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
