Applying the Concept of Social Capital to Agricultural and Rural Development Policies

1. International Network for Water and Ecosystem in Paddy Fields (INWEPF) 4th Steering Meeting and Symposium Applying the Concept of Social Capital to Agricultural and Rural Development Policies Emerald Hotel, Bangkok, Thailand 5-7 July 2007 Kazumi Yamaoka The University of Tokyo, Japan ayamaoka@mail.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp

2. Contents of Keynote Address • Recent debate on water at OECD • Rural development policy as a key to fill a gap between the East and the West • Rural development policy in EU • Measuring and assessing the social capital accumulation in rural development context • Land Improvement Act system in Japan • PIM and rural development • Conclusion

3. Recent debate on water at OECD • Oct. 2003 Gyeongju, Korea OECD Experts Meeting on Agricultural Water Quality and Water Use : Developing indicators for policy analyses • The impact of agricultural water use on the environment • Nov. 2005 Adelaide, Australia OECD Workshop on Water and Agriculture - Sustainability, Market and Policies • Principle of “full cost recovery” of agricultural water use • Dec. 2006 Paris, France OECD Meeting of Invited Experts on Measuring Support to Water in Agriculture and Policies and Approaches for Sustainable Water Use in Agriculture • Price gap approach and Building block approach as rephrased approaches to the concept of full cost recovery

4. I have witnessed the impact that access to clean water can have on the poorest.In fact, advancing on the issue of water will help move forward on almost all the Millennium Development Goals. Like poverty, it will require a close collaboration between several of the OECD areas of expertise. Water Issues in OECD • Secretary-General Mr. Angel GURRIA (Mexico) has inaugurated in June 2006 • He declared for water as a priority issue on the occasion of his handover ceremony at the OECD Council Meeting at Ministerial Level • OECD secretariat was encouraged its approach of reducing financial support for agricultural water use so as to convert water to other users

5. Price gap approach and/or building block approach OECD secretariat’s opinionSympathized with Australia and some of European countries • Agriculture makes overuse of water due to relatively lower payment of water use • Agricultural water use has substantially negative impacts on ecosystems because of competitiveness in water use of both parties • Governmental supports to farmers on agricultural water use including on investment in irrigation systems, maintenance and management should be calculated not as General Services Support Estimates(GSSE) but as Producer Support Estimates (PSE) which is to be cut down • Because, water is regarded as the same input as other agricultural inputs like fertilizer, chemicals and fuels.

6. Japan’s opinion • Governmental support to farmers on off-farm irrigation facilities should be regarded as investment in public goods, benefiting the whole agricultural sector, being similar to the investment in research, extension or training • Capital costs of investment in new irrigation facilities should be excluded because it is difficult to calculate the initial investment in existing irrigation facilities, resulting in unfairness between early developed countries and newly risen countries • Therefore, a suggested table below is quite logical

7. Benefits to only specified farmers Benefits to the whole agricultural sector as well as specified farmers What’s a gap between opinions • Each party regards the aim and effect of irrigation project and management as; • only increase of agricultural production (OECD-HQ) • plus substantial effect in rural development in terms of socio-economic context (Japan) Mostly PSE ⇒ full cost recovery Combination of GSSE and PSE

8. Key to fill a gap between the East and the West • Making good use of irrigation project and management in rural development is more important • What is “rural development policy”? • What is a special character of rice paddy irrigation in Asian climate? • What appears to be a key word of rural development policies?

9. EU rural development policy1. History and framework • Rural development policy was introduced in 2001 as the second pillar of EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) • CAP reform in 2003 – SPS, cross compliance • New Rural Development Regulation (RDR) was formulated in 2005, and the Community Strategic Guidelines for Rural Development (CSG) were established in 2006 • EU decided to establish the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in 2007 and a total budget of 96 billion Euro has been estimated for the planning period of the new EU-RDR, 2007-2013

