4919 lines
356 KiB
Plaintext
4919 lines
356 KiB
Plaintext
<title>Resource management for upland areas in Southeast Asia - An information kit</title>
|
|
Organized by:
|
|
International of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR)
|
|
FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (FAO)
|
|
Asia-Pacific Agroforestry Network (FAO)
|
|
Financial and technical inputs provided by:
|
|
FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (FAO)
|
|
FAO Headquarters (AGSP)
|
|
Farmer-centred Agricultural Resource Management Programme (FAO)
|
|
· Asia-Pacific Agroforestry Network
|
|
· People-centred Sustainable Development Sub-programme with the Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
|
|
· Rainfed Farming Systems in Asia Subprogramme
|
|
· Watershed Management in the Tropics and Upper Himalayas Subprogramme
|
|
Forest Trees and People Programme (FAO)
|
|
International Institute of Rural Reconstruction
|
|
Asia Soil Conservation Network
|
|
Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development
|
|
UK Freedom from Hunger Campaign
|
|
Technical inputs provided by participants from:
|
|
China
|
|
Agro-ecology Institute, Zhejiang Agricultural University
|
|
Institute of Scientific and Technical Information, Chinese Academy of Forestry
|
|
Indonesia
|
|
Agency for Agricultural Education and Training
|
|
Agricultural Polytechnic, Kupang
|
|
Department of Soil Science, Bogor Agricultural University
|
|
Plant Resources of Southeast Asia Foundation
|
|
World Neighbors - Southeast Asia Media Support Program
|
|
Papua New Guinea
|
|
Department of Agriculture and Livestock, Boroko
|
|
Philippines
|
|
Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
|
|
Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau, Department of Environment and Natural Resources
|
|
Institute of Sustainable Dryland Agriculture, Don Mariano Marcos University
|
|
Kapwa Upliftment Foundation
|
|
University of the Philippines at Los Baños
|
|
· Agroforestry Program, College of Forestry
|
|
· Department of Community and Environment Resource Planning
|
|
Thailand
|
|
Office of Community Forestry, Royal Forest Department
|
|
Regional Community Forestry Training Centre
|
|
Thai-German Highland Development Programme
|
|
Vietnam
|
|
CARE International
|
|
Centre for Natural Resource Management and Environmental Studies,
|
|
University of Hanoi
|
|
College of Agriculture and Forestry, Thudoc
|
|
Forestry College, Xuan Mai
|
|
University of Agriculture No. 3, Bacthai Province
|
|
<section>Workshop background, objectives and process</section>
|
|
A workshop on upland management
|
|
This information kit was produced through a workshop at the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) from 29 August to 9 September 1994.
|
|
The workshop was organized by IIRR and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, with the Asia-Pacific Agroforestry Network (APAN, based in Bogor, Indonesia) and the Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (RAPA, Bangkok) taking the lead on FAO's behalf.
|
|
A group of more than 30 men and women were drawn from government agencies, nongovernment organizations, universities and international groups in China, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. They worked closely with the workshop organizers and the IIRR production team of editors, artists and desktop publishing staff.
|
|
The workshop developed this set of information and training materials on sustainable approaches to agriculture and natural resources management in the uplands. These materials are aimed at extension specialists from government and nongovernment organizations throughout the region.
|
|
Workshop objectives
|
|
The workshop stressed three "Ps" process, participation and product. The workshop idea grew from discussions between IIRR and FAO staff during a consultation with NGOs held in September 1993 in Bangkok at the FAO-RAPA.
|
|
Three primary objectives were recognized:
|
|
· to expose participants to a consultative and participatory process for producing useful information on upland management
|
|
· to maximize participation and harness the experiences, interdisciplinary knowledge and creative and analytical powers of the diverse group of participants and organizers
|
|
· to produce an information kit that can easily be adapted and translated into local media and languages for specific training and extension purposes and tailored to particular user groups.
|
|
Southeast Asian countries face increasing population, deforestation, soil erosion and underdevelopment. Logging and illegal clearing for farming have already destroyed the forests in much of the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. Papua New Guinea and the larger islands of Indonesia have some of the few remaining areas of rain forest in the region.
|
|
Unsuitable farming practices and natural resource exploitation are causing serious degradation in the uplands. Rising populations and low crop yields force farmers to clear yet more land. Meanwhile, the eroded soil clogs reservoirs and make rivers downstream shallow, resulting in flooding in the lowlands.
|
|
Improved farming and natural resource management help solve this problem. Simple strategies, such as hedgerows of nitrogen-fixing trees planted across the slope, can slow erosion and maintain soil fertility. Growing a combination of crops, livestock, trees and fish can raise farm incomes and reduce the need to clear new land. At the same time, policy and institutional support is urgently needed to improve agriculture and natural resources management and to strengthen the decisionmaking process of farm households
|
|
The workshop process
|
|
The workshop used a process developed by IIRR. This process has been used to produce information kits on a range of topics related to agriculture and natural resources management, including agroforestry technologies in the Philippines and Ghana, integrated agriculture aquaculture in Asia, ethnoveterinary medicine and environmental concepts and actions. (For a full list of such kits, contact IIRR.)
|
|
In February 1994, a list of potential topics was developed and resource persons were identified to develop first drafts on each topic, using guidelines provided.
|
|
During the workshop itself in August 1994, each participant presented his or her draft paper, using overhead transparencies of each page. Copies of each draft were also given to all other participants, who critiqued the draft and suggested revisions.
|
|
After the first presentation, an editor-artist team helped the author revise and edit the draft and draw illustrations to accompany the text The edited draft and artwork were then desktop-published to produce a second draft.
|
|
Each participant then presented his or her revised draft to the group for a second time, also using transparencies. Again, the audience critiqued it and suggested revisions. After the presentation, the editors, artists and desktop publishing staff again helped the author to revise it and develop a third draft.
|
|
Toward the end of the workshop, the third draft was made available to the participants for final comments and revisions. On the last day of the workshop, the participants worked in country groups to brainstorm and develop follow-up plans to adapt and use the information kit in their own countries.
|
|
The workshop allowed inputs from all participants to be incorporated, taking advantage of the diverse experience and expertise of all present. The concentration of resource persons, editors, artists and desktop publishing resources at one time and place enabled materials to be produced more quickly than is typical for similar publications. And the sharing of experiences among participants allowed the development of networks that would continue to be fruitful long into the future and lead to concrete follow-up activities in the countries concerned.
|
|
Sponsors
|
|
The many partners listed below provided generous financial and technical support to the -workshop. Their valuable contributions are gratefully acknowledged
|
|
· IIRR technical and production staff
|
|
· FAO Headquarters and FAO-RAPA
|
|
· FAO Asia-Pacific Agroforestry Network (based in Bogor)
|
|
· the UNDP/FAO/UNIDO Farmer-centered Agricultural Resources Management (FARM) Programme (Apart from APAN, three FARM Sub-programmes provided support: Farming Systems (based in Manila), Watershed Management (based in Kathmandu), Peoplecentered Sustainable Development (based at ANGOC, Manila)
|
|
· the FAO Forest, Trees and People Programme (based at the Regional Community Forestry Training Center, Bangkok)
|
|
· Asia Soil Conservation Network
|
|
· Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development
|
|
· the UK Freedom from Hunger Fund
|
|
<section>How to use, adapt and evaluate this kit</section>
|
|
This technical information kit is designed for use by agriculture and forestry trainers, extension subject-matter specialists and government agencies and NGOs focusing on agriculture and natural resource management in the uplands of Southeast Asia. The material draws on a range of experiences from institutions and individuals in the region.
|
|
No collection of material can claim to be perfect or comprehensive and this effort makes no such claim. However, the materials presented lend themselves to adaptations for specific user groups, languages, local media and purposes. The ideas and experiences presented in each of the topics emphasize principles, approaches and methods, not detailed technologies.
|
|
The topics presented in the kit are based on a systems approach to analysis of key resource management concerns in upland communities of Southeast Asia. The systems approach is applied in the design and development of appropriate program interventions. This approach acknowledges that farm households are systems experts and that their local knowledge, needs and experiences must become the basis for program development.
|
|
Chapter contents
|
|
The kit is divided into six chapters (plus appendices), with several topics presented in each chapter. Many topics are interrelated or overlap, this is a deliberate attempt to highlight key messages. Chapter 1 outlines several important concerns confronting upland communities of the region and attempts to summarize some strategies which may be widely applied. Chapter 2 describes and analyzes examples of upland farming and natural resource management practices and systems from Southeast Asia. Chapter 3 briefly describes a range of soil and water conservation methods used in Southeast Asia, their advantages and limitations and factors affecting their adoption.
|
|
Chapter 4 presents a range of diagnostic methods and tools for appraising and assessing human, natural and financial resources available for use by upland households and communities.
|
|
Chapter 5 discusses the importance of support services (e.g., extension, research, marketing and rural enterprise development) which can (1) increase the effectiveness of upland systems when present, or (2) limit the sustainability of the systems when absent.
|
|
How the material can be used
|
|
· As a reference material and a 'menu of options'' to use in developing program strategies and designing interventions
|
|
· As a training material for agriculture/forestry extension personnel
|
|
· As an English-language prototype that can be translated, adapted and revised for each country of the region.
|
|
Chapter 6 presents several methods for evaluating and measuring the impact of upland development programs. Financial, biophysical, social and sustainability indicators are discussed and analyzed. The appendices compile additional resource information, glossaries and detailed information about the workshop participants and their institutions.
|
|
Example of how four topics in the kit can be used in a logical sequence. Outputs from one topic can be treated as inputs into the next. However, the same four topics may be used alone or in a different order if the situation requires.
|
|
Basket approach
|
|
The various chapters present a "basket" of program strategies; they are not intended to represent a "blueprint,, approach. Each of the strategies will be appropriate and relevant based on the local circumstances. However, many of the strategies represented as topics can be used in a logical programming sequence.
|
|
Much of the material in the kit focuses on the development and implementation of upland farming systems using a natural resource management strategy. Within these topics, a distinction is made between agroforestry "systems" and soil and water conservation "practices,,' recognizing that many of the "systems', combine several "practices,,, therefore involving some degree of overlap. However the agroforestry systems information (Chapter 2) focuses more on the tree-crop interactions, while the practices information (Chapter 3) focuses more on component technologies and how they might be integrated into existing systems.
|
|
It is extremely difficult transfer whole systems from one area to another without some degree of adaptation. Equally unsuccessful have been attempts, over the years, to train extension personnel to extend an entire farming system. A more appropriate strategy is the development and promotion of systems components which allow flexibility to farm households to mix-and-match components most relevant to their particular resource base and needs.
|
|
Format
|
|
The format of the kit was chosen by the workshop participants based on the advantages that it offers: (1) it is large enough to be clear and easy to use; (2) the standard size allows for easy photocopying and sharing Given that the contents of many topics are interrelated, crossreferences are given when appropriate; for instance, see Levels of decision-making.
|
|
Evaluation
|
|
This material can be evaluated in various ways. Examples include:
|
|
· Monitoring the adaptation, use and distribution within the AsiaPacific Agroforestry Network and other networks and partners
|
|
· Using a formal evaluation survey, which could be initiated before country-level adaptations are undertaken
|
|
· Obtaining feedback from users of the kit.
|
|
Follow-up
|
|
On the last day of the two-week workshop, the participants discussed and developed follow-up action plans. Some of the key elements of those plans are presented below:
|
|
· In Indonesia, the materials will be used for training and extension (with some adaptation) by government agricultural offices and agricultural polytechnics and universities.
|
|
· In Vietnam, the materials will be used to provide a general framework for upland area development projects, with a focus on the learning, planning, and monitoring and evaluation aspects of program implementation.
|
|
· There was interest to translate and adapt the materials by several of the country groups, including Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam. Additionally, both the China and Vietnam groups made requests to receive diskette copies of the publication in order to facilitate translation and adaptation.
|
|
· All the country groups discussed the distribution of the kit to strategic institutions or individuals within their respective countries.
|
|
· In the Philippines, a national consultation for a training-of-trainers was conceptualized in order to assess how the material could be used by existing trainers within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the Department of Agriculture, local government units and NGOs. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program---Integrated Social Forestry Program was specifically mentioned as a potential user of the material.
|
|
<section>1. Overview of upland issues and approaches</section>
|
|
<section>Upland development issues and approaches</section>
|
|
The uplands of Southeast Asia contrast with the region's lowlands. They are hilly or mountainous areas, with steep slopes and generally poor soils. While dryland agriculture is most common, the uplands also contain areas of wetland rice where the topography permits irrigation.
|
|
The uplands form a significant portion of most countries in the region: they account for 80% of Indonesia's, 70% of China's and 72% of Vietnam's total land area. Because of their varied topography and poor soils, the uplands sustain lower populations than the more fertile lowlands: only 26% of Vietnam's population lives in upland areas.
|
|
How can integrated, participatory approaches which balance economic and ecological considerations be translated into agricultural development and natural resource management models that can be understood by extension workers and adopted by farmers?
|
|
Links between uplands and lowlands
|
|
· Population movements.
|
|
· Upper watersheds regulate water flow further downstream.
|
|
· Erosion causes siltation and flooding downstream.
|
|
· Lowlands provide markets for uplands.
|
|
· Government policies determined in lowlands, often by lowland inhabitants.
|
|
Lowlands and uplands compared
|
|
These are broad generalizations; they do not apply everywhere.
|
|
Lowlands
|
|
Uplands
|
|
Lowlands
|
|
Uplands
|
|
Biophysical factors
|
|
Extension approaches
|
|
Flat
|
|
Steep slopes
|
|
Complex technology
|
|
Technology simple, promoted step-by-step
|
|
Not subject to erosion
|
|
Prone to erosion
|
|
Uniform
|
|
Varied
|
|
Package oftechnology
|
|
"Menu" of technologies
|
|
Little remaining forest
|
|
Contain most of the region's remaining forest cover
|
|
Package provided Intensive use of chemical inputs
|
|
Process facilitated use of leguminous trees and annual crops, animal manure and composting
|
|
Deep, fertile soils
|
|
Shallow, infertile, marginal al soils
|
|
Irrigated
|
|
Dryland
|
|
Few NGOs involved
|
|
Many NGOs involved
|
|
Monocrop rice or vegetable
|
|
Complex farming systems
|
|
Focus on farm system
|
|
Relevant to overall land
|
|
Intensive farming
|
|
Extensive farming
|
|
Predictable field conditions
|
|
Unpredictable field conditions
|
|
Vital technologies
|
|
Water supply
|
|
Soil and water conservation
|
|
Socioeconomic factors
|
|
Hybrid species
|
|
Nutrient conservation
|
|
Good infrastructure
|
|
Poor infrastructure
|
|
Pest and disease management
|
|
Accessible Remote
|
|
Good extension service
|
|
Poor extension service
|
|
Majority culture
|
|
Minority ethnic groups
|
|
Little ethnic variation
|
|
Large number of ethnic groups
|
|
High literacy levels
|
|
Low literacy levels
|
|
Wage labor
|
|
Family labor
|
|
Relatively well-off
|
|
Relatively poor
|
|
Credit easy to provide
|
|
Credit difficult to provide
|
|
Market-oriented
|
|
Subsistence-oriented
|
|
Clear land tenure titles
|
|
Complex land tenure status
|
|
Land owned privately
|
|
Much land owned by government
|
|
Characteristics of the uplands
|
|
Two features characterize the region's uplands: diversity and change.
|
|
Diversity
|
|
· The varied topography results in wide variations in soil types and fertility, microclimate and vegetation over short distances.
|
|
· Steep slopes and deep ravines make agriculture, transport, communication and the provision of infrastructure difficult.
|
|
· Farming systems are complex, with hundreds of different species and varieties of crops grown.
|
|
· The uplands are home to the majority of the region's ethnic minorities. For instance:
|
|
- 2 million people belonging to 54 ethnic groups in the uplands of Vietnam.
|
|
- 1 million members of hill tribes in northern Thailand.
|
|
· The people in the uplands use a wealth of indigenous techniques, developed and tested over centuries, that can be a valuable resource for development.
|
|
· Diversified, socioeconomic, cultural and agroecological conditions.
|
|
· Diversified ethnic groups.
|
|
· Competition to manage natural resources among individuals, villages, firms, government and NGOs.
|
|
Change
|
|
· Deforestation through logging is rapid, opening up land for cultivation.
|
|
· Shifting cultivation is sustainable where low population densities allow long fallow periods, but results in erosion, soil depletion and declining yields where rising populations force farmers to shorten fallows.
|
|
· The overexploitation and depletion of natural resources result in nonsustainable production systems.
|
|
· Farming systems are changing from a predominantly subsistence basis to the increasing importance of crops and livestock raised for cash
|
|
· Upland areas in Vietnam, Laos and the Philippines are recovering from the effects of war and civil unrest.
|
|
· Land uses are changing from forest to agricultural land and agricultural land to settlement.
|
|
Problems in the uplands
|
|
· Degradation of natural resources (soil, water, forests). Soil and water erosion affects an area of 1.79 million km² in China, causing a loss of more than 5 billion tons of soil annually. The nutrients contained in the lost soil are equivalent to 50 million tons of chemical fertilizers.
|
|
· Changes in climate, biophysical conditions, population and technology, affecting the natural resource carrying capacity and social and economic development
|
|
· Land tenure
|
|
· Farmers' limited technical skills
|
|
· Marketing of agricultural products
|
|
· Gaps in agricultural production processes, marketing and industry in terms of regulations, technology, human resources and physical infrastructure
|
|
· Gender issues.
|
|
Note: Some of these problems may also be severe in lowland areas.
|
|
Population
|
|
Some of the region's uplands are densely populated: Examples are the highlands of Java and the midland region of northern Vietnam. Such areas typically have more fertile soils or are near densely populated lowland areas. Others, such as much of Borneo and Papua New Guinea, are lightly populated.
|
|
The population in the uplands is increasing. These areas are experiencing movements of people in two different directions:
|
|
· Young people in the uplands are moving to the cities in search of employment, leaving children and the elderly in the villages. This results in critical shortages of labor during planting and harvesting.
|
|
· At the same time, people from the lowlands are moving into upland areas in search of cultivable land. Often, these newcomers use inappropriate farming techniques. They also bring different cultural values from the traditional ethnic groups in the hills. They clash with local people for the ownership of land that has traditionally been farmed on a shifting cultivation basis by the ethnic minorities.
|
|
Natural growth and migration from the lowlands mean that upland populations are rising, forcing farmers to cultivate steeper slopes and poorer soils and to leave land fallow for shorter periods. This exacerbates the problems of erosion, soil fertility and water conservation. Many upland areas suffer from severe erosion: 40% of the Jratunseluna watershed in Central Java is degraded.
|
|
Complex relationships
|
|
Farmers, extensionists and researchers must consider many factors:
|
|
· biophysical (soil, water, trees, pests, slope, climate, etc.)
|
|
· social (individuals, households, labor, education, skills, etc.)
|
|
· economic (credit, commodity prices, etc.).
|
|
The complex relationships among these factors help determine the existing farming system and the range of opportunities open to farmers --and the types of soil and water conservation measures they are likely to be able to implement. (See also Levels of decision-making.)
|
|
Components, not technology packages
|
|
The diversity of the uplands means it is impossible to apply single solutions or unified packages of technologies to agricultural problems in the uplands. Rather than trying to design and promote whole-farm systems, experience has shown it is more useful develop and promote components of systems. Farmers can then choose from a "menu" of technologies--some indigenous, some introduced and some a result of a blend of indigenous and introduced technologies. They can select and adapt those technologies that best suit their own unique needs.
|
|
Research and extension approaches
|
|
The diversity of ecosystems, culture and languages also makes research and extension work difficult. Research institutions have generally focused on lowland areas, to the relative neglect of the uplands. Much of this research has been of marginal relevance to problems faced by upland farmers, partly because of poor linkages between research, extension and farmers. In addition, relevant research findings have not been widely disseminated to extension services and farmers.
|
|
Extension services in the uplands are generally weak, with a few, underqualified and poorly paid staff required to cover large areas. Conventional research and extension approaches are clearly unsuited in these conditions. Various alternatives have been tested in the uplands, emphasizing participatory approaches to develop productive, sustainable farming systems. These approaches include participatory technology development, farmer-to-farmer extension and farming systems development.
|
|
Integrated, participatory approaches
|
|
Many agricultural development and natural resources management programs have been very specific in their disciplinary approach, commodity and farming systems orientation. Program orientations have sometimes ignored local conditions, basic community needs and the need for human development. integrated, participatory approaches are needed to ensure that interventions address local problems and are sustainable. New programs seek to increase productivity yet minimize environmental destruction and try to improve the quality of the environment. These programs are integrated and diversified to ensure balance between economic and ecological considerations. The uplands are the focus of several major government programs and smallscale, innovative approaches, often implemented by NGOs.
|
|
Institutions involved in the uplands
|
|
· national government local government
|
|
· research institutes
|
|
· universities
|
|
· extension services
|
|
· infrastructure services
|
|
· nongovernment organizations
|
|
· farmer groups
|
|
· cooperatives
|
|
· indigenous organizations
|
|
· input suppliers
|
|
· marketing organizations
|
|
Examples of integrated program approaches
|
|
· soil and water conservation
|
|
· integrated pest management
|
|
· agroforestry
|
|
· social forestry
|
|
· permaculture
|
|
· ecofarming
|
|
· watershed management
|
|
<section>People's participation</section>
|
|
People are central to the use and management of resources. People use resources for livelihood. People need these resources for their wants. People use these resources for their luxury.
|
|
People's participation is a prerequisite to community-based natural resource management. It is central to a people-centered, sustainable development approach and is a continuous, interactive process.
|
|
Participation means that people become the stakeholders and decision-makers. Participation must not be induced or co-opted. People must be the subjects, not the objects of development initiatives. Participation is the essence of responsible stewardship of natural resources.
|
|
Participation is not easy.
|
|
People's participation requires organization, Interaction, consensusbuilding, decision-making and conflict resolution.
|
|
Community-based natural resources management The community-based natural resources management approach is an ongoing, collective initiative by the community to manage its natural resources. It includes eight components.
|
|
1 Educate and build awareness.
|
|
· Natural resources are the base for food production.
|
|
· Natural resources are part of the global life-support system.
|
|
· These resources must be used sustainably. (See Indicators of sustainability.)
|
|
· It is our civic duty to use, conserve and protect natural resources.
|
|
2 Promote sustainable farming and resource use.
|
|
· Research and develop sustainable farming and resource use.
|
|
· Ensure participation of farm communities.
|
|
· Create partnerships among farmers, extensionists and researchers. (See Research-extension-farmer linkages.)
|
|
· Respect and build on indigenous knowledge. (See Building on indigenous knowledge. )
|
|
3 Conserve and protect sensitive ecosystems.
|
|
The community and local government should work together to identify ways to conserve and protect sensitive ecosystems.
|
|
Criteria for selecting ecosystems:
|
|
· Importance of the ecosystem to local livelihood.
|
|
· Biological diversity and uniqueness.
|
|
· Contribution to the life-support chain and local culture.
|
|
4 Enhance regenerative capacity of natural resources.
|
|
· Identify ways to stop destruction and pollution of natural resources.
|
|
· Promote the regenerative.capacity of resources (e.g., tree planting, composting) to prevent erosion. (See Integrated land-use planning in upland areas.)
|
|
5 Promote gender equity and participation.
|
|
Integrated development programs must ensure women's participation and empowerment. (See Gender analysis.)
|
|
6 Ensure indigenous and minority interests.
|
|
Indigenous people and other minorities have been robbed of their natural resource base. Their survival is threatened.
|
|
· Ensure the continued use of resources for the survival of minorities and their cultural practices.
|
|
7 Address transboundary issues.
|
|
One community can be affected by activities in another community or by pollution from outside. For example, several communities may share a river or beach.
|
|
· Develop mechanisms to deal with transboundary concerns.
|
|
· Find ways to internalize production costs.
|
|
8 Networking and linkage support.
|
|
· Provide training to respond to community needs.
|
|
· Link the community with support agencies, universities and NGOs.
|
|
· Collaborate with other organizations. (See Resource institutions.)
|
|
Implementing community-based natural resources management
|
|
1 Selection of site and collaborators
|
|
· Identify communities.
|
|
· Identify collaborating NGOs or community organizations.
|
|
2 Capacity-building
|
|
· Train collaborators to mobilize people's participation.
|
|
· Train in sustainable approaches to natural resource management.
|
|
3 Community visioning
|
|
· Undertake a community visioning with the local leaders, government agencies and officials, women and youth.
|
|
4 Understanding the situation
|
|
· Assess the local situation. (See Participatory appraisal methods. )
|
|
· Study government plans and interventions.
|
|
5 Participatory planning
|
|
· Assist key community leaders to plan activities.
|
|
· Validate the plans with as many groups as possible (e.g., women, youth, indigenous people).
|
|
6 Implementation
|
|
· Collaborating group (NGO or people's organization) undertakes implementation.
|
|
· Involve as many local organized groups as possible.
|
|
· Ensure that ownership of the project is transferred to the community.
|
|
7 Participatory monitoring and evaluation
|
|
· Regularly monitor activities.
|
|
· Discuss activities with the participants to evaluate successes and weaknesses.
|
|
<section>Levels of decision-making</section>
|
|
Agriculture and natural resources management systems are made up of social, biophysical and economic systems. They must be viewed at different levels: from the individual farmer and household, up through the community to the national and international levels. These levels are interrelated and affect each other in various ways.
|
|
Decision-makers
|
|
Different people or organizations make decisions at the various levels. At the farm level, individual members of the farm household (male, female, young, old) make key decisions. The household is the most important decision-making unit in many settings. At the community level, local leaders (both formal and informal) are important. The cultural norms and traditional practices of ethnic groups may also determine the activities of a family or an individual.
|
|
Individuals and groups make decisions after considering many factors--social, biophysical and economic (see General systems overview). The perceived risk involved is a major influence. Decision-makers may take a short-term or a long-term view.
|
|
Decisions made at one level can affect that level and the lower levels. For example, an individual farmer can decide what crops to plant and this will affect his or her income and the types of pest problems in the field.
|
|
Individual decision-makers at one level do not normally affect what happens at higher levels. For instance, an individual farmer's cropping practices do not have a major impact on the amount of soil erosion in a river catchment or on the market price of the crop. However, farmers can have an impact on erosion or price if a large number of individuals make the same decisions, either deliberately (as in a cooperative) or because of external factors (as when they respond to price increases).
|
|
Empowerment--a key to sustainable development--means enabling farmers and other rural people to make decisions that affect them, both at their own level and (through community organizations) at higher levels.
|
|
Systems
|
|
Production and decision-making are affected by social, biophysical and economic systems in a given area. These systems are complex and interrelated, leaving farmers with large numbers of choices. An understanding of the many factors and the relationships among them is key to helping farmers make informed decisions. To do this, researchers and extensionists must have a broad understanding of various issues. Frequently, a multidisplinary approach to research is needed. (See General systems overview.)
|
|
Social
|
|
Social elements include the farmer (male and female, young and old), the household and community. Each of these units has certain characteristics, skills, needs, priorities and rules.
|
|
Some social factors, such as management skills, can be changed through training or experience. Others, such as family size, change only in the long run.
|
|
Biophysical
|
|
Physical systems include soils, topography, climate, water and location. Biological elements include crops and livestock, insects and diseases.
|
|
Some of these can be altered by the scientist or farmer. For instance, water availability can be improved by building irrigation facilities. Crop yield potential can be increased by breeding droughtresistant varieties or by the use of fertilizers.
|
|
Economic
|
|
Economic components include village stores, input suppliers, and processing and marketing systems. These help determine the demand for a commodity, supply of inputs and prices of produce.
|
|
Many economic factors are determined at more macro levels, so are largely outside the control of individual farmers. However, they may be amenable to change by group action, cooperatives and government programs.
|
|
Scientific disciplines
|
|
Different scientific disciplines tend to address systems at certain levels. For instance, agronomists and plant pathologists focus on cropand field-level biophysical systems. Community organizers are interested in the multifarm and community levels. Some disciplines (such as ecology) span a wide range of levels.
|
|
Role of the extensionists at various levels
|
|
The extensionist works mainly at the farmer, household and community levels (levels I to 4) in the system. He or she has little control over characteristics determined at higher levels (such as commodity prices and disease epidemics). The extensionist's role depends on the level of the system.
|
|
Crop and field levels
|
|
At the crop and field levels (levels 1 and 2), interactions among the soil, plants and insects are the key. The farmer can, to a certain extent, control these interactions through the choice of crop, planting time, application of compost or artificial fertilizers and management of pests. The role of the extensionist is to help the farmer decide what are the most appropriate ways of controlling these interactions--for instance, by helping identify promising local knowledge, testing technologies and introducing new ideas.
|
|
Farm level
|
|
At the farm level (level 3), the extensionist can help the farmer design changes in his or her farm system, such as introducing a new enterprise or assisting in the construction of soil conservation measures.
|
|
Community level
|
|
At the community level (level 4), the extensionist can help farmers and other rural people become organized so they can have an impact on higher-level systems. For instance, a cooperative can affect the marketing system and thereby the price that farmers received for their produce. A farmer group can test and implement soil and water conservation techniques in a microcatchment, reducing soil erosion and improving productivity in this area
|
|
Watershed level
|
|
At the watershed level (level 5), the extensionist can help test the applicability of improved management practices so they can be promoted over a wider area. The extensionist can facilitate cooperation and exchange of information among villages and ethnic groups. He or she can also influence local governments to improve market systems and the accessibility of remote villages.
|
|
<section>2. Integrated upland systems management</section>
|
|
<section>General systems overview</section>
|
|
Prescriptive models and packages of technology are seldom transferable from site to site. (See also Upland development issues and approaches.) Conditions within Southeast Asia, within particular countries, within watersheds, and even within communities are generally too diverse for top-down models to be applied at the farm level. Apart from agroecological diversity, there is a diversity of clients to address-- large and smallholder farmers, marginal farmers, the landless, rural industry workers, shopkeepers, townspeople and urban dwellers--all with different socioeconomic and cultural characteristics and needs.
|
|
This chapter brings together lessons about prominent agroforestry systems in the region. The next chapter describes important soil and water conservation practices that are being applied in these systems. To understand what makes these systems and practices work, it is important to identify factors or considerations that influence farmers in deciding how to manage their natural resources.
|
|
The broad framework for this discussion incorporates socioeconomic, biophysical, conservation and agriculture production issues, which interrelate with the farm household. Many factors influence a farmer's choice of production enterprise or conservation effort.
|
|
· Equip extension workers with a framework for understanding the multiple factors that influence how and why farmers make production and resource allocation decisions.
|
|
· Serve as a tool for conducting diagnostic activities and helping farmers and extension workers improve their decision-making process.
|
|
The checklist may be used at the diagnostic phase for guiding semistructured interviews and group discussions with farmers. (See also chapter on Diagnostic methods and tools ) It may also help to probe for underlying biophysical and socioeconomic factors that explain how and why farmers make specific choices regarding management of their farming systems. Finally, the checklist can be used in monitoring and evaluating field activities.
|
|
<section>Overview of agroforestry systems in Southeast Asia</section>
|
|
What is agroforestry?
|
|
Agroforestry is the deliberate growth and management of trees along with agricultural crops and/or livestock in systems that are ecologically, socially and economically sustainable.
|
|
or, more simply:
|
|
Agroforestry is the use of trees in farming systems.
|
|
How is agroforestry relevant in Southeast Asia?
|
|
In agroforestry research and development, both farmers and scientists should test and validate the aims, potential and positive interactions among both socioeconomic and ecological components. Some important aims of agroforestry are:
|
|
· Increased productivity/income
|
|
· Improved equity in benefit-sharing
|
|
· Sustainable upland management.
|
|
To work effectively with farmers, researchers and development workers must be able to approach agroforestry from a farming systems perspective. (See also Farming systems development.)
|
|
Ways to classify agroforestry systems
|
|
By components
|
|
(What combinations of trees, crops, pasture and other components?)
|
|
By function of trees
|
|
(Are the trees used primarily for production or conservation?)
|
|
By temporal association
|
|
(Is the system only temporary or more permanent?)
|
|
By pattern of trees
|
|
(Are trees managed in a regular pattern or irregularly spread?)
|
|
By tenure
|
|
Agroforestry practices are influenced by the land and tree tenure system (private or state-controlled) that farmers operate in.
|
|
Tenure affects the decision farmers make about the kind of agroforestry system they can use.
|
|
Farm-based
|
|
Forest-based
|
|
Biased toward crops and
|
|
Biased toward trees
|
|
livestock.
|
|
Emphasizes forest and
|
|
Emphasizes fruit trees and
|
|
timber tree species
|
|
multipurpose tree species.
|
|
Generally on government
|
|
Generally on private farm lands.
|
|
controlled forest lands
|
|
Other important factors
|
|
· Agroecological and environmental adaptability.
|
|
· Socioeconomic characteristics.
|
|
· Culture and traditions.
|
|
· Management practices.
|
|
Tenure and land-use rights
|
|
Agroforestry technologies are only a partial solution to upland problems. Fundamental issues of land tenure and long-term use rights need to be resolved in the uplands. Secure tenure is an essential but not sufficient conditions. Other required support services must be mobilized; otherwise agroforestry efforts will not truly benefit resource-poor farmers.
|
|
Examples of tenurial policy changes that favor farming households
|
|
· Renewable 25-year certificates of land stewardship granted within the Philippines, Integrated Social Forestry Program.
|
|
· Renewable long-term production contracts (20 years on agricultural land and 50 or more years on forest land) provided to Vietnamese farmers on over 5 million hectares of lands formerly controlled by state agriculture and forest enterprises.
|
|
Evolution of agroforestry
|
|
Agroforestry systems in Southeast Asia have evolved over centuries and are very diverse and complex. Today, as conditions change, farmers continue to innovate, experiment and improve these systems.
|
|
To meet their needs of food, fodder and fuelwood, fiber and cash, farmers integrate agriculture crops, trees and livestock in their farming systems. This integration has resulted in a wide diversity of traditional agroforestry systems. Most of these systems are well-suited to the local agroecological conditions, the specific subsistence and cash needs of farmers, their social and cultural context and the environmental conservation needs.
|
|
In areas where the people are still living in forest areas or still surrounded by abundant forests (e.g., parts of Laos and Indonesia), they practice shifting cultivation and harvest or collect many nonwood forest products for their own use or for markets.
|
|
In settled agriculture, trees are extensively integrated with the farming systems. In densely populated areas, trees may be more valued and more valuable than in low-population areas where forests are still abundant. Agroforestry systems, particularly in high-population and fuelwood-deficit areas, can serve as buffer zones to mitigate the degradation of natural and plantation forests.
|
|
Trees in and around farms are planted judiciously, carefully and selectively. This is the most widely practiced agroforestry system. Very specific tree and crop combinations are developed for all agroecological zones. If the farming system is based on a tree that takes long time to produce yields (e.g., coconut, areca nut, horticultural trees, rubber), farmers intercrop and/or integrate livestock to generate some early economic returns.
|
|
Farmers living near the forests in densely populated areas have developed practices to integrate their farming systems with the adjoining forests to graze their cattle (or collect fodder) in the forest, or have develop forest gardens to meet their subsistence and cash needs.
|
|
Indigenous vs Introduced technologies
|
|
An agroforestry system may use:
|
|
· Indigenous (existing) technologies that farmers are familiar with.
|
|
· Practices that have been modified or improved by farmers or outsiders.
|
|
· Practices introduced by outside researchers or extension agents.
|
|
Indigenous or existing practices and knowledge should be the basis for designing agroforestry interventions. But many projects have relied (largely unsuccessfully) on introducing agroforestry models and technologies using exotic tree species and technologies.
|
|
Introducing technologies from outside has two risks:
|
|
· Introduced technologies may not be socially or economically acceptable to farmers.
|
|
· Introduced technologies or species may not be ecologically sound (e.g., introduction of Leucaena on acid soils).
|
|
Small-scale, on-farm experiments to test new technologies must be properly conducted and evaluated before these technologies can be promoted.
|
|
<section>Design and management considerations for agroforestry systems</section>
|
|
Agroforestry is an approach to sustainable land-use which is very relevant for the management of upland areas with severe physical and chemical soil constraints.
|
|
Agroforestry systems can improve and maintain soil fertility by:
|
|
· Increasing nutrient input. The incorporation of trees and shrubs into the farming system can increase the organic matter of the soil and the fixation of nitrogen.
|
|
· Recycling nutrients from deep soil layers. Soil nutrients are taken up by tree/shrub roots from deeper soil layers and recycled to the topsoil through litter or lopping (including root residues), forming an almost closed cycle of nutrients.
|
|
· Synchronizing nutrient inputs with plant growth. Trees or shrubs can help synchronize nutrient release with crop requirements by controlling the quality, timing and manner of addition of plant residues like prunings and cuttings.
|
|
· Preventing erosion. In sloping areas, trees or shrubs act as a physical barrier to reduce nutrient loss from erosion.
|
|
The soil-nutrient cycle in the agroforestry system consists of nutrient pools, nutrient flows within the system and nutrient gains and losses.
|
|
The most common problems of upland soils
|
|
· Acidity.
|
|
· Low nutrient content, particularly deficiencies of nitrogen and phosphorous.
|
|
· Nutrient losses through soil erosion, leaching and volatilization.
|
|
Key technical considerations for design and maintenance of agroforestry systems
|
|
1 Use nitrogen-fixing trees or shrubs to increase gains from symbiotic fixation. Examples of nitrogen-fixing trees are Gliricidia septum, Desmanthus virgatus, Flemingia macrophylla, Leucaena leucocephala, Cajanus cajan, Paraserianthes falcataria, Erythrina spp., Albizzia spp. and Calliandra calothyrsus
|
|
2 Select fast-growing and deep-rooted trees or shrubs that can be pruned or lopped more frequently to provide organic matter. Deep-rooted trees can enhance nutrient uptake and act as "nutrient pumps.,, They can store nutrients from below the surface in above-ground biomass. Examples: Acacia spp., Cassia siamea, Gliricidia septum, Desmanthus virgatus, Albizzia lebbek.
|
|
3 Plant trees or shrubs (and crops also) along the contour as a barrier to control soil erosion. The most common design is contour planting or hedgerows. Place crop residues, twigs, barks and other materials on the upward side of the hedgerows or spread along the contours to serve as mulch to control surface run -off further.
|
|
4 In hedgerow intercropping, the hedgerows can be pruned to a height of 75 cm to 100 cm (I m). Incorporate all cuttings and other available organic materials (e.g., twigs, barks, leaves, fruit residues, etc.) into the soil.
|
|
5 Synchronize the timing of tree pruning or lopping with the required nutrients needed by a crop. The potential contribution of plant residues is important, as the nutrients can be supplied to the crops when the nutrients are most needed. The decomposition rate for all organic material is directly proportional to the availability of soil moisture. For example, lopping should be done before the intercrop is planted to allow the residues to be converted from the organic materials to available nutrients.
|
|
6 Practice crop rotation for the intercrops. Plant leguminous nitrogen-fixing crops after grain crops to replenish losses from grain harvest. Some legume crops improve nitrogen gains through symbiotic fixation. Example of a crop sequence: mungbeancorn/rice-cowpea.
|
|
7 Develop and maintain the upper slopes of farmlands as forested plots. These areas then protect the watershed and serve as a source of fuelwood and other wood products. The overall area planted to trees or shrubs should be about 60 percent.
|
|
8 Plant cover crops or green manure crops in fallow areas. Cover crops improve soil fertility through the addition of significant amounts of nutrients such as nitrogen (as much as 200 kg/ha). They also help suppress weeds that might use stored nutrients in the soil. Some recommended cover and green manure crops are: Desmanthus virgatus, Clitoria ternatea (butterfly pea), Centrocema pubescens (centrocema), Phaseolus antropurpureus, Vigna radiata (mungbean), Vigna sinensis (cowpea), Sesbania rostrata (sesbania).
|
|
<section>Integrating local tree species into family farms</section>
|
|
An experience from Sumba, Nusa Tenggara Timur, Indonesia
|
|
Swidden cultivators have traditionally relied upon both their gardens and the local forest to provide for their basic needs. Due to a variety of factors, many shifting cultivators are gradually turning to more sedentary forms of farming. Farmers making this transition often begin planting perennial cash crops in addition to their annual staple crops. However, these tree crops incorporated into their farming system cannot totally supplant the functions of the slowly disappearing natural forests.
|
|
In the province of Nusa Tenggara Timur (NTT) in Indonesia, many of the transition farmers working with Yayasan Tananua, a local farmers' organization, have been gradually planting trees to create "forests,, on sections of their own farms. These "family forests,,, or hutan keluarga, are planted with exotic trees and a variety of local forest species that traditionally provided the farm families with food, timber, fuelwood, herbal medicines and other useful products. These hutan keluarga have evolved into highly varied systems in terms of species composition and planting distances resulting from individual preferences and selection of each household.
|
|
Examples of local tree species integrated in family forests (NTT, Indonesia)
|
|
Names
|
|
Scientific name
|
|
Use (parts used)
|
|
Sumbanese
|
|
Indonesia
|
|
Ha Moi Hua
|
|
traditional medicine (bark)
|
|
Melinjo
|
|
Gnetum gnemon
|
|
vegetables (leaves), snacks
|
|
(processed seed), rope material(bark)
|
|
Hureni
|
|
Suren
|
|
Toona sureni
|
|
timber/construction material(trunk)
|
|
Kaduru
|
|
Kayu Merah
|
|
Pterocarpus indicus
|
|
timber/construction material(trunk)
|
|
Kajiu
|
|
Cemara
|
|
Casuarina junghuhniana
|
|
timber/construction material(trunk)
|
|
Kajiu Omang
|
|
Cemara Hutan
|
|
Podocarpus imbricatus
|
|
timber/construction material(trunk)
|
|
Kaninggu
|
|
Kayu Manis
|
|
Cinnamomum zeylanicum
|
|
spice (bark), traditional medicine
|
|
Kayu Loba
|
|
cloth dye (bark)
|
|
Kiru
|
|
Dyxoxylum caulostachyum
|
|
timber/construction material(trunk)
|
|
Kombu
|
|
Mengkudu
|
|
Morinda citrifolia
|
|
cloth dye (bark)
|
|
Lamua
|
|
Mindi
|
|
Melia azedrach
|
|
timber/construction material(trunk)
|
|
Langira
|
|
Nauclea orientalis
|
|
timber/construction material (trunk)
|
|
Lobung
|
|
Decaspermium sp.
|
|
vegetable (leaves), food
|
|
ingredient (seed), timber/
|
|
construction material (trunk)
|
|
Mangata
|
|
timber/construction material (trunk)
|
|
Mangawa
|
|
Jabon
|
|
Anthocephalus cadambu
|
|
timber/construction material(trunk)
|
|
Mbaku Hau
|
|
Melur
|
|
Podocarpus amarus
|
|
timber/construction material(trunk)
|
|
Pau Omang
|
|
Mangga, kedipir
|
|
Mangifera indica, Mangifera gedebe
|
|
timber/construction material(trunk)
|
|
Tumbu Ndaba
|
|
Tumbaran
|
|
Neonauclea exelsa
|
|
timber/construction material(trunk)
|
|
Wihi Kaloki
|
|
Calophyllum soulattri
|
|
timber/construction material(trunk)
|
|
Wora
|
|
Bayur
|
|
Pterospermum diversifolium
|
|
cloth dye (bark)
|
|
Factors influencing adoption
|
|
When the hutan keluarga became popular in the island of Sumba during the late 1980s, it was expected that farmers would plant many of the local species from the natural forest on their own farms. This way, the original role of the forest in the traditional shifting farming system could be maintained. This, however, did not happen, most of the hutan keluarga that currently exist have only a few species endemic to the natural Sumbanese forest.
