THE EARTHSCAN READER IN SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
EDITED BY JULES PRETTY
EARTHSCAN 2005
PART VI
PART 3: SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES
Perspective 15: Social Capital and Collective Management of Resources by Jules Pretty
Introduction
The proposition that natural resources need protection from the destructive actions of people is widely accepted. Yet communities have shown in the past and increasingly today that they can collaborate for long-term resource management. The term social capital captures the idea that social bonds and norms are critical for sustainability. Where social capital is high in formalized groups, people have the confidence to invest in collective activities, knowing that others will do so too. Some 0.4 – 0.5 million groups have been established since the early 1990s for watershed, forest, irrigation, pest, wildlife, fishery and micro-finance management. These offer a route to sustainable management and governance of common resources.
From Malthus to Hardin and beyond, analysts and policy makers have widely come to accept that natural resources need to be protected from the destructive, yet apparently rational, actions of people. The compelling logic is that people inevitably harm natural resources as they use them, and more people therefore do more harm. The likelihood of this damage being greater where natural resources are commonly owned is further increased by suspicions that people tend to free-ride, both by overusing and underinvesting in maintaining resources. As our global numbers have increased, and as incontrovertible evidence of harm to water, land and atmospheric resources has emerged, so the choices seem to be starker. Either we regulate to prevent further harm, in Hardin’s words (Hardin, 1968), to engage in mutual coercion mutually agreed upon, or we press ahead with enclosure and privatisation to increase the likelihood that resources will be more carefully managed.
- These concepts have many policy makers and practitioners: Nash, 1973; Callicott and Nelson, 1998; Pretty, 2002; Posey, 1999; Gadgil and Guha, 1992; and Beck and Naisbith, 2001.
An important question is: could local people play a positive role in conservation and management of resources? And if so, how best can unfettered private actions be mediated in favour of the common good? Though some communities have long been known to manage common resources such as forests and grazing lands effectively over long periods without external help (Ostrom, 1990), recent years have seen the emergence of local groups as an effective option instead of strict regulation or enclosure. This ‘third way’ has been shaped by theoretical developments both on governance of the commons and on social capital (Singleton and Taylor, 1992; Ostrom et al, 2002). These groups are indicating that, given good knowledge about local resources, appropriate institutional, social and economic conditions (O’Riordan and Stoll-Kleeman, 2002), and processes that encourage careful deliberation (Dryzek, 2000), then communities can work together collectively to use natural resources sustainably over the long term (Uphoff, 2002).
Social capital and local resource management groups
The term social capital captures the idea that social bonds and norms are important for people and communities (Coleman, 1988). It emerged as a term following detailed analyses of the effects of social cohesion on regional incomes, civil society and life expectancy (Putnam, 1993, 2000; Wilkinson, 1999). As social capital lowers the transaction costs of working together, it facilitates cooperation. People have the confidence to invest in collective activities, knowing that others will also do so. They are also less likely to engage in unfettered private actions with negative outcomes, such as resource degradation (Pretty and Ward, 2001; Agrawal, 2002). Four features are important: relations of trust; reciprocity and exchanges; common rules, norms and sanctions; connectedness in networks and groups.
Further challenges
The formation, persistence and effects of new groups suggests that new configurations of social and human relationships could be prerequisites for long-term improvements in natural resources. Regulations and economic incentives play an important role in encouraging changes in behaviour, but although these may change practices, there is no guaranteed positive effect on personal attitudes (Gardner and Stern, 1996). Without changes in social norms, people often revert to old ways when incentives end or regulations are no longer enforced, and so long-term protection may be compromised.
- There remains a danger of appearing too optimistic about local groups and their capacity to deliver economic and environmental benefits, as divisions within and between communities can result in environmental damage.
- Social capital can help to ensure compliance with rules and keep down monitoring costs, provided networks are dense, there is frequent communication and reciprocal arrangements, small group size and lack of easy exit options for members.
- Communities do not always have the knowledge to appreciate that what they are doing is harmful.
Nonetheless, the ideas of social capital and governance of the commons, combined with the recent successes of local groups, offer routes for constructive and sustainable outcomes for natural resources in many parts of the world’s ecosystems. To date, however, the triumphs of the commons have been largely at local to regional level, where resources can be closed to access, and where institutional conditions and market pressures are supportive. The greater challenge will centre on applying some of these principles to open access commons and worldwide environmental threats, and creating the conditions by which social capital can work under growing economic globalization.
Note
See the following websites for more data and evaluations on the ecological impact of local groups:
- Sustainable agriculture projects – analysis of 208 projects in developing countries in which social capital formation was a critical prerequisite of success, see www2.essex.ac.uk/ces/ResearchProgrammes/subheads4food-prodinc.htm.
- Joint forest management (JFM) projects in India. For impacts in Andhra Pradesh, including satellite photographs, see www.ap.nic.in/apforest/jfm.htm. For case studies of JFM, see www.teriin.org/jfm/cs.htm and www.iifm.org/databank/jfm/jfm.html. See also Murali et al (2002, 2003).
- For community IPM see www.communityipm.org/ and Pontius et al (2001).
- For impacts on economic success in rural communities, see Narayan and Pritchett (1997) and Donnelly-Roark and Ye (2002)
- For Landcare programme in Australia, where 4500 groups have formed since 1989, see www.landcareaustralia.com.au/projectlist.asp and www.landcareaustralia.com.au/FarmingCaseStudies.asp.
Perspective 16: Gateway to the Global Garden: Beta/Gamma Science for Dealing with Ecological Rationality by Niels Röling
Perspective 17: Ecological basis for Low-toxicity Integrated Pest management (IPM) in Rice by Kevin Gallagher, Peter Ooi, Tom Mew, Emer Borromeo, Peter Kenmore and Jan-Willem Ketelaar
PART IV: PERSPECTIVES FROM INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES
Introduction
Part 4 of the Reader in Sustainable Agriculture contains four articles that address the particular challenge of industrialized countries. These are by Jules Pretty, Dana Jackson, Tim Lang and Michael Heasman, and Jack Kloppenburg and colleagues and address critical issues from landscape to diets, and from nature to foodsheds.
- In the first article, which comprises an early part of the 2002 book, Agri-Culture, Jules Pretty explores a landscape perspective on agricultural systems, and indicates how much has been lost during the modern industrial experiment.
- In the second article, Dana Jackson of the Land Stewardship project describes the way that farms can be developed as part of natural habitats.
- The third article is drawn from Tim Lang and Michael Heasman’s book Food Wars, and focuses on diet and health, and what has occurred during the recent experiment with modern agricultural systems that has focused primarily on increasing food production without concern for what has been lost.
- In the final article, Jack Kloppenburg and co-authors set out the compelling concept of the foodshed, and indicate just how connections to food and place can make a difference for both consumers and producers.
Perspective 18: Landscapes Lost and Found by Jules Pretty
Perspective 19: The farm as natural Habitat by Dana L. Jackson
Perspective 20: Diet and Health: Diseases and Food by Tim Lang and Michael Heasman