10. EU rural development policy2. EU LEADER programme • In 1991, the first LEADER (Liasons Entre Actions de Development de I’Economie Rurale) programme started • LEADER initiative is linked actions for development of rural economies, adopting a region-oriented, bottom-up approach, and Local Action Group (LAG) formed by various local stakeholders as planner and operator • LEADER+, the third LEADER programme for the period between 2000 and 2006 was designated as an axis of four axes set to support the new EU rural development policy

11. EU rural development policy3. LEADER+ and social capital • LEADER+ is the fourth axis, providing an instrument to achieve the objectives of the other three axes; • To improve competitiveness of the agricultural industries • To sustain agricultural and forestry land usage • To diversify the rural economy and improve the quality of life in rural communities • Interim evaluation of LEADER+ (2003) recognizes the logical mechanism of forming a synergy effect, where the implementation of the programme increase social capital accumulation, which contributes to the improvement of programme performance in the next stage

12. EU rural development policy4. Case in UK. “Parish programme” • In the UK., in parallel with LEADER initiatives, the Parish Programme has been widely implemented mainly in small rural communities sometimes as part of a LEADER initiative, to promote the improvement of the quality of life (QOL) in rural community • This Programme encourages community members to form their own committees, engage in different activities, identify problems, address them by sharing ideas and opinions, plan and prioritise projects, implement them and evaluate the outcomes. • The development of a sense of trust and social capital through such activities within an autonomous parish community is the objective of this Programme

13. Social capitalHistory • Robert D. Putnam (1993), professor of public policy at Harvard University, explains in his book “Make Democracy Work”that “social capital refers to features of social organizations such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” • Coleman (1994) refers to market failure of investing in social capital accumulation and governments’ roles for correcting inefficiencies in resource distribution • The OECD (2001) states in a report “The Well-being of Nations: The Role of Human and Social Capital” that “social capital resides in social relationships, and as capital, may be conceived as a resource in which we invest to produce a stream of benefits”

14. Social capitalCharacteristics • Social capital is; -different from real capital, not tradable and removable -different from human capital, existing not in individuals but in social relations -a kind of public goods, with external economy -necessary to be invested in by governments

15. Social capitalBonding and bridging • There are different types of social capital: • The bonding or exclusive type, where a group consists of members who are more or less of the same nature and who are internally-oriented • The bridging or inclusive type, which encompasses various groups in a cross-sectoral, externally-oriented manner • Good balance between bonding and bridging type social capital accumulation is desirable • David Halpern (2005) states in his book “Social Capital” that “social capital refers to the social networks and the norms and sanctions that govern their character”, and uses the vitamin metaphor to argue the necessity of a blend of different types of social capital in good balance

16. Social capitalApplication and measurement • Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) (2002) published “Social Capital and International Cooperation – Aiming for Sustainable Outcomes” • Assessment tools for social capital; -The World Bank: Deriving various indices for measuring social capital to develop an analysis tool, namelySOCAT (Social Capital Assessment Tool) specifically for rural communities in developing countries - The UK Office for National Statistics: Developing a Harmonized Question Set, ensuring consistency in measuring social capital in different areas and enabling comparative analyses on the accumulated level of social capital

17. START Is the accumulated level of SC measured as an indicator used for a certain policy? YES Cont. NO Analyse variation in the accumulated level of SC among several groups, achievement of that and tendency of that within the same group Social capitalCase and flow of measurement • Questionnaire survey on relation between irrigation performance and social capital in Thailand (2005) • Basic flow of social capital to be measured and used, depending on its roles in policies

18. Is the increase of the SC level itself a policy objective? NO Evaluate the SC level as a tool forming condition that facilitates the achievement of objectives of a specific policy Does the SC level exceed the specified criteria? NO Implement measures to increase the SC level. YES YES Compare the change of accumulated SC levels in the target areas with the control ones before and after policy implementation, or measure the accumulated SC level after policy implementation, so that they are evaluated as an objective of the policy YES NO Do not implement the policy Implement the policy

