The Conservationist

Factors in the Adoption and Non-adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Practices

I was fortunate to be part of the group invited by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to provide training on “Sustainable Farming Methodologies in Marginal Soils”. Two hundred Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs), Development Facilitator, Agricultural Productivity Technologists, Municipal Planning and Development Officers, Municipal Agrarian Officers and Technical Staff of DAR’s Regional and Provincial Offices successfully completed the said training program. The training program has technical assistance from the Government of Japan, through the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), under its In-Country Training Program (ICTP). The training program was conducted in eight strategic locations near the target agrarian reform communities (Ormoc City; Valencia Bukidnon; Santiago, Isabela; Caoayan, Ilocos Sur; Palauig, Zambales; Monkayo, Compostela Valley; Tinambac, Camarines Sur; and Altavas, Aklan). The training was done to strengthen the capability of the ARB’s, cooperatives and implementers in the ARCs. Knowledge was imparted through a 5-day lecture-demonstration, hands-on, farm visits and farm planning.

In this training, we shared them various soil and water conservation (SWC) technologies for sloping marginal areas. During the said trainings, I was able to interview, at random, the farmer-participants about adoption of technologies. I asked them the reasons why farmers like them adopt and sometimes reject the SWC technologies. Farmers from the ARBs provided me different answers; however, it is clear that farmers used different criteria to assess whether they will adopt a particular technology.

Farmers adopt or reject a technology depending on the perceived change in income flows following the adoption. Farmers looked at technology in the point of improving their income. If they perceive increase in income, they will adopt the technology. This is the reason why those technologies that improved the soil quality like mulching/cover crop, reduced tillage and proper crop rotation are becoming very popular now-a-days. These technologies improve soil qualities, whereas, hedgerows that trap the soil has been introduced for a long time but the adoption is very low. Farmers have seen that the in-situ soil quality is not improving only the strips near the hedgerows.

Another factor they consider is the risk in production. Farmer has always that fear of losing especially if the technology proved ineffective. The more affluent family can afford the risk embedded in the adoption of new technology; however, this is not true for the small landholders. For example, when we are working in the prawn ponds of Negros back in the late 80’s, that time, prawn farming is in the infancy stage and a lot of practices is in the “trial and error process”. Pond owners in Negros are very open on new technologies about prawn farming coming in the area. They can afford that, not to mention, most of them belonged in the affluent group. This attitude, however, is not true for small farmers because they cannot afford the risk of losing, it will be very difficult for them to recover.

Attitude is another factor in the adoption of technology. When I say attitude, it is influenced by farmer’s education, experiences, volume of his production, exposure to change or level of awareness to the new technology, his association with other farmers, his success and failure in the past technologies introduced or shared to them. Educated farmers have the capacity to examine the big picture and his decision depends a lot in that analysis and experiences. His level of awareness matters. Those that have attended seminars and training are more aware and have the high probability of adopting certain technology.

Economic status affects the level of adoption. It includes availability of the land, compatibility of the technology in the system, availability of labor, capital, credit and other inputs. It relates to the available resources of the farmer that can be tapped in the adoption of the technology. Compatibility and economic status relate to the cost of the technology. For example, natural vegetative strips or grasses as hedgerows have high adoption because it is not expensive and easy to grow. Grasses are naturally growing in the field and are compatible with other farming system such as livestock. It can serve as fodder for livestock, thus making it compatible for the system, whereas, other hedgerows such as the gliricidia (madre de cacao) and the leucocephala (ipil-ipil) require more labor force in planting. Technologies or practices that will require high input or capital are usually not attractive to the farmers for adoption.

Knowledge of the technology in the area and its attraction to other farmers also influenced adoption of the SWC technologies. When somebody is familiar in the technology, say other farmers, chances are it will be adopted by other farmers because the transfer of technology from “farmer to farmer” is very efficient. This is the reason why farmer leaders or trainors are good agent of change in sharing technologies.

