Typification

• Type of institution for collective action: Common (Community Association)
• Name/description institution: Comunidad de Bardenas Reales de Navarra 
• Country: Spain
• Region: Navarra 
• Name of city or specified area: Bardenas Reales de Navarra
• Further specification location: Territory not belonging to any municipality.
• Surface area and boundaries: 41,372 hectares. Boundaries: to the north the towns of Carcastillo, Mélida, Murillo-el-Cuende, and Caparroso; to the south, municipal terms of Cabanillas, Fustiñana, Buñuel, and Cortes; to the east: the municipalities of Sádaba, Ejea-de-los-Caballeros, and Tauste (province of Zaragoza); to the west the towns of Villafranca, Cadreita, Valtierra, Arguedas, and Tudela.
• Recognized by local government: Yes.

Foundation – termination

• Foundation/start of institution, date or year: April 14, 1705.
• Confirmed year of founding or first mention: Confirmed date.
• Foundation act present: Yes. Transcription provided by Sánchez Asso and Martínez Francés (1872).
• Description of Act of foundation: Royal Decree issued by King Philip V to the 22 entities Bardenas, granting use rights in exchange for the delivery of 12,000 pesos in cash. 
• Year of termination of institution: Not terminated: continues to operate today.

Concise history of institution

General

The property of the Bardenas territory, for which user rights were granted to different (groups of) users at various moments in time,  belonged to the Crown. The Roncal Valley (comprising the villages of Burgui, Garde, Isaba, Roncal, Uztarroz, Urzainqui, and Vidángoz) in the Pyrenees, had their grazing rights recognized by the Crown in the ninth century. As the Christian kings pushed the frontier to the south and founded new towns, the Crown provided them with letters (fueros) containing immunity privileges and user rights in order to attract settlers. Arguedas received his letter of immunity (fuero) in 1092 and Tudela in 1127. Other towns had their rights to grazing, firewood and hunting confirmed later on, or acquired these rights later, often after paying a special service to the King: Caparroso in 1472, Carcastillo, Villafranca, and the Monastery of La Oliva in 1443, Mélida and Cadreita in 1498, the Valle de Salazar (a community association composed of fifteen villages: Ochagavía, Izalzu, Jaurrieta, Ezcároz, Oronz, Esparza, Ibilcieta, Sarriés, Güesa, Igal, Iciz, Uscarrés, Gallués, Izal, and Ripalda) in 1504, Valtierra in 1563, Corella 1630, Milagro in 1650, Fustiñana, Santacara, and Cortes in 1664, Marcilla in 1665, Peralta, Funes, and Falces in 1693.

The enjoyment of the Bardenas was not free. The fiscal court of the Kingdom of Navarra (Cámara de Comptos) collected the fees imposed on breeders (yerbazgo) to enter the pasture, and also paid loggers to get firewood. Neither was peaceful. Conflicts among users resulted in violence and lawsuits like the one that the Roncal Valley and the city of Tudela faced , decided by the sentence of November 17, 1498. The towns also had no control over the resource limits. The number of villages with the right to use continued to rise due to the financing needs of the monarchy that, especially in the second half of the seventeenth century, abused the sale or confirmation of rights to gain extra revenues.

Institution

In 1702, during the War of the Spanish Succession, the commoner villages offered the King to pay 9,000 pesos in exchange for terminating the sale of usage rights. They demanded that their rights of use over the Bardenas were to be recognized for perpetuity and not no rights to use would be granted anymore to any other locality. The King accepted these conditions, setting the amount for this deal at 12,000 pesos. Bardenas-Reales Community was born, composed of 22 institutions (2 valleys, 2 towns, 17 villages and 1 monastery). The property continued to belong to King and resource management was shared by the representative of the King (the Patrimonial) and the four mayors (Alcaldes) appointed by the Roncal valley, the city of Tudela, and the towns of Caparroso and Arguedas. Each year, the royal representative, accompanied by the four mayors, held a hearing or meeting on November 12th. At this meetings, conflicts between users were resolved, and guardians (guardias) and rangers (monteros) were appointed.

On September 15, 1820, shortly after the liberal revolution restored the Spanish Constitution of 1812, representatives of commoners gathered on their own initiative and agreed to a new community organization in accordance with the current social circumstances. Having been abolished as “feudal” institutions of the Ancient Regime, neither the tax court (Cámara de Comptos), nor the representative of the King (Patrimonial) were present. The ordinances adopted by the representatives of the commoners confirmed the customary land use, declaring the right of use to be exclusive for village residents, and created a permanent joint body, the Junta de Bardenas. This new institutional structure and the conditions of use ofagricultural land use, livestock and forestry were confirmed, clarified and expanded by the new ordinances that were adopted in 1836, 1849, 1882, 1915, 1935, and 1961 (renovated in 1985).

Special events? Highs and lows? Specific problems or problematic periods?

• The Royal sentence of November 17, 1498 put an end to the bloody dispute between Tudela and Roncal herders, confirming the use rights of villages and setting standards for use of resources. The ruling implied all areas to be closed for agricultural use from September 15th on until 31 May, except for the area on which Roncal breeders previously had privileges. It formalized  the scheme of surveillance officers, respecting the 30 guards who had been appointed by the Roncal Valley since 1412 and the 12 appointed by the city of Tudela, giving the Patrimonial the power to appoint 16 guards (8 guards in each) in the towns of Arguedas and Caparroso.
• The byelaws of December 10, 1575 as agreed by the Roncal Valley, Tudela, Caparroso, and Arguedas created their own organization and set the terms of use of pastures. The byelaws founded two annual meetings (mestas) of the breeders, which took place in April and November. A mayor of herders was installed in each village; also a senior judge was appointed via a system of rotation, the judge reporting at each mesta on his performance during the previous year. These judges were responsible for enforcing the rules set in the ordinances regarding the usage of pastures and corrals, lost cattle, sick animals, and the work of the shepherds, sanctioning offences by the penalties provided in these ordinances.
• The Royal Decree of April 14, 1705 recognized the existence of the Community and confirmed the rights and conditions of use according to custom.
• The ordinances of 1756, undertaken at the initiative of the representative of the King, merged earlier legislation and confirmed the terms of use of pastures. Fairs regulated the sale of livestock that followed the conclusion of the two mestas and meetings of farmers each 13th of November and 26th of April. Finally, conditions and restrictions on grain planting and harvesting of wood were set.
• Ordinances adopted on September 15, 1820 created a new permanent organization, the Bardenas Board, composed of three representatives of municipalities and one alternate, renewable every three years at a meeting held by the community (Community General Board).
• In 1872 the lawyers F.Sánchez-Asso and M. Martínez-Francés published a compilation of the legal documents regarding the Community in book form . The purpose of this book was to ensure that Bardenas should not be included in the Inventory of State Property and thus to prevent from a possible sale based on the Confiscation Act of 1855.
• The Ordinances of February 8, 1882, more systematic than before, defined the competence of three organs: the General Meeting (Junta General) or meeting of representatives of the people held every 3 years, the Standing Committee (Comisión permanente) with 5 members, and its President.
• The economic use of Bardenas changed between 1880 and 1930 because the diffusion of new plows and chemical fertilizers led to the expansion of agriculture at the expense of livestock. The cultivated area increased from 3,807 hectares in 1894 to 19,111 hectares in 1948. The participation of individuals and villages in that land appropriation was highly unequal. The nearest villages (Arguedas, Cabanillas, Caparroso, Carcastillo, Fustiñana, Mélida and Valtierra) had their lands broken up far more than the seven villages and the two valleys of Roncal and Salaza, of which lands were sometimes not broken up at all. For some individuals this meant extensions of 180 up to 260 hectares. This led to clashes and culminated in the lawsuit filed in 1926 before the Court, requesting the territory of the Community to be divided into lots and property awarded to each of the 21 municipalities. The Tudela court’s ruling, July 20, 1928 (being in favour of the requested division), was appealed to the High Court of Pamplona, which finally reversed its sentence of 24 January 1930. The Supreme Court upheld in a ruling dated November 29, 1930 that the State had never lost their right to property and therefore could not access their division.
• On June 9, 1951, Community Bardenas signed with the Air Force a deed of assignment of rights over an area of 1,710 hectares destined for use as military polygon shooting and bombing in exchange for an annual rent of 20,000 pesetas for 25 years.
• The State, through Royal Decree 3142/1979, finally handed over the ownership of the Bardenas territory to the Bardenas-Reales Community
• On 6 April 1999 most of the territory of Bardenas (39.273 hectares) was declared a Natural Park by the Government of Navarre, and became a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve according to a statement of November 7, 2000.

Membership

Numbers of members (specified)

Recognized members of the Community of Bardenas were and are local communities, not individuals. There are 22 entities: the municipalities of Tudela, Corella, Arguedas, Buñuel, Cabanillas, Cadreita, Caparroso, Carcastillo, Cortes, Falces, Funes, Fustiñana, Marcilla, Mélida, Milagro, Peralta, Santacara, Valtierra and Villafranca, the Cistercian monastery of La Oliva, the Roncal Valley community (composed of seven municipalities: Burgui, Garde, Isaba, Roncal, Uztarroz, Urzainqui, and Vidángoz) and the Salazar Valley Community (consisting of 15 villages that make up the municipalities of Izalzu, Ochagavía, Ezcároz, Oronz, Jaurrieta, Esparza, Sarriés, Güesa and Gallués).