|
|
Reasons for not cultivating local species
|
|
· Planting materials of preferred local species are difficult to find and collect. On the other hand, planting materials of exotic or naturalized species are easily accessible from the market, the government or nongovernment organizations in the area.
|
|
· Some local species are hard to propagate.
|
|
· Farmers are not convinced that forest species can grow outside the natural forest.
|
|
· The perception that exotic species are "modern,, made some farmers prefer them over local species.
|
|
· Some farmers perceive that local species are not as valuable as exotics.
|
|
Difficulties encountered by farmers planting local species
|
|
· Collecting and transporting planting materials (saplings are most commonly used) from the forest to their farm is difficult and timeconsuming.
|
|
· Saplings from the forest need special care (watering, shading, wind protection, etc.) compared to naturalized or exotic species commonly grown in the locality.
|
|
· Local forest species have generally lower survival rates, despite the special care given to them.
|
|
· Most of the preferred local species have long growing cycles, e.g., first grade construction wood normally takes 10-1 5 years before it can be harvested.
|
|
Most transition farmers do want to plant more species from the natural forest to their hutan keluarga. However, incorporating local species, even among the more experienced and enthusiastic farmers, is still a matter of trial and error. Thus, the practice has spread only to a limited area. If incorporating the local forest species into the hutan keluarga is to be encouraged, the more problematic issues of access to planting materials and proper care and management practices need to be addressed.
|
|
<section>Agroforestry systems in China</section>
|
|
China is a vast country, with mountains (including hills and plateaus) covering 6.3 billion ha, or approximately 66% of the total area. About onethird of the total population, two-fifths of the cultivated land and 90% of the forest are located in this mountainous area.
|
|
The practice of agroforestry in China has a long history, though use of the term "agroforestry" is new. Given that there are so many types and patterns of agroforestry systems, only some of the more important examples are presented below.
|
|
Farm-based agroforestry systems
|
|
Crop-based agroforestry
|
|
Crop-based agroforestry systems are composed of herbaceous agricultural crops (the major component) and woody trees. They are oriented towards food production focusing on grains, cash crops and vegetables.
|
|
The trees are usually planted in rows. Tree density depends on the production purpose and the area to be covered. In some areas, fish ponds are included.
|
|
"Agroforestry in Chinese"
|
|
While there is no single equivalent Chinese term for agroforestry, several parallel terms can be used. These include:
|
|
hun nong lin xi tong
|
|
Mixed agriculture and forestry system
|
|
Iin nong fu he xi tong
|
|
Forestry and agriculture complex system
|
|
nong lin fu he xi tong
|
|
Agriculture and forestry complex system
|
|
nong lin xi tong
|
|
Agriculture and forestry system
|
|
nong lin mu yu fu he xi tong
|
|
Agriculture-forestry-animal-fish sideline complex system
|
|
nong yong lin ye
|
|
Forestry for agricultural purposes
|
|
Different agroforestry systems are most commonly named according to their major components, for example, the "Paulownia-wheat" system.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Crop-based agroforestry can produce both woody and agricultural products, improve the physical environment and increase farm productivity. For example, during winter and early spring the trees have no leaves and, therefore, do not affect the growth of the crop. However, during late spring and summer, the trees can reduce wind speed (by as much as 30%), reduce soil evaporation (by 10%) and increase air humidity (by about 5%), all of which enhance grain yields
|
|
· Firewood collected from the trees provides cooking materials, reducing the pressure on forests and saving straw and animal manure for use as organic fertilizers
|
|
Fruit tree-based agrotorestry
|
|
Intercropping fruit trees with herbaceous crops is an age-old practice by Chinese farmers. However, the system has been improved as more technology and management options have become available. In central and northern China, deciduous fruit species are dominant, while in central and southern China, evergreen species dominate. There are numerous planting patterns that are adapted to local situations in China.
|
|
Many herbaceous crops are grown in association with the fruit trees In many places, animals and fishes are also major components of the system.
|
|
Variations of crop-based agroforestry systems
|
|
Although crop-based agroforestry systems are most widely practiced in Henan province, some neighboring provinces also have similar systems. A variation involves the use of tree species as forest windbreaks. This is widely practiced throughout the northern area of Dongbei, Huabe and Xibei and covers about 46% of the total land in that area.
|
|
Another variation is the development of bamboo-based systems, now rapidly expanding in Zhejiang, Fujian, Guangdong and other provinces. Bamboo is planted on sloping or flat farmland. Vegetables, grains, legumes and other crops are intercropped in the initial years. After a few years, the bamboo becomes dense and is the single most important crop in the system. Because of the high price for edible bamboo shoots, small bamboo plantations can generate very high economic returns--up to US$20,000/ha in some places. Most of the bamboo shoots are sold as fresh shoots, but some amount of post-harvest processing is done, including drying, preservation in solution and some canning for local, national and international markets.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Intercropping with fruit trees can fully utilize land and labor resources, give better vegetative cover for soil and water conservation and provide products for humans, fodder for animals and green manure to improve soil fertility.
|
|
· Intercropping can also increase soil temperature, promote root and microorganism activity in winter reduce labor and minimize competition for nutrients and light.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Fruit tree production can be a profitable enterprise. However, risks of overproduction of fruits do exist. For example, in some parts of China, yellow peach trees were replaced with other fruit trees because of low market prices. Ecological risks also exist. For example, in recent years citrus trees have been planted on land where other crops have not performed well due to low temperatures.
|
|
Homegardens
|
|
Homegardens are an ancient agricultural system in China and are commonly found throughout the country. Researchers and Chinese practitioners of ecological agriculture have helped to improve and intensify these systems significantly in recent years.
|
|
Every garden is a unique creation, with a complex set of tree and crop species and animals. Mushrooms are often grown as well. Fishponds are used to raise fish or high-value species such as eels or soft turtles. Biogas digesters supplied with animal dung are common.
|
|
Fruit tree-based agroforestry
|
|
Common fruit trees
|
|
Apple
|
|
Orange
|
|
Chestnut
|
|
Peach
|
|
Citrus
|
|
Pear
|
|
Grape
|
|
Persimmon
|
|
Jujube
|
|
Plum
|
|
Longan
|
|
Pomelo
|
|
Lychee
|
|
Walnut
|
|
Common crops
|
|
Beans
|
|
Sweet potato
|
|
Grains
|
|
Vegetables
|
|
Green manure
|
|
Legume and
|
|
Peanut
|
|
grass fodder
|
|
Strawberry
|
|
crops
|
|
Homegardens
|
|
Common crops and trees
|
|
Bamboo
|
|
Flowers
|
|
Fruits
|
|
Herbs
|
|
Medicinal plants
|
|
Ornamental trees
|
|
Vegetables
|
|
Other cash crops
|
|
Animals
|
|
Pigs
|
|
Chicken
|
|
Ducks
|
|
Mushrooms
|
|
Pasania
|
|
Oyster-cap
|
|
Straw mushrooms
|
|
Aquatic species
|
|
Fish
|
|
Eels
|
|
Soft turtles
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· The system is usually small in scale. However, the potential to generate income is generally very high.
|
|
· Homegardens are very flexible and can allow adjustments in production as prices change. In addition to providing income, homegardens contribute to the nutritional improvement of a household, as well as improving the beauty of the homestead.
|
|
Limitation
|
|
Operating and managing an intensive homegarden requires a high level of skills.
|
|
Tea-based agroforestry
|
|
Tea-based agroforestry systems are common in the provinces along the Yangtze river valley. Tea is usually intercropped with fruit or timber trees and crops. Many different herbaceous crops, especially legumes, are intercropped into the rows of trees and tea. In certain circumstances, grain or vegetable crops are intercropped. This is especially common in newly established tea plantations. The system often includes animals and fish: usually, there are more animal and fish species in this system than in the crop-based system.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Intercropping of woody or fruit trees can improve the local microclimate (temperature, humidity, light scattering, etc.), enhancing tea yield and improving tea quality.
|
|
· As well as producing tea, the system yields other products such as fruits, firewood, fodder and green manure.
|
|
· Intercropping of trees in a tea plantation can reduce runoff, lessen soil erosion and moderate high summer temperatures.
|
|
Tea-based agroforestry
|
|
Tea
|
|
Common trees
|
|
Jujube, peach, pear, persimmon, plum and other deciduous fruit trees
|
|
Masson pine, slash pine, loblolly pine, Chinese fir, Chinese tallowtree, tung oil tree, paulownia, poplar and sassafras
|
|
Common crops
|
|
Alfalfa
|
|
Barley
|
|
Chinese milky vetch
|
|
Common vetch
|
|
Corn
|
|
Horse bean
|
|
Pea
|
|
Soybean
|
|
Wheat
|
|
Animals and fish
|
|
Chicken
|
|
Duck
|
|
Pig
|
|
Eel
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Crops such as sesame that share common pests with tea should not be used as an intercrop.
|
|
· The proper selection of pesticides and timing of application on the intercrop are important to avoid pesticide residues on the tea.
|
|
Rubber-based agroforestry
|
|
An agroforestry system which incorporates tree species and herbaceous crops into the rubber plantation is widely practiced.
|
|
Rubber, commonly grown in large-scale plantations, is widely grown in the tropical areas of Hainan, Yunnan, Guangxi and Guangdong provinces. The system contributes greatly to the dried rubber production of China. Although it is varied both in terms of species combination and density, the rubber-based system is not as diversified as the tea-based agroforestry system.
|
|
Rubber-based agroforestry
|
|
Rubber
|
|
Other common woody perennials
|
|
Coffee
|
|
Tea
|
|
Windbreak trees
|
|
Common crops
|
|
Legumes
|
|
Medicinal crops
|
|
Pepper
|
|
Sugar cane
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· The system enhances resource use efficiency (light, heat, water, etc.), increases biomass productivity, fully utilizes the land and improves soil and water conservation.
|
|
· It absorbs labor and enhances economic efficiency.
|
|
· It is more tolerant to natural disasters than are monocropped rubber plantations.
|
|
Limitation
|
|
· Rubber-based agroforestry requires an intensive use of technology and material inputs. Technical aspects to be considered include the selection and proper arrangement of the species
|
|
(more tea should be planted on the upper part of a slope, with more rubber on the lower part to avoid wind injury), proper pruning of the rubber trees and proper application of fertilizers and pesticides.
|
|
Forest-based agroforestry systems
|
|
Timber tree-based agroforestry
|
|
Timber tree-based agroforestry includes large-scale, industrial tree plantations for production of timber. One example is the Chinese fir system, located mainly in the provinces along the Yangtze River valley. Crops are often intercropped into the newly established tree plantations by planting in between the young seedlings. Chinese fir, pine and other fast-growing species often dominate these plantations. The tree density is high and intercropping with herbaceous crops can only be practical during the initial years. Animals are also raised in the system.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Intercropping between timber trees can effectively balance short-term and long-term benefits. Better vegetation cover can reduce soil and water erosion. Cultivation and fertilization can promote the growth of both crops and trees.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Land preparation is laborintensive.
|
|
· Land preparation for tree planting and intercropping can destroy the natural vegetation. Serious soil and water erosion can occur after heavy rains and before the intercrop is well-established. This affects overall soil degradation, as well as reducing the yields of the crop and tree species.
|
|
· For these reasons (and others), this system is not welladapted to the conditions of individual farm households.
|
|
Timber tree-based agroforestry
|
|
Common trees
|
|
Chinese fir, pine
|
|
Common crops
|
|
Beans
|
|
Grains
|
|
Green manure
|
|
Legume and grass fodder crops
|
|
Peanut
|
|
Sweet potato
|
|
Vegetables
|
|
Watermelon
|
|
Animals
|
|
Chicken
|
|
Duck
|
|
Pig
|
|
Timber and medicinal plants agroforestry
|
|
Herbaceous and woody plants have long been used in Chinese medicine. Using timber tree plantations to produce medicinal plants is a recent variation to this age-old practice. This agroforestry system can be found in hilly and mountainous regions of China.
|
|
High-value medicinal plants (woody or herbaceous) are often intercropped into established timber plantations 4-5 years after first pruning.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· This agroforestry system can help balance the conflict between the long-term economic benefits of timber production and mediumterm livelihood opportunities. It can also meet the increasing demand for high value medicinal plants like ginseng.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Susceptible to fluctuations in market prices for medicinal plants.
|
|
Timber and medicinal plants agroforestry
|
|
Medicinal plant species
|
|
Amur corktree
|
|
Eucommia
|
|
Ginseng
|
|
Magnolia
|
|
Nackberry lily
|
|
White aster
|
|
Villous amomum
|
|
Other promising agroforestry systems in China
|
|
Intercropping agricultural crops with Paulownia sp.
|
|
This system has become important in the flatland areas of north China. Paulownia is a fast-growing tree with a deep root system (minimizing root competition with annual crops). It seems to enhance the suitability of the microclimate for agricultural crops and also produces timber within a short period (about 10 years).
|
|
Intercropping agricultural crops with Ziziphus jujuba (Chinese date)
|
|
In an intercropping system, the mixed planting of the Chinese date with an annual crop such as wheat can increase the yield of both crops. The vitamin-rich Chinese date is very popular in China and is found from temperate to subtropical areas, with the Yellow River--Huaihe River plain as the center of distribution.
|
|
Multiple-layer artificial population
|
|
Several variations of multiple-layer agroforestry systems have been found to perform well in the tropical regions of southern Yunnan. Rubber-tea and rubber-camphor-tea combinations have been the most productive. Traditional Chinese medicine species (e.g., Cinchona ledgeriana) have also been used successfully.
|
|
<section>Agroforestry systems in Indonesia</section>
|
|
Traditional agroforestry systems are found throughout Indonesia, including the kebun-talun and pekarangan systems in Java, and the multistoried agroforestry gardens in Sumatra. Introduced agroforestry systems also are common in many parts and are integrated into forest development programs on forest lands, as well as being widely practiced on private farm lands.
|
|
Farm-based agroforestry systems
|
|
Pekarangan system
|
|
The pekarangan (homegarden) is a mixture of annual crops, perennial crops and animals (including livestock) in the area surrounding a house. It is an integrated system with definite boundaries that serves a variety of economic, biophysical and sociocultural functions. The homegarden system originated in Central Java and spread to East and West Java in the middle of the eighteenth century.
|
|
Kebun-talun and homegardens in West Java generate relatively good income and are good sources of calcium, vitamin A and vitamin C.
|
|
A typical homegarden has a similar structure from year to year, though there may be some seasonal variations. The lowest two layers (up to 2 m in height) are dominated by starchy food plants, vegetables and spices. Cassava and ganyong (Canna edulis) are the most common plants found in the homegarden. The next layer (two to five meters) is dominated by bananas, papayas and other fruit trees. The five to ten meters layer is also dominated by fruit trees or other cash crops, such as cloves. The top layer, higher than 10 meters, is dominated by coconut and other trees, e.g., Albizia, for building materials and firewood.
|
|
Kebun-talun system
|
|
The kebun-talun system usually consists of three stages: kebun (garden), kebun campuran (mixed garden) and talun (mixed tree garden). The first stage, kebun, involves clearing the forest and cultivating annual crops. These crops are generally consumed by the farm household, with part of the produce sold as cash crops.
|
|
In the kebun stage, three vertical layers of annual crops predominate: the lowest layer consists of creeping plants that occupy the ground below a height of 30 cm. The layer from 50 cm to 1 m is occupied by vegetables, and the upper layer includes maize, tobacco, cassava or leguminous vines supported by bamboo sticks.
|
|
Pekarangan (homegarden)
|
|
Top layer (>10 m)
|
|
Coconut, Albizia, other trees
|
|
5-10 m layer
|
|
Fruit trees: Soursop, jackfruit, duku (Lansium domesticum), guava, mountain apple, cloves
|
|
2-5 m layer
|
|
Bananas, papaya, other fruit trees
|
|
1-2 m layer
|
|
Ganyong (Canna edulis), Xanthosoma, beans, spinach, cassava, gembili (Dioscorea esculenta)
|
|
Lowest layer (< 1 m)
|
|
Taro, Xanthosoma, chili pepper, eggplant
|
|
After two years, tree seedlings start to grow, leaving increasingly less space for the annual crops. The kehun gradually evolves into the kebun campuran, in which the annuals are mixed among half-grown perennials. The economic value of the mixed garden is less than that of the garden, but the biophysical value becomes higher. The diversified nature of the kebun campuran also enhances soil and water conservation. Erosion in the talun system is minimal, because undergrowth and litter are abundant. When the undergrowth and litter are removed, erosion may increase substantially.
|
|
In the kebun campuran, shade-tolerant plants such as taro occupy the space below one meter. Cassava forms the second layer from one to two meters height and the third layer is occupied by bananas and trees.
|
|
After harvesting the annual crops in the kebun campuran, the field may be abandoned for two to three years to become dominated by perennials. This stage is known as talun and is the climax stage of the kebun-talun system.
|
|
The talun is dominated by a mixture of perennial trees and bamboos, forming three vertical layers. The talun stage can take a variety of forms such as woodlots (for firewood and building materials), bamboos and mixed perennials.
|
|
The three-strata system
|
|
The three-strata system is a method of planting and harvesting grasses, legumes, shrubs and trees in such a way that animal fodder will be available throughout the year. The practice was developed by households in the island of Bali. The first layer, consisting of grasses and legumes is intended to supply fodder at the beginning of the wet season. The second layer, consisting of shrubs, is to supply fodder in the middle and the end of the wet season. The third layer, comprised of trees, is to supply fodder during the dry season.
|
|
The three-strata system divides a piece of land into three parts:
|
|
· nucleus
|
|
· blanket
|
|
· boundary.
|
|
The nucleus is maintained for food production. The blanket is divided into a number of compartments, with each compartment cultivated with various grasses and legumes.
|
|
Fodder tree species are planted around the boundary at a spacing of 2 trees every 5 m. Between these trees Gliricidia or Leucaena shrubs are planted at a 10 cm distance between the shrubs.
|
|
Animal stocking rates can vary from low (0. 5 ha per cow) to high (0.25 ha per cow) due to improved fodder availability. Cattle raised in the system grow rapidly and are ready for market at an early age.
|
|
Alley cropping in the semi-arid provinces of East Indonesia
|
|
This technology has been developed in dryland farming programs in the semi-arid provinces of Nusa Tenggara since the early 1980s. The technology consists of hedgerow planting on contour lines with legume species. Before 1986, the hedgerow mainly consisted of lamtoro gung (Leucaena leucocephala); but after the psyllid (Heteropsylla cubana) infestation, Gliricidia septum and Calliandra calothyrsus were used. The hedgerows are intended for enhancing soil and water conservation. Between the hedgerows, annuals, perennial crops and grasses are planted.
|
|
In Sumbawa and other islands, live fences and rock walls are constructed to protect the crops against grazing livestock and wild animals.
|
|
Forest-based agroforestry systems
|
|
Shifting cultivation
|
|
Shifting cultivation (also called swidden or bush fallow agriculture) is widely practiced in most Indonesian islands, except Java. Shifting cultivation includes a variety of practices occurring in a diversity of environments under many specific circumstances.
|
|
In Apo Kayan (East Kalimantan), almost all the forests cleared for agriculture are secondary forests and the fallow period is between 10 to 30 years. The farmers believe that the fallow period should be long enough to reduce weeds and to prevent the short-term degradation of the forest into scrub. Occasionally, sites may be left unused for even longer periods (40 to 50 years) to prevent gradual declines in fertility and an increase in weedy species. The farmers recognize the merits of long-term swidden management.
|
|
In Long Segar (also in East Kalimantan) shifting cultivators clear more primary forest than secondary forest for swiddens. People in Long Segar grow rice, easily selling the surplus through trade boats or to local markets. For this reason and because of the availability of chainsaws and fuel for motor boats, the area cleared and cultivated by Long Segar farmers is about 0.4 ha per capita per year, or about 33% larger than in Apo Kayan. The total area cultivated in 1979-1980 was about 400 ha, of which 82% was primary forest. Because of market, technology and population pressure, the rotation is becoming shorter. The recovery of such fields to forest is slow and, consequently, there is danger of land degradation.
|
|
Improved fallow
|
|
Improved fallow technology is one of the alternatives to control destructive shifting cultivation practices and to develop more sustainable dryland agricultural systems. Abandoned fields are planted to the fast-growing cover crop, Pueraria javanica, to rehabilitate soil fertility and as a perennial cash crop. Food crops can again be planted after 3-4 years--a much shorter fallow period than traditionally followed
|
|
This revised cropping pattern will produce rice and cassava within a short period; pineapple, ginger and peanut in the near term and melinjo (Gnetum gnemon) in the long-run.
|
|
Multistoried agroforestry garden system in West Sumatra
|
|
The system is characterized by an intensive integration of forest species and commercial crops, forming a multilayer, forest-like system. The intimate association of different species provides both subsistence and commercial products which supplement rice production.
|
|
Tumpangsari (Taungya)
|
|
Various tumpangsari methods exist. They are introduced agroforestry systems designed to meet the subsistence needs of households with limited access to cultivable lands.
|
|
The implementation of tumpangsari in Java's teak forests includes four main activities: (1) site preparation, (2) seed preparation; (3) planting and (4) maintenance. The spacing of the main crop (teak) is generally I x 3 m; Leucaena is planted as a dense row in the middle between the teak rows. Additional crops can be planted in the I . 5 m-wide space between the teak and the Leucaena rows.
|
|
Similar activities can also be carried out in the establishment of plantations of other timber species, such as Pinus, Agathis, Altingia and Swietenia. Tumpangsari can also be found in rubber (Hevea) plantations, especially among smallholders. Due to the psyllid infestation problem with Leucaena, other species for interplanting need to be tested: Acacia villosa, Calliandra calothyrsus and Gliricidia.
|
|
Inmas or intensified tumpangsari
|
|
Intensified tumpangsari includes the following technologies:
|
|
· high-yielding crop varieties
|
|
· improved soil conservation and tillage methods
|
|
· fertilizers
|
|
· insecticides (if necessary)
|
|
· correct timing for planting and fertilizing with respect to rainfall.
|
|
Since the 1970s, the intensified tumpangsari approach in teak forests has given satisfactory results and is increasingly being applied over larger areas. With the use of selected superior crop varieties and crop fertilization (in the range of 90-100 kg urea and 60-150 kg triple super phosphate per ha), together with the use of insecticides, yields of dryland rice may increase from 700 kg to 2,000-3,000 kg per ha.
|
|
Another example of intensified tumpangsari is vegetable tumpangsari in the Lembang area. Farmers in Lembang cultivate high-value vegetables between pine and other tree species on forest as well as on private lands. The vegetables include tomato (Lycopersicum Iycopersicon), potato (Solanum tuberosum), cabbage (Brassica oleracea), Chinese cabbage (Brassica pekinensis), white beans (Visum sp.), chili pepper (Capsicum anuum), kidney bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Dryland rice (Oryza sativa) is also grown.
|
|
West Sumatra multistorey system
|
|
Cultivated annual crops
|
|
Chili (Capsicum anuum), eggplant (Solanum melongena), maize (Zea mays), beans ( Vigna spp., Phaseolus spp.), cucumber (Cucumis sativus)
|
|
Trees
|
|
Durio zibethinus, Pterospermum javanicum, Toona sinensis, Cinnamomum burmani, Myristica fragrans, Coffea canephora
|
|
Damar mata kucing agroforestry in Krui
|
|
Damar mate kucing is a resin of Shorea javanica produced in artificial forests in Krui, Lampung, in Sumatra. The resin is a cash crop sold throughout the year. The damar trees dominate the ecosystem. Other products are fruits, vegetables and other horticultural products, including langsat (Aglaia domestika), duku (Aglaia dookoo), jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus), menteng (Baccaurea racemosa), durian (Durio zibethinus), aren (Arenga pinata), coffee (Coffea spp.), doves (Syzygium aromaticum), bamboo and rattan.
|
|
Whole rotation, or integrated tumpangsari
|
|
A more recent variation of tumpangsari is the integration of the approach into social forestry programs which include formation of farmer's groups, longer-terra tenurial arrangements and more flexibility of farm households to plant food crops.
|
|
In traditional tumpangsari, farmers are entitled to plant food crops between the young forest trees for only about two years. In the integrated tumpangsari, they are also allowed to grow fruit trees, grasses and other kinds of plants between the timber trees during the whole rotation period of the forest crop. The various planting materials for the forest, as well as the non-forest trees, are provided by the Forestry Service. The farmers may harvest the fruits, fuelwood, grasses, medicinal and other plants during the rotation period of the forest crops.
|
|
<section>Agroforestry systems in the Philippines</section>
|
|
Agroforestry has been traditionally practiced by different tribal groups in the Philippines for generations. This land-use system is now recognized by the government as one of the alternatives to address the twin problems of meeting the needs of upland farmers and maintaining the integrity of the environment. It is one of the major components of the community-based forestry programs of the government, such as the Integrated Social Forestry Program and the Community Forestry Program. Many nongovernment organizations also develop and promote different forms of agroforestry as approaches for sustainable upland development.
|
|
Farm-based agroforestry systems
|
|
Alley cropping
|
|
Alley cropping is also known as hedgerow intercropping system. Hedgerows of trees or shrubs (usually double hedgerows) are grown at intervals (usually 4-6 m) along the contours. The strips or alleys between the hedgerows are planted with agricultural crops (annuals and/or perennials).
|
|
A good example of this system is the Sloping Agricultural Land Technology (SALT).
|
|
One or two rows of woody perennials are grown as hedgerows, either from seeds or cuttings, along the contours. Contour lines are located using an Aframe tool. The recommended horizontal distance between contour hedgerows is 46 m or about 1.5 m vertical distance. At an average of 5 m interval (horizontal distance) and l m width of hedgerows, about 20% of the total area is occupied by the hedgerows. For the alleys, the recommended cropping pattern is to plant perennial crops (e.g., coffee, fruit trees, etc.) in every third alley while the other two alleys can be devoted to annual crops. This makes a spatial ratio of about 20% hedgerows, 25% perennials and 55% annuals.
|
|
Philippine upland situation (1990)
|
|
· Uplands constitute 17.5 million ha, or 59% of the total land area.
|
|
· About 12.2 million ha are marginal upland areas.
|
|
Cultivated/open areas
|
|
0.30 million ha
|
|
Grasslands
|
|
1.80 million ha
|
|
Cultivated mixed grasslands
|
|
10.11 million ha
|
|
Eroded and other barren areas
|
|
0.01 million ha
|
|
Total
|
|
12.22 million ha
|
|
· Upland population is estimated to be about 18 million, or more than 3 million households.
|
|
--8.5 million forest dwellers
|
|
--6.0 million tribal Filipinos
|
|
--3.3 million migrants from lowland areas
|
|
· At a population growth rate of 2.6% per year, an additional 5.25 million ha of forest lands will be cleared by the year 2025.
|
|
The hedgerows are regularly pruned to a height of about 0. 5 m to minimize shading of agricultural crops in the alleys. The pruning frequency depends on the coppicing ability of the species. Biomass from the prunings can be used as green manure or mulch to the alley crops or as fodder fed to livestock. Through time, natural terraces can form at the base of the hedgerows, thereby minimizing soil erosion and surface run-off.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Conserves soil and water.
|
|
· Can increase crop yield and farm income (e.g., 4-5 fold increase in maize yield when compared to maize yield of upland fields without hedgerows.
|
|
· Flexible since different cropping systems can be integrated (e.g., annual and perennial crops can be mixed in different ratios along the alleys; livestock can also be integrated.)
|
|
· Reduces dependence on inorganic fertilizers. (Prunings can be used as organic fertilizer.)
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Can decrease overall farm yield due to: (1) loss of cropland resulting from hedgerow establishment; (2) improper pruning and too-close hedgerow interval can reduce light penetration, and (3) some hedgerows may have allelopathic properties which can adversely affect crop growth.
|
|
· Laborious to establish and maintain.
|
|
Alley cropping with improved pasture grasses and/or fodder trees or shrubs
|
|
Hedgerows of fodder trees or shrubs (e.g., Desmodium rensonii, Leucaena leucocephala, Gliricidia septum, Flemingia congesta) are planted along contours at intervals. The alleys between the hedgerows are planted with improved pasture grasses and/or fodder trees or shrubs. Pruning from the hedgerows grasses and fodder trees/shrubs are fed to animals in a cut-and-carry method.
|
|
Ideal characteristics of hedgerow species
|
|
· easy to establish (from seed or cutting)
|
|
· fast-growing
|
|
· good coppicing ability
|
|
· nitrogen-fixing
|
|
· deep-rooted has multiple uses (i.e., food, fuel, fodder, etc.)
|
|
Some recommended hedgerow species
|
|
· Gliricidía septum
|
|
· Flemingia congesta
|
|
· Leucaena leucocephala
|
|
· Desmodium rensonni Cassia spectabilis Calliandra calothyrsus
|
|
· Desmanthus sp.
|
|
· Some grasses such as napier (Pennisetum purpureum), vetiver ( Vetiveria zizanoides), guinea grass (Panicum maximum) and Setaria sp.
|
|
Multistorey system
|
|
In this agroforestry system, mixed species occupy different canopy levels, with the upper layers occupied by trees or other woody perennials that provide partial shade to agricultural crops in the lower layers. This system is similar to the structure (multilayer) and composition (diverse species) of a tropical rainforest. Examples are coconut-coffee-pineapple-banana mix (commonly found in Cavite province); Albizia-coffee/cacao mix (commonly found in provinces of Mindanao); Gliricidia-coffee mix (found in many areas); and homegardens (found throughout the country).
|
|
This system can be adapted by interplanting shade-tolerant species under established tree and coconut plantations.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Promotes optimum utilization of light and soil resources.
|
|
· Promotes efficient nutrient cycling.
|
|
· Series of canopy layers minimizes rainfall impact, thus reducing soil erosion and runoff.
|
|
· Promotes greater diversity; hence, crops become less prone to pests and diseases.
|
|
· Diversified cropping helps to ensure a year-round source of food and income.
|
|
· Promotes maximum utilization of labor and time.
|
|
Limitation
|
|
Possibility of too much competition among crops for light and nutrients.
|
|
Desirable characteristics of upper canopy trees
|
|
· small crown or sparse foliage to allow some light to pass through to lower canopies
|
|
· nitrogen-fixing
|
|
· deep-rooted
|
|
Some common nursery trees for coffee and cacao plantations
|
|
· Gliricidia septum
|
|
· Alnus japonica
|
|
· Leucaena leucocephala
|
|
· Erythrina orientalis
|
|
· Paraseriantes falcataria
|
|
· Pterocarpus indicus
|
|
· Samanea saman
|
|
Multistorey system + animals
|
|
This system is similar to the multistorey system except that freerange grazing animals are added as a component. An example is the coconut-lanzones mixture, with horses or cattle, found in Laguna and Quezon provinces.
|
|
Trees along farm boundaries
|
|
Trees are planted along farm boundaries as: boundary marker, live fence, live-fence post for tying barbed wire or bamboo slats, or as shelterbelts/windbreaks.
|
|
When mature, some of these trees can be harvested and used as posts or as light construction materials. Pruning can also provide fuelwood, fodder or green manure.
|
|
Live fences (or living fences) can be established by planting rows of trees or shrubs around a grassland area to enclose the grazing animals. Aside from the tree's role as a fence, it can be managed (e.g., by regular top-pruning to encourage more lateral branching) so that the enclosed animals can browse on the low-lying branches, which serve as fodder supplement.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Trees serve as windbreak or live fence.
|
|
· Trees serve as source of post, fuelwood, fodder, green manure and live trellis.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Possible shading of crops by tree.
|
|
· Can be difficult to establish if animals are allowed to graze, as they may browse the trees before they are well-established as a fence
|
|
Species used as live fence
|
|
· Leucaena leucocephala
|
|
· Gliricidia septum
|
|
· Sesbania grandiflora
|
|
Species used as windbreak/shelterb elt
|
|
· Eucalyptus camaldulensis
|
|
· Casuarina equisettifolia
|
|
· Acacia auriculiformis
|
|
· Bamboo
|
|
Trees as live trellis
|
|
Trees are top-pruned (pollarded) to serve as live trellis for climbing crops, especially vegetables like beans, peppers, yams and cucumbers. The most commonly used trees as live trellis are Gliricidia septum and Leucaena leucocephala.
|
|
Tree-crop grazing system
|
|
Animals (e.g., cattle, carabao, goats, sheep) are allowed to graze freely underneath relatively mature tree plantations. A good example is the silviculture scheme of the Nasipit Lumber Company in Agusan province.
|
|
The cattle are allowed to graze freely under lumbang (Aleurites moluccana) trees where improved forage grasses have been planted. This system has proven to be practical and economical because the land is fully utilized while being maintained and protected. The grazing animals keep the grass down, allowing for easier collection of the lumbang nuts.
|
|
Protein or fodder bank
|
|
Leguminous fodder trees or shrubs (e.g., Leucaena, Gliricidia, Flemingia) may be established in intensively planted small stands on the farm. These are usually fenced off and serve as a supplementary source of protein for livestock. The top and branch prunings are fed to animals through a "cutand-carry" system. A good example is the intensive feed garden.
|
|
Advantage
|
|
· Ideal for coconut plantations commonly found throughout the Philippines
|
|
Limitation
|
|
· Grazing animals may eat the tree bark if it is palatable.
|
|
Forest-based agroforestry systems
|
|
Taungya system
|
|
Taungya is an agroforestry system in which newly established reforestation areas are interplanted with agricultural crops. As soon as the tree canopies close making the light intensity critically low for crop production, the farmers move to another reforestation area and the same process is repeated. An example of this is the Family Approach to Reforestation piloted by the Bureau of Forest Development (now the Department of Environment and Natural Resources).
|
|
Advantage
|
|
· Proven to be a cost-effective reforestation strategy.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Farmers cannot grow permanent crops since they have to leave the area as soon as the tree canopies start to close (after 3-5 years).
|
|
· Can be discouraging to farmers as the more they care for the area (e.g., weeding and fertilizing their crops which also favor the trees), the faster the trees grow and the sooner they will lose access to the land.
|
|
· Provides only a temporary, supplementary source of food and income for the first 3-5 years after the establishment of the reforestation area.
|
|
· Family resettlement after the tree canopy closes can be very difficult.
|
|
Alley cropping--tree plantation integrated production system
|
|
In this system, the upper 60% of the hillside is devoted to small-scale tree plantation, devoting one or more forest tree species for various uses (e.g., timber, polewood and/or fuelwood). These tree plantations may be established at close spacing to ensure that poles and posts are produced. When the trees are already tall enough, rattan or other shadetolerant crops can be interplanted. The lower 40% of the hillside is devoted to food production where the alley cropping system is practiced.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Effectively conserves soil.
|
|
· Provides abundant food, wood and income for upland farmers.
|
|
Improved fallow system
|
|
In the uplands, cultivated areas are planted with agricultural crops and then allowed to fallow for some time to allow the soil to rejuvenate. To shorten the fallow period, the area can be seeded with leguminous trees. Once the soil has been rejuvenated, these areas are again cleared for crops. This can be considered as an improved version of the traditional shifting cultivation practice.
|
|
An example is the Naalad-style farming system, practiced in Naalad, Naga, Cebu. In this system, the native Leucaena is used as the species to shorten the fallow period; the trees are cut and the branches are piled along the contours to form a barrier structure known locally as balabag, which traps the eroding soil. Through time, natural terraces are gradually formed, thus stabilizing the steep slopes.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
(improved fallow system vs. traditional shifting cultivation)
|
|
· Introduction of nitrogen-fixing trees as fallow species shortens the fallow period required for soil rejuvenation.
|
|
· Terraces are gradually formed, thus stabilizing slopes.
|
|
· Promotes efficient nutrient cycling (no burn).
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Laborious because of the construction and maintenance of the balabag.
|
|
· Wood from the fallow species (Leucaena) is used for construction of the balabag rather than for fuel.
|
|
Rice terraces--forest agroforestry system
|
|
This indigenous agroforestry system can be considered sustainable as it has existed for more than 2000 years, as pioneered by the Ifugao tribe in northern Philippines. A series of bench terraces is constructed along steep mountainsides and rice is planted throughout the year. Irrigation is provided through a network of canals along dikes which originate from natural springs emanating from small forest stands celled pinugo. These are managed and protected by Ifugaos based on a set of tribal laws.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Sustainable.
|
|
· Steep slopes are put to productive use.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Laborious to establish and maintain.
|
|
· Limited to areas where there are natural springs.
|
|
<section>Agroforestry systems in Thailand</section>
|
|
Agroforestry has long been practiced by farmers in Thailand. Shifting (rotational) cultivation, for example, has been used by some ethnic groups in the upland areas of northern Thailand for centuries. In the Lab Lae district of Uttaradit province, homegardens have been cultivated for more than 200 years. Similarly, multistorey fruit orchards have been cultivated in many parts of the country for more than 100 years.
|
|
Traditional agroforestry, characterized by a simultaneous combination of trees and crops, low-input techniques and indigenous knowledge, are harmonized with local culture and traditions.
|
|
Newly developed agroforestry systems, with a systematic combination of trees, crops and livestock and usually driven by market forces, emerged in areas where cultivated land is limited, beginning during the mid-1950s. These systems were first introduced in Prae province, where teak plantations were intercropped with upland rice (in a taungya system). They have since evolved, however, into improved taungya systems, with crops, fruit trees and rubber trees grown in various combinations with timber trees.
|
|
Thailand's a total land area of 51,311,500 hectares, consists of 76 provinces with a population of 56.5 million and an average population density of 1.1 person per hectare. In 1988, 48.9 percent of the country was officially categorized as forest land, consisting of 1,215 national reserved forest areas 120 million hectares), 58 national parks (2.5 million hectares) and 30 wildlife sanctuaries (2.2 million hectares).
|
|
Farm-based agroforestry
|
|
Homegardens
|
|
Homegardens are multitiered systems found in family compounds surrounding the home. Permanently settled communities in upland areas throughout the country have cultivated homegardens for centuries. Most notable are the Karen and the Lua ethnic groups. In the north, homegardens are mostly located in communities in the foothills. Owing to small landholdings in the central region of the country, homegardens here tend to be small.
|
|
Most homegardens have three to five layers. Erythrina dadap and banana are common tree species providing shade for crops and vegetables. Moringa oleifera and Sesbania grandiflora are commonly planted as multipurpose trees. In the south, big trees such as wild durian (Durio spp.), yang trees (Dipterocarp spp. ), Parkia speciosa and Artocarpus integer dominate the top storey of the gardens. Eugenia caryophyllus is commonly mixed with fruit trees to provide cash income.
|
|
Limitation
|
|
· Homegardens require considerable indigenous knowledge and labor to establish and maintain.
|
|
Live fences on farm land
|
|
Live fences of bamboo and fast-growing trees are common in the central and eastern regions of Thailand (Prachinburi, Nakornnayok, Srakhew and Chanthaburi provinces) where they serve as windbreaks and shelterbelts for crops and fruit orchards and as boundary markers. Commonly planted species are Thysostrycus siamensis, Bambusa nana, Bambusa flexuosa and Acacia spp. In the south, Azadiractha excelsa is commonly planted in and around farm fields.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Trees supply poles and wood for farms.
|
|
· Fences protect crops in the field and reduce wind damage.
|
|
Limitation
|
|
· Some productive land must be sacrificed to establish the windbreaks.
|
|
Natural trees and shrubs left on agricultural land
|
|
Diverse trees and shrubs are deliberately left on farmland to serve as shade and provide green manure for crops such as rice and beans. The trees and shrubs also recycle minerals in the soil and control the development of problem soils, particularly saline soils in the northeastern region.
|
|
Forest-based agroforestry
|
|
Small-scale block planting on abandoned agricultural land
|
|
Due to migration of rural people to cities, large marginal upland areas which used to be cultivated are being abandoned. This has presented an opportunity for small-scale commercial tree farming.
|
|
People from urban centers are investing in land in rural areas and planting high-value trees such as teak (Tectona grandis), eucalyptus and Azadirachta excelsa These species are longterm alternatives to large plantations for both economic and ecological reasons.
|
|
Shifting (rotational) cultivation
|
|
This system involves the cultivation of several areas of sloping land on a rotational basis (short cultivation, long fallow). It has long been sustainably practiced in upland and highland areas by several ethnic groups, most notably the Karen and the Lua. Rice and various other crops are planted simultaneously to produce food and fodder.
|
|
Advantage
|
|
· This system helps conserve the biodiversity of indigenous plant genetic resources such as rice, other crops and medicinal plants.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· This system is rather fragile. It may collapse due to inappropriate interventions and population increases.
|
|
· The system requires several pieces of land for adequate rotation and to allow the land to recover, thus it is inappropriate where land is scarce or population density is high.
|
|
Forest gardens
|
|
Forest gardens include various indigenous forest and fruit trees, located away from but within walking distance of the family house. In forest gardens in central Thailand (Khao Sol Doa, Chanthaburi), Amomum xantitioides has been cultivated under moist evergreen forest for centuries. However, forest gardens are mostly found in the mountainous area of Uttaradit province in the north and Nakornsrithammarat, Trang and Phattalung provinces in the south.
|
|
In the northern forest gardens, Cammellia sinensis is cultivated under evergreen forests without having to cut trees in the forest.
|
|
In the south, wild durian (Durio sp.), duriannok (Durio sp.) takiens and yangs (Dipterocarp spp.) are the most dominant species of the top storey.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· In the forest garden systems, trees and crops are simultaneously cultivated, thus requiring few inputs.
|
|
· Because of their diversity, forest gardens are ecologically sound.
|
|
Limitation
|
|
· Because they are located away from the village, forest gardens are difficult to manage and are subject to loss from theft, fire, or livestock.
|
|
Forest plantation and livestock
|
|
This system incorporates cattle grazing under tree plantations. It is commonly practiced in old plantations where grasslands for livestock are scarce.
|
|
Forest species planted in this system are Tectona grandis, Dipterocarpus spp., Hevea brasiliensis and other fast-growing species, such as Eucalyptus spp. and Azadirachta indica.
|
|
Advantage
|
|
· This system reduces dry matter in the forest plantation, thus reducing the risk of fires.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Fruit trees, crops and other plants cannot be cultivated.
|
|
· Without appropriate management of livestock numbers, season of grazing, etc., the soil can be seriously compacted by livestock.
|
|
Improved taungya
|
|
This system, combining trees and livestock, was first developed under the government reforestation program, with an aim toward establishing teak plantations. It has since been expanded to include other species and to increase crop production. It is currently being practiced in both government and private forest plantations.
|
|
Forest tree species commonly planted include Tectona grandis, Pinus kesiya and Pterocarpus marcrocarpus. However, in some areas, fruit and rubber are also planted as the major trees. Normally, cash crops are intercropped with the trees in the early years of establishment. Livestock are usually allowed to graze in the plantation when the trees are more than three years old.
|
|
Advantage
|
|
· This system benefits the government and private companies by expanding forest plantations. It can benefit local people by providing land for fruit trees, crop and livestock production on a temporary or long-term basis.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Taungya systems have traditionally not been beneficial to local people over the long term. From the perspective of timber production, risks also exist that people will damage the trees in order to continue crop and fruit tree production and grazing beyond the limited number of years permitted by the system regulations.
|
|
<section>Agroforestry systems in Vietnam</section>
|
|
In the uplands of Vietnam, agroforestry in various forms is widely used by farmers and forest enterprises. Of the total land area, 70% is upland and almost 30% of the population lives in upland areas. Almost all of the 54 ethnic minority communities are found in the upland areas.
|
|
System
|
|
Region
|
|
Farm-based agroforestry
|
|
· Homegardens and von ao ca chuong
|
|
all regions
|
|
· Fruit orchards, including coconut-based gardens
|
|
all regions
|
|
· Forest/crop/irrigated rice
|
|
hilly and mountainous areas
|
|
· Woodlot
|
|
mostly midland areas
|
|
· Commercial crops under multipurpose tree species
|
|
--tea
|
|
midlands and uplands
|
|
--coffee
|
|
central and southern
|
|
midlands and uplands
|
|
--black pepper
|
|
central and southern
|
|
midlands and uplands
|
|
--other agricultural crops
|
|
· Agricultural crops under commercial trees
|
|
--rubber
|
|
central and southern
|
|
midlands and uplands
|
|
--cashew nut
|
|
coastal and midland areas
|
|
--fruit trees
|
|
all regions
|
|
--cinnamon
|
|
central and northern regions
|
|
· Hedgerow and contour planting
|
|
central and northern regions
|
|
(SALT)
|
|
Forest-based agroforestry
|
|
· Shifting cultivation/fallow upland areas
|
|
· Taungya
|
|
--timber production
|
|
northern midlands and
|
|
uplands
|
|
--paper pulp production
|
|
central and northern
|
|
midlands and uplands
|
|
· Accelerated pioneer climax series
|
|
all regions
|
|
Upland use
|
|
Total upland area
|
|
24.5 million ha
|
|
· Arable land
|
|
5.4 million ha
|
|
Cultivated
|
|
--Perennials
|
|
--Rice
|
|
--Annual crops
|
|
Pasture
|
|
Others
|
|
· Forest land
|
|
19.1 million ha
|
|
Forested
|
|
--Natural forest
|
|
Planted forest
|
|
Deforested
|
|
Upland population
|
|
19 million
|
|
Ethnic minorities practicing shifting cultivation
|
|
2 million
|
|
Average household size
|
|
7 persons
|
|
Farm-based agroforestry systems
|
|
Homegardens
|
|
The homegarden is a traditional agroforestry system found throughout Vietnam from the lowlands to the highlands. On a relatively small piece of land around the house (usually only about 0.5 ha, but occasionally up to 5 ha), the land is used as efficiently as possible to produce a wide variety of products. Fruit, vegetables, root crops, fish, livestock, fodder, fiber, medicine, small timber fuelwood and various minor products are grown in a multilayered structure. Seed and seedlings for propagation are often obtained from the family or neighbor's gardens. One kind of tree or crop may be dominant and the homegarden may be named accordingly, e.g., coconut garden. Although the size of individual homegardens is small, their cumulative effect can be very important in watershed and natural resource management on a community or regional scale.
|
|
One very common type of homegarden is the so-called von ao ca chuong or rung von ao ca chuong (RVAC) system, combining forest trees, fruit trees, fishpond and livestock in an integrated farming system.
|
|
Factors influencing species composition
|
|
· soil conditions.
|
|
· available labor.
|
|
· local climate.
|
|
· household needs.
|
|
· household economy.
|
|
· farmer skills and preferences.
|
|
· Iocal markets.
|
|
Species found in Vietnamese homegardens
|
|
Fruit trees
|
|
Root crops
|
|
jacktruit
|
|
cassava
|
|
banana
|
|
sweet potato
|
|
orange
|
|
taro
|
|
lemon
|
|
canna
|
|
pomelo
|
|
yam
|
|
grapefruit
|
|
papaya
|
|
Vegetables
|
|
sapote
|
|
squash
|
|
longan
|
|
soybean
|
|
litchi
|
|
pumpkin
|
|
starfruit
|
|
Chinese
|
|
coconut
|
|
cabbage
|
|
cashew nut
|
|
squash
|
|
durian
|
|
spinach
|
|
rambutan
|
|
black pepper
|
|
avocado
|
|
carrot
|
|
guava
|
|
mungbean
|
|
water apple
|
|
custard
|
|
Others
|
|
apple
|
|
peanut
|
|
cumquat
|
|
sugarcane
|
|
mangosteen
|
|
pineapple
|
|
langsat
|
|
ginger
|
|
jujube
|
|
medicinal
|
|
plants
|
|
Others
|
|
coffee
|
|
Animals
|
|
cacao
|
|
fish
|
|
bamboo
|
|
pigs
|
|
rattan
|
|
goats
|
|
mulberry
|
|
chickens
|
|
tea
|
|
ducks
|
|
cinnamon
|
|
cattle
|
|
Melia spp.
|
|
deer
|
|
forest trees
|
|
silkworms
|
|
bees
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· ecologically/economically stable.
|
|
· Iow labor requirements.
|
|
· Iow level of pests and diseases.
|
|
· familiar to farmers (traditional).
