RAP Publication 1999/2

POVERTY ALLEVIATIONAND FOOD SECURITY IN ASIA

Land Resources

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsRegional Office for Asia and the Pacific

July 1999

ii

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply theexpression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory or any area or of itsauthorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Opinions expressed inthis publication are those of the authors alone and do not imply any opinion whatsoever on thepart of FAO.

NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT

The copyright in this publication is vested in the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations. This publication may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, by any method or process,without written permission from the copyright holder. Applications for such permission with astatement of the purpose and the extent of reproduction desired should be made through andaddressed to the Chief, Policy Assistance Branch, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific,Maliwan Mansion, Phra Athit Road, Bangkok 10200, Thailand.

FAO 1999

iii

Preface

Poverty, as both a cause and an effect of food insecurity, continues to be a majorchallenge in Asia and the Pacific where the bulk – approximately 75 percent – of thepoor in developing countries are located. In this region, as elsewhere in thedeveloping regions of the world, poverty is mainly a rural phenomenon: nearly three-fourths of the poor live in rural areas, with the large majority of them dependent onagriculture for employment and income. Agricultural growth thus offers a potentiallyenormous source of poverty reduction, particularly when the growth is broadly based.

The Asian economic crisis has heightened the critical role that the agriculture,fisheries and forestry sector plays in the way to economic recovery. More than ever, thesector has been called upon to absorb unemployed people forced out of the industrialand services sectors (as well as new entrants to the labour force unable to find work inurban areas), produce more export crops for foreign exchange, increase domestic foodsupply to mitigate upward pressure in wages and prices, and generate domesticsources of investment.

At the same time, the crisis has the potential of obscuring lessons from recentdecades of Asian experience vis-à-vis poverty alleviation and economic development.For example, it has become fashionable, at least in popular discussions, to belittle theimportance of economic growth – especially one resembling the recent East Asianexperience – in poverty alleviation. The crisis has also given an opportune window tosupporters of status quo to question or even be more skeptical about the benefits ofeconomic liberalisation and globalisation, i.e. the opening up of goods, labour, capital,and services markets to world trade. Indeed calls for reversal – or slowdown – ofliberalisation efforts have intensified in developed and developing countries alike,especially as the same East Asian economies that openly welcomed globalisationwere the first to tumble in the wake of the regional crisis. But as Amartya Sen aptly putit, it would be a great mistake to underestimate what East Asia did achieve.

Beyond the Asian crisis, enormous development problems and policy challengesawait the developing countries of the region. Rising population, shrinking agriculturalland, increasing demands on limited water resources from the expanding urban andindustrial sector, widespread land degradation, and inadequacy of governanceinfrastructure appear to be more pressing now than ever before, especially as theymount efforts to recover lost grounds arising from the crisis and deepen theirintegration with the world economy. As recent experience suggests, these issuescannot be divorced from policy concerns impinging on poverty and food security.Sustainable agricultural resource management (SARM) is critical to the issue of foodsecurity in the Asia Pacific Region. The challenge facing the region is one of how toincrease output from the agricultural sector while sustaining and enhancing theproductive potential of the available agricultural resources.

This report on land resources is part of a series of supporting document thataccompany the main volume, Poverty Alleviation and Food Security in Asia: Lessonsand Challenges which was published earlier and which assessed recent experiences,policies, and select issues on poverty alleviation in Asian developing countries.

In the context of agricultural development, sustainability is concerned with theadoption of land management practices that will enable the available natural

iv

resources to be used, now and in the future, to meet basic human needs. Such aconcept of sustainability embraces a number of different disciplinary concerns. Fromthe bio-physical perspective the concern is maintaining and enhancing the potential ofthe physical environment (the land) to sustain plant growth (crops, pastures and trees)while conserving bio-diversity within the natural resource base. There is an implicittime dimension that requires that immediate or short term productive returns from theland should not be obtained at the expense of potential future production in themedium to long-term. There is a social dimension that addresses the need to use theland to meet human needs in ways that are socially and culturally acceptable. Theeconomic dimension requires that any economic and financial costs incurred byindividual landusers and the wider society should be commensurate with the benefitsand that there should be no diminution in the value of the natural resource capital stockas a result of using the land for agricultural purposes.

The present report assesses the potentials, status, issues and strategies relatingto sustainable agricultural resource management in the context of food security acrosssimilar eco-regions and to the farm level with special reference to the endowment andresources of the poor and marginal farmers within the Asia Pacific Region.

To adequately address the multi-disciplinary nature of SARM the reportencompasses a wide range of inter-related concerns. Key agricultural resource issuesidentified include agricultural resource circumstances that are internal and external tothe farm household, geographic units for agricultural resource management, farmhousehold level resource management domains, and units of intervention.

Documentation emanating from all countries in the region points to the existence ofsevere degradation of identifiable (often substantial) areas while light to moderatedegradation occurs over extensive areas as result of accelerated changes andmismanagement. Consequently the report describes the causes and components ofland degradation, vegetation and water degradation, climate deterioration, and lossesof productive land to urban/industrial development. Prospects for reversingdegradation and land reclamation are also discussed together with key bio-physicalconstraints and opportunities.

Farm households and other land users rarely deliberately degrade the landresources on which their livelihoods and welfare needs depend. In reality the rootcause lies in the range of economic, social, cultural and political pressures that forcefarmers to use the land in the way they do. These pressures are therefore reviewedtogether with financial considerations as the impact of land of land degradation isultimately viewed in financial and economic terms

There is more to solving the problems of sustainable agriculture than just thedevelopment of improved technical recommendations, such as government policyand/or the institutions set up to effect the policy. It is here, with sufficient political will,that the greatest advances could be made in promoting SARM. Consequently, thereport considers the policy environment and institutional setting required for theadoption of SARM practices at the field level.

The last 20-30 years have seen increasingly heavy investment of financial andhuman resources, by both the Governments of developing countries and donoragencies, into implementing soil conservation programmes targeted at small-scalefarmers. The return on this investment has generally been poor and the land areaadversely affected by soil erosion and other forms of land degradation has continued

v

to increase. The report, therefore, reviews development approaches, projectdevelopment issues, the formulation of development strategies and implementationplans, and design considerations for SARM, inclusive of extension and training,alternative research strategies, and monitoring and evaluation needs. The reportfurther expands upon a conceptual framework participatory planning process for SARMinvolving a variety of interrelated activities to be conducted in a systematic mannerwithin an overall holistic development framework.

The main message that can be concluded from the findings of the report is thatsustainable agriculture can be economically, environmentally and socially viable.Additional conclusions are presented with respect to six cross-cutting themes, namely:technologies, costs and benefits, processes and methods, institutions, policies andprojects and programmes.

Finally, proposals are made for regional and sub-regional programmes, which willprovide opportunities for the transfer of experience between countries in tacklingSARM. In this regard it is felt that there can be a comparative advantage in developingmethodologies and guidelines first at the regional level which can subsequently befine tuned to meet the specific requirements and circumstances of individual countriesat the national level.

PREM NATHAssistant Director-Generaland Regional Representativefor Asia and the Pacific

vi

Acknowledgements

This report was prepared by M.G. Douglas under the technical guidance of F.J.Dent, Senior Soil Management and Fertilizer Use Officer, FAO Regional Office for Asiaand the Pacific (FAO/RAP). The work was a part of the upstream activity led by D. B.Antiporta, Chief, and S. L. Kang, Policy Officer, Policy Assistance Branch (RAP) andcarried out under UNDP/FAO RAS/95/01T, Sustainable Agriculture and Food Securityin Asia and the Pacific: Issues and Challenges.

Companion volumes of this report have also been produced. The main volume,Poverty Alleviation and Food Security in Asia: Lessons and Challenges, wasprepared with the assistance of A. M. Balisacan. In other agricultural sub-sectors,concerned FAO/RAP Officers provided respective technical guidance as follows: M.K.Papademetriou, Senior Plant Production and Protection Officer, for Crop Production byR.B. Singh and Edward M. Herath; D. Hoffmann, Senior Animal Production and HealthOfficer, for Role of Livestock by Gavin Ramsay and Leith Andrews; P. C. Choudhury,Senior Aquaculture Officer, for Sustainable Contribution of Fisheries by M. Hatta,Yong-Ja Cho, Song Zhiwen, R. Gillet and K. Sivasubramaniam; and P. Durst, SeniorForestry Officer, for Enhancing Forestry and Agroforestry Contributions by Chun K.Lai and Napoleon T. Vergara. Their technical contributions are greatly appreciated.

vii

Contents

Chapter 1 Nature of the problem 1

Chapter 2 Some key agricultural resource issues 11

Chapter 3 Land degradation 21

Chapter 4 Key bio-physical constraints and opportunities 43

Chapter 5 Social, cultural and political considerations 66

Chapter 6 Economics and financial considerations 93

Chapter 7 The policy environment 121

Chapter 8 The institutional setting 140

Chapter 9 Development approaches 154

Chapter 10 Project development issues 173

Chapter 11 Formulation of development strategies and implementationplans

191

Chapter 12 Some design considerations for SARM 208

Chapter 13 Extension and training for SARM 231

Chapter 14 Alternative research strategies 249

Chapter 15 Monitoring and evaluation 256

Chapter 16 Participatory planning process: conceptual framework 264

Chapter 17

References

Findings, conclusions and proposals 269

286

1

Chapter 1Nature of the problem

Introduction

The Asia-Pacific Region has already reached the safe limits of horizontalexpansion of agriculture. This means future needs for a growing population canonly be met by intensification, an option which will not be easy since yields arealready showing signs of stagnation on some soils caused by widespread landdegradation. A major cause of degradation is erosion caused by water andwind. Only a limited and shrinking area is free from soil-related constraints onagricultural production. These constraints include steeply sloping land, severesoil fertility limitations, and the mining of soil nutrients.

FAO 1991. Sustainable Agriculture and Development in Asia and the Pacific. Regionaldocument No. 2 FAO/Netherlands Conference on Agriculture and Environment, S-Hertogenbosch , the Netherlands 15-19 April 1991.

iven escalating population growth, intensified cropping, widespread landdegradation, shrinking agricultural land and increasing demands on limitedwater resources from the expanding urban and industrial sectors, sustainable

agricultural resource management (SARM) is critical to food security within the AsiaPacific Region.1 The challenge facing the region is one of how to increase outputfrom the agricultural sector while sustaining and enhancing the productive potentialof the available agricultural resources.

