Tax Incentives and Social Equity – Texas Senate Bill 449, 2011 legislative session

In the 2011 legislative session the Texas Senate passed SB 449, which allowed a continuation of agricultural tax appraisal values to open land which benefits both water quality and quantity.  Essentially, this is a continuation of HB 1358 (1995) which allowed land managed for wildlife to receive the same agricultural appraisal value as cropland. 

I’m sure environmentalists and conservations consider this a legislative victory.  I have to admit, I do too.  But this blog post is interested in assuming an entirely different perspective: that of social equity. 

Increasingly landowners in Texas are wealthy individuals who no longer rely on the land to earn a living.  Many are absentee landowners who possess weekend “ranches” or hunting property.  Others are land speculators who are buying rural property as an investment.  I do not have the evidence at this time, but I hypothesize that as a whole, this is the group largely benefitting from both of these tax code adjustments.  Again, in regards to biodiversity conservation, this is a boon.  These landholders no longer have the incentive to ranch cattle simply to receive an ag exemption.  Is this not a good thing?  And what does it have to do with social equity?

The tax breaks that these already wealthy landowners are receiving are coming directly from county tax revenues.  Generally, these revenues are used to pay for maintenance of the commons ie roads, infrastructure, etc.  If less tax revenue is coming in to benefit the commons and instead is being retained by wealthy landowners, are non-landholding county citizens and small-holders not left indirectly subsidizing the wealthy?   Is this really the most equitable way to conserve biodiversity? 

Taking a broad-view, this argument sounds awfully similar to those voiced by the Occupy Wall-street protesters:  essentially, it can be argued that the public is subsidizing the wealthy, for the benefit of the wealthy alone, in this case too.   

Bottom-up Conservation Management, Even in Texas -- (TPWD 2004)

In struggling to find an example of biodiversity conservation techniques on private property here in Texas (as opposed to Europe, which is arguably much farther along in this matter), I ran across this little revelation of a report from Texas Parks and Wildlife. 

According to the report, Texas currently has Wildlife Management Associations (WMAs) established throughout the state.  These WMAs are categorized into 5 separate zones, with the zones being loosely based upon distinct Texas Ecoregions.  Organized, maintained and expanded almost entirely by citizens interested in wildlife management, essentially, WMAs are self-organized networks established to sustain a commonly valued natural resource. 

In other words, what I stumbled upon was a “community” of concerned private landholders who have organized to a foster the progression of a common goal; a true bottom-up governance entity with both established formal and informal mechanisms of control.

In terms of my research, incorporating aspects and local knowledge of WMA members could provide tremendous insights into local conservation networks.

Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of all, this all occurred in Texas! 

TPWD. 2004. A Guide for Wildlife Management Associations and Co-ops. edited by Texas Parks and Wildlife.

Scale Mismatches: How do you fix ‘em -- (Cumming et al. 2006)

In short, scale mismatches are a product of ill-sized governance mechanisms when compared to the social-ecological systems they are intended to regulate.  These mismatches often result in inefficiencies, insufficiencies, and a loss of adaptive capacity within both the human and natural systems.

Although the research of scale mismatches is still limited and inchoate, Cumming et al (2006) attempt to provide the beginning of a skeletal framework for how to address scale mismatches. 

Much like problems with personal addiction, the authors suggest the first step in addressing scale mismatch is to acknowledge and be aware that a mismatch between ecological and institutional scales does exist.

 

The second step is to formulate an active approach, or working model that can be used to develop flexible learning institutions.  In essence, the authors are arguing for the emergence of adaptive governance frameworks such as those mentioned in the previous post. 

However, transforming management institutions is a difficult task.  In the short-term, the authors suggest taking common-sense approaches such as modifying boundary locations or altering their properties ie. increasing permeability through fence removal. 

The real impact of these recommendations for dealing with scale mismatches is to make readily apparent that there are, in fact, no established methods for rectifying them.  The solutions offered are vague, with little practical value at this point.  From my perspective, more comprehensive work is warranted to address what is arguably a critical component of social-ecological governance. 

--

Cumming, G.S., D.H.M. Cumming, and C.L. Redman. 2006. "Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: causes, consequences, and solutions." Ecology and Society no. 11 (1).

Adaptive Governance: Uncertainty, deal with it -- (Folke et al. 2005)

Crises in social-ecological systems--whether they are natural, such as prolonged periods of extreme drought (see Texas 2011) or of the human produced variety, ie. the “great recession”--when viewed under an adaptive governance lens (see also adaptive co-management), can be seen as an opportunity for societal transformation into a preferred state. 

Of course, upon first thought, this appears to be oxymoronic.  Should crises not be avoided at all costs?  Undoubtedly, it would be preferable to remain in a steady-state of relative equilibrium; who prefers to deal with dramatic change?  However, if the aforementioned examples are any indication, it is best that societies learn to deal with periods of intense uncertainty, or risk further stagnation and possible atrophy. 