Membership attainable for every one, regardless of social class or family background?

All the neighbors of the villages cited were entitled to use Bardenas resources within the limits established by the ordinances.

Specific conditions for obtaining membership? (Entrance fee, special tests etc.)

The ordinance of 1575 ordered chapter 37) the payment of a fee from stockbreeders who wanted to join the mesta.

Since 1705 only the residents of the 19 villages of the plain and the 21 villages in the mountains of Roncal and Salazar, along with the Monastery of La Oliva, had access to resources. Today, residency has been defined as “appear[ing] as a neighbour in the Municipal Census with a minimum of ten years, and … resid[ing] nine months a year at least in any of the entitled villages”.

Specific reasons regarding banning members from the institution?

By moving his residence to a location that is not part of the Community of Bardenas, a resident loses its right to use the resources of the Bardenas.

Advantages of membership?

Participation in decision-making.

Obligations of members? 

The 22 entities have to bear the costs of the Community.

Literature on case study

• Arraiza Rodríguez-Monte, Juan Pedro, and Pérez-Nievas Abascal, José Ángel (1986), ‘Bárdenas reales de Navarra’,  in Azpilcueta: cuadernos de derecho, III, pp. 395-410.
• Azpilicueta, Luis, and Domench, José María (1999),El Parque Natural de las Bárdenas Reales, Pamplona, Caja de Ahorros de Navarra.
• Elósegui, Jesús (1990), Las Bardenas Reales, Pamplona, Departamento de Ordenación de Territorio, Vivienda y Medio Ambiente, D.L.
• Floristán Samanes, Alfredo (1949), ‘Una descripción de las Bardenas Reales en el siglo XVIII’, Príncipe de Viana 10 (37), pp. 475-81.
• Floristán Samanes, Alfredo (1951a), La Ribera tudelana de Navarra. Zaragoza: Institución Juan Sebastián Elcano/C.S.I.C..
• Floristán Samanes, Alfredo (1952), ‘Juntas y mestas ganaderas en las Bardenas de Navarra’, in Actas del Primer Congreso Internacional de Estudios Pirenáicos. San Sebastián, 1950, V (Sección IV: Geografía), pp. 111-30.
• Lana-Berasain, José-Miguel (1992), ‘Los aprovechamientos agrícolas comunales en el sur de Navarra entre los siglos XIX y XX’, Agricultura y Sociedad, 65, pp.361-87 (pdf available).
• Martín Martínez, Jaime, and Floristán Samanes, Alfredo (1997), Bardenas Reales de Navarra. Pamplona, Caja de Ahorros de Navarra.
• Montoro Sagasti, José Joaquín (1926a), Demanda solicitando la partición de las Bardenas Reales de Navarra. Tudela: Imprenta de Castilla.
• Montoro Sagasti, José Joaquín (1926b), Recopilación de las Ordenanzas de las Bardenas de Navarra, desde las primeras de 1756 a 1915. Tudela: Imprenta de Castilla.
• Montoro Sagasti, José Joaquín (1926c), Compilación de los amojonamientos, apeos y deslindes de las Bardenas de Navarra, con los términos de los pueblos limítrofes a las mismas. Tudela, Oroz y Martínez impresores (3 vols).
• Razquin Lizarraga, Martín María (1990), El régimen jurídico-administrativo de las Bárdenas Reales. Pamplona, Gobierno de Navarra.
• Sanchez Asso, F. and M. Martínez Francés (1977; first ed. 1872), Reseña histórica de los títulos que tienen los pueblos congozantes de las Bardenas Reales de Navarra para su perpetuo aprovechamiento y disfrute. Tudela: Gráficas Larrad.
• Sangrador Vitores, M. (1854), Memoria geográfico-histórica sobre las Bardenas Reales. Tudela.
• Urmeneta, Alejandro, and Ferrer, V. (2009), ‘La ganadería extensiva en ecosistemas semiáridos: Las Bardenas Reales, mil años de pastoreo y multifuncionalidad en la encrucijada’, in Ramón J. Reiné Viñales, Olivia Barrantes Díaz, A. Broca, Carlos Ferrer Benimeli (coord.), La Multifuncionalidad de los pastos: producción ganadera sostenible y gestión de los ecosistemas, pp. 415-38.
• Yanguas y Miranda, José (1828):, Diccionario histórico-político de Tudela. Zaragoza: Imprenta de Andrés Sebastián.

Sources on case study

• Some of the key documents related to this community were published in full in 1872 (Sánchez-Asso & Martínez-Francés, 1872) and 1926 (Montoro-Sagasti, 1926a, 1926b, 1926c). 
• Municipal Archives of Tudela, Historical Books Section, Books 9 and 10, book 67.
• Municipal Archives of Tudela, Administrative Record Section, 03.02.01.12 Bardenas

Links to further information on case study:

http://www.bardenasreales.es/comunidad.htm

Case study composed by José Miguel Lana Berasain, Public University of Navarra (Pamplona)

Typification

• Type of institution for collective action: Common
• Name/description institution: Montes de Propios de Jerez de la Frontera
• Country: Spain
• Region: Andalucia
• Name of city or specified area: Jerez de la Frontera (Cadíz)
• Amount of area and boundaries (for institutions related to landed property): The territory of the city of Jerez de la Frontera now occupies 140,461 hectares, of which 7,051 hectares are owned by the City Council (Concejo), in six plots:  Charco de los Hurones (1,637 ha), Jarda (2,225 ha), Jardilla (2,311 ha), Montifarti (631 ha), Rojitán (122 ha), and Gordilla (125 ha).

In the mid-eighteenth century, the Ensenada Cadastre quantified the property of the Concejo of Jerez in 49,896 hectares, divided into “propios“, “arbitrios“, “comunales” and wastelands (baldíos). Just under one-third of this property (14,104 hectares) was situated in the town Jerez itself, while the remainder (35,792 hectares) was in the depopulated territory of Tempul. The grounds cited in the first place were closer to the city and mainly used for grazing, with free use for residents of the city. There were 3 communal pastures (dehesas) (1,628 ha), 27 wastelands (baldios)for common use (12,470 ha) and 4 pieces of arable land (6 ha). By contrast, onerous harvesting that reported income to city coffers prevailed in the term of Tempul.

The Council’s assets in Tempul included a farmhouse (cortijo) (51 ha), 3 pastures (dehesas) of propios (2,952 ha), 12 pastures of arbitrios (9,919 ha), 7 wastelands (baldios) of arbitrios (9,427 hectares), 1 communal pasture (dehesa) (1,073 ha) and 20 communal wastelands (baldíos) (12,370 ha). In short, 27,547 hectares were communal and wastelands of free use, while 22,349 hectares of arbitrios and propios provided regular cash income to the City Council (Concejo)  through the lease of the use of their resources. (Jiménez Blanco, 1996, 274-6).

• Recognized by local government: Yes.

Foundation – termination

• Foundation/start of institution, date or year: The constitution of the patrimony of the Council (Concejo) of Jerez de la Frontera took place in three phases or stages:
  • 1264: Christian conquest and distribution of lands (repartimiento) among the settlers with a territorial heritage award to the Council of Jerez de la Frontera.
  • c. 1300: King Ferdinand IV donates Tempul Castle and its surroundings, recently won, to the city of Jerez.
  • 1588: the Council of Jerez de la Frontera purchases a portion of the wastelands (baldíos) from King Philip II, then using the title document to justify the appropriation of other.
• Confirmed year of founding or first mention: Confirmed.
• Foundation act present: No.
• Year of termination of institution: Not terminated: still in operation.

Concise history of institution

a) Constitution of heritage and definition of uses 

The Council (Concejo) of Jerez de la Frontera was born in 1264 with the Christian conquest, reigning in Castile Alfonso X The Wise (el Sabio). While they proceeded to the distribution of lands among the Christian settlers, they also claimed land (the exact amount unknown to us) to form the heritage of the Council and the neighbors of the new city. The aim was to attract settlers and thereby strengthen the position of border against the Nazari kingdom of Granada. For this reason, the Council of Jerez was favoured at some point between 1295 and 1312 by King Ferdinand IV of Castile with the possession of the castle and territory of Tempul, located on the opposite side of the river Guadalete. This possession was confirmed by a document dated 1333, but nearly lost in the mid-sixteenth century. Emperor Charles V adopted a proposal by the noble Fernando Padilla-Dávila, to populate Tempul and donated him the castle and its territory. The Council of Jerez defended his right to property against the Emperor in court and won the lawsuit.

Until 1531, the use of pastures in the city was governed by a system of suertes, i.e. large lots of land, specifically designated to be used as pastures (dehesas) that were drawn annually between the neighbors that were entitled to use this pastures (those farmers who owned more than 300 head of cattle). The ordinances of 1531, ratified by the Emperor Charles V, replaced this system of exploitation, deleting the award of suertes and establishing the pooling without distinction across the pasture field, so that all neighbors would have the same rights. This applied to the communal lands belonging to the heritage of the Council of Jerez, granted to the Council by the  thirteenth century royal grants.