Although the share of agriculture in GDP has declined steadily from 30 percentin the mid-1980s to around 20 percent in recent years (FAO 1995a), agricultureremains the driving economic force and major employer in most Asia-Pacificcountries. More than 65 percent of the region's inhabitants still live in rural areas andagriculture employs more than half of the economically active population (FAO1995a). The percentage contribution of the agricultural sector to the economies ofboth the developing and developed countries of the region has declined in recentyears but SARM requires continuing, and increased, investment of financial andmanpower resources from both government and private sectors.

A range of studies indicates alarming statistics on the extent and severity ofland degradation on a continental, regional or national basis. One of these is theGlobal Assessment of Human Induced Soil Degradation (GLASOD) project whichestimated that globally some 1.9 billion ha of land had been affected by soildegradation during the last 45 years, and that the largest area, or 850 million ha,was in Asia and the Pacific (Oldeman et al 1990).2 About of this was believed tohave suffered moderate to extreme soil degradation. Figures on the extent of landdegradation within the region are largely based on qualitative estimates rather than

1 The Asia Pacific Region, as covered by this report, consists of 27 developing and newly emergingcountries (Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, Cook Islands, Cambodia, Democratic People's Republic of Korea,Fiji, India, Indonesia, Iran, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua NewGuinea, Philippines, Republic of Korea, West Samoa, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tonga,Vanuatu and Vietnam) and 3 developed countries (Australia, Japan and New Zealand).2 Note the Asia Pacific Region referred to in the GLASOD study covers a wider area than that defined byFAO/RAPA as the Asia Pacific Region. Thus the figure of 850 million would include degraded land withincountries in West Asia and the Asian Republics of the former Soviet Union.

G

2

precise data. Although some of these estimates may be based on questionablefoundations, reports emanating from all countries within the region point to theexistence of:

• Severe degradation of identifiable (often substantial) areas e.g. gullying,total removal of topsoil by sheet erosion, complete salinisation; and

• Light to moderate degradation over extensive areas eg. soil fertility declinein croplands and loss of palatable species in rangelands.

One of the conclusions of a recent FAO (1994) report on land degradation inSouth Asia noted that "although more precise data should be obtained, the totalevidence is sufficient to call for immediate action to prevent further land degradationand, where possible, to reverse the effects of past degradation." This statement isbelieved to hold true for East and Southeast Asia. Another report noted the evidenceof environmental stress in all of the Pacific countries although the specific nature andurgency of the problem varies according to the circumstances in which they occur(ADB 1992).

Land and water for agriculture are finite resources

The total land area of the Asia Pacific region amounts to some 3,001.5 millionha or 22.9% of the world's land area. 3 Estimates vary as to how much of this land issuitable for agriculture, with variations in the data depending on the methodologyused, the reliability of the available data and the scale at which the assessment wasmade. It has been estimated that under 14% of the Asia Pacific region's total landarea are constraint-free for agriculture (Dent 1990). Thus the possibilities foragricultural production in over 86% of the region are limited by adverse soil, climaticand topographic factors namely cold (2%), dryness (19.4%) steep slopes (26.7%),shallow soils (4.1%), wetness4 (6.3%), adverse soil textures5 (12.6%) and chemicalproblems6 (13.5%).

Whereas there may be scope for technically alleviating some of these limitations(e.g. irrigation in arid areas, soil drainage in waterlogged areas), in most of thecountries in the region almost all the land capable of sustainable agricultural use isalready being farmed. FAO (1995a) estimated that that the uncropped cultivable areain South Asia (0.051 has per person) will be halved in 20 years, while that of EastAsia (excluding China) will drop by a third, or to 0.103 ha per person. Theseestimates show the limited potential for expansion of the cultivated area. A recentreport on the Pacific (ADB/SPREP 1992) noted the small amount of available landper person in most of the Pacific Island developing countries, especially whenconsidering the generally poor quality soil. Significant additional arable land wasconsidered a reasonable prospect in only a few exceptional circumstances (notablyPapua New Guinea and Vanuatu).

Water is a vital resource for agriculture. Like land, it is a finite resource that hasto be shared amongst a growing population. It is estimated that in Asia per caputwater availability, which fell by half in the 30 years ending 1980, might fall by another

3 Different reports by different organisations give different figures for total land area for individual countrieswithin the Asia Pacific Region. For the purpose of this report the source for all figures of total land area,either for the region or individual countries, is: FAO RAPA 1996. Selected Indicators of Food andAgriculture Development in Asia-Pacific Region, 1985-95. RAP Publication 1996/32 Bangkok.4 This includes land classified as peat land.5 Coarse textures and heavy cracking clays.6 Infertile, saline/sodic and acid sulphate soils.

3

35% by the year 2000 (UNEP estimate quoted in FAO 1995a). Given that much ofAsia's crop production is dependent on irrigation, this decline in water availability haspotentially severe implications for food security. This is exacerbated by the growingdemand for water from the urban and industrial sectors which compete withdemands for water from the agricultural sector.

Where water is in short supply, ultimately it will come down to a political oreconomic choice, namely which sectors of the economy will give the better returnsper litre - agriculture (i.e. using water for irrigated rice/wheat/vegetable production),tourism (i.e. supplying water to hotels and golf courses), or the urban/industrialsector?

A significant proportion of the land in crop production within Asia is fragile. Thisincludes arid and rainfed semi-arid areas, those with unreliable rainfall, and areaswith steep slopes and/or poor soils. It is these areas where environmentaldegradation and rural poverty tend to be most severe.

Small atolls are a feature of most of the Pacific Island countries as well as theMaldives. With elevations only a few metres above sea level they start with little, ifany, soil of good agricultural quality, sparse vegetation and a severely limited supplyof fresh water. They are extremely vulnerable to cyclones which can wash awaymuch of their shallow soils or cause saltwater intrusion into the fragile In those Pacificcountries with high islands as well as atolls, the populations tend to move to thelarger islands to take advantage of the greater diversity and better protection ofresources. But the differences are matters of degree.

Even the islands with relatively abundant land resources experience pressureon arable land, evidenced by the invasion of new (often unsuitable or reserved)areas for gardening or housing, stress in coastal regions and expansion of urbansettlements (ADB/SPREP 1992). The limited cultivable area for expansion withinthe Asia Pacific region and the continuing conversion of fertile agricultural land tonon-agricultural uses mean that production increases have to come mainly fromgrowth in yield. However yield increases will be difficult to accomplish given thequickening pace of land degradation and water scarcity. The most damagingfactors are soil erosion, nutrient mining, salinisation of soils, and reduced waterquantity and quality.

The potential for yield growth is limited by poor agricultural resourcemanagement practices that result in unsustainable farming systems. This is aparticular problem where the vicious circle of poverty and environmental degradationhas been established. Dwindling per caput resources lead to further intensification ofresource use and encroachment onto fragile areas.

Population supporting capacities

The ability of land to produce food is limited. The limits of production are set bysoil and climatic conditions and land use and management (FAO 1982). Accordinglythere are critical levels of population that can be supported in perpetuity from anygiven land area. Any attempt to produce food for populations in excess of therestrictions set by soil and climatic conditions will, in the long term, result in failure.Degradation of land, hunger and eventual reduction in population are the outcome ofsuch practices. In recognition of these facts a study was initiated in 1978 by FAO andthe United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), in collaboration with theInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). The study aimed at

4

determining the physical limits of the land's capacity with regard to the level ofpopulation that could be supported. It was undertaken in five regions in thedeveloping world.

The study for Southeast Asia considered the population supporting capacitiesfor 14 of the countries in the Asia Pacific Region7 for the years 1975 and 2000according to low, medium and high levels of input use.

In 1975 five of the 14 countries (Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka andVietnam) would have been unable to support their existing populations solely bymeans of low input agriculture. It was concluded that in the year 2000 these samefive countries, with the addition of the Philippines, would be unable to support theirprojected populations at the low input level, and Bangladesh would also fail to meetits population needs with the use of intermediate levels of inputs. Whereas at firstsight the other countries would appear to be able to support their existing andprojected populations, the study also revealed marked regional differences withinindividual countries with some heavily populated and/or marginal areas exceedingtheir 1975 and 2000 carrying capacities (see box 1)

Consequences of soil degradation

Soil degradation (in particular, loss of potential soil productivity due to erosionand soil nutrient decline) is the biggest threat to meeting the future agricultural needsof the Asia Pacific region. The consequences of allowing this to continue are severe.These will have repercussions not only on individual farm families, but also at thenational and international levels (after Stocking 1984):

• Soil and vegetation: declining soil productivity means less vegetationcover to the soil, less return of organic matter and less biological andnutrient activity. All are detrimental to the soil hence promote a downwardspiral of increasing degradation.

• Yields: as soil productivity declines the useful, or economic, yield fromcrops and pastures will decline.

• Returns to the farmer: declining soil productivity means that direct returnsare reduced, costs of production are increased and sustainability of returnsis less.

• Local environment: to counteract declining soil productivity people mayhave to accept pollution (from increased use of agro-chemicals), constructmechanical protection works or deforest more land for agriculture.

• Local society: similarly the effects of a decline in soil productivity maycause migration of young males8 to seek work in towns, or change patternsof labour, diet, disease or malnutrition.

• Farming systems: a farming system adjusted to lower levels of soilproductivity will have different crops and outputs; of less value nationally butmore secure to the individual. The importance of agriculture within the

7 Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan,Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam. In addition the study looked at the situation in Brunei andSingapore which although physically in Southeast Asia are excluded from this report as they do not belongto the group of countries that makes up the FAO Asia Pacific Region.8 Or females, in some countries e.g. the Philippines, the opportunities for off-farm employment may in factbe greater for young females (working as maids, domestic servants).

5

household economy will decline with non-farming occupations of necessitybecoming more prevalent.

Box 1Potential population supporting capacities of lands

in South and Southeast Asia

In the South and Southeast Asia region, the extent of critical zones with low level of inputs is exten-sive. At this level of inputs, 313 million ha, just over a third of the region’s total land area of 898 millionha, are critical. In the western part of the region, the populous north of Pakistan (zones from the Punjabto the foothills of the Himalayas) are critical, along with the drier lowland zones in the south.

