1. Collective Choice in Community Based Management: Lesson From Pakistan and Preliminary Result of Banyumas Survey Tatsuro Sakano Associate Professor Tokyo Institute of Technology ESTs and Forest Governance December 4 – 7, 2006, in Banyumas, Indonesia

2. Stalemate?

8. Positive Effects of Social Capital : Some Evidences(2) Excerpted from Uslaner(2003)

9. Positive Effects of Social Capital : Some Evidences(3) Excerpted from Uslaner(2003)

12. Vicious Circle of low trust and underdevelopment Inefficient use of Resources Low formation of Social capital Inability to solve Social dilemmas Rent seeking Exploitation Under- development Inequality Exacerbated

13. Comparison of Sewerage Construction in Orangi Town (July 1980- Nov.1989) 8000acers 1.2million Source: Statistical Data of Low Cost Sanitation Program of the Orangi Pilot Project (Survey November 1989) Prominent features OPP Supervised Self- Supervised Provided by Local Govt. Total number of lanes got sewerage system 1,195 2,403 497 4,095 number of houses got sewerage connections 17,403 39,221 6,567 63,191 Length of sewer lines constructed (FT) 293,570 622,708 112,350 1,028,628 Total Investment ( Rs.) 4,661,170 9,487,245 10,111,500 24,259,915 Average cost per household for sewerage lines ( Rs.) 268 242 1,540 - Ave. cost Rs. per running foot for sewerage construction 15.9 15.2 90.0 -

14. Result of OPP as External Agent Project name Results Trust situation Katchi Abadis Upgrading Program in Orangi Town Karachi (1991-95) Donor: ADB Sub Project Area Baldia - 1992 OPP exited faced with local resistance - KMC provided internal work Communities did not take responsibility for maintenance of internal work provided by Govt. Urban Basic Services (UBS) Program in Sukkur (1990-1995) Donor: UNICEF Three Katchi Abadis selected - 1993 OPP exited - delay of external work SMC - improper operation of pumping station High internal trust of communities ended in distrust on government agencies. Collaborative Katchi Abadis Improvement Program (CKAIP) (1991-95) Donor: World Bank Shelter Program - 1995 OPP exited - Water Aid UK judges failure - delay of external work HMC - poor quality of construction - failure to maintain the work High internal trust of communities ended in distrust on government agencies.

15. Classification of Trust Situation High Trust Situation Norms of reciprocity and civic engagements across the community/ society. Closed Self - reliant Situation Norms of reciprocity and civic engagements within the community/ society. Paternalistic situation Trust on state for services, low civic engagements Destitute Situation Widespread distrust, weak norms, dishonesty, fear - based and threat - based, low civic engagements and community norms High Trust Situation Norms of reciprocity and civic engagements across the community/ society. Closed Self - reliant Situation - Norms of reciprocity and civic engagements within the community Paternalistic Situation Trust on state for services, low civic engagements Destitute Situation Widespread distrust, weak norms, dishonesty, fear - based and threat - based, low civic engagements and community norms Extended Trust Low High Intra- community Trust Low High

16. Matching Hypothesis High Trust Situation Norms of reciprocity and civic society. Closed Self - reliant Situation Norms of reciprocity and civic engagements within the community/ society. Paternalistic situation Trust on state for services, low civic engagements Destitute Situation Widespread distrust, weak norms, dishonesty, fear - based and threat - based, low civic engagements and community norms High Trust Situation engagements across the community/ Closed Self - reliant Situation - Paternalistic Situation Destitute Situation Extended Trust Low High Intra- community Trust Low High Self-organization Approach Stalemate External Agent Approach Ostrom’s SOCC(1990) Capacity to craft institution Korten’s PVO (1987) Capacity to craft institution

18. FAUP : An Example of Equitable Partnership Fund from British Government £ 12,521,000 Funding from Punjab Government £ 3,344,000 FAUP FAUP Community Account 50% 50% Cash / material/ Labor or both (25%) (75%) Through agreement on legal documents As Grant

22. Socially Adaptable Technology & Governance Local needs Technological Requirements Social Capacity to Manage Technological Solution Establish Local Governance

26. Civil Society Network Kasur Households Schools Hospitals Factories UDERC Japan Government UDERC Pakistan Research Institute Universities Local NGOs CCB

27. Corroboration Matrix Clean Water Club Safty Drink Water Action Research Corroboration Training/Networking Other Cooperation Pak Universities/ Research Inst. Jap Universities/ Research Inst. Civil Scoiety Network Kasur UDERC Pak UDERC Jap

28. Banyumas Survey: sampled villages Total Sample Size : 1005 households

30. Occupation by area upstream middle downstream total farmers 72.5 54.5 55.7 65.6 employed 12.8 24.8 29.5 18.2 others 14.8 20.7 14.8 16.2

32. forest preservation is important for your area? Mostly (94.5%) agrees

33. Level of deforestation No consensus on the seriousness of deforestation Only 16% perceives deforestation is serious

34. over exploitation in upstream affect on downstream region? Considerable portion disagrees

35. Problem of deforestation Water shortage is the most common problem water shortage 55.9 land slide 0.7 erosion 0.7 flooding 0 wild pigs 9.2 lainnya 4.6

36. responsibility to manage forest Community is expected to take responsibility govt (national/district) 15.7 govt (village) 2.3 local community 18.3 govt & LC 37.9 mandor 17 KPH 0.4 SFC & LC 0.6

38. most people in this village/neighborhood will help you if you need Mostly expect mutual help disagree 9.5 neutral 11.5 agree some 62.3 agree strong 15.2

39. community help (when unfortunate happen such as land slide/flood, the community get together to help? Mostly expect mutual help in emergency very unlikely 0.4 somewhat unlikely 0.9 somewhat likely 13.1 very likely 71.2

40. how likely will be criticized or sanctioned when not participate in community activity? Monitoring & control is effective in community very unlikely 2.1 somewhat unlikely 11 somewhat likely 22.5 very likely 50.3

41. Work/interact with other groups with similar group in In the village & neighborhood Outside the village & neighborhood Contact with outside the neighbor hood is less no 18.5 occasionally 26.6 frequently 13.4 no 27.5 occasionally 22.2 frequently 8.6

42. if you find logging activity what do you do ? Ask/inform to what community will do if they find logging? neighbourhood 25.1 community leader 12.1 village gvt 18.2 SFC 21.7 police 4.2 others 6.1 check to the location 16.8 no action 42.5 get organized to meet community leader 19.5 inform to the police 13.4

44. smaller extent small extent great extent greater extent own ethnic/tribe 1.7 5.6 10.8 82 other ethnic/tribe 6 27.5 24.4 42 religious leader 0.5 2.1 7 90.3 shopkeeper 1.1 7.7 12.8 75.7 local govt 2 8.4 14.8 74.5 police 4.6 17.7 17 58.5 international NGO 5.2 15.3 29.9 30.7 national NGO 3.4 13.8 27.6 37.8 RPH 4.4 14.6 20.7 58.5 KPH 3.8 14.2 23.2 56.8 community leader 0.7 2.5 7 89.5 researcher 1.3 5.7 11.8 80.7 stranger 13.1 31 26.7 23 military 3.1 7.5 13.6 69.3

45. advice & expertise from within the members 32.3 other sources in the community 11.1 sources outside the community 10.6