Conservation, ecological justice and harm to nature - Environmental Harm: An Eco-justice Perspective - page 87

• the movement of labour: that is, the emancipation of the peasant
from traditional ties and obligations to the landed aristocracy; thereby
freeing them as a workforce of 'free' labourers for the emergent
capitalist class;
• the shift in the responsibility of the rich for the poor via a customary
obligation to the notion of 'state' responsibility for social welfare;
thereby severing the connection between wealth (and wealth
generation) and (privatised) social responsibility.
Thus a massive change occurs in the nature, definition and dynamics
of 'property' in the transition from feudalism to capitalism.
In the midst of these changes came a shift in attitude and policy
toward common lands of the people. Such lands became the property
of kings and queens, and what happened on the land was subject to
royal fiat and the dictates of the ruling elite. The mythic story of Robin
Hood alerts us to the days when the unauthorised hunting of deer
in the king's forest was a punishable offence, regardless of need, prior
access rights or circumstance on the part of the hunter. This represented
a major change from customary use of such common lands.
The issue of what is 'common' land, and how best to care for the
'commons', has in recent years been transposed to the international
level in several different ways. This not only entails ownership issues
(as to whether the property is to be held communally, privately or by
the state), but extends as well to the conditions under which land is to
be carved up, managed and governed (see Chapter Two).
Who exactly is going to, or should, care for the global commons is a
longstanding and contentious issue. The 'tragedy of the commons' was
a dilemma identified by Hardin (1968) who argued that individuals
working independently of one another will over-use a common
property resource for short-term benefits while decimating the
resource for longer-term use. The answer in this case was to argue for
the privatisation of nature, since it was assumed that an interest in one's
own private property would secure beneficial ecological outcomes. This
also implies that more structured engagement and focused control, by
property owning individuals and groups, is needed if the 'commons'
is to be protected and maintained adequately.
Whether informed by notions of self-interest and profit-motives,
or paternalistic notions 'that certain people know best' about land
management, there has been a general movement toward breaking
down traditional ownership and management schemes around the
world. This occurs in several different ways, and involves a variety of
international actors. For present purposes, the concern is to elucidate