Throughout almost the whole of India, the 1975 population exceeds the potential population sup-porting capacities at low input levels, with the exception of some zones in Rajasatan, Gujurat, the Pun-jab and Haryana and the northeastern corner of Uttar Pradesh, along with parts of Darjeeling, Assamand Neghalaya. The whole of Bangladesh is also critical, except the zones in the district of Rajshahiand a small pocket in the northeastern corner of Sylhet. All the populous highland zones of Nepal andBhutan are critical, as are the most densely populated zones of Sri Lanka, the Kandyan highlands andthe southern and northwestern coasts,

The potentials with intermediate level of inputs reduce the extent of the critical zones by four-fifths to62 million ha. Again referring to the western part of the region, roughly the same zones remain criticalin Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan, with a few extra pockets becoming non-critical. There is however a verybig effect in India, where virtually all previously cited critical zones become non-critical, except only twosmall areas in the southern Deccan and stretches of the Himalayan foothills.

Most of the zones in Bangladesh also become non-critical, except for a strip in the west. Most criti-cal zones of Sri Lanka also cease to be so, save for a band encircling the central highlands, which con-tains the capital, Colombo. The high level of inputs alter only marginally the extent of the areas that arecritical at the intermediate level, reducing the area of critical zones to 45 million ha over the region.

In the eastern part of the region, the extent of critical zones is generally less widespread than in thewestern part. With low level of inputs, the greater parts of Cambodia, Malaysia, Myanmar and Thailand,and most of Laos, have few critical zones. However, the three most populous countries do exhibit criti-cal zones with low level of inputs. In Vietnam, zones of the densely populated deltas of the Mekong andRed Rivers around Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi, cannot support their present populations with low levelof inputs. In Indonesia, while the islands of Sumatra and Kalimantan are virtually free of critical zones,almost the whole of Java, carrying two-thirds of Indonesia’s population, is critical, along with Madura,Lombok and Timor and large areas of Sumbawa and Sumba. Most of the Zones in the major islands ofthe Philippines are also at the limit of their potential population supporting capacity with low level ofinputs circumstances, especially zones in the most populated areas of Luzon.

With intermediate level of inputs, critical zones are limited in extent in all but two countries. In thePhilippines, only scattered critical zones remain. However, in Indonesia the potential population sup-porting capacity is still not equal to the 1975 population in zones almost over the whole of Java. Highlevel of inputs circumstances however greatly improve the situation, leaving critical zones largely con-fined to the area south of Banding. Large extents of zones with high potentials are apparent in Sumatraand parts of Kalimantan.

Source: FAO. 1982. Potential population supporting capacities of lands in the developing world.Technical report of Project FPA/INT/513, Land resources for populations of the future.FAO/UNFPA/IIASA Rome.

Countries in the South and Southeast Asian regions are Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, India, In-donesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, SriLanka, Thailand and Vietnam

• National economies: loss in soil productivity in both commercial andsubsistence sectors has national costs in, for example, food imports, lowerexports, relief supplies, extra agricultural investment etc. Less tangible arethe social welfare costs associated with increasing numbers of those whofall below the poverty line.

• International relationships: political differences and power relationshipsbetween developed and developing countries are maintained at least in partby the poor productivity of the agricultural sector in developing countries.

6

• Aid: declining soil productivity contributes to the poor state of agriculture inmany developing countries, for many the end result is a growingdependence on food relief and other programme aid.

Avoiding the above consequences of soil degradation requires the adoption ofSARM practices within those land areas suitable for agriculture.

Sustainable development

The word sustainability has recently taken on a high profile within developmentcircles. However it is not something new as natural scientists have recognised theconcept of sustainability for many years. Whereas soil conservation and rural landuse planning specialists may not have specifically used the term, in practice bio-physical sustainability has long been the objective underlying their field programmesand activities (Douglas 1994).

There is no universally accepted definition of sustainable development. Onepaper lists almost 60 suggested definitions (Pezzey 1989), though the one mostcommonly referred to in development circles is that to be found at the beginning ofchapter 2 of Our Common Future9 (WCED 1987), namely:

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the presentwithout compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Many other development workers and agencies have proposed alternativedefinitions of sustainable development. What these definitions all have in common isa recognition that sustainable development is based on a few key principles,particularly the following (after IUCN 1990):

• Ecological sustainability - development is undertaken in a manner that iscompatible with the maintenance and/or enhancement of essentialecological processes, biological diversity and the natural resource base.

• Social and cultural sustainability - development is undertaken in amanner that will increase people's control over their lives, is compatible withthe culture and values of the people affected by it, and maintains andstrengthens community identity.

• Economic sustainability - development is undertaken in a manner that iseconomically efficient (i.e. the benefits are commensurate with the costs)and which ensures the resources are used and managed in a way that willretain their potential to support future generations.

Sustainable agricultural development

The present emphasis within development circles on sustainable developmentsuggests that many past development efforts may have achieved at best only short-lived gains. Such an assessment can be applied to many past agriculturaldevelopment programmes. Although such development efforts may have increasedproduction in the short term, in the process they have often depleted the “naturalresource capital stock” (i.e. caused land degradation) on which future agriculturaldevelopment options depend (Pearce et al 1990). 9 Often referred to as the Brundtland report, after Gro Harlem Brundtland, chairman of the UN WorldCommission on Environment and Development.

7

The agricultural sector has figured highly in the present debate on whatconstitutes sustainable development. FAO's active involvement in this debate led tothe formulation of a definition of sustainable development that focused morespecifically on agriculture and natural resources than that of the WCED. The FAOCouncil approved the following definition in 1988 (FAO 1990a):

Sustainable development is the management and conservation of the naturalresource base, and the orientation of technological and institutional change insuch a manner as to ensure the attainment and continued satisfaction of humanneeds for present and future generations. Such sustainable development (in theagriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors) conserves land, water, plant andanimal genetic resources, is environmentally non-degrading, technicallyappropriate, economically viable and socially acceptable.

The FAO/Netherlands Conference on Agriculture and the Environment (FAO1991a) considered that the above definition should be translated into severalessential criteria and objectives against which the sustainability of present agricultureand future trends could be assessed. These were regarded as comprising thefollowing:

• Meeting the basic nutritional requirements of present and futuregenerations, qualitatively and quantitatively while providing a number ofother agricultural products.

• Providing durable employment, sufficient income, and decent living andworking conditions for all those engaged in agricultural production.

• Maintaining and, where possible, enhancing the productive capacity of thenatural resource base as a whole, and the regenerative capacity ofrenewable resources, without disrupting the functioning of basic ecologicalcycles and natural balances, destroying the socio-cultural attributes of ruralcommunities, or causing contamination of the environment.

• Reducing the vulnerability of the agricultural sector to adverse natural andsocio-economic factors and other risks, and strengthening self-reliance.

A purely scientific definition of sustainability based on biophysical characteristicsis not acceptable. This is implicit in the “five pillar” definition of sustainable(agriculture and) land management proposed by an IBSRAM working group in 1991,namely (Howlett 1995):

Sustainable land management combines technologies, policies and activitiesaimed at integrating socio-economic principles with environmental concerns tosimultaneously:• maintain or enhance production (productivity);• reduce the level of production risk (security);• protect natural resources and prevent degradation of land and water

resources (protection);• be economically viable (viability); and• be socially acceptable (acceptability).

Sustainable agricultural resource management

SARM in the context of small-scale farming systems involves rural land usersand their families making decisions to manage their interrelated resources of soil,climate, plants, animals, implements, labour, knowledge and capital, in order to meettheir household needs on a sustainable and productive basis. Good SARM requiresthat this be done, in accordance with the constraints and opportunities presented by

8

the local natural and socio-economic environment, so as to produce outputs from theinputs and technology available, while sustaining and enhancing the futureproductivity of the land.10

Land degradation occurs when farm households, seeking to satisfy theirimmediate needs, attempt to produce outputs from one or more of their land useactivities. The manner in which this is done is non-sustainable and which will lead toa decline in the productive potential of the land, unless improvements and necessarychanges are made with regard to the inputs, technologies and managementpractices employed.

Small-scale, primarily subsistence, farmers face a range of socio-economicconstraints, such as population pressure, insecure land tenure, lack of alternativesources of family welfare, limited access to credit and limited knowledge ofalternative practices. Unless such constraints can be overcome farmers have littleoption but to pursue short term production goals that they are well aware cannot besustained.

Good SARM therefore requires that improved land use and managementpractices should develop from the knowledge, problem awareness, analysis, ideas,insights, capacities, goals, aspirations and priorities of the farmers and theirhousehold members. Since lasting improvements cannot be imposed, decisionsabout changes to existing land use practices should involve the full participation ofthe landusers in identifying problems and opportunities, formulating andimplementing appropriate courses of action and in monitoring and evaluating theresults of doing so.

The following seven key points are also critical to any consideration of SARM(after Howlett 1996):

• What period should be considered when looking at a farming system - is thesystem to be sustainable for 5 years, 25 years, or for generations?

• How can the dynamics of sustainability be captured in a constantlychanging social, cultural and economic setting? What was once sustainablemay no longer be so and vice versa; external and internal influences on asystem will affect its sustainability.

• Whose perspective should be considered? Different groups may havedifferent assessments of the sustainability of different systems - the farmerand the research scientist may have different views on sustainability, asmay different members of the same household reflecting the differentinterests and perspectives of different gender and age groups.

• Which pathway to sustainability should be followed? There may be severaldifferent technical and policy options available - there is unlikely to be onlyone true road to sustainability.

• How are different systems to be assessed as to their sustainability?• How should progress to more sustainable systems be monitored, and who

will do it?All the questions will need to be addressed in SARM. Although precise

quantification of sustainability of different farming systems is impossible, but it shouldat least be possible to make qualitative judgements as to which are more sustainablein both the short and long term.

10 The term land is used here in a broad sense to encompass the natural environment to include suchfactors of agricultural production as climate, topography, soils, hydrology and vegetation.

9

Concern with sustainable livelihoods

Poverty is the underlying cause of much of the land degradation within the AsiaPacific region. Lack of alternative income-generating activities (off- and non-farm)means that most rural households in the region are dependent on small-scalefarming and/or forestry activities for their livelihood. Given that the majority of theregion's population have no real alternative but to obtain their livelihood from theland, SARM must ultimately be concerned with the development and promotion ofsustainable livelihoods.

Individual rural households require sustainable livelihoods to ensure that theyhave access to the food they require. Although some farm households can satisfytheir food security needs on a sustainable basis from their own farm production, foodsecurity at the household level does not mean that all rural households have to meetall of their requirements from their own on-farm production.

