Chapter 5
Social, cultural and political considerations

Soil degradation results primarily from inappropriate land use and poor land management - from land being used in a manner incompatible with its bio-hysical capability (Sanders 1992a). Farm households and other land users rarely deliberately degrade the land resources on which their livelihoods and welfare needs depend. In the past inappropriate land use and poor management has wrongly been claimed to be symptoms of local land users' laziness and environmental ignorance (IFAD 1992). In reality the root cause lies in the range of economic, social and political pressures that force farmers to use the land in the way they do. This chapter focuses primarily on the social and cultural dimensions; the following chapter deals with the economic and financial dimensions.

Historical setting

There is usually a direct link between current and past land use. Typically the land's present condition owes a great deal to past land use and management decisions that would have been taken within the context of the social, cultural and political circumstances that prevailed at the time. An understanding of the way such circumstances have changed over time, and a knowledge of past events that may have directly or indirectly influenced land use, may help explain present land use. Understanding the historical setting for present land degradation may help identify its true cause and enable the right interventions to come up (Douglas 1994).

An understanding of the historical setting is important in improving the effectiveness of national conservation programmes. The limited institutional memory of many agencies has hampered efforts to evaluate, and learn from, the history of past soil conservation activities. This is a serious failing because the operational mechanisms and social, economic and political conditions of the past will have influenced the present organisational structures and institutional linkages of the various agencies involved in combating soil degradation.

They also influence the expectations and attitudes of farmers and technicians towards soil conservation. Neglect of the historical setting means that current conservation initiatives are in danger of wasting resources as they reintroduce unsuccessful methods, follow narrow disciplinary and institutionally constrained approaches, or fail to take account of the perceptions of farmers, and technical staff, generated from exposure to past soil conservation efforts (Wood 1992). A review of the institutional development of agroforestry in Fiji over the last 100 years (Howlett et al 1996) notes that

The review also found that contour hedges of vetiver grass were first proposed and demonstrated to farmers in the 1930s. The Department of Agriculture still promotes the use of vetiver, which technically is a very good erosion control measure, but the same issues restricting its present adoption are similar to those expressed in 1948

Social and cultural issues

A social issues analysis can help in understanding how a community is organised and how it functions. Different members of the community play significant roles as producers and consumers in the rural household and in sustaining the natural resources of the environment. The roles assigned to gender and age groups are often based on the status of economic classes. The socio-economic needs of households determine differing relations among various groups engaged in on-farm and off-farm activities.

Cultural values involve belief systems and customs governing relationships among genders, age groups and economic classes. They also determine rules of conduct at the household and community levels. Some belief systems favourably impact on the progress of the community while others hinder the growth and development of individuals and groups within the community. Favourable social and cultural practices foster cooperation among people, promote innovation, facilitate exchange of information and services, and encourage formation of networks and enterprises. Unfavourable practices usually create rigid barriers among different groups and between the genders. These tend to fragment the household's and the community's efforts, often resulting in conflicts of interest and friction.

In any community there are culturally defined roles for the men, women, elders and youth (box 12). These groups also exist within social and economic contexts which may position them as high, medium and low on the status scale. Their social status depends on material wealth, birthright positions in clan and caste structures, leadership in indigenous knowledge and cultural practices, experience from age and social recognition in the community through various traditional and religious affiliations.

Social issues

Many soil conservation programmes have failed because they did not take into consideration the social circumstances of those expected to adopt the recommended land uses and management practices. Likewise the limited success of many agricultural development programmes is ascribed to promoting technologies that fail to conform to the specific goals and social structure of individual farm households (Sands 1986).

Social issues regarding the farm household are based on economic interests and affect the division of labour and decision-making within the family system. Because women do not usually have direct access to property, their role in decision-making on economic activities (such as capital investments for agricultural production) is marginal.

The absence of ownership rights denies women access to land, capital and other economic resources. Consequently, the social status of women is defined within the context of marital institutions and in relation to the male head of household.

Source Slatter 1984

Women are directly involved as producers in agriculture, livestock and forestry in addition to their own domain of the household, the family and the market. It is important to note that in addition to their farm activities, women provide labour in food processing and preparation for cooperative work involving the farm and the homestead. Women play a vital role in meeting the food and energy needs of the households. Their knowledge, experience and traditional skills are essential in managing natural resources in food production, processing and preparation. However, because they do not own the land, trees livestock and other sources of revenue, they are often excluded from major decision-making in the household and in the community.

Elders pass on their material wealth to their children when they retire from farm work, that excludes them from direct participation in economic activities. But they often play a prominent role in influencing the custom and cultural practices which determine social behaviour in the household and the community. They enjoy a recognised status based on lifetime experience and cumulative knowledge.

The youth are considered more urban-oriented and are often less attached to the farming community. This excludes them from the direct decision-making and investing themselves in the land. But they have vitality and scientific knowledge that could build on what their parents have established. They also make direct contributions in motivating their parents on sustainability of agriculture because they are the new generation into whose hands properties will pass.

In addition, village elders, clan/caste leaders, local artisans, traditional healers and religious leaders are vital sources of community leadership organisation, information and communication. However extension and development programmes focusing on sustainable agriculture and environmental protection have targeted exclusively at male adult farmers. This effectively leaves out more than half the rural population consisting of women, elders, youth and others who are opinion leaders, labourers, traders and artisans within individual households and the community.

Cultural dimensions

Cultural dimensions affect gender relations and impact on household functions and on community organisations. This is because culture influences relationships between members of the farm household. Culture also determines how men and women share their resources and coordinate their responsibilities, considering the limitations on their supply of capital, time, labour, and other resources. In addition, culture also determines division of labour among gender and age groups, relations between high income and low income farmers, and traditional institutions which facilitate cost sharing or labour cooperation.

Cultural practices also give emphasis to belief systems influencing behaviour in human relations between genders among elders, adults and youth within genders, among different economic classes and interest groups of occupational association (i.e., religious leaders, traditional healers, weavers, potters, black smiths, rain-diviners, traders etc).