In addition to these areas of the city, residents also benefit from the wastelands or baldíos of the jurisdiction, usually more distant lands whose titles were ambiguous, but ultimately claimed by the King as his own. To finance its war effort, the Crown proceeded during the second half of the sixteenth century to the sale of waste ground and did so also at Jerez. In 1588 King Philip II recognized the ownership of the City of Jerez of a portion of the wastelands of its jurisdiction in exchange for a payment of 707,409.50 maravedies for the Royal Treasury. In addition, the monarch also committed, in exchange for delivery in installments of 862,500 maravedies, not to dispose of the wastelands in the remaining future. These two operations left the status of the wastelands uncertain and open to various interpretations by the parties involved. On one hand, the Council interpreted tghe arrangement as having bought the property of all baldíos. The Crown, on the other hand, considered only a part of the baldios to be actually sold, this point of view also showing from attempts by the Crown in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to sell some of the baldíos the Crown considered to be unsold and subsequently still property of the Crown.

In 1612 some of these wastelands were used by the Council to solve their financial needs. Preceding royal permission, wastelands of Rodaderos, Marrufa, Umbría de Escobar, Mojea de Asensio y Jardilla, Montifarti, Garganta Millán, and Algar were given on lease in exchange for cash rent. In 1696 the grass from Palmetín and acorn from LaCespedosa and LaGordilla were also leased and the proceeds went to the Arbitrios Treasury (Caja de Arbitrios). The initial situation of predominantly free use of the wastelands had changed into a situation of restricted and onerous use for a specific purpose and for a specific period: they had been converted into arbitrios. Other wastelands (baldíos) remained still in free and common use, but were designated for specific purposes, as happened in 1676 with Gibalgín and LaCaulina, to be used specifically for breeding mares and foals.

Lands situated in the mountains, being either wastelands (baldíos). propios, arbitrios, or comunales, were mainly used for collecting and harvesting grass, acorns, and wood. The right of use of the acorn was auctioned regularly and was a major source of income for the Council of Jerez. The pastures near the city were for free and open use, which benefitted mainly the big farmers in Jerez, which were well represented within the Council. Other more distant pastures (forming pastures (dehesas) of propios or arbitrios), were leased to neighboring farmers or strangers in exchange for a monetary payment. The use of wood, for its part, was mediated by the Navy Command (Comandancia de Marina) , particularly between 1744 and 1813, for its strategic interest in maintaining the royal fleet. Besides these uses, the people of Jerez could make other uses of subsistence and gathering wild fruits (asparagus, aromatic plants, palms, wicker), as well as small game (rabbits, hares, birds) and charcoal.

The Council held recognition of terms to find the encroachments made ​​by individuals in the mountains in 1434, 1523, 1551, 1640, 1661, 1679, 1802 and 1817 (Cabral, 1994, 78-80). By 1750, when the Cadastre of Ensenada offered the first overall figures, the area owned by the City reached 50,000 hectares according to their data, although the real figure was probably closer to 60,000 hectares. From that moment on, there was a long and complex process of privatization of land, leaving the heritage of the City reduced to just over 7,000 hectares in the late nineteenth century.

b) Chronology and routes of privatization

The ways to the privatization of this enormous wealth were varied. We highlight four ways.

1) Sale of public land by the Crown without regard to the Council

The sale of public land by the Crown had already begun, as noted, in the sixteenth century, affecting at least 3,736 hectares (Cabral, 1995, 87-8). The Council itself used this opportunity occasion to consolidate their ownership rights to the wastelands of the term. The Crown however continued to sell property rights of the baldíos to other individuals and institutions beside the Council of Jerez, even though the Council had already paid an amount of money to the Crown to gain full and exclusive ownership of these baldíos. The judicial nullification of any of these unjustified sales by the Crown led in 1657 to a dispossessed buyer demand (submitted by a convent and a noble family) and a long legal battle that culminated in 1769 in the delivery of five wastelands (baldíos) (2,898 hectares) to the successors of those buyers. Many years later, the Crown came to interfere in the ownership of the wastelands of Jerez, Fernando VII in 1829 granting of 2,692 hectares (not without protest from the Council) to Pedro Perez-Muñoz as compensation for his losses suffered in America.

2) Sale of land by the Council in order to obtain funding

For its part, the Concejo of Jerez also sold its own initiative a part of their heritage. In 1752 the council agreed to establish a hospice in the city “includes the orphan and idle people to give them a Christian education and teaching arts and crafts they do subsist common good”.  With opposition from the oligarchy of stockbreeders, two royal orders of 1754 and 1755 approved the “rompimiento” and sale by auction of up to 12,074 hectares to fund this work and others, such as the conduct of fresh water to the city, the construction of a way between the city and El Puerto de Santa Maria, and reform of the pier on the river Guadalete. Between 1755 and 1757 were disposed of in thirteen sales transactions totaling 10,128 hectares, including expressly the privilege of fencing estates. Shortly after the buyer of one of these estates, Domingo López de Carvajal in 1773 drove the settlement in the new town of Algar, which would end by separating from the jurisdiction of Jerez de la Frontera.

Sales initiated by the city continued in 1789 when 1,234 acres were sold in four operations to the Monastery of the Cartuja and the Cabildo Catedral de Cadiz, and smaller quantities were sold in 1799 (27 ha), 1804 (27 ha), 1811 (16 ha) and 1820 (268 ha).

3) Distribution of plots of land under cultivation in small portions with a purpose of social reform and development of agriculture, free of charge or in exchange for an income or “censo”

The third way of privatization are the deals (repartos). The regulatory framework for these initiatives of social reform and agricultural development is based on the royal provisions of November 29, 1767 and May 26, 1770. These laws sought to form a rural middle class based on the orderly distribution of the Council’s agricultural land. The law of 1767 put the emphasis on giving land to landless labourers (jornaleros) as a way to moral and social reform, to improve the lower strata of the peasantry. The law of 1770 put the emphasis on the idea of efficiency (agricultural development), and focused on tenant farmers, not laborers. The idea of this latter law was to strengthen the middle strata of the peasantry. 

The deal faced opposition from some powerful groups who feared the expansion of cultivated land supply would cause a reduction of pasture, a decrease in land rent or an increase in wages. The first distribution was made in 1768, concerning land away from the city and of poor quality (561 hectares in 57 lots) in return for a rent proportional to the crop; the result however was lower than expected. New deals were conducted in 1790, 1796 (358 hectares), 1799, 1800 (152 hectares), 1806, and 1812 (162 hectares).

The decree of the Cortes of Cadiz of January 4, 1813 ordered the privatization of all public lands (wastelands (baldíos), arbitrios, propios), except lands of common use near to the village, necessary to people (ejidos). This measure served multiple goals: to clean up municipal accounts, to reward the soldiers who had fought against Napoleon, to facilitate access to the land to jornaleros (just like the provision of 1767), and promoting agriculture. The restoration of absolutism overturned this rule, but after the constitutional revolution of 1820 this rule could be implemented. In 1822 the Council arranged the deal of dividing 12,720 hectares among discharged soldiers (419 persons) and landless rural workers (1,171 persons). The first would receive land for free, while the latter agreed to pay an annual fee. The plan also envisaged privatization by auction to the highest bidder of another 18,484 hectares in favor of public credit, and to reserve 3,309 hectares for establishing new populations, as well as to keep the pasture Hato de la Carne (188 hectares) as an ejido. A new restoration of absolutism, facilitated by the Congress of Verona, prevented to this initiative from completion. But fifteen years later, the triumph of liberal constitutionalism made it possible to return scattered lots of land to the soldiers  and laborers. Once opposition from some powerful groups present at City Hall was overcome,  between 1840 and 1843 a total of  8,923 hectares spread over 1,141 lots, was returned to the soldiers and laborers. The soldiers received their lost for free, laborers paid a  royalty of 2% of the appraised value of the land.

At that time, other areas were also privatized in larger batches, using a different formula, known as censo reservativo sale. In short, it was a double operation on a single document: first, transfer of ownership by sale, and another covering the sale price with a mortgage bearing an annual income fixed by two or three per cent of that value. Thus, the buyer did not turn over more money than that for an annuity, promising to continue paying the fee for an indefinite period. Sales of this type occurred in 1844 (18 ha in Marisma de Torrox), 1845 (70 ha in Quinientas Bajas and 1,116 ha in Romerales y Pesebres), and 1847 (80 ha in Malabrigo).

The inventory made in 1851 reflects the changes compared to 1750. The area belonging to  the mountains of the Council of Jerez had been reduced to 37,017 hectares. Of this total amount, 29,527 hectares were transferred on lease and 7,490 hectares had been distributed or sold in exchange for the payment of an annual fee. No land was used free of charge anymore. The comunales and wastelands (baldíos) were transformed into propios. The lands were classified as 73 pastures (dehesas) of  propios (26,417 hectares), 117 lots of land leased for an indefinite period (which came from the deals made ​​between 1768 and 1820, adding up to 2,478 hectares), and 33 lots (631 hectares) of land leased for a short term period.

The latter lots were those lands that had been abandoned by their licensees or seized by the City due to late payment of taxes. The land given to census were divided in turn into 729 farms distributed to poor neighbors in 1822, and returned between 1840 and 1843 (6,145 hectares), and 7 censos reservativos (1,345 hectares). On this stock of municipal land,  the Confiscation Act (Desamortización, implying a nationwide privatization of enormous dimension), promoted by the Minister Pascual Madoz, was applied from 1855 onwards.