In reality rural households in the Asia Pacific typically pursue a variety ofdifferent livelihood strategies. Some go in for commercial crop and/or livestockproduction, to enable them to purchase their additional food requirements with theproceeds from sales of produce. Others will harvest and sell a variety of forestproducts (from both on and off farm sources.

For many households, particularly those with limited land resources,increasingly one or more members of the household will need to work part- or full-time off farm. Depending on the area and the type of work they may receive paymentin the form of food or cash. Others will earn the means to secure food from proceedsof non-farm activities such as cottage industries, trading, fishing etc.

In some countries (especially in the Pacific) remittances from members of thefamily working in town or overseas make a vital contribution to the overall householdeconomy. Such individual households can be described as food-secure provided thatthey:§ obtain enough cash from farm sales, off/non-farm activities, and/or

remittances§ find food available locally when needed for purchase or barter; and§ the means of livelihood pursued do not contribute to degradation of the

local agricultural and forestry resources.

Multi-disciplinary dimension to sustainable agriculturalresource management

The foregoing discussion recognises that, in the context of agriculturaldevelopment, sustainability is concerned with the adoption of land managementpractices that will enable the available natural resources to be used, now and in thefuture, to meet basic human needs. Such a concept of sustainability embraces anumber of different disciplinary concerns (Douglas 1994). From the bio-physicalperspective the concern is maintaining and enhancing the potential of the physicalenvironment (the land) to sustain plant growth (crops, pastures and trees) whileconserving bio-diversity within the natural resource base. There is an implicit timedimension that requires that immediate or short term productive returns from the landshould not be obtained at the expense of potential future production in the medium tolong-term. There is a social dimension that addresses the need to use the land to

10

meet human needs in ways that are socially and culturally acceptable. The economicdimension requires that any economic and financial costs incurred by individuallandusers and the wider society should be commensurate with the benefits and thatthere should be no diminution in the value of the natural resource capital stock as aresult of using the land for agricultural purposes.

SARM and the Pacific and other small island countries

The fact that the issues and options related to sustainable agriculture and foodsecurity in Asia may be different from those of concern to the Pacific Island countriesshould be considered. It is therefore important when looking at the Asia Pacificregion as a whole to recognise the often unique characteristics of the Pacific sub-region (box 2). The small size and relative isolation of the Pacific Islands reduces thenumber of strategies for SARM. There is a much greater risk if a strategy or plan failsdue to their limited natural resource bases. Conversely the continuing existence oftraditional societies and their attachment to the land provide opportunities to developlong term stewardship through the active participation of the rural population (Howlett1996).

Box 2Key characteristics of Pacific Island countries (after Howlett, 1966)

1. Bio-physical/environmental• High degree if natural biological diversity (both terrestrial and marine).• High degree of agricultural bio-diversity in the range of local land races amongst the annual and

tree crops grown in traditional subsistence home gardens.• Many small ecosystems that are vulnerable to change.• Limited natural resource base allows little room for error – potential impacts of land degradation

are high.• Range of available natural resources on a country basis is narrow.• Inherent low fertility of many of the soils in the Pacific Islands.• Many small islands separated by vast distances and are relatively isolated.• Small landmass to ocean makes them vulnerable to climatic change and sea level rise.• Highly vulnerable to natural disasters such as cyclones, volcanic eruptions, and seismic sea

waves.2. Socio-economic• Most land is held under customary tenure and populations are still largely rural.• Traditional agriculture is based on swidden systems.• Majority of the population is dependent upon agriculture for subsistence and cash.• High level of diversity of peoples and cultures, traditional social systems are largely intact but are

coming under pressure to change.• Narrow range of technical and scientific skills and limited institutional capaciti4es.• Wealth of traditional knowledge on natural resources and their use.• Limited and expensive communication and transport links.• Openness of economies and extreme dependence on external sectors and factors beyond individ-

ual countries’ control.• High population growth.

11

Chapter 2Some key agricultural resource issues

he starting point for SARM, particularly with regard to poor and marginalfarmers, must be to look at the resources available to individual ruralhouseholds that they can use for agricultural purposes. Two broad categoriesof agricultural resource circumstances can be recognised: those that are

internal and external to the farm household. The internal resources refer to those on-farm resources to which the household members have direct access and by andlarge control (eg. their own land, labour, planting material, livestock and knowledge).The external ones are those that are obtained from off-farm sources and may requirethe assistance of people and organisations external to the household (eg. advicefrom government extension services, chemical fertiliser and pesticides from privatetraders). Tables 1 and 2 show the key agricultural resources available to farmhouseholds. The poorer and more marginal the farm household, the greater thereliance on their own internal resources.

Goals for SARM

During the past 50 years, agricultural development policies promoted bygovernments and donor agencies within the Asia Pacific region have emphasised theuse of external resources as the means to increase agricultural production. The endresult of such policy initiatives has been a remarkable growth in global consumptionof pesticides, inorganic fertiliser, manufactured animal feedstuffs and tractors andother machinery (Pretty 1995).

These external inputs have however substituted for natural control processesand resources, rendering them more vulnerable. Pesticides have replaced biological,cultural and mechanical methods to control pests, weeds and diseases; inorganicfertilisers have substituted for livestock manure, compost and nitrogen-fixing crops;information for management decisions comes from input suppliers, researchers andextensionists rather than from local sources; and fossil fuels have substituted forlocally generated energy sources (Ibid). The specialization of agricultural productionand associated decline of traditional mixed farming have also contributed to thissituation. What were once valuable internal resources have now become wasteproducts which can be cause for environmental concern. In Fiji, manure from manyof the commercial piggeries and dairy farms is dumped adjacent to and in local riverswith adverse effects on downstream water quality (Jai Kumar personalcommunication).

The basic challenge for SARM is how to make better use of these internalresources. The need is to help farm households review their internal resources andfind ways to use them more effectively while minimizing the use of external inputs.This does not necessarily mean doing away with external inputs so much as usingthem when and as necessary to enhance the effectiveness of internal resources.SARM should therefore seek to pursue the following goals (Pretty 1995):

• More thorough incorporation of natural processes such as nutrient cycling,nitrogen fixation and pest predator relationships into agricultural productionprocesses.

T

12

• Reduction in the use of those off-farm, external and non-renewable inputswith the greatest potential to damage the environment or harm the health offarmers and consumers, and a more targeted use of the remaining inputsused with a view to minimizing variable costs.

• More equitable access to productive resources and opportunities, andprogress towards more socially-just forms of agriculture.

• Greater productive use of the biological and genetic potential of plant andanimal species.

• Greater productive use of local knowledge and practices, includinginnovative approaches not yet fully understood by scientists or widelyadopted by farmers.

• Increase in self-reliance among farmers and rural people.• Improvement in the match between cropping patterns and the productive

potential and environmental constraints of climate and landscape to ensurelong term sustainability of current production levels; and

• Profitable and efficient production with an emphasis on integrated farmmanagement, and the conservation of soil, water, energy and biologicalresources.

Table 1. Some key agricultural resources

Resource Internal to the Farm Household External to the Farm Household

Climate related resourcesThe sun Main source of energy, critical for

photosynthesis within the plants thatcontribute to farm production (cropsand pastures)

Supplemented by fossil fuel (oil, coal)Electricity

Water Mainly rain supplemented by localsurface water sources (streams, pondsetc) and shallow groundwater sources(wells, hand pump boreholes)

Dams, irrigation canals, piped waterschemes, deep boreholes/tubewells

Soil relatedresourcesNitrogen Fixed from the air with the aid of

leguminous plants and recycled in soilorganic matter

Primarily from purchased inorganicfertiliser sometimes supplementedwith purchased organic manure fromcommercial livestock producers

Phosphorus andPotassium

Released from soil reserves, recycledthrough incorporation of cropresidues/green manure and applicationof animal manure

Primarily from purchased inorganicfertiliser sometimes supplementedwith purchased organic manure fromcommercial livestock producers

Secondarynutrients and traceelements

Released from soil reserves, recycledthrough incorporation of cropresidues/green manure and applicationof animal manure

Primarily from purchased inorganicfertiliser and foliar sprays

Plant relatedresourcesSeed/plantingmaterial

Saved from previous season,exchanged with neighbours

Purchased from commercialsuppliers or project nurseries (ordistributed free by government orNGO programmes)

Annual crops Genetic diversity within the local landraces, primarily to meet homeconsumption needs but evolved inaccordance with local agro-ecologicalniches, taste preferences and marketopportunities

Limited range of improved `highyielding varieties' typically bred inaccordance with national researchand development planning priorities

13

Perennial crops Genetic diversity within the species andlocal variety mix, primarily to meethome consumption needs but evolvedin accordance with local agro-ecological niches, taste preferencesand market opportunities

Limited range of cloned varietiesdeemed to have high commercialvalue (domestic and export markets)

Trees Genetic diversity comprisingindigenous trees left when landcleared, self sown plants left to grow,wildings transplanted from adjacentareas, and seedlings raised on farm tomeet needs for fuel, timber, poles, fruit,fodder shade etc

Limited range of horticultural andforestry species from commercialand/or government/NGO nurseries

Other agriculture/farming resourcesAnimals/Livestock Primarily genetically diverse local

breeds, kept for draft power, transport,specific products (meat, milk, eggs,skins etc) for home consumption and/orsales or for social prestige/culturalimportance

Improved breeds for commercial(often large scale) production

Weed/pest controlpractices

Biological (natural predators), culturaland mechanical and `homemade'pesticides from locally availablematerials

Purchased herbicides and pesticides

Land The area of land used by the farmhousehold on an individual basis. Maybe owned, leased, share cropped,squatted, or allocated to the householdin accordance with customary rights.

