, despite having a slightly lower total score.
This is because ‘income’ is considered more important than ‘other subsistence
products’, and wage labour has a much higher score against this criterion than forest
products.

Exploring gender and other differences in common pool resources use

The contributions of CPRs to men’s and women’s livelihoods often differ, as do
their perceptions of the relative importance of CPRs and their products. Thus, it is
advisable to discuss these matters with men and women separately, and to encourage
each group to produce its own map or diagram. An example of gender differences is
given in the resource use matrix in Table 2. This matrix was compiled by getting
separate groups of men and women to put 1–15 beans in each box to indicate the
relative importance of the resource to their group. This particular example does not
specify whether the tree products, etc., are from CPRs or from private land, but the
matrix can easily be modified to provide this information.

TABLE 2: Resource use matrix scoring

Cropland Kitchen Tree wood Tree leaves Medicinal Grasses
plants

Men 12 3 6 3 6 10

Women 2 10 6 13 8 4

Source: adapted from Thomson and Schoonmaker Freudenberger (1997).

9 PRA Tools Used for Research into Common Pool Resources

Matrices similar to the last one can also be used to explore the dependence on CPRs
of households from different wealth or social categories. An example is given in Box
1 below, which is from an NRSP research project on forest-dependent communities
in Orissa, India.

BOX 1: The relative importance of various livelihood activities for different

groups: the example of Adendungri village, Balangir District, Orissa

1. Matrix ranking (Mirdha Group – Tribals)

Food Income OSPs+ Rank
Agriculture ** * 3
Forest products * **** * 2
Wage labour **** *** 1
Animal husbandry * * * 3

2. Matrix ranking (Scheduled Castes)

Food Income OSPs+ Rank
Agriculture ** * 3
Forest products * *** ** 1
Wage Labour ** ** 2
Baja *** * 2
Animal husbandry * * 4

3. Matrix ranking (Kulitas)

Food Income OSPs+ Rank
Agriculture **** * ** 1
Forest products *** *** 2
Wage Labour * ** 4
Animal husbandry * * ** 3

+ OSPs = other subsistence products (i.e. other than food).

There are three major groups in the village, of which the poorest are the Tribals and Scheduled Caste
people. Though all three groups have four common livelihood options, the precise nature of activity
implied within a livelihood option varies. Agriculture for the Mirdha and Scheduled Caste groups
implies cultivation of short rotation paddy on upland; whereas for the Kulita group it also includes
cultivation of a long rotation, high yielding variety plus cultivation of other crops like vegetables,
oilseeds, etc. Income from forest and tree products for the Mirdha and Scheduled Caste groups is
mainly from Kendu (Diospyros melanoxylon) leaves and firewood, whereas for the Kulita group it also
includes Mahua (Maduca indica) flowers. Similarly, wage labour options vary a little from group to
group. For all the three groups, the importance given to agriculture is based on the amount and type
of land owned by them. The importance of wage labour within the livelihood system is determined
to a large extent by the amount of agricultural land as well as the number of able workers in the
family.

Forest/tree products for all the three groups are the most important source of cash income. However,
particularly for the Kulitas, some of this income is from tree products on private agricultural land.

Source: Rai (1998).

Livestock, grazing and nutrient flows

The contribution of forage from common pastures and forests
One way in which CPRs contribute to rural livelihoods is by serving as a source of
forage for livestock. In some regions CPRs are the major source of forage: these
include southern Africa4 and parts of India, notably Rajasthan. Forage from CPRs

4
In southern Africa "a crucial component of agro-pastoralism throughout the region is a system of communal tenure
on rangeland, which supplies the bulk of the livestock feed" (Cousins, 1992, p.3).
PRA Tools Used for Research into Common Pool Resources 10

may make both direct and indirect contributions: it contributes directly by helping
to sustain people’s animals, thereby providing them with products (e.g. milk, meat)
that they can consume or sell. It contributes indirectly insofar as the animals
consuming the forage provide inputs to crop production, either in the form of
manure or draught power.