4) Sale of land under the Confiscation Act (Desamortización) of 1855  

This way of privatization could take two forms: next to the sale at public auction to the highest bidder, there was also the redemption of rents (censos). Both ways were existant at Jerez at that time.

 Sales by auction affected 110 lands (including 60 pastures (dehesas) and 45 suertes) with a combined area of ​​22,995 hectares. Most of these sales (85 per cent) occurred in just four years (1859-62). The process had several irregularities. The 1855 Act laid down the conditions under which a mount should be considered as being exempted from privatization. The exception criterium was defined by the dominant tree species, the Act citing sixteen species of trees (including oak, abundant in Jerez). The mere presence of this vegetation should result automatically in conservation in public hands. However, when the rule was applied, pastures where the oak was the dominant tree were alienated, while other pastures mostly populated by other trees not mentioned on the list, were exempted. In addition, many pastures were valued and auctioned based on surface figures that – from measures performed later on – appeared to be less than the real surface area. In conclusion one could state that the application of the rule was arbitrary.

The second way to full privatization was the possibility offered to the owner of the property to redeem or cancel the fee he was held to pay annually to the Council. This meant the owner could gain full property by paying a certain amount of money for the land he held. This amount had been set at 10 times the annual rent (censo) if the fee was less than 15 pesetas, or 20 times the annual rent if the fee was more than 15 pesetas and amortized in installments). For example, for a holder who had until then paid an annual canon of 10 pesetas, the payment of  100 pesetas was sufficient to obtain full ownership. This implied a significant gain for the owner if you consider that the canon was fixed at the time of delivery at a rate of two or three per cent of the value of the property. That is, he paid 100 for land actual worth between 333 and 500 pesetas. The redemption of rents (censos) allowed an area of ​​10,152 hectares to be completely privatized, mainly (77 per cent) in the years 1855-6 .

In short, as a result of the Confiscation Act, the municipality of Jerez was forced to change the ownership of 33,147 hectares of land for 5,396,872 pesetas in public debt securities to 3 per cent . Given the state budget deficit in subsequent years, and problems paying the debt, which led to two debt conversions in 1882 and 1899, the balance of the operation to the municipality can only be negative. In the 1901 catalog of Jerez, public forest occupied only 7,024 hectares.

The last break away from the “Montes de Propios de Jerez” came in 1915 and affected the Hato de la Carne, 220 hectares of land had been exempted from the seizure to be allocated to oxen pasture. The city of Jerez had experienced serious social conflicts and class struggles in recent years of the nineteenth and early twentieth century. For that reason the idea of ​​using the “Montes de Propios” to carry out a social reform that would give access to land for families of rural workers arose. The Colonization Law of August 30, 1907 provided the appropriate legal framework. The first project, proposed in 1909, to settle farmers in the valley to the Jarda was abandoned, but two years later, the council proposed the establishment of an agricultural colony in the Hato de la Carne. That colonization was seen as complementary the extension of irrigation following the construction of the dam on river Guadalcacín. In 1915 the Central Board of Colonization authorized the establishment of the colony of La Caulina, its 194 acres being distributed among individual crops (150 hectares for 75 families, two hectares per family), communal pastures (27 ha) and roads, canals and constructions (17 hectares). The slowness in the work of extension of irrigation (the water did not arrive until 1939) caused this experiment to fail in his first goal of setting an example for a successful social reform.

Finally, in 1990 there was a change, hitherto unprecedented. The municipal heritage was augmented with the purchase by the City of lands called Rojitán and La Gordilla, which previously also belonged to the Council until their sales in 1755 and 1859 respectively.

c) Contemporary management

Along with the loss of ownership over thousands of hectares, the Council of Jerez during the nineteenth century suffered a loss of management capacity on the properties kept in the mountains. The Forestry Act 1863 and regulations developed in 1865 granted the State responsibilities in the management of forests at the expense of the municipalities. The capacity of the latter was reduced to filing requests for using these areas for their neighbors to the State Forest Service.

This Service approved in 1873 the first Plan de Aprovechamiento of Montes de Propios de Jerez, a document specifying the resources (grass, cork, acorn, firewood, timber, etc.) that could be extracted from the mountains during the coming year, setting deadlines, quantities and conditions. Since then, every year harvesting plans were approved on the basis of requests from City Hall and under the supervision of a forest engineer.

In the last years of the nineteenth century, due to increasing international demand and increasing prices, cork was gaining prominence as resource . In this context the exploitation of this resource was moving towards a management and development model involving increased privatization of use: the Plan de Ordenación. In 1897 a private contractor was licensed by the Ministry for the “ordination” project of the Montes de Propios de Jerez (Charco de los Hurones, Jarda, Jardilla and Montifarti) for cork exploitation. The project was finally approved in 1911 and it included the conditions of joint auction of all depleted and improvements to be made ​​during the first twenty years. Auction of harvesting was abandoned, the harvesting being awarded to the concession holder of the “ordination” plan. The management was in private hands like this until 1925, the year the City regained its management capacity by a decree of the dictator Miguel Primo de Rivera. From then on, the municipal engineer became responsible for making revisions to the management plan, whose approval was ultimately in the hands of the Ministry of Development.

The management model did not change significantly until 1985, when  a complete reform of the use of Montes de Propios de Jerez was made, based upon the scientific advice of Pablo Campos-Palacín, researcher at the Centro Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC). The City Council assumed direct management of the mountains, creating for this purpose in 1988 the municipal firm EMEMSA (Explotaciones de los Montes de Propios Empresa Municipal S.A). This company is responsible for ensuring integrated development of all the harvest of forests, with a dual purpose: production and conservation. It is therefore an experience that seeks to reconcile economic goals with environmental, through a management system more agile and flexible.

Special events? Highs and lows? Specific problems or problematic periods?

• In 1483 the town of Puerto Real was founded, ordained by the Catholic kings the demarcation of the term and its separation from Jerez. After several conflicts and delay, a decision of the Court (Chancillería) of Granada in 1518 ordered the separation of both jurisdictions while maintaining the right of the people of Puerto Real to graze his cattle in Jerez, and Jerez neighbors to take advantage of pastures in Puerto real.
• Between 1750 and 1851, the Council saw the loss of 12,879 hectares, for a variety of land privatization transactions driven by the Crown or by the council. Since the latter date until 1901 the implementation of the Confiscation Act (Desamortización) led to to private ownership of 29,993 hectares.
• In 1990 the City Hall signed a purchase and 247 hectares were added to the Montes de Propios de Jerez.

Membership

Numbers of members (specified)

The city of Jerez de la Frontera had 30,672 inhabitants in 1591, 45,506 in 1787, 63,473 in 1900 and 183,273 in 2001.

Membership attainable for every one, regardless of social class or family background?

Yes. The right of use of forests was inherent in the resident status of the city of Jerez de la Frontera.

Specific conditions for obtaining membership? (Entrance fee, special tests etc.)

No.

Specific reasons regarding banning members from the institution?

No.

Advantages of membership?

The right of use of forests was inherent in the resident status of the city of Jerez de la Frontera.

Literature on case study

• Jiménez-Blanco, José-Ignacio (1996). Privatización y apropiación de tierras municipales en la Baja Andalucía: Jerez de la Frontera, 1750-1995. Jérez : Ayuntamiento de Jerez.
• Cabral Chamorro, Antonio (1995). Propiedad comunal y repartos de tierras en Cádiz (siglos XV-XIX). Puerto Real : Diputación de Cádiz.
• Cabral Chamorro, Antonio (1996). La Colonización Ilustrada y Liberal en Jerez de la Frontera, 1750 – 1850. Jerez de La Frontera : Ayuntamiento de Jerez.
• González Jiménez, Manuel, and González Gómez, A. (1980). El libro del repartimiento de Jerez de la Frontera. Estudio y edición. Cádiz.
• Campos, P., H. Daly-Hassen, P. Ovando, J. L. Oviedo and A. Chebil. (2009). Economics of cork oak forest multiple use: application to Jerez and Iteimia agroforestry systems study cases. In: M.R. Mosquera-Losada, A. Rigueiro-Rodríguez and J. McAdam (eds.), Agroforestry in Europe. Series Advances in Agroforestry VI, pp. 269-95. Dordrecht : Springer.
• Campos-Palacín, Pablo (1994), “El valor económico total de los sistemas agroforestales”, in Agricultura y Sociedad  (71) April-June 1994, pp. 243-56  ( pdf-file available here).
• Vassberg, D. (1983), La venta de tierras baldías. El comunitarismo agrario y la Corona de Castilla durante el siglo XVI. Madrid : Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación.