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Quality and availability of seedlings are not yet fully established.
|
|
Forest/crop/irrigated rice
|
|
Forest/crop/irrigated rice systems are often established in hilly and mountainous areas. A natural forest or plantation crowns the site and is usually managed by state. forest enterprises or community groups. In some places, the upper part of the system includes a water reservoir which is to irrigate the lower areas and to generate electricity. Vegetables or cash crops are grown on terraces or along contour lines and the irrigation system allows farmers in the valley to grow paddy rice.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· The spatial arrangement of the components enables their positive interaction, thereby optimizing the overall production of the area.
|
|
· Even distribution of work and income throughout the year.
|
|
· Diversity of locally available products.
|
|
Limitation
|
|
· The system requires good relations and cooperation between farmers, farmers' cooperatives and the forestry agency or group managing the forest This can be difficult in newly established communities.
|
|
Woodlot
|
|
Woodlots have been successfully established on underutilized or degraded land, using fast-growing trees, especially nitrogen-fixing multipurpose species.
|
|
Along with the rehabilitation of wastelands, these woodlots supply fuelwood, small timber and other minor products for local consumption. Beekeeping and livestock grazing are often practiced in the woodlot. Agricultural crops can be intercropped during the establishment of the woodlot tree species. State lands, as well as financial and technical support, have been allocated to individual farmers for plantations.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Simple management (monoculture, regular arrangement).
|
|
· Can provide windbreak and soil protection.
|
|
· Aesthetic improvement to the landscape.
|
|
· Intercropping is possible during woodlot establishment.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Sufficient planting material not available.
|
|
· Requires extension support.
|
|
· Pests and diseases.
|
|
· Uncertain distribution of work responsibilities and income on state lands.
|
|
Commonly used woodlot tree species
|
|
Acacia auriculiformis
|
|
A. mangium
|
|
Cassia siamea
|
|
C. fistula
|
|
Erythrina spp.
|
|
Eucalyptus tereticornis
|
|
E. camaldulensis
|
|
Gliricidia septum
|
|
Melia azedirachta
|
|
Cash crops under multipurpose tree species
|
|
Cash crops, such as coffee, tea and black pepper, can be grown under trees which provide shade and other forms of support to the crops. Tree species commonly used in these systems are Pinus kesya, P. merkusii, Cassia siamea, Leucaena leucocephala, Gliricidia sepium, Pterocarpus indicus, Moringa oleifera, Manglieta glauca, Aleurites fordii, T. candida and cinnamon. Although the trees do not provide the major income from these systems, their contribution to farm income can still be important. They also serve various other purposes.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Protection and support of agricultural crops through windbreaks, shade and possible nitrogen fixation provided by trees.
|
|
· Improved soil protection through contour planting.
|
|
· Increased soil cover by tree litterfall.
|
|
· Diversification, which improves food security.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Crops such as coffee or tea are dependent on international market fluctuations.
|
|
· Practice requires much skill and technical expertise.
|
|
· Trees may affect cash crop productivity.
|
|
Agricultural crops under commercial trees
|
|
Several agroforestry systems use the space between commercial tree crops to intercrop agricultural crops (annuals). This intercropping is usually limited to the first few years of plantation establishment (e.g., rubber plantations, or fruit orchards of cashew nut, mango or jackfruit) until the tree canopy closes. This is usually done by a farm family who manages the plantation for another landowner (usually a state enterprise).
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Potentially high income.
|
|
· Tree cover improves soil protection.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Labor intensive
|
|
· Allows for cultivation of agricultural crops only during establishment.
|
|
· High investment costs.
|
|
Intercropping during the establishment of cinnamon plantations
|
|
A common practice of the ethnic Zao people is to intercrop during the establishment of a cinnamon plantation. The plantation is often established on steep slopes (>25 degrees) under natural forest with a crown cover varying from 50-70 %. Cinnamon requires 2000mm of evenly distributed annual rainfall, generally warm and humid conditions and good soils. Usually, the eastern side of a slope is used for this practice.
|
|
· Initially 2000-3000 cinnamon seedlings per hectare are planted under the shade of the forest trees after clearing shrubs.
|
|
· In the first 3 years, upland rice and cassava may be intercropped.
|
|
· After 2-4 years, the trees of the natural forest are thinned to provide more light.
|
|
· When the cinnamon is 6-7 years old, a second thinning of the natural forest trees is carried out.
|
|
· At the age of 8-10 years, most forest trees are cut and the cinnamon becomes the dominating tree in the system.
|
|
· When the cinnamon trees are 20-25 years old, they then reach their mature harvest age.
|
|
Hedgerow and contour planting
|
|
Various combinations of techniques have evolved to allow cultivation on steep, sloping terrain without causing serious soil erosion. In Vietnam, within the last decade, farmers have adapted the SALT (Sloping Agricultural Land Technology) technique, originally developed in the Philippines. Locally suited species, like Tephrosia shrubs and Indigofera trees, have been incorporated. By the use of a very simple A-frame, farmers are able to mark out the contour lines of the slope. Along these contour lines, physical measures may be applied to enable cultivation, including construction of terraced fields and stone embankments. On the edge of the terraces, rows of woody perennials are grown. In Central Vietnam, trees are also planted on the contour lines, together with grasses and other crops. Natural terraces will gradually form as the tree rows form a barrier which prevents soil and plant material from washing down the slope.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Soil and water control.
|
|
· Diversified production.
|
|
· Income throughout the year.
|
|
· Increased yields.
|
|
· Green manure can improve soil fertility.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Labor intensive.
|
|
· High investment for seed/seedlings required.
|
|
· Training of farmers required.
|
|
· Difficulties in marketing newly introduced products or crops.
|
|
· Farmer reluctance to adopt the new system.
|
|
Sequence of SALT practice in Lang Son province
|
|
· Initially, forest trees are planted at the top of the slope (generally 15-25 degrees) and cash crops such as pineapple and hill rice are planted. At the foot of the hill, forest trees (such as Manglieta) are inter-planted with rattan.
|
|
· After 2 years, barrier crops such as Tephrosia spp. and pineapple are planted along the edges and waterdiverting ditches are constructed, creating natural terraces over time.
|
|
· Depending on water availability, fruit trees, tea, staple food crops or other crops can be planted on the terraces.
|
|
Forest-based agroforestry systems
|
|
Shifting cultivation
|
|
Shifting cultivation, or slash and burn, is practiced extensively by more than two million people from more than 50 different ethnic groups in the hilly and mountainous areas of Vietnam. On a patch of upland forest, farmers slash shrubs and other low vegetation and then burn it. Hill rice is then grown for two to three years. The field is then abandoned and the farmer moves to another site to repeat the process. In the past, the farmer returned to a site only after 10 to 20 years, depending on the recovery rate of the fallowed fields. Rice yields were reported from 2000 kg/ha in the first year to 900 kg/ha the third year in central and northern Vietnam. However, today this fallow period is often reduced to 5-7 years, resulting in much lower yields. In some places, cassava is cultivated for 1-2 years after the first two years of rice cultivation. But this practice leaves the soil without any cover for 34 months following each harvest, causing severe erosion. Besides these two
|
|
crops, farmers may also cultivate corn, bamboo and various tree species, such as Manglieta or Melia.
|
|
Traditionally, shifting systems were sustainable because population pressure was low and enough time was allowed for the forest to regenerate. However, with today's rapidly growing population, this system has been cited as a major cause of deforestation in Vietnam.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Low cost.
|
|
· Large land area needed.
|
|
· System is familiar to farmers.
|
|
· Soil erosion after burning.
|
|
· Leads to deforestation.
|
|
· Simple technology.
|
|
· Low yields.
|
|
· Integrated part of local culture.
|
|
· Extensive weeding initially needed.
|
|
Taungya
|
|
The taungya system allows venous intercrops to be grown (until the tree canopy closes) between newly established tree rows in forest plantations. This system has been used for many contract reforestation projects throughout Vietnam as a means to rehabilitate degraded natural forest lands. These contracts between state forestry enterprises and rural households often include technical support, such as the introduction of new species, supply of seedlings and fertilizers, training in planting and intercropping techniques, as well as financial support. The contracts also specify land tenure and duration and percentage of benefits to the farmer from the clearing, thinning and harvesting operations to be undertaken. The forest trees may be grown for either timber or paper pulp production.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Reduced management costs for plantation owner.
|
|
· Provides additional cropland to farmers (in the initial stages).
|
|
· Ecological benefits of reforestation.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Short agricultural cropping period.
|
|
· Farmers must have other land.
|
|
· Requires some management skill.
|
|
· Requires a guarantee for the sale of the forest product.
|
|
Taungya system for timber production
|
|
· Fast-growing trees Acacia auriculiformis, A. mangium or Cassia siamea are planted at a density of 1250 trees/ha (2m x 4m spacing) for fuel wood and small timber production in a 10-year rotation.
|
|
· Timber species Hopea odorata and Dipterocarpus alatus are planted with a density of 312 trees/ha (4m x 8m spacing).
|
|
· Cash crops are interplanted in the alleys between rows of forest trees during establishment.
|
|
Taungya is also practiced by several state forestry enterprises to produce pulp for paper production. In these systems, each family plot is divided into 20 parts that are gradually planted with EucaIyptus and Acacia species in an 8- to 10year cycle and intercropped with annual cash crops.
|
|
Degraded land restoration by sequential planting accelerated pioneer climax series system
|
|
Reforestation has been proposed as the most promising stategy to rehabilitate degraded upland soils and make them more productive and ecologically balanced. The accelerated pioneer climax series (APCS) system has been applied in reforestation of marginal lands in the midhills and uplands of central and southern Vietnam. Experiments with APCS were carried out in Vietnam as early as the 1920s. Although reforestation is the major aim, intercropping of agricultural crops is possible during certain phases.
|
|
APCS is based on the ecological principle of natural succession, which relies on pioneer species that have the ability to adapt to adverse conditions. These species will improve the microclimate and soil conditions of a particular site, making it favorable for the establishment of less-sturdy climax species. Natural succession is a slow process, but it can be accelerated considerably through planting pioneer species and interplanting climax species. Variations of this practice focus on different species and planting distances. There are two main phases:
|
|
Phase 1. The establishment of dense stands of fast-growing species to eliminate "cogon grass" (Imperata cylindrica) and to produce short-cycle fuelwood and roundwood. This involves high tree densities (2000-3300 trees per ha) to eliminate light-demanding grasses within two years after planting. Species commonly used are Acacia auriculiformis, A. mangium, Indigofera teysmanii and Gliricidia septum. Four years after establishment, the trees are thinned to remove one out of every four rows for fuelwood and small-pole production. Crops and dipterocarp species are then planted in the alleys between the double rows of pioneer trees. At years 8 and 12, the pioneer species will be gradually cut and removed, providing more light for the climax species and space for growing crops.
|
|
Phase 2. The establishment of mixed plantation with pioneer, intermediate and climax tree species. Pioneer species may be Indigofera teysmanii, intermediate species are Acacia auriculiformis, or Cassia siamea; and climax species include Dipterocarp species, like Dipterocarpus alatus, D. dyerii and Hopea odorata. Planting densities follow these guidelines: pioneer species--1666 trees/ha, intermediate species--833 trees/ha and climax species--278 trees/ha.
|
|
Objectives of APCS
|
|
· To quickly rehabilitate wasteland and denuded hills
|
|
· To produce fuelwood and small timber for local consumption
|
|
· To make the site favorable for the climax forest species
|
|
The three species planted are:
|
|
· The pioneer species (Indigofera teysmanii) which is cut every two years for fuelwood production. This species grows fast and coppices well.
|
|
· The intermediate species (Acacia auriculiformis) which is gradually thinned every six years, providing fuelwood, poles and small timber.
|
|
· The climax species (Dipterocarpus alatus or Hopea odorata) which is expected to develop for 60 years before harvest for timber.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
Environmental
|
|
· Follows the principle of natural succession.
|
|
· Promotes tree diversity (at least two species are planted).
|
|
· Recovers grassland areas, which were formerly dipterocarp forests.
|
|
· Improves the microclimate and provides immediate cover.
|
|
· Protects upland soils from erosion.
|
|
· The pioneer trees improve soil conditions, particularly the soil's biological and physical properties.
|
|
· The growth performances of the intermediate and climax species are improved and are much better than in pure stands.
|
|
· Strengthens the nutrient cycling process, thereby restoring the productivity of the upland tropical forest ecosystem.
|
|
Socioecono mic
|
|
· Thinnings from the pioneer and intermediate species can be good sources of fuelwood, roundwood, fodder, mulch, organic fertilizer and small timber for local consumption.
|
|
· Acceptable to local people since the practice allows participating farmers to get different products shortly after establishment until the end of the climax species rotation.
|
|
· Cost-effective, especially on open grasslands, since the pioneer and intermediate trees quickly suppress light-demanding grass.
|
|
Limitation
|
|
· Willingness of farmers to accept this system to rehabilitate degraded lands or on commununal lands.
|
|
<section>3. Soil and water conservation approaches</section>
|
|
<section>Introduction to soil and water conservation approaches</section>
|
|
In recent years, a new approach to soil and water conservation has been emerging, based on experience gained through farming systems research. This approach, sometimes called land husbandry, shifts the emphasis from looking only at what is happening to the soil (e.g., symptoms of erosion) to examining why erosion is taking place (e.g., the underlying causes of erosion). Examining the why component involves understanding the biophysical and socioeconomic factors that contribute to land degradation.
|
|
The figure below illustrates the balance of interactions between the biophysical environment and the socioeconomic environment in developing sustainable land-use systems. Due to the biophysical characteristics of many upland areas of Southeast Asia, the loss of soil and water resources remains a critical problem.
|
|
The following section outlines 16 soil and water conservation and soil fertility management practices that can make up an integrated approach to upland farm management. Some of the practices focus more on agronomic principles, others more on engineering strategies. However, all of the practices attempt to balance the conservation and production objectives of the farm household. There is a tremendous variability within each of the practices presented and very few speciesspecific recommendations are given. Instead, a description and analysis of each of the practices are presented, focusing on the advantages, limitations and the biophysical and socioeconomic factors which might affect adoption or rejection of the practice.
|
|
Some key principles for soil/water conservation
|
|
· Loss of soil productivity is much more important than the loss of the soil itself. Therefore, soil conservation must be an integral part of a general agricultural development strategy that focuses on improved production practices. Generally, conservation measures designed to control soil loss precede soil improvement practices. However, the two are interrelated and must be considered in combination, even if one practice would actually follow the other in sequence.
|
|
· Erosion is a consequence of how the land is used and is not itself the cause of soil degradation. Land degradation should be prevented before it occurs, rather than attempting to develop a cure afterwards.
|
|
· Land has been studied too much in soil conservation programs, whereas the land user (the farm household) has been studied too little. A conservation program that aims to solve a land degradation problem through treatment of causes requires a bottom-up approach based on a detailed knowledge of the farm and the farm household as a holistic land-use system. Top-down programs, on the other hand, tend to focus primarily on the symptoms of erosion through subsidized terracing, promotion of alley cropping, or other measures which have had mixed success when introduced by outside agencies.
|
|
· In upland systems, plant yields are reduced more by a shortage or excess of soil moisture than they are by soil loss. Therefore, there should be more emphasis on rain water management, particularly water conservation and less on soil conservation per se. Consequently, agronomic process (tillage, mulching) are potentially more significant than mechanical measures in preventing erosion and runoff.
|
|
· Soil conservation efforts will be more successful when applied through long-term programs rather than through short, fixedterm approaches.
|
|
· The farm household and its environment should be the focal point of every soil conservation program.
|
|
· Farmers need to be convinced of the short-term benefits which will result from change. It is important to address farmers' immediate needs through the development and introduction of production strategies that are both conservation-effective and which will provide production returns to the farmers.
|
|
<section>Bench terraces</section>
|
|
Bench terraces are a soil and water conservation measure used on sloping land with relatively deep soils to retain water and control erosion. They are normally constructed by cutting and filling to produce a series of level steps or benches. This allows water to infiltrate slowly into the soil. Bench terraces are reinforced by retaining banks of soil or stone on the forward edges. This practice is typical for rice-based cropping systems.
|
|
In China, a modification of bench terraces includes an interval slope planted with perennials and grasses between individual terraces. This system is suitable where soil erosion is critical, rainfall is low and labor and farm manure are not typically available. Shrubs or herbs can also be grown on the edges of the terraces.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Effectively controls soil and water runoff and erosion.
|
|
· Traps sediment in the drainage ditches built along the terrace.
|
|
· Reduces slope length. Every 2-3 meters of slope length is levelled to terraces. The velocity of water running down the slope is greatly reduced.
|
|
· Improves soil fertility over the long run.
|
|
Limitation s
|
|
· Initially disturbs the soil, reducing productivity in the first 2-3 years.
|
|
· Needs intensive labor and investment for construction and maintenance.
|
|
· Needs skills for proper construction.
|
|
· Terraced fields with an interval slope consume much land.
|
|
Factors affecting adoption
|
|
Biophysical
|
|
· Not suitable for shallow and slipping upland soils.
|
|
· Not suitable for potato-growing since the terrace tends to become waterlogged.
|
|
· Terraces with interval slopes can be used in regions with little rainfall.
|
|
Socioeconomic
|
|
· Labor shortages and low incomes make bench terraces difficult for farmers to adopt in some areas.
|
|
· Lack of secure land tenure serves as a disincentive to long-term construction measures, such as terraces.
|
|
· In areas with poor soils, the terraces have a low return on investment.
|
|
<section>Composting</section>
|
|
Compost is a type of organic fertilizer derived from the decomposition of plant and animal wastes. It is an excellent source of plant nutrients. Composting is common in homegardens. There are many ways to prepare compost (in a pit, above ground, in a field, near a livestock pen, etc.), depending on various socioeconomic and biophysical factors. The use of compost is a traditional soil fertility management practice throughout Southeast Asia.
|
|
Composting involves the decomposition of plant and animal wastes. The decomposition process involves bacteria, beetles and earthworms. Moisture content, an adequate supply of air and temperature control are important parameters for quality compost production.
|
|
A variation of this systems is practiced in the western highlands of Papua New Guinea with volcanic ash soils between 1600 and 2800 m. In this practice, large mounds of soil are built up and sweet potato vines, weeds and grasses are collected and placed in the center of the mound. These are left up to 10 weeks for the decomposition process to start. Then, the mounds and biomass are covered with soil, and sweet potato vines are randomly planted on the mound. Often, a second crop like Pyrethrum is planted at the edges of the mounds. Sweet potato takes up to 11 months to mature at 2800 m. Sequential harvesting is practiced so that only large tubers are taken, leaving the rest in the ground for future harvest. Compost mounds are common on slopes up to 10°. They can sustain production for up to 40 years.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Decaying compost generates nutrients for crops.
|
|
· Decaying compost generates heat, which maintains temperature at optimum levels for tuberization, despite very low night temperatures at high altitudes (Papua New Guinea).
|
|
· Mounds are good for tuberization since the volume of rooting zone is increased.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Compost mounds requires a large quantity of plant material (up to 40 tons/ha).
|
|
· Cannot be used in the lowlands where severe weed infestation is a problem.
|
|
· Cannot be practiced on steep slopes.
|
|
· High labor requirement.
|
|
Factors affecting adoption
|
|
Biophysical
|
|
· May not be needed on soils high in organic matter.
|
|
· Must have adequate supply of biomass.
|
|
· Biomass requirements may be difficult to meet in drier climates.
|
|
Socioeconomic
|
|
· Labor is needed to harvest, haul and distribute the organic matter.
|
|
· In some societies, it is not acceptable to handle animal dung.
|
|
<section>Contour tillage/planting</section>
|
|
Contour tillage or planting is practiced on sloping lands to reduce soil erosion and surface runoff. A contour is an imaginary line connecting points of equal elevation on the ground surface, perpendicular to the direction of slope. Structures and plants are established along the contour lines following the configuration of the ground.
|
|
Contour planting may involve construction of soil traps, bench terraces or bunds, or the establishment of hedgerows. Contour tillage is being promoted in the Southeast Asian region for sustainable upland farming. Different combination of crops can be planted following different pattems. The SALT system practiced in the Philippines is a good example of contour farming.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Reduces runoff and soil erosion.
|
|
· Reduces nutrient loss.
|
|
· Cultivation is faster if using draft animals or machinery since the equipment moves along the same elevation.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Improperly laid-out contour lines can increase the risk of soil erosion.
|
|
· Labor-intensive maintenance.
|
|
· Needs special skills to determine contour lines.
|
|
Factors affecting adoption
|
|
Biophysical
|
|
· Increased productivity and soil condition are attractive.
|
|
· Trapping water in the furrows increases infiltration and production
|
|
Socioeconomic
|
|
· In some marginal lands, laws do not allow the construction of engineering structures, so contour planting is an appropriate alternative.
|
|
· In some areas, people find it easier to cultivate the soil up and down the slope using hand tools.
|
|
<section>Cover crops</section>
|
|
Cover crops are grown to protect the soil from erosion and to improve it through green manuring (the plowing-under of a green crop or other fresh organic materials). These are usually short-term crops (less than two years), planted in fields or under trees during fallow periods. Cover crops are also interplanted or relay-planted with grain crops such as maize, or planted once in a cropping cycle. Cover cropping is practiced in the Philippines and other Asian countries to suppress weeds under rubber and coconut plantations and to provide forage for animals. Cover crops can also be used in fallow systems to improve soil fertility quickly and shorten the fallow period.
|
|
Most of the plants used as cover and green manure belong to the legume family. Examples are:
|
|
Desmanthus virgatus
|
|
Phaseolus atropurpureus
|
|
Centrocema pubescens
|
|
Clitoria ternatea
|
|
(butterfly pea)
|
|
Sesbania rostrata
|
|
Vigna radiata (mungbean)
|
|
Pueraria phaseoloides (kudzu)
|
|
Cajanus cajan (pigeon pea)
|
|
Desmodium heterophylla
|
|
Tephrosia candida
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Improves soil fertility and physical and chemical properties.
|
|
· Reduces soil erosion and water loss.
|
|
· Suppresses weeds.
|
|
· Reduces need for fertilizer and herbicides.
|
|
· Provides human food and animal forage.
|
|
· Increases soil organic matter.
|
|
· Helps retain moisture in the soil and prevent soil from drying.
|
|
· Some cover crops can provide good cash income through sale of products (e.g., pods, seeds).
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· May compete for soil moisture and nutrients with the perennial crops.
|
|
· Involves additional farm labor and inputs.
|
|
· May result in weed problems.
|
|
· May be alternate host for pests.
|
|
· Some cover crop species may contain chemicals which inhibit subsequent crop growth.
|
|
· Rats or snakes may hide in dense cover crop foliage.
|
|
Factors affecting adoption
|
|
Biophysical
|
|
· Not applicable on steep slopes.
|
|
· Contributes to improved soil fertility.
|
|
· Some cover crops are prolific seeders and difficult to control, while other species do not seed well under some climatic conditions.
|
|
Socioeconomic
|
|
· Reduces the need for herbicides and labor required for weed control.
|
|
· May not appeal to farmers with short-term tenure.
|
|
· Can require additional labor.
|
|
· Cover crop generates lower short-term income.
|
|
· Cover crops often do not yield a product which has tangible benefits (i.e., food, seed, etc.)
|
|
· Many cover crop species are palatable to livestock. They can produce good fodder but be difficult to establish if livestock are allowed to graze.
|
|
<section>Crop rotation</section>
|
|
Considering its widespread adoption, crop rotation is arguably the most important crop management practice in Southeast Asia. Various crop species are grown in sequence, one after another, in the same part of the farm or field. These cropping patterns can vary from year to year; but they are designed to achieve a common result: better soil physical and nutrient composition.
|
|
Each crop places a different demand on the soil in which it is grown. Likewise, each crop leaves some amount of beneficial residue or performs some action on the physical structure of the soil. A good crop rotation takes into account each crop's characteristics--what it takes and gives back to the soil--so that the net effect is improved soil.
|
|
In agroforestry systems, the perennial crop component can be changed after a number of years. This would be considered one rotation. The agricultural crop component can follow a shorter rotation period, usually less than one year. Agroforestry requires a longer-term approach to rotations, involving a wider variety of crops, each with a unique production cycle.
|
|
A typical crop rotation is rice-mungbean-corn-cowpea. Since legume crops increase soil nitrogen, mungbean (Vigna sinensis) is planted after rice (Oryza sativa), to replenish some of the nitrogen and other nutrients taken by the rice. Likewise, cowpea (Vigna radiata), with its nitrogen-fixing ability and positive effects on soil, can be grown after corn (Zea mays), which places relatively high demands on the soil.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Very effective in improving soil fertility.
|
|
· Reduces nutrient drain.
|
|
· Helps sustain crop production.
|
|
· Diversifies crop production.
|
|
· Helps controls pests and diseases.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· May be difficult where input supplies are poor.
|
|
· Less applicable for long-term crops.
|
|
· May require a farmer to plant a crop which is not the highest priority.
|
|
· Demands more skills of the farmers.
|
|
Factors affecting adoption
|
|
Biophysical
|
|
· While nutrient supplements are still required, crop rotation lends itself to sustained crop production.
|
|
· Crop rotation can be designed to work well in poor soil conditions.
|
|
Socioeconomic
|
|
· Can produce increased income in the long run, but may yield lower income in the short run.
|
|
· Can supply a varied diet.
|
|
· Short-term tenure discourages conservation objectives.
|
|
· Can have a high labor demand--a problem especially in areas with seasonal migrations.
|
|
· Precludes intensive crop production in the offseason.
|
|
<section>Diversion ditches</section>
|
|
Diversion ditches are constructed along the contour lines and across slopes for the purpose to intercept surface runoff and divert it to suitable outlets. These ditches are the main soil conservation structures to manage runoff in upland areas. Diversion ditches are dug at varying intervals, depending on the steepness of the slope; the steeper the slope, the closer the interval. Ditches follow the contour, they are 1 meter wide at the top, 0.5 meter wide at the bottom and 0.5 deep.
|
|
Another variation is a waterway or drainage canal. A drainage canal is similar to a diversion ditch except that it is larger and deeper. It is normally dug along the boundary of an upland parcel of land, redirecting the runoff around the parcel. In Papua New Guinea, downslope drains also function as sediment traps.
|
|
Waterways dispose of the excess flow in diversion drains and surface runoff and channel it to the natural drainage channels.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Protects cultivated land from hillside runoff.
|
|
· Controls gully erosion.
|
|
· Slows down the erosive power of runoff.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· If not properly designed, the ditches can overflow on to the farms during heavy rain.
|
|
· Needs support structures such as check dams and drops to effectively control erosion.
|
|
· Needs continuous repair and desilting.
|
|
Factors influencing adoption
|
|
Biophysical
|
|
· To be effective, ditches must be constructed along graded lines. Farmers need to know how to use the A-frame or water-tube level for determining grades.
|
|
Socioeconomic
|
|
· Part of the cultivable area is lost for constructing a ditch.
|
|
· Discharging water into a neighboring farmer's waterway can cause social conflicts.
|
|
<section>Drop structures</section>
|
|
Drop structures are constructed to slow the flow of water in channels. In a steeply sloping channel, erosion can be controlled by allowing the water to flow over a series of steps, or drop structures. Though effective, these structures are quite expensive for ordinary farmers to construct. Drop structures are more effective when combined with check dams. They can also be reinforced by vegetative means, such as planting trees or shrubs.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Controls the upstream water velocities to reduce erosion.
|
|
· Drops the water flow to a lower level.
|
|
· Dissipates the excess energy of water flow.
|
|
· Controls downstream erosion.
|
|
Limitation
|
|
· Requires some skill to construct.
|
|
Factors affecting adoption
|
|
Biophysical
|
|
· Drop structures built of wood may rot over time; it may be necessary to use preservatives.
|
|
Socioeconomic
|
|
· Expensive to construct when materials other than logs or stones are used.
|
|
· Complex designs using concrete require skill to construct.
|
|
· Unless the causes of the excessive upstream runoff are also addressed, the drop structure will not be effective over the long run.
|
|
<section>Grass strips</section>
|
|
Planting grasses along contour lines creates barriers to minimize soil erosion and runoff. It induces a process of natural terracing on slopes as soil collects behind the grass barrier, even in the first year.
|
|
Grass can be planted along the bottom-and sides of ditches to stabilize them and to prevent erosion of the upper slope. Grasses can also be planted on the risers of bench terraces to prevent erosion and maintain the stability of the benches.
|
|
Grasses are trimmed regularly (every 2-4 months) to prevent them from flowering, shading and spreading to the cropped area between the strips. Thus, grass strips can be very appropriate for farmers who cut and carry fodder for their animals. Grasses can also be used as mulch for crops.
|
|
On hillsides, grass seeds or tillers are planted in double rows (50 cm apart) along the contour with varying distances between the double rows. In ditches, tillers are planted close together in rows. On the risers of bench terraces, they are planted in a triangular pattern at a spacing of 30 cm x 20 cm.
|
|
Examples of grass species commonly used are: setaria (Sitaria anceps), ruzi grass (Brachiaria ruziiensis), napier or elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum), guinea grass (Panicum maximum), NB21 (Napier crossed with pearl millet), lemon grass (Cymbopogon citratus) and vetiver (Vetiveria zizanoides).
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Controls soil erosion and runoff.
|
|
· Provides fodder.
|
|
· Grass can be used as mulch.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Labor is required for management of grass strips.
|
|
· Ruzi grass can root itself from cuttings.
|
|
· Mulching of grass cuttings may contribute to the weed problem.
|
|
· Uses land which may otherwise be used for food production.
|
|
Factors affecting adoption
|
|
Biophysical
|
|
· Not applicable on steep slopes or areas with longduration rainfall.
|
|
· In dry areas, grasses cannot withstand drought.
|
|
Socioeconomic
|
|
· Farmers may not have time to manage intensively, resulting in weed problems.
|
|
· In traditional farming systems where livestock graze freely, farmers may not wish to use cutand-carry practices.
|
|
· Farmers feel that grasses serve as a refuge for rodents which threaten food crops.
|
|
· Planting materials are not available in many upland locations.
|
|
· If farmers do not own livestock, they have little incentive to plant grasses.
|
|
<section>Hedgerows</section>
|
|
Hedgerows are one of the simplest erosion control practices on sloping land (see Ridge terraces and Contour tillage). Nitrogen-fixing trees/shrubs, grasses, fruit trees or other crops, such as pineapples or banana, are planted in rows along the contour. Various tree and crop species are established in the hedgerow to enhance farm income and diversity. Hedgerows help slow down the passage of rainwater and trap soil to gradually form natural terraces. They also improve soil fertility and crop production. Contour hedgerow cultivation is an indigenous practice in Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand and is now adopted in many other countries.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Reduces soil erosion.
|
|
· Improves soil fertility and soil moisture.
|
|
· Provides biomass for green leaf manure.
|
|
· Provides shading for young plants.
|
|
· Serves as a source of fodder, fuelwood and light construction materials.
|
|
· Improves soil structure and water infiltration.
|
|
· Provides a source of mulch.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Loss of land for cultivation due to establishment of contour hedgerow (at least 10% of cultivated land is used).
|
|
· Hedgerows compete with food crops planted between the rows for light, soil nutrients and moisture (in dry season). Root pruning and trimming can limit this competition.
|
|
· Hedgerow plants may be hosts to pests.
|
|
· Effective retention of excess water may result in soil slippage on steep slopes.
|
|
Factors affecting adoption
|
|
Biophysical
|
|
· Low or high temperatures may cause sterility of some hedgerow species.
|
|
· It is difficult to establish contour hedgerows on very steep lands (>5O degrees).
|
|
· Most nitrogen-fixing species are not adapted to acid soils.
|
|
Socioeconomic
|
|
· Lack of selected seeds/tree stock.
|
|
· Lack of money to purchase seeds/tree stock.
|
|
· Lack of time/labor to establish contour hedgerows.
|
|
· Lack of land ownership/tenure.
|
|
· Farmers fear that hedgerows produce no food or income.
|
|
· Farmers feel that the hedgerow competes with their food crops and harbors pests (Central Java).
|
|
· Farmers who use traditional cultivation tools and methods (e.g., hoes, or planting down the slope) do not like hedgerows because they are inconvenient.
|
|
<section>Minimum tilIage/zero tillage</section>
|
|
In this system, simple farm implements such as hoes and digging sticks are used to prepare land and plant food crops. Minimum tillage is common and effective in controlling soil erosion, particularly on highly erodible and sandy soils. Examples of minimum tillage operation are rice-cropping systems in Vietnam and Thailand and taro cultivation in the Papua New Guinea lowlands.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Lessens the direct impact of raindrops on bare soil, thus minimizing soil erosion.
|
|
· Minimizes degradation of soil structure.
|
|
· Slows down the rate of mineralization, leading to more sustained use of nutrients in the organic matter.
|
|
· Requires less labor than full tillage.
|
|
· Can be practiced on marginal soils that might not otherwise be feasible to cultivate.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Inadequate seedbed preparation may lead to poor establishment and low yield of crops such as maize and sweet potato.
|
|
· Rooting volume may be restricted in soils with massive structures.
|
|
Factors affecting adoption
|
|
Biophysical
|
|
· Under no-burn swidden conditions, the soil is covered with tree litter and brush, making it difficult to plow.
|
|
Socioeconomic
|
|
· Provides an alternative to cultivation using draft animal power.
|
|
· Farmers in swidden systems traditionally use and are familiar with minimum tillage practices.
|
|
<section>Mulching</section>
|
|
Mulching is a soil and water conservation practice in which a covering of cut grass, crop residues or other organic materials is spread over the ground, between rows of crops or around the trunks of trees. This practice helps to retain soil moisture, prevents weed growth and enhances soil structure. It is commonly used in areas subject to drought and weed infestation. The choice of the mulch depends on locally available materials. The optimal density of soil cover ranges between 30% and 70%.
|
|
In alley-cropping systems, hedgerow biomass is often used as mulch. In orchards, cover crops may also be used as live mulches, especially around young trees that are well-established. Another strategy is to leave crop residues on the ground after harvesting (e.g., pineapple tops, corn stover, rice straw, etc.). This ensures that some nutrients are taken up by the plant and returned to the soil.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Intercepts the direct impact of raindrops on bare soil and reduces runoff and soil loss.
|
|
· Suppresses weeds and reduces labor costs of weeding.
|
|
· Increases soil organic matter.
|
|
· Improves soil chemical and physical properties.
|
|
· Increases the moisture-holding capacity of the soil.
|
|
· Helps to regulate soil temperature.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Possible habitat for pests and diseases.
|
|
· Not applicable in wet conditions.
|
|
· Difficult to spread evenly on steep land. Lack of available materials suitable for mulching.
|
|
· Some grass species used as mulch can root and become a weed problem.
|
|
Factors affecting adoption
|
|
Biophysical
|
|
· Suited to areas with limited or irregular rainfall.
|
|
· Insufficient availability of mulch may be a constraint in upland areas.
|
|
Socioeconomic
|
|
· Farmers are used to burning crop residues instead of returning them to the soil.
|
|
· Labor for collecting mulch and applying it is a problem.
|
|
· Mulch is more important in homegardens or valuable horticulture crops than in lessintensive farming systems.
|
|
<section>Ridge terraces</section>
|
|
A ridge terrace consists of a furrow and ridge, constructed along the contour on sloping land (usually less than 15%). Its purpose is to control soil loss and trap water. Grasses and legume trees are usually used to stabilize the ridge, but fruit trees, banana and cassava are also commonly used. During the wet season, the furrow fills with sediment and farmers put this back on to their land. Variations on ridge terraces include alley cropping, contour tillage and sloping agricultural land technology (SALT)
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Effectively controls runoff and erosion on moderate slopes.
|
|
· The furrow behind the ridge traps sediment and nutrients.
|
|
· Relatively low labor inputs are required compared to bench terracing.
|
|
· There is minimum disturbance of soil--particularly important on shallow upland soils.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Less effective in controlling erosion than bench terraces
|
|
· Takes time and labor to establish a stable ridge.
|
|
· Needs proper maintenance, since the ridge can break, channel runoff and result in rills.
|
|
Factors affecting adoption
|
|
Biophysical
|
|
· If livestock are present, grasses or tree legumes can be grown on ridges to provide fodder.
|
|
· Intense rain can wash away ridges, especially in the first two years when they are not firmly
|
|
established.
|
|
· Ridges on sandy or unstable soils do not stand up well.
|
|
Socioeconomic
|
|
· Bench terrace construction on state-owned land is prohibited in some countries, so ridge terraces are the next best alternative. This also relates to the tenure problem (Indonesia).
|
|
· Farmers with limited labor appreciate the relative ease of constructing ridge terraces compared to bench terraces.
|
|
· Grass and other fodder species grown on the ridges are sometimes seen as competing with food crops and are removed, thus weakening the ridge.
|
|
<section>Shifting cultivation</section>
|
|
This form of low-input agriculture and fallow management is common in Southeast Asia, particularly in rice, taro and cassava-based systems. It is also commonly referred to as swidden cultivation. If managed properly, it can be considered a sustainable practice, particularly in sparsely populated areas. In this system, the underbrush is cut, then most of the trees are felled. Certain tree species are left to stand and branches are pruned. In most places, underbrush is burned; but in parts of Papua New Guinea, no-burn practices are used. The branches and leaves are slashed and may be laid along the contour. Food crops are then planted using minimum tillage practices, such as dibble or digging sticks.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Slowly releases nutrients from the forest biomass to the soil (no-burn practice in Papua New Guinea).
|
|
· Helps control weeds in the first three months, enabling crops to grow quickly (burn and no burn).
|
|
· Retains soil moisture.
|
|
· Easy method of clearing rainforest for permanent agriculture.
|
|
· Minimizes direct impact of raindrops on soil surface (no burn).
|
|
· Suitable for root crops and banana-based cropping systems.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Increases soil and nutrient loss.
|
|
· Soil nitrogen is lost by burning.
|
|
· Only simple land preparation (i.e., minimum or zero tillage) is possible.
|
|
Factors affecting adoption
|
|
Biophysical
|
|
· Optimal planting density cannot be obtained on sloping land due to difficulty of planting.
|
|
Socioeconomic
|
|
· High labor input for clearing, especially under tropical forest conditions.
|
|
· Not suitable for fallow under 10 years due to existence of undesirable weedy species. (Papua New Guinea)
|
|
· Suitable only in areas with low population density.
|
|
· Many farmers believe that burning improves soil fertility. (Thailand)
|
|
<section>Soil barriers</section>
|
|
Soil barriers slow down runoff and retain the soil lost by sheet erosion. They may be made of wood or rocks; over time, they may develop into live fences of trees and shrubs. In Papua New Guinea and the Philippines, barriers are constructed with logs and branches across the slope. These are placed against wooden stakes driven into the ground. The upper side of the barrier is filled with grass and other materials to act as a sediment trap. The width of the cropland between barriers depends on the slope gradient, but is usually 4 m to 8 m. Crops such as maize, sweet potato and tobacco are planted in the alley.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Slows down surface runoff.
|
|
· Retains sediment behind the fences.
|
|
· If properly maintained, natural terraces develop over time.
|
|
· Allows cultivation even on steep slopes that may not otherwise be feasible to crop.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Wooden barriers do not usually last for more than 2-5 years.
|
|
· Barrier construction requires significant labor.
|
|
Factors affecting adoption
|
|
Biophysical
|
|
· More likely to be adopted if land with more moderate slopes is not available to grow crops.
|
|
Socioeconomic
|
|
· Labor to build barriers may not be available.
|
|
· Allows farmers to grow relatively high-value crops on slopes otherwise impossible to cultivate (e.g., tobacco in the Philippines).
|
|
<section>Soil traps</section>
|
|
Soil traps are structures constructed to harvest soil eroded from the upper slopes of the catchment. The most common types of soil traps are check dams and trenches, built in diversion ditches or waterways.
|
|
A check dam slows down the water flow and allows heavier soil particles to settle. The size of the check dam depends on the size of the drainage or gully to be protected. Check dams can be built of Gliricidia stakes, bamboo, loose rocks, logs or other locally available materials.
|
|
Trenches are built to trap soil along the waterways and complement the function of check dams. A trench is dug about 1-2 meters above the check dam, at least 0.8 m deep, 1.0 m long and 0.5 m wide. A variation is to construct the trench at the lower portion of the field just above a bund. The purpose is to trap soil and to store water temporarily to increase infiltration.
|
|
The accumulated soil in trenches and dams is returned to the field.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Prevents widening and deepening of gullies.
|
|
· Promotes the deposition of nutrient-rich, highly fertile sediments.
|
|
· Reduces the velocity of runoff in gullies.
|
|
· The area where soil accumulates can be used for growing crops.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Requires continuous desilting to prevent overtopping during heavy rains.
|
|
· Check dams require regular repair and maintenance.
|
|
Factors affecting adoption
|
|
Biophysical
|
|
· Materials for making check dams may be unavailable.
|
|
Socioeconomic
|
|
· Damage to check dams must be repaired and trenches desilted frequently.
|
|
· Soil traps constructed without the necessary support structures may be ineffective.
|
|
Prepared by Kennedy Igbokwe
|
|
<section>Water harvesting</section>
|
|
Water availability for upland agriculture can be improved by smallscale impoundments to capture and store rainwater for irrigation.
|
|
Small-scale water harvesting is most successful when operated as a system with three components: the watershed or catchment area that generates the runoff; the reservoir which holds or collects the runoff; and the service area where the harvested water is used for production.
|
|
A catchment area of sufficient size is needed to drain water into the reservoir. The amount of runoff generated depends on the catchment characteristics and rainfall pattern (amount, duration and intensity); hence, the variability of catchment sizes. In parts of the Philippines with an annual rainfall of 1200-1500 mm, a catchment area of 0.2 to 0. 5 ha of terraced rice land yields 1000 m³ of water for storage in the reservoir. For grassland and residential areas, a catchment area of about 0.6 to 1.0 ha is enough to fill the same volume. Water harvesting is also possible in areas with low rainfall (300-500mm per year), but larger catchment areas are necessary.
|
|
Small-farm reservoir sites are suitable in elevated or depressed areas (valleys) where irrigation is possible by natural flow. Sites that are communally owned should be properly managed to ensure sharing among the intended beneficiaries. Places with springs or flowing streams to ensure a year-round water supply are good sites for reservoirs. Topography that is undulating or rolling with slopes of 2 to 18% is desirable.