A valuable tool for providing a quick indication of the relative contribution of CPRs
to livestock feed over the course of a year is the ‘seasonal feed calendar’. Some
calendars focus on forage by type, while others focus on forage by source. In this case,
we are primarily interested in the source. An example of such a calendar is given
below (Figure 1), for large ruminants (cows and buffaloes). It is important not to use
one calendar for all types of ruminant livestock, as the feeding systems of small
ruminants (goats and sheep) are likely to differ significantly from those of large
ruminants and between each other. The seasonal calendar can be usefully
complemented by a natural resource map, showing where the different forage CPRs
are in relation to the village and giving a rough indication of their relative sizes.

Source Siyala (Winter) Hunala (Summer) Chaumasa (Rains)

Nov–Dec Jan–Feb Mar–Apr May–Jun Jul–Aug Sept–Oct

Loppings 1 2

Stored crop 6 8 5 3
fodder

Grass from 6 5 9 10 8
protected
area

Concentrate/ 1 1 1 1 1
grains

Cultivated
green fodder
– Barseem

Open 3 2 1 1 1 4
grazing

Green grass 4 12
cut

Source: Saint (2000).

Figure 1: Feed calendar for large ruminants in Jogyon Ka Guda*

* The figures in each column add up to 16. This is based on the old Indian currency in which 16
annas was equal to one rupee. The figures in each cell can be converted into percentages. For
example, the last column shows that 75% of feed (12 out of 16 annas) in September/October is
cut grass, and the other 25% comes from open grazing.

In the village where this calendar (Figure 1) was prepared, there are two types of CPR.
One is a closed area of common pasture land, where grazing is not permitted, which
is managed under a common property regime: this is referred to in the first column
as the ‘protected area’. The other is an open access area, where animals can graze
11 PRA Tools Used for Research into Common Pool Resources

freely, which corresponds to ‘open grazing’ in the first column. ‘Loppings’ is a little
ambiguous, as these could come from trees on common land or on private land. The
other sources are private, either produced on the farm or purchased.

The calendar shows that villagers obtain a large proportion of their feed intake from
the protected pastureland between November and July, with this being the major
source during the dry season and early rainy season. By contrast, the contribution
from open grazing is quite small, reaching a peak of 25% in the second half of the
rainy season. (The situation was very different for small ruminants, with open grazing
on common lands being the main source throughout the year.) Thus, it is clear that
if local people did not have access to these two CPRs for forage the contribution of
animal husbandry to their livelihoods would be severely reduced.

Understanding inter-relationships between farms and common pool resources

Bio-resource flow diagrams have been used in farming systems research and have
been found to be useful “in identifying interrelationships between crop, livestock
and tree components of the farm, and between private and common/government
land… they also aided discussion on problems, and prompted suggestions from
farmers on how these might be overcome” (Pound, 2000). Members of individual
farming households were asked questions about different components of the
farming system.5 Details of each component were arranged on a large sheet of flip-
chart paper, and flows between the components were recorded. Where possible, the
direction, quantity and timing of flows were recorded on the diagram.

Bio-resource flow diagrams have also been used to study nutrient flows (see, for
example, Brinn, 2001). These take place within the farm and between the farm and
the external environment: nutrient flows from CPRs to the farm are one component
of the overall picture, which varies in importance from farm to farm and from one
place to another. Nutrient flows from CPRs include cut fodder, such as the grass from
the protected area mentioned in the previous section, manure from animals that have
been grazing on common lands, and fish from common water bodies.

Forests
Natural resource mapping and seasonal calendars are commonly used in studies of
people’s dependency on forest resources. Matrix ranking can also contribute to
ascertaining the contribution of forests and their products to livelihoods, but has not
been used as often: an example was given earlier, in Box 1. Box 1 includes a general
indication of the relative importance of forest products, but does not distinguish
between different products. The relative importance of particular products may vary
from one group to another.

Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) can be important for both direct use
(subsistence products), and as an income-generating activity for rural people living in
or near forest areas. A seasonal calendar that shows when different NTFPs are
harvested, and when different agricultural operations are carried out, can be a very
useful way of showing how NTFP harvesting fits into people’s livelihood systems.