Belief systems define traditional custom and determine religious practices which influence aspirations for material existence. Belief systems also determine the collective identity of a community in traditions often expressed through religious rituals. For example, farmers' belief that soil erosion from heavy rainfall is the will of God and not the result of poor conservation practices.Similarly, most rural women tend to believe that men have a right to ownership of property because it is the will of God. They accept their secondary status in the marital arrangement. They do not consider it possible to be equal with men as a birthright. Women's identity has always been either in relation to the father or the husband. By extension even brothers and uncles are given higher status than sisters and aunts.

Social customs regulate everyday human relations because of granting status, allocating work between genders, spreading authority in community leadership, building hierarchy in family and community structures and among interest groups. Social and cultural influences have a direct effect on people's perceptions and attitudes, shaping behaviour patterns in society.

Changing social values and evolving cultural conditions

Social values influence behaviour patterns which are culturally determined based on economic demands of the community and physical constraints in the environment. Often, belief systems and customs develop and change to meet basic needs. As a result, culture changes over time. Social values, customs and behaviour patterns once considered tradition gradually change to accommodate new situations. The community makes adjustments to changing economic and political realities responding to the demands of the environment. People use limited available resources in a rational manner by being socially and culturally flexible to meet their economic needs. This is borne out by an FAO project on participatory upland conservation and development in Balochistan, Pakistan, whose experience has shown that:

The incorporation of women, community elders, the youth, artisans, traders and labourers should aim to utilize indigenous knowledge of farmers and women, combined with the experience of elders and modern techniques of the youth. The essential objective is to integrate various members of the community, utilizing their talent and human resources, in a manner that will complement the efforts of one group with the resources of another. Food self sufficiency, soil and water conservation, sustainable agriculture or rural development must address these issues.

Farm household structure

The social organisation, or structure, of the farm household has important implications for SARM in particular with regard to the availability of labour (Sands 1986). Small-scale farmers rely on labour, largely supplied by household members, as the most available and flexible factor of production. The amount of family labour available will determine how much land can be cultivated and the timeliness of crop husbandry operations such as planting and weeding. Much of the earthworks recommended for conservation purposes require high inputs of labour for both construction and annual maintenance. Likewise alley cropping and the use of compost and manure have high labour requirements.

Given the existing labour demands on household members, such techniques may not be worthwhile considering the opportunity cost of using that labour elsewhere, either for on-farm production or off-farm employment.

Within the farm household there is often significant specialization in agricultural tasks, and enterprises, among sex and age groups (Ibid.). Such can cause each group to evaluate land use recommendations differently according to their own set of incentives and constraints. It cannot be assumed that one household member is responsible for all operations connected with a particular farm enterprise. Men may clear and plough the land while the women plant, weed and harvest. Women commonly take sole responsibility for all aspects of food crop production, whereas men assume control of cash crop production but still expect the women to do some of the work such as weeding. Men may control the acquisition and disposal of cattle whereas daily decisions on when and where to graze the animals may be left to the young boys or adolescents herding them. Women may take care of the small livestock (sheep, goats, pigs and poultry), and be able to decide when and where to dispose of them.

It is often assumed that the male head of household is the sole decision-maker, whereas responsibility for decision-making is usually spread among those members active in particular farm enterprises. This creates distinct spheres of work, goals and authority and often results in a complex process of shared decision-making. The decision-making structure needs to be understood to ensure that the appropriate household member(s) is consulted about land use improvements. For instance if women are responsible for a particular enterprise, improvements may be jeopardised if only the male household heads are consulted and involved. Where responsibility for an enterprise is shared, the need is to consult all those involved. The aim is to avoid introducing changes that might be unacceptable to some household members should they alter the way the costs and benefits are currently shared.

The primary decision-maker is usually the person who carries out the activity or is responsible for certain crops, but this cannot be assumed. In some instances authority for particular decisions about land use may lie with the household head who authorises other household members to undertake the necessary activities. This can create difficulties for the introduction of conservation structures or tree planting into a farming system, in those societies where the male head of household retains authority for decision-making despite prolonged absences while engaged in migrant wage labour.

Community structure

The organisational structures, cultural norms and beliefs within a community will affect virtually every decision taken by the members of individual households. Such factors will govern a household's rights to own and/or cultivate its farmholding. It will also determine a household's access to a village's common property resources (grazing land, woodland, water supplies, etc). Knowledge of the functioning of the leadership and community structure, particularly the systems of political power and social status at village level, will help explain the patterns of resource distribution within the community.

Many projects fail because of the assumption that all members of a community have similar circumstances and will benefit equally. The fact that a number of rural households all live within the same geographic area does not mean that they automatically feel that they constitute a homogeneous community. In countries such as India and Nepal there may be major differences between neighbouring households as to their social standing, resource rights, educational level and poverty status, depending on which caste and/or religion they belong to.

In the Philippines within an administrative village unit (barangay) some households may come from very different ethnic or tribal groups with different languages, customs and livelihood systems. Hence even though they reside within the same village area individual households may view the same agricultural production problems and development opportunities from different perspectives. A knowledge of the social structure, as well as the means by which collective decision are made and action taken within a community is important when land degradation problems have to be dealt with on a wider than individual farm basis.

Community dynamics

Community dynamics refer to the interaction of members in different groups in their effort to achieve desired goals. Groups assign tasks and define roles in order to organise functions towards expected outputs. In addition, the exchange of news and information, and the allocation of resources (i.e., labour, capital, land, livestock and services like health, education, marketing, insurance and welfare) are organised by the community to benefit specific groups.

Interest groups exist in both genders, including those single, married, widowed and elderly in addition to their status in high, middle or low income categories. There are distinct roles for each category of men and women defined by customs and habits. Men and women also form interest groups along occupational lines such as potters, weavers, traditional healers, traders, etc. However, due to custom and belief systems women perform tasks that men would not be expected to undertake and vice versa.