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Improves food production (crops, fish, fruit trees, etc.).
|
|
· Promotes conservation and ecological balance.
|
|
· Involves low investment cost per hectare.
|
|
· Easy to construct.
|
|
· Provides alternative (often high-return) uses to offset sacrificed land area.
|
|
· Protects against drought.
|
|
· Allows irrigation by gravity (no additional power cost).
|
|
· Mostly individually owned; hence, minimal social problems.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Requires large amount of labor.
|
|
· High seepage and evaporation losses possible (depending on soil type).
|
|
· Floating vegetation may infest reservoir.
|
|
· Uncontrolled runoff in high intensity rainfall areas can overtop and damage the embankment.
|
|
· Poor design and management can lead to erosion and flooding.
|
|
Factors affecting adoption
|
|
Biophysical
|
|
· Soils that have high seepage and percolation rates may require lining.
|
|
Socioeconomic
|
|
· Farmers may be unwilling to sacrifice a portion of their land for a reservoir.
|
|
· Land tenure status can influence the investment decision.
|
|
· Labor may be insufficient.
|
|
· Funds or credit services may be unavailable.
|
|
· Engineering knowledge (both for constructing the impoundment and managing the irrigation system) is required.
|
|
<section>4. Diagnostic methods and tools</section>
|
|
<section>Participatory appraisal methods</section>
|
|
A number of participatory approaches for assessing local conditions, problems and opportunities have been developed. They provide a "basket" of tools and techniques for visualizing, interviewing and group work. The approaches share various features:
|
|
· They can be used to collect and analyze information in a participatory way.
|
|
· They examine interactions between social, economic and biophysical systems.
|
|
· They allow interdisciplinary teams (e.g., of researchers, extensionists and planners) to work in a sensitive manner directly with farmers and local communities in the field. Each team member uses his/her specific expertise to develop lines of inquiry with local people.
|
|
· Information is pooled to construct a picture of the area and current resource management issues and to generate ideas on major constraints.
|
|
· Learning is from and with rural people and stresses local knowledge, skills and practices. The learning is rapid, progressive and iterative (not a fixed blueprint).
|
|
· The information is a selective sampling of a range of conditions and extremes (not solely based on averages).
|
|
· Probing and "triangulation" of methods and sources of information ensure reliability and validity.
|
|
· Local people can analyze and make decisions on the spot, based on the information they themselves provide.
|
|
· These techniques can help mobilize and organize local people around issues they consider important.
|
|
Advantages of participatory approaches
|
|
· Participatory approaches allow close interactions between local people and outsiders.
|
|
· They can provide insights to complex, multidimensional problems.
|
|
· They can identify key problems quickly and cheaply.
|
|
· They can be followed by surveys to provide in-depth analysis and understanding of selected components.
|
|
· They allow local people to identify problems and empower them in seeking solutions.
|
|
Examples of participatory appraisal methods
|
|
· Farming systems research
|
|
· Agroecosystems analysis
|
|
· Diagnosis and design
|
|
· Rapid rural appraisal
|
|
· Participatory rural appraisal
|
|
· Situation-specific assessment.
|
|
These approaches are continually evolving as they are used and further tested and adapted in the field.
|
|
Uses
|
|
· Diagnostic studies
|
|
· Planning and design of research and extension projects
|
|
· Land-use planning
|
|
· Community development
|
|
· Agricultural development
|
|
· Participatory monitoring and evaluation
|
|
· Training.
|
|
Site selection
|
|
Since the target area is often large, it is impossible to do assessment in the whole area. It is necessary to select some typical sites that represent local features and conditions. Later, the information collected and findings can be presented to the whole community.
|
|
It is necessary to meet the local leaders and the community as a whole. This helps people in the community understand and participate in the program.
|
|
Methods and tools
|
|
Visualized analyses
|
|
Guidelines for conducting three of these methods (transects, matrices and calendars) are given later in this section.
|
|
· Participatory mapping and modelling (resource and social maps)
|
|
· Transects
|
|
· Seasonal calendars
|
|
· Changing trends (historical profiles/trend analyses/time lines)
|
|
· Matrices, reference ranking
|
|
· Participatory diagramming (systems, flows, institutions, decisions, problems)
|
|
· Tables or graphs showing basic village data
|
|
· Listing of problems, causes, strategies, potentials.
|
|
Interviews
|
|
· Semistructured household interviews
|
|
· Focus groups
|
|
· Key informants.
|
|
The team
|
|
· 4-8 persons with varied disciplinary backgrounds. (Number depends on the size of the community or village and on the scope of information to be collected.)
|
|
· Each member collects one type of data.
|
|
· Rotate responsibilities among members.
|
|
· Combine and integrate information obtained.
|
|
· Stimulate interaction and information exchange.
|
|
Socioeconomic indicators
|
|
· Wealth ranking
|
|
· Traditional practices and beliefs.
|
|
Field sampling
|
|
· Transect walks
|
|
· Direct observation.
|
|
Group and team dynamics
|
|
· Brainstorming
|
|
· Rapid report writing
|
|
· Work sharing (in local activities)
|
|
· Villager shared presentations.
|
|
Writing up results
|
|
The report should be written immediately after the fieldwork and be based mainly on the records. The sections may be divided among the team members or may be written jointly through a workshop. The report should be short and clear.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Difficulty of building the right team dynamics.
|
|
· Superficial data collection, generalizing based on a small sample.
|
|
· Failure to involve all members of a community.
|
|
· Overlooking the invisible.
|
|
· Lecturing instead of learning and listening.
|
|
· Imposing external ideas and values without realizing it.
|
|
· Raising expectations in the community regarding follow-up activities and interventions.
|
|
Participatory assessment methods are not an end in themselves, but a process that must be judiciously used in combination with other tools, including secondary data, select surveys and other more in-depth investigations into key problems and constraints.
|
|
Transect
|
|
Definition
|
|
A transect is a cross-section of major land-use zones. It compares the main features, resources, uses and problems of the different zones.
|
|
Purpose
|
|
A transect shows the different land-use or ecological zones. It provides a detailed picture of a community. It shows how the natural resource potential is managed and used, as well as problems and opportunities related to each zone.
|
|
Materials
|
|
Flipcharts and colored markers, notebooks and pens, a community map.
|
|
Approach
|
|
· Find key informants (both men and women) who are knowledgeable and willing to assist.
|
|
· Identify the transect route (on the map|.
|
|
· Walk along the transect route.
|
|
· Discuss with key informants the different factors to be drawn on the transect (crops, land use, trees, soil, water, etc.), problems and opportunities.
|
|
· Identify the main natural and agricultural zones.
|
|
· Draw the transect.
|
|
· Cross-check the transect with the key informants.
|
|
Value
|
|
A transect walk is an excellent tool to get information on details of land use, natural resources, soil types, yields, problems, constraints, advantages and possible solutions. It encourages villagers to participate in the assessment process.
|
|
Matrix
|
|
Definition
|
|
A matrix lists certain items (such as tree species or crop types), in the rows and characteristics of each item (such as yield, uses and drought resistance) in the columns. The body of the matrix shows the level or rank of the characteristic for each item. Local people choose the items to list and the measures to be used.
|
|
Purpose
|
|
Matrices can be used for many purposes. Examples:
|
|
· Crop and tree species: uses, characteristics, farmers, preferences.
|
|
· Prioritization of possible development interventions.
|
|
Materials
|
|
Local materials (sticks, stones, seeds, leaves). Chalk or stick to draw matrix frame. Papers and pens to record the results.
|
|
Approach
|
|
· Identify interested and knowledgeable individuals (both men and women).
|
|
· Find a large, clear area to draw matrix.
|
|
· Ask participants to define items (e.g., list of tree species).
|
|
· Draw a series of rows (the number of rows depends on the number of species to be evaluated). Write the name of each species to the left of each row. Put a leaf or fruit from that species here.
|
|
· Ask participants to identify criteria to use.
|
|
· Draw a series of columns (the number of columns depends on the number of criteria used). Write criteria at the top of each column.
|
|
· Ask participants to decide categories for each criterion (e.g., highest yield, high, medium, low, lowest).
|
|
· Participants put sticks or stones in the body of the matrix. The number of sticks or stones depends on the level of the category: for instance, 1 stone means "lowest yield,,, 5 stones means "highest yield."
|
|
Value
|
|
Helps farmers and program managers make decisions in conducting the program. Questions that can be answered:
|
|
· What species are desirable or important?
|
|
· What are priority activities to solve identified problems?
|
|
· What resources can be utilized?
|
|
Calendar
|
|
Definition
|
|
A calendar identifies items or activities that vary from month to month, for instance: livelihood tasks (crop production, harvesting, etc.), rainfall, cultural events, prices, off-farm income and food availability.
|
|
Calendars can categorize responsibilities for livelihood tasks by gender, age and intensity of activity.
|
|
Purpose
|
|
Developing a calendar can generate information on seasonal variations in social, biophysical and economic conditions, show the relationships between them and identify opportunities for change.
|
|
Materials
|
|
Poster board or a large roll of brown paper, markers.
|
|
Approach
|
|
· Identify interested and knowledgeable local people (men and women). This exercise can be done with either focus groups or key informants.
|
|
· Draw a matrix with 12 columns and as many rows as you need (you can add rows as you go on). Write the names of the months at the top of each column.
|
|
· Define some items (e.g., types of tasks, etc.) to discuss. Write these to the left of each row. Ask participants to define additional items (e.g., additional tasks).
|
|
· Ask participants to trace on the calendar when certain activities occur.
|
|
· Make sure that the level of each activity (e.g., sporadic, continuous, intense) is reflected.
|
|
· Make sure that the activities and responsibilities of each household member (men, women, children) are represented.
|
|
Value
|
|
· Assists project planners and managers to anticipate the best timing for work in the community.
|
|
· Helps analyze various local indicators and the relationships among them.
|
|
· Information can show responsibilities of individuals (men, women, children) and groups and how these change over the year.
|
|
· Calendars may vary according to socioeconomic status of the participants.
|
|
<section>Integrated land-use planning in upland areas</section>
|
|
Considerations
|
|
· Use land according to its capacity.
|
|
· Production needs must balance with environmental conservation needs.
|
|
· Promote efficiency and long-term stability of land use.
|
|
· Plans must be sensitive to local culture.
|
|
· The complex upland situation requires an integrated approach.
|
|
· Dialogue between farmer and extension worker is necessary to find viable solutions.
|
|
· Soil and water conservation measures need time to take effect; therefore, long-term solutions must be linked to the solution of the farmer's immediate priorities.
|
|
Important
|
|
An interdisciplinary and participatory process helps avoid treating symptoms rather than actual causes.
|
|
Ecological context
|
|
· Climate changes
|
|
· Food chain disruption
|
|
· Diminishing productivity
|
|
· Unstable soil
|
|
· Forest changes
|
|
· Flood and droughts
|
|
· Other environmental effects of human activities.
|
|
An example of the results of a land-use planning process (carried out in Northern Thailand)
|
|
Potential innovation
|
|
Areas of sloping land
|
|
Assumptions for successful implementation
|
|
Top
|
|
Middle
|
|
Bottom
|
|
Permanent tree cover
|
|
x
|
|
· Other lands available on slopes for cash-crop cultivation
|
|
No burning
|
|
x
|
|
x
|
|
x
|
|
· Alternative weed/pest management
|
|
· Adequate labor available
|
|
Use of mulch
|
|
x
|
|
x
|
|
· Awareness of mulching benefits
|
|
· Adequate labor and mulch available
|
|
Minimum tillage
|
|
x
|
|
x
|
|
· Economic feasibility
|
|
· Mulch used
|
|
· Labor available for seedbed preparation
|
|
· Willingness to shift from mono- to multiple cropping
|
|
· Awareness of erosion problems in area.
|
|
Hedgerows
|
|
x
|
|
x
|
|
· Financial benefits from hedgerows
|
|
· Hedgerows visibly reduce erosion.
|
|
· No down-hill plowing
|
|
Cut-and-carry livestock
|
|
x
|
|
x
|
|
x
|
|
· Adequate labor available
|
|
management
|
|
· Awareness of possible impact of free grazing
|
|
· Training in livestock management
|
|
Intercropping
|
|
x
|
|
· Financially viable market for intercrop
|
|
· increased income from intercropping
|
|
· Adequate labor available
|
|
Fruit-tree cultivation
|
|
x
|
|
x
|
|
· Higher income from fruit-tree cultivation
|
|
· Transition period can be tolerated.
|
|
· Cash, seedlings and labor available for tree establishment
|
|
· Promising market for fruit.
|
|
Cover crops
|
|
x
|
|
x
|
|
· Cover cropping financially beneficial
|
|
· Awareness of erosion problems in area
|
|
· Extension available
|
|
Fertilization
|
|
x
|
|
x
|
|
· For some farmers: credit availability
|
|
Crop diversification
|
|
x
|
|
x
|
|
x
|
|
· No dependence on monocrop middlemen
|
|
Integrated aquaculture
|
|
x
|
|
· Knowledge/technical supervision
|
|
· Fingerlings available
|
|
· Proper pesticide management on adjacent lands.
|
|
<section>Farm househoId profile</section>
|
|
The household is the basic unit of a community. Looking at the household unit, one can do a true natural resource accounting. An inventory of goals and aspirations of household members can also reveal much. The household is a source of labor, skills, cash and other resources. When monetized, the value of consumption at the household level can provide information about community livelihoods and, when analyzed at a community level, can indicate how much the community saves or spends. The farm household economy includes income, as well as all assets and liabilities.
|
|
Developing a farm household profile involves a process of identifying labor, goods and income shared by a group of people living in one house and determining the adequacy of resources in relation to their needs. Among other things, a farm household profile looks at the incomes and expenses of individual household members by gender so that the whole family decides where and on what to invest. The profile should also consider other critical factors, such as educational level (see also checklist in General syslems overview). It also involves gender and generational analysis in terms of decision-making, contributions, influences and expenses.
|
|
A farm household profile can be developed through the use of three simple tools: a farm household inventory (balance sheet), a farm household gross income statement and a farm household budget. (Facie of these tools is explained below.) All members of the farm household should be involved in the use of these tools in order to ensure that each of their different perspectives is included and to ensure joint decision-making. Before beginning with these three tools, identify each member of the household by number, age and gender. Also, identify labor utilization of each of the household members--who does what, when, where. (See also Gender analysis.)
|
|
Farm household inventory (balance sheet)
|
|
A farm household inventory (or balance sheet) shows the net worth of the farm household. The total value of liabilities (e.g., debts, loans, etc.) is subtracted from the total value of assets (e.g., land, livestock, saving, etc.)
|
|
1. List farm assets.
|
|
· land (value of landholding)
|
|
· farm buildings
|
|
· farm animals
|
|
· farm equipment and tools
|
|
· stored crops
|
|
· other farm supplies stored on the farm (e.g., fertilizer, etc.)
|
|
2. List household assets.
|
|
· house
|
|
· vehicle
|
|
· furniture and other appliances
|
|
· savings
|
|
3. Estimate the current market value for each asset item.
|
|
4. List farm and household liabilities.
|
|
· short-term loans
|
|
· mortgages and other long-term loans
|
|
5 Subtract the value of the total liabilities from the total assets to provide the net worth of
|
|
the household.
|
|
Example:
|
|
Farm household inventory (balance sheet)
|
|
ASSETS
|
|
A. Farm assets
|
|
Quantity
|
|
Estimated current market value per unit
|
|
Total amount
|
|
Land (ha)
|
|
Farm buildings
|
|
Farm sheds
|
|
Farm animals
|
|
Carabaos
|
|
Goats
|
|
Farm equipment
|
|
Plows
|
|
Harrows
|
|
Stored crops
|
|
Corn (kg)
|
|
Total farm assets
|
|
B. Household assets
|
|
House
|
|
Furniture
|
|
Savings
|
|
Total household assets
|
|
TOTAL ASSETS
|
|
LIABILITIES
|
|
Short-term loans
|
|
Long-term loans
|
|
TOTAL LIABILITIES
|
|
CURRENT NET WORTH(total assets less total liabilities)
|
|
Annual farm household gross income statement
|
|
This tool shows the sources and amounts of the farm household income. It is a usefill tool for households to be able to know how important are the various income-generating activities to the total income of the house.
|
|
1. List the value of sales of crops and livestock for the year.
|
|
· Quantity the number of pieces or kilos sold per item
|
|
· Estimate the current market price per unit for each item.
|
|
2. List other income sources.
|
|
3. Add the income items from the farm and other sources to come up with annual farm household gross income. In order to calculate the net income, the various expenses for each of the income sources should be subtracted. These are the cost of production (e.g., fertilizer, feeds, seeds, etc.).
|
|
Annual farm household budget
|
|
A farm household budget serves many purposes: 1 ) it allows the family to compare their expenditures, based on their income; 2) it allows them to discuss and agree upon what items or activities they spend their money on; and 3) it allows them to set limits (on a per-month and per-year basis) for their amount of spending. For a rural development worker, this information can be very helpful to determine who might receive specific technical assistance (given the labor profile) and the capability of the household to venture into new activities and to assume new risks. l. Invite the members of the household to list the items they spend their income. 2. List average monthly expenses. 3. Multiply the monthly expenses by l 2 months to determine the annual amount spent on each item. 4. Sum the annual expense for each item to come up with the total annual farm household budget.
|
|
Example: Annual farm household income statement
|
|
INCOME FROM CROP/LIVESTOCK
|
|
Unit
|
|
Current market price per unit
|
|
Total amount
|
|
1. Fruit
|
|
--Pomelo (pcs)
|
|
--Papaya (pcs)
|
|
2. Vegetables
|
|
--Cabbage (kg)
|
|
--Sweet peas (kg)
|
|
3. Livestock
|
|
--Sale of goat
|
|
Subtotal
|
|
OTHER INCOME
|
|
1. Sale of firewood
|
|
2. Remittances
|
|
3. Hired labor (days)
|
|
Subtotal
|
|
Total annual farm household gross income
|
|
Example:
|
|
Annual farm household budget
|
|
1. Food
|
|
1,200 x 12
|
|
2. Gas
|
|
50 x 12
|
|
3. Soap
|
|
50 x 12
|
|
4. Education
|
|
150 x 12
|
|
5. Transport
|
|
20 x 12
|
|
6. Medicines
|
|
7. Tobacco
|
|
200 x 12
|
|
8. Alcoholic beverages
|
|
100 x 12
|
|
9. Gambling and leisure
|
|
50 x 12
|
|
10. Others
|
|
TOTAL
|
|
<section>Gender analysis</section>
|
|
Gender roles
|
|
Most upland development programs have presumed that there is a clear division in the labor of women and men. Women were thought to be primarily responsible for the care and maintenance of the household and its members, including bearing and caring of children, preparing food and collecting water and fuel. Men were thought to be primarily involved in agricultural and livestock production activities.
|
|
Research has shown that, while gender roles clearly differ in most societies, women are often involved in making key decisions related to agricultural and livestock production. In addition, women's roles are changing. Upland development efforts, therefore, must also change.
|
|
Gender analysis and upland resource management
|
|
The disappearance of much of the forest and increased cultivation of fragile upland areas have transformed gender roles, increased the hours women work to fetch water and fuel, increased the number of female-headed households and forced women and men to explore new ways to earn a living.
|
|
Gender analysis reveals how gender differences define women's and men's rights, responsibilities and opportunities in resource management.
|
|
Types of labor
|
|
Different types of labor are divided into productive, reproductive and community work. Analyzing what men and women do, their interactions and the possible effects of development projects can help in the design of such projects.
|
|
Productive work
|
|
The production of goods and services, such as farming or wage labor
|
|
Reproductive work
|
|
The care and maintenance of the household and its members, including childbearing, cooking and cleaning.
|
|
Community work
|
|
The collective organization of social events, such as church, school and cultural events.
|
|
What is gender?
|
|
Gender is the social differences between men and women. These differences are learned, vary from place to place, and may change over time. Gender is a socioeconomic variable used to analyze roles, responsibilities, constraints, opportunities and needs of men and women.
|
|
Sex is the physical or biological difference between men and women.
|
|
Why gender analysis?
|
|
Gender analysis helps decision-makers to:
|
|
· Design programs which recognize the different roles, interests and needs of women and men.
|
|
· Enhance women's productive role, without adding to their work burden.
|
|
· Create projects which promote the partnership of women and men in determining their future.
|
|
Gender and age division of labor
|
|
An analysis of tasks, functions, roles, responsibilities and activities of men, women, boys, girls and the elderly reveals what society deems culturally appropriate. While women continue to be primarily responsible for the wellbeing of their families, more and more are engaging in income-generating activities.
|
|
Approach
|
|
1 Prepare a chart with six columns showing boys, men, elderly men, girls, women and elderly women. (See table.)
|
|
2 Ask respondents (both men and women) to name activities and identify whether these are tasks dictated by gender and age.
|
|
3 Discuss the implications of such a division. Is it fair? Is it just? Should something be done about this?
|
|
Gender and age division of labor
|
|
Some examples
|
|
Boys
|
|
Men
|
|
Elderly men
|
|
Girls
|
|
Women
|
|
Elderly women
|
|
Productive work
|
|
· pasture livestock
|
|
cultivate fields
|
|
feed livestock
|
|
weed fields
|
|
· tend garden
|
|
· tend garden
|
|
· harvest
|
|
· weed fields
|
|
· weed pasture livestock
|
|
· trading
|
|
· food processing
|
|
Reproductive work
|
|
· collect firewood
|
|
· maintain house
|
|
· care for children
|
|
cook food take care of younger siblings
|
|
· care for children and elderly
|
|
· care for children
|
|
· fetch water
|
|
· maintain house
|
|
· clean house
|
|
· cook food
|
|
· wash clothes
|
|
· clean house
|
|
· wash clothes
|
|
· buy house hold needs
|
|
Community work
|
|
· organize youth activities
|
|
· lead village council
|
|
· sit on village council
|
|
· beautify village during festivals
|
|
· attend to church activities
|
|
· attend to church activities
|
|
· repair roads
|
|
· work in community health activities
|
|
Gender-based labor calendar
|
|
A gender-based labor calendar shows the female/male, adult/ child responsibilites for productive, reproductive and community work.
|
|
The calendar can generate information on the types of labor men, women and children do and can show opportunities for intervention and extension.
|
|
Approach
|
|
1 Identify males and females of various ages who are interested in participating. Explain the purpose and process of the exercise.
|
|
2 On a big sheet of paper, draw a matrix with 12 columns (1 for each month) and as many rows as you need. (See table.)
|
|
3 Ask participants to list the major types of activities under "production,,' "reproduction" and "community work.', Write each activity on the left side of the rows.
|
|
4 Ask participants to show on the calendar (using chalk or markers) when certain activities occur.
|
|
5 Request participants to define the intensity of the activity. Use continuous lines for continuous activities and broken lines for sporadic activities.
|
|
6 Match all activities with who specifically within the household is responsible for each task. Possible categories are male/ female, child/ adult/elder and hired labor.
|
|
7 Discuss with them their reactions to the results on the chart. Explore ways where adjustments might be needed.
|
|
Access, responsibility and control
|
|
It is important to know who has access to, responsibility for and control over existing resources. While women are heavily involved in (and are responsible for) production activities, they often do not control the use of the benefits of production.
|
|
Access, responsibility and control matrix
|
|
A matrix can show which household members have the primary responsibility for, access to and control over which key resources It can show both gender and generational role differences.
|
|
Access
|
|
The opportunity of a person to make use of resources.
|
|
Responsibility
|
|
The burden of ensuring that the task(s) is completed.
|
|
Control
|
|
The authority to determine the use of the resource and impose this decision on others.
|
|
Approach
|
|
1 Identify interested and knowledgeable local women and men who can participate in the activity.
|
|
2 Explain the purpose of the exercise and the meanings of access, responsibility and control.
|
|
3 Draw a matrix with 3 columns, one each for access, responsibility and control. (See table.)
|
|
4 Ask the respondents to define what key resources and activities are important to include. Write each of these to the led) side of each row in the matrix
|
|
5 Ask respondents to indicate who has responsibility for, access to and control over the item in each row. Put their responses in the correct cell in the matrix. You can use drawings or cut out shapes from paper for men and women. Or use sticks for men, stones for women. Use different sizes of sticks and stones to show children, adults and elderly people.
|
|
Value
|
|
The matrix can lead to an understanding and discussion of the range of roles different household members play. It demonstrates the differences between responsibility, access and control and stimulates a discussion of the reasons for these differences.
|
|
<section>Collecting information on crops</section>
|
|
Information on income, labor and other costs involved in producing individual crops can be useful in many situations. It can be useful for:
|
|
· scientists in determining suitable topics for research.
|
|
· planners in estimating the probable returns of a project.
|
|
· farmers in making farm management decisions.
|
|
· extension workers and farmers as basis for discussions aimed at finding ways to improve the farm economy.
|
|
Data collection
|
|
Crop information can be collected in various ways. The method used depends on available local resources, purpose and the degree of accuracy needed.
|
|
Data collection workshop
|
|
Gather farmers (men and women) in the area for a 1-2 day workshop. Small groups of 3 to 5 farmers should discuss a specific crop and fill out the information sheet. Crop data can be presented and discussed among the participants.
|
|
Individual interviews of farmers by extension agents
|
|
This is a time-consuming way to gather information. The data may not be any more accurate than those collected through a workshop or group meeting.
|
|
Collection by farmers
|
|
Interested individual farmers collect information by themselves as they carry out their farm activities. Initial supervision by the local extensionist is needed to ensure that the data are recorded correctly. Once every 6 or 12 months, the extensionist can gather the information from the farmers for analysis and presentation.
|
|
Data to collect
|
|
· Yields
|
|
· Fertilizers and pesticides--management, use, quantities and costs
|
|
· Labor use--days for different activities, cost per day
|
|
· Other inputs, costs
|
|
· Income, prices received, quantities sold
|
|
· Constraints in the cultivation of individual crops
|
|
· Marketing.
|
|
Presentation of results
|
|
After collection, the data should be presented in a systematic yet simple way that everybody can understand. The presentation should stimulate a dialog among farmers and researchers or extensionists. Suitable times are during a short training session, workshop or farmer group meeting.
|
|
<section>Building on indigenous knowledge</section>
|
|
Over centuries, communities have acquired a wide spectrum of information, skills and technology in:
|
|
· agriculture
|
|
· Iivestock rearing
|
|
· food preparation and preservation
|
|
· construction and building
|
|
· soil and water conservation
|
|
· natural resource management
|
|
· community organizing
|
|
· health care, education and other subjects
|
|
This indigenous knowledge is a product of many years of experience. Indigenous knowledge is
|
|
· unique to a given community
|
|
· based on cumulative experience
|
|
· often tested over centuries of use
|
|
· adapted to local culture and environment
|
|
· dynamic and changing with conditions
|
|
· transmitted through indigenous communication channels.
|
|
In many instances, indigenous knowledge will be a blend of "locally rooted" and exogenous knowledge.
|
|
Development and indigenous knowledge
|
|
Indigenous knowledge is a valuable resource for development activities. It may be equal or even superior to the know-how introduced by outsiders.
|
|
Development initiatives should build on a community's knowledge. They should unleash a process of blending, strengthening, energizing and synergizing indigenous with exogenous knowledge.
|
|
Roles of indigenous knowledge in development
|
|
Indigenous knowledge:
|
|
· Is a basis for selfsufficiency and selfdetermination.
|
|
· Strengthens people's participation and the empowerment process.
|
|
· Ensures viability and sustainability.
|
|
· Promotes the use of appropriate technology.
|
|
· Ensures cost-effective approaches.
|
|
· Provides the opportunity to understand and facilitate the design of appropriate development approaches.
|
|
Types of indigenous knowledge
|
|
Information
|
|
Examples:
|
|
· Which trees and plants grow well together?
|
|
· Which tree species are best suited for mulching?
|
|
Practices and technologies
|
|
Examples:
|
|
· Ways to store seeds.
|
|
· Simple threshing devices.
|
|
· Stonewall terracing.
|
|
· Grafting, composting or other practices.
|
|
Beliefs
|
|
Beliefs can play a fundamental role in a people's livelihood and in maintaining the environment.
|
|
Examples:
|
|
· Holy forests, protected for religious reasons, in fact, maintain a villager's lifegiving watershed.
|
|
· Rituals and religions may regulate the access and pattern of water distribution.
|
|
Tools
|
|
Examples:
|
|
· Implements for planting and harvesting.
|
|
· Carriers for fodder grass collected as animal fodder.
|
|
Experimentation
|
|
Examples:
|
|
· Farmers' integration of new tree species into existing farming systems.
|
|
· Farmers' modification of planting practices.
|
|
Human resources
|
|
Examples:
|
|
· Specialists such as healers and blacksmiths.
|
|
· Local organizations such as kinship groups, councils of elders, or groups formed for labor sharing and exchange.
|
|
Biologicals
|
|
Examples:
|
|
· Animals' breeds.
|
|
· Local crop and tree species.
|
|
Materials
|
|
Examples:
|
|
· Stones for building walls.
|
|
· Housing construction materials.
|
|
Deciding on appropriate interventions
|
|
Not all indigenous knowledge is equally useful Some may be ineffective or even harmful from a development point of view. Practices originally benign under conditions of low population and limited contact with the outside may no longer be appropriate
|
|
Example: Introducing an agroforestry scheme into a village. Before deciding which species and techniques to promote in this scheme, farmers and project staff should systematically record and document whether there are any local tree and bush species, how they are used arid whether farmers have indigenous knowledge related to agroforestry, such as intercropping, terracing, etc. Then the team should decide whether any of the existing indigenous knowledge (information, practices, technologies, species) could be used, improved or blended with outside technologies. As with any technology, efficacy, costs, cultural and social feasibility, effect on user and non-user groups, environmental impact and other factors should be considered and weighed against characteristics of alternative solutions
|
|
Blending indigenous and exogenous knowledge
|
|
Farmers in East Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia, have several practices to improve soil fertility and prevent erosion. The table shows how the Indigenous knowledge can be blended with and improved through exogenous knowledge.
|
|
Indigenous practice
|
|
Indigenous practice blended with exogenous knowledge
|
|
Carry biomass from the forest and burn it on fields.
|
|
Promote tree growing on farm for biomass production.
|
|
Burn plant residues on the farm and distribute the ash.
|
|
Reduce burning on farm; incorporate at least half of the residues unburnt into the soil.
|
|
Build walls from dry branches, shrubs and
|
|
Combine wall with contour ditch uphill from wall.
|
|
Bamboo.
|
|
Strengthen wall with live hedgerows.
|
|
Integrate trees into fields.
|
|
Improve planting patterns of existing practices.
|
|
Build terraces from rocks.
|
|
Strengthen terraces with live hedgerows.
|
|
<section>5. Extension and linkage strategies</section>
|
|
<section>Farming systems development</section>
|
|
The aim of farming systems development (FSD) is to rapidly identify useful local practices, as well as introduce new technology, for the benefit of small farmers. Agricultural extension workers work with. families to help choose farm management practices which fit local ecological and socioeconomic conditions. This participatory approach to upland rural development considers total farming systems. Income generation and food production are important, but sustainability is critical.
|
|
The success of FSD depends on the combined efforts of farmers, researchers, extension workers and planners. Scientists, sociologists and economists work with farmers to understand the limits to production and sustainability at the farm level. Plans are developed from the bottom up.
|
|
FSD bridges the gap between research and on-farm utilization while taking into consideration other influences such as markets, availability of labor, access to credit, level of surrounding infrastructure, extension support and government policies. The approach is long term.
|
|
The existing agricultural and natural resource base must be managed properly to maintain its carrying capacity and prevent further environmental degradation. This is a complex problem, pitting declining productivity and environmental degradation on one side and increasing population on the other.
|
|
FSD evolved as a strategy for implementing farming systems research.
|
|
FSD characteristics
|
|
· Farmer- and problemoriented
|
|
· Holistic
|
|
· Considers system interactions and linkages
|
|
· Multidisciplinary.
|
|
Methodology
|
|
FSD is carried out in a series of steps, each done separately, each affecting subsequent steps.
|
|
1 Area selection
|
|
FSD should be started in a few areas selected by delineating agroecological zones Representative sites should be chosen in each zone. Farm families should be tentatively classified into homogenous groups (families practicing more or less similar cropping systems, facing the same resource and other constraints and perhaps requiring similar solutions.
|
|
2 Getting started
|
|
Informal exploratory surveys and structured surveys are conducted and secondary data collected to help identify constraints and opportunities associated with the existing system, both in qualitative and quantitative terms.
|
|
3 Establishing a multidisciplinary team
|
|
A multidisciplinary team of specialists must be assembled to support the program. The composition of the team will depend on the potential of the area for crop production, forestry, fishery and livestock production but will always take into account the farm families for whom the project is being initiated. A farm management specialist, sociologist, economist and resource management specialist should be on the team. Caution: Multidisciplinary work is difficult, especially when it involves specialists from different agencies.
|
|
4 Evaluation of physical and biological factors
|
|
The productive potential of the project area is limited by physical and biological factors. The extent of resource degradation as well as its causes and effects should be assessed to determine constraints and identify needed improvements. Conservation and management practices required to maintain and improve the productivity of land and other natural resources should be identified. Analysis should be done by the team with the participation of farmer groups.
|
|
5 Identification of resources and constraints
|
|
The combination of on-farm enterprises is determined by the resources of the farm family. A household survey should be conducted to determine available resources, income and farm management practices of the farm family. An understanding of the goals and attitudes of farm families is important in order to prioritize development strategies.
|
|
6 Formulation of improved systems and strategies
|
|
Information on improved farm and natural resource management practices, as well as the experiences of successful farmers and technicians working in the field, should be collected. These should be compared with farmers, existing practices. Those found superior--in terms of technical merit, financial and economic viability and sustainability--should be used for developing improved farming systems and natural resource management plans
|
|
7 Implementation, monitoring and evaluation
|
|
New systems are tested on farmers, fields to determine their value. Did they increase production and income? Did they arrest degradation? Are they acceptable to the farm families? In the process of testing, offfarm factors which could constrain adoption of the new systems are analyzed. Means of overcoming these potential constraints are sought. The test farms must be monitored and a revised plan prepared based on the findings.
|
|
8 Expansion of the program
|
|
Systems which prove successful can be introduced to new areas with similar conditions. The value farmers see in the new systems will be affected by various socioeconomic and institutional factors such as land tenure, availability of credit, the existence of cooperatives and marketing and extension support. Adjustments will be needed to ensure the system fits the new areas.
|
|
Important considerations
|
|
1 Improved data collection systems and analysis
|
|
The FSD approach requires improved methodologies for information gathering and analysis. Understanding of the interrelationships and interactions of the various system components is crucial.
|
|
2 Better research and extension linkages
|
|
A strong link between research and extension is critical to FSD. Farmers' needs, priorities and resources must be considered. Likewise, extension workers rely on researchers for improved technology
|
|
3 Orientation of agricultural extension workers
|
|
Many extension personnel are still commodity-oriented. Socioeconomic considerations are often neglected Therefore, training of agricultural extension workers is needed to institutionalize the FSD approach.
|
|
4 Improved support services
|
|
Since FSD evolved from farming systems research, its natural strength lies in technology generation. But FSD's success will depend on how it deals with such factors as marketing, extension input supply, credit availability and policy support.
|
|
Make optimum use of natural and socioeconomic resources
|
|
· The plants and animals selected should be welladapted to the physical environment of the system.
|
|
· Establish proper proportions of crop, forest, livestock, fish and sideline production, according to the natural resource base, family nutritional needs, market demand and need for cash income.
|
|
Balance production and conservation
|
|
· Protect marginal lands and other sites prone to damage from agriculture.
|
|
· Proper tillage, cultivation and conservation measures must be adopted to conserve soil and water.
|
|
The result: Improved living conditions of farm families
|
|
· Improved nutrition
|
|
· Improved quality produce
|
|
· Firewood and other subsistence materials
|
|
· Enhanced efficiency and productivity to increase farm income.
|
|
Integrated farming systems
|
|
Components of an integrated farming systems interact to form a functional whole. Proper integration of components can promote productivity and sustainability. For instance, plant species of different heights growing in the same field can provide good vegetative cover to protect soil and conserve water, while making optimum use of space, labor, rainfall, sunlight and nutrient resources In China, livestock, fish and specialty food crops are produced together to make good use of feed crops and crop by-products (such as straw used as medium for growing mushrooms). The livestock manure improves the soil's physical and chemical properties which increase water infiltration and reduce erosion. Add a biogas digester to the system and organic wastes are turned into cooking fuel, reducing the demand for firewood, leaving the forests better protected against water erosion.
|
|
Integrated farming systems should benefit whole communities as well as individual farm families. Good systems can be sustainable suppliers while protecting and nurturing natural resources, if they are planned correctly from the start
|
|
<section>Farmer-led research and extension</section>
|
|
Farmer-led research and extension (also called "participatory technology development,, or PTD) combines the knowledge and research capacities of local communities and research and development organizations in an interactive learning process. It involves identifying, generating, testing and adapting new techniques and practices to help solve local problems. The ultimate aim is to strengthen the experimental and technology management capacities of local people and communities, thus farmers play a key role in the entire process. The "P.' in PTD can also refer to "people-centered" strategies and processes.
|
|
Principles
|
|
· Consider farmers' needs, indigenous knowledge, existing resources and local networks. Foster the development of these resources.
|
|
· Gain joint understanding of the main characteristics of and changes in the agroecological system.
|
|
· Support farmers and their organizations to increase their awareness, self-respect, self-confidence, knowledge and skills. This also encourages local people to continue the research and extension process after outside facilitation ceases.
|
|
· Ensure that farmers and outside facilitators jointly define priority problems.
|
|
· Provide practical experience to selected farmers so they can develop new technological options and transfer their knowledge to others.
|
|
· Use low-cost, locally produced research and extension inputs and materials. Let farmers and their organizations circulate them. This ensures that farmers are self-reliant and inputs are appropriate.
|
|
· Encourage demonstrations by a farmer or farmer group on their farm(s). The demonstrations can be replicated by other farmers.
|
|
· Promote research and extension roles for farmers themselves. Farmers traditionally fill these functions and they should not be taken up by outsiders who often know less about local physical and sociocultural conditions.
|
|
· Provide information on the changing situation to create awareness.
|
|
· Experiment locally with a variety of options derived both from farmers (indigenous knowledge or other farmer experiences) and from formal science. Suggest optional practices for farmers to decide on and test in their own fields, and encourage farmers also to suggest practices to test.
|
|
· Hold fore for farmers to evaluate and extend the research results to others.
|
|
Why do conventional research and extension not work well in the uplands?
|
|
Conventional agricultural research and extension systems work relatively well in the lowlands, where access to inputs and services is easy and technological "packages" fit well into homogenous, resource-rich conditions. But in the diverse, complex and resource-poor uplands, conventional research and development are less effective. Reasons for this include:
|
|
· Neglect of local knowledge and resources
|
|
· Over-emphasis on stationbased research under "ideal" conditions
|
|
· Research typically focuses on a single commodity, as opposed to system interactions.
|
|
· Neglect of rainfed areas
|
|
· Neglect of environmental effects (especially across ecosystems)
|
|
· Gender bias
|
|
· Primary focus on marketoriented production
|
|
· Extension of inappropriate technologies
|
|
· Poor extension methods (e.g., formal training, poorly timed, by outsiders unfamiliar with local conditions and language)
|
|
Process
|
|
1 Participatory appraisal
|
|
Researchers and extension workers lead a participatory appraisal of physical, socioeconomic and cultural circumstances of the community and external factors influencing it. (See Participatory appraisal methods ) Topics to identify:
|
|
· Indigenous knowledge (See Integrating indigenous knowledge)
|
|
· Traditional information networks
|
|
· Potential and limitations of local farming systems and natural resources management, within changing external conditions.
|
|
· Technical options on how to overcome limitations.
|
|
2 Research design
|
|
Conduct meeting(s) with farmers to design the research. Topics to discuss:
|
|
· The changing external situation
|
|
· Technical options suggested by researchers and extension workers in relation to farmers, experiences and knowledge
|
|
· Options to test in their fields
|
|
· Design of the experiment
|
|
· Management of the research (e.g., to be implemented by individual or groups?)
|
|
· Plans to conduct the research.