5
These were: household members, crops, livestock, trees, common land, off-farm and non-farm activities and inputs
of knowledge, materials and services.
PRA Tools Used for Research into Common Pool Resources 12

Coastal fisheries
Fisheries development is characterized by specific challenges that other sectors do
not face (Sarch, 1997). These include the nature of the resource, which is particularly
difficult to monitor: “fish are highly mobile, hidden from view and subject to
environmental fluctuations that are often not documented or well understood by
outside experts” (Sarch, 1997).

Participatory approaches have been used to explore issues that have proved
challenging to fisheries development (Sarch, 1997). For example, they have been used
to investigate the operation of fishing tenure arrangements at community level:
experiences in the South Pacific and Nigeria highlight the importance of
documenting what were previously unwritten boundaries and understandings. They
have also been used to tap local knowledge about the fish resource base and have
proved valuable in ‘stock assessment’. However, much scope remains for the
development of participatory techniques that will reveal community understanding
of its fishing resources and provide bases for community development efforts.

The tools used to obtain information about the contribution of land-based CPRs can
be used to study the contribution of coastal fisheries to people’s livelihoods. Box 2
gives a brief example of how different PRA tools were combined in work in the
Philippines.

An example of a seasonal calendar is given in Figure 2. This calendar shows the

different livelihood activities that are undertaken at various times of the year,
including the different types of fishing technique and the species caught using each.
It gives some indications, therefore, of how fishing fits into the overall livelihood
system.

Some users of PRA tools in coastal fisheries research have encountered difficulties
in applying them – particularly resource maps. They found that information such as
the location of each boat’s fishing grounds and the composition of catches can be
sensitive (Haque and Blowfield, 1997). This is because fisherfolk are usually
competing with each other for a limited resource, so it is not in their interest to share
their knowledge.

BOX 2: Combining different PRA tools in studying coastal fisheries

The fishing community of Santa Mercedes Village in the Philippines used a range of PRA techniques
to analyse their fishing (and other) resources. The fishers were particularly pleased with their
seasonal calendar, which they used to provide a detailed breakdown of the fish species available
throughout the year. Matrix ranking was used to analyse species preferences. A sea map detailed the
resource base of the estuary fished by the community: fish habitats, the location of different species,
breeding grounds and gear types were included.

Source: Sarch (1997): adapted from Mascarenhas and Hildalgo (1992).

 13
PRA Tools Used for Research into Common Pool Resources
Source: U. Kleih (personal communication).

Figure 2: Seasonal calendar of Hatkhola para village, Bangladesh

PRA Tools Used for Research into Common Pool Resources 14

CONCLUSIONS

Common pool resources make important contributions to the livelihoods of a large

proportion of rural populations in developing countries. As populations grow, and
CPRs decline in both area and quality, the contributions of CPRs will generally
decrease, but will still be important for many years to come, particularly for poorer
groups in remoter areas. Where CPRs have become severely degraded their
rehabilitation may even increase the size of the benefits that certain groups derive
from them. The increasing pressure on CPRs tends to increase the likelihood of
conflicts over access to them, so conflict issues can be expected to grow in
importance. This in turn suggests that tools will increasingly be required that can
specifically address conflict situations, for example, stakeholder analysis (see
Grimble, 1998, in this series), and more recent and ongoing work on conflict
resolution.

Sources of expertise
Three types of expertise have been referred to in these guidelines: expertise in CPRs,
PRA and livelihoods analysis. Natural scientists can acquire such expertise either by
undergoing training themselves or by commissioning work from others who have
this expertise. It is possible to obtain a basic training in the use of PRA methods or
in livelihoods analysis by doing short courses at various organizations in the UK, but
such training is not available in relation to CPRs.