Common property forest and grazingresource areas to which thehousehold has traditional user rightsand responsibilities and `openaccess' resources (i.e. those that inpractice no one owns or controls)

Fuel Firewood from trees around thehomestead or within the fields, cropresidues, dried dung

Firewood from forest areas,purchased fossil fuels (coal, paraffin)

Labour Household members, customary labourexchanges within the community

Hired

Capital Household savings from sales ofproduce, waged labour, remittances

Credit loans from money lenders,banks government/NGO creditschemes

Farm equipment Hand tools, ox/buffalo drawnimplements, small engine poweredcultivators/tillers

Use of contract ploughing/tillage bytractor, hired small cultivators/tillersand ox/buffalo drawn implements

Knowledge andinformation

Farm management skills of thehousehold members derived from pastexperience and learning fromneighboursMarket demand from past experienceand local traders

Advice and information fromgovernment and/or NGO extensionand research services, inputsuppliers and the media (radio, TVnewspapers etc)

14

Table 2. Source and type of organic manure used on-farm in the Asia Pacific Region

Manure obtained from within thefarm household system

Manure obtained from off-farm sources

`Night Soil'Dung from pigs, poultry, rabbits,cattle, buffalo, goats, sheep etcLivestock beddingCrop residues (e.g. rice straw,maize stover, groundnut haulms,soya bean stems and husks, coffeeberry pulp, coconut leaves andhusks)Green manure crops grown in thepaddy fields (e.g. azolla, sesbania)Green manure crops grown in thedryland fields, orchards andplantations (e.g. common milk vetch,desmodium, stylosanthes, wynncassia)Green manure plants growing onterrace banks, field margins andcontour hedgerows (e.g. Lespedezabicolor, Rudbeekia laciniata,Leucaena leucocephala, Flamengiacongesta)Leaf litter from trees planted orgrowing naturally within the croplandsKitchen wasteStove ash

a) Purchased and/or Requiring Hired TransportUrban refuse`silt' from prawn/fish ponds`silt' from sugar factory settling pondsManure from commercial piggeries and chickenfarms and other large scale livestock enterprisesSoya bean cake residues

b) Gathered FreeForest litterNatural grasses, ferns and other herbaceousgrowth in forest/waste land

Geographic units for agricultural resource management

It is widely accepted that blanket agrotechnology recommendationsdisseminated at a national or regional level may not be appropriate at the local level.Thus extensionists, researchers and planners have sought to divide the broaderlandscape into discrete geographic units for agricultural development purposes. Thishas often taken the form of delineating different agro-ecological zones (AEZ). This isbased on the assumption that technologies used successfully in one AEZ could beadopted by farmers in similar AEZs and that policies and plans successfullyimplemented in one country, region or district can be readily transferred between orwithin countries where the range of AEZs is similar. However AEZs are largely basedon biophysical parameters such as soils, climate and topography and have tended toignore the human element of the development of agricultural resources.

For farming systems development (FSD) purposes attempts have been made todefine discrete geographic areas known as farming systems zones (FSZ). The aimbehind the zoning is to identify workable units which are homogeneous entities withstrong similarities in terms of the farming systems within zones, and differencesbetween and among zones. The concept of FSZs is based on the principle thatfarmers with similar problems and development potentials have similar objectives,resource availability and utilisation, strategies and practices (FAO 1990). It also

15

assumes a high degree of correlation between agro-ecological and farming systemsvariables, such as cropping pattern, planting dates, farmers’ problems and possiblesolutions. At a very broad level this assumption is valid as all farm households withinthe same agro-ecological zone face the same biophysical constraints and potentialsand therefore have their choice of crops limited by the same natural environmentalcircumstances.

The criteria for determining AEZs and FSZs are highly interrelated but areclearly not the same. The former is based on the physical and biologicalcharacteristics of an area, the latter on the people farming within an area, theircircumstances, practices, problems and solutions. In practice, FSZs may well besynonymous with agro-ecological zones or subdivisions of them. However, again atthe broad level, the choice of crops, livestock and land management practices maybe determined more by the socio-cultural environment in which the farm householdsoperate. For instance two different tribal/ethnic groups occupying adjacent zonesmay have different farming systems for historical, cultural and religious reasons, e.g.one group may have been traditionally pastoralists whereas the other have alwaysbeen primarily farmers.

More recently those involved in researching natural resource management havepromoted the concept of resource management domains (RMD). The proposedworking definition is that (Dumanski & Craswell 1996):

. . . resource management domain is the spatial unit encompassing theenvironmental and socio-economic characteristics of a recognisable unit on thelandscape, including the natural variability which is inherently characteristic ofthe area. An RMD can be defined at the field scale, if the intent is to differentiatemanagement practices employed by farmers, or at broad scales if the intent isto relate management implications imposed through policies and programmes,or at any level in between, providing that the linkages among the levels isillustrated.

The aim is to define discrete RMDs whose bio-physical and socio-economiccharacteristics can be stored on computer and used for research, extension andplanning purposes with the aid of geographic information systems and decision-support systems.

In an ideal world all farm households within an ecologically homogeneous areaand the same socio-cultural environment would form one homogeneous group. Inpractice, the internal household socio-economic circumstances may vary even whenthe biophysical and external socio-economic circumstances do not. Whereas it ispossible to subdivide an area into discrete land units according to differences in bio-physical conditions (e.g. AEZs), and it may be possible to differentiate areas on anethnic/tribal community basis, it is rarely possible at the local area level to separatefarm households into homogeneous groups occupying mutually exclusive geographicareas (e.g. FSZs).

It is not uncommon to find that neighbouring households within a village willpursue different land use enterprises and have markedly different socio-economiccircumstances hence have different objectives and resources, and different problemsand development potentials. This means that they may not respond in the same wayto the same recommendation and will need to be considered, for developmentpurposes, as members of different homogeneous groups. The concepts of AEZs,FSZs, and RMDs may be useful for recognising broad scale differences, but SARMat the field level calls for the grouping of farm households at the local level on thebasis of similarities in their socio-economic circumstances rather than on a

16

geographic area basis. Hence it is important to recognise that there may be differentbroadly homogeneous farm household groups within the same geographic area, andthat each group will require separate consideration.

Farm household level resource management domains

It is important for SARM to recognise that no two farm households will haveexactly identical circumstances or goals. Hence each household will be faced with aunique set of production constraints and potentials as well as sustainability problems.As a result different households will be interested in different ways of using the landfor crop, livestock and/or tree production. Even if using the land for the samepurpose, differences between households, with regard to their agricultural resourcesand socio-economic circumstances, may mean that they are unable to adopt thesame recommended land management practices.

Within a farming community it is normal to find considerable variation betweenfarm households with regard to goals, needs, circumstances and resourcesavailable. As a result neighbouring households within the same village area mayhave different development interests and opportunities. For instance livestockowners will have different interests from those farmers without livestock. It istherefore highly unlikely that one standard set of improved farm managementrecommendations could address the production and sustainability problems andconstraints faced by all the households farming within a specific area.

It is impractical for research and extension workers to develop and disseminateimproved agricultural resource management recommendations for each farmhousehold. Hence the pragmatic value in grouping individual farm households intocommon resource management domains (CRMD)11 for whom a particular set ofrecommendations would be appropriate. A CRMD can be defined as one in whichthe constituent farm households:

• share broadly similar bio-physical and socio-economic circumstances, i.e.have a similar resource base (eg. land, labour, equipment, livestock, skills,cash etc) from which to undertake their farm operations;

• follow similar farming systems (i.e. engage in the same range of farmenterprises);

• face the same production constraints and sustainability problems.

An assessment of the circumstances of the households within a CRMD wouldreveal a range of common problems, constraints and development potentials.Different CRMDs can be distinguished on the basis of obvious differences in thecircumstances and farming systems of the constituent households. The underlyingassumption is that the specific set of common problems, constraints anddevelopment potentials shared by the households of each identified CRMD would besignificantly different. In the context of SARM, assessing and defining thecharacteristics of different farm household CRMDs provide the basis for the 11 Farming systems research (FSR) workers commonly use the term recommendation domain for this.Experience has shown that inclusion of the word recommendation in the name can be confusing,particularly to extension workers. There is a tendency for those not familiar with FSR work to immediatelywant to give a recommendation. The priority should be to first assess and understand the local farmhousehold circumstances in order to group farm households into common resource management domainsthat subsequently become the focus for participatory SARM development planning, extension andresearch work.

17

development of locally specific SARM practices suitable for adoption by all theconstituent households of an individual CRMD.

Unit of intervention

The debate over the appropriate unit of intervention for SARM focuses on twoissues. The first is whether the geographic boundaries of the area in which topromote improved SARM activities should be delineated using topographic features(eg a watershed) or correspond to administrative units. The second issue is whetherthe target unit of action for field level technical interventions should be individual farmhouseholds or community groups.

Limitations of a watershed planning focus

Much of the planning for soil and water conservation purposes in upland areashas relied on the adoption of a watershed management approach in which plans areformulated and implemented within the catchment area of a natural watershed. 12 Thereasoning is that since each watershed is an independent unit with respect to itssurface hydrology, selecting the topographic watershed as the unit of work enablesthe movement of surface water to be controlled and managed effectively (Shaxson1992a). The aim is to ensure that the way the land is used upstream will not haveadverse consequences downstream.

Because a watershed is a recognisable natural hydrological unit it has beenassumed that its geographic boundaries can serve as a socio-economic or socio-political unit for planning and implementing resource management activities (Easteret al 1991). From a purely technical perspective (e.g. where the concern is to preventsiltation in a downstream irrigation scheme by reducing soil erosion in the upperwatershed) the use of watershed boundaries makes sense as an appropriate unit fordefining the location and extent of a planning area. However, except where highmountain ridges make it physically difficult to cross the watershed boundary, thecultural, administrative and political boundaries in which farming and forest dwellingcommunities operate are almost always different (see box 3).

Because the watershed is essentially an `artificial' unit that is surveyed, mappedand planned by outsiders, it leads inevitably to the enforcement of a top-downphysical planning approach. This bypasses local people's priorities and skills andleaves them as onlookers (IFAD 1992). Much of the work undertaken under the labelof watershed management has involved detailed and complex land evaluations andresource surveys to indicate what sort of use should be applied where, and thendevising means of rearranging current land use until it fits the maps. This may workin sparsely settled areas but will be unacceptable in dense agricultural settlements.The latter is the more typical situation within the developing countries of the AsiaPacific region, in areas where soil degradation is a problem. Pushing people around(especially those with small, scattered plots) to make their land use conform to arational pattern on a map, is not a politically popular exercise at any level of society,usually generating mistrust, apathy and antagonism (Shaxson 1992a). It also

12 There is a variation in terminology (Hudson 1992). British usage is `catchment' for the area whichcatches run-off, and `watershed' for the boundary of the catchment, i.e. the divide which sheds water oneither side. American usage is `watershed' instead of `catchment' and this is increasingly adopted in theinternational literature on `watershed management' and has therefore been followed here.

18

encourages planners to see the people as part of the problem rather than the key tothe solution.