The predominant literature on adaptive governance tends to argue that rather than manage our social and natural systems under the assumption that disturbance is bad, we should in fact embrace uncertainty and manage our resources knowing good and well that circumstances will change.  In this light, flexibility and continuous learning are the keys to resilience in an uncertain world. 

But back to crises as opportunities.  Taking the example of the Texas drought above, in a perfect adaptive governance world, we would apply the lessons learned from the drought—and subsequent wildfires--to policies which better regulate our use of water and land management.  These policies could include both increased voluntary incentive based programs as well as mandatory conservation measures in areas particularly vulnerable to limited water or prevent suburban sprawl within fire prone areas.  In essence, the drought could be used as the trigger to transform Texas water governance and planning practices across multiple scales. 

To quote Rahm Emanual, “you never want a serious crises to go to waste.”

--

Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg. 2005. "Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems." Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. no. 30:441-473.

Working Title

In thinking through a culled down topic for the semester project, the working title I'd like to start with is: "Adaptive Governance in Social-Ecological Systems: Biodiversity Conservation and Property Rights"

The Commons, Sans Tragedy -- (Dietz 2003)

What if Garrett Hardin was wrong?  What if the “Tragedy of the Commons” (1968) was an oversimplified analogy unreflective of the true system complexity? 

If Dietz et al (2003) is to be believed, Hardin’s oversimplification was twofold.  First, Hardin makes the assumption that centralized government and private property were the only two institutions which could sustain commons over the long run.  Two, he presumed that resource users were trapped in a commons dilemma unable to take collective action. 

But this does not reflect general reality.  Traditional societies have sustainably managed their common-pool resources for centuries through the development and maintenance of self-governing institutions.  In a word, they self-organize.

 

This self-organization, despite a lack of central command-and-control or the western notion of private property, has contributed to social learning, adaptation and a capacity to deal with uncertainty.  More succinctly put, Hardin’s metaphorical herders, rather than spiraling toward tragedy, were actually engaged in a sophisticated form of resource management now known as adaptive governance. 

Dietz, T., E. Ostrom, and P.C. Stern. 2003. "The struggle to govern the commons." Science no. 302 (5652):1907.

Hardin, Garrett. 1968. "The Tragedy of the Commons." Science:pp 1243-1248.

Rural Development from Above, Almost – (Honadle 2011)

This article is an apt follow-up to the previous post. 

Boiled down, the argument Honadle makes is that the Rural Collaborative Investment Program (RCIP) of 2008, although comprehensive and intended to give local communities and regions the “capacity” to “tailor” rural development programming, failed because it was never appropriated any funds. 

  

This piece not only brings up the question of top-down development and the method by which it failed, it also highlights the concept of bureaucratic  hierarchy and how policy affects distribution of resources (or in this case, the lack thereof). 

One further note of interest is the logical framework identified and used:

Input à output àpurpose à goal

“the purposeful application of inputs, certain activities will take place that convert those inputs or resources into outputs (goods, services, programs) and that—by doing this—an identifiable goal (s) will be achieved.”

Honadle, Beth Walter. 2011. "Rural development policy in the United States: a critical analysis and lessons from the “still birth” of the rural collaborative investment program." Community Development no. 42 (1):56-69. doi: 10.1080/15575330.2010.500393.

Is Top-Down or Bottom-up Context Dependent? -- (Black 1999)

In chapter two and three of her book, Jan Knippers Black both lays out a definition of development and briefly lists several recent, competing theoretical frameworks used in the creation of applied development models.  Both chapters are extremely useful to someone new to policy theory, such as myself.  However, with this writing I’d like to quickly examine a single subchapter, ‘Empowerment and Sustainability: An Alternate Vision.’  

The essence of this subchapter is to question the mainstream path of top-down development in favor of a bottom-up approach in the name of local empowerment.   The foundation of the idea being that a top-down approach measures value in “monetary terms” whereas the alternative approach “refused to see socioeconomic change as development unless it proves to be nurturing, liberating, even energizing to the unaffluent and unpowerful.” 

I personally tend to agree with this assertion.  However, I must confess that through my proposed research I intend to examine the efficacy of a top-down approach.  Not that that is now invalid, especially within US where my study is to be set.  Rather, this subchapter brings up questions that my project would benefit to address:  i) if the "unaffluent" and "unpowerful" have no voice (native flora and fauna), can a bottom-up approach be an effective medium for change?  And ii) how can this group become empowered and more importantly, valued appropriately?