Among the factors that contribute to adoption or rejection of technologies, the level of farmer awareness is the most critical. If we want to increase adoption of the technologies being shared, we need to empower the farmers through training and seminar. We need to make them aware. Encourage them to attend seminar or increase the attendance in related undertakings. We need to persuade them to form group or association because those in the association are usually the most aware. In the association the transfer of technology is facilitated. Simplicity of the technology should also be looked into. Farmers are very busy and they do not have much time to study complex technology. In addition, simple technology usually costs less.

For more info: Call: Dr. Gavino Isagani P. Urriza At: 02) 923-04-59 Or email us a gurriza258@yahoo.com or visit us at: conservationist.wordpress.com

Essential Steps in the Natural Resource Management

The Bureau of Soils and Water Management (BSWM) -Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) collaborative Project entitled “Environmental Productivity Management of Marginal Lands in the Philippines (EPMMA) has taught us so many lessons and knowledge during its implementation from Year 2000 -2005. In that EPMMA Project, I started as a member of the Soil Conservation Management Core Group but later became the Chairman of the Core Group as the late Dr. Jose D. Rondal assumed the Project Manager post. Con-current to my position as Chairman of the Soil Conservation Core Group, I am also a member of the Techno-demo site in Intavas, Impasug-ong, Bukidnon.

Looking back to the implementation of the EPMMA Project, it is worth sharing some of lessons/knowledge gained during its implementation especially on natural resource management. The points I shared here are probably not all applicable in all watershed settings, but in general, these are essential steps worth considering by anybody working in the area of resource management. Except for the first step, which I think should be done first and should continue in all stages of the project phases, all others can be done parallel with each other or in random order.

Resource management should be a collective effort of the community. Community should initiate the resource management in every part of the micro-watershed or even at the macro-watershed level. First step should be community empowerment. When I say empowerment, it means authorizing the community, making them able to manage their own resources and allowing them to do the appropriate management. It means educating the community or the stakeholders and making them aware that it is their duty to responsibly manage their natural resources. Stakeholders should realize they are stewards of the natural resources. When I say stewards, again I mean that communities are managers not owners.

Community should understand that natural resources entrusted to them are the food base for production. For it to continue producing it should be sustainably manage and unless the community are able, they cannot do the appropriate management. Community should bear in their mind that natural resources are part of the global support system and everything is connected to everything else. It means whatever they do, it will affect other system. Example of that is the “slash and burn” practice, it exposes the bare soil to the impact of raindrops thus resulting to rain-splash erosion. The sediments then will travel down to the slope until it reaches the aquatic ecosystem and affecting the aquatic organisms, especially the sedentary types. It is our right to use the natural resources but it is also our duty to protect and conserve it or making it sustainable.

Responsible natural resource management should consider promoting sustainable farming practices. We need to respect the indigenous knowledge. As managers, we need to know what they have and then try to build on them. We need to build a partnership among farmers, stakeholders and the whole of the community. We need to capitalize on the things that they already have and then try to improve. Introducing new technologies will need more considerations, like the niche, or the functional make up of every organism. When we start with what the community already has, very high possibility that the technology will work. It will also mean acceptance by the community because it is their own. From there, we could start modifying and improving and making it more sustainable.

We need to prioritize conservation of sensitive ecosystems. This is one priority that we need to do, identify the sensitive ecosystem and conserve by protecting them. In the identification, we can start by listing the ecosystem important in the livelihood of the community, then consider the biological diversity and uniqueness, finally consider the ecosystem contribution to the life-support chain and local culture. Ecosystem that will encompasses the above three criteria or consideration will be the priority ecosystems. Then we start conserving and protecting them. Conservation means less disturbance of the system or little disturbance of the system. If ever, we have to do something on the ecosystem, use sustainable practices. For example in sloping or hilly land, we can use minimum tillage or no-tillage at all. We can employ mulching, live ground cover or proper crop rotation ensuring that the fragile slope is always covered especially during the rainy season. For steep slope, more than 18%, if possible it should be allocated for forest trees and no-cultivation.