|
|
3 Technology testing and demonstration
|
|
Researchers and extensionists assist individual farmers or a group to implement experiments and monitor progress.
|
|
· Farmers record activities, e.g., date of planting, weedings and harvesting, date and amount of input applications, crop yield.
|
|
· Regular meetings, field days and exchange visits allow the farmers to show their tests and interim results to others.
|
|
Farmer-led vs conventional research and extension
|
|
Farmer-led approaches are complementary to (not a substitute for) station-based research, scientist-managed on-farm trials and conventional extension approaches.
|
|
Farmer-led approaches link the power and capacities of agricultural science to the priorities and capabilities of farming communities.
|
|
Farmer-led and conventional research and extension activities differ in three essential ways:
|
|
· Farmer-led approaches do not attempt to generate results that can (or should) be generalized across wide areas (although that may happen).
|
|
· Farmer-led methods follow a different approach to collecting, codifying, interpreting and utilizing information.
|
|
· Practitioners of farmer-led approaches can be based in any rural development service or project and even among a local community.
|
|
4 Joint evaluation
|
|
Researchers, extension workers and farmers jointly evaluate the experiment and plan for the new research. Questions to discuss:
|
|
· What are the results of the experiment? Positive or negative?
|
|
· What do we learn from the experiment?
|
|
· What should be the design for the next experiment?
|
|
· What should be the management for the next experiment?
|
|
5Experienced farmers extend findings
|
|
· Training, meetings, study trips and field visits
|
|
· Local production, supply and marketing of inputs.
|
|
Farmers as trainers
|
|
Advantages
|
|
· Improves farmer-specialists' ability to disseminate know-how.
|
|
· Avoids language barrier.
|
|
· Training takes place at a convenient time and place--usually in the trainees' own village.
|
|
· Topics are adjusted to fit the farmers' context, ideas and local resources.
|
|
· Relaxed atmosphere allows a free exchange of ideas.
|
|
· Strengthens local information network.
|
|
Considerations
|
|
· Farmer-trainers must have others' trust: they must be experienced and have good intentions and ethics. Training activities should not burden them.
|
|
· Junior specialists who are not experienced in giving presentations should practice as assistant trainers first.
|
|
· Selection of farmer-trainers can be a delicate issue, for conflicts may exist among villages or clans.
|
|
· Training should be conducted in small groups with field practice. Each group has an assistant trainer to respond to questions and guide the practice.
|
|
· Farmers are often willing to pay an honorarium to farmertrainers.
|
|
Key actors
|
|
· Farmers and local community members
|
|
· Official research and development institutions (usually government or academic)
|
|
· Nongovernment organizations
|
|
· Farmer organizations
|
|
· Artisans and traders
|
|
· Private enterprise (inputs, markets, etc.)
|
|
Limitations of farmer - led research and extension
|
|
· Farmer experiments are often undirected and unfocused. This is a result of (or leads to) poor experimental design.
|
|
· The relevance and application of research can be limited.
|
|
· Political friction, language problems, remoteness and inaccessibility can limit the ability of researchers and extension workers to follow up experiments and of local farmers or communities to share their experiences.
|
|
Meetings
|
|
Village and intervillage meetings, study trips and field visits are ways for farmers to exchange experiences, ideas and know-how. Study trips and field visits allow farmers to see real experiences in specific conditions. This stimulates discussion on what they can apply in their own conditions. Such visits also strengthen information networks and technical assistance.
|
|
Considerations
|
|
· In many places, village or intervillage meetings are held either by regulation or tradition. These can be used for farmers to exchange ideas with other farmers.
|
|
· Study trips conducted to villages of the same ethnic group allow easy communication.
|
|
· Farmers are always interested to see (not only to hear) what happens in the fields. Field visits are effective means of exchanging knowledge and ideas.
|
|
<section>Farm planning</section>
|
|
Farm planning is an important part of farmer-led extension strategies. It facilitates local farmers to adopt crops and technologies appropriate to their problems, needs and programs. It also helps translate issues, problems, policies and research findings to the farm level. Farm planning assumes that a community approach to extension is used and that farmers wish to improve their farms. The process is facilitated by key farmers or extension workers.
|
|
Helping farmers plan
|
|
Assess problems
|
|
Farmers assess needs and identify problems using diagnostic tools (See section on Participatory appraisal methods).
|
|
Discuss finding
|
|
The farmers discuss the findings in a group meeting or workshop. They analyze problems related to household needs, farm production, local economic conditions and the availability of basic services. They also discuss current trends and the potential for developing individual farms.
|
|
Visit farms
|
|
During the meeting, the facilitator may organize visits to individual farms to allow more detailed discussion of findings. Such visits make it easier later to translate the findings into individual farm plans.
|
|
Draw existing farm layout
|
|
Each farmer draws a diagram of his or her existing farm layout. Alternatively, several farmers can work together on a single diagram The diagram should include all buildings, crops and other enterprises. It forms the basis of the individual farm plan.
|
|
Otter alternatives
|
|
The extension worker, representatives of other agencies or farmers themselves outline various alternatives for improvements. These may be based on ideal models developed by the farmers, research findings, farms visited during cross-visits and practices found useful elsewhere.
|
|
Develop farms
|
|
Farmers discuss possible changes and design improved farms for each individual based on the existing layouts and the alternatives suggested. Farmers may modify the ideal models to suit their own situations, capabilities and objectives. For instance, one farmer may focus on livestock production, while another chooses to grow vegetables. The facilitator helps individuals prepare short-, mediumand long-term plans for the types of crops and livestock, in order for the farmer to achieve his or her income or other objectives.
|
|
Plan technology testing
|
|
Farm planning can also be used to design on-farm trials of new technologies, crop varieties or livestock breeds.
|
|
These various activities can be done in a different order from that presented here. In practice, the activities build on and merge into each other. For instance, discussion of an existing farm layout may suggest new alternatives for improvement. It is possible that the plans are changed several times before a farmer decides which is the most appropriate course of action for him or her. The farm planning sheet can help farmers determine what actions to take.
|
|
Structure of farm planning sheet
|
|
Problems
|
|
Objectives of farm improvement (Expected output, yield and in
|
|
come, when to be accomplished)
|
|
Available resources or potentials
|
|
Areas or site to be planted (Whole or part of farm)
|
|
Limitations
|
|
Crops and trees to be selected
|
|
Possible combination of crops/planting pattern and distance
|
|
Supporting technologies to be adopted
|
|
Seeds and other materials required
|
|
Source of information, technology, seeds, other materials
|
|
Activity, schedule and responsible person.
|
|
Institutional issues
|
|
· Extension workers who will facilitate the farm planning process must be carefully selected and trained. They must be broad-minded to relate to local social, economic and biophysical issues. They should have a good community approach and communication skills.
|
|
· Using existing farmers' organizations and community groups facilitates the planning process. These organizations should be strengthened through leaders, members' participation in cross-visits, workshops, training and planning sessions.
|
|
· It may be necessary to strike compromises with government policies and strategies, adapting these as necessary to suit local conditions.
|
|
· External reviews should include government officials, nongovernment organizations and others who have relevant experience and knowledge about the area.
|
|
Farm planning: Some lessons
|
|
· Farm plans are usually prepared on a yearly basis, although farmers also have long-term objectives.
|
|
· Farm plan diagrams are kept at the farmer's house. Every year, this diagram will be improved. It will also become the basis of the implementing agencies' annual planning and for developing measurable objectives.
|
|
· Farmers usually cannot (or do not want to) improve the whole farm if they do not have enough resources or are uncertain of the outcomes.
|
|
· Not all farmers are interested in farm trials.
|
|
· Extension workers or key farmers often become the source of improved models. Usually, they must have their own farm trials for other farmers to evaluate and adopt new technology.
|
|
· The economic implications of implementing the farm plan can be evaluated by calculating the gross margin or a partial budget (See Financial indicators as a decision-making tool,
|
|
Example of farm planning sheet
|
|
Problems
|
|
· Low corn-yield production
|
|
· Soil fertility decreasing; erosion
|
|
· Poor fencing; crops damaged by freeroaming animals
|
|
· Lack of fodder for animal
|
|
· Lack of income
|
|
· Lack of timber.
|
|
Objectives
|
|
Short term ( 1-3 years)
|
|
· Improve soil condition (fertility management and erosion control)
|
|
· Plant fodder species
|
|
· Improve fencing
|
|
· Improve animal production
|
|
· Identify and strengthen farm-based income-generating activities.
|
|
Long term
|
|
· Improve income
|
|
· Improve yield and achieve food self sufficiency
|
|
· Produce sufficient timber.
|
|
Available resources
|
|
· 1.5 ha of land, partially planted with fruit trees; small portion used for housing, storage and pig house
|
|
· 1 cow, 3 goats: grazing on the grass and tethered in the evening
|
|
· Locally available fencing materials (Gliricidia stem cuttings)
|
|
· Material for nursery house available locally.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· No water supply on the farm
|
|
· Sloping land
|
|
· 7-8 month dry season: no activity
|
|
· Poor access
|
|
· Intense rainfall during rainy season.
|
|
Name of farmer: Pak Nani
|
|
Village: Desa Gerodhere
|
|
Farmer group: Watubha
|
|
Crops/species selection
|
|
(All these species usually given in local names)
|
|
· Gliricidia septum (fencing materials and live hedgerows)
|
|
· Calliandra (live hedgerows and fodder)
|
|
· Flemingia congesta (live hedgerows and fodder)
|
|
· Acacia nilotica (fencing and fodder)
|
|
· Mahogany (timber)
|
|
· Sesbania grandiflora (fodder and fuelwood)
|
|
· Elephant grass ( pasture and soil conservation)
|
|
· Banana (fruit)
|
|
· Coconut (nut)
|
|
· Gmelina arborea (timber and furniture)
|
|
· Acacia villosa (fuelwood)
|
|
Planting pattern
|
|
Uphill part
|
|
Tree crops, fruit and fodder planted in the uphill part of the farm in wide rows.
|
|
Middle part
|
|
Hedgerows and in-row tillage. Hedgerows will be Gliricidia, Flemingia, Calliandra and
|
|
Acacia villosa. Some hedgerows will be strengthened with elephant grass.
|
|
Sesbania grandiflora will be planted in wide rows as a source of fodder.
|
|
Lower part
|
|
In-row tillage.
|
|
Fencing
|
|
Stem cuttings of Gliricidia septum planted at 25 cm distance. On the inside, Acacia nilotica seeds will be sown to strengthen the fencing.
|
|
Supporting technologies
|
|
· Nursery techniques
|
|
· Hedgerows
|
|
· Living fence
|
|
· In-row tillage
|
|
· Family forest
|
|
· Animal house construction.
|
|
Materials and support needed
|
|
· Seeds of trees and shrubs
|
|
· Plastic bags
|
|
· Training on A-frame and in-row tillage
|
|
· Nursery technique
|
|
· Information on introduced species.
|
|
Schedule
|
|
Activity
|
|
Months
|
|
Responsible person
|
|
Farmers' meeting for farm planning
|
|
Apr
|
|
Group of farmers
|
|
Collect seeds
|
|
Jun-Sept
|
|
Group
|
|
Construct nursery
|
|
Jun-Jul
|
|
Group
|
|
Plant nursery
|
|
Jul-Sept
|
|
Self/group
|
|
Maintain and care for nursery
|
|
Jul-Jan
|
|
Self/group
|
|
Prepare soil
|
|
Oct-Nov
|
|
Self/group
|
|
A-frame training and practice
|
|
Oct
|
|
Group
|
|
Sow seeds and construct contour ditch
|
|
Nov-Dec
|
|
Group
|
|
Dig rows for in-row tillage
|
|
Oct
|
|
Self/group
|
|
Transplant seedlings
|
|
Jan
|
|
Self
|
|
Cut and plant stems for fencing
|
|
Nov
|
|
Self
|
|
Improve fencing
|
|
Dec
|
|
Self
|
|
Weed I
|
|
Jan-Feb
|
|
Group
|
|
Weed 11
|
|
Feb-Mar
|
|
Group
|
|
Prune hedgerows
|
|
Mar-AprlNov
|
|
Self
|
|
Replace/plant
|
|
Feb
|
|
Self
|
|
Construct animal house
|
|
Self/group
|
|
Sell goat
|
|
Self
|
|
Sell cattle
|
|
Self
|
|
Buy young goat
|
|
Self
|
|
Buy young cattle
|
|
Self
|
|
Farmers' evaluation meeting
|
|
Group
|
|
<section>Using farmers' quarterly meetings for sharing and extension</section>
|
|
Yayasan Tananua is a local farmers' organization working in the islands of Sumba, Flores and Timor in Indonesia. The Yayasan's oldest branch is currently working with 28 out of 100 villages in the subdistrict of East Sumba. Of these, eight are attended by full-time field workers; 11 by part-time farmerleaders; the rest have neither. Unable to provide field workers or farmer-leaders for the remaining nine villages, Yayasan Tananua relies on the enthusiasm and volunteerism of the farmers to extend technologies while it provides supervisory visits. This new approach is currently being tested and may form an alternative model for managing farmer-to-farmer extension.
|
|
Quarterly meetings are one of the most important mechanisms for the upland communities in Yayasan Tananua's program area to keep abreast of what is happening within and outside the organization. These meetings usually last for four days (excluding travel time to and from the meeting place) and are attended by about 5070 farmers, farmer-leaders, extension workers and staff of the organization.
|
|
The meetings alternate among the villages, with the host village organizing all the logistics (including sleeping quarters, meals and snacks) and the meeting agenda. A typical quarterly meeting features farmers, presentations of their accomplishments and plans; other activities include farm visits, training/hands-on practice on new technologies and evaluations of farmer-leaders or new staff under probation. It is also a forum for exchanging information and discussing other program issues.
|
|
Farmer presentations
|
|
Presentations alternate from village to village. On the average, 2-5 farmers from each village attend (representatives to these meetings are decided by villagers themselves). They present an evaluation of their farm activities during the last quarter and their plans for the next. Many farmers are now making use of farm plans drawn on large sheets of paper to make their presentations. They also take this opportunity to raise problems they experience with certain technologies and seek advice from the more experienced farmers.
|
|
Farmer-leaders and field workers also report on the progress made at the village level (number of farmers they are currently assisting, number of new recruits, number/types of training, courses attended or conducted, etc.). Field supervisors and program leaders likewise present their own reports about program-level concerns.
|
|
Demonstrations and field practice
|
|
Extensionists and farmers alike give practical demonstrations and lead practicum sessions on relevant technologies in one of the farms. These technologies may be the results of their own experiment, practices in other places they have visited, or new ones they learned from training they have attended recently.
|
|
Farm visits
|
|
During the farm visits, farmers in the host village show the progress they have made on their farms and raise questions on problems they are facing. Visiting farmers critically evaluate the farms--often providing recommendations based on their own experience; this also gives them a chance to learn about technologies being practiced locally. The group tries to visit as many farms as possible. These farms need not be the best ones in the village; priority is given to farms not previously visited.
|
|
Staff evaluation
|
|
Field workers and farmer-leaders are carefully scrutinized during these meetings. As leaders, they have responsibilities toward the communities they serve. When farmers feel that these leaders are not fulfilling their responsibilities, the issue is raised and discussed openly with everyone involved in trying to find a solution.
|
|
An occasional feature of the quarterly meeting is the evaluation of new field staff or farmer-leader candidates. A team of farmers and field workers is formed to facilitate the evaluation process. The evaluation team prepares a set of questions to be answered within a specified time limit. Questions are simple and fair, e.g., what are the basic principles of the organization, how to increase/manage soil fertility and the like. Often, the "examinees', are asked to respond to hypothetical questions or do a role play (such as a simulation of how one would introduce a new technology).
|
|
Ideas for future meetings
|
|
Toward the end of the meeting, the venue and time of the next quarterly meeting are planned and the tentative agenda are drawn up so that farmers can bring back the news to their neighbors.
|
|
Radio announcements are made to remind them and to inform others of the next meeting. Information about relevant training courses, plans for cross-visits and other such events are also discussed.
|
|
Key values
|
|
These quarterly meetings provide a good training ground for both present and future leaders. Activities are organized and all the sessions are moderated by the farmers themselves. Part of the central role that these meetings play in building leadership and solidarity among the members also lies in the key values being promoted:
|
|
· Giving voice. Every farmer is given an opportunity to speak-- either to share an experience, raise an issue, or ask a question.
|
|
· Democracy. All problems and issues of the organization are raised openly; everyone is encouraged to form opinion and help in finding the solution.
|
|
· Inclusiveness. These quarterly meetings are open to everyone: even non-members can attend and participate.
|
|
· Accountability Farmers, farmer-leaders, field workers, program staff are all evaluated on their performance and accomplishments.
|
|
· Commitment to learning. Farmers come to these meetings, avid to learn from each other. If they have not learned something new, they usually leave disappointed.
|
|
Challenges and problems
|
|
· Logistical arrangements for transport, food and accommodation for an ever-enlarging group are becoming more difficult. The organization has recently split the program villages into the two groups by geographic location. The quarterly meetings are now easier to manage, although this has resulted in additional demands on the program leaders who have to attend the two separate meetings.
|
|
· The increasing interest from other programs and agencies has resulted in a larger number of people attending these meetings.
|
|
· Due to the democratic process used, discussions are often long and drawn out and conclusions are not always clear.
|
|
· Despite the organization's attempts to involve more women, their attendance to these meetings is still very low. In the host villages, their involvement is generally limited to preparing and serving the food and snacks.
|
|
Additional reading
|
|
Farmer-to-farmer extension: Some experiences of Yayasan Tananua by Patris da Gomez and llya Moeliono in Resource book on sustainable agriculture for the lowlands. IIRR. June 1992.
|
|
<section>Extension systems</section>
|
|
Why do extension efforts fail?
|
|
Mandate of extension
|
|
· Extension goals conflict with agricultural policy.
|
|
· The extension service does not have a clear provision for conservation of natural resources (e.g., environmental degradation, soil erosion, water contamination).
|
|
Top-down vs two-way approach
|
|
· Many extension organizations use a directive, top-down approach, with information flowing from the central government, through extensionists, to farmers. Effective extension also requires information to flow in the opposite direction, from farmers, through extension, to higher levels.
|
|
· A lack of such information flows and a failure to recognize farmers' problems result in inappropriate research and extension programs. (See Participatory appraisal methods for some ways to overcome this.)
|
|
What is extension?
|
|
Extension is the conscious use of communication of information to help people form sound opinions and make good decisions. Both government and non government organizations engage in extension work. There is a great diversity in the organization, utilization and delivery of extension services, ranging from national government structures with thousands of extension workers to smallscale initiatives by NGOs and people's organizations.
|
|
Successful extension programs must use an approach (or combination of approaches) that facilitates an understanding of the complexity of farm-household systems. Extension planners and field workers must understand the dynamic processes encompassing values, beliefs and other social and political perspectives that influence people in agriculture.
|
|
Links with research
|
|
· Government research and extension departments are in separate units. resulting in Door linkage and a fragmented approach. (See Research-extension-farmer linkages for ideas on overcoming this problem.)
|
|
· Technology generated through research and extended to farmers is incompatible with farmers' needs.
|
|
Links with farmers
|
|
· Extensionists are unable to relate to farmers.
|
|
· Most extensionists are men. They mainly consult male family members. Women and children lack access to information, training and extension services.
|
|
· Extensionists attempt to act as "experts,, who have all the answers, rather than as facilitators who can help farmers solve their problems.
|
|
Links with support services
|
|
· Support systems (credit, market, input suppliers, etc.) are weak.
|
|
· Links between research and extension and these support systems are poor.
|
|
Government support
|
|
· Extensionists lack training and experience.
|
|
· The number of extension workers is limited (I extension worker for every 2666 farmers in the Asia-Pacific region).
|
|
· Funding for extension is limited.
|
|
· Training facilities and information materials (video, slides, training materials, etc.) are inadequate.
|
|
Orientation and motivation
|
|
· Extension workers are commodity-oriented rather than systems- or problem-oriented.
|
|
· Extension workers are poorly paid. They have low morale and may seek other sources of income.
|
|
Conventional extension
|
|
Conventional extension aims to disseminate farm information and persuade farmers to adopt certain innovations. An example of this approach is the "training-and-visit,, system. Field extension agents train selected "contact farmers," who are expected to pass on their new knowledge to other farmers.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· The selected farmers may adopt the technology only because they are more educated or have better access to resources or technical skills.
|
|
· Improving the extension service has focused more on efficient delivery rather than the effectiveness and relevance of messages to farmers.
|
|
· Extension workers see themselves as messengers rather than listeners, learners and farm advisers.
|
|
· This approach promotes technology transfer rather than technology adaptation.
|
|
· Not well-suited to diverse agroecosystems and socioeconomic conditions of the uplands.
|
|
Strengths
|
|
· Enormous investments already made in conventional extension approaches.
|
|
· Relatively easy for governments to manage.
|
|
· Suited to disseminating uniform messages throughout large areas of relatively homogeneous agroecosystems.
|
|
· Takes maximum advantage of a small number of technologies developed and tested by research organizations.
|
|
Participatory extension
|
|
Participatory extension recognizes the range of capabilities of the farmers based on their accumulated experience in managing their production systems. It involves the farmers in the whole process of decision-making--from data collection and analysis, identification of problems, constraints and opportunity analysis, preparation of improvement plans to implementation, monitoring and evaluation. The role of extension worker is to enhance the farmers, capabilities and potentials for improving their farms.
|
|
The extensionist must be motivated and willing to work with resource-poor upland farmers. The participatory extension approach can work with either individual farmers or groups. Its success depends on support from policy and decision-makers to strengthen local institutions to provide extension and other services.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Needs training of resource-poor farmers.
|
|
· Needs reorientation of research and extension organizations.
|
|
· Needs training of research and extension personnel.
|
|
· Difficult to implement on a wide scale.
|
|
· Requires large staff time per number of farmers reached.
|
|
Strengths
|
|
· Highly effective at generating and adapting locally specific technologies.
|
|
· Can lead to self-sustaining groups of farmers who generate, test and extend their own technology.
|
|
· Produces technologies and strategies that respond to needs of resource-poor farmers (rather than researchers or policy makers).
|
|
· Develops the skills of farmers to solve their own problems even as conditions change.
|
|
(See other sections in this chapter for information on various participatory approaches to extension.)
|
|
Farming systems development
|
|
Farming systems development incorporates improved natural resource management practices for sustainable management of marginal and fragile areas. Biological scientists, sociologists, economists and the extension workers work with farmers to understand the limits to production for sustainability at the farm level. (See the section on Farming systems development for details.)
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· Extensionists lack training on the farming systems development approach and related areas.
|
|
· Linkages between research and extension are weak.
|
|
· Budgets to implement the process are limited.
|
|
· Support systems in research, extension, input supply, marketing, credit and policy-making are weak.
|
|
· Forming a multidisciplinary team in the field is difficult.
|
|
Strengths
|
|
· Farmer-oriented. Involves farmers in planning, design and implementation.
|
|
· Problem-oriented. Examines the goals, needs, resources, opportunities and constraints of farmers.
|
|
· Systems-oriented. Entails a systematic process of data collection, analysis, planning, technology development and information dissemination. It assumes that the technology is available, allowing the intervention to take only a short period.
|
|
· Holistic. Integrates the farming systems with the community and other support institutions.
|
|
· Multidisciplinary. Links scientists, extensionists and farmers.
|
|
<section>Research-extensionfarmer linkages</section>
|
|
A linkage is two-way communication channel between two subsystems, such as research and extension. For the agricultural development process to operate efficiently and to benefit farmers, strong linkages are necessary between researchers, extension agencies and fanners.
|
|
The success of these linkages depends on several factors:
|
|
· The willingness of participants to contribute actively to the linkage.
|
|
· A working relationship based on partnership and mutual trust among the different groups.
|
|
· Activities managed and financed transparently.
|
|
· Budgetary support to undertake activities.
|
|
Research-extension linkages
|
|
Research publications
|
|
Examples: newsletters, brochures, folders and booklets
|
|
· Contain current information.
|
|
· Present research results in simple, easy-tounderstand form.
|
|
· Serve as "first-aid" tools for extensionists who encounter problems in farmers' fields.
|
|
· Scientific journals are difficult to translate into practical recommendations, so are of little use to most extensionists.
|
|
Regular meetings
|
|
Examples: seminars, workshops
|
|
· Allow extensionists and researchers to share experiences.
|
|
· Allow questions and immediate feedback.
|
|
· Can train both researchers and extensionists.
|
|
Joint field visits
|
|
· Allow researchers and extensionists to see problems and discuss them with farmers.
|
|
On-farm research
|
|
· Helps ensure that research is appropriate to field conditions.
|
|
· Enables extensionists to test and disseminate findings rapidly.
|
|
· Helps extensionists appreciate research activities.
|
|
· Enables researchers to understand farmer and extension needs.
|
|
Research-farmer linkages
|
|
On-farm research
|
|
· Helps researchers become aware of farmers' problems.
|
|
· Enables joint problem-solving.
|
|
· Allows development of appropriate, location-specific technologies.
|
|
Field studies
|
|
· Enable researchers to study problem over wide area.
|
|
· Allow researchers to focus on specific topics.
|
|
Participatory data gathering
|
|
Example. Participatory rural appraisal, situation-specific analysis
|
|
· Enables joint identification of problems and potential solutions.
|
|
· Allows local people to air problems.
|
|
· Develops researchers' understanding of farmers' situation.
|
|
See also sections on Participatory appraisal methods and Farmer-led research and extension.
|
|
Other linkages
|
|
Many other organizations and groups also need to be linked into the research-extension-farmer triangle. These include policymakers, government service agencies, input suppliers, marketing organizations and NGOs. Appropriate linkages with these groups must be developed to ensure that research and extension efforts adequately serve the needs of farmers.
|
|
Institutions to ensure linkage
|
|
Ensuring strong linkages among researchers, extensionists and farmers is not easy. Various institutions can play a role in this. Here are some examples from Indonesia.
|
|
Research-extension
|
|
Provincial-level agricultural information centers.
|
|
Extension-farmer
|
|
District-level agricultural and forestry extension services.
|
|
Rural extension centers.
|
|
Research-farmer
|
|
Provincial-level research and development centers.
|
|
Commercial research organizations.
|
|
NGO research organizations.
|
|
Extension-farmer linkages
|
|
Farm and home visits
|
|
· Enable individual discussion and consultations on specific problems.
|
|
· Strengthen understanding between extension staff and farmers.
|
|
Farmers' visits to extension centers
|
|
· Enable farmers to express their needs and seek solutions to problems.
|
|
· Can be organized for groups or be on a walk-in basis.
|
|
Farmer training programs
|
|
· Allow formal way for extensionists to improve farmers, knowledge and skills.
|
|
Participation in farmer meetings
|
|
· Extensionists can help organize farmer groups to tackle common problems.
|
|
· Indigenous organizations (e.g., irrigation associations, mutual-help groups, committees to organize fiestas) provide useful ways for extensionists to discuss topics with farmers.
|
|
Technology demonstrations on farmers' fields
|
|
· Boost farmers' interest in technologies.
|
|
· Allow dialogue on problems and their solutions.
|
|
· Enable researchers to share new technologies and participate in dialogue.
|
|
Joint research and development (penelitian pengembangan) in Indonesia
|
|
Goal
|
|
The goal of the Indonesian Upland Agriculture and Conservation Project was to increase farm production and income, while minimizing soil erosion in critical upland areas of Central and East Java.
|
|
Strategies
|
|
Five years (1987-91) were spent testing alternative farming systems. Initially, a top-down approach advocating ideal farming models (based on the slope of the land) was used. Adoption of the models, however, had limited success because of great variation in site conditions. Also, during the early years, linkages were not well-developed between farmers and agencies involved in the project.
|
|
During 1991-93, a more dynamic planning approach was used which systematically drew upon the experience of farmers, extension workers, local government leaders, researchers and agricultural entrepreneurs. This approach, known as penelitian pengembangan (joint research and development) relies on consensus building and collaboration from the planning stage all the way through implementation and evaluation. Farmers are treated as full partners in the process. Also, conservation strategies are tailored to fit the physical, biological and socioeconomic characteristics of each site (a microcatchment of 18 to 50 ha) and preferences of individual farm families.
|
|
The process involves:
|
|
· Site selection
|
|
· Conduct of a participatory diagnostic exercise
|
|
· Discussion of alternative conservation and production strategies
|
|
· Formation of farmer groups
|
|
· Implementation of field activities
|
|
· Management of superimposed trials (to test promising new technologies)
|
|
· Regular monitoring
|
|
· Joint evaluation and reporting
|
|
· Identification of opportunities for expansion on a wider scale.
|
|
To supplement on-farm research under the penelitian pengembangan approach, longterm trials were conducted in a "field laboratory" on researcher-managed land. This was useful to test component technologies before extending them to farmers and to measure erosion under controlled conditions.
|
|
Limitations
|
|
· While the penelitian pengembangan approach is well-suited for dealing with highly diverse ecological and socioeconomic conditions, it is expensive and assumes the presence of motivated rural development managers, extension workers, research personnel and farmers.
|
|
· In some cases, where top-down control is necessary for protection of endangered natural resources, this approach may be incompatible with enforcement strategies of government agencies.
|
|
· Operating linkages between agencies involved in agroforestry from various government and I nongovernment agencies are often weak.
|
|
<section>Marketing support</section>
|
|
Marketing upland farm products is not easy. Products produced by a large number of scattered, small farmers are assembled, transported, stored, processed and passed through several channels, before reaching the consumers who have varying incomes, tastes and preferences. The products are seasonally produced, highly perishable and bulky. Infrastructure and communication facilities are relatively inadequate in upland areas. Limited attention has been given to improving upland marketing because many governments assume that the market will take care of itself and that the private sector will perform the marketing functions. However, experience shows that government has an important role to play. Long-term solutions also require the empowerment of community organizations and their networks in marketing management. Short-term solutions will help farmers obtain a better price for their produce; they include greater market transparency by providing market information, assistance in
|
|
post-harvest handling, grading and packaging and better crop-care practices. The development of an upland marketing system depends upon the overall level of national development. Efforts to improve the system should start from a thorough assessment of the problems. For example, dismantling the market power exercised by traders will not be effective if the real problems are in transport, storage and processing.
|
|
Constraints in marketing upland agricultural produce
|
|
Production practices
|
|
Growers generally are unaware of the importance that production factors have on their ability to market their produce effectively. Attention should be given to production and cultivation practices which determine not only the quantity but also the timeliness and the quality of produce and hence the price it will command in the market. Orienting production to meet market demand at a given time of the year will avoid market glut and assure the farmer a better price.
|
|
Post-harvest handling practices
|
|
Untimely and improper methods of harvesting, rough handling, nonsorting of damaged produce and substandard packaging will increase losses and put the farmer-seller at a disadvantaged position vis-a-vis the buyer.
|
|
Structure of the market
|
|
Growers are reluctant to increase their production because of lack of market and marketing knowledge. Moreover, market channels overlap in some areas where produce changes hands several times during assembling, packaging, transporting to wholesalers, to other wholesalers, to retailers and finally to the consumers. In each stage, marketing costs are incurred and the people involved have to make a profit. High marketing costs and profit make the price spread between the producer and the consumer high. A high marketing margin (marketing costs plus profit) is an indicator of an inefficient marketing system.
|
|
Marketing problems
|
|
· Limited volume of production due to small farm size and subsistence nature of some production systems.
|
|
· Seasonality of production due to climatic and weather conditions.
|
|
· Inadequate infrastructure facilities.
|
|
· Lack of market information on volume of production and current prices.
|
|
· Immediate need for cash, forcing farmers to sell immediately after harvest when prices are lowest.
|
|
· Market price fluctuations due to both domestic and world market situations.
|
|
· High transportation cost because of difficult road access, especially during the rainy season.
|
|
· Lack of storage facilities.
|
|
· Limited skills to process produce to add value.
|
|
Market channels
|
|
Direct marketing
|
|
In direct marketing, farmers themselves market their own produce. Usually, these farmers are well-educated and have contacts with the private sector. They have transport facilities and are knowledgeable about the market. They are in a better position than other farmers who just wait for traders to buy their produce.
|
|
Traders
|
|
Middlemen play a vital role in marketing farm produce. They must receive a reasonable rate of return from their investment, buying produce at a low price and then selling to consumers at higher prices. Many traders are local people who have developed good relationships with farmers. Some traders provide rice on credit or advance loans to farmers to guarantee that the farmers will sell them their produce. They then deduct from the purchase price the cost of the rice or the money advanced plus the interest.
|
|
Contract farming
|
|
There are several types of contract farming. One is contract selling, in which the traders take over the management until the crop is harvested. Contract selling assures farmers of a market at harvest time with no risk to the trader. Another type is a resourcemanagement contract, which operates through a broker system. The broker contacts farmers, distributes complete packages of seeds, fertilizer and pesticides on credit, carries out extension work, does the marketing and pays the farmers.
|
|
Contract farming schemes assure agro-based industries a ready supply of raw materials as well as a ready market for the farmer contractgrowers. However, sometimes the contract is so restrictive that it penalizes the farmer heavily. For example, if quality standards are not met, products are rejected and farmers have to reimburse the expenses incurred.
|
|
Improving marketing opportunities
|
|
At the farm or village level
|
|
· Increase farmers' knowledge of factors influencing marketing fluctuations, options for marketable products, trends in the price of each crop, marketing chains and outlets, required technology, capital and crop management, economic risks and availability of supplies and credit institutions. Also, increase farmers, skills to deal with marketing by means of study trips, intervillage meetings, on-the-job training, etc.
|
|
· Support the formation of producer and marketing groups for cash crops. Such groups strengthen farmers, bargaining power in dealing with organized traders, low pricing and difficult access to transport due to small quantities, low quality produce due to poor management practices and lack of information and skills.
|
|
· Raise the social responsibility of agro-industries in contract farming. Strengthen farmers, ability to negotiate with them to improve the brokers, marketing and payment system and to share risks of production. Extension workers should be in a position to intervene in contract arrangements to assure that they benefit the farmers.
|
|
· Assist farmers in planning market-oriented production to prevent market glut and assure that there will be demand for the produce.
|
|
· Provide farmers with market information to guide them on planning where and when to sell and at what price.
|
|
· Assist farmers in grading, sorting, storage and handling their produce.
|
|
· Provide direct market assistance by locating the buyers.
|
|
At the market level
|
|
· Provide assembly or trading centers or wholesale markets where farmers could bring their produce and where prices are determined in a competitive market situation.
|
|
· Improve and maintain farm-to-market roads to minimize losses and lower transportation costs.
|
|
· Introduce new and improved processing that will add value to products.
|
|
· Train traders at all levels on proper marketing procedures, grading, packaging, etc., to increase efficiency, lower the risks of loss and attain a reasonable level of profit.
|
|
· Provide market information systems for buyers, traders and consumers so they can decide what, when and where to buy products.
|
|
· Provide incentives. Appreciate the role of traders in development and instill discipline and sense of accountability to promote cooperation and avoid cheating the consuming public.
|
|
At the national or policy level
|
|
· Maintain strong political will with resource commitments to support upland marketing systems.
|
|
· Determine appropriate price and non-price policies that provide incentives for farmers to introduce innovations that will increase income.
|
|
· Adopt a market-led farming systems development approach: a system that is demand-driven and considers the interrelationships, interdependency and linkages among the different actors in the whole process of production, marketing and consumption activities.
|
|
· Train extension workers on marketing to increase their capability not only to look at production aspects but also to consider marketing and production as a continuous, interrelated process.
|
|
· Conduct relevant market research to improve marketing functions so as to minimize losses and increase efficiency.
|
|
<section>Farm credit support</section>
|
|
Need for farm credit
|
|
· To expand agricultural production
|
|
· To conserve soil and water
|
|
· To expand post-harvest practices and facilities
|
|
· To improve marketing
|
|
· To promote integrated cropping and livestock systems.
|
|
Procedures for determining credit requirements
|
|
Medium- and long-term investments require more thorough technical economic and financial feasibility studies.
|
|
Factors affecting farmers' accessing credit
|
|
1. Availability of credit sources in the area
|
|
2. Timeliness of credit requirements
|
|
3. Annual interest rate
|
|
4. Maturity and manner of payment
|
|
5. Collateral requirements.
|
|
<section>Rural enterprise development</section>
|
|
Many small-scale farmers are unable to support their families adequately given marginal upland conditions. Off-farm employment and income-generating activities are one way to improve their livelihoods. Many farm families already rely on such activities for a large portion of their income. Income sources include both wage labor and independent entrepreneurship. Various family members may earn income in this way: men and women, young and old, seasonal and permanent migrants.
|
|
Natural resources and skills available in upland communities can be optimized through:
|
|
· Developing small-scale enterprises.
|
|
· Forming mutually beneficial linkages with existing enterprises outside the community.
|
|
Encouraging entrepreneurship
|
|
One strategy for upland development is to help farmers become more effective entrepreneurs. This does not mean they should be encouraged to abandon their farms. Rather, they should be able to mobilize resources to develop their productivity and increase their bargaining power.
|
|
Extension workers can play an important role in helping link farmers with emerging markets and production opportunities. They may also help link farmers with other farmers so they are able to attain the critical mass needed to become competitive. Extension personnel have to learn how to think like entrepreneurs and to share these skills with farmers.
|
|
The following list of possible steps is to help farmers and extension personnel work together to start a small enterprise.
|
|
1 Meet with farmers to discuss existing on-farm or off-farm enterprises that could be expanded into a business. These may include products or services which are in demand in the community or in neighboring areas.
|
|
2 Determine if others are already providing the same product or service.
|
|
3 Determine how the market infrastructure works? Is there an existing marketing chain?
|
|
4 Identify technical and resource constraints.
|
|
5 Identify who will be able to provide new skills that are needed to develop the enterprise.
|
|
6 Identify required support services and problems in gaining access to them.
|
|
· Credit
|
|
· Transport
|
|
· Extension
|
|
7 Evaluate risks associated with the enter prise. For example:
|
|
· What are possible pitfalls?
|
|
· How important are these risks?
|
|
· How can these risks be anticipated and managed?
|
|
8 Based on all this information, farmers can decide whether or not to develop a business.
|
|
<section>6. Evaluation strategies</section>
|
|
<section>Impact evaluation of agroforestry programs</section>
|
|
The integrative model
|
|
An integrative model is useful to conduct an impact evaluation. This model combines the social, economic and environmental impacts of an agroforestry program. Non-market components are also included; hence, a more adequate picture of the program impacts will be obtained.
|
|
Under this model, annual data are typically used in the evaluation. However, if impact indicators are not available, data on two observations, i.e., "before" and "after,' the program, may be used. The table below shows how to use this model.
|
|
How the integrative model is used in evaluating agroforestry impacts
|
|
Social variable (e.g., security of tenure)
|
|
Environmental vanable(e.g., average no. of trees)
|
|
Economic variable(e.g., income)
|
|
Before
|
|
After
|
|
Change
|
|
Before
|
|
After
|
|
Change
|
|
With CSC*
|
|
B
|
|
A
|
|
A-B
|
|
F
|
|
E
|
|
E-F
|
|
Without CSC
|
|
D
|
|
C
|
|
C-D
|
|
H
|
|
G
|
|
G-H
|
|
Difference
|
|
(A-B)-(C-D)
|
|
(E-F)-(G-H)
|
|
* CSC is a Certificate of Stewardship Contract issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to Filipino upland farmers. It is a lease agreement for 25 years renewable for another 25 years.
|
|
The integrative model recognizes that, while an effective conservation strategy through agroforestry practices calls for full participation of the farmers, their own economic, social and/or cultural needs and aspirations also need to be addressed. Although the agroforestry program may have a direct response to agroforestry problems (e.g., soil erosion), the objective should be the improvement of human conditions. The environmental goals are a means towards achieving the objectives of enhancing the lives of human beings.
|
|
Importance of impact evaluation
|
|
Impact evaluation is vital in assessing the effectiveness of an agroforestry system. Its outputs can serve as basis for improving the approaches, strategies, design and implementation scheme of agroforestry projects.
|
|
Modifying the model
|
|
The integrative model may still need to be modified for wider applicability. Other parameters for each of the subsystems--economic, social, environmental--should be identified and included in the model, depending on the locality.
|
|
Besides tenure, other factors such as the quality of support services (e.g., availability of extension services, credit, markets) influence technology adoption. Because of this, other studies may contradict the specific findings of the Jalajala study.
|
|
Example of the use of the integrative model
|
|
The integrative model was used to evaluate an agroforestry program in Jalajala, Rizal in the Philippines. The evaluation made use of a "before-after" approach to collect data. The study covered 30 respondents from a total of 200 farmers.
|
|
· There was a marked difference between the trees planted, hectarage planted to Leucaena, area rockterraced, soil fertility (measured in terms of organic matter content), soil erosion rate, family labor inputs and gross incomes of farmers awarded with a certificate of stewardship contract and those without. The first had more hectares planted with Leucaena and area rockterraced. Their farms were more fertile before and after the program and had less soil erosion than other farms. Family labor inputs of these farmers as well as gross incomes were higher.
|
|
· The higher income of tenured farmers is largely due to their decision to increase the area planted to market-oriented agricultural and tree crops such as Colocasia esculenta and Leucaena leucocephala, rather than increases in the crop yield per unit area.
|
|
· Land tenure and soil erosion are directly linked to farmers' income. As farmers are more secure in their land ownership, their income tends to increase. On the other hand, as soil erosion decreases, income increases.
|
|
· Increased vegetation, farm labor, soil fertility also could lead to increased incomes.
|
|
<section>Financial indicators as a decision-making tool</section>
|
|
When deciding to engage in a productive operation, farmers consider the amount of income they can expect from it. If the operation can be expected to give enough net income, the farmer is likely to undertake it.
|
|
Here are some calculations to help farmers decide whether a proposed operation is financially sound. The information required can be collected in various ways, including individual or group interviews, participatory appraisal methods and secondary data (such as market prices collected by local government services). (See Participatory appraisal methods and Collecting information on crops for details.)
|
|
Gross margin
|
|
Calculating the gross margin is useful for a new operation which will largely, if not completely, change the existing farm system. The gross margin is the difference between (1) the total income and (2) the total cash cost of the farm operation.
|
|
Gross margin = Total income- Total cash cost
|
|
Calculate the gross margins for the existing enterprise(s) and for the proposed alternative(s). Compare the two margins to decide whether to adopt the alternative enterprise. See Collecting information on crops for a worksheet for calculating this.
|
|
Calculations
|
|
1 Calculate the income from each existing farm enterprise (e.g., a rice crop, mungbean crop, goat herd). Multiply the quantity of each commodity produced by the sale price of that commodity. This gives the total cash income from that enterprise.
|
|
2 Sum the gross incomes from each enterprise. This gives the total cash income.
|
|
Example
|
|
Kg of rice grain produced x Sale price per kg = Income from rice
|
|
Example
|
|
Income from rice + Income from mungbean = Total income
|
|
3 Calculate the cash cost of each input (e.g., hired labor, seeds). Multiply the quantity of each input (e.g., hours of hired labor) by the cost of that input (e.g., the hourly wage rate).
|
|
4 Sum the total cost of each input. This gives the total cash cost.
|
|
5 Subtract the total cash cost from the total cash income. This gives the gross margin of the existing enterprise.
|
|
6 Repeat these steps for the alternative enterprise. This will give the gross margin of the alternative enterprise.
|
|
7 Compare the gross margin of the existing enterprise with the gross margin of the alternative enterprise. Consider selecting the enterprise that produces the higher margin.