Common pool resources are a research topic in their own right. There is a large
amount of literature about them, both empirical (e.g. for forests, Arnold, 1998a) and
theoretical (e.g. Ostrom, 1990); and some social scientists (anthropologists,
economists and political scientists) specialize in research on CPRs. Thus, if natural
scientists need assistance on the subject of CPRs and their contribution to
livelihoods, they should contact research or consultancy organizations in the country
concerned or in the UK, who have social science staff. Such persons may also be
experienced in the use of PRA, which is now widely used in developing countries.
Expertise in the application of the sustainable livelihoods framework and approach
is more difficult to find in developing countries, as these concepts are still relatively
new.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READING

ADOLPH, B., BUTTERWORTH, J., CONROY, C. and MORRIS, M. (2001)

Common Pool Resources in Semi-arid India. Synthesis Report.
CRIDA/CWS/AKRSP(I)/WRMLtd./MSU/NRI Common Pool Resources Research
Project Report No. 4. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute. (unpublished)

ARNOLD, M. (1998a) Managing forests as common property. FAO Forestry Paper,

No. 136. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

ARNOLD, M. (1998b) Forestry and sustainable rural livelihoods. In: Sustainable

Rural Livelihoods: What Contribution Can We Make? Carney, D. (ed.). London:
Department for International Development.
15 PRA Tools Used for Research into Common Pool Resources

BRINN, P. (2001) Institutional Support for Integrated Nutrient Management.

Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute. (unpublished)

CARTER, J. (1996) Recent Approaches to Participatory Forest Resource Assessment.

London: Overseas Development Institute.

CARNEY, D. (ed.) (1998) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What Contribution Can We

Make? London: Department for International Development.

CHAMBERS, R. (1997) Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. London: IT
Publications.

CONROY, C. (2001) Participatory Situation Analysis with Livestock-Keepers: A Guide.

Pune, India: BAIF Development Research Foundation and Natural Resources
Institute.

CONROY, C., MISHRA, A. and RAI, A. (1999) Self-initiated Community Forest

Management in Orissa: Practices, Prospects and Policy Implications. Chatham, UK:
Natural Resources Institute.

CONROY, C., MISHRA, A., RAI, A. and CHAN, M-K. (2001) Conflicts affecting
participatory forest management: their nature and implications. pp. 165–184. In:
Participatory Natural Resource Management: Analytical Perspectives. Vira, B. and Jeffery,
R. (eds). London: Palgrave.

COUSINS, B. (ed.) (1992) Institutional Dynamics in Communal Grazing Regimes in

Southern Africa. Harare: Centre for Applied Social Sciences, University of
Zimbabwe.

COUSINS, B. (2000) Tenure and common property resources in Africa. In: Evolving
Land Rights, Policy and Tenure in Africa. Toulmin, C. and Quan, J. F. (eds). London:
Department for International Development/International Institute for Environment
and Development/Natural Resources Institute.

DFID (1999) Shaping Forest Management: How Coalitions Manage Forests. London:
Department for International Development.

GRIMBLE, R. (1998) Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management.

Socio-economic Methodologies for Natural Resources Research. Best Practice Guidelines.
Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute.

GUIJT, I. (1999) Participatory monitoring and evaluation for natural resource

management and research. Socio-economic Methodologies for Natural Resources
Research. Best Practice Guidelines. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute.

HAQUE, N. and BLOWFIELD, M. (1997) Socio-economic methodologies for

coastal fishing communities: the example of set bagnet communities in Bangladesh.
Information Bulletin, No. 10. Chennai: Department for International Development
Post-Harvest Fisheries Project.
PRA Tools Used for Research into Common Pool Resources 16

IIED (1994) RRA Notes, No. 20, Special Issue on Livestock. London: International
Institute for Environment and Development.

IIED (1997) PLA Notes, No. 30, Special Issue on Participation and Fishing Communities.
London: International Institute for Environment and Development.

IIED (1999) PLA Notes, No. 35, Special Issue on Community Water Management.
London: International Institute for Environment and Development.

JEFFERY, R. and SUNDAR, N. (eds) (1999) A New Moral Economy for India’s Forests?
Discourses of Community and Participation. New Delhi: Sage.

JODHA, N. S. (1986) Common property resources and rural poor in dry regions of
India. Economic and Political Weekly, 21: 1169–1181.

KHARE, A., SARIN, M., SAXENA, N. C., PALIT, S., BATHLA, S., VANIA, F. and
SATYANARAYANA, M. (2000) Joint Forest Management: Policy, Practice and
Prospects. New Delhi: WWF-India and International Institute for Environment and
Development.