Source Arya & Samra 1995>

Interest groups can help to identify the common and differing aspects in grassroots organisations. Common interest groups may be formed deliberately or may come to exist only because religious associations, tribal/clan/caste affiliations, economic groups, age classifications, occupational and other socio-economic categories recognize the need to organise themselves to provide linkages between members and among different groups for economic benefits.

For example, a community member affiliated to a temple, mosque or church-based religious association, may also be a village elder, a middle income farmer and belong to a caste group specialized in hunting wild animals.

Source Arya and Samra 1995

This person would play different roles and fulfil different functions in each of his affiliate membership network or organisations. Often his belief and behavioral practices may show changes given his differing circumstances in these interest group affiliations.

There is scope for using group dynamics within farming communities to :

• resolve conflicts of interest;
• integrate activities of members i.e farmers, women, elders and youth;
• facilitate the transfer of indigenous and modern knowledge on conservation practices;
• address community needs including income generating capabilities, skills training, marketing, water supplies and health services;
• expand and organise farm enterprises and farmer networks; and
• optimize capabilities of various community members using available natural resources in self help schemes.

Women and land degradation

There is a strong relationship between land degradation and the lives of rural women, hence the importance of gender awareness when considering SARM. A recent report on women and natural resource management (Commonwealth Secretariat 1996a) notes that women have multiple relationships with environmental and natural resource management problems:

There is growing evidence from the Pacific that rural women's workload has increased in recent years and that some are beginning to feel the strain. In Papua New Guinea a report on the potential impact of crop diversification noted that in some areas of the country women were already working themselves "to and beyond the point of exhaustion." The increase in the workload of women was due to such factors as the intensification of the gardening system, the use of female labour in cash cropping, male outmigration, longer school attendance of children and larger family size due to infant and child mortality (Booth 1991). A Tongan women's group leader advised one investigator that they were not promoting agricultural-income generating projects as vigorously as before because while their workload had increased, men were becoming idle and beginning to lose sense of their responsibility for their families (Siwatibau 1993).

Role of gender analysis

For policy and planning purposes, the factors that facilitate or hamper women's participation in SARM should be identified. This requires that gender analysis form part of any SARM development programme. Gender plays a critical part in determining women's access to resources because male and female roles in society are at the core of social relations, economic structure and family composition. Gender analysis provides an important entry point for the identification and examination of some of the underlying causes of SARM problems. It enables policy-makers and practitioners to examine factors such as social structures, legal frameworks, cultural barriers and opportunities that operate either individually or collectively to present obstacles to, or opportunities for, one group in society as opposed to another.

Gender analysis should be undertaken at both the household and community (society) level. Besides looking at the differences between men and women, it should also consider the roles and responsibilities of children, the youth and the elderly. Five specific issues should be at the core of such gender analysis for SARM, focusing on the differences and similarities between different household and community members (men, women, young and old) with regard to their (after Commonwealth Secretariat 1996a):

• knowledge of natural resources and environmental issues;
• time each spends on household and community management activities;
• relationships within the household and the community;
• responsibilities within the household and the community; and
• skills and expertise in relation to SARM.

Women's marginalisation occurs not on account of their biological differences from men but because of the socially-defined differences (in roles and responsibilities) between the two. Such inequalities exist not only between women and men but also between women of different socio-economic and cultural backgrounds. It must also be stressed that women are by no means a homogeneous group. Their roles and work tasks and the environment (social, cultural, economic and ecological) in which these are carried out, define their orientation and priorities (Commonwealth Secretariat 1996b).

Programmes intending to reach all sections of the community should address the socially defined differences that form the basis of gender stereotyping. A gender sensitive approach would therefore examine the impact of policies and programmes on the status, needs and priorities of both men and women within the local community. Hence any meaningful involvement of women in a SARM activity entails an understanding of gender dynamics in the local community (Commonwealth Secretariat 1996b).

Key questions when considering gender for SARM

The necessary information for gender analysis in the context of SARM will vary from situation to situation. But the following are some of the key issues that need to be considered in the formulation and implementation of any SARM project or programme:

• the different roles of men and women, the elderly and the youth in making decisions on agricultural production and marketing;
• the amount and type of agricultural work performed by men, women, elders, youths and children;
• the level of knowledge of each gender/age group on the various agricultural technologies used and production tasks performed within the farm household;
• the ease or difficulty of each gender or age group in accessing new knowledge;
• differences with regard to men's or women's control over and use of agricultural resources and other natural resources such as fuelwood and water;
• differences with regard to men's or women's access to services such as extension, credit, and training.

A variety of formal and informal survey techniques exist for obtaining such information (see notes on RRA/PRA in chapter 11). The key is to ensure that those collecting it talk directly with, and listen to, the different household members (men, women, old and young).

Another problem linked to gathering accurate data on gender issues is that of interviewers' preconceived ideas on the role of women in the farm. It is therefore important to seek answers to the following (after Douglas 1992):

• Who are the farmers within the household?
• Which members of the household are the relevant decision-makers with regard to particular farm enterprises?
• Who is responsible for carrying out the various tasks associated with a particular farm enterprise and how much time do they spend on the task?
• Do all household members benefit equally from the farm enterprise?
• Have there been any recent changes in the decision-making responsibilities and tasks of different household members; if so why (e.g. change in family circumstances due to migration of some members, family size or alternative cash crop/income-generating activities)?

Need for female extension officers

For cultural and religious reasons, it can be difficult for male development workers/planners in some countries to talk directly with, or organise programmes for, women. In some SARM programmes this may require a totally separate women's development programme with its own set of female development workers (see box 15). In others it may be sufficient to ensure that there are one or more female extension/research workers who can when necessary obtain information from the household's female members separately. Some projects now have a separate women in development (WID) programme with its own specialist staff. Whereas this raises the profile of WID issues other staff members may tend to delegate responsibility for gender analysis to the WID programme rather than considering it integral to their own work.