|
|
Gross margin of an alternative enterprise
|
|
1 hectare of mungbean followed by transplanted rice
|
|
Income
|
|
Rice grain: 200 kg/ha x R2.3 per kg
|
|
P= 460
|
|
Mungbean: 87 kg/ha x P8.0 per kg
|
|
Total cash income
|
|
P=1156
|
|
Cash costs
|
|
Rice
|
|
Seed: P5 kg/ha x P5 per kg
|
|
P=25
|
|
Fertilizer: P10 kg/ha x P4 per kg
|
|
Hired labor for transplanting:
|
|
4 person days/ha x P40 per day
|
|
Mungbean
|
|
Seed: 4 kg/ha x P15 per kg
|
|
Insecticide: P40/ha
|
|
Total cash costs
|
|
P=325
|
|
Gross margin = total cash income - total cash costs per hectare = P1156- 325 = R831 Compare this gross margin figure with the gross margin from the existing farm system.
|
|
Examples
|
|
Hours of labor hired x Cost of 1 hour of hired labor = Total cost of labor
|
|
Kg of seed bought x Cost of 1 kg of seeds = Total cost of seeds
|
|
Kg of fertilizer bought x Cost of 1 kg of fertilizer = Total cost of fertilizer
|
|
Cost of labor + Cost of seed + Cost of fertilizer + Cost of other inputs = Total cash cost
|
|
Total income - total cost = Gross margin
|
|
Partial budget
|
|
Calculating a partial budget margin is useful when only a part of the existing farm practice will be affected by a proposed new activity. Calculating a partial budget is less time-consuming than a gross margin because the unaffected components of the farm operation need not be accounted for.
|
|
The partial budget is the difference between (1) additional (or reduced) costs and (2) additional (or reduced) benefits that are associated with the change.
|
|
Increased incomes can result from either higher income or reduced costs, or a combination of these.
|
|
Calculations
|
|
1 Calculate the additional income due to the changed activity.
|
|
Example
|
|
Kg of extra yield expected x Sale price of 1 kg = Total additional income
|
|
2 Calculate the additional costs expected.
|
|
Examples
|
|
Kg of higher-priced seed x Difference in price of 1 kg of seed = Extra cost of seed
|
|
Kg of additional fertilizer x Price of fertilizer = Extra cost of fertilizer
|
|
3 Sum the additional (or reduced) costs.
|
|
Example
|
|
Extra cost of seed + Extra cost of fertilizer = Total additional cost
|
|
4 Subtract the total additional costs from the total additional income expected.
|
|
Total additional income - Total additional cost = Net additional (or reduced) income expected
|
|
Partial budget
|
|
Introducing a new variety of maize
|
|
Additional income
|
|
Income due to higher maize yield:
|
|
100 kg/ha x P3 per kg
|
|
P=300
|
|
Total additional income
|
|
P=300
|
|
Additional costs
|
|
Higher price seed:
|
|
10 kg/ha x additional P5 per kg
|
|
P=50
|
|
Higher level of fertilizer required:
|
|
20 kg/ha additional fertilizer x P5 per kg
|
|
Total additional costs
|
|
Net additional income per hectare
|
|
P=150
|
|
Price trend
|
|
Prices of agricultural commodities rise and fall from season to season and from year to year. An understanding of these changes can help farmers select when to plant a crop or sell an animal. Comparing changes in prices of two or more commodities can help farmers choose which to produce. This analysis can be done for each season or over several years.
|
|
Prices of crop X and crop Y by year
|
|
Crop X
|
|
Crop Y
|
|
Indicators of sustainability
|
|
The sustainability of upland management can be viewed from different perspectives. Absolute criteria to measure sustainability have not yet been developed. It is necessary to devise a framework to suit the individual situation. See Project status indicators for a method of assessing the status of development projects.
|
|
Why assess sustainability?
|
|
· To identify at an early stage remedies to problems caused by inappropriate management.
|
|
· To evaluate the performance of approaches used for possible revision.
|
|
· To provide policy makers and development planners a sound basis in formulating and revising policies and programs.
|
|
Who uses sustainability measures?
|
|
· The community.
|
|
· Development workers and extensionists.
|
|
· Researchers.
|
|
· Policymakers and planners.
|
|
Sources of information
|
|
· Forestry and agricultural offices
|
|
· Research, extension and technology institutions
|
|
· National or local government
|
|
· Development organizations/NGOs
|
|
· Local people (using participatory methods; see Participatory appraisal methods.)
|
|
· Field measurement (e.g., of river sediment load, soil erosion).
|
|
Where possible, information from one source should be validated by checking with another source. For instance, the local bank's assessment of credit availability according to the local bank can be checked against local people's own assessment. This cross-checking is called "triangulation. "
|
|
Sustainable resource use: The use of resources within their capacity to renew themselves
|
|
Examples
|
|
The amount of soil eroded is equal to (or lower than) the amount of new soil created naturally from rock and organic maker.
|
|
Exploitation of forest products does not reduce the number or diversity of species in the forest.
|
|
Indicators of sustainability
|
|
The indicators in the table below are the result of the consultations with NGOs and farmers. They are intended for guidance only. Other indicators may be developed or adapted as required. Field testing may be necessary to ensure the indicators are appropriate for a specific area or use.
|
|
Source of information, means of collection and verification
|
|
Indicator Soil
|
|
Rating
|
|
Soil loss
|
|
1 serious erosion (gully)
|
|
-- sediment in streams
|
|
2 moderate erosion (rill, sheet erosion)
|
|
-- top soil thinning
|
|
3 less erosion
|
|
-- database/information from records/reports of
|
|
concerned agencies (land development department, forest department
|
|
-- field observation
|
|
Soil productivity
|
|
1 low productivity
|
|
-- records/reports on annual yield and production of
|
|
2 somewhat reduced average production
|
|
some selected crops from agricultural extension offices
|
|
3 high productivity
|
|
Problem soils
|
|
1 high occurrence
|
|
-- records/reports on the area and effects of problem soils.
|
|
2 medium
|
|
3 rare
|
|
Water
|
|
Stream flow
|
|
1 overflow after rainfall
|
|
-- records/reports on stream flow from irrigation and characteristics meteorological stations
|
|
2 dry in summer
|
|
3 regular flow
|
|
Occurrence of
|
|
1 often
|
|
-- records/reports from the irrigation department, community development, etc. and key informant interviews
|
|
flood, drought
|
|
2 moderate
|
|
3 rare
|
|
Quality of water
|
|
1 poor (turbidity, pollution)
|
|
-- records/reports on physical and biological aspects of water flow and its quality, (e.g., turbidity, chemical pollution and bacteria contamination) from the irrigation department, land development department, etc.
|
|
2 somewhat moderate
|
|
3 good (clean, no pollution)
|
|
Forest
|
|
Percentage and status of protected area
|
|
1 poor condition (forest encroachment, frequent big fires
|
|
-- statistics/records/reports of local forestry office and conservation NGOs on forestry
|
|
2 average condition (less encroachment, few and small forest fires
|
|
-- field observation
|
|
3 intact forest
|
|
Tree/plant species
|
|
1 few species
|
|
-- statistics/forest inventory reports
|
|
2 average number of species (trees for
|
|
-- local NGO interviews with foresters and villagers
|
|
commercial purposes)
|
|
-- field observation
|
|
3 diverse species, multilevels
|
|
Non-wood forest product
|
|
1 none
|
|
-- records/reports, research paper from local forest offices, research institutions, NGOs
|
|
2 few
|
|
3 diverse
|
|
-- interviews with villagers
|
|
-- market survey
|
|
Wildlife
|
|
1 few species (degraded habitat, destructive
|
|
-- records/reports/research papers from forestry offices,
|
|
poaching, hunting methods)
|
|
research institutions, environmental NGOs
|
|
2 average species (hunting)
|
|
-- interviews with villagers living in nearby forest
|
|
3 diverse species (good reproduction
|
|
-- market survey
|
|
condition, abundant habitats, no
|
|
destructive hunting)
|
|
Harvesting and
|
|
1 destructive
|
|
-- records/reports/research papers from forestry offices,
|
|
hunting methods
|
|
2 tolerable
|
|
research institutions, environmental NGOs
|
|
3 conservation
|
|
-- interviews with villagers living in nearby forest
|
|
- market survey
|
|
Agriculture
|
|
Water sources for
|
|
1 mainly rainfall
|
|
- records/statistics/information on agriculture from
|
|
agriculture
|
|
2 mainly rain and small irrigation
|
|
agricultural extension offices, NGOs, research
|
|
3 large dam, central or communal deep
|
|
institutions, development agencies, etc.
|
|
wells
|
|
- key informant interviews
|
|
- field observation
|
|
Weed and pest
|
|
1 with chemicals
|
|
controls
|
|
2 biological/mechanized
|
|
3 biological, cultural, alternative pest
|
|
management
|
|
Animals
|
|
1 raised separately
|
|
2 some are separated, others are integrated
|
|
3 integrated on farm
|
|
Cropping system
|
|
1 monocropping, market-oriented
|
|
2 more species but repeatedly cultivated
|
|
3 crop rotations and diversified cropping
|
|
Labor and capital
|
|
1 outside the community
|
|
2 family, inside and outside the community
|
|
3 family, hired labor inside the community
|
|
Source of capital
|
|
1 external sources
|
|
for farming
|
|
2 family, coop
|
|
3 credit institutions/coops, own enterprise,
|
|
family
|
|
Community
|
|
Settlement pattern
|
|
1 frequent migration
|
|
-- records/reports on landlessness from public welfare
|
|
2 seasonal/temporary migration
|
|
department, local government
|
|
3 permanent settlement
|
|
- permanent migration, seasonal migration, relocation and related current policy
|
|
Food nutrition and
|
|
1 severe shortage of food
|
|
- records/statistics on health and well-being (e.g., health,
|
|
sanitation
|
|
2 insufficient/permanent
|
|
food shortage, condition of shelter and other social
|
|
3 sufficient and balanced diet, good
|
|
services
|
|
condition of shelter
|
|
- key informant interviews
|
|
- field observation
|
|
Structure/condition
|
|
1 temporary/poor condition
|
|
- statistics/spot maps/social maps from local
|
|
2 semi-permanent
|
|
government, private institutions
|
|
3 permanent field observation
|
|
Peace and order
|
|
1 unsafe
|
|
- records/reports on criminal events
|
|
2 somewhat safe
|
|
- key informant interviews
|
|
3 safe, peaceful and orderly
|
|
- field observation
|
|
Exposure to toxic
|
|
1 no access
|
|
- records/reports from environmental groups/institutions,
|
|
chemicals and
|
|
2 moderate exposure
|
|
health care centers, hospitals
|
|
pollutants
|
|
3 little or no exposure at all
|
|
Access to support
|
|
1 few or no support services
|
|
- surveys/records/reports on yield and production by
|
|
services (credit,
|
|
2 less than adequate support services
|
|
agricultural extension officers
|
|
extension service,
|
|
3 adequate support services, self-help
|
|
- list of support groups working in the community from
|
|
inputs)
|
|
local government units
|
|
- key informant interviews
|
|
- field observation
|
|
People's participation
|
|
1 no participation
|
|
-- research/evaluation reports from community
|
|
in community
|
|
2 little participation
|
|
development offices, research and environment
|
|
activities related to
|
|
3 active participation.
|
|
natural resource
|
|
management
|
|
Local rules and
|
|
1 no rules and regulations
|
|
- historical/existing information on the rules and
|
|
regulations on the
|
|
2 with local rules and regulations but
|
|
regulations being implemented in the community over
|
|
use of natural
|
|
inefficiently enforced
|
|
natural resources management
|
|
resources
|
|
3 strongly enforced
|
|
- key informant interviews
|
|
- field observation
|
|
Adoption of
|
|
1 no adoption
|
|
- research
|
|
appropriate cultural
|
|
2 moderate adoption
|
|
- key informant interviews
|
|
and traditional
|
|
3 high adoption
|
|
- field observation
|
|
practices
|
|
How to conduct a sustainability assessment
|
|
Sustainability cannot be determined in a single assessment. You need to collect these data over a long time period (several years) to assess sustainability.
|
|
1 Identify the objectives of assessment and select indicators.
|
|
2 Test the indicators and modify them to suit your objectives.
|
|
3 Collect information.
|
|
4 Validate the information by checking against other sources.
|
|
5 Set up baseline data and identify specific indicators and parameters.
|
|
6 Rate the level of sustainability using the form:
|
|
1 = not sustainable
|
|
2 = likely to become sustainable
|
|
3 = sustainable.
|
|
Do not sum the ratings in the form.
|
|
7 Interpret rated indicators through discussions.
|
|
8 Repeat steps 3-7 each year.
|
|
9 Check for changes in the ratings from year to year. If a rating falls over time, the system is becoming less sustainable.
|
|
10 Propose changes in policy and program strategies to improve
|
|
sustainability.
|
|
<section>Project status indicators</section>
|
|
Knowing the status of a development project provides insights into the efficiency of strategies and the capability of the project to sustain itself. It can be useful to determine whether an intervention should be increased, modified, or terminated. The assessment will guide the implementor in defining and implementing specific actions. See Indicators of sustainability for an approach to measuring the sustainability of upland management systems.
|
|
Status indicators
|
|
· Productivity
|
|
· Institutional linkages
|
|
· Organization and management
|
|
· Technology
|
|
· Community participation/acceptability .
|
|
Specific parameters
|
|
Productivity
|
|
· Area developed (AD) Number of hectares developed into agroforestry farms, converted into hedgerows, contoured, etc.
|
|
· Production (PD) Earnings derived from the project, including crops, livestock, fuelwood, bamboo and rattan, processed products, etc.
|
|
· Processing (PR) Percentage of food processed by the community
|
|
· Post-harvest (PH) Use of post-harvest practices and facilities.
|
|
Institutional linkages
|
|
· Marketing (MK) Number and type of marketing and trading linkages identified and used, formally or informally, by the community.
|
|
· Technical agencies (TA) Number of agencies (government or NGO) directly extending regular technical assistance on farming practices (crop production, livestock care and management, pest control, forest and watershed management and others) to the community.
|
|
· Financing (Fl) Availability of financial or credit institutions used by the farmers in their farming.
|
|
Organization and management
|
|
· Formal organization (FO) A registered organization with an approved constitution and by-laws and other legal documents.
|
|
· Organizational structure (OS) A functional organizational structure with an active set of officers and members managing (planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating) the project.
|
|
· Infrastructure (IS) Number of infrastructure facilities constructed or set up that enhance organizational build-up and production.
|
|
· Conduct of meetings (CM) Frequency of interaction, assembly or meetings among the officials and members of the organization.
|
|
· Organizational funds (OF) Sufficiency of money generated by the organization to meet the needs of its members and the community.
|
|
· Decision-making process (DM) The mechanism in arriving at decisions and policies, either by assembly, committee, the officers alone, or a combination of the above.
|
|
Technology
|
|
· Adaptability (AP) Degree in which the technology is used to improve, modify or enhance an indigenous practice (observed or practiced by the members and the community).
|
|
· Replicability (RP) Extent of applying the same technology in another community or area.
|
|
· Technical training (TT) Number and type of training courses conducted to encourage adoption of technology, enhance existing practices, community participation, etc.
|
|
Community participation/acceptability
|
|
· Profit-sharing (PS) Sharing mechanism that ensures equitable distribution of benefits among the members.
|
|
· Perception (PE) Members' level of awareness and under' standing of the project's objectives.
|
|
· Attitude (AT) Degree of like or dislike towards the project's activities.
|
|
· Access to services/facilities (AS) Number and type of services and facilities made available to the members.
|
|
· Cooperators (CO) Number of active members relative to the total number initially organized by the project.
|
|
· Attendance in meetings (AT) Number of members regularly attending organizational meetings.
|
|
Rating procedure
|
|
1 Identify the objective of the assessment and assign corresponding indicators. Allocate equal weight to the set of indicators and parameters, or weigh each indicator according to project objectives and needs.
|
|
2 Interview individually each member of the project in a specific community/organization.
|
|
3 Evaluate the project using the rating scheme at the left. If an accurate standard for scoring is lacking, base the performance evaluation on the personal assessment of the project coordinator.
|
|
4 Calculate the overall sustainability score using Form A:
|
|
a Sum the parameter scores for each indicator
|
|
Example
|
|
Total productivity score = Area developed score + Production score + Processing score + Post-harvest score
|
|
b Divide the raw score by the number of parameters used in the total. This gives the sustainability score for that indicator.
|
|
Example
|
|
Average productivity score = Total productivity score / No. of parameters (=4)
|
|
c Sum average scores of the indicators. This gives the overall sustainability score. The maximum possible sustainability score is 20.
|
|
Example
|
|
Overall sustainability = Productivity + Linkages + Organization + Technology + Participation
|
|
7 Interpret the scores using agreed criteria, such as those given at the left.
|
|
8 Use Form B to determine strategy changes or specific interventions.
|
|
Rating scheme
|
|
Score
|
|
Criteria
|
|
not met
|
|
fairly met
|
|
satisfactorily met
|
|
very satisfactorily met
|
|
excellently met
|
|
Interpreting scores
|
|
Scores
|
|
Assessment
|
|
for termination
|
|
needs more intervention
|
|
needs less intervention
|
|
self-reliant
|
|
<section>7. Appendices</section>
|
|
<section>Glossary terms</section>
|
|
A
|
|
acid soil A soil with a pH value < 7.0. Usually applied to surface layer or root zone, but may be used to characterize any horizon.
|
|
agrisilviculture A form of agroforestry consisting of tree (woody perennial) and crop components.
|
|
agroecosystem analysis Developed by Gordon Conway and Khon Kaen University researchers (Thailand) in the early 1980s. It is often used in the diagnostic or planning stage and utilizes tools for pattern analysis.
|
|
agroforestry The use of trees in farming systems (see Chapter 2).
|
|
agrosilvopasture A form of agroforestry consisting of tree (woody perennial), crop and pasture/animal components.
|
|
alkali soil A soil that contains sufficient alkali to interfere with the growth of most crop plants.
|
|
alley cropping/farming Growing annual crops between rows of trees or shrubs, often leguminous. Pruned material from these is used as mulch around annual crops and also as fodder and fuelwood.
|
|
alluvial soil A soil developing from recently deposited alluvium and exhibiting essentially no horizon development or modification of the recently deposited materials.
|
|
annual plant A plant that grows for only one season (or year) before dying, in contrast to a perennial, which grows for more than one season. apiculture Honeybee rearing.
|
|
arid climate Climate in regions that lack sufficient moisture for crop production without irrigation. In cool regions, annual precipitation is usually less than 25 cm. It may be as high as 50 cm in tropical regions. Natural vegetation is desert shrubs.
|
|
B
|
|
bench terrace An embankment constructed across sloping fields with a steep drop on the downslope side.
|
|
biennial plant A plant which completes its life cycle in two years. Plants of this type usually produce leaves and a welldeveloped root system the first year; stems, flowers and seeds the second year; and then die.
|
|
biomass The weight of material produced by a living organism or collection of organisms. The term is usually applied to plants to include the entire plant, or it may be qualified to include only certain parts of the plant, e.g., aboveground or leafy biomass. Biomass is expressed as fresh weight or dry weight. bole The main tree trunk.
|
|
browse The buds, shoots, leaves and flowers of woody plants are eaten by livestock or wild animals.
|
|
budding The practice of splicing a bud from one tree into the bark of another, usually to obtain highquality fruit on hardy, established trees.
|
|
bund A ridge of earth placed in a line to control water runoff and soil erosion, demarcate a plot boundary, or other uses.
|
|
bush A small woody plant (see shrub).
|
|
C
|
|
canopy The upper layer of trees in a forest or a complex of trees.
|
|
carbon/nitrogen ratio The ratio of the weight of organic carbon (C) to the weight of total nitrogen (N) in a soil or organic material.
|
|
cereal A grass that is grown primarily for its seed which is used for feed or food.
|
|
clump A close grouping of stems of trees, bushes, or grasses.
|
|
community forestry A form of social forestry, where tree planting is undertaken by a community on common or communal lands.
|
|
component species Individual species that are parts of mixed systems.
|
|
contour An imaginary line connecting points of equal elevation on the surface of the soil. A contour terrace is laid out on a slope at right angles to the direction of the slope and nearly level throughout its course. A contour ditch is sometimes constructed along the contour to store and conserve water.
|
|
coppicing Cutting certain tree species close to ground level to produce new shoots from the stump. Also occurs naturally in some species if the trees are damaged.
|
|
cover crop A close-growing crop grown primarily for the purpose of protecting and improving soil between periods of regular crop production or between trees and vines in orchards and plantations.
|
|
crop growth rate The gain in weight of a plant on a unit of area in a unit of time.
|
|
crop residue The portion of a plant or crop that is left in the field after harvest, e.g., rice straw.
|
|
cropping pattern The yearly sequence and spatial arrangement of crops or of crops and fallow on a given area.
|
|
cropping system The cropping patterns used on a farm and their interaction with farm resources, other farm enterprises and available technology which determine their makeup.
|
|
crown The canopy or top of a single tree or other woody plant.
|
|
cut-and-carry Fodder or other plant products which are harvested and carried to a different location to be used or consumed by livestock.
|
|
cutting A piece of a branch or root cut from a living plant with the objective of developing roots and growing a new plant, genetically identical to the original parent (a clone).
|
|
D
|
|
deciduous plant A plant that sheds all or most of its leaves every year at a certain season. The opposite of evergreen.
|
|
deforestation Disturbance, conversion, or wasteful destruction of forest lands.
|
|
denitrification The biochemical reduction of nitrate or nitrite to gaseous nitrogen, either as molecular nitrogen or as an oxide of nitrogen.
|
|
diagnosis and design Developed by ICRAF in the early 1980s as a methodology for the diagnosis of land management problems and the design of agroforestry solutions.
|
|
direct seeding Sowing seeds directly where they are to develop into mature plants.
|
|
discounting The process of determining the present worth of a future quantity of money.
|
|
drought The absence of precipitation for a period long enough to cause depletion of soil moisture and damage to plants.
|
|
drought tolerance The capacity of plants to survive drought; specifically adaptations that enhance their power to withstand drought-induced stress.
|
|
E
|
|
ecosystem All the plants and animals in a given area and their physical environment, including the interactions among them.
|
|
erosion (1) The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, or other geological agents, including such processes as gravitational creep. (2) Detachment and movement of soil or rock by water, wind, ice, or gravity. The following terms are used to describe different types of water erosion:
|
|
accelerated erosion Erosion much more rapid than normal, natural, geological erosion; primarily as a result of the activities of humans or, in some cases, of animals.
|
|
gully erosion The removal of soil by water concentrated in deep, narrow channels.
|
|
natural erosion Wearing away of the earth's surface by water, ice, or other natural agents under natural environmental conditions of climate, vegetation and so on, undisturbed by humans.
|
|
rill erosion An erosion process in which numerous small channels of only several centimeters in depth are formed; occurs mainly on recently cultivated soils.
|
|
sheet erosion The removal of a fairly uniform layer of soil from the land surface by runoff water.
|
|
splash erosion The spattering of small soil and particles caused by the impact of raindrops on soils. The loosened and separate particles may or may not be subsequently removed by surface runoff.
|
|
evaporation Loss of moisture from surfaces other than plants.
|
|
evapotranspiration The combined loss of water from a given area and, during a specified period of time, by evaporation from the soil surface and by transpiration from plants.
|
|
evergreen Plants which retain their leaves and remain green throughout the year. Opposite of deciduous.
|
|
exotic A plant or animal species which has been introduced outside its natural range. Opposite of indigenous.
|
|
extensive Land use or management spread over a large area where land is plentiful (at least for those who control it). Opposite of intensive.
|
|
F
|
|
fallow Land resting from cropping, which may be grazed or left unused, often colonized by natural vegetation.
|
|
family A taxonomic category between order and genus. Plants or animals in the same family share some common characteristics.
|
|
farm-based agroforestry Agroforestry approach in which trees are incorporated into a farm ecosystem.
|
|
farm enterprise An individual crop or animal production function within a farming system.
|
|
farm forestry Tree planting on farms.
|
|
farming system All the elements of a farm which interact as a system, including people, crops, livestock, other vegetation, wildlife, the environment and the social, economic and ecological interactions between them.
|
|
farming systems research An applied problem-solving approach conducted by multi-disciplinary teams, with a degree of farmer participation. Evolved from cropping system research.
|
|
fertilizer Any organic or inorganic material which is added to the soil to supply one or more plant nutrients.
|
|
fodder Parts of plants which are eaten by domestic animals. These may include leaves, stems, fruit, pods, flowers, pollen, or nectar.
|
|
foliage The mass of leaves of plants, usually used for trees or bushes.
|
|
forage Vegetative material in a fresh, dried, or ensiled state which is fed to livestock (hay, pasture, silage).
|
|
forest-based agroforestry Agroforestry approach in which annual or perennial crops are incorporated into a natural forest ecosystem.
|
|
G
|
|
genetic resources Plant and animal stock with distinct inheritable characteristics of potential use within an agroecosystem.
|
|
genus A taxonomic category between family and species. A genus consists of one or more closely related species and, in plants, is defined largely in terms of the characteristics of the flower and/or fruit.
|
|
grafting The practice of propagating plants by taking a small shoot from one and attaching it to another so that the cambium layers from both are in contact and the transferred shoot grows as part of the main plant. This is normally used to obtain high-quality seedlings from hardy, well-established plants (rootstock).
|
|
green manure Green, leafy material applied to the soil to improve its fertility.
|
|
groundcover Living or nonliving material which covers the soil surface.
|
|
groundwater Water which is underground. It may be pumped to the surface or reached by plant roots or wells or may feed into bodies of surface water.
|
|
gully A deep, narrow channel cut into the soil by erosion. gully erosion (see erosion)
|
|
H
|
|
hedgerow or hedge A closely planted line of shrubs or small trees, often forming a boundary or fence.
|
|
herbaceous A plant that is not woody and does not persist above ground beyond one season.
|
|
herbivore An animal that feeds only on plants.
|
|
homegarden Traditional cropping practice around the house, usually includes fruit and fuel wood trees, vegetables, root crops, poultry and smaller livestock and sometimes a fishpond.
|
|
humid A climate in which rainfall exceeds potential evaporation during at least 9 months a year and usually more than 1500 mm annual rainfall.
|
|
I
|
|
indigenous Native to a specific area; not introduced. Opposite of exotic.
|
|
indigenous knowledge Local knowledge that is unique to a given culture or society.
|
|
infiltration The downward movement of water into the soil.
|
|
infiltration rate The maximum rate at which water can enter a soil under specified conditions, including the presence of an excess of water.
|
|
in-row tillage The agronomic practice of continuous cultivation of crops in a narrow band of soil (or row).
|
|
intensive Land use or management concentrated in a small area of land. Opposite of extensive.
|
|
intercropping Growing two or more crops in the same field at the same time in a mixture.
|
|
interface The area where there is a positive or negative relationship between two entities, such as between a row of trees and a row of crops.
|
|
internal rate of return (IRR) The maximum rate of interest that a project can repay on loans while still recovering all investment and opportunity costs, or, the earning power of money invested in a particular venture.
|
|
L
|
|
land equivalent ratio (LER) The ratio of the area needed under monoculture to a unit area of intercropping to give an equal amount of yield.
|
|
landscape An area of land, usually between 10 and 100 square kilometers, including vegetation, built structures and natural features, seen from a particular viewpoint.
|
|
Iand-use-map sketching A method used in extension work, where farmers make sketches of their existing land and how they want to change the land.
|
|
Iand-use system The way in which land is used by a particular group of people with a specified area.
|
|
leaching The removal of soluble materials from the upper soil layer by water moving vertically down.
|
|
legume Any plant species from the family Leguminoseae (e.g., beans, peas), many of which have the ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen via bacteria in or on their roots.
|
|
litter The uppermost layer of organic material on the soil surface, including leaves, twigs, and flowers freshly fallen or slightly decomposed.
|
|
lopping Cutting one or more branches of a standing tree or shrub.
|
|
M
|
|
manuring Application of animal dung, compost or other organic material used to fertilize the soil.
|
|
microcatchment A small earthwork used to catch and direct rainfall to a crop or to livestock.
|
|
microclimate The temperature, sunlight, humidity and other climatic conditions in a small localized area (e.g., in a field or stand of trees).
|
|
mineralization The conversion of an element from an organic form to an inorganic state as a result of microbial decomposition.
|
|
mixed farming Cropping systems which involve the raising of crops, animals and/or trees.
|
|
mixed intercropping Growing two or more crops simultaneously with no distinct row arrangement.
|
|
monoculture The repetitive growing of the same, single crop on the same land.
|
|
mulch Plant or non-living materials used to cover the soil surface with the object of protecting the soil from the impact of rainfall, controlling weeds or moisture loss and, in some cases, fertilizing the soil.
|
|
multiple cropping Growing two or more crops in the same field in one year at the same time or one after the other.
|
|
multipurpose tree species Woody perennials which are grown to provide more than one product or service.
|
|
multistoried (sometimes written as multistoreyed) Relating to a vertical arrangement of plants so that they form distinct layers, from the lower (usually herbaceous) layer to the uppermost tree canopy.
|
|
N
|
|
natural vegetation The vegetative cover that would exist in a given area without interference from humans.
|
|
net present value (NPV) An indicator of a project's long-term value as estimated at the time of implementation; it is calculated by summing all the annual net costs or benefits over the prescribed life span of a project, discounted at a preselected rate.
|
|
nitrogen fixation The biological conversion of elemental nitrogen (N2) to organic combinations or to forms readily utilized in biological processes.
|
|
nitrogen cycle The sequence of chemical and biological changes undergone by nitrogen as it moves from the atmosphere into water, soil and living organisms and, upon death of these organisms (plants and animals), is recycled through a part or all of the entire process.
|
|
O
|
|
opportunity cost The economic value of a true sacrifice incurred by the choice of a given action.
|
|
overstory (or overstorey) The highest layer of vegetation, often the tree canopy, which grows over lower shrub or plant layers.
|
|
P
|
|
participatory rural appraisal (PRA) A set of facilitative and participatory technologies developed in the late 1980's by researchers and NGOs, to build upon local people's capabilities and to empower local people in the process.
|
|
pasture A portion of land covered with grasses or grasslegume mixtures suitable for grazing.
|
|
perennial plant A plant that grows for more than one year, in contrast to an annual, which grows for only one year (or season) before dying.
|
|
pH The negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion activity (concentration) of a soil. A pH of 7 is neutral; a pH of less than 7 is acidic, one higher than 7 is alkaline.
|
|
pollarding Cutting back the crown of a tree in order to harvest wood and browse to produce regrowth beyond the reach of animals and/or to reduce the shade cast by the crown.
|
|
productivity, soil The capacity of a soil for producing a specified plant or sequence of plants under a specified system of management. Productivity emphasizes the capacity of soil to produce plant products and should be expressed in terms of yields.
|
|
pruning Cutting back plant growth, including side branches or roots.
|
|
R
|
|
rapid rural appraisal (RRA) A set of techniques developed in the early 1980s by researchers at universities and international centers to improve data gathering in natural resource management programs.
|
|
reforestation Replanting of a forest which has been chopped down or destroyed by fire. regeneration Regrowth
|
|
relative humidity The ratio expressed as percent between the quantity of water vapor present and the maximum possible at given temperature and barometric pressure.
|
|
relay cropping Growing two or more crops with their growing seasons overlapping, e.g., the second crop is planted before the first crop is harvested.
|
|
rhizobia Bacteria capable of living symbiotically with higher plants, usually in nodules on the roots of legumes, from which they receive their energy and capable of converting atmospheric nitrogen to combined organic forms.
|
|
ridging Making long parallel raised strips of earth usually on the contours, into which seeds are sown.
|
|
root sucker A shoot arising from the root of a plant.
|
|
rotation In agriculture, changing the crops grown on a particular piece of land (or crops and fallow) from season to season. In forestry, the length of time between establishment and harvesting of a plantation or tree.
|
|
runoff The portion of the precipitation on an area that is discharged from the area through stream channels. That which is lost without entering the soil is stream is "surface runoff' and that which enters the soil before reaching the stream is called "groundwater runoff' or "seepage flow" from ground water.
|
|
S
|
|
sapling A young tree, no longer a seedling but not yet a pole, a few meters high and about 2.5 cm in diameter at breast height.
|
|
seedling A young stage of a plant grown from a seed.
|
|
selective cutting Harvesting specific tree species or individuals in a forest and leaving the rest untouched.
|
|
semiarid Term applied to regions or climates where moisture is more plentiful than in arid regions but still definitely limits the growth of most crop plants. Natural vegetation in uncultivated areas is short grasses, shrubs and small trees.
|
|
sequential cropping Growing two or more crops in sequence on the same field per year. The succeeding crop is planted after the preceding crop has been harvested.
|
|
shifting cultivation A form of agriculture in which soil fertility is maintained by rotating fields rather than crops. New plots are usually cleared by "slash and burn" and cropped until soil exhaustion. The land is then left to regenerate naturally while cultivation is done elsewhere.
|
|
shrub A woody plant that remains less than 10 meters tall and produces shoots or stems from its base (see bush).
|
|
silvopastoral system A form of agroforestry system consisting of trees (woody perennials) and pasture/animal components.
|
|
situation-specific analysis An appraisal/diagnostic method developed by Chiangmai University in northern Thailand to examine interactions between local resource management system and dynamics of the system under a specific environment.
|
|
slope The incline or angle of the land surface, which can be measured as a percent or ratio or in degrees or grades.
|
|
small farm (small holding, farm household, small farmer) A farm that is at the same time a home and a business enterprise so that farm-management decisions are made, based on household needs as well as business interests.
|
|
social forestry The practice of using trees and/or tree planting specifically to pursue social objectives, usually betterment of the poor, through delivery of the benefits to the local people.
|
|
soil conservation A combination of all management and land-use methods that safeguard the soil against depletion or deterioration caused by nature and/or humans.
|
|
soil organic matter The organic fraction of the soil that includes plant and animal residues at various stages of decomposition, cells and tissues of soil organisms and substances synthesized by soil organisms.
|
|
sole cropping One crop variety grown alone in pure stand at normal density. Opposite of intercropping/mixed cropping.
|
|
species A taxonomic category below genus. A very closely related group of individual organisms which forms the basic unit for naming and classification according to distinguishable genetic characteristics.
|
|
staggered (planting, harvesting) Referring to activities carried out at different times or locations, instead of synchronized to occur at the same time or place.
|
|
stover The mature, cured stalks of maize or sorghum from which the grain has been removed.
|
|
stress Any factor that disturbs the normal functioning of an organism.
|
|
strip cropping Planting of alternate strips of grasses, or grains with other crops on contours in order to conserve moisture and decrease erosion.
|
|
subhumid In the tropics, a climate with average annual rainfall of 900-1500 mm.
|
|
succession An orderly process of change in a community (of plants, animals) that results from modification of the environment by organisms and culminates in a system attaining steady state, or climax.
|
|
sucker A side shoot from the roots of a plant; a side growth arising from an axillary bud.
|
|
T
|
|
taungya The intercropping of agricultural crops during the first years of forest plantation establishment.
|
|
tenure The right to property, granted by custom or law, which may include land, trees and other plants, animals and water.
|
|
terraces Soil and water conservation structures established on sloping lands to reduce the runoff of soil and water down the slope.
|
|
thinning An intermediate cutting aimed primarily at controlling the growth of a tree stand by adjusting stand density.
|
|
tiller An erect or semi-erect, secondary stem in grass species (such as rice).
|
|
topography The physical description of land; changes in elevation due to hills, valleys and other features.
|
|
transect walk A systematic walk with (small) farmer groups on their land to identify land uses and problems and to discuss potential improvements.
|
|
transpiration The loss of moisture from plants in the form of water vapor.
|
|
U
|
|
understory The lower layer of vegetation, often grasses, shrubs or crops that grow under taller vegetation.
|
|
V
|
|
viability The capability of living and developing in a given environment or, in the case of a technology, of being practiced in the long term.
|
|
W
|
|
water harvesting Collection and storage in a tank or in the soil of water (either runoff or streamflow) for securing water availability for crop growth, or animal and human consumption.
|
|
woody Plants which consist in part of wood; not herbaceous.
|
|
Z
|
|
zero-grazing Livestock production systems in which the animals are fed in pens or other confined areas and are not permitted to graze.
|
|
Sources
|
|
Delorit, R.J., L.J. Greub, and H.L Ahlgren. (eds.) 1974. Crop production. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA.
|
|
Gardner, F.P., R.B. Pearce, and R.L Mitchell. 1985. Physiology of crop plants. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, USA.
|
|
Smith, D.M. (ed.) 1986. The practice of silviculture. 8th edition. John Wiley, New York, USA.
|
|
Soil Science Society of America. 1987. Glossary of soil science terms. Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, WI, USA.
|
|
Soule, J. (ed.) 1985. Glossary of horticulture crops. John Wiley, New York, USA.
|
|
Wilson, T.C. 1978. Researcher's guide to statistics: Glossary and decision map. Univ. Press of America, Washington, D.C, USA.
|
|
<section>Commonly used species in agroforestry in Southeast Asia</section>
|
|
(China, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam)
|
|
Scientific
|
|
English
|
|
Chinese
|
|
Indonesian
|
|
Pillpino
|
|
Thal
|
|
Vietnamese
|
|
Forest trees
|
|
Acacia auriculiformis
|
|
Acacia
|
|
Jinghehuang
|
|
Japanese acacia
|
|
Kruthin Napong
|
|
Keo la tram
|
|
Acacia mangium
|
|
Mangium
|
|
Mangium
|
|
Krathin Tepa
|
|
Keo tai tuong
|
|
Bambusa spp.
|
|
Bamboo
|
|
Zhuzhi
|
|
Bambu
|
|
Kawayan
|
|
Phai
|
|
Tre
|
|
Calamus spp.
|
|
Rattan
|
|
Teng
|
|
Rottan
|
|
Wai
|
|
May
|
|
Canarium spp.
|
|
Kanari
|
|
Pili
|
|
Tram
|
|
Cassia siamea
|
|
Thailand shower
|
|
Tiedaomu
|
|
Thailand shower
|
|
Kae lek
|
|
Muong xiem
|
|
Casuarina equisetifolia
|
|
Australian pine
|
|
Agoho
|
|
Son Tale
|
|
Phi lao
|
|
Cinnamomum cassia
|
|
Cinnamon
|
|
Rugui
|
|
Kayumanis
|
|
Que
|
|
Dendrocalamus spp.
|
|
Bamboo
|
|
Longzhu
|
|
Bayog
|
|
Phai
|
|
Tre. Iuong
|
|
Desmodium rezonii
|
|
Desmodium -
|
|
Karikut-rikut
|
|
Dipterocarpus alatus
|
|
Dipterocarp
|
|
Damar
|
|
Yang
|
|
Dau rai
|
|
Erythrina spp.
|
|
Dadap
|
|
Dapdap
|
|
Thong fang
|
|
Vong
|
|
Eucalyptus spp.
|
|
Eucalyptus
|
|
Anshu
|
|
Eucaliptus
|
|
Red gum
|
|
Eveulyp
|
|
Bach den
|
|
Flemingia congesta
|
|
Flemingia
|
|
Gliricidia septum
|
|
Gamal
|
|
Madre de de cacao
|
|
KaeFarang
|
|
Do mai
|
|
Hevea brasiliensis
|
|
Rubber
|
|
Xiangjiao
|
|
Karet
|
|
Karet
|
|
Yangpara Takien
|
|
Cao su Sao
|
|
Indigofera teysmanii
|
|
Dau cham
|
|
Leucaena leucocephala
|
|
Leucaena
|
|
Yinghehuang
|
|
Lamtoro
|
|
Ipil-ipil
|
|
Krathinyak
|
|
Keo dau
|
|
Mangletia glauca
|
|
Mo
|
|
Melia azedirachta
|
|
Neem tree
|
|
Mindi
|
|
Paraiso
|
|
Sadao
|
|
Xoan
|
|
Pinus spp.
|
|
Pine
|
|
Shongshu
|
|
Pinus
|
|
Pine
|
|
Son
|
|
Thong
|
|
Pterocarpus spp.
|
|
Narra
|
|
Praduu
|
|
Giang huong
|
|
Samanea saman
|
|
Raintree
|
|
Raintree
|
|
ChamChulee
|
|
Cong/
|
|
Sesbania grandiflora
|
|
Sesbania
|
|
Mutianqing
|
|
Turi
|
|
Katuray
|
|
Kae ban
|
|
So dua
|
|
Styrax tonkinensis
|
|
Styrax
|
|
Bo de
|
|
Tectona grandis
|
|
Teak
|
|
Youmu
|
|
Jati
|
|
Teak
|
|
Sak
|
|
Tech
|
|
Fruit trees
|
|
Anacardium occidentale
|
|
Cashew
|
|
Jambu monyet
|
|
Kasoy
|
|
Mumuong Himmapan
|
|
Dieu
|
|
Annona muricata
|
|
Custard apple
|
|
Pinggua
|
|
Buah none
|
|
Guyabano
|
|
NoiNaa
|
|
Mang cau/ na ta
|
|
Artocarpus heterophyllus
|
|
Jackfruit
|
|
Langka
|
|
Langka
|
|
Kanun
|
|
Mit
|
|
Carica papaya
|
|
Papaya
|
|
Mugua
|
|
Pepaya
|
|
Papaya
|
|
Malakop
|
|
Du du
|
|
Citrus spp.
|
|
Citrus
|
|
Ju,che
|
|
Jeruk
|
|
Kalamansi
|
|
Som
|
|
Cam,chanh quat
|
|
Citrus reticulate
|
|
Mandarin
|
|
Ju
|
|
Quit
|
|
Cocos nucifera
|
|
Coconut
|
|
Kelapa
|
|
Niyog
|
|
Niyog
|
|
Dua
|
|
Coffea spp.
|
|
Coffee
|
|
Kafei
|
|
Kopi
|
|
Kape
|
|
Kafae
|
|
Caphe
|
|
Dimocarpus longan
|
|
Longan
|
|
Longgan
|
|
Longyan
|
|
LumYai
|
|
Nhan
|
|
Diospyros kaki
|
|
Oriental persimmon
|
|
Shizhi
|
|
Kesemek
|
|
Plub
|
|
Hong
|
|
Durio zibethinus
|
|
Durian
|
|
Durian
|
|
Duryan
|
|
Durian
|
|
Xoai
|
|
Lansium domesticum
|
|
Lanzones
|
|
Duku
|
|
Lansones
|
|
Lansat
|
|
Bon bon
|
|
Litchi sinensis
|
|
Lychee
|
|
Lizhi
|
|
Lingee
|
|
Vai
|
|
Mangifera indica
|
|
Mango
|
|
Manggio
|
|
Mangga
|
|
Mangga
|
|
Mamuong
|
|
Xoai
|
|
Nephelium lappaceum
|
|
Rambutan
|
|
Rambutan
|
|
Rambutan
|
|
Ngao
|
|
Chom chom
|
|
Persea americana
|
|
Avocado
|
|
Alpukat
|
|
Abokado
|
|
Bo
|
|
Psidium guajava
|
|
Guava
|
|
Jambu
|
|
Bayabas
|
|
Farang
|
|
Oi
|
|
Theobroma cacao
|
|
Cacao
|
|
Keke
|
|
Kakao
|
|
Kakaw
|
|
Cacao
|
|
Vegetables
|
|
Allium cepa
|
|
Onion
|
|
Yangchong
|
|
Bawang merah
|
|
Sibuyas
|
|
Hanh
|
|
Allium sativum
|
|
Garlic
|
|
Dacuan
|
|
Bawang putih
|
|
Bawang
|
|
Toi
|
|
Annonas conosus
|
|
Pineapple
|
|
Boluo
|
|
Nenas
|
|
Pinya
|
|
Subparot
|
|
Thom
|
|
Arachis hypogaea
|
|
Peanut
|
|
Huasheng
|
|
Kacang tanah
|
|
Mani
|
|
Tualisong
|
|
Dau phong
|
|
Brassica oleracea
|
|
Brocolli
|
|
Brokoli
|
|
Brokoli
|
|
Bap cai
|
|
Brassica
|
|
Cabbage oleracea
|
|
Baoxingcai
|
|
Kol
|
|
Repolyo
|
|
Bap su
|
|
Brassica pekinensis
|
|
Chinese cabbage
|
|
Baicai
|
|
Pecai
|
|
Petsay
|
|
Cucumis sativus
|
|
Cucumber
|
|
Caigua
|
|
Timun
|
|
Pipino
|
|
Dua leo/ chust
|
|
Curcurbita spp.