We need to enhance the regenerative capacity of the natural resources. Long fallow period is advisable, that is when population is still low, the “kaingin system” or ‘the slash and burn” is sustainable because farmers can afford a long fallow period. But now, long fallow is impossible, making the “kaining” system not a good alternative. There is not enough time to regenerate the natural ecosystem. There are many ways to enhance the regenerative capacity of the ecosystem, like the use of composting or recycling- making the micro-nutrients lost during intensive cropping available to the plants. Additions of organic matter either as green manure or livestock waste also promote regeneration of the system. Proper crop rotation (e.g. planting the shallow rooted crop followed by the deep rooted crop, or light feeder crops after the heavy feeder crops) helps the regenerative capacity of the soil ecosystem. First, it is important to identify the ecosystem, determine how fragile it is or how fast the system will succumb to intensive use. It is always good to look at the source or cause of ecosystem degeneration and start from there.

In the natural resource management, another key step for sound management is to promote gender equity participation. Women have always role to play. They can be involved in the “farm journal” preparation that is listing the input-output in the farming business. They can participate in the greenhouse activity like potting, sowing of seed, watering the plants and other. But most important, they can contribute in the decision making. For example, in the adoption of technologies, in forming a matrix ranking or pair-wise comparison, to identify priorities, they can share ideas. The role of women, in the natural resource management is one neglected step during the early years. In other countries, they already realized that women are good borrower; they always returned the capital borrowed thus sharing and enjoying more benefits in the process.

The participation of the minority should be tapped. This should always be a priority of all manager, we should understand that even the minority are part of the system. All part of the system should be involved. They should be a component in the decision making. Their voice should be heard, they have experiences to share. The indigenous knowledge can form part of the practices that can be put-in-place.

Finally, networking and linkages is very important. As the saying goes, “no man is island”. Either it’s a “top-down” or “bottom-up” approach, linkages and networking is a must. Sharing of information, the positive, the negative, everything. Linkages will be the key to respond immediately to the needs. Support agencies, NGO and Universities are key factor in resource management. Through linkages they can be tapped. Sound networking is sound resource management.

For more info: Call: Dr. Gavino Isagani P. Urriza At: (02) 923-04-59 Or email us a gurriza258@yahoo.com or visit us at: conservationist.wordpress.com

Potential of Conservation Agriculture in the Sloping Lands of Tanay, Rizal, Philippines

Last May 4, 2007, I was invited by Dr. Edna Samar of the Bureau of Soils and Water management Tanay Hilly land Station to talk about Conservation Agriculture (CA). In attendance are the hilly land farmers from Tanay and personnel from the local government Unit (LGU) of Tanay, Rizal. From my initial discussion with Dr. Samar, I learned that this will be the first time that Tanay farmers will be hearing something about CA, so I prepared an overview on CA. I intentionally avoided touching CA practices currently being used by the different countries. I focused on the three basic principles of CA as provided by the Food Agricultural Organization (FAO). The following is my presentation on this training-seminar.

I started with the key global issues Filipino people are facing. Demand for food is increasing, the land available is shrinking, but most of all, most of the productivity techno-how are already being utilized—improved varieties, fertilizer, and water. We expect that in the very near future, competition for water resources (surface and groundwater) will be more severe, Fossil fuels will be more costly and greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide will increase.

Farming faces a double challenge: increase production to meet food security needs as population growth continue to increase and preserve natural resources simultaneously by minimizing negative environmental effects and provide income to employ in agricultural production. There are means available such as the use of conventional or traditional tillage.

There are various reasons why farmers use tillage. To manage crop residues, prepare seedbed, loosen the soil for good aeration and enhanced decomposition and release of available nutrients from soil organic matter. Control of soil borne diseases and pests, and provide compaction relief (temporary) and for aesthetic.