Although there may be official recognition of the need for women extension officers there may be difficulties in actually getting them in post. For many years, the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands in the Solomon Islands ran an agricultural education programme for women. The pre-selection training programme involved year 5 secondary school leavers going through a one-year practical training in-country, before going overseas for a certificate diploma or degree course. In the early 80s many women were attracted to this training programme but few completed the course; many dropped out at the end of the practical year. Of those women who completed the agriculture training none joined the extension service (IRETA/CTA 1993). Their exact reasons are not known but it would appear that in order to attract women into the Department of Agriculture as extension workers and/or technical specialists may require that the terms and conditions of service be made more woman-friendly.

Constraints and barriers women face in society

Women especially faced by a range of social, cultural and economic constraints are often marginalised from formal programmes of natural resource management (Commonwealth Secretariat 1996b). Their acceptance as equal partners in community development has been severely affected by continuing barriers to their full participation in the development process. The absence of a conscious and specific focus on women has prevented their needs from being recognised and integrated into the programmes being developed. It is now accepted that if women are to fully participate in the development process, important adjustments are required in order to increase their access to education, training, resources and decision-making.

Two major barriers face women in society (Commonwealth Secretariat 1996a): the first relates to the social, cultural and legal norms that relegate women to occupying only limited and circumscribed positions in society; the second relates to women's invisibility in decision-making.

Social, cultural, religious and legal norms impose limitations on women's ability to participate effectively at all levels of sustainable development because they (Commonwealth Secretariat 1996a):

• Diminish women's capacity at environmental health managers for their families and communities;
• Diminish women's capacity as effective natural resource managers;
• Result in diminished control over the social and economic choices that women are able to make for themselves, their families and communities;
• Further reduce women's socio-economic status and also contribute to the feminisation of poverty.

Women's invisibility in policy and decision-making means that their perspectives, concerns and possible alternative approaches are not considered.

In the context of SARM and food security the end result of the above is that farmers are frequently assumed to be male, hence men are commonly the sole recipients of agricultural extension advice. This ignores the fact that in many cases women are the farm managers or traditionally in charge of the specific crop or activity for which recommendations are being given. Women are increasingly taking a more active role in farm production in response to the depletion of the labour force in rural areas, due to the outmigration of the male household members. This can affect sustainable agricultural production (FAO 1991c). On the negative side the increased workload of women places an unbearable strain on their time and health. On the positive side off-farm employment provides a flow of remittances for investment in farm inputs (fertilizer, improved seed, hired labour) and other farm improvements.

As a group rural women are at particular risk from the effects of land degradation (Commonwealth Secretariat 1996a, 1996b & 1996c). Their livelihoods and responsibilities make them more dependent than men on the local natural resources. The constraints and pressures which they face leave them more vulnerable to declining crop yields, fuelwood shortages, deteriorating water supplies etc. Despite the higher international profile given to `women and development' issues the specific problems of rural women, as opposed to men, are still largely overlooked in formulating SARM programmes.

Women and SARM: The Asian perspective

Whereas there are differences between and within countries in Asia it should be noted that (Commonwealth Secretariat 1996b):

• About 55% of the world's women live in Asia.
• Approximately 14% of Asian households are headed by women, although in some countries this figure is as high as 30%. A disproportionate number of female-headed households live in poverty, as the delivery of the majority of services has failed to acknowledge the large number of female headed households.
• The subsistence sector, the mainstay for a large proportion of rural communities, is largely dominated by women.
• Women have traditionally provided the majority of agricultural labour in most Asian countries. Between 50-60% of economically active women in Asia are in agriculture (although sharp contrasts exist between different Asian countries).
• Women are the main gatherers of forest products and, in many parts of Asia, have a significantly higher involvement than men in shifting agriculture. Household needs of food, fuel and water and often cash, are usually fulfilled by women.
• Women are increasingly left solely responsible for the family and farm, as environmental degradation results in large-scale male migration to towns.
• A salient feature of the Asia region comprises a rapid growth of urban centres, coupled with squatter settlements and high unemployment. Women in such situations are the people most affected by the lack of basic services such as water, sanitation and shelter.

Women and SARM: The Pacific Perspective

With regards to the Pacific (Commonwealth Secretariat 1996c):

• Women lead many households as sole sustainers and carers (the number of households headed by women in the Pacific is increasing).
• Women traditionally provide the major agricultural labour in most Melanesian societies, and are taking on this non-traditional role in Polynesia.
• Women are the main harvesters of reef and freshwater fisheries, gatherers of forest foods and craftspeople in Pacific societies.
• Women are increasingly meeting families' needs for food, fuel, water and small amounts of cash.
• Women have conservation methods built into their traditional subsistence activities.

Disadvantages faced by women

• Rural women in Asia and the Pacific commonly suffer particular disadvantages (Commonwealth Secretariat 1996b):
• Government extension services, training and credit facilities often reach only men as the traditional heads of households. This is largely a consequence of the failure to recognise the full extent and nature of the contribution made by women.
• Social constraints limit women's access to services, resources and decision-making processes at all levels. This prevents them from taking part in the processes that manage the resources with which they work so closely.
• In some Asian and Pacific countries, women are marginalised from most social and economic structures such as access to education, health care, nutrition and employment (see box 15).
• Women have heavy workloads, including farmwork, marketing, household chores, casual labouring and working in small-scale home industries for cash income (especially so with increasing male-migration for urban employment).
• Women have limited access to technology and tools that would ease their work load. Technological innovations have invariably been made in the activities typically performed by men, whereas human labour and traditional techniques continue to be used in most day-to-day activities performed by women, both inside and outside the house.
• Women have limited access to land and credit facilities.

The above disadvantages make women's tasks as producers, home managers and community organisers all the more arduous and time-consuming. Women also face further problems when their environment is degraded.

For instance, as forests recede, women must spend more time walking long distances in search of fuelwood and plants for food. The physical effort is greater, there is less time to do the other essential household chores, and they end up working longer hours. Little or no time is available for other activities such as attending health clinics and literacy programmes, forming local organisations, or simply for personal leisure time. This affects their political participation and their level of empowerment. Thus not only do women themselves risk ill health, but their families, especially children, suffer too (Commonwealth Secretariat 1996b).