Sources on case study

• Catastro de Ensenada, Respuestas Generales
• Archivo Municipal de Jerez de la Frontera, Memorandas, Histórico Reservado, Sección General

Links to further information on case study:

http://www.jerez.es/nc/empresas_municipales/ememsa/

Case study composed by José Miguel Lana Berasain, Public University of Navarra (Pamplona)

Typification

• Type of institution for collective action: Common
• Name/description institution: Universitas Casalium (Universal domain land of Cosenza and its hamlets)
• Country: Italy
• Region: Calabria
• Name of city or specified area: Cosenza
• Further specification location: The city of Cosenza and the neighboring villages revolving around the uplands of Sila, known as the hamlets.
• Surface area and boundaries: 980 square kilometers in its most prosperous period as estimated by Fausto Cozzetto (2009) by taking into account the current areas of the following towns in the province of Cosenza: Atilia, Aprigliano, Belsito, Bianchi, Carpanzano, Casole Bruzio, Castiglione, Cosenrino, Celico, Cellara, Colosimi, Cosenza, Dipignano, Figline Vegliaruro, Grimaldi, Malito, Mangone, Marzi, Panettieri, Parenti, Paterno, Pedace, Pedìvigliano, Piane Crati, Pietrafitta, Rogliano, Rovito, San Pietro in Guarano, Santo refano di Rogliano, Scigliano, Serra Pedace, pezzano della Sila, Spezzano Piccolo, Trenta, Zumpano.  
• Recognized by local government: Yes. It was recognized by local government and later incorporated in royal regulations through a series of decrees that acknowledged its existence and recognized its independence (see historical account below).

Foundation – termination

• Foundation/start of institution, date or year: approx. 12th century
• Confirmed year of founding or first mention: The first (probably incomplete) set of rules dates back to 1300 and is only known from a later transcription of those rules. Given the range of subjects mentioned in this oldest set of rules, it appears that the regulation of 1300 either was an integral copy of a previous set, or the first recording of rules, formerly known by heart by all commoners and practiced in the manner of customary law.
• Foundation act present: No. Multiple formal documents however bear witness of the existence of this institution, at least since Frederick II (1198-1212).
• Description of Act of foundation: N/a, see also above. The creation of universitas can be traced back as far as the Roman Age, as an attempt to assimilate ancient collective forms of universal customary rights. However, universitas were only legally recognized by Germanic kings in the aftermath of the Roman Empire. In southern Italy, universal domain lands were assimilated by the institutional structure of the Kingdom of Naples, as confirmed in formal acts composed under the reign of Frederick II (1198-1212).  
• Year of termination of institution: 1806
• Year of termination estimated or confirmed: Confirmed.
• Act regarding termination present: No specific act, see below. 
• Description Act of termination: No specific act, see below. 
• Reason for termination: The dissolution of universitas all over the Kingdom of Naples was a gradual process that cannot be pinpointed exactly in time. The law promulgated on September 1, 1806 by the French occupator (‘Terre comuni ed usi civici in Sicilia prima dell’abolizione della feudalità’) started the official dissolution of the feudal system, endorsing different forms of ownership based on private property and leaving universitas with a marginal role. Despite the Bourbon restauration in 1815 was accompanied by an attempt to reinstate the feudal system, collective ownership never recovered from this legislative blow. Actually, universitates were never officially dissolved, but they changed their institutional structure, becoming modern municipalities as we know them today.

Concise history of institution

General

The uplands of Sila constitute one of the richest and most bio-diverse areas of the Mediterranean environment, and since 1968 form the pounding heart of the National Park of Calabria, its surface almost completely (about 12,000 out of 13,452 hectares (Ciolli 1982, 155-67)) covered by uplands. Since ancient times, the rich eco-system of Sila provided lively resources for the population inhabiting its surroundings. Numerous human settlements were created around these uplands, which drew their daily sustenance from the rich natural resources through sylvo-pastoral activities deeply enrooted in conviviality (Tallarico 1950, 13; Intrieri 2010, 15). The basic subsistence activities of these people mainly consisted in seasonal cattle farming, as well as wood gathering, fishing, and some small agricultural activities such as the farming of potatoes and rye. While the lands of Sila had always functioned as a common-pool resource for the people inhabiting the area known as Cosenza and its hamlets, during the Middle-Ages collective practices became institutionally recognized and integrated in the local feudal system through a complex judicial structure. Thus, the common lands of Sila began to be managed by a municipal entity of commoners, known as the Universitas Casalium, in charge of organizing material life around social patterns of conviviality. 

Institution: Universitas Casalium

Since its creation with King Roger the Norman in 1130, the Kingdom of Naples was divided in twelve provinces; the fifth region, was known as Calabria Citra, or land of Bruzi. Its main city, Cosenza, and the hamlets surrounding it – 85 settlements in 1619 – constituted the Universitas Casalium (Enrico Bacco Alemanno 1671, 2). For several centuries, this institution constituted the main management instrument of judicial power aimed at regulating material life, by defining rules for the access to the natural resources of the area, mainly regarding rich woods of the mountains of Sila that was for centuries the source of the raw material for the construction of naval infrastructures within the Kingdom of Naples (Cozzetto 2005, 266). Beyond royal interests, the uplands of Sila served as the main form of subsistence for the population of Cosenza and its hamlets, who organized their material life around activities such grazing, sowing, and wood gathering. 

Although not an explicit judicial entity the institutionalizing of local cooperation is confirmed by documents related to the Kingdom of Frederick II (1198-1212), who created multiple peripheral institutional organs known as bagliva, that were meant to collect taxes, and guaranteed the right to resource access for citizens of Cosenza and its numerous surrounding hamlets, sometimes more populous than the city itself, especially on the Crati Valley. The existence of the Universitas Casalium was formally recognized by a legal document promulgated in 1330 by King Robert of Anjou, addressing the inhabitants of Cosenza and its hamlets as ‘universitas et homine’. The same Robert of Anjou later acknowledged the independence of the Universitas Casalium in a decree promulgated in 1333, when he declared the lands of Sila to be a royal domain and officially granted access to its natural resources to the citizens of Cosenza and its hamlets (Cozzetto 2005, 266-67). These legislative acts endorsed collective properties and allowed local inhabitants to exercise their traditional activities in all the territories recognized as common lands, or comuni (Placanica 1999, 166). 

Thus, the creation of the Universitas Casalium was tantamount to the development of representative municipal structures, governing the Cosenza and its hamlets: a system of local parliaments, constituted by heads of local households elected its own representative, known as cedola, who participated in the parliament of the Universitas Casalium. The general assembly – known as Consiglio – reunited in the mother-church of Cosenza and was moderated by four elected representatives, three of them called sindaci and the fourth one mastrogiurato, in charge of security (Cozzetto 2005, 276; D’Alessandro 2015). Accordingly, different were the rights that this institution exercised on local territories according to the specific legal regulation. The lands destined to local commoners were known as comuni and were opened to traditional activities such as cattle farming, sowing and wood gathering. The exercise of pastoral activities was also allowed on partially private lands, known as terre corse, and, together with wood gathering, on territories destined to wood extraction from the Crown, known as camere chiuse (Parrilli, Winspeare, and Giannattasio 1824).

Despite this articulated pattern of land distribution, commoners had to face multiple threats to their rights to access common lands, mainly from illegal expropriations by feudal barons and later on by an emerging middle class. Multiple are the evidence of civil actions and demonstration against illegal expropriations as well as written pleas to the royal institutions, whose ambivalent behavior only partially favored the commoners’ cause. These problems were exacerbated by the beginning of the nineteenth century, more specifically with the French invasion in 1806 that formally abolished the feudal system, redistributing common properties among municipalities and private actors.  

The Bourbon restauration in 1815 was accompanied by the attempt to restore the feudal system and therefore the commoners’ cause found unprecedented institutional support. However, the economic power of landowners was consolidated, as well as their institutional influence, as witnessed by their ability to influence state functionaries, both nationally and locally. Not even the creation of a special organ in 1838 – known as the Civil Commissariat for the Affairs of Sila – explicitly designed in order to monitor expropriations and to guarantee the delimitation of common lands was effective in guaranteeing the functioning of the commons. 

Special events? Highs and lows? Specific problems or problematic periods?

Consolidation of the Institution

• 14th-15th century: major consolidation and territorial enlargement of the Universitas Casalium
  • 1381: encounter of three inhabitants of the universitas with the Queen Joanna I of Naples, resulting in achieving better tax conditions directly to the Crown. Shortly after this event, some reforms were implemented by Ladislaus of Naples, enlarging the borders of the Universitas Casalium and adding several towns located South-West of Cosenza, increasing its overall amount by 40 percent (Cozzetto 2005, 271-73).
  • 1416: Queen Joanna II of Naples conceded universal citizenship rights to all inhabitants of the Universitas Casalium – and therefore free access to all the common lands located in the area – in an democratic political move unprecedented in the kingdom of Naples (Cozzetto 2009, 70).
  • second half of the 15th century: Universitas Casalium was one of the most advanced institutions of southern Italy with a population of over 25,000 people and 69 hamlets in total – only second to the municipal area of Naples.
• second half of the 15th century: low point was the Aragonese monarchy occupying territories of the Universitas Casalium in order to suppress popular revolts against the increase of bagliva tax (Cozzetto 2005, 283; 2009, 69). Although a rather tragic moment in the history of the institution, this revolt also demonstrated the substantial autonomy of local communities and of their representative organs, whose deliberations could manifest radical opposition to the crown rule.
• 1662: Another very important event was the physical delimitation of common lands in the uplands of Sila, following the protests of local citizens against illegal expropriations. This action led to the delimitation of the most important local commons of the Universitas Casalium, using 87 pillars and condemned expropriators to compensate the crown for the damage inflicted (Parrilli, Winspeare, and Giannattasio 1824, 26-27). The combination of local mobilizations and institutional intervention succeeded in preserving the interests of the local communities and managed to contrast this increasingly problematic phenomenon, at least temporarily.