It is not unusual for farmers to cultivate more than one plot of land and differentplots may be located in different watersheds. If projects are planned rigidly on anindividual watershed basis the result may be that farmers can obtain technical adviceand inputs for only some of their fields, ie. those located within the project watershed.The control of shifting cultivation in one watershed may lead to excess pressure onneighbouring areas, where households also have traditional cultivation rights. Theland use problems associated with shifting cultivation, eg. deforestation and erosion,are merely transferred as farmers transfer their crop production to areas outside theproject's control. Likewise total protection of natural woodlands in one watershed (eg.a ban on logging) may lead to increased exploitation of woodland areas inneighbouring watersheds considered to be the common property of the ruralcommunity. Similarly closing a watershed to grazing, without reducing stocknumbers, merely increases grazing pressure on neighbouring areas as the herds aremoved (Douglas 1994).

It is clear that where small-scale farmers are the primary beneficiaries, theboundaries of a SARM project or programme should correspond to the boundaries ofthe land area in which the members of the target communities have land use rights.That is, the cultural, administrative and political boundaries in which the individualfarm families that make up particular communities operate.

Box 3Watershed or community boundaries?

The Nepal sub-project of the FAO/Government of Italy Inter-regional Project for Participatory UplandConservation and Development - Project GCP/INT/542/ITA is located within the Middle Hills of Gorkhadistrict. In the first phase of the project (1992-94) activities were located within the Bhusunde KholaWatershed. During the second phase (1994-97) activities have been extended into the adjacent UpperKher Khola Watershed.

The boundaries of both the original project area (Bhusunde Khola watershed) and the expansionarea (upper Kher Khola watershed) by and large follow the hydrological watershed divide. During a fieldvisit in 1995 it was clear that these do not form a physical impediment to movement hence do not serve asnatural barriers between individual communities. In reality many of the settlements in the two watershedsare located on ridges with croplands located on either side and forest areas that often straddle the ridge(watershed). This it would appear is the typical situation in much of the Middle Hills region of Nepal.

The project boundaries failed to take into consideration either the administrative boundaries (VDC orward) or the cultural boundaries of the communities with which the project was working. The January 1994report prepared for the project by an NGO ("A Report of Participatory Appraisal for Baseline Information")noted that some 23 wards had land within the Bhusunde Khola watershed but at least 9 of these had partof their land area and settlements lying outside the watershed.

The project boundaries are therefore artificial when viewed from the community and administrativeperspective. Restricting project activities to areas within the physical boundaries of the Bhusunde Kholaand Kher Khola watersheds goes against the principles of participatory planning where the `peoplesboundaries' should define the project area.

Many national and local government services are organised along similar lines,e.g. agricultural extension and social welfare, and this will aid co-ordination with theiractivities. Such boundaries may also be artificial creations, having been imposed oncommunities for administrative and political reasons. These are likely to be moreclosely related to the social and cultural boundaries within which the `natural'communities live and operate than the hydrological watershed.

It was notable when reviewing documentation concerning both FAO and non-FAO watershed management projects that the maps of the project areas clearly

19

demarcate the topographic features of the area, showing the project boundaryconforming to the watershed. It was very rare to find any maps showing theboundaries between the individual villages or communities within the watershed.The conclusion is that, despite the new participatory rhetoric, most watershedmanagement projects still consider the social boundaries, of the people they areworking with, of less importance than the hydrological boundary.

Focusing on administrative/community boundaries does not mean ignoring“watershed management” principles but requires that watersheds be looked at withinthe context of the boundaries of the land over which a community has direct land userights and interests. Thus the outer limits of a project area could be defined withrespect to social and administrative boundaries, whereas individual field levelactivities could still, when appropriate, could be implemented on a local (micro)watershed basis within these limits, e.g. for the improved management of thecatchment of a `protected' water source. However the boundaries of individualfarmholdings, rather than watersheds, can expect to be more important indetermining the location of many other potential SARM activities, e.g. promotion ofimproved conservation-effective crop husbandry practices, on-farm fodder productionand tree planting.

There are reports, particularly from India (e.g. Mishra & Sarin 1988, Aruna 1990,Grewal et al 1995), of successful conservation projects planned on a watershedbasis. The “protected” watersheds are invariably small in area and fall within thesocial and cultural boundaries of one community. Furthermore such projects haveshown the participants a clear link between the “upstream” costs and “downstream”benefits. What these “successes” do not report is the impact these projects had onthe community land outside the watershed area - were these also protected or werethe problems merely transferred?

Problems can arise when a watershed management plan calls for the costs tobe borne by communities in the upper watershed areas whereas the benefits (e.g.irrigation water) accrue to communities in the lower watershed areas. Such problemsare further compounded when watershed boundaries cut across political andadministrative boundaries. There are often practical difficulties in implementingwatershed management programmes that depend on inter-departmental, communityand political co-operation across them.

Social unit of intervention

SARM projects which have concentrated on individual land users, and theirprivately managed cropland, have been more successful than those that focus on thecatchment or watershed (IFAD 1992, Pretty 1995). For the individual farm householda watershed is a less natural unit of perception and action than the boundaries of it'sown holdings. More often than not the factors that determine the location andboundaries of a farm household's fields will be the social and administrativecircumstances of the community in which it operates and its internal resources(particularly labour). Rarely will these be determined by the physical characteristics ofa watershed (Shaxson 1981).

Individual watersheds may contain many farm households with separateholdings and marked differences in farming skills, education, interests and needs. Itis difficult to implement a conservation package that requires them all to worktogether for the conservation of resources not solely their individual responsibility. Itis also rarely successful given the need for the complete package to be operational if

20

it is to work technically (Douglas 1989, 1992b). When the appeal is to the individualand the benefits accrue directly to the land user, the picture changes dramatically(IFAD 1992).

The priority for sustainable agriculture has to be the motivation of individual farmhouseholds to adopt good land use and improved management practices within theboundaries of their own plots. The ideal is therefore to be able to work withhouseholds on an individual basis. In reality there are many practical difficulties indoing this. Given the low staffing levels and budgetary limitations of most extensionservices, an individual approach means that only a few farmers within a communitycan be contacted at any one time. This is why most agricultural extension serviceshave sought alternative ways of disseminating messages to larger numbers offarmers, such as the use of contact farmers, farmers clubs and T&V (teach and visit).Whereas work may be done on individual fields conservation messages will have tobe disseminated, and training conducted, on a group or community basis.

If the technical emphasis is on physical earthworks to control and safely disposeof excess runoff, an individual approach will not work with small-scale farmersbecause the installation of the full catchment plan will require diversion ditches andwaterways to run through neighbouring plots. Diverting runoff in one field may causeproblems and social conflict if it is discharged into neighbouring untreated fields.Where such an approach is appropriate, conservation activities will require theorganisation of groups of farmers, given the need to coordinate activities on a widerfarm basis. Likewise other activities may require action at the community level,particularly where the community will receive tangible benefits which can only beachieved through a community effort, e.g. impoundment and control of water for theirrigation of several land holdings.

21

Chapter 3Land degradation

Degradation - Result of accelerated changes and mismanagement

oils will naturally evolve and change over time as a result of such pedogeneticprocesses as leaching and erosion. In areas of undisturbed naturalvegetation, such changes are generally slow and in a historical time frame willhave little effect on the ability of the soil to support vegetative growth.

However the natural processes may be accelerated in areas exploited by man foragricultural purposes, thereby producing, often within only a few years, majorchanges in the soil biological, chemical and physical properties. Such a change insoil properties will alter, and usually reduce, the land's ability to sustain a particularquantity and quality of plant growth. From an agricultural point of view any suchreduction can be regarded as degradation (Douglas 1994).

The ability of land to support specific forms of agricultural production is finite.Important limits to production are set not only by the soil properties but also by suchfactors as climate, relief, hydrology, vegetation and land use. Land mismanagement -whether for crop, livestock or tree production purposes - consists usually of removingtoo much, returning too little and cultivating, grazing or cutting too often. Such“mining” of land beyond its limits results in degradation with decreasing productivity,and is non sustainable. For any given land area there are limits on the types of landuse that can be pursued on a sustainable basis. Likewise their potential productionwill be limited according to the management practices and input levels (FAO 1991b).

Soil degradation, land degradation or desertification?

In the soil conservation arena the terms soil degradation and land degradationare sometimes incorrectly used interchangeably, with soil erosion regarded assynonymous to both. However there is more to soil degradation than just soil erosion,and land represents a broader concept than simply soil. As with its use in the contextof land evaluation (FAO 1976a), the term land refers to all natural resources whichcontribute to agricultural production, including livestock production and forestry. Landthus covers climate, landforms, water resources, soils and vegetation (including bothgrassland and forests).

Whereas combating soil degradation is critical to SARM, this cannot beaddressed in isolation of other natural resources, as degradation of one can beexpected to have an adverse impact on the agricultural productive capacity of theothers.

The term desertification is widely used (often inappropriately) when discussingsoil and land degradation within the Asia Pacific region. Following the 1992 UNConference on Environment and Development (UNCED), desertification has beendefined as “degradation of land resources in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humidareas, caused by different factors including climatic variations and human activitiesresulting from adverse human impact” (in Hurni 1996). It needs to be stated thatdesertification is not a separate form of land degradation, so much as the endproduct of a variety of degradation processes that have adversely affected the landwithin so-called “dry” areas.

S

22

Desertification is an emotive term that conjures an image of desert sand dunesadvancing over adjacent areas, something that rarely happens in reality. Also, whatat first sight might appear to be desertification (e.g. loss of vegetative ground cover)may be a cyclical feature associated with a sequence of drought, or lower-than-average rainfall years. Vegetation recovery can be dramatic once relatively wetterrainfall conditions return. Placing undue emphasis on the threat of desertification canlead to the erroneous assumption that desertification and degradation are one andthe same thing. This ignores the fact that land degradation can also occur underhumid climatic conditions where the economic impact in terms of lost productiongreatly exceeds that of drier areas.

Three factors are commonly cited as causes of desertification: overgrazing,inappropriate agricultural practices and overuse of woody biomass. Such factors arenot confined to dry areas and can lead to equally severe degradation in humid areas.Land degradation following mismanagement of the natural resources can occuranywhere, irrespective of the prevailing climatic conditions. For this reason it isbelieved that the emphasis placed on desertification programmes within the AsiaPacific region is misdirected. What is needed is a commitment to a holistic approachto land degradation wherever it might occur.