|
|
Squash
|
|
Mangua
|
|
Labu
|
|
Kalabasa
|
|
Bau,bi
|
|
Daucus carota
|
|
Carrots
|
|
Huluobou
|
|
Wortel
|
|
Karot
|
|
Ca rot
|
|
Glycine max
|
|
Soybean
|
|
Dadou
|
|
Kedelai
|
|
Dau nanh
|
|
Hibiscus esculentus
|
|
Okra
|
|
Okra
|
|
Dau bap
|
|
Lycopersicon esculenthum
|
|
Tomato
|
|
Xihongshi
|
|
Tomat
|
|
Kamatis
|
|
Ca chua
|
|
Oryza sativa
|
|
Rice
|
|
Shuidao
|
|
Padi
|
|
Palay
|
|
Kao
|
|
Lua
|
|
Piper nigrum
|
|
Pepper
|
|
Hujiao
|
|
Lada
|
|
Paminta
|
|
Prikthai
|
|
Ot
|
|
Solanum
|
|
Eggplant
|
|
Qiazhi
|
|
Terung
|
|
Talong
|
|
Ca tim
|
|
melongena
|
|
Vigna radiate
|
|
Mungbean
|
|
Ludou
|
|
Kacang hijau Munggo
|
|
Tuakiew
|
|
Dau xanh
|
|
Zea mays
|
|
Corn
|
|
Yumi
|
|
Jagung
|
|
Mais
|
|
Bap
|
|
Root crops
|
|
Colocasia spp.
|
|
Taro
|
|
Yunei
|
|
Talas
|
|
Gabi
|
|
Mon
|
|
Ipomea batatas
|
|
Sweet potato
|
|
Fanshu
|
|
Ubijalar
|
|
Kamote
|
|
Khoai fang
|
|
Manihot esculenta
|
|
Cassava
|
|
Mushu
|
|
Ubikayu
|
|
Kamoteng kahoy
|
|
NunSumpalangSan
|
|
Solanum tuberosum
|
|
Potato
|
|
Malinshu
|
|
Kentang
|
|
Patatas
|
|
Khoai tay
|
|
Zingiber officinale
|
|
Ginger
|
|
Jiang
|
|
Jahe
|
|
Luya
|
|
Khing
|
|
Gung
|
|
Livestock
|
|
Bee
|
|
Mifeng
|
|
Lebah
|
|
Bubuyog
|
|
Pung
|
|
Ong
|
|
Buffalo
|
|
Shuinui
|
|
Kerbau
|
|
Kalabaw
|
|
Kwai
|
|
Trau
|
|
Chicken
|
|
Ji
|
|
Ayam
|
|
Manok
|
|
Kai
|
|
Ga
|
|
Cow
|
|
Neiniu-
|
|
Sapi
|
|
Baka
|
|
Von
|
|
Bo
|
|
Duck
|
|
Ya
|
|
Itik
|
|
Bibe/itik
|
|
Ped
|
|
Vit
|
|
Fish
|
|
Yu
|
|
Ikan
|
|
Isda
|
|
Plu
|
|
Ca
|
|
Goat
|
|
Yang
|
|
Kambing
|
|
Kambing
|
|
Pae
|
|
De
|
|
Goose
|
|
E
|
|
Angsa
|
|
Gansa
|
|
Hon
|
|
Ngong
|
|
Pig
|
|
Zhu
|
|
Babi
|
|
Baboy
|
|
Mu
|
|
Heo, lon
|
|
Sheep
|
|
Mianyang
|
|
Domba
|
|
Tupa
|
|
Kae
|
|
Cuu
|
|
<section>Resource institutions</section>
|
|
Institutions
|
|
Expertise
|
|
Program focus
|
|
China
|
|
Agro-ecology Institute Zhejiang Agricultural University Hangzhou, 310029, Zhejiang Province, China
|
|
farming systems, agroecology
|
|
research and development, education
|
|
Institute of Forestry Research China Academy of Forestry Beijing, China
|
|
forestry and agroforestry
|
|
basic and applied research, demonstration, networking (APAN national focal point)
|
|
Institute of Scientific and Technical Information Chinese Academy of Forestry Beijing, China.
|
|
forestry, social forestry
|
|
information generation and dissemination
|
|
Institute of Soil Science Academia Sinica Nanjing, China
|
|
soil conservation, agroforestry
|
|
agroforestry networking project
|
|
Institute of Sub-tropical Forestry Research Chinese Academy of Forestry Hangzhou, China
|
|
sub-tropical forest, bamboo-based farm forestry
|
|
research, experiment station, documentation
|
|
Institute of Tropical Forestry Research Chinese Academy of Forestry Guangzhou, China
|
|
tropical forestry and agroforestry
|
|
research, experiment station, outreach
|
|
International Farm Forestry Training Center China Academy of Forestry Beijing, China
|
|
farm forestry, agroforestry
|
|
training
|
|
Indonesia
|
|
Agricultural Polytechnic-Kupang Jl. Adisucipto, Pentui P. O. Box 1111
|
|
dryland farming and agroforestry systems, indigenous
|
|
research and development, education and training
|
|
Kupang 8501 1, Nusa Tenggara Timur Indonesia
|
|
knowledge, agroecosystems, multipurpose tree species
|
|
Asia-Pacific Agroforestry Network (FAO-APAN) Jl. Gunung Batu 5 P. O. Box 481 Bogor 16004, Indonesia
|
|
agroforestry systems, human resource development
|
|
networking, training, information services, field demonstration
|
|
Asia Soil Conservation Network (ASOCON) Manggala Wanabakti Blok IV Lt. S. Jl. Gatot Subroto or P. O. Box 133 JKWB Jakarta 10270, Indonesia
|
|
soil conservation
|
|
networking
|
|
Badan Pendidikan den Latihan Pertanian(Agency for Agricultural Education and Training) Jl. Harsono No. 3, Pasarminggu Jakarta 12560, Indonesia
|
|
farming system, nature conservation, human resources development
|
|
networking, training and extension education, monitoring and evaluation methods
|
|
Balai Metodologi Informasi Pertanian(Agricultural Information Methodology Center) P. O. Box 252, Ciawi, Bogor, Indonesia
|
|
farming systems, people-based approach
|
|
instructional media training development, information services
|
|
Bogor Agricultural University Jl. Raya Pajajaran Bogor, Indonesia
|
|
forestry, farming systems, food technology
|
|
research and development, education and training
|
|
Forest and Nature Conservation Research and Development Center Jl. Gunung Batu 5 Bogor, Indonesia
|
|
agroforestry systems, nature conservation
|
|
research and development, training and extension, (APAN national focal point)
|
|
ICRAF Southeast Asia Programme Jl. Gunung Batu 5, Bogor, Indonesia
|
|
agroforestry
|
|
research and development
|
|
Kelompok Kerja Konservasi(Working Group for Conservation) c/o LP3ES, Jl. Mergapati 10 Mataram, Lombok, Indonesia
|
|
agroforestry, nature conservation
|
|
networking, information services
|
|
Nusa Tenggara Upland Development Consortium c/o World Neighbors Southeast Asia P. O. Box 71, Ubud 85071, Bali, Indonesia
|
|
agroforestry, nature conservation, gender, participatory approach
|
|
networking, information services
|
|
Perum Perhutani Gd. Manggala Wanabhakti Blok IV Lt 4 Jl. Gatot Subroto, Senayan Jakarta, Indonesia
|
|
agroforestry, non- wood forest product, nature conservation
|
|
research and development, training extension
|
|
PROSEA Network Office c/o Research and Development Center for Biology, LIPI Jl. Ir. H. Juanda 22 P. O. Box 234 Bogor 16122, West Java, Indonesia
|
|
fanning systems, indigenous and exogenous knowledge
|
|
research and development, networking, information services on plant resources, handbook, data bank
|
|
World Neighbors Southeast Asia Office P. O. Box 71, Ubud 85071, Bali, Indonesia
|
|
people-based approach, upland development program
|
|
networking, media development, information services
|
|
World Neighbors Southeast Asia Media Support Program Studio Driya Media, Jl. Makmur No. 16 Bandung 40161, West Java, Indonesia
|
|
people-based approach, upland development program
|
|
networking,media development, information services
|
|
Yayasan Bina Swadaya Jl. Gunung Sahari III/7, Jakarta Pusat, Indonesia
|
|
agroforestry, social forestry
|
|
training
|
|
Papua New Guinea
|
|
Bubia Research Station LAE, Morobe Province Papua New Guinea
|
|
farming systems
|
|
research, information services
|
|
Highlands Agricultural Experimentation Station, Aiyuva P. O. Box 384 Kainantu, EHP Papua New Guinea
|
|
agroforestry/farming systems
|
|
research, information services
|
|
Land Utilization Section Department of Agriculture and Livestock P. O. Box 1863 Baroko, Papua New Guinea
|
|
land suitability assessment, soil survey, agroclimatology, agroecological zoning, land use planning
|
|
planning, coordination, information services
|
|
Subsistence Agricultural Improvement Project Department of Morobe LAE, Morobe Province Papua New Guinea
|
|
agriculture
|
|
training and extension
|
|
Wan Ecology Institute Private Bag LAE Morobe Province Papua New Guinea
|
|
indigenous knowledge, agriculture, land use, wildlife ecology
|
|
research, information services
|
|
Philippines
|
|
Bureau of Agriculture Research Department of Agriculture Visayas Avenue, Diliman Quezon City, Philippines
|
|
farming systems
|
|
research and development, networking
|
|
Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau Department of Environment and Natural Resources College, Laguna 4031, Philippines
|
|
natural resources technology generation, ecosystems
|
|
research and development
|
|
International Institute of Rural Reconstruction Y.C. James Yen Center Silang, Cavite 4118 Philippines
|
|
integrated community-based rural development, environment, natural resources, agriculture, rural enterprise building
|
|
integrated approach, research, networking, media development, training and extension, information services
|
|
International Rice Research Institute Los Baños, Laguna Philippines
|
|
farming systems, crop management, post- harvesting technology
|
|
research and development
|
|
Kapwa Upliftment Foundation, Inc. 427 Durian St., Juan Subdivision Matina 8000, Davao City Philippines
|
|
agroforestry, gender, human resource, land tenure
|
|
people-centered development program, networking, training, extension
|
|
Mag-Uugmad Foundation, Inc. 39-2 Pelaez St. 6000 Cebu City PhiIippines
|
|
soil and water conservation, farming systems, farmer- centered development
|
|
people-centered development, networking, training, extension, media development, research
|
|
Mariano Marcos State University Institute of Sustainable Dryland Agriculture College of Agriculture and Forestry Batac, Ilocos Norte, Philippines
|
|
dryland agriculture, farming systems
|
|
research and development
|
|
Mindanao Baptist Rural Life Center Kinuskusan, Bansalan Davao del Sur, Philippines
|
|
upland technology development, farming systems
|
|
training, extension, media development, research and development
|
|
Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources and Development Los Baños, Laguna Philippines
|
|
forestry, agriculture, farming systems
|
|
research, technology generation, verification dissemination and development
|
|
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement P. O. Box 10479 Broadway Centrum, Quezon City, Philippines
|
|
natural resources management
|
|
advocacy, research, information services
|
|
Southeast Asia Regional Center for Research in Agriculture Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines
|
|
agriculture
|
|
research and development, training
|
|
University of the Philippines at Los Baños College, Los Baños Laguna, Philippines
|
|
agronomy, human ecology, forestry, biological science, natural resources, rural development
|
|
research and development
|
|
- College of Forestry
|
|
- Institute of Biological Science
|
|
- Department of Agronomy
|
|
- College of Human Ecology
|
|
Thailand
|
|
AgricuIture Department Paholyothin Road, Chajutak Bangkok 10900, Thailand
|
|
sustainable agriculture
|
|
research and development
|
|
CARE Thailand18 A Sub Soi, Aree 4 North Paholyothin 7, Bangkok 10400 Thailand
|
|
natural resource management, watershed management, community development
|
|
extension
|
|
Faculty of Agriculture Chiangmai University Chiangmai, Thailand
|
|
natural resource conservation
|
|
research and development, training
|
|
Faculty of Forestry Khon Kaen University Khon Kaen, Thailand
|
|
nature conservation, human resource development
|
|
research and development, training
|
|
FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific Maliwan Mansion39 Phra Atit Road Bangkok 10200, Thailand
|
|
rural development, food security, agroforestry, farm management, marketing, women in development, soil and water conservation
|
|
development assistance through expert consultation, training, networking, information services
|
|
Farming Systems Research and Development Office of Agricultural Economics Paholyothin Road, Chatujak 10900 Bangkok, Thailand
|
|
farm-based approach
|
|
research and development, training
|
|
Hill Areas Development Foundation P. O. Box 1 I Mae Chan District Chiangrai 57110, Thailand
|
|
natural resource management, community development, soil and water conservation
|
|
education, extension
|
|
Kasetsart University Chajutak, Bangkok 10903 Thailand
|
|
nature conservation, human resource development
|
|
research and development, training
|
|
- Faculty of Agriculture
|
|
- Faculty of Forestry
|
|
Multipurpose Tree Species Network for Asia P. O. Box 1038 Kasetsart Office Bangkok 10903, Thailand
|
|
farm forestry, integrated agricultural systems
|
|
research and development
|
|
Office of Community Forestry Royal Forest Department Paholyothin Road, Bangkhen Bangkok 10900, Thailand
|
|
agroforestry, social forestry
|
|
planning and development, training(APAN national focal point)
|
|
Population Development Association Sukhumvit Soi 12 Bangkok, Thailand
|
|
people-based approach
|
|
research and development
|
|
Regional Community Forestry Training Center c/o Faculty of Forestry Kasetsart University P. O. Box 1111 Bangkok 10903, Thailand
|
|
social forestry
|
|
training, Information services, networking
|
|
Royal Forest Management Chatujak, Bangkok Thai land
|
|
natural forest management and conservation
|
|
planning and development
|
|
- Natural Forest Land Use Management Division
|
|
- Silviculture Division
|
|
- Watershed Conservation Division
|
|
Save the Children P. O. Box 49 Nakhon Sawan 60000, Thailand
|
|
farm forestry, community forestry
|
|
development, networking, training
|
|
Sustainable Agriculture Extension Division Agriculture Extension Department Paholyothin Road, Bangkok Thailand
|
|
agroforestry and farming systems
|
|
extension
|
|
Thai-German Highland Development Program P. O. Box 67 Chiangmai 50000, Thailand
|
|
farming and agroforestry systems, watershed, natural resource management, land use, community based
|
|
research and development
|
|
Vietnam
|
|
Agriculture Research Institute No. 1, 1 16 Nguyen Binh Chieu Street District 1, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
|
|
agriculture
|
|
research and extension
|
|
CARE International in Vietnam130 A, Thung Khue Hanoi, Vietnam
|
|
community forestry, upland farming system, community development
|
|
training and extension
|
|
Center for Natural Resources Management and Natural Environmental Studies15 B Trieu Viet Vuong Hanoi, Vietnam
|
|
natural/agricultural/ rural resources, agroforestry, biodiversity
|
|
management and development (upland area)
|
|
Center for Soil and Fertilizer Research and Techno-Transfer(ISF/MAFI), 37 Ben Chuong Duong District 1, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
|
|
soil fertility
|
|
research and extension
|
|
College of Agriculture and Agroforestry Thuduc, Ho Chi Minh City65/5 a Nguyen Trong, Tuyen Street Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
|
|
agriculture, forestry
|
|
development and extension
|
|
Forest Science Institute Chem-Tu, Liem Hanoi, Vietnam
|
|
forestry
|
|
research (APAN national local point)
|
|
Forestry College Xuan Mai, Hatay Province Vietnam
|
|
silviculture, social forestry, wood processing
|
|
research and development, training, networking
|
|
Hanoi Agricultural University Gia Lam, Hanoi Vietnam
|
|
agriculture, agro- ecology, farming systems, food production
|
|
research and development
|
|
Langa Union of Forest Enterprise Ministry of Forestry Hanoi, Vietnam
|
|
dipterocarp forest
|
|
research and extension
|
|
Upland Farming Systems, R & D Center University of Agriculture No. 3 Bacthai Province, Vietnam
|
|
upland farming and agroforestry systems, soil and water
|
|
research and development, training and extension conservation
|
|
<section>Participants and workshop staff</section>
|
|
Participants
|
|
Ms. Kwanchewan Buadeng (Thailand)
|
|
Dr. Lope A. Calanog (Philippines)
|
|
Dr. Roberto V. Dalmacio (Philippines)
|
|
Alma Monica A. dela Paz (Philippines)
|
|
Dr. Narciso R. Deomampo (Thailand)
|
|
John Dixon (Thailand)
|
|
Antonius P.Y. Djogo (Indonesia)
|
|
Ines Vivian D. Domingo (Indonesia)
|
|
Patrick B. Durst (Thailand)
|
|
Riri Fithriadi (Indonesia)
|
|
Dr. James H. French (Indonesia)
|
|
Dr. Sunarya Hadiwisastra (Indonesia)
|
|
Helle Qwist-Hoffman (Thailand)
|
|
Peter Qwist-Hoffman (Thailand)
|
|
Nguyen Huu Hong (Vietnam)
|
|
Dr. Kennedy Igbokwe (Philippines)
|
|
Michael Jensen (Thailand)
|
|
Wu Jianjun (China)
|
|
Dr. Junus Kartasubrata (Indonesia)
|
|
Chun K. Lai (Indonesia)
|
|
Teunchai Lakhaviwattanakul (Thailand)
|
|
Pearmsak Makarabhirom (Thailand)
|
|
Dr. Stanley C. Malab (Philippines)
|
|
Cai Mantang (China)
|
|
Dr. Evelyn Mathias (Philippines)
|
|
Nguyen Ba Ngai (Vietnam)
|
|
Bui Ngoc Quang (Vietnam)
|
|
Dr. Hamish Richards (United Kingdom)
|
|
Dr. Walfredo Raquel Rola (Philippines)
|
|
Prem Sharma (Nepal)
|
|
Bishan Singh (Philippines)
|
|
Dr. Naik Sinukaban (Indonesia)
|
|
Mike Stainburn (Philippines)
|
|
Nguyen Van So (Vietnam)
|
|
Dr. Yoyo Sulaiman (Indonesia)
|
|
Esther Velasco (Philippines)
|
|
Tran Duc Vien (Vietnam)
|
|
Balthazar Wayi (Papua New Guinea)
|
|
Zheng Wei (China)
|
|
Editors
|
|
David Abbass
|
|
Lyn Capistrano-Doren
|
|
Scott Killough
|
|
Ray Montes
|
|
Dr. Paul Mundy (Workshop coordinator)
|
|
Jimmy Ronquillo (Scheduling)
|
|
Sheila Siar
|
|
Artists
|
|
Ric Cantada
|
|
Albert Contemprate
|
|
Arnold Gardon
|
|
Rannie Ramacula
|
|
Desktop publishing
|
|
Mamet Magno
|
|
Jel Montoya
|
|
Angie Poblete
|
|
Logistics
|
|
Lhai Kasala
|
|
Angie Poblete
|
|
Support
|
|
Thess Aquino
|
|
Carding Belenzo
|
|
Gerry Medina
|
|
Jel Montoya
|
|
Rollie Ramos
|
|
* Did not attend the workshop
|
|
<section>Participants' profiles</section>
|
|
Kwanchewan Buadeng
|
|
Kwanchewan "Jid" Buadeng is a Social Researcher at the Social
|
|
Thai-German Highland Development
|
|
Research Institute, Chiangmai University, Thailand. She holds a
|
|
Program
|
|
Masters in Anthropology from the Ateneo de Manila University,
|
|
P O Box 67, Chiangmai 50000
|
|
Philippines. Jid has attended many national and international
|
|
Thailand
|
|
workshops and presented papers at the Asian Farming Systems
|
|
Fax 66-53-211 808
|
|
symposium, Farming Systems Development working groups of
|
|
GTZ projects and other conferences.
|
|
Dr. Lope Calanog
|
|
Ecosystems Research and Develop-
|
|
Dr. Lope A. Calanog is a Supervising Science Research Specialist
|
|
ment Bureau
|
|
at the Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau of the
|
|
Department of Environment and
|
|
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in the
|
|
Natural Resources
|
|
University of the Philippnes - Los Baños. At present, he is the head
|
|
University of the Philippines at Los
|
|
of the Community Forestry Section of the Ecosystems Research
|
|
Baños, College, Laguna 4031
|
|
and Development Bureau of the DENR. He has just completed his
|
|
Philippines
|
|
Ph.D. in Community Development. Soon, he will be completing a
|
|
book tentatively titled Adaptive Traditionalism of a Swidden
|
|
based Upland Community.
|
|
Roberto Dalmacio
|
|
Dr. Roberto "Bert,, V. Dalmacio is the Instruction Division Coor
|
|
UPLB Agroforestry Program
|
|
dinator at the UPLB Agroforestry Program, Philippines, and is
|
|
College of Forestry
|
|
also an Associate Professor in Silviculture and Forest Influences.
|
|
University of the Philippines at Los
|
|
He teaches graduate courses in silviculture and agroforestry and
|
|
Philippines
|
|
advises graduate students. He conducts research in the fields of
|
|
silviculture and agroforestry. He also designs and coordinates
|
|
training courses in reforestation and agroforestry and serves as a
|
|
resource person in topics dealing with silviculture and
|
|
agroforestry.
|
|
Alma Monica de la Paz
|
|
Alma Monica A. dela Paz is the Executive Director of the Kapwa
|
|
Executive Director
|
|
Upliftment Foundation, Inc., in Matina, Davao City, Philippines.
|
|
Kapwa Upliftment Foundation, Inc
|
|
Alma is currently a member of the board of directors of
|
|
427 Durian St., Juan Subdivision
|
|
PHILDHRRA, a national coalition of NGOs. She is one of 18
|
|
Matina 8000, Davao City, Philippines
|
|
private-sector representatives to the Regional Development Coun
|
|
cil of Region XI as well as serving as a member of the Economic
|
|
Development Committee of the Council. She also represents
|
|
Kapwa in the Regional Upland Development Committee of the
|
|
DENR.
|
|
Dr. Narciso Deomampo
|
|
FAO Regional for Asia and the
|
|
Dr. Narciso R. Deomampo is the FAO Regional Farm Manage
|
|
Pacific (RAPA)
|
|
ment Economist based at the FAO Regional Office in Bangkok,
|
|
Maliwan Mansion
|
|
Thailand. Before joining RAPA, Dr. Deomampo worked as an
|
|
39 Phra Atit Road
|
|
FAO Project Manager in Sri Lanka on Agricultural Marketing
|
|
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
|
|
Extension from 1985-1986. He was assigned as FAO Marketing
|
|
Fax 66-2-280 0445
|
|
Economist in the Northern Areas of Pakistan from 1987-1989. In 1990, Dr. Deomampo was the Chief Technical Adviser of FAOTCP Project in Chiangmai, Thailand, on Group Marketing and Extension. In 1991, he was appointed as Chief Technical Adviser of FAO/UNDP Marketing Project - Lesotho, Southern Africa for two years.
|
|
John Dixon
|
|
Programme Coordinator
|
|
John Dixon is a farmer from Queensland, Australia. He holds
|
|
FARM Programme
|
|
degrees in Rural Science, Agricultural Economics, Natural Re
|
|
FAO Regional Office for Asia and the
|
|
source Management and Sustainable Agriculture. He has worked
|
|
Pacific
|
|
for FAO in Africa, the Near East, Asia and its headquarters. He
|
|
Maliwan Mansion
|
|
now serves as coordinator of the UNDP/FAO/UNIDO Farmer
|
|
39 Phra Atit Road
|
|
centred Agricultural Resource Management Programme.
|
|
Bangkok .0200, Thailand
|
|
Fax 66-2-280 0445
|
|
Antonius P. Y. Djogo
|
|
Director
|
|
Antonius "Tony', P.Y. Djogo is the Director of Agricultural Poly
|
|
Agricultural Polytechnic-Kupang
|
|
technic, Kupang, Indonesia. He graduated from Bogor Agricul
|
|
Jl. Adisucipto, Pentui
|
|
tural University Indonesia in 1980 (from the Department of Soil
|
|
P O BOX 1111
|
|
Sciences] Faculty of Agriculture). He has attended several
|
|
Kupang 85011
|
|
trainings in-country and overseas. The research and development
|
|
Nusa Tenggara Timur
|
|
areas in which he specializes include: agroecosystem analysis,
|
|
Fax 62-391-31001
|
|
agroforestry and social forestry; dryland farming systems; and
|
|
farmer-based dryland farming systems development.
|
|
Ines Vivian Domingo
|
|
Ines Vivian "IV,, D. Domingo is the Coordinator of the World
|
|
Southeast Asia Media Support
|
|
Neighbors - Southeast Asia Media Support Program. She is based
|
|
Program
|
|
in Bandung Indonesia. She coordinates the production of low-cost
|
|
Studio Driya Media
|
|
media in a variety of topics, including sustainable upland agriculture.
|
|
JI. Makmur No. 16
|
|
Bandung 40161
|
|
West Java, Indonesia
|
|
Patrick Durst
|
|
Patrick B. Durst is a Regional Forestry Officer for Asia and the
|
|
FAO Regional Office for Asia and the
|
|
Pacific at FAO, Bangkok, Thailand. Before joining FAO, he
|
|
Pacific (RAPA)
|
|
worked for nearly eight years with the Office of International
|
|
Maliwan Mansion
|
|
Forestry, USDA Forest Service--first as Special Projects Coordi
|
|
39 Phra Atit Road
|
|
nator for the Forestry Support Program, then as Coordinator for
|
|
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
|
|
Asia and Near East Programs and finally as Asia-Pacific Branch
|
|
Fax 66-2-280 0445
|
|
Chief.
|
|
Riri Fithriadi
|
|
Riri Fithriadi is the Agroforestry Extension Specialist of the FAO
|
|
Agroforestry Extension Specialist
|
|
Asia-Pacific Agroforestry Network (FAO-APAN). He joined
|
|
FAO Asia-Pacific Agroforestry
|
|
APAN in 1993 and was responsible for information and technology
|
|
Network
|
|
exchange, training, field activities and networking in Indonesia. In
|
|
JI. Gunung Batu 481
|
|
1990-1993, he worked with the Studio Driya Media in Bandung,
|
|
P O Box 481, Bogor 16004
|
|
Indonesia, as Associate Director for Research and Development
|
|
Indonesia
|
|
and was responsible for media development management and some field activities.
|
|
Dr. James H. French
|
|
Dr. James "Jim,, French is the Information and Training Specialist
|
|
Information Specialist
|
|
of the FAO Asia-Pacific Agroforestry Network (FAO-APAN).
|
|
FAO Asia-Pacific Agroforestry
|
|
Home is shared between New Hampshire, Bangkok and Bogor.
|
|
JI. Gunung Batu 481
|
|
Jim has lived in Thailand for 14 years and in Indonesia for 5 years.
|
|
P O Box 481, Bogor 16004
|
|
Most of this time was with UNDP working on rural development,
|
|
Indonesia watershed management and rubber replanting programs. In Indo nesia, he worked with Winrock International on researchextension linkages and the Upland Agriculture and Conservation Project. His doctorate is in extension education and his masters is in communication.
|
|
Dr. O. Sunarya
|
|
Dr. Sunarya "Ooy" Hadiwisastra is an Agriculture Extension
|
|
Hadiwisastra
|
|
Specialist at the Agency for Agricultural Education and Training of
|
|
Balai Diklat Pertanian
|
|
the Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture. He holds a Ph.D. in Devel
|
|
Proyek P4K Pusat
|
|
opment Communications from UPLB, Philippines. At the Agency,
|
|
JI. Harsono RM 3
|
|
Ooy serves as the project secretary of PHK (Income-generating
|
|
Jakarta 12560
|
|
activities for small farmers and landless).
|
|
Indonesia
|
|
Fax 62-21 -780 5209
|
|
Nguyen Huu Hong
|
|
Nguyen Huu Hong is a lecturer and researcher in upland rice,
|
|
Deputy Director
|
|
upland farming systems and agroforestry at the University of
|
|
Upland Farming Systems (R & D Center)
|
|
Agriculture, No. 3, Bacthai, Vietnam. He holds an MSc degree on
|
|
University of Agriculture No. 3
|
|
agronomy from Migazaki University in Japan. He is the deputy
|
|
Bacthai Province, Vietnam
|
|
director of agroforestry, research and development center for the
|
|
northern mountains in Vietnam.
|
|
Dr. Kennedy Igbokwe
|
|
Water Resources Management
|
|
Dr. Kennedy Igbokwe is the Water Resources Management Spe
|
|
Speciaiist
|
|
cialist at the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction,
|
|
International Institute of Rural
|
|
Philippines. He graduated from Central Philippines University with
|
|
Reconstruction
|
|
a BSc degree in Agricultural Engineering and holds MSc and
|
|
Silang, Cavite, Philippines
|
|
Doctoral degrees in Agricultural Engineering with specialization in
|
|
Fax 63-96-402 0891
|
|
soil and water management from Central Luzon State University,
|
|
Philippines. He is presently involved in conceptualizing and devel
|
|
oping water resources/watershed management projects and participatory technology development for rainfed agriculture improvement in the semi-arid areas of India.
|
|
Michael Jensen
|
|
Michael Jensen is an Associate Professional Officer/Agroforestry
|
|
FAO Regional Office for Asia and the
|
|
of FAO-RAPA. He holds an M.Sc. degree on Agroforestry and
|
|
Pacific (RAPA)
|
|
Forest Ecology from Copenhagen University and the Royal Veteri
|
|
39 Phra Atit Road
|
|
narian and Agricultural University. Since 1992, he has been work
|
|
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
|
|
ing with FAO--first in the Regional Wood Energy Development
|
|
Fax 66-2-280 0445
|
|
Programme and then at the Forestry Section of RAPA, both
|
|
located in Bangkok, with agroforestry as his main responsibility. He has previous working experience in ecological research in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia.
|
|
Wu Jianjun
|
|
Associate Professor and Deputy
|
|
Wu Jianjun is the Deputy Director of the Agro-ecology Institute,
|
|
Director
|
|
Zhejiang Agricultural University, China. He has worked in the
|
|
Agro-ecology Institute
|
|
Institute since 1987 as an instructor, researcher and associate
|
|
Zhejiang Agricultural University
|
|
professor. In addition to teaching (crop production, groecology,
|
|
Hangzhou, 310029
|
|
specific topics on agroecosystems and integrated farming systems),
|
|
Zhejiang Province
|
|
he conducts research on Chinese ecological agriculture, farming
|
|
People's Republic of China
|
|
systems development on red soil hilly areas (uplands) and the
|
|
Fax 86-571 -604 9815
|
|
structure and mechanisms for integration of agricultural education,
|
|
demonstration, training and extension.
|
|
Dr. Junus Kartasubrata
|
|
Dr. Junus Kartasubrata heads the Network Office of the Plant
|
|
Acting Head
|
|
Resources of South East Asia (PROSEA) Foundation in Bogor,
|
|
PROSEA Network Office
|
|
Indonesia. He holds a doctorate in Forestry from Bogor Agricul
|
|
c/o Research and Development
|
|
tural University.
|
|
Centre for Biology
|
|
LIPI, Jl. Ir. H. Juanda No. 22
|
|
P.O. Box 234
|
|
Bogor 16122, West Java, Indonesia
|
|
Fax 62-251 -336 425
|
|
Scott Killough
|
|
Scott Killough is the Director of the Environment, Natural Re
|
|
Director
|
|
sources and Agriculture program at the International Institute of
|
|
Environment, Natural Resources and
|
|
Rural Reconstruction. He has been involved in management of
|
|
Agriculture
|
|
research and training activities in upland farm management in the
|
|
Reconstruction, Silang, Cavite
|
|
Philippines, India, Guatemala and Ethiopia. Before joining IIRR,
|
|
Philippines
|
|
he worked with the Peace Corps in Guatemala and in the U.S.A.
|
|
Fax (632) 522 2494
|
|
Chun K. Lai
|
|
Chun Lai, Asia-Pacific Agroforestry Network (APAN) Regional
|
|
Regional
|
|
Coordinator, was born in Hongkong and raised and educated in the
|
|
FAO Asia-Pacific Agroforestry
|
|
U.S. He holds forestry/international forestry degrees from the
|
|
Jl. Gunung Batu 481
|
|
University of Maine at Oroneo and from Yale University. His
|
|
P O Box 481, Bogor 16004
|
|
professional experience includes assignments in the Northwestern
|
|
Indonesia
|
|
U.S. (U.S. Forest Service), West Africa (Peace Corps, Fulbright
|
|
Program and USAID), Bangladesh (Winrock International) and Asia-Pacific Agroforestry Network--FAO network based in Bogor, Indonesia. His total experience exceeds 1 5 years in the field working on forestry and agroforestry.
|
|
Teunchai
|
|
Teunchai "Jai" Lakhaviwattanakul is a Professional Forest Officer
|
|
Lakhaviwattanakul
|
|
at the Royal Forest Department, Thailand. She is also the current
|
|
Chief, Agroforestry Branch
|
|
APAN National Coordinator in Thailand.
|
|
Office of Community Forestry
|
|
Forest Department
|
|
Pa halyoth in Road, Bangkhen
|
|
Bangkok 10900, Thailand
|
|
Fax 66-2-579 1718
|
|
Pearmsak Makarabhirom
|
|
Pearmsak Makarabhirom is a Technical Forestry Officer of the
|
|
Agroforestry Branch
|
|
Royal Forest Department, Bangkok, Thailand. He is also a Pro
|
|
Office of Community of Forestry
|
|
gram Officer of the Regional Community Forestry Outreach
|
|
Forest Department
|
|
Program of the Regional Community, Forestry Training Center for
|
|
Pahalyothin Road, Bangkhen
|
|
Asia-Pacific. He is experienced in agroforestry research and
|
|
Bangkok 10900
|
|
extension, community forestry and forestry extension.
|
|
Thailand
|
|
Fax 66-2-579 5416
|
|
Dr. Stanley Malab
|
|
Assistant Professor
|
|
Dr. Stanley "Stan,, C. Malab is a Professor and Director for Re
|
|
Institute of Sustainable Dryland
|
|
search at the Mariano Marcos State University, Batac, Ilocos
|
|
Agriculture, College of Agriculture
|
|
Norte, Philippines. His present assignments include: Professor of
|
|
and Forestry, Mariano Marcos State
|
|
Forest Science, Director for Research and Development; and
|
|
university
|
|
Concurrent Director of the Institute of Sustainable Dryland Agri
|
|
Batac, Ilocos Norte, Philippines
|
|
culture. He has conducted research on nitrogen dynamics on
|
|
Fax 63-77-792 3131
|
|
agroforestry systems, bamboo technology, sand dune utilization
|
|
and computer modelling for agroforestry systems.
|
|
Dr. Evelyn Mathias
|
|
Dr. Evelyn Mathias is the Coordinator of the Regional Program for
|
|
IlRR, Silang, Cavite
|
|
the Promotion of Indigenous Knowledge in Asia (REPPIKA) at
|
|
Philippines
|
|
the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction. Her major
|
|
Fax (632) 522 2494
|
|
interests are in ethnoveterinary medicine, the use of indigenous
|
|
knowledge in development, livestock development and the delivery of animal health care services. Before joining IIRR, she was a visiting lecturer at the Bogor Agricultural University in Indonesia. Dr. Mathias holds a Dr. Med. Vet. degree (equivalent to Ph.D.) in veterinary medicine and a DVM degree, both from Justus- Liebig University in Giessen, Germany. She has a Master's in International Development from Iowa State University, USA.
|
|
Dr. Paul Mundy
|
|
Dr. Paul Mundy is the Director of the Communication Division at
|
|
Director, Communication Division
|
|
the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction. A British
|
|
IlRR, Silang, Cavite
|
|
national, he worked as an editor in the Central Research Institute
|
|
Philippines
|
|
for Food Crops in Indonesia and in Egypt before joining IIRR. He
|
|
has a Ph.D. in Mass Communication from the University of Wisconsin.
|
|
Nguyen Ba Ngai
|
|
Nguyen Ba Ngai is a Lecturer in Social Forestry at the Forestry
|
|
Lecturer in Social Forestry
|
|
College of Vietnam. He teaches forest management and social
|
|
Forestry College, Xuan Mai
|
|
forestry
|
|
Hatay Province, Vietnam
|
|
Fax 84-4-250 000
|
|
Bui Ngoc Quang
|
|
Bui Ngoc Quang is a Project Officer of CARE International in
|
|
Project Officer
|
|
Vietnam. He has experiences in community forestry in the northern
|
|
CARE international in Vietnam
|
|
mountainous provinces of Vietnam; agroforestry systems in the
|
|
130 A, Thuy khue
|
|
uplands; participatory rapid appraisal; and working with ethnic
|
|
Hanoi Vietnam
|
|
minorities at the community level.
|
|
Fax 84-4-2337 14
|
|
Dr. Hamish Richards
|
|
Dr. Hamish Richards is an executive committee member of the UK
|
|
Development Consultancy Services,
|
|
Freedom From Hunger Campaign. He has undertaken
|
|
Ltd.
|
|
consultancies for the UN Population Programme (project evalua
|
|
Heath, Cardiff CF4 4HG
|
|
tion); UNESCO (nonformal education); Pacific Commissioner
|
|
Wales, United Kingdom
|
|
(population/human resource development); ILO (population
|
|
Fax 44-1222-750 621
|
|
programme management and child care facilities); and European
|
|
Community (plight of street children).
|
|
Dr. Walfredo Raquel Rola
|
|
Dr. Walfredo "Wally" Raquel Rola is an Assistant Professor at the
|
|
Department of Community and
|
|
Department of Community and Environmental Resource Planning
|
|
Environmental Resource Planning
|
|
at the University of the Philippines at Los Baños. He has been
|
|
University of the Philippines
|
|
engaged by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) several times as
|
|
at Los Baños
|
|
an agricultural economist or financial analyst in reformulating and
|
|
College, Laguna, Philippines
|
|
evaluating projects in the Philippines, Nepal and Indonesia. Cur
|
|
rently, he is serving as a management system and logistic specialist for an ADB
|
|
funded Vegetable Integrated Pest Management Project in the Philippines.
|
|
Prem Sharma
|
|
Prem Sharma is the Regional Coordinator/Chief Technical Advisor
|
|
FAD-FARM
|
|
with FAO. He is also the Regional/Senior Scientist (Land-use) of
|
|
CTA, Watershed Management
|
|
CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica. He has authored over 40 publica
|
|
FAO office in Nepal
|
|
tions in watershed management, agroforestry, soil conservation,
|
|
P. O. Box 25, Kathmandu
|
|
irrigation, natural resources management for uplands in Asia and
|
|
Nepal
|
|
Latin America.
|
|
Fax 977-1-526358
|
|
Bishan Singh
|
|
Bishan Singh is the executive president of the Management Insti
|
|
PCSD Programme Manager
|
|
tute for Social Change. He has more than 30 years of experience in
|
|
Asian NGO Coalition
|
|
the NGO movement. He is the President of the Pahang Association
|
|
PO Box 3107
|
|
of Consumers, a post he has held for the last 20 years. He was the
|
|
Quezon City
|
|
past president of the Federation of Malaysian Consumers' Associa
|
|
Metro Manila, Philippines
|
|
tions and co-chair of the Education Committee of the International
|
|
Organization of Consumers' Unions. Bishan was the first awardee
|
|
of the "Consumer Advocate Award" of the Government of
|
|
Malaysia.
|
|
Prof. Dr. Naik Sinukaban
|
|
Dr. Naik Sinukaban is the Head of the Soil and Water Conserva
|
|
Department of Soil Science
|
|
tion Laboratory at Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia.
|
|
Bogor Agricultural University
|
|
Jl Raya Pajajaran
|
|
Bogor
|
|
Indonesia
|
|
Fax 62-251-312708
|
|
Nguyen Van So
|
|
Nguyen Van So is a lecturer of the University of Agriculture and
|
|
College of Agriculture and Forestry
|
|
Forestry, Thu Duc Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. He holds an M.S.
|
|
Thuduc, Ho Chi Minh City
|
|
degree in silviculture and forest influences at the University of the
|
|
65/5a Nguyen Trong, Tuyen Street
|
|
Philippines at Los Baños with a minor in social forestry. His area
|
|
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
|
|
of specialization includes plantation forestry, water and soil con
|
|
Fax 84-8-960 713
|
|
servation measures and social forestry.
|
|
Esther Velasco
|
|
Esther Velasco is IlRR's Gender and Development Specialist. She
|
|
Research Division
|
|
develops research and development programs and provides train
|
|
Internationai institute of Rural
|
|
ing aimed at improving gender equity in developing countries.
|
|
Reconstruction, Silang, Cavite
|
|
Before joining IIRR, she served as the Program Coordinator of the
|
|
Philippines
|
|
University of the Philippines at Los Baños' Gender Program for
|
|
Rural Development. Ms. Velasco has a master's degree in Sociol
|
|
ogy, from Ateneo de Manila University.
|
|
Mr Tran Duc Vien
|
|
Tran Duc Men is a Lecturer and Researcher at the Center for
|
|
Centre for Natural Resources
|
|
Natural Resources Management and Environmental Studies,
|
|
Management and
|
|
University of Hanoi Vietnam
|
|
Environmental Studies
|
|
University of Hanoi
|
|
15 B Trieu Viet Vuong
|
|
Hanoi
|
|
Vietnam
|
|
Fax 844-2-66618
|
|
Balthazar Wayi
|
|
Balthazar Wayi is a Chief Land-use Officer at the Department of
|
|
Chief Land-use Officer
|
|
Agriculture and Livestock in Boroko, Papua New Guinea. He
|
|
Land-use Section
|
|
graduated from the University of Papua New Guinea in 1977, with
|
|
Department of Agriculture and
|
|
a Bachelor of Agricultural Science. In 1983, he obtained a post
|
|
PO Box 1863
|
|
graduate diploma in Agricultural Science from Massey University
|
|
Boroko
|
|
in New Zealand. In 1985, he was awarded an MSc in Soil Science
|
|
Papua New Guinea
|
|
at the State University of Ghent in Belgium. His field of expertise
|
|
Fax 675 - 214354
|
|
is soil survey, soil classification, level land suitability evaluation
|
|
and land-use planning.
|
|
Zheng Wei
|
|
Ms. Zheng Wei is an Editor at the Chinese Academy Forestry in
|
|
Institute of Scientific and Technical
|
|
Beijing, China. She graduated from the Northeast Forestry Univer
|
|
Information
|
|
sity and specialized in forestry botany. She now works at the
|
|
Chinese Academy of Forestry
|
|
Institute of Scientific and Technology Information on the
|
|
Beijing, China
|
|
agroforestry program.