19. UT KK LB KB RB Bangkok Questionnaire survey on relation between irrigation performance and social capital in Thailand • Sites of survey • KB：Kanchanaburi（Ban Thaphayom） • RB：Ratchaburi（Upper Huai Mahad） • KK: Khon Kaen（Nongwai） • UT：Udornthani（Huai Luang） • LB： Lopburi（Kok Kratiem） • Questionnaires • To farmers as members of WUG • Based on SOCAT established by WB • Thai language, 56 questions • For analyzing the relation between irrigation performance during abnormal dry spells and accumulation level of social capital

20. English Thai • Sample of questionnaires

21. Results • The relation (solidarity) between farmers and WUG High solidarity ･･ RB,UT,LB : Low solidarity ･･ KB,KK • The relation between the solidarity and social capital High index ･･ RB,UT,LB : Low index ･･ KB,KK

22. Japan’s Land Improvement Act system -1- • In Japan, though small number of land owners dominated farmland holdings against a great number of tenant farmers, the drastic agricultural land reforms from 1947 to 1950 created numerous but small-scaled owner farmers all at once • Land Improvement Act enacted in 1949 in parallel with the land reform, and their combination significantly contributed to farmers to collectively set up land improvement projects • Irrigation projects for main and lateral canals • Land consolidation projects for smaller sub-lateral canals and ditches with simultaneous readjustment of farm land lots

23. Japan’s Land Improvement Act system -2- • Requirements stipulated by Japan’s Land Improvement Act when implementing a land improvement project; • (a) The project must be applied by at least fifteen agricultural land owners and tenant farmers • (b) The project must be agreed by at least two thirds of the people in the area to be benefited by the project • (c) The beneficiaries in the project area must establish a Land Improvement District that is responsible for the operation and management of water distribution services and the maintenance of irrigation facilities • Those requirements, (a), (b) and (c) actually work at three stages, verifying if the beneficiaries of the project have conditions suitable for building governance, i.e. the cooperative management of public space between governments and themselves

24. Japan’s Land Improvement Act system -3- • Verifying conditions suitable for building governance among beneficiaries of the project is, that is to say, providing a mechanism that initially verifies the accumulated level of social capital • Although land improvement projects are one of the major public works projects in Japan, the LIA system has institutionalised the obligatory participation and involvement of non-government sector in projects • Procedures of those verification and involvement are clearly set out by the Japanese government prior to the approval of each land improvement project, ensuring the consistency of the system, without exception • This system has diminished the potential government failure caused by the government’s absolute control, resulting in effective and efficient policy implementation

25. PIM and rural developmentObjectives of PIM • Many PIM initiatives in paddy rice irrigation areas in a humid climate give rise to frustration among farmers • Economic advantage of PIM is usually considered too much, however, the biggest advantage to be expected as outcome of PIM initiatives is building governance and empowerment within rural communities • PIM should aim that those who benefit from water supply services and those who are responsible for irrigation management unify each other to realise healthy governance that facilitates collective communication and swift, yet careful, actions • Many traditional paddy rice irrigation systems in a humid climate, where agricultural water governance is well-established, provide a typical example of this being possible

26. Synergy effect between experience of governance and social capital accumulation PIM and rural developmentApplication of social capital • Observations conclude that, in order to make a success of such PIM initiatives, rural development policies should be implemented, where the accumulation of social capital among farmers is facilitated through the experiences of water management by themselves • A moderate degree of tension, not only by reciprocity among farmers but also by mutual monitoring especially in the event of an abnormally dry spells, also contributes to a further improvement in water distribution efficiency • Through this successful experience, a network of more sensitive reciprocity and mutual monitoring, i.e. social capital is to be accumulated to a higher level

27. Conclusion and discussions • Rural development policy is becoming more important to strengthen agricultural industries, sustain agricultural land use and improve the quality of life in rural community both in Europe and PIM initiatives in Asian countries • Rural development policy is also important in filling a gap between Europe and Asia in discussion on GSSE/PSE of irrigation project and management • Social capital in rural development policies and in Japanese land improvement projects should be studied as a key for successful implementation of PIM in rice paddy areas in a humid climate • INWEPF’s initiative on this field is desirable

28. International Network for Water and Ecosystem in Paddy Fields INWEPF Many thanks for your attention http://www.maff.go.jp/inwepf/index.htm