Land degradation: definition

The word degradation, from its Latin derivation, implies “reduction to a lowerrank” (Blaikie and Brookfield 1987). Hence when land is degraded, its productivity isreduced and may continue to decline unless steps are taken to restore the lostproductivity and prevent further losses. Unchecked land degradation may result in analmost total loss of the productive land capacity to produce anything of value tohumanity. Concern with such an outcome has led to land degradation sometimesbeing defined as follows:

Land degradation is the loss of the productive capacity of the land to sustain life(IFAD 1992).

However such a definition is perhaps too broad and has somewhat emotiveovertones. It ignores the fact that whereas the productive capacity of an area mayhave been reduced by land degradation, it may still be possible to use the land forproductive purposes by adopting alternative land uses, although with an inherentlower productive potential. While land degradation will have taken place, it will nothave progressed to the extent that the land can no longer sustain any form of life. Ittherefore may be more appropriate to define land degradation in a more focusedmanner as follows:

Land degradation is the reduction in the capability of the land to producebenefits from a particular land use under a specified form of land management(after Blaikie & Brookfield 1987).

Such a definition embraces not only the biophysical factor of land capability, butalso such socio-economic considerations as the way the land is used and theproducts desired (the benefits) from the land.

23

Components of land degradation

There are a number of interrelated land degradation components, all of whichmay contribute to a decline in agricultural production. The most important are(Douglas 1994):

• Soil degradation - decline in the productive capacity of the soil as a resultof soil erosion and changes in the hydrological, biological, chemical andphysical properties of the soil.

• Vegetation degradation - decline in the quantity and/or quality of thenatural biomass and decrease in the vegetative ground cover.

• Water degradation - decline in the quantity and/or quality of both surfaceand ground water resources.

• Climate deterioration - changes in the micro and macro climatic conditionsthat increase the risk of crop failure.

• Losses to urban/industrial development - decline in the total area of landused, or with potential, for agricultural production as a result of arable landbeing converted to urban, industrial and infrastructure uses.

For the purpose of this paper each component is discussed separately.However it needs to be stressed that there are many interactions andinterdependencies between them and measures to combat land degradation andpromote SARM will commonly address more than one.

Soil degradation

A joint FAO, UNEP and UNESCO study (FAO 1979) defined soil degradation asa process which lowers the current and/or the potential capability of the soil toproduce (quantitatively and/or qualitatively) goods or services. The study regardedsoil degradation as not necessarily continuous but something that could take placeover a relatively short period between two states of equilibrium. For instance clearingan area of forest and then using the land continuously for low input maizemonoculture result in a rapid decline in the soils humus and nutrient levels. Providingsoil erosion does not physically destroy the resource, soil cultivated in this way wouldnot attain or even closely approach a zero humus and nutrient content. Instead itwould reach a low-level equilibrium in which humus and nutrient levels remainconstant and crop yields are stabilized at a low level (Young 1976). Many of the soilsused for low input agricultural production in the Asia Pacific region are believed tohave reached this low-level equilibrium.

The FAO, UNEP and UNESCO study (FAO 1979) recognised six categories ofsoil degradation processes:

1) Water erosion2) Wind erosion3) Waterlogging and excess of salts4) Chemical degradation5) Physical degradation6) Biological degradationA more recent study to assess the status of human induced erosion in South

and Southeast Asia (van Lynden 1995) has sought to categorise the types of soildegradation in more detail, recognising some 21 types (see box 4).

24

Water erosion

Water erosion is the most widespread form of degradation within the AsiaPacific region and occurs widely in all agro-climatic zones. This category includesprocesses such as splash erosion, sheet erosion, rill and gully erosion and massmovement (Douglas 1994).

Splash erosion commonly initiates water erosion and occurs when raindropsfall onto the bare soil surface. The impact of raindrops breaks up the surface soilaggregates and splashes particles into the air. On sloping land relatively more ofthese will fall downslope resulting in a net downhill soil movement. Some of the soilparticles may fall into the voids between the surface aggregates, thereby reducingthe amount of rainwater than can infiltrate into the soil and increasing runoff.

Water running over the soil surface has the power to pick up some of theparticles released by splash erosion. It can also detach particles from the soilsurface. This may result in sheet erosion where soil particles are removed from thewhole soil surface on a fairly uniform basis. Where runoff becomes concentrated intochannels rill and gully erosion may result. Rills are small rivulets of such a size thatthey can be worked over with farm machinery. Gullies are much deeper (often beingseveral metres deep and wide) and form a physical impediment to the movement,across the slope, of farm machinery.

On sloping land when soil is saturated, the weight of the soil may exceed theforces holding the soil in place. Under such circumstances mass movement in theform of landslides or mudflows may occur. On steep slopes this mass movementmay be very rapid, involving the movement of large volumes of soil, usually on anisolated event and localised basis. In geologically recent and unstable mountainareas, such as the Himalayas, and areas prone to seismic and volcanic activity, suchas parts of Papua New Guinea, landslides may be natural phenomena. Howevertheir frequency and severity may greatly increase following destruction of the naturalvegetative cover by logging and/or clearing for cultivation, as in the Sierra Madrerange in the Philippines (AIADP 1990).

Wind erosion

The risk of wind erosion is severe in the arid and semi-arid areas of Asia andAustralia. It includes both the removal and deposition of soil particles by wind actionand the abrasive effects of moving particles as they are transported. It occurs whensoil is left bare of vegetation as a result of cultivation, and/or overgrazing followingoverstocking. Not only can the wind remove topsoil from good farmland; it can resultin additional damage by burying land, buildings, machinery and fences withunwanted soil. It is estimated that in Pakistan some 42% of the arable land areaffected by wind erosion. In India the figure is 6%, although the total area affected,11 million ha, is the same as for Pakistan (FAO 1994a). In China there are reportsthat windblown sand has affected some 2.65 million ha of cultivated land (ESCAP1995).

Waterlogging and salinisation (excess of salts)

Waterlogging is the lowering in land productivity through the rise ingroundwater close to the soil surface (FAO 1994a). In its most severe form (termedponding), the water table rises above the surface. Within the Asia Pacific region the

25

most severely affected countries are India and Pakistan where some 3.08 and 2million has respectively have been affected (FAO 1994a). Waterlogging is linked withsalinisation, both brought about by incorrect irrigation management.

Box 4ASSOD Soil Degradation Types

The database for the FAO, UNEP, ISRIC Assessment of the Status of Human-Induced SoilDegradation in South and Southeast Asia recognises 21 categories of soil degradation using a twoletter code. The first capital letter giving the major degradation type, the second lower case letter givingthe subtype. In some cases a third lower case letter can be used for further specification (seeexamples below).Wt Definition: loss of topsoil by sheet erosion/surface wash

Description: a decrease in depth of the topsoil layer (A horizon) due to more or less uniformremoval of soil material by run-off water

Wd Definition: "terrain deformation" by gully and/or rill erosion or mass movementsDescription: an irregular displacement of soil material (by linear erosion or mass movements)causing clearly visible scars in the terrain

Wo Definition: off-site effects of water erosion in up-stream areasDescription: Three subtypes may be distinguished: sedimentation of reservoirs and waterways(Wos), flooding (Wof), and pollution of water bodies with eroded sediments (Wop)

Et Definition: loss of topsoil by wind actionDescription: a decrease in depth of the topsoil layer (A horizon) due to more or less uniformremoval of soil material by the wind

Ed Definition: "terrain deformation"Description: an irregular displacement of soil material by wind action, causing deflation hollows,hummocks and dunes

Eo Definition: off site effects of wind erosionDescription: covering of the terrain with wind borne sand particles from distant sources("overblowing")

Cn Definition: Fertility decline and reduced organic matter contentDescription: a net decrease of available nutrients and organic matter in the soil due to a negativebalance between output (through harvesting, burning, leaching, etc.) and input (throughmanure/fertilisers, returned crop residues, flooding) of nutrients and organic matter

Cp Definition: pollutionDescription: a distinction is made between "contamination", indicating the mere presence of analien substance in the soil without significant negative effects, and "pollution", signifying soildegradation as a consequence of location, concentration and adverse biological or toxic effectsof a substance. In this context only the latter is relevant. Both local source pollution (wastedumps, spills, factory sites, etc. (Cpl)) and diffuse or airborne pollution (atmospheric depositionof acidifying compounds and/or heavy metals (Cpa)) are considered under this category.

Cs Definition: salinisation/alkalinisationDescription: a net increase of the salt content of the (top)soil leading to a productivity decline. Adistinction can be made between salinity problems due to intrusion of seawater (which mayoccur under all climate conditions: Css) and inland salinisation, caused by improper irrigationmethods and/or evaporation of saline groundwater (Csi).

Ct Definition: DystrificationDescription: the lowering of soil pH through the process of mobilising or increasing acidiccompounds in the soil. Note draining of soils containing pyrite will produce very acid sulphatesoils ("cat-clays" (Cta)). Excessive planting of acidifying vegetation (e.g. fir) may also drop thesoil pH (Ctf). NB acidification by airborne components is considered as pollution!

Ce Definition: EutrificationDescription: An excess of certain soil nutrients, impairing plant growth, typically due toimbalanced application of organic and chemical fertiliser resulting in excess Nitrogen,Phosphorus; "recalcaric" land due to overliming.

Pc Definition: compactionDescription: deterioration of soil structure by trampling or the weight and/or frequent use ofmachinery

Pk Definition: sealing and crustingDescription: clogging of pores with fine soil material and development of a thin impervious layerat the soil surface obstructing the infiltration of rainwater

26

Pw Definition: waterloggingDescription: effects of human induced hydromorphism (i.e. excluding paddy fields) due to risingwater table (e.g. due to construction of reservoirs/ irrigation) and/or increased flooding caused byhigher peakflows.

Ps Definition: lowering of the soil surfaceDescription: subsidence of organic soils due to oxidation of peat and settling of soils in generaldue to lowering of the water table (see also Pa); solution of gypsum in the sub-soil (human-induced?) or lowering of soil surface due to extraction of gas/water

Pu Definition: loss of productive functionDescription: soil (land) being taken out of production for non-bio-productive activities, but not theeventual "secondary" degrading effects of these activities.

Pa Definition: aridificationDescription: decrease of average soil moisture content, particularly due to lowering ofgroundwater tables for agricultural purposes or drinking water extraction, and/or decreased soilcover and organic matter content

Dc Definition: complex degradation typesDescripti on: the result of interaction(s) of different degradation processes (pollution orcompaction causing biological degradation and/or erosion)

Sn Stable under natural conditions; i.e. (near) absence of human influence on soil stability, andlargely undisturbed vegetation. NB: some of these areas may be very vulnerable to even smallchanges in conditions which may disturb the natural equilibrium.