|
|
Fax 86-1-258 2317
|
|
<section>References</section>
|
|
General references
|
|
Achmad, H., A. Martadihardja, Suharto, Wawan Gunawan and Handyana. 1978. Sociocultural Aspects of Homegarden (Ind.). Seminar on Ecology of the Homegarden II, 2526 October, 1978. Institute of Ecology, Pajajaran University, Bandung, Indonesia.
|
|
ANGOC. 1977. Soil Conservation Handbook. Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction and Maintain Agriculture Resources Development Bureau. Tai Sowing the Seeds for future, Report of the Second Asian Development Forum, Sustainable Agriculture Towards Food Security and Enhanced Quality of Life, 2226 February, 1993. Cagayan de Oro, Philippines.
|
|
Asdak, C. and T.P. Sandjaja. 1989. Traditional Agroforestry Systems: A Potential Role for Rehabilitating Degraded Watershed Areas. Proceedings of International Seminar on Agricultural Change and Development in Southeast Asia, 20-23 November, 1989. Jakarta, Indonesia.
|
|
Avila, M. and S. Minae. 1992. Diagnosis and Design for Technology Development. Lecture note for ICRAF-DSO training course. ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya.
|
|
Axinn, G. 1988. In Education for Agriculture. IRRI, Philippines.
|
|
Balangue, T.O. 1988. Interactive Land Use Planning Algorithm. Ph.D. Dissertation (Forestry). Graduate School, University of the Philippines at Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines.
|
|
Banilodu, L. and N.T. Saka. 1993. Descriptive Analysis of Sumba Forest: Research Results. Widya Mandiri Catholic University, Kupang, Indonesia.
|
|
Carlson, Les E. and Keith R. Shea. 1986. Increasing Productivity of Multipurpose Lands: IUFRO Research Planning Workshop for Africa: Sahelian and North Sudanian Zones, Nairobi, Kenya, 9-15 January, 1986. International Union of Forestry Research Organization. Canada.
|
|
Celestino. A.F. and F.P. Elliot. Hilly Land Farming Systems in the Philippines: An Assessment. Farming Systems and Soil Resources Institute.
|
|
Chambers, R. 1992. Rural Appraisal: Rapid, Relaxed and Participatory. Discussion Paper 311. Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, Great Britain.
|
|
Chambers, R. and B. Ghildyal. 1985. Agricultural Research for ResourcePoor Farmers: The Farmer-Firstand-Last model. Agricultural Administration and Extension, 20. in Chambers et al. 1989.
|
|
Chambers, R. and J. Jiggins. 1986. Agricultural Research for Resourcepoor Farmers: A Parsimonious Paradigm. IDS Discussion Paper 220, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, Great Britain.
|
|
Chambers, Robert, Arnold Pacey and Lori Ann Thrupp. (eds.) 1991. Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. Immediate Technology Publications: Great Britain.
|
|
Chandrasekharan, C. 1984. Opening statement delivered at the Regional Workshop on Community Forestry. UNDP (Thailand), EPI-East-West Center (Hawaii) and FAO (Bangkok, Thailand).
|
|
Combe, J. and G. Budwoski. Classification of Agroforestry Techniques. Workshop on Agroforestry Systems in Costa Rica, Latin America
|
|
Conway, G.R. 1985. Agroecosystems Analysis. Agricultural Administration, 20. pp 31-55.
|
|
Cook, Cynthia and Mikael Grut. 1989. Agroforestry in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Farmer's Perspective. World Bank Technical Paper, 112. The World Bank. Washington, D.C. 95p.
|
|
CVPED. 1992. Forestry for People and Nature. Field Research and Theory on Environment and Development in the Cagayan Valley, Philippines. Cagayan Valley Programme on Environment and Development.
|
|
Danusastro, H. 1980. The Role of Homegarden as a Source of Additional Family Income. Seminar on the Ecology of Homegardens III. Institute of Ecology, Pajajaran University, Bandung, Indonesia.
|
|
Davison, D.A. 1980. Soils and Land Use Planning. Longman, New York.
|
|
Denholm, Jeanette and Min Bahadur Ryachhetry. 1990. Major Agroforestry Activities of Nongovernmental Organizations in Nepal: A Survey. Research Report Series, 10. HMG Ministry of Agriculture, Nepal. Winrock International.
|
|
Deomampo, N.R. 1990. Guidelines in Adjusting Production to the Market. (unpublished).
|
|
Devendra, C. (ed.) 1990: Shrubs and Tree Fodders for Farm Animals: Proceedings of a Workshop in Denpasar, Indonesia, 24-29 July, 1989. International Development Research Centre, Canada.
|
|
Djogo, A.P.Y. March 1994. Proses Perkembaw, Pekewang dar Tartaw Konsortium Pengembangan Datao Timgi usa Tenggara (Nusa Tangan Upland Development Consortium). Paper presented to NTUDS Annual. Matara. 10-21 April, 1994.
|
|
Fabos, J.G. 1979. Planning the Total Landscape: A Guide to Intelligent Land Use. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.
|
|
______. 1985. Land Use Planning: From Global to Local Challenge. Chapman and Hall, New York.
|
|
FAO. A Forester's Guide for Community Involvement in Upland Conservation, with Special References to the Asia-Pacific Region.
|
|
FAO. A Forester's Guide for. Community Involvement in Upland Conservation. 1986. Based on the work of James H. French and Romeo H. Gecolea. Rome.
|
|
Fong Jie. 1992. Compilation of Highefficiency Agricultural Patterns in China. Agricultural Publishing House, Beijing, China.
|
|
Forestry College of Vietnam. 1993. Report on the National Research Theme for Social Forestry in the Northern Province of Vietnam.
|
|
Forestry College of Vietnam. 1992. Teaching materials on Agroforestry.
|
|
Forestry College of Vietnam. 1993. Teaching materials on Social Forestry.
|
|
Forestry/Fuelwood Research and Development Project. 1994. Growing Multipurpose Trees on Small Farms. 2nd ed. Winrock International, Thailand.
|
|
Gammage, S. 1990. Environmental Economics in the Developing World. Report to the US Agency for International Cooperation (USAID).
|
|
Gordon, John C., et al. 1990. A Handbook on the Management of Agroforestry Research. Winrock International. U.S.A.
|
|
Hamilton, L.S. and A.J. Pearce. 1986. Biophysical Aspects in Watershed Management. In: Watershed Resources Management--An Integrated Framework with Study from Asia and Pacific. Eds. K.W. Easter, J.A. Dixon and M.M. Hufschmidt. Westview Press. pp. 33-52.
|
|
Handbook #2. 1983. Farm Irrigation Structure, Water Management Synthesis Project Colorado State University and Utah State University.
|
|
Hoey, P.M. 1987. Conservation Farming Systems for the Highlande. Int. Sem. Impact of Agri. Production on the Environment. NRCT, MIAT, JSPS, SAEDA, TUA and CMU. Dec. 17-20, 1987. Chiangmai, Thailand.
|
|
Hufschmidt, M.M. 1986. A Conceptual Framework for Watershed Management. In: Watershed Resources Management--An Integrated Framework with Study from Asia and Pacific. Eds. K.W. Easter, J.A. Dixon and M.M. Hufschmidt
|
|
Jodha, N.S., Banskota and Tej Partap (eds.) 1992. Sustainable Mountain Agriculture: Perspective and Issue. Vol. 1. Nepal: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development. 389p.
|
|
Kartawinata, K., H. Soedjito, T. Jusup, A. P. Vayda and C. J. P. Calver. 1984. The Impact of Development on Interactions between People and Forest in East Kalimantan: A Comparison of Two Areas of Kenyah Dayak Settlement. East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A.
|
|
Kerkhof, Paul. 1990. Agroforestry in Africa: A Survey of Project Experience. London: Panos Publications, Ltd. 216p.
|
|
Knipscheer, H. and R. Harwood. 1988. Onstation versus On-farm Research: Allocation of Resources in Developments in Procedures for Farming Systems Research. Proceedings of an International Workshop in Indonesia. Edited by Sukmana, S., P. Amir and D. Mulyedi. Published by AARD, Winrock International, IDRC.
|
|
Kumar, Krishna. (ed.). 1993. Rapid Rural Appraisal Methods. World Bank Regional and Sectoral Studies. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
|
|
Leones, Julie P. 1987. The Impact of an Agroforestry Project on Upland Farming in San Francisco, Cebu, Philippines. New York: Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University. 65p.
|
|
MacDicken, K.G. 1994. Selection and Management of Nitrogen-fixing Trees. Winrock International and FAO, Rome.
|
|
Markandya, A. (ed.) 1994. Policies for Sustainable Development, 4 Essays. FAO.
|
|
Mathias-Mundy, Evelyn, et al. 1992. Indigenous Technical Knowledge of Private Tree Management: A Bibliographic Report. Bibliographies in Technology and Social Change Series, 7. U.S.A.: Iowa State University Research Foundation. 191p.
|
|
Mbonye, Arsen and Kihika Kiambi. n.d. How to Collect, Handle and Store Seeds. KENGO Agroforestry Training Series. Kenya: KENGO. 22p.
|
|
Melink W. Y.S. Rao and K.G. MacDicken. (eds.) 1991. Agroforestry in Asia and the Pacific. RAPA, Bangkok. pp 182193 and 297-300.
|
|
Ministry of Agriculture. 1990. Prosiding temu tugas penelitian penyuluhan pertanian. Departemen pertanian badan penelitian den pegembangan pertanian pusat perpustakaan pertanian den biologi. (Agricultural Research-Extension on the Jobs meeting. The Agency for Agricultural Research and Development. Center for Agricultural and Biological Library).
|
|
Moya, T.B., W.C. Dela Vena and S.I. Bhuiyan. 1986. The Potential of Farrn Reservoir in Rainfed Areas. Phil. Journal of Crop Science, 11(2): 125-132.
|
|
Muniz-Miret, Nuvia and Julie Bournes: 1993. Directory of International Training and Educational Opportunities in Agroforestry. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 80p.
|
|
Narayana, V.V.D. 1993. Soil and Water Conservation Research in India. Central Soil and Water Conservation Research and Training Institute, Indian Council of Agriculture, New Delhi, India.
|
|
Nitrogen-fixing Tree Association. 1993. The Production, Management and Use of Nitrogen-fixing Trees: A Manual for Field Trainers. Paia, Hawaii. pp. 50.
|
|
NRC. 1993. Sustainable Agriculture and the Environment in the Humid Tropics. National Research Council: National Academy Press, Washington, U.S.A.
|
|
Pava, Herminio M. and the Musuan Team. 1990. Bukidnon Upland Development Studies: The Himaya Musuan Experience. Philippines: Central Mindanao University. 244p.
|
|
Payuan, E.V 19%4. Agroforestry Programs/Activities of the Bureau of Forest Development. Paper presented in the IAGFRA Workshop on Agroforestry in the Philippines Implementation, Evaluation and Documentation. Center for Forestry Education Development. UPLB, College, Laguna, Philippines.
|
|
Personal interview with Umbu Hilu, Yayasan Tananua Sumba FarmerLeader by l.V. Domingo.
|
|
Poffenberger, Mark. 1990. Keepers of the Forest: Land Management Alternatives in Southeast Asia. Ateneo de Manila University Press, Philippines.
|
|
Reijntjes, Coen, Bertus Haverkort and Ann Waters-Bayer. 1992. Farming for the Future: An Introduction to Lowexternal Input and Sustainable Agriculture. The MacMillan Press Ltd., London.
|
|
Reifsnyder, W.S. and T.O. Darnhofer. (eds.) 1987. Meteorology and Agroforestry. From: International Workshop on the Application of Meteorology to Agroforestry Systems Planning and Management. 9-13 February, 1987. Nairobi.
|
|
Rocheleau, D., F. Weber and A. FieldJuman. 1988. Agroforestry in Dryland Africa. Kenya: International Council for Research in Agroforestry. 311 p.
|
|
Sheng, T.C. 1972. A Treatment-oriented Land Capability Classification Scheme for Hilly Marginal Lands in the Humid Tropics. J. Sci. Res. Coun. Jamaica. 3: 93-112.
|
|
Shingi, Prakash M. ed. 1990. Studies on Social Forestry in India: Management Perspectives. RAPA, Food and Agriculture Organization. Thailand. 240p.
|
|
Siew Tuan Chew. 1989. Agroforestry Projects for Small Farmers: A Project Manager's Reference A ID Evaluation Special Study, 59. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency for International Development. 42p.
|
|
Singh, R.P. Farm Ponds. Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad, India.
|
|
Soemarwoto, O. 1987. Homegarden; A Traditional Agroforestry Systems with Promising Future. Institute of Ecology, Pajajaran University, Bandung, Indonesia.
|
|
Soenarto. 1987. Wen Hipere, Suatu Sistem Budidaya Ubi Jalar (Ipomoea batatas (L) Lan.) di Lembah Baliem, Irian Jaya (Wen Hipere, A Farming System for Sweet Potatoes (Ipomaea batatas) in Baliem Valley, Irian Jaya. MS thesis, Faculty of Graduate Study, IPB Bogor, Indonesia.
|
|
Terra, G. J. A. 1953. The Distribution of Mixed Gardening in Java. Landbouw 25:163-223.
|
|
Tohir, K. A. 1951. Pedoman Bercocok Tanam. (Manual for Farming Practices). Dinas Balai Pustaka, Jakarta, Indonesia.
|
|
Undan, R.C. 1992. Small Farm Reservoir. Background paper presented during the Investment Forum sponsored by CLARRDEC and DOST m held at Bulwagang Kapampangan, San Fernando, Pampanga on July 23, 1992.
|
|
Valdez, J.A. 1991. Small-farm Reservoir and Service Area Sizing Based on Catchment Characteristics and Hydrology. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Central Luzon State University, Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines.
|
|
Vergara, N.T. 1984. Agroforestry Under Community Forestry: Concept, Classification and Use in the Humid Tropics. Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, FAO, Bangkok, Thailand.
|
|
Vergara, Napoleon T. and Rodolfo A. Fernandez. 1989. Social Forestry in Asia--Factors that Influence Program Implementation. Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA).
|
|
Wodicka, Stefan. Planning Meeting for Local Tree Species Research in NTT. World Neighbors.
|
|
World Neighbors. Integrated Farm Management.
|
|
World Neighbors. 1988. Practical Guide to Dryland Farming. 5116 North Portland Avenue, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112, USA. (Indonesian version of Practical Guide to Upland Farming Series available from Studio Driya Media, Jl. Makmur No. 16, P.O.Box 6715, Bandung 40461, Jawa Barat, Indonesia.)
|
|
WWF. May 1992. Report of Planning Meeting on Nusa Tuffman Conservation. Jakarta, Indonesia.
|
|
WWF and Consortium. March 1992. Report of Preliminary Meeting on Conservation and Development. Kupang, Indonesia.
|
|
References for each chapter
|
|
Introduction
|
|
Lai, C.K. and K.G. Tejwani. 1991. AsiaPacif c Agroforestry Profiles. APAN Document No. 1. AsiaPacific Agroforestry Network.
|
|
Melink, W., Y.S. Rao and K.G. MacDicken. (eds.) 1991. Agroforestry in Asia and the Pacific. RAPA. pp 182193 and 297-300.
|
|
Nair, P.K. (ed.). 1989. Agroforestry Systems in the Tropics. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. pp. 642-655.
|
|
Nair, P.K. 1993. An Introduction to Agroforestry. Kluwer Academic Publisher.
|
|
Overview of upland issues and approaches
|
|
ANGOC. Community Participation, NGO Involvement and Land Tenure Issues in the Philippine Reforestation Program: Assessment of the ADB - funded Contract Reforestation Program in the Philippines.
|
|
ANGOC. Let a Hundred Communities Bloom. 1992. Report of the First Asian Development Forum: Community-based Natural Resource Management NGO Experiences and Challenges. 4-6 February 1992. New Delhi, India.
|
|
ANGOC. 1990. Project Formulation for People's Participation in Rural Development Activities. A Government-NGO National Workshop Report, 7-9 November, 1990. Tagaytay City, Philippines.
|
|
ANGOC. 1984. Status Papers on NGO Involvement in Rural Development: A Perspective of Ten Countries in Asia.
|
|
Dar, W. 1992. Institutionalization of Farming Systems Research and Extension in the Philippines. Proceedings of Technical Discussions, Rome, 15-17 October, 1992. FAO--Institutionalization of Farming Systems Approach to Development.
|
|
FAO. 1994. Farming Systems Development Approach to Helping Small-scale Farmers.
|
|
FAO. 1990. Farming Systems Development--Guidelines for the Conduct of a Training Course in Farming Systems Development.
|
|
FAO. 1989. Guidelines for Land Use Planning. Interdepartmental Working Group on Land Use Planning. FAO, Rome.
|
|
FAO. 1985. Report of the Expert Consultation on Farming Systems Development. 23-26 July, 1985.
|
|
Friedrich K.H. 1986. Farming Systems Development in Developing Countries. Paper presented at the Farming Systems Research and Extension Symposium held at Kansas, USA.
|
|
Haen H. and J. Dixon. April 1992. Systems Approach to Sustainable and Rural Development in Asian Uplands, Farm Management Notes for Asia and the Far East. No. 15.
|
|
IRRI. Training Resource Book for Farming Systems Diagnosis.
|
|
Ortolano, L. 1984. Environmental Planning and Decision-making. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
|
|
Paris, Thelma. 1992. Integrating the Gender Variable in Farming Systems Research. RAPA Regional Expert Consultation Data Base for Women in Agriculture and Rural Development.
|
|
Poffenberger, M. (ed.). 1990. Keepers of the Forest: Land Management Alternatives in Southeast Asia. Kumarian Press, Connecticut.
|
|
Qwist-Hoffmann, H. 1994. Integrating Conservation into the Farming System--A Case Study from a Land Use Planning Process in Forest Village Settlement in Northern Thailand. M.Sc thesis. Department of Soil Science, the Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University of Denmark.
|
|
RAPA. 1989/11. Guidelines for Farming Systems Development Programs.
|
|
Shaner, W.W., P.F. Philipp and W.R. Schmehl. 1982. Farming Systems Research and Development. Guidelines for Developing Countries. Westview Press.
|
|
Werner, Jurgen. 1993. Participatory Development of Agriculture Innovations: Procedures and Methods of On-farm Research. Typo-Druck-Robdorf: Federal Republic of Germany.
|
|
2 Integrated upland systems management and
|
|
3 Soil and water conservation approaches
|
|
An Important Role of Agroforestry in Land Use in Vietnam. 1987. Nairobi, Kenya.
|
|
Bourke, R.M., B.J. Allen, G.S. Humphreys, C. Ballard, R. Grau and R. L. Hide. 1991. The Composted Mounds of the Papua New Guinea Highlands. Paper presented at a conference on New Perspectives on the Papua New Guinea Highlands: An interdisciplinary Conference on the Duna, Huli and Ipili Peoples. Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
|
|
Celestino A.F. and F.P Elliot. Hilly Land Farming Systems in the Philippines: An Assessment. A publication of the Farming Systems and Soil Resources Institute, College of Agriculture, University of the Philippines at Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines.
|
|
Chinese Academy of Science, Water and Soil Conservation Institute of Northwest of Ministry of Water Power. 1990. Research on Ecological Agriculture Combined with Water and Soil Conservation in Gully Areas in Loess Hilly Areas. Tianze Press.
|
|
CLSU. 1992. Progress Report on Smallfarm Reservoir Project in Region III. Research, Extension and Training, Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines.
|
|
Dalmacio, R. 1991. Assisted Natural Regeneration and Accelerated Pioneer Climax Series Strategies: Emerging Ecological Approaches to Forestation. Book Series No. 121/1991: Improved Reforestation Technologies in the Philippines. PCARRD.
|
|
Dalmacio, R. 1991. Successional Sequences of Pioneer Species: Effects on Microclimate and Soil Properties and on Growth Performance of Interplanted Dipterocarps. Paper presented during the Southern Tagalog Agriculture and Resources Research and Development Consortium (STARRDEC), Regional Symposium on Research Highlights held on May 14, 1991, at PCARRD, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines.
|
|
DENR. 1989. Agroforestry Technology Information Kit. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Visayas Ave., Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines.
|
|
DENR. 1991. Handbook on Community Training Programs for Participatory Integrated Social Forestry. Upland Development Program. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Visayas Ave., Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines.
|
|
FAO. 1989. Agroforestry Initiatives by Farmers in Thailand. RAPA.
|
|
Forest Research Newsletter. 1993. Vietnam--Sweden Forestry Cooperation Programme, No. 2.
|
|
Forestry College of Vietnam. 1992. National Seminar on Agroforestry in Midland/Upland Areas of Vietnam. Project GCP/RAS/131/ NET.
|
|
Forestry/Fuelwood Research and Development Project (F/FRED). 1994. Growing Multipurpose Trees on Small Farms (Ver.2). MPTS Research Network Secretariat, P.O.Box 1038, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10903, Thailand.
|
|
F/FRED. Growing Multipurpose Trees On Small Farms.
|
|
FTPP. The Community's Toolbox: The Idea, Methods and Tools for Participatory Assessment, Monitoring and Evaluation in Community Forestry.
|
|
He Qingtang, Yantengtaizao. 1994. Paper Collection of Cooperative Research under China Loess Plateau Land improvement Technical Training Project. China Forestry Press.
|
|
Hensleigh, T.E. and B.K. Holaway (eds.) n.d. Agroforestry Species for the Philippines. Philippines. 404p.
|
|
ICRAF. A Tree for All Reasons--The Introduction and Evaluation of Multipurpose Trees for Agroforestry.
|
|
International Institute of Rural Reconstruction. 1992. Agroforestry Technology Information Kit. Silang, Cavite, Philippines.
|
|
Kartasubrata, J. 1980. Agroforestry Systems and Technologies in Indonesia. Proceedings of International Seminar on Agricultural Change and Development in Southeast Asia (ISACDESA), 20-23 November, 1989. Indonesia.
|
|
Le Trong Cue, Kathleen Gillogly and A.Terry Rambo. 1990. Agroecology System in Northern Midland. Vietnam Reports on Vietnamese. No. 12.
|
|
Li Lianchu. (Chief ed.). 1993. Multidimension Agricultural Patterns in China. Henan Science and Technology Publishing [louse, Zhengzhou, China.
|
|
Li Changzhe. 1991. Research on Afforestation Technology and Its Benefits of Water and Soil Conservation Forest in Taihang Mountain Region. China Science and Technology Press.
|
|
Liang Yiming, et al. 1992. Theory and Practice of Eco-agriculture of Soil Conservation in Rolling Loess Region. Soil and Water Conservation in China. 9:28-31.
|
|
MacDicken, K.G. and J.B. Raintree. 1991. An Overview of Multipurpose Tree Species. In D.A. Taylor and K.G. MacDicken (eds.) Research on Multipurpose Tree Species in Asia. Arlington, Virginia: Winrock International and the International Foundation for Science. pp. 5-18.
|
|
MaeDicken, K.G. and N.T. Vergara. 1990. Agroforestry: Classification and Management. John Wiley and Sons. New York.
|
|
Makarabhirom, P. 1991. Agroforestry Systems in Thailand. In Melink, W. Y. S. Rao and K.G. MacDicken: Agroforestry in Asia and Pacific. FAO-RAPA.
|
|
Michon, G., F. Mary and T. Bompard. 1986. Multistoried Agroforestry Garden in West Sumatra. Agroforestry Systems 4:315338. Martinus Nijhoff/Dr. W. Junk publishers, Dordrecht.
|
|
Milan, Paciencia Po, Josef Margraf and Friedhelm Goeltenboth. 1993. Ecology of the Philippines. VISCA-GTZ Ecology Program.
|
|
Millar, C.E., et al. 1958. Fundamentals of Soil Science. John Willey & Sons. New York, U.S.A.
|
|
Mindanao Baptist Rural Life Center. 1992. Sloping Agricultural Land Technology (SALT). Philippines.
|
|
Modlenhauer, W.C., N.W. Hudson, T.C. Sheng and S. Lee. (eds.). 1991. Development of Conservation Farming on Hillslopes. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny,Iowa, USA.
|
|
Nair, RK. (ed.) ]989. Agroforestry Systems in the Tropics. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. pp. 642-655.
|
|
Nair, P. K. 1987. Agroforestry Systems Inventory. Agroforestry Systems 5: 301-307. Marinus Nijhoff. The Netherlands.
|
|
Nair, P.K. 1984. Fruit Trees in Tropical Agroforestry Systems. Honolulu: East-West Center. pp. 57-68.
|
|
Nair, P.K. 1984. Soil Productivity Aspects of Agroforestry. Science and Practice of Agroforestry 1. Nairobi: ICRAF. 85pp.
|
|
National Academy of Sciences, 1974. More Water for Arid Lands: Promising Technologies and Research Opportunities.
|
|
NFTA. 1984. Training Workshop: Production and Management of Fast-growing Trees. Nitrogenfixing Tree Association, Paia, Hawaii, USA.
|
|
Nguyen Huu Hong. 1992. Farming Systems Research in the Uplands of North Vietnam. Proceedings of the Upland Ricebased Farming Systems Research Planning Meeting. 28 April - 1 May, 1992. Chiangmai, Thailand.
|
|
Nguyen Huu Hong. 1992. Upland Farming Systems Research in Trang xa Village, Vonhai District Bac that-Vietnam. Proceedings of the Upland Ricebased Farming Systems Research Planning meeting. 28 April- 1 May, 1992. Chiangmai, Thailand.
|
|
Ning Jiangus, et al. 1992. Crop Choice and Rotation System for Newly Built Terraced Land in Semi-arid Region. Soil and Water Conservation in China 2:4345.
|
|
Nitis, 1. M. 1989. The Three-strata System May Increase the Productivity of Dryland Farming in Bali. Paper at Workshop on Fodder Production, IPB - Australia Project, Bogor, Indonesia. 19-22 January, 1989.
|
|
Norman, David and Malcolm Doughas. 1994. Farming Systems Development and Soil Conservation. FAO.
|
|
PCARRD. 1993. Manual on Small-farm Reservoir. Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development.
|
|
PCARRD. 1977. The Philippine Recommends for Soil Conservation.
|
|
PURC. 1990. Soil Erosion Control Measures for the Uplands. Philippine Uplands Resource Center. De La Salle UniversityResearch Center. Manila, Philippines.
|
|
So, Nguyen Van and Nguyen Dinh Phuc. 1989. Report on the Development of Different Plantation Techniques in Ma Da State Forestry Enterprise. Unpublished paper.
|
|
Soemarwoto, O. and 1. Soemarwoto. 1981. Homegardens in Indonesia. Paper for the Fourth Pacific Science International Congress, Singapore, September 1-5, 1981. University of Pajajaran, Bandung.
|
|
Tejwani, K.G. and C. K. Lai. 1992. AsiaPacific Agroforestry Profiles. FAOAPAN Field Document No. 1.
|
|
Tholen, P.M. 1992. Recommendations for Soil and Water Conservation. Technical Support for World Food Programme Transmigration Development Project. FAO INS/89/ 004. Jakarta. Unpublished.
|
|
Torquebiau, E. 1984. Man-made Dipterocarp Forest in Sumatra. Agroforestry System 2: 103-127. Martinus Nijhoff/Dr. W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht.
|
|
UPLB Agroforestry Program and Kapwa Upliftment Foundation, Inc. 1994. Soil and Water Conservation Management. Philippines.
|
|
Vo Tong Xuan. Draft Project Proposal for Vietnam Farming Systems R and D Network. Dr. Agr., University of Can tho, Hau giang, Vietnam.
|
|
Vo Tong Xuan. Upland Farming Systems Development in Vietnam. Dr. Agr., University of Can Tho, Hau giang, Vietnam.
|
|
Wiber, Fred and Carol Stoney. 1989. Understanding Agroforestry Techniques. VITA. 15p.
|
|
Widagda, L. C., O. Abdoellah, G. Marten and J. Iskandar. 1984. Traditional Agroforestry in West Java: The Pekarangan (Homegardens) and Kebun-talun (Perennial-Annual Rotation) Cropping Systems. EAP-East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
|
|
Wood, A. and G. S. Humphreys. 1982. Traditional Soil Conservation in Papua New Guinea. In Traditional Conservation in Papua New Guinea: Implications for Today. Monograph 16. Institute of Applied Social and Economic Research, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.
|
|
Wu Jianjun. 1992. Ecological Agriculture is Economically Logical. Far Eastern Agriculture. March/April: 7-9.
|
|
Young, A. 1989. Agroforestry for Soil Conservation. Science and Practice of Agroforestry 4, ICRAF, C.A.B. International, Wallingford, United Kingdom.
|
|
4 Diagnostic methods and tools
|
|
Ashby, Jacqueline A. 1990. Evaluating Technology with Farmers: A Handbook. CIAT. Cali, Colombia. pp. 95.
|
|
Brokensha, David, D.M. Warreb and Oswald Werner. 1980. Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Development. University Press of America.
|
|
Budd, W.W., I. Duchbart, 1. Hardesty and E Stenier. (eds.) 1990. Planning for Agroforestry, Developments in Landscape Management and Urban Planning. 6C. ISOMUL, ELSEVIER, Amsterdam.
|
|
Castillo, Gelia T. 1993. Where Food and Population Meet: The Filipino Household Among Other Households. UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies, Philippines.
|
|
Chambers, R. 1992. Participatory Rural Appraisals: Past, Present and Future. Forest, Trees and People Newsletter, No. 15116 Feb. 1992. FAO, Rome and the International Rural Development Centre (IRDC). Uppsala, Sweden. p. 4-8.
|
|
Chambers, R. 1992. Rural Appraisal: Rapid, Relaxed and Participatory Discussion Paper 311. Institute of Development Studies, United Kingdom.
|
|
Chambers. R., A. Pacey and L. Thrupp. (eds.). 1989. Farmer First. Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. Intermediate Technology Publications, UK.
|
|
Conway G.R., J.A. McCracken and J.N. Pretty. 1987. Training Notes for Agroecosystems Analysis and Rapid Rural Appraisal. IIED, London.
|
|
Dent, F.J. 1978. Data Requirements for Land Use Planning with Emphasis on Equipment for Land Evaluation Studies. In Seminar on Forest Resource Appraisal in Forestry and Land Use Planning. New Delhi, India. pp. 1-55.
|
|
FAO. 1989. Guidelines for Land Use Planning. Interdepartmental Working Group on Land Use Planning. FAO, Rome.
|
|
FAO. 1991. Land Use Planning Applications. Proceedings of the FAO Expert Consultation, Rome 1014 December, 1990. World Soil Resources Report 68. Interdepartmental Working group on Land Use Planning. FAO, Rome.
|
|
Farrington, J. and A. Martin. 1988. Farmer Participation in Agricultural Research: A Review of Concepts and Practices. Agricultural Administration Unit, Occasional Paper 9. Overseas Development Institute, London.
|
|
Fujisaka, S., E. Jayson and A. Dapsula. 1993. Recommendations Domain and a Farmers' Upland Rice Technology. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor 1(3): 8-10
|
|
Grandstaff, T. 1987. Proceedings of the 1985 International Conference on Rapid Rural Appraisal. Khon Kaen University, Thailand.
|
|
Hock, A.J. van den. 1992. Planning as a Learning Process--A Strategy for Planning Land Use Programmes at Local Level with Special Reference to the Uplands of Java. Van den Hoek, Oosterbeek, the Netherlands.
|
|
IRRI. Training Resource Book for Farming Systems Diagnosis.
|
|
Jiggins, J. and H. de Zeeuw. Participatory Technology Development in Practice: Process and Methods. pp. 135162.
|
|
Lai, C.K. 1993. Overview of Participatory Methods and Techniques for Agroforestry Training and Research. Paper presented at the Regional Training Workshop for Technical and Extension Level Agroforestry Trainers in Asia-Pacific, 14-27 November 1993. Khon Kaen, Thailand.
|
|
Mathias, Evelyn. 1994. Indigenous Knowledge and Sustainable Development. IIRR Working Paper No. 53. International Institute of Rural Reconstruction, Silang, Cavite, Philippines.
|
|
McCorkle, Constance M. 1989. Toward a Knowledge of a Local Knowledge and I's Importance for Agricultural R&D. Agriculture and Human Values 6(3):4-12.
|
|
Molnar, A. 1989. Community Forestry: Rapid Appraisal. Community Forestry Note 3. FAO, Rome.
|
|
Negi, Biju. 1994. Seeds for Life. ILK A Newsletter 10(1):6-7.
|
|
Paris, Thelma. 1992. Integrating the Gender Variable in Farming Systems Research. RAPE Regional Expert Consultation Data Base for Women in Agriculture and Rural Development.
|
|
Philippine National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women and the National Economic and Development Authority. 1993. Guidelines for Developing and Implementing Gender-responsive Projects and Programs.
|
|
Raintree, J.B. 1987. D & D User's Manual--An Introduction to Agroforestry Diagnosis and Design. ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya.
|
|
Stephens, Alexandra and Kees Putman. 1990. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: A Handbook for Training Field Workers. Bangkok. FAO-RAPA. pp 49.
|
|
Tan-Kim-Yong, U. (unpublished). A Diversity-sensitive Method: Situation-specific Analysis (SSA). Lecture notes for training course. (personal communication)
|
|
Tangtham, N. 1990 Environmental Land Use Planning: A Special Reference to Land Use Planning for Erosion/Sedimentation and Flash Flood Hazard Prevention. Paper prepared for Training Course on Control of Soil Erosion and Sedimentation and Flash Flood Hazard at Agricultural Development Research Center in Northeast, Khon Kaen Thailand. 19 June - 6 July, 1 990.
|
|
Theis, J. and H. Grady. 1991. Participatory Rapid Appraisal for Community Development: A Training Manual Based on Experiences in the Middle East and North Africa. LED, Save the Children Federation.
|
|
Thomas-Slayer, Barbara, Andrea Lee Esser and M. Dale Shields. 1993. Tools of Gender Analysis: A Guide to Field Methods for Bringing Gender into Sustainable Resource Management.
|
|
UPLB Agroforestsy Program and Kapwa Upliftment Foundation, Inc. 1994. Agroforestry Project Planning and Management. Philippines.
|
|
Warren, D. Michael. 1991. Using Indigenous Knowledge in Agricultural Development. World Bank Discussion Paper No. 127. The World Bank, Washington, U.S.A.
|
|
Warren, D. Michael and Kristin Cashman. 1988. Indigenous Knowledge for Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development. Gatekeeper Series Paper No. 10. Sustainable Agriculture Program, IIED, London, United Kingdom.
|
|
Wiersum, FK. 1989. Use of Local Knowledge for Tree Growing. In: Department of Forest Management, Forestry and Rural Development. Lecture Notes of Course F550-121. Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
|
|
Wijewardene, R. and P. Waidyanatha. 1984. Systems, Techniques and Tools for Conservation Farming for Small Farmers in the Humid Tropics. The Commonwealth Secretariat, Marlborough House, Pall Mall, London SW I England. 39pp.
|
|
5 Extension and linkage strategies
|
|
ETC. 1991. Learning for Peoplecentered Technology Development: A Training Guide.
|
|
_______. 1993. Food and Agricultural Marketing Extension: Concept, Approaches and Methods AFMA General Assembly Meeting, Beijing, P.R. China.
|
|
Article by I.V. Domingo and is largely based on the following materials: Trip Report to a Farmer Quarterly Meeting in Sumba by Stefan Wodicka (16-06-94) and Farmer-to-Farmer Extension: Some Experiences of Yayasan Tananua by Patris da Gomez and Ilya Moeliono.
|
|
Ban, A.W. Van Den and H.S. Hawkins. 1988. Agricultural Extension. Longman Scientific and Technical and John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, U.S.A. p.9.
|
|
Baguinon, Nestor. 1989. Neglected Species with Potential for Agroforestry. In Agroforestry Technology Information Kit. Philippines.
|
|
Bochnert, Joachim. 1988. Agroforestry in Agricultural Education with a Focus on the Practical Implementation. Germany: Verlag Josef Margraf. 182p.
|
|
Bonifacio, M. 1994. Images of Agriculture: Problems, Issues and Trends in Technology Transfer.
|
|
Bunch, Roland. 1985. Two Ears of Corn: A Guide to People-centered Agricultural Improvement. 2nd ed. Oklahoma City: World Neighbors.
|
|
Chambers, Robert, A. Pacey and L.A. Thrupp. (eds.) 1989. Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. ITP, London.
|
|
Cuyno, R. 1986. Agricultural/Rural Extension Experiences in Selected Countries of Asia. Unpublished Report.
|
|
Dixon J. and M. Boestrom. 1993. Farming Systems Approaches to Improving Agricultural Extension. Farrn Management Notes for Asia and the Far East. Regular Issue No. 17, December 1993.
|
|
Dyogo, A.P.Y. 1994. Indonesian Experiences of Sustainable Development: Working with the Participants of the Poor Population. Paper presented to International Meeting: Poverty and Environment Alternatives Against Destruction. POEMAUFPA. Belen Para Bonzil 5-10 June, 1994.
|
|
Djogo, A.P.Y. The Possibilities of Using Local Drought-resistant and Multipurpose Tree and Shrub Species for Agroforestry and Social Forestry in West Timor. Working Paper 32. EAP1. EastWest Center, Hawaii, U.S.A.
|
|
Djogo, A.P.Y., Y. Asa and V Nural. Promoting Agroforestry Techniques. Experiences with Participatory Development Process and Farmer-based Extension Strategies of NGO for Nusa Tenggara Tiung, Indonesia. Paper presented to Regional Expert Consultation on Farmer-toFarmer Adaptive Agroforestry Research. 4-10 October, 1992. Cebu City, Philippines.
|
|
Farrington, J. and A. Martin. 1988. Farmer Participation in Agricultural Research: A Review of Concepts and Practices. Agricultural Administration Unit. Occasional Paper 4. London: ODI.
|
|
Fisher, Larry. June 1992. Issues in Planning Natural Resource Management Interventions. World Neighbors. In Resource Book on Sustainable Agriculture for the Lowlands. SEASAN. Edited by Janet Durno, Ilya Moelyono, Ravadee Prasertcharoensuk.
|
|
Fisher, Lucy. Preserving Biodiversity in the Uplands of Sumba, Indonesia. Concept paper. World Neighbors.
|
|
French, J.H. and R.H. Gecolea. 1986. A Forester's Guide for Community Involvement in Upland Conservation with Special Reference to the Asia and Pacific Region. FAO, Rome, Italy.
|
|
Gorrez, David. 1992. Handbook on Rural-based Enterprise Development Training Modules and Their Applications. Philippine Council for Agriculture and Natural Resources Research and Development. Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines. March, 1992.
|
|
Jiggins, J. and H. de Zeeuw. Participatory Technology Development in Practice: Process and Methods. pp. 135-162
|
|
Malik, W. 1994. Country Report on Strengthening the Agricultural Extension Systems for Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development.
|
|
Norse, D. 1988. Conference on Environment and Sustainable Development and the Role of Small Farmers.
|
|
Pretty, Jules N. and Rupert Howes. 1993. Sustainable Agriculture in Britain: Recent Achievements and blew Policy Challenges. IIED Research Series Volume 2, No. 1. London, United Kingdom.
|
|
Raintree, J.B. 1991. Socioeconomic Attributes of Tree Planting Practices. Community Forestry Note No. 9. Forest, Trees and People Programme. TAO, Rome.
|
|
Raintree, John B. and Herminia A. Francisco. (eds). 1994. Marketing of Multipurpose Tree Products in Asia. Proceedings of an International Workshop held in Baguio City, Philippines. 6-9 December 1993. Thailand: Winrock International. 358 pp.
|
|
Reijntes, C., B. Haverkort and A. Wateers-Bayer 1992. Farming for the Future: An Introduction to Low-external Input and Sustainable Agriculture. London: MacMillan Press.
|
|
International Institute of Rural Reconstruction. 1990. Resource Book on Sustainable Agriculture in the Uplands. Philippines.
|
|
Rhoades, R.E. and R.H. Booth. 1982. Farmer Back to Farmer: A Model for Generating Acceptable Agricultural Technology. Agricultural Administration. Vol 11, No. 4.
|
|
Roling, N. 1988. Extension Science: Information Systems in Agricultural Development. Cambridge University Press.
|
|
Sacay, O.C., D.H. Shapiro and R.H. Gecolea. 1971. Strategies in Rural Economic Development: A Case Study on the Five Philippine Villages. IIRR, Philippines.
|
|
Stephen, A. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation. FAO Publication.
|
|
Stoney, Carol. 1992. Agroforestry Development in Nusa Tenggara.
|
|
Tripp, Robert. (ed.). 1991. Planned Change in Farming Systems: Progress in Onfarm Research. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. England.
|
|
UPLB Agroforestry Program and Kapwa Upliftment Foundation, Inc. 1994. Agroforestry Production and Postproduction Systems. Philippines .
|
|
Van den Ban, A.W. and H.S. Hawkins. 1988. Agricultural Extension. Longman Scientific and Technical. Longman House, London.
|
|
Werner, Jurgen. 1993. Participatory Development of Agriculture Innovations: Procedures and Methods of On-farm Research. Typo-DruckRobdorf Federal Republic of Germany.
|
|
World Neighbors. Small-scale Tree Planting. World Neighbors In Action. A Newsletter for Project Personnel.
|
|
6 Evaluation strategies
|
|
Ashby, Jacqueline A. 1990. Evaluating Technology with Farmers: A Handbook. CIAT. Cali, Colombia. pp. 95.
|
|
Asian Development Bank. 1978. Guidelines for Economic Analysis of Projects.
|
|
Cruz, Ma. C. J., A.J. Alcantara, W.D. Cruz, F.P. Lansigan, R.B. Mendoza and PK. Sajise. 1985. Philippine Upland Production Systems: An Integrative Analysis of Three Sites. IESAM, University of the Philippines at Los Baños, College, Laguna, Philippines.
|
|
FAO. 1992. Financial Indicators as a Decisionmaking Tool in Designing Agroforestry Program. Chudleigh. Guidelines for Farm Systems Development.
|
|
Gittinger, Price. 1978. Economic Evaluation of Agriculture Projects. New York Press, New York, New York, U.S.A.
|
|
Maligalig, Bienvenido and Carmelita Villamor. 1993. Sustainability Assessment of Livelihood Project. Paper presented during the CARP-ISF R&D Program Yearend Assessment and Planning Workshop. Patio Acerado, Barangay Pansol, Calamba, Laguna, Philippines. January 13-14, 1994.
|
|
Nijkamp, P. 1977. Theory and Application of Environmental Economics. Elsevier NorthHolland, Inc. 52, Vanderbuilt Avenue, New York, NY 110017, U.S.A.
|
|
Ortolano, L. 1984. Environmental Planning and Decision-making. John Wiley and Sons, New York, U.S.A.
|
|
Raab, R.T., B.E. Swanson, T.L. Wentling and C.D. Clark. 1987. A Trainer's Guide to Evaluation. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Via delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy.
|
|
Raintree, J.B. 1981. Bioeconomic Considerations in the Design of Agroforestry Intercropping Systems. ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya.
|
|
Raintree, J.B. 1991. Socioeconomic Attributes of Tree Planting Practices. Community Forestry Note No. 9. I vest, Trees and People Programme. FAO, Rome, Italy.
|
|
RAPA. 1989111. Guidelines for Farming Systems Program.
|
|
Suler, Pretty and Rupert Hower. (eds). 1993. Sustainable Agriculture in Britain: Recent Achievement and New Policy Challenge. IIED Research Service. Vol. 2 No. 1. London, United Kingdom.
|