But is tillage really necessary? If we look around, we can see something that will begin us to doubt the necessity of tillage. In fact, nature shows that plant growth is possible without any soil tillage (as in forest, grassland and shrub land). There is scientific evidence that water infiltration is highest on undisturbed soils under permanent soil cover (as in the wood land). Experiments have shown that soil tillage causes physical degradation of soil structure (destruction of soil aggregate leading to compaction and less water infiltration).

If tillage is not necessary, why did people till at all? There are quite a number of reasons why farmers till the land: to place the seeds into the soil and control weeds on a larger scale; tillage produced warming and aeration of the soil; caused mineralization and release of nutrients from soil organic matter. These are valid reasons, however, if we look at tillage detrimental effects on the environment and farmers such as the money it costs (fuel, repair, and cost of the operator, if animals are used, the costs of feeding and caring for the animals); global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of the diesel fuel; decline in the amount of soil organic matter; disruption of the pores left by roots and microbial activity; breakdown of soil aggregates ( clogging of soil pores, reduced infiltration of water, runoff, soil erosion, soil crusts and forms a barrier to plant emergence). Tillage promotes water and wind erosion and even soil compaction; reduced capacity of the soil to regulate water and nutrient supplies to plants. Promote the loss of valuable plant nutrients and reduced biodiversity. There are many reasons that will lead us to believe that tillage is not necessary.

If tillage is not necessary, there must be an alternative to use to address the very reason why farmers till the soil. One possible solution is conservation agriculture (CA). According to FAO the aims of Conservation CA are: To conserve, improve and make more efficient use of natural resources through integrated management of available soil, water and biological resources combined with external inputs; preserve and improve the soil and the life associated with it; and minimize the negative effects of intensive farming.

From the definition provided by FAO, CA has three basic principles. 1. Maintaining a permanent or semi-permanent organic soil cover. This is done by growing crop or a dead mulch to protect the soil physically from sun, rain and wind and to feed soil biota 2. Reduce or eliminate of soil tillage. This can be accomplished by adopting the zero or minimum tillage and direct seeding. The soil micro-organisms and soil fauna take over the tillage function and soil nutrient balancing 3. Through varied crop rotation. Through proper crop rotation, we can avoid diseases and pest problems; and livestock production can be integrated and make use of the recyclable nutrients.

Conservation Agriculture has several benefits. CA reduces production cost by reducing the tillage work, particularly the costs of fuel, less application of herbicides. Planting can be accomplished in one pass of the seed drill. CA ha positive effects on the environment because the practice favors the capture of carbon in the soil due to the increase of organic material in its content and less use of diesel fuel and thus lower carbon dioxide emissions. CA boosts yields and incomes. Yields increased by an average of 79 per cent and harvests of crops such as maize, potatoes and beans doubled. CA has less reliance on costly pesticides (less damage to the environment) and demands less water. Yields are higher with no-till because of timelier planting and better stands.

CA improves soil quality. This can be observed in the improvement of the physical and chemical properties of the soil, enhancement in the stability of the surface soil aggregates, and increased activity of the worm population. The mulch helps promote more stable soil aggregates as a result of increased microbial activity and better protection of the soil surface. There is more biotic diversity in the soil as a result of the mulch and less disturbance. Surface mulch moderates soil temperatures and moisture, which is more favorable for microbial activity. In addition, gradual decomposition of surface residues improves soil organic matter status, biological activity and diversity. In addition, CA improves fertilizer efficiency

CA can be applied in all farm types and in all farming environments. Apart from the benefits mentioned above, CA holds tremendous potential for all sizes of farms and agro-ecological systems. The degree of success on individual farms depends on the individual situation of each farmer, including specific environmental and economic conditions.

For more info: Call: Dr. Gavino Isagani P. Urriza At: (02) 923-04-59 Or email us a gurriza258@yahoo.com or visit us at: conservationist.wordpress.com