Sw Stable land without vegetation; i.e. (near) absence of human influence on soil stability, e.g.deserts, high mountain zones. Natural soil degradation processes may occur!

Sh Stable under human influence; this influence may be passive, i.e. no special measures had orhave to be taken to maintain stability, or active: measures have been taken to prevent or reversedegradation.

Salinisation is used in its broad sense, to refer to all types of soil degradationbrought about by the increase of salts in the soil. It thus covers both salinisation in itsstrict sense, the build-up of free salts; and sodification (also called alkalization), thedevelopment of dominance of the exchange complex by sodium. If topsoil becomestoo saline or too alkaline its productivity falls. The processes of salinisation canhappen when poorly drained land is irrigated in hot climates. The sun evaporates thesurface water, leaving behind the salts. At the same time, inadequate drainagecauses the water table to rise, bringing saline groundwater into contact with plantroots. It is typically a human-induced process brought about by incorrect planningand management of irrigation schemes.

Saline intrusion is a localised form of salinisation which occurs as the result ofthe incursion of sea water into coastal soils arising from over-abstraction ofgroundwater. This is of particular concern to several Pacific nations in the context ofrising sea levels. One very serious effect of such a sea level rise is its impact onfreshwater lenses underlying atolls. The risk of saltwater intrusion will rise as the sealevel rises; lateral leakage will increase, the lenses will become thinner and salt waterwill move within reach of pump intakes. As the sea level rises salt water will reachthe roots of pit grown taro, coconut palms and other tree crops (ADB/SPREP 1992).

Chemical degradation

In addition to salinisation other processes may adversely affect the chemicalproperties of soil, notably (after FAO 1994b):

• Loss of nutrients and organic matter;• Acidification (mostly associated with the removal of soil nutrients or the

misuse of fertiliser);

27

• Fixing of soluble nutrients, so that they are `unavailable' to plants, followingacidification;

• Increased leaching (when the vegetative cover is removed and the soilexposed particularly when this occurs in high rainfall tropical areas);

• Increased temperatures and oxidation of the soil organic matter (due toexposure and cultivation); and

• Pollution (most commonly from improper management of industrial andmining wastes.

Of particular concern for SARM is the reduction in the reserves of soil nutrients.When soils are used for agricultural purposes significant quantities of nutrients areremoved from the harvested products. With the present level of world yields theannual amount of harvested plant nutrients in three major cereals (rice, wheat,maize) is estimated at 40 million tons of N, 15 million tons of P2O5, and 28 milliontons of K2O (FAO 1991b). If nutrients removed are not replaced (in the form ofchemical fertilisers, organic manure, by natural fixation from the air or by weatheringof rock minerals), then there will be a net decline in soil nutrient levels.

Plant growth may be adversely affected by the build-up of particular metals orsalts to toxic levels within the soil. Aluminium toxicities may be a problem in stronglyacid soils. The higher aluminium levels found in the subsoils of some tropical soilsmay be an additional factor in yield decline following loss of topsoil from erosion(Stocking personal communication). Calcium carbonate and gypsum (when presentas calcrete or gypsum horizons) may cause nutrient imbalance. Manganese toxicityis most likely in acid soils with impeded drainage. (FAO 1979, FAO 1983 and Young1976).

Several countries in Asia have a significant proportion of their land area withacid sulphate soil limitations, notably Cambodia (1.2%), Malaysia (2%), Thailand(2%) and Vietnam (4.6%). Such soils are commonly developed on estuarine andmarine alluvium (mangrove swamps) and contain considerable amounts ofsulphides. Chemical degradation can be rapid once such areas are “reclaimed.”Once drained, the sulphides oxidise to form sulphuric acid; and the pH, which isaround neutral prior to drainage, drops below 3.5. The acid attacks the clay mineralscausing the liberation of aluminium ions in amounts toxic for plant roots and micro-organisms (Dent 1990).

Toxicities can also result from the presence of municipal, industrial, radioactiveor oily wastes such as occur mainly around towns, industrial areas and mines (FAO1979). Such toxicities are usually of only local extent but in some countries they maylead to significant problems, for instance the extensive areas of tin tailings fromformer tin mining operations in Malaysia. In Vietnam (and possibly Laos andCambodia) there are areas where the soils contain residues of the chemicaldefoliants used between the 1960s and 1975, during the American phase of theIndochina war (Vietnam FARM CCC 1996).

Physical degradation

Both crop and livestock production can lead to a deterioration in the physicalcondition of the soil. This degradation can take many forms, and has a variety ofconsequences. Deterioration of soil structure is the most common form of physicaldegradation, and involves (FAO 1994b):

28

• Loss of stability of aggregates in surface soils, leading to crusting andcompaction, and consequently poorer infiltration rates and greater run-offand erosion; and

• Translocation of clay particles to subsurface layers and loss of porosity inthe subsurface and deeper soil layers, with consequent loss of watertransmission and storage capacity.

Physical degradation is of concern because soil structure and its stabilitygoverns soil-water relationships, aeration, crusting, infiltration, permeability, runoff,interflow, root penetration, leaching losses of plant nutrients and therefore ultimatelythe productive potential of a soil (Lal 1979a).

Topsoil degradation occurs when an open structure of soil aggregates is brokendown by excessive tillage. Also, the impact of raindrops and/or livestock hooves mayproduce a continuous compacted layer or crust at the surface. Reduction in topsoilporosity, and particularly surface crusting, will result in decreased water infiltration,increased runoff, poorer seedling emergence and often increased erosion (Ibid).

Physical degradation of the subsoil may be in the form of a distinct pan, or amore general compaction, i.e. loss of the original subsoil structure and increasingbulk density with reduction in size and quantity of pore spaces. The physical effectsmay be decreased water storage capacity, loss of aeration and reduced soilpermeability. Waterlogging may occur in the soil above the compacted horizon andthe absorptive capacity of the subsoil will be reduced, thereby increasing the amountof rainfall going as surface runoff. Plant root development will be hindered in thesubsoil because compacted horizons are physically difficult to penetrate. Plantgrowth will be restricted because of the lower availability of air and water, andtherefore nutrients, in the root zone. (Lal 1979a, 1979b, Young 1976)

Some of the blame for increased soil degradation in the region has beenascribed to a specific change in farming practice, namely the replacement of thetraditional digging sticks and hoes with the plough. In part, this has facilitated theexpansion of the area under cultivation thereby exposing more land to the risk ofaccelerated erosion. The main reason is that ploughing, using techniques importedfrom temperate regions in Europe and America, increases the disturbance of thetopsoil, breaking up its structure and making it less resistant to erosion. Traditionalshifting cultivation systems rely on the presence of tree stumps and roots, not onlyfor rapid restoration of the vegetation during the fallow period, but also for reducingrunoff velocity and holding the soil in situ during cultivation. The conservation benefitsof the traditional land clearing techniques are lost once the plough has been adopted,as ploughing is difficult, if not impossible, unless the stumps and roots are firstremoved from the field (Douglas 1994).

Subsoil compaction, particularly the formation of “plough pans,” is normallyassociated with commercial agriculture and the use of heavy machinery such astractors. However, evidence suggests that a cultivation pan, immediately below thecultivated layer, can occur even under traditional hand cultivation systems from thepressure of the tiller's feet and the practice of cultivating to the same depth each year(Shaxson personal communication). Although the low yields under low input systemsmay largely be because soil nutrient and organic matter levels have reached low-level equilibrium, physical degradation in the form of a cultivation pan may also be acontributory factor.

Whereas conservation measures can be adopted to control soil erosion, andchemical fertilisers can be used to replace soil nutrients, physical degradation,particularly in the subsoil, is less easily overcome. Subsoil compaction is regarded as

29

a form of soil degradation as it markedly reduces the yields of dryland crops and maybe expensive to overcome, requiring deep ripping with a tractor. However in areaswhere paddy rice is grown, farmers adopt soil compaction techniques, such aspuddling, to reduce subsoil permeability thereby raising the capacity of the soil toproduce rice. In such a situation soil compaction is regarded as land improvementrather than degradation.

Biological degradation

Soils used for agricultural purposes are often deficient in the biologicalprocesses which both maintain their physical structure and their ability to supplyessential chemical elements to plants (Swift and Sanchez 1984). Of particularconcern is the decline in soil organic matter or humus content following cultivation. Inpart this is because large amounts of biomass are harvested and removed from thesite. The actual humus mineralisation rates may increase due to soil temperaturechanges following the removal of a protective vegetative cover.

The agricultural significance of soil organic matter is greater than that of anyother property with the exception of soil moisture. It improves soil structure, andthereby root penetration and erosion resistance; augments cation exchangecapacity; and acts as a store of nutrients, slowly converted to forms available toplants (Young 1976). It is possible to obtain an overall balance of soil organic matterwith shifting cultivation under conditions of low population density. However for mostof the Asia Pacific region shortage of suitable land means that shifting cultivation isno longer a viable option and most of the land is cultivated each year. Under suchpermanent agricultural systems decline in organic matter can be severe and rapid.Typical values of the organic matter. status of tropical soils that have been undercultivation for two or more years are 30-60% of the corresponding values undernatural vegetation. Values below 50% are considered to represent an undesirablesituation calling for remedial measures (Young 1976).

Biological degradation is usually synonymous with decline in organic matter.Yet it also applies when there is a decline in the beneficial soil fauna (organisms).Certain soil organisms have the ability to influence the physical structure of soils.Some species of termites annually transport large amounts of soil through the soilprofile (Lee and Wood 1971). In so doing they achieve a mixing of the organic andmineral components of soil and alter the porosity of the soil at the micro- andmacropore levels. This can result in increased surface infiltration of rainwater and aconsequent reduction in runoff and erosion, which (together with the stimulation tosoil aeration) contribute to maintaining soil fertility (Swift and Sanchez 1984).Earthworms, while important for the soils of the temperate parts of the Asia Pacificregion, may play a similar role as termites in some soils in the tropics, although not incomparable numbers or biomass (Young 1976).

Most mechanical forms of soil tillage bring about marked changes in thequalitative and quantitative characters of the soil fauna community. Theconsequences of such biological degradation are poorly understood and merit furtherstudy. However the improved soil structure and enhanced efficiency of nutrient returnfrom crop residues to plant, associated with conservation (minimum) tillagetechniques are believed to be associated with the maintenance of a healthy soilfauna, particularly of termites and earthworms