Farm household access to land and other resources

A World Bank policy paper on land reform published in 1975 stated that (see Falloux 1987):

This policy statement reflects, what is now a widespread concern within development circles, that in many countries the fact of unequal access to land is a major constraint to sustainable land use (Danida 1989). Likewise it is now widely believed that suboptimal use and management of natural resources are explained by the tenure regime under which farm households operate (Southgate 1988).

Individual household rights

If a household does not own in "perpetuity" the land it farms, but operates on the basis of a tenancy agreement (sharecropping, leasehold etc), its members will be unwilling to incur short-term costs (e.g. labour, foregone benefits) for the sake of benefits that may not be realised until after the terminal date of the agreement (see box 16).

The same holds for households whose legal claim to land is precarious. Recognising the risk of future dispossession, they will disregard conservation benefits that may be realised after several years (Ibid). The short-term (five years) leases granted to Chinese immigrant ginger farmers in Fiji are a case in point. These farmers lease native land on steep previously forested slopes and growing ginger, taro and cassava with the aim of maximising their financial returns in the shortest possible time. The crops are planted up and down the slope runoff and erosion severe, resulting in mining of the soil resource and severe downstream sedimentation problems (personal observation).

Although Fiji's Agricultural Landlord and Tenant Act requires the tenant to compensate the owner should there be any dilapidation, deterioration and damage, in practice no one enforces the act and land degradation, directly attributable to the short-term leasing of land for inappropriate uses, continues.

Determining the effect a household's rights to land has on its land use management decisions can be a complex issue as there are many different forms of land tenure arrangement, varying widely from one country, or region, to another. In the Philippines, for example, the private tenure status of individual farm households will usually conform to one of some six categories (see box 17). To complicate the issue, different tenure arrangements may apply to the different plots of land used by one household, e.g. the paddy rice plot may be farmed on an owner-occupier basis with the hill farming plots being used on a shared tenancy or squatter basis. Furthermore in the case of share tenants and lessees the owner of the land may not have given the farm household full rights to decide how the land is to be used. In many cases the decision on which crops to grow will be taken by the absentee landlord who may also supply the material inputs, eg seed and fertilizer, with the household providing the labour in return for a share of the crop. In some societies (e.g. the so-called tribals or forest dwelling cultural minorities of Asia and throughout the Pacific) there is traditionally no individual ownership of land instead land is communally owned by all those belonging to the village or community with individual farm households being granted usufruct rights to a particular piece of land.

The authority to grant land is usually vested in the village headman, or other traditional leader, with a moral obligation to allocate land to individual households in conformity with their needs. Under such a system, once land has been allocated, and providing the household is using it for crops, livestock and others, it cannot be taken away from them without their agreement. They have full rights to the products of the allocated landholding.

Within a communal system individual holdings are perceived as de facto property of an individual household with the rights to use the land being inherited. In some communities the occupier may have usufruct rights limited to growing crops during the rainy season, with reversion to communal grazing rights after harvest. Such an arrangement will inhibit any conservation recommendations involving the planting of perennials like trees, hedgerows and grass strips.

Land tenure systems within the Pacific are highly variable but are commonly based on communal land ownership patterns (ADB/SPREP 1992). These customary ownership and tenure systems are intimately associated with traditional conservation practices throughout the Pacific (see the example of Tonga in box 18); and where they are even partially enforced, the customary systems continue to be important for the development and management of land (and some offshore resources). In many situations negotiations on land use (for instance for permission to cut or harvest a forest) are not undertaken through national or provincial governments but directly between the proponents of the economic venture and the traditional landowners.

Communal ownership is not a constraint to sustainable agriculture in situations where population density is low, farming systems based on traditional low-input technologies, and community adherence to traditional systems strong. But evidence suggests a breakdown of communal ownership in other situations in the face of population pressures and technological change with a desire for more secure occupancy rights than possible under most traditional systems (Panton 1987). In the Pacific, communal land tenure arrangements are slowly adapting to changing demographic and economic conditions, often by informal (though sometimes legally questionable) means but also by legislation and formal arrangements (Clarke 1994). There is also a growing trend toward de facto individual acquisition of control over land and away from the traditional systems of communal or community landholdings. There is also a belief that individualisation (and to some extent land aggregation into bigger holdings) is a requisite for the successful commercialisation of agriculture.

Inheritance rights

In a patrilineal society, men commonly have the right to inherit the household land. Women are excluded from inheriting tenure though they may be the sole manager as a result of being widowed or the husband working elsewhere. In a matrilineal society it may be the reverse: the husband has to relinquish all land rights in the event of divorce or death of the wife. In such a situation the husband or wife may have little interest in making long-term investments in the land (e.g. tree planting, terracing etc).

Land tenure in socialist societies

In Asian countries with a socialist system (China, Vietnam and DPR Korea) there is no private ownership of land which is regarded as state property. In the past the emphasis in these countries was on large state or communal farms involving all households within the community in communal production. However in both China and Vietnam, government-initiated reforms in the agricultural sector, related to the move towards a market-oriented economy, have led to major changes in farmers' land use rights. Although private land ownership is still not allowed, farmers can obtain individual land management contracts with rights to use a certain area of land.

China: In China the process started in 1978 when land management contracts were first awarded to individual farm households for agricultural land (see box 19). In 1983 lands other than those earmarked for agriculture became eligible to be contracted to individuals (APAN 1996). Land suitable for the production of the staple food crop (e.g. irrigated paddy rice fields) is typically allocated to individual households on a need basis (i.e. the sif holding being related to the number of household members to feed). This is reviewed every few years when individual households may be allocated more land or less, according to how the household's circumstances have changed (e.g. opportunities for off-farm income generation and change in household composition resulting from births, marriages and deaths).