One other point is worth noting as well.  According to Black, “The only reliable guardians of any ecological system are the people who know it, depend on it, and do not have the option of leaving.”  Again that may appropriate in the developing world, but does that same point translate to the US?  Particularly, what if many owners are absentee landholders who are neither local, have knowledge of the native ecosystem nor any cultural ties to the land?  Could a bottom-up approach achieve its goals in this context?

 

Black, Jan Knippers. 1999. Development in theory and practice : paradigms and paradoxes. 2nd ed. Boulder, Colo: Westview Press.

Nature and Post-Place Community -- (Bradshaw 2008)

Bradshaw’s definition of a post-place community, although poignant and accurate in regards to modern techno-societies, conspicuously fails to address the role of nature within said community.  Perhaps it is true that “community without propinquity” is entirely plausible for people, but ecosystems without propinquity are not.  This suggests that nature is not part of the post-place community. 

The big question then becomes, if social communities can be created and tightly bonded regardless of place, who then is responsible for protection of the commons?  Chasing the tail further, what then is the commons? 

Ontologically, this is a problem.  Communities cannot simultaneously be free from place and include nature as well. 

--

Bradshaw, T.K. 2008. "The post-place community: Contributions to the debate about the definition of community." Community Development no. 39 (1):5-16.

Social Ecology -- Capra 1994

To Capra, the definition of life is to be self-organizing.  How self-organization is achieved is through networks (Capra 1994).  This is as true at the cellular level as it is at the level of an entire regional ecosystem. 

If Capra is to be believed, it is also true at the community level, or put another way, at the social level.  Often, those studying the network interconnections at this level refer to it as social ecology.  This is not to say that social ecology deals only with personal networks.  It does, but only as a small piece of a much more complex puzzle.  More to the point, community culture, interactions and decisions are grounded within the functionality of the ecosystem as a whole.

 

Two recently read “social ecology” articles offer Capra’s concepts some empirical support. 

The first is a case study of the small, rural, Mediterranean village of Ain, Spain by UT’s resident geoarcheologist Dr. Karl Butzer.  Through combined archeological and sociological methods, Dr. Butzer was able to show how the community itself was able to self-organize, make critical decisions in times of change and adapt to their surroundings whatever  the disturbance ie. Spanish civil war, prolonged drought, vineyard phlloxera, or most recently, the loss of its younger generation to larger cities.   Each disturbance and each reaction were, in essence, cycles of feedback loops (Butzer 2005).

The second study is set within a rural catchment basin in England and focuses on local governance and public participation in ecologically significant community decisions.  Above all else, what this study demonstrates is Capra’s notion of sustainability through interdependence.  Community decisions were both effected by and had an effect on the regional watershed ecosystem (Southern et al 2011). 

In sum, societal networks are inextricably tied to the ecological systems they inhabit.  One cannot be studied without the other.   

--

Butzer, K.W. 2005. "Environmental history in the Mediterranean world: cross-disciplinary investigation of cause-and-effect for degradation and soil erosion." Journal of Archaeological Science no. 32 (12):1773-1800.

Capra, F. 1994. "Ecology and community." Retrieved June no. 15:2004.

Southern, Adrian, Andrew Lovett, Tim O'Riordan, and Andrew Watkinson. "Sustainable landscape governance: Lessons from a catchment based study in whole landscape design." Landscape and Urban Planning no. In Press, Corrected Proof. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.010.

"Importing Sustainability" -- Roseland 2000

By all current standards City Center Las Vegas is considered sustainable development.  Encompassing almost 17,000 mixed use sq ft and located in an urban core, it boasts 6 LEED Gold accredited buildings. Yet, when reading Roseland's article this is the project that sprung to mind as an exemplar of "importing sustainability (Roseland 2000 pg. 93)."

On its surface, sure, City Center is sustainable--at least our best accreditation agency to date says it is--and provides the local community with numerous jobs, both construction and long-term.  In our current state of large-scale unemployment, it is hard to argue against such 'green' projects.  But, dig only slightly deeper--just past the LEED horizon--and some basic questions remain unanswered.

For example, where will the water come from?  Will it continue to be "imported" to meet the demands of larger urban populations?  And at the expense of farmers or the native flora and fauna?  Subsequently, where will the food come from?  Will it too have to be "imported?"  In asking only these simple logistical questions it quickly becomes apparent that City Center is only as sustainable as its supply of affordable water and transportation.

Put simply, City Center was developed under the economic growth model, ie economic growth is always good, but it fails to account for system components as basic as local food and water.  As Roseland points out "Economic growth with an ecological deficit is anti-economic and makes us poorer rather than richer in the long-term (Roseland 2000 pg. 98; cited from Daly and Cobb, 1989)."

This is what I take away as the essence of Roseland's article, that we need a new model of development based not solely on the economics, but rather holistic in its view of interconnected linkages of society and nature.  In short, a development that makes much more wise use of our "natural" and "social capital."