1) The document analyzes social capital and collective action in forest governance in Banyumas, Indonesia. Surveys of over 1,000 households in upstream, middle, and downstream areas were conducted. 2) Preliminary findings show that while forest preservation is widely agreed as important, there is lack of consensus around the seriousness of deforestation. Mutual aid within communities is expected but monitoring of illegal logging is not. 3) Analysis of social trust found the highest trust is within ethnic/religious groups and communities, while trust decreases with distance from the community. Good community governance is key to enabling cooperation.

1. 集団分極化現象と米国市民による政策投票の実
験から学ぶリスクコミュニケーションの方法
Forest Governance in Banyumas:
Preliminary Report of Social Capital Analysis
Tatsuro Sakano & Farhan Helmy
Department of Social Engineering
Tokyo Institute of Technology
December 4, 2006

2. Positive Effects of Social Capital: Some Evidences(1)
Excerpted from Uslaner(2003)

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

4. Three generations of developmental strategy
► 1st 50s-60s Material Base (Physical Capital)
modernization by external infusion of sufficient capitals and
technology under the guidance of western experts.
→does not create next cycle of production
► 2nd 70s-90s People Centered (Human Capital)
Self-reliant, human development, empowerment
“build people’s capacity to solve their problems”
→created foreign educated, PhD holders, but poverty
remained
► 3rd 2000s- Trust Base (Social Capital)

5. Definition of CPSETs
“Common Property Socio Eco Tech system” is a system which has
the following properties
behaviors benefit
input commons output
•Indivisibility, mutual dependence of one’s benefits on others
•Free ride-ability (defection is dominant strategy)
•System collapsibility (if all take D then outcome is Parete ineff.
rational individual choice → socially irrational outcome
•CPR Problem by G.Hardin (negtive externality)
•Public goods problem by M.Olsen (positive externality)

6. Public Goods Problem & Local Governance
► Market
indivisible、free ride(social dilemma）
⇒necessity of collective action
► State
high monitoring cost, exploitation,rent-seeking
inflexibility to local commons
⇒necessity of the third approach
► Local governance (Local Property Regime)
self-enforced collective choice mechanism
⇒transaction coast <CC-DD
⇒matter of social invention, diversity
⇒social capital (trust & network of civic engagement)
6

7. Definition of Social Capital
► Alexis De Tocqueville
“Propensity for individuals to join together to address
mutual needs and pursue common interests.”
community spirit, civic engagement,
a sense of belongingness
a sense of individual stewardship for common good
► Coleman(1988) Putman(1993) : A Functional View
“relationship, which facilitates solving collective action
dilemmas by lowering transfer cost of right to control one’s
action”
norms of reciprocity generalized collective action
civic engagement trust

8. Banyumas Survey: sampled villages
downstream(5)
middle(9)
upstream(20)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Total Sample Size : 1005 households

10. 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

11. Preliminary Findings: Focused Questions
► Perception about deforestation
Forest preservation
Level of Deforestation
Overexploitation in Upstream Areas
Forest Management Responsibility
► Social Structure for collective action
Mutual Aid within community
Cooperation inside/outside village
Response to logging activity
► Social Structure of Trust

12. forest preservation is important for your area?
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
disagree(4.7) nutral(1.5) agree agree
some(50.5) strong(44.0)
Mostly (94.5%) agrees

13. Level of deforestation
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
)
7)
)
.9)
)
.4
.5
.6
.
9
18
(9
6
3
(1
(1
(3
m
ly(
us
us
er
le
ht
rio
h
ob
io
ot
g
r
se
pr
sli
se
no
o
ts
no
No consensus on the seriousness of deforestation
Only 16% perceives deforestation is serious

14. over exploitation in upstream affect on downstream
region?
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1)
)
2)
.5)
.3
.
5.
48
21
6
(2
al(
e(
e(
ng
tr
m
e
ro
nu
gr
so
st
sa
e
di
re
e
re
ag
ag
Considerable portion disagrees

15. Problem of deforestation
water shortage 55.9
land slide 0.7
erosion 0.7
flodding 0
wikd pigs 9.2
lainnya 4.6
Water shortage is the most common problem

16. responsibility to manage forest
gov (national/district) 15.7
gnv (village) 2.3
local coommunity 18.3
gvn & LC 37.9
mandor 17
KPH 0.4
SFC & LC 0.6
Community is expected to take responsibility

17. Summary of Perception about Forest Preservation
► Almost all agrees on the importance of forest to their area
► However, awareness of deforestation is not high
► There are some perception gaps on
(1) seriousness of deforestation
(2) the interdependency of up & down stream area
► Water shortage is most distinctive damage
► Community is expected to play primary role in responding
to deforestation

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

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

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

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

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

23. Summary of Potentiality of Collective Action
► Mutual aid within communities are perceived high for both
of daily life necessity and in case of emergency
► There are effective control and monitoring mechanism to
suppress free riding (keep members contribution to
community activities)
► However, overall expectation to community to monitor
illegal logging is not high (about 40%)
► Among several actors, community/neighborhood is the
highest to be reported about illegal logging

24. smaller small great greater
extent extent extent 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 gvt 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

25. advice & expertise
from whithin the members 32.3
other sources in the community 11.1
sources outside the community 10.6

26. Summary of Social Structure of Trust
► There are three groups according to the level of trust
(1)high trust group
own ethnic/tribe, community leader
religious leader
researcher
(2)low trust group
stranger, NGO, other ethnic group
(3)middle trust group
local government, military
police, RPH, KPH
► The basis of social trust resides in community
► The further from the community, the less trust
► The government agency lie in the middle

27. Tentative conclusion and further analysis
► The nature of CPSETs defines collective action problem:
size/spatial, stakeholders, difficulty of collective action
► Sharing perception about interdependency is the necessary
condition for collective action
► There are goods points and bad points
(1) perception gap about inter dependency and
seriousness
(2) variation is high among community by community
(3) necessity to explain this variation
dependency on forest → awareness
where they live, occupation difference

28. Tentative conclusion and further analysis
► The structure of social trust shows:
(1) The basis of social trust resides in community
(2) The further from the community, the less trust
→ difficulty for inter community level cooperation
→ necessity of third trustful party
(3) The government agency lie in the middle
NGO s trust is low
→ local researcher/institution might be the key?
(4) Good governance at community level is the basis for
inter-community level cooperation not a barrier.
► Participatory mapping is considered to be good start