For land that a household (or group of households) intends using for the production of perennial crops the contract will typically be for much longer (e.g. 10-25 years). Should it not be renewed, then the household taking over the contract will have to compensate the previous contractors for the investments they have made (e.g. terracing and trees planted). Contracts for the management of forests on hilly and mountainous lands as well as for the reclamation of bare wastelands may be longer (up to 50 or more years). All such contracts can be inherited by family members. Such long-term user rights has resulted in major investment by individual households in the reclamation and terracing of degraded hillsides for fruit tree production in parts of Fujian Province, China (personal observation).

As a result of the land reform policy, there are now four distinct kinds of land managers in China (APAN 1996): state, private enterprises, collectives, and individual farmers. This requires major institutional changes in the agricultural support services, because in the past they were focused exclusively on collectives and state farms. Furthermore top down directives on what crops to produce, and national technical standards can no longer be enforced as farmers have greater freedom in the market economy to decide what crops to grow and how to grow them.

Vietnam: The allocation of land use rights to individual households began in 1986. This was formalised in the revised land law approved by the National Assembly in 1993 which makes it clear that land is still owned by the whole population and that likewise integrated management is the responsibility of the State. The agricultural land within individual communes/villages has been subdivided with each household being allocated an equal sized plot of land for sedentary cultivation of annual and in some cases perennial crops. The size of allocated plot varies between communes, with the smallest plots being found in the rice producing Red River and Mekong River Delta areas with larger plots in upland dryland farming areas. In only a few areas would the agricultural plot exceed a maximum of 2-3 ha. However much larger plots of land may be allocated to individuals for the establishment of forest plantations and orchards on areas of bare land and denuded hills. The user rights areas of agricultural land are allocated for a maximum of 20 years, and those for tree plantations or forest for 50 years. Land use rights can be transferred to others and they are inheritable (APAN 1996).

Communal resources

Communal resources are those over which no individual household has exclusive legal or usufruct rights. A distinction can be drawn between what are termed common property resources and open access resources (Southgate 1988). Common property resources, far from being available to anyone, can only be used by members of a well-defined group (e.g. those living in a particular village, or belonging to a particular clan or tribe). Members of the privileged group must observe certain resource rules. By contrast open access resources are not properties as such but can be used by anyone.

The conventional wisdom is that the use and management of communal resources is poor, leading inextricably to land degradation. Certainly in many areas such resources are subject to unsustainable pressures, particularly overgrazing of communal rangelands and excessive removal of timber, poles and fuelwood from communal forests and woodlands (Hudson 1981b). The worst problems are associated with open access resources where any individual who considers practising conservation knows that any gains will be dissipated by increased depletive pressure exerted by other resource users. Attempts to improve the resource, which is nominally regarded as government property, are unlikely to succeed without altering its open access status (Southgate 1988).

In contrast the use of common property resources does not have to lead to their degradation. Individuals with access to such resources do not automatically opt for activities that will deplete them. There is often tacit cooperation with users recognising that individual short-term restraint, to conserve a resource, will ultimately benefit them all (Southgate 1988). A growing number of case studies show how various communities can manage their common property resources on a sustainable basis. One such study is of a small catchment protection project in India (Mishra and Sarin 1988). This revealed that poor villagers were willing to forgo grazing by their goats in an eroded communal grazing area when they had a shared stake in the early benefits that would result from protection, notably through ropemaking with bhabbar grass grown in the former grazing area.

It would appear that the way to develop the sustainable management of communal natural resources is by converting open access resources (including poorly managed state forest and grassland areas) into common property resources with ownership vested in clearly defined user associations. This is the strategy which is pursued in Nepal where a policy decision has been taken to turn over management of the nationalised forestlands to exclusive user groups within the adjacent rural communities (box 20). The Master Plan for the Forestry Sector in Nepal envisages that such community user groups will become responsible for the protection, management and utilisation of existing forests and new plantations for subsistence needs (Denholm 1991).

In a similar vein the formation of community forestry associations for the management of timber, rattan and other forest products has been proposed for Aurora Province in the Philippines (AIADP 1990). Likewise there are a growing number of irrigation associations within the region that take responsibility for the control and management of water resources for rice production (notably in parts of Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand).

Watershed management programmes that restrict particular land use activities in the communal woodlands and/or grazing areas to enhance the quantity and quality of water available to farmers for irrigation purposes may inadvertently remove one of the key livelihood strategies of the landless households within the rural community. Not only would this lead to increasing social inequality but could be a cause for social conflict within the community as one section benefits at the expense of another.

Rights of indigenous groups and cultural minorities

The rights of indigenous groups and cultural minorities to exclusive occupation and management of their lands have been given scant attention in the past (FAO 1995c). The problem may be compounded when the traditional lands of cultural minorities straddle the borders of one or more countries as is the case with the Hill tribes inhabiting the highland areas on the borders of Thailand, Myanmar and Laos. A tradition of shifting cultivation has meant that many of these tribes will have periodically moved across national boundaries in pursuit of new fields. As a result, for instance in Thailand, they may not be regarded as citizens of the country in which they now reside, hence have few legal rights when faced with competition for land and other natural resources from lowland settlers. Lack of security does not encourage the adoption of SARM practices.

There is some evidence that the situation regarding the rights of indigenous groups within the Asia Pacific region is improving (see box 21 for recent legislation on this in the Philippines). However, problems remain where large numbers of people from overpopulated and overexploited parts of a country are resettled in areas that traditionally belonged to a different ethnic group. The issue is further complicated when the settlers bring with them land management practices that may not be suited to the bio-physical conditions of their new area.

This is a social and ethical problem rather than macro-economic, and may give rise to serious civil strife, with environmental degradation as an added complication (FAO 1995c). In Indonesia the Government-sponsored transmigration programme has sought to move households from the densely populated island of Java to other less densely populated islands within the archipelago. The settlers have often faced considerable difficulties when forced to adopt new crops and land management practices due to the very different soil and climatic conditions in their new environment compared to their former home. There have also been reports of violent clashes between the migrants and the original inhabitants (who resent the loss of their ancestral lands) in parts of Sumatra and Irian Jaya.

