THE UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG

land, and water sources. 331 Compliance, reinforced by an authority system, is a necessary
pre-condition for the viability of any resource regime.
A common resource regime would not work without the requisite authority system that makes
it certain that rights and duties are adhered to. 332 The same requirements exist for state or
public goods such as biodiversity. Without authority there can be no property! When the
authority system breaks down, the coherent management of natural resource use collapse.
Under these circumstances, any resource regime, whether private, common, or state,
degenerates into open access. 333 Therefore putting all this together we understand that a
reasonable degree of authority and organization among resource using communities is not an
option, it is a must. The big question that arises is: with this kind of structure put in place and
supported by revamped institutions, can we see a move to restoration rather than continued
degeneration of natural resource regimes in Kenya?
Mearns points out that the central role of institutions is in regulating patterns of governance.
He makes the evaluation in specific regard to the behaviour between individual groups in
society in mediating environment-society relationships. 334 He grounds his argument in the
extended form of entitlements analysis, looking at how differently positioned social actors
command environmental goods and services. 335 But our concerns here are; how do different
social actors view natural resource regime changes at different times? How does control of
access by these actors transform the natural resource governance?
Sen uses the term entitlements not to mean what people should have but the range of
possibilities that people can have. In other words to him entitlements represent the set of
alternative commodity bundles that a person can command in society using the totality of
rights and opportunities he or she faces. 336 Sen’s analysis seems to look at how individuals
gain from different resource endowments to improve their well being and social standing.
However, Melissa reacts differently to Sen’s analysis. He informs that this is a rather
descriptive approach and cannot easily show us how such people can or cannot survive under
a given institutional setting. 337 But then Sen goes ahead to mention that entitlements can
enhance people’s capabilities, which explains what people, can do with their entitlements. He
illustrates this through examples like, command over fuel resources derived from rights over
331
Behnke, R H. 1984. Fenced and Open-Range Ranching: The Commercialization of Pastoral Land and
Livestock in Africa', In Livestock Development in Sub-Saharan Africa, edited by Simpson, J.R. and P.
Evangelou, 261-284. Boulder: Westview Press.
332
Baden, J. 1977. A Primer for the Management of Common Pool Resources', In Managing the Commons,
edited by H.Garrett and J, Baden, 137-146. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
333
Andelson, R. V. 1991. Commons Without Tragedy: The Congruence of Garrett Hardin and Henry George', In
Commons Without Tragedy: The Social Ecology of Land Tenure and Democracy, edited by R.V, Andelson,
613-615. London: Centre for Incentive Taxation.
334
Mearns, R. 1995. Environmental Entitlements towards empowerment for sustainable development. In
Towards Sustainable development edited by Singh, N and V.Titi, 37-53. London: Zed Books
335
Sen, A. 1984. Rights and Capabilities. In Sen, A. Resources, Values and Development. Oxford: Blackwell.
336
Sen, A. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor Books.
337
Melissa, L, R. Mearns, and I. Scoons. 1999. Environmental Entitlements: Dynamics in Community Based
Natural Resource Management. Brighton: World Development 27:225-347.
66