MCKEAN, M. (1995) Common property: what is it, what is it good for, and what
makes it work? Paper presented at the International Conference on Chinese Rural
Collectives and Voluntary Organizations: Between State Organizations and Private
Interest, 9–13 January, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.

MESSERCHMIDT, D. (1995) Rapid Appraisal for Community Forestry: The RA Process

and Rapid Diagnostic Tools. London: International Institute for Environment and
Development.

NABASA, J., RUTWARA, G., WALKER, F. and WERE, C. (1995) Participatory

Rural Appraisal: Practical Experiences. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute.

OSMAN, M., MISHRA, P. K., MISRA, A. K., DIXIT, S., RAMACHANDRAN,

K., SINGH, H. P., RAMA RAO, C. A. and KORWAR, G. R. (2001) Common Pool
Resources in Semi-arid India. A Review of Dynamics, Management and Livelihood
Contributions. CRIDA/ CWS/ AKRSP(I)/ WRMLtd/ MSU/ NRI Common Pool
Resources Research Project Report No. 1. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources
Institute. (unpublished)

OSTROM, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for

Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
POUND, B. (2000) Visit Report, 12–30 March 2000. Karantaka Watershed
Development Society, Bangalore. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute.
(unpublished)

PRETTY, J., GUIJT, I., THOMPSON, J. and SCOONES, I. (1995) Participatory

Learning and Action: A Trainer’s Guide. London: International Institute for
Environment and Development.
17 PRA Tools Used for Research into Common Pool Resources

RAI, A. (1998) Balangir Protection Case II: Adendungri. Project Case Study.
Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute.

SAINT, K. (2000) Silvipasture Management Case Studies by Ubeshwar Vikas Mandal.

BAIF/NRI Goat Research Project Report Number 4. Pune: India: BAIF Development
Research Foundation and Natural Resources Institute.

SARCH, M.-T. (1997) Addressing the challenges of fisheries development. In: PLA
Notes, No. 30, Special Issue on Participation and Fishing Communities. London:
International Institute for Environment and Development.

SARIN, M. et al. (1998) Who is Gaining? Who is Losing? Gender and Equity Concerns in
Joint Forest Management. New Delhi: Society for Promotion of Wastelands
Development.

SAXENA, N. C. (1997) The Saga of Participatory Forest Management in India. Bogor,

Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research.

SHACKLETON, S., SHACKLETON, C. and COUSINS, B. (2000) Re-valuing the

communal lands of southern Africa: new understandings of rural livelihoods.
Natural Resources Perspectives, No. 62. London: Overseas Development Institute.

SPWD (1992) Community forest economy and use patterns: participatory rural
appraisal (PRA) methods in south Gujarat, India. In: Field Methods Manual: Volume
2. New Delhi: Society for Promotion of Wastelands Development.

SOUSSAN, J. (1998) Water/irrigation and sustainable rural livelihoods. In:

Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What Contribution Can We Make? Carney, D. (ed.).
London: Department for International Development.

SUTHERLAND, A. (1998) Participatory research in natural resources. Socio-

economic Methodologies for Natural Resources Research. Best Practice Guidelines.
Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute.

THOMSON, J. and SCHOONMAKER FREUDENBERGER, K. (1997) Crafting

institutional arrangements for community forestry. Community Forestry Field Manual,
No. 7. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

TOWNSLEY, P. (1993) A Manual on Rapid Appraisal Methods for Coastal

Communities. Chennai: Bay of Bengal Programme.

TOWNSLEY, P. (1998) Aquatic resources and sustainable rural livelihoods. In:

Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What Contribution Can We Make? Carney, D. (ed.).
London: Department for International Development.

WARD, A. and JEFFRIES, D. (2000) A Manual for Assessing Post-Harvest Fisheries

Losses. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute.

WARNER, M. (2001) Complex Problems, Negotiated Solutions: Tools and Strategies for
Reducing Conflict to Promote Sustainable Rural Livelihoods. London: IT Publications.
PRA Tools Used for Research into Common Pool Resources 18

WATERS-BAYER, A. and BAYER, W. (1994) Planning with Pastoralists: PRA and

More – A Review of Methods Focused on Africa. Eschborn: GTZ.