Decline of the Institution

• end of the 18th-beginning of the 19th century: land expropriations steadily multiplied, causing social unrest and increasing economic division (see ASN, Minstero di Polizia). Expropriations did not only come from local barons – so far the rivals par excellence of the commoners – but from an emerging middle-class that embodied the rising class, known as i galantuomini, literally “the gentlemen”. The pronounced amount of expropriations during this time was confirmed by the inquiry carried out by judge Giuseppe Zurlo in 1791, assessing the delimitation of common lands and exposing every expropriation phenomena occurred since 1662 (Zurlo 1791)
• 1806: As already mentioned above, the abolition of feudality proclaimed in by the French king Joseph Bonaparte and perpetrated by his successor, Joachim Murat, signaled the official dissolution of the Universitas Casalium, in spite of the attempts to reinstate collective properties in the Kingdom of Naples in the aftermath of the Bourbonic Restauration.

Membership

Numbers of members (specified)

All citizens belonging to the Universitas Casalium, involving Cosenza and its hamlets, were represented by this institution.

Membership attainable for every one, regardless of social class or familybackground?

As illustrated above, every head of household could take part in local parliaments and become representative of its own town, becoming a cedola in the parliament of the Universitas Casalium. This meant a certain openness to citizens from different social classes and family backgrounds, although gender bias must have been very pronounced given the times.

Specific conditions for obtaining membership? (Entrance fee, special tests etc.)

Being an official resident citizen of Cosenza or one of the villages included in the jurisdiction of the Universitas Casalium.

Specific reasons regarding banning members from the institution?

No evidence points out people being banned from the institution. Naturally, the access to the commons being restricted to people inhabiting a specific territory, relocation could be a reason for losing membership rights and therefore be prevented from certain activities or be compelled to pay a higher usufruct tax, as pointed out by state functionaries Parrilli, Winspeare, and Giannattasio in a legal reconstruction of the commons of the Universitas Casalium in 1824. However, given the complex system of land division, trespassing both from feudal barons and from commoners was a frequent issue. Several early laws promulgated between the twelfth and thirteenth century proclaim the need to pay a fine for free-riding and trespassing (Barletta 1864, vol. I). Moreover, land expropriation was surely the main issue, as demonstrated by an early edict decreed by Queen of Sicily Constance in 1198 that possible abuses needed to be monitored by local communities upon demand of the monarchy (Barletta 1864, 15-6).

Advantages of membership?

Free access to resources of the Royal domain lands of Sila, according to normative territorial specificities, as illustrated above.

Obligations of members? 

Every universitas had to collect money from its members in order to pay a tax to the Royal government, known as bagliva. People appointed to collect this tax were known as baglivi and they assured institutional protection in case of illegal expropriations of common lands (Parrilli, Winspeare, and Giannattasio 1824, 61). The bagliva was complemented by a territorial tax on sowing, known as granetteria. Transactions from every universitas of the kingdom were later double-checked by a royal organ known as Regia Camera della Sommaria. Given the relative low value of these taxes, whose combination reached about 20 ounces per year, it appears evident that this obligation mainly existed in order to guarantee stability and protect local communities. The bagliva was however substantially reformed in 1618 and divided in different taxes, related to different uses, such as those on cattle farming and wood gathering (both known as fida), and other jurisdictional rights such as hunting and transhumance licenses (Parrilli, Winspeare, and Giannattasio 1824, 24). A thorough account of these transactions can be found at the National Archive of Naples (ASN, Regia Sila, Conti della Bagliva).  

Literature on case study

• Basile, A. 1961. La questione silana dal 1838 al 1876. Atti del 2° Congresso Storico Calabrese: , 463-79.
• Basile, A. 1958. Moti contadini in Calabria dal 1848 al 1870. Excerpt from the Archive for Calabria and Lucania XXVII, fasc. I-II.
• Bulgarelli Lukacs, A. 2015. I beni comuni nell’Italia meridionale: le istituzioni per il loro management. Glocale. Rivista molisana in storia e scienze sociali. 9-10: 119-38.
• Ciolli, M. 1982. Parco nazionale della Calabria. In: Parchi e riserve naturali in Italia. Milan: Touring Club Italiano, 155-67.
• Corona, G. 1995. Demani ed individualismo agrario nel regno di Napoli (1780-1806). Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane.
• Corona, G. 2009. The Decline of the Commons and the Environmental Balance in Early Modern Italy. In: Nature and History in Modern Italy, eds. Armiero, M. and Hall, R. 89-107. Athens: Ohio University Press.
• Cozzetto, F. 2009. Cosenza e i suoi casali nella prima età spagnola. In: La Calabria del viceregno spagnolo. Storia arte architettura e urbanistica, ed. Anselmi, A, 69-92. Roma: Gangemi.
• Cozzetto, F. 2005. Una grande università: Cosenza e i suoi Casali. In: Città e contado nel Mezzogiorno tra Medioevo ed età moderna, ed. Vitolo, G., 261-86. Battipaglia: Laveglia & Carlone.
• D’Alessandro, E. 2015. Il progetto Universitas Casalium – 3000 posti letto in 30 paesi albergo. L’esperienza dei Casali di Cosenza. Atti del XXVII Convegno annuale di Sinergie -. Heritage, managemente impresa: quali sinergie?.
• Intrieri, L. 2010. La ripartizione delle terre fra i comuni silani nel 1889. Periodico dell’Istituto calabrese per la storia dell’antifascismo e dell’Italia contemporanea, 1, 5-30.
• Meluso, S. 1997. La Sila e la sua gente. San Giovanni in Fiore: Edizioni Grafica Florens.
• Placanica, A. 1999. Storia della Calabria dall’antichità ai giorni nostri. Rome: Donzelli.
• Tallarico, G. 1950. La Sila ed i suoi valori. Roma: Ramo Editoriale degli Agricoltori S. A.

Sources on case study

Archival sources

• National Archive of Naples (ASN), Conti delle Università
• National Archive of Naples, Regia Sila
• National Archive of Cosenza (ASC), Demanio Silano
• National Archive of Naples, Ministero delle Finanze, fascicolo 11706, Corrispondenza tenuta col Commessario Civile dall’anno 1838 al 1850, volumi I-IV.
• National Archive of Naples, Ministero di Polizia, fascicolo numero 2298, anni 1840-1841 volume IV.

Historical documents

• Bacco Alemanno, E. 1671. Descrittione del Regno di Napoli. Eds. by Ottavio Belrano e Novello de Bonis. Naples.
• Barletta, P. 1864. Leggi e documenti anteriori all’anno 1806. In: Leggi e documenti antichi e nuovi relativi alla Sila di Calabria, I-III.
• Bisceglia, D. 1791. Per li possessori di difese nel tenimento della Sila di Cosenza. Naples.
• Branca, A. 1883. Relazione del commissario comm. Ascanio Branca, deputato al Parlamento, sulla seconda Circoscrizione (provincie di Potenza, Cosenza, Catanzaro e Reggio-Calabria). Atti della Giunta per la inchiesta agraria e sulle condizioni della classe agricola 9(1).
• de Rivera, A. 1828. Memoria relativa allo scioglimento della promiscuità delle proprietà nella Regia Sila, Naples. Legge e regolamento sulla Sila Regia, Roma 1877.
• Lombardi, L. 1885. Delle origini e delle vicende degli usi civici nelle provincie napoletane. Naples: Tipografia Municipale.
• Marenghi, E. 1909. Calabrie: relazione del delegato tecnico prof. Ernesto Marenghi. In: Inchiesta parlamentare sulle condizioni dei contadini nelle province meridionali e nella Sicilia  5(2)
• Parrilli, B., Winspeare, D., and Giannattasio, G. 1824. Dritti e Ragioni de’ Comuni di Cosenza e de’ così detti suoi Casali sul Demanio della Sila. Naples.
• S.a., 1806. Sulla divisione dei demani di qualsivoglia natura, feudali o di chiesa, comunali o promiscui (September 1, 1806).
• Zurlo, G. 1791. Stato della regia Sila liquidato nel 1790 da Giuseppe Zurlo, Naples. 

Case study composed by Claudio de Majo, Rachel Carson Center for Environment and Society (Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich)

Typification

• Type of institution for collective action: Commons (Commoners’ Association)
• Name/description institution: Comunitatea de Avere
• Country: Romania
• Region: Caransebeş, Southwestern Romania
• Name of city or specified area: Caransebeş
• Surface area and boundaries: 251,919 iugăre (equals c.125,000 hectares of forest, meadows and pastures)
• Recognized by local government: Yes, the local government recognizes the association.

Foundation – termination

• Foundation/start of institution, date or year: 1879
• Confirmed year of founding or first mention: Confirmed year of founding.
• Foundation act present: Yes.
• Description of Act of foundation: In December 1879, 94 communes from the Banat region (Southwestern Romania) decided that the forest and pastures that were bought from the Austrian-Hungarian Empire were not to be divided but to be administrated in common.
• Year of termination of institution: Still in use for some parts of the commons.