Fragmentation

One of the factors contributing to excessive pressure on land resources is the deep-rooted cultural ethic in many traditional societies that everyone has the right to the use of a piece of land (Hudson 1983). A major reason for its continuation is that in dominantly agricultural economies the majority of the population have no real alternative but to obtain their livelihood from the land. In the past when land was not a scarce resource the needs of an expanding population could be met by bringing more land into cultivation. With this option generally no longer available the observance of inheritance rights can lead to progressive fragmentation of land holdings.

In areas where variations in soil type and relief provide different agro-ecological niches for different crops, plots may become highly fragmented to ensure each household member, entitled to inherit, has access to the same range of agricultural opportunities. In areas of high population density fragmentation may proceed to the extent that individual holdings are no longer large enough to meet a household's basic needs. This is an increasing problem throughout the Asia Pacific region. The need to continuously exploit such small holdings is a significant factor in soil productivity decline in densely populated areas.

Extreme examples of land fragmentation are found in India (Shaxson 1981), where some States have tried consolidation programmes to tackle the problem. Attempts have been made to consolidate plots into more manageable parcels, and to realign farm and field boundaries with reference to the contours of the land in the interests of better erosion control. However this disrupts farming activities, and can engender much argument as to the relative land qualities of the consolidated plot allocated to each household, compared to the original fragments. Successful and long-lasting consolidation schemes are much less common than examples of the wish, or intention, to implement such schemes (Hudson 1981). They are only really likely to succeed if the results are both significant in their positive effects and clearly perceived by the participating farm households to be of lasting benefit (Shaxson 1981).

Land titling

Successful adoption of soil conservation requires that farmers hold individual land titles. Hence there has been considerable debate on the pros and cons of individual versus communal ownership of land and whether land titling should figure in sustainable agricultural development programmes (see Falloux 1987, Wachter 1992). One view is that a title of individual land ownership provides land security and therefore favours long-term investments. It also makes access to formal credit (e.g. commercial banks) easier as the title provides the collateral to guarantee loans. Others favour communal ownership from an equity point of view as the emergence of a land market, following land titling, may aggravate social differences and increase inequalities in income distribution. Socio-economic pressures can lead to the poorer households selling land to the better off farm households and land speculators. Landless rural households are rare when land is held on a customary tenure basis but may become common following land titling.

Land titling, involving the need for demarcating plot boundaries, can be costly and time-consuming. Few post-project evaluations have been undertaken to determine whether it results in any long-term environmental benefits. One review of the World Bank's experience with rural land titling looked at some 12 projects in South America, Africa and Southeast Asia (Wachter and English 1992). Regrettably this did not seek to evaluate the environmental impact of land titling, but restricted itself to evaluating the effectiveness in implementing the land titling component. In this latter regard the review concluded that very few of the projects could be considered successful. The reasons for failure were summarised as follows:

• An overall lack of political support;
• Conflicting bureaucratic priorities and/or institutional infighting;
• Lack of institutional capacity and/or an unwillingness to commit adequate resources; and
• Underestimation of the complexity and/or cost of the tasks to be carried out or other design weaknesses.

It is believed that before land titling is made a centrepiece of efforts to address land degradation problems a more detailed review of previous experience would be advisable. This review should seek evidence of any environmental changes following land titling so as to validate, or reject, the hypothesis that legal land title is a requisite for sustainable agriculture.

Land alienation

Land alienation involving the reservation of large areas of land for the commercial agricultural sector has often resulted in the marginalisation of subsistence and semi-commercial small-scale farmers. In the competition for the limited high potential arable land small scale-farmers invariably lose out to the needs of large-scale plantations, arable estates and cattle ranches. This has been often been driven by the need to generate foreign exchange resulting in the expansion in the proportion of land under commercial plantations devoted to export crops such as rubber, oil palm, and coconuts in many parts of Asia and the Pacific. Elsewhere such diverse concerns as state farms and the construction of dams has further alienated land.

Marginalisation occurs when the dispossessed farm households are restricted to smaller areas, often of low (marginal) agricultural potential, and because of their remote location or poor communications cut off from the centres of political and economic power. Such marginalisation is often accompanied by land degradation as a growing population on a restricted resource base, with only limited income from other sectors, is forced to use the land intensively for agricultural production. Without the resources to invest in conservation and external farm inputs, a vicious spiral of declining soil productivity and increasing poverty commonly sets in.

Many governments have implemented land alienation policies, for alleged "catchment protection" purposes. Typically critical upland areas are declared unsuitable for cultivation and reclassified as watershed protection zones or state land. It is not uncommon to come across a national land policy declaring all areas over a certain percentage slope (e.g. 15%) to be forest land. The effect may be to render traditional highland communities illegal squatters in their ancestral lands (e.g. the Philippines and Thailand). The result is farming communities with no long-term security and therefore little incentive to conserve the land they are deemed to be illegally cultivating. The situation is exacerbated where population pressure leads to lowland farmers illegally moving into the `reserved' uplands.

Several schemes are being tried to find ways of giving such farmers security but without giving them freehold title. The land stewardship agreements dispensed under the auspices of the Integrated Social Forestry Programme in the Philippines is one such scheme (UDP 1989). Those households illegally cultivating within forest areas are granted long-term user rights (25 years renewable for a further 25 years) providing they follow certain conservation recommendations. The landholding cannot be sold, and remains legally forest land, although the stewardship rights can be inherited.

Social significance of livestock

Poor livestock management, particularly overstocking and overgrazing, has often been identified as a major cause of land degradation in the arid and semi-arid zones of the Asia-Pacific region. The conventional technical solutions have typically focused on destocking to reduce livestock numbers, which may be undertaken in conjunction with controlled grazing schemes and pasture improvement programmes aimed at enhancing the condition of the range. Most such programmes have failed, in large part because of a failure to understand the social and cultural significance that livestock have in many cultures and farming communities. In pastoral societies livestock (cattle, camels, sheep and goats) are symbols of status and evidence of wealth. In India, both of these aspects apply, and there is the added factor of the religious significance of the cow (Hudson 1981b).