Concise history of institution

General    

At the end of the eighteenth century, in the context of establishing the border between the Austrian Empire and the Ottoman Empire in the region currently called Banat (Southwestern Romania), several communities of peasants were transformed to border guardians. These communities of peasant-soldiers proved to be successful in other parts of the Ottoman- Austrian Empire (for instance in Transylvania). In 1774 there were 71 villages and 7,600 militarized households in this area (Rosu 2010). The communes were led by the association of old people, but the military supreme authority belonged to a commander, assisted by a commission of specialists. After the dissolution of the Border Guardians (in the second part of the nineteenth century) the Austro-Hungarian Empire decided that the forest, the pastures, the meadows, and the buildings that were solely administrated by the communities of peasant-soldiers were to be bought by them. The former Border Guardians bought the natural resources and buildings they had administrated so far and decided to continue the collective administration. This type of collective association was called “Comunitate de Avere” (literally Community of Fortune, in Romanian). This form of collective ownership lasted until the communist regime nationalized both the natural resources and the buildings. After the socialist regime broke down, at first only the buildings were restituted to the association, the forest not yet. Currently however, the forest, pastures and meadows have been restituted to most villages, be it only on paper  (see some of the links affiliated to this study).

“Community of Fortune”

On December 24, 1879, a Community of Fortune (an association of the former Romanian villagers who had served as Border Guardians of the Austrian Empire) was established. In 1872, the Regiments of Border Guardians were watching the border between the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman border; in total, they watched the border for 98 years. In order to make it more appealing for peasants living on the border to become soldiers, the Austrian authorities legislated that peasant-soldiers could (1) use the imperial forests from the region to harvest wood, non-timber forest resources, and to use pasture for household necessities, (2) to harvest the timber required for their communal buildings, (3) to graze animals on the pastures and meadows from the region, and (4) to cultivate grains and to grow orchards or vineyards on the territories near their villages.

When the Regiments were dismissed, the Austro-Hungarian authorities decided to allow former soldiers to buy the imperial forests and mountains that they used to exploit. In order to administrate this territory a Comunitate de Avere (Community of Fortune) was founded. This structure was composed of people elected by the members from the 94 communities and consisted of a president, an executive committee and a General Assembly of all members living within those communities. Members of the committee were elected for a term of six years. The forest exploitation activities were conducted by forest experts. The association also had accountants. All the rules the association had to respect were stipulated by the Austrian Civil Code. The committee had to establish a plan of forest exploitation which was approved by the General Assembly. Only after the members of association had obtained the necessary quantity of wood the committee could approve the selling of forest products on the “free market”.  

In 1918, Transylvania and Banat became part of the Romanian government. Thus, in 1925, a new Regulation and a new Status of the Association was voted. The association was now entitled to provide social assistance to its members, to provide scholarships for children coming from poor families of the association, to build schools and a student dormitory, and also to establish small factories to exploit the association’s forest.

In 1935, the association, against the will of its members, was considered a co-operative. Thus, the Romanian state had the right to interfere in the association business. This provision of the law aggravated in 1938 with even more interference (including political) in the association’s business.

The association has been dissolved during the communist regime and all its goods became property of the state. After 1989, members of the association and their heirs have struggled to regain possession of the natural resources and the buildings they once owned. Only after 2008 some communities obtained in court the right to receive back their land, forests, and pastures, but until now they have not gained the actual possession of these goods.

Special events? Highs and lows? Specific problems or problematic periods?

• 1879: Foundation of the Community.
• 1889: Three communes tried to pull back from the association .
• 1894: The disciplinary Statutes have been voted (provisioning the punishment for those breaking the rules of the association).
• 1910: The Regulation concerning the exploitation and selling of the forest products by the association has been voted.
• 1918: The region of Banat became part of the Romanian state.
• 1925: A new Regulation was voted. 
• 1935: The association status was regarded by the state to be equal to the status of co-operatives, which allowed the state to interfere in the association business.

Highs: the association contributed to the building of schools, created a feeling of belonging, practiced a sustainable exploitation of forest, meadows, and pastures. It created a good standard of living and assured social security for the members of the community. It also contributed to boosting the local economy.

Lows: encroachment of the natural resources of the association by the neighboring communities; sometimes the association did not receive the money they suppose to receive from leasing different activities (such as forest exploitation).

Membership

Numbers of members (specified)

120,000 members in the Interbellum.

Membership attainable for every one, regardless of social class or familybackground?

Only the former Guardians of the Border, their families and their heirs could become members.

Specific conditions for obtaining membership? (Entrance fee, special tests etc.)

None specified. See also above.

Specific reasons regarding banning members from the institution?

Yes: serious felonies against the Association’s goods could result in banning members.

Advantages of membership?

Participation in decision-making, access to forest and forest products, access to pastures, a sustainable forest exploitation.

Obligations of members? 

To respect the regulation of the Association.

Literature on case study

• Chiburte, L., 2010. Social Practices and Access to Forest – Mayors, Patrons, and Property in Postsocialist Romania [Practici sociale de accesare a pădurilor – Primari, patroni si proprietate în România post-socialistă]. BA Dissertation, University of Bucharest.
• Roşu, O.L., 2010. The Commons of the Former Regiment of Border Guardians from Banat Region [Comunitatea de Avere a fostului Regiment Grăniceresc româno-bănăţean Nr. 13 din Caransebeş 1879-1948]. Caransebeş : Editura Muzeul Banatului Montan.

Sources on case study

• The Archival Fund of the City of Caransebeş Mayoralty [Fondul primariei oraşului Caransebeş ]
• The Archival Fund of the Community of Fortune [Fondul Comunitatea de Avere Caransebeş]
• The Archival Fund of the Local Department of Forest Rusca Montană [Fondul Ocolului Silvic C.A.P.S. Rusca Montană]
• The Regulations of the Community of Fortune

Links to further information on case study:

• Eco-magazine, Oct. 27, 2008, On-line article on the Comunitatea de Avere of Caransebeş, regaining legal possession of natural resources (in Romanian only)
• Caraş-Severinul În 7 Zile, Jan. 14, 2010, On-line article on exposition on the occasion of the 130th anniversary of the Comunitatea de Avere of Caransebeş (in Romanian only) 
• Universul Pãdurii, Oct. 12, 2005, On-line article on the restitution of 150,000 hectares of pasture to the Comunitatea de Avere of Caransebeş (in Romanian only)
• Lumea Satului, Jan. 16-31, 2011, On-line article on illegal use of common land (in Romanian only)

Case study composed by Dr. Stefan Dorondel, Francisc I. Rainer Institute of Anthropology Bucharest, Institute for Southeastern European Studies, Bucharest

Typification

• Type of institution for collective action: Commons (Commoners’ Association)
• Name/description institution: Rucar, Arges County (Obştea Moşnenilor Rucăreni, Arges)
• Country: Romania
• Region: Arges County, Southern Carpathian Mountains
• Name of city or specified area: Rucar
• Surface area and boundaries: 2,694 hectares (in 2000) 
• Recognized by local government: Yes, the local government recognizes the association.

Foundation – termination

• Foundation/start of institution, date or year: 1653
• Confirmed year of founding or first mention: Confirmed year of founding; from the year 1653 dates the first document which proves that the land, forest and pastures were bought by Obştea Rucărenilor (The Commoners association of villagers from Rucar) from family members of the royal family of Walachia.
• Foundation act present: No.
• Description of Act of foundation: See also above. The formal confirmation of this association is provided in the Civil Sentence no. 357 from 21 August 1923, issued by the Court of Muscel, which establishes the members of the Association of commoners from Rucar, also establishing their rights and the number of people entitled to be part of the association.
• Year of termination of institution: Still existing.

Concise history of institution

General    

The common pasture and forest was mentioned in this area since the medieval age. In Romania, more generally, the commons were established especially in the hilly and mountainous regions (Panaitescu 1964). Commons provided commoners with mainly pasture and forest, and, in lowland villages, with agricultural land as well. While the agricultural land was shared among villagers, thus turned into private property, in many parts of Romania well before 1800, common pasture and forest still exist today. Also local associations of commoners (Obşte) are still in use today. There are basically three types of commoners’ associations, each type specific to a Romanian historical province (Moldavia, in eastern Romania), Walachia (southern Romania) and Transylvania (western Romania) and expressing different historical evolutions.

Commoners’ Association

The Commoners’ association in Rucăr has been founded in 1653 when villagers from Rucar bought from members of the royal family of Walchia “some mountains” surrounding the village. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the noblemen from Rucăr bought the common forests from villagers. “Not longer” after this transaction, some villagers from Rucăr opened a court case against the noble men. They complained that the pre-emption right (drept de protimis) voted by the king Caragea (1812-1818) was not respected. The struggle between local noblemen and villagers lasted a quite long period of time and at the end, the noblemen restituted their rights over pasture and forest to villagers. In exchange, noblemen got from villagers 3,000 golden coins (galbeni).

However, some commoners decided that they do not want to pay their share in order to get back the forest and pasture. We do not have the number of commoners before the process but after this process were 1,122 villagers having rights (dramuri) over the forest and pasture. It must be said that not all of them had the same number of rights over all seven mountains, the total number of mountains the association used to own. Some had few rights on the forests and pastures from one or two mountains while only few had rights over the forests and pastures on the all seven mountains. Only in 1885, after all the money was paid to the noble men commoners who contributed took over and were able to use the commons.

In 1910 the Forestry Code was passed, through which the common property (which until this year functioned based on customary law) was recognized officially by the Romanian state. In order to be recognized as a juridical association the Obşte had to issue a regulation and to establish an executive committee to run the association. The executive decisions were made by this committee. Members of the executive committee were elected by all members of the association (on a period of three to eight years) by vote (art. 11). There were five members in the executive committee having a president also elected. The regulation of Obşte stipulated that forest guards recognized by the Minister of Agriculture had to watch over the legality of forest exploitation.