Attempts were made in Balochistan (Pakistan) to overcome rangeland degradation through individual ranches instead of communal grazing, the underlying assumption being that ranching would be sustainable whereas pastoralism was not. This failed, in part, because civil servants rather than the owners of the range and livestock were brought in to manage the ranch projects. It also failed to recognise that the potential ranching areas were already used by market-oriented pastoralists and agro-pastoralists, capable and willing to defend their land (use) rights (van Gils and Baig 1992).

The motives for holding livestock are varied. For nomadic pastoralists animals provide a stock of wealth, one that can always be converted to cash income, if needed, and when there is adequate pasture due to a sequence of good rainfall years, can also be fairly easily expanded. The animals are also a store of food. Threats to this joint store of wealth and food come from drought, land scarcity and political events. Stock levels are often held above the effective carrying capacity of the land as an insurance against such threats. If livestock is virtually the only form of wealth, and if resource depletion threatens food supplies, it is rational for individual households to maintain high stock levels. With the risk of losing animals high, this management strategy should ensure that sufficient stock survive from which to rebuild a depleted herd. Destocking programmes jeopardise such traditional survival strategies and typically fail to provide socially and culturally acceptable alternatives that individual households can use to sustain their prestige, status and livelihood.

In the Pacific Islands pigs have immense cultural significance that greatly exceeds their value as a source of food. The number of pigs owned by an individual determines his status within the community and the exchange of pigs can be a means to strengthen ties as well as resolving conflicts within and between communities/tribes. At the same time feral wild pigs and roaming domestic animals can damage crops, requiring major expenditure of effort and resources in erecting pig proof barriers around gardens. The problem may be so great in certain localities (e.g. adjacent to villages) to preclude the growing of the traditional root crops.

In small-scale farming systems livestock generally serve a multipurpose, rather than purely commercial, function. They may provide valuable inputs for the cropping system (e.g. draft power and/or manure) as well as output for home consumption and cash generation (milk, meat, eggs etc). An understanding of the social significance of livestock and their function within individual rural household livelihood systems is a requisite for improving livestock management. Livestock have the potential to become part of the solution to land degradation and should not just be regarded as a major part of the problem.

Population growth

The high population growth rates in many of the Asia and Pacific countries are perceived by a number of authors (e.g. Repetto and Holmes 1983; FAO 1991a) as a major threat to the environment. Population growth, working in conjunction with other factors, is believed to have led to widespread degradation of agricultural land. The breakdown of traditional systems of sustainable resource management has often been attributed to their inability to accommodate the needs of growing numbers of people, and in some cases increasing livestock numbers. Degradation occurs in the absence of appropriate technological responses to a changing social situation. However to see problems of degradation as a consequence of increasing populations and their subsistence requirements alone is to oversimplify or to diagnose the situation incorrectly.

The level of agricultural output from a specific unit of land will vary according to its bio-physical potential, if the farm technologies, crop mixes and capital investment are held constant. However rising population density combined with access to new knowledge means that these things do not stay constant; rising population density facilitates access to new markets, new knowledge and new techniques (Tiffen et al 1993). Hence an increase in population density while increasing pressure on scarce, and often marginal, land resources can in practice be a positive factor in combatting land degradation. It may serve as the critical factor in creating the demand and will for something to be done. Likewise with a larger pool of farmers and technicians from which to draw ideas and experiences the chance of finding innovative methods for tackling the problem is increased.

Political factors

Most politicians and most political parties pay lip service to the ideal of good husbandry and conservation of natural resources, but in practice soil conservation does not win votes. Governments may have conservation policies but these do not get translated into practical effect unless there is the political will to make them work (Hudson 1983). The strength of local political will and determination, with the backing of national authorities, can be decisive in determining the success of a SARM programme.

Technical and policy recommendations may fail if they run counter to the interests of those with political influence and economic power (e.g. landlords, business men, commercial loggers etc). For instance while land tenure reform or a ban on logging, may be highly desirable, it may end up blocked by those with most to lose. Where the political environment is controlled by vested interests it may require a national disaster such as occurred in Southern Thailand in 1990 and Ormoc in the Philippines in 1991, to generate sufficient public concern for the politicians to take action. In both cases tropical cyclones produced heavy rainfall over severely degraded watershed areas leading to flash floods. Heavy loss of life and destruction of property shocked the general public, thereby raising the political profile of conservation concerns in both countries and bringing pressure for a total ban on logging.

Political instability can also be a factor against SARM. In its most severe form it may lead to civil war, ethnic clashes, tribal fights and the presence of armed dissident groups, all of which may disrupt agricultural activities at the field level. When such conditions prevail land use activities will be directed exclusively at short-term survival, which may be to the detriment of long-term sustainability. The Asia Pacific region has seen its share of such instability in the form of past and ongoing conflicts in such countries as Sri Lanka (Tamil separatism), the Philippines (communist and muslim dissidents) and Papua New Guinea (Bougainville). Even when there has been a return to peace and order the legacy of past conflict in the form of mines and unexploded ordinance may make the resumption of agricultural production a hazardous exercise. In this regard the Asia Pacific region has one of the most heavily mined countries in the world, Cambodia, where civilian casualties amongst the farming population are an everyday occurrence.

Political instability also affects the policy environment in which farm households operate. A change in regime, civilian or military, can result in changes in development priorities. Changes in priorities produce changes in public resource allocations which affect policy sustainability and growth performance. A change in regime will not only result in change in political leadership, but can also lead to changes in senior administrative posts within the public bureaucracy. This can result in a degree of decision-making paralysis, sometimes lasting months, when there are delays in appointing the new political and bureaucratic leadership, who then require time to study the files and get informed on the policies and programmes of the previous `discredited regime' (Idachaba 1987).