The commons functioned until 1948 when all forests were nationalized by the Communist government. Through Law 1/2000 the common forests and pastures were restituted and a new Obşte has been established. The actual Obşte has 2,694 hectares of forest and pasture.

Special events? Highs and lows? Specific problems or problematic periods?

• 1653: Founding year of the association.
• 1885: Taking back the forests from the noblemen.
• 1910: Passing of the Forestry Code, which recognized the customary arrangements of the Obstea.
• 1948: Nationalization of forest and the dissolution of the association.
• 2000: Restitution of the common forest.

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the documents mention various people who entered the association although they were not entitled to.

After 2000 there were allegations that the elected members of the executive committee pocketed money and colluded with people with access to local state offices in order to exploit the forest illegally at the expense of association members.

Membership

Numbers of members (specified)

There are no documents to show the exact number of commoners during the eighteenth and nineteent centuries, but in 1923 there were 1,122 members.

Membership attainable for every one, regardless of social class or family background?

In the period shortly after the foundation there were only ordinary villagers who bought the forest, not noblemen. Later on,  the right of being member of the association became inheritable and could also be sold, regardless whether the person who inherited or bought this right was living in the village or not. The commoner who sold his/her right to another person ceased to be considered a member of the association and the person who bought the right became a member having all rights as the other members.

Specific conditions for obtaining membership? (Entrance fee, special tests etc.)

None specified. See also above.

Specific reasons regarding banning members from the institution?

None specified.

Advantages of membership?

Participation in decision-making, access to forest according to the number of dramuri.

Obligations of members? 

To respect the regulation of Obstea.

Literature on case study

• Panaitescu, P. P., 1964.  The Peasant Obştea in Wallachia and Moldavia during the Middle Ages [Obştea ţărănească în Țara Românească şi Moldova. Orânduirea feudală]. Bucuresti : Editura Academiei R.S.R.

Sources on case study

• Civil Sentence no. 357, from 21 august [Sentinţa Civilă Nr. 357 din 31 August 1923] by the Court of Muscel

• The Regulation of the Association of commoners from Rucar [Aşezământul Obştei Moşnenilor Rucăreni – Muscel]
• Procès-verbal of authentification [Process verbal de autentificare} (a copy dated 12 December 1924)

Case study composed by Dr. Stefan Dorondel, Francisc I. Rainer Institute of Anthropology Bucharest, Institute for Southeastern European Studies, Bucharest

Typification

• Type of institution for collective action: Common (Common forest)
• Name/description institution: Obşte
• Country: Romania 
• Region: Vrancea County, Moldavia, Romania
• Name of city or specified area: Ţara Vrancei
• Surface area and boundaries: 70,000 hectares for the whole Vrancea County; the common forests sizes range from 800 to 14,000 hectares.
• Recognized by local government: Yes, the local government recognizes this institution.

Foundation – termination

• Foundation/start of institution, date or year: Probably dating back to Middle Ages, see beneath.
• Confirmed year of founding or first mentioned: Oral history in the region has it that most of the common forests were received in medieval times from the Kings of Moldova. There is no written proof to be found.
• Foundation act present: No, see above.
• Year of termination of institution: Still existing.

Concise history of institution

General    

The region of the described institution is the County of Vrancea (Ţara Vrancei). Dimitrie Cantemir, an eighteenth-century Moldavian king and writer, member of the German Academy, pointed out in his work The Description of Moldova ( Descriptio Moldaviae) the large autonomy of the villages constituting this area, a real ‘peasant’s republic’ as he coined it. The large autonomy (vis-à-vis the noblemen and the King of Moldavia) was based on common property over natural resources (agricultural land, forest, pastures). Until the seventeenth century, communities from this area also worked the agricultural land in common. There was a permanent struggle between the villages owning commons and the ruling class called boieri (boyar, noblemen). Most of the regions, where there was a similar institution (Obşte), failed to defend their commons but Vrancea succeeded to defend it. From the late nineteenth century on, timber became highly valued merchandise due to the development of the construction and the furniture sectors, while the wood was used in the steel industry (Stahl 1998). The new economic developments put also an immense pressure on the common forests which became targeted by the large international wood enterprises. This pressure brought the common forest into decline.

Institution: Obşte

Obşte is a community-based association which commonly owns forests and pastures. The word is of Slavonic origin and it means several things: ‘togetherness’, ‘a village’, but it is also used as “owning something commonly”. The members of the Obşte held the right to use the forest collectively. It meant that no member of Obşte owned a certain plot of forest. As a juridical institution, it was run by an executive committee of five to seven people and a president, all of them elected by vote by the ordinary members of the Obşte. As an institution, it has medieval roots (at that time the Obşte was run by the ‘old and good people’: several old and wise members of the village). Some authors (Panaitescu 1964) claim that the concept of  Obşte could even be older, dating back to the period of the Daco-Geti (the population that inhabited more or less the actual territory of Romania before the Roman Empire conquest). 

There are two types of Obşte. The first one is of an egalitarian type. That is, all members of the Obşte had the same amount of  ‘rights’. It meant that all members of a village were members of the Obşte (‘one man, one share, one vote’). For this type of Obşte, every member received three cubic meters of fuel wood per year and three cubic meters for construction needs. This type of Obşte had one president, a council, and a book keeper. This institution was managed in a participatory way (Mantescu and Vasile 2009, 102).

The other type is a non-equalitarian Obşte: only some of the village members are also members of the Obşte. The membership was based on inheritance (the membership being inherited from parents). The voting of the members of this type of Obşte went in accordance with the division of  of shares: the amount of votes was determined by the amount of shares a member had within the Obşte. The gains of the Obşte are also shared by the members of the Obşte in accordance with the number of shares a member had.

Until 1910, when the first Forestry Code was voted, the Obşte functioned on a basis of customary law rather then following state law. Only after 1910 the customary law was officially recognized by the Romanian state. This was also the moment most Obştea became institutionalized, functioning as a private association and having a printed and official statute settling the rules for the functioning of this institution.

In 1948, the communist government nationalized the forests and dismantled all Obştea. Through Law 1/2000 the common forests were restituted to the communities. The Obşte subsequently was re-instated as an institution in the years following the changes from 1990 on. 

Special events? Highs and lows? Specific problems or problematic periods?

• 1910: The first Forestry Code was passed by the Parliament of Romania, the customary laws becoming officially recognized by the state.
• 1948: Nationalization of forests and the dissolution of Obştea.
• 2000: Restitution of common forests through Law 1.

Highs: Money from Obstea was used to improve the community’s life (repairing roads, schools, churches). An egalitarian access to forest (for the period before socialist regime), a relatively sustainable exploitation of forest, pastures and non-timber forest products. 

Lows: Sometimes, allegations of money pocketing. Depending on the type of Obşte, some members having more shares  than others gained more then their peer members.

Specific problems: Allegations of corruption against the presidents of the Obştea and the executive committee, pocketing money, depletion of forest, especially in the postsocialist period, after the common forest restitution and the revival of Obştea as an institution.

Membership

Numbers of members (specified)

For each community between 1,000 to 3,000 members of Obşte.

Membership attainable for every one, regardless of social class or familybackground?

Membership was either based on inheritance (villagers whose ancestors were members of the Obstea) or on residence.

Specific conditions for obtaining membership? (Entrance fee, special tests etc.)

None mentioned, see also above.

Specific reasons regarding banning members from the institution?

None mentioned. 

Advantages of membership?

Participation in decision-making, access to forest according to the number of drepturi.

Obligations of members? 

To respect the regulation of Obstea.

Literature on case study

• Mantescu, L., 2009. When globalization meets postsocialism. Community-based institutions for mananging forest commons and the internationalization of timber market in Romania. Paper presented at a Seminar at the Faculty of Economics, University of Navarra.  PDF-version available here.
• Mantescu, L., and Vasile, M., 2009. Property Reforms in Rural Romania and Community-Based Forests. Sociologie Românească, 5 (2), pp. 95-113.
• Panaitescu, P. P., 1964. The Peasant Obştea in Wallachia and Moldavia during the Middle Ages [Obştea ţărănească în Țara Românească şi Moldova. Orânduirea feudală]. Bucharest: Editura Academiei R.S.R.
• Stahl, H. H., 1998 [1958]. Contributions To the Study of the Commons in Romanian Villages[Contribuţii la studiul satelor devălmaşe româneşti]. Bucharest: Editura Academiei.
• Vasile, M., 2008. Meanings without forms. The “obste” in Vrancea. Statutory and customary processes in the dynamics of defining a system of collective ownership [Un fond fără formă obştea vrânceană. Statutar şi cutumiar în dinamica definirii unui sistem de proprietate colectivă]. Sociologie Românească, 6 (1), pp. 56-73.

Links to further information on case study:

• PRO TV investigation about the illegal logging in the current common forest in this area (in Romanian only)
• Online article in Ziarul de Vrancea on the postsocialist political mixture in the common forest (in Romanian only)

Case study composed by Dr. Stefan Dorondel, Francisc I. Rainer Institute of Anthropology Bucharest, Institute for Southeastern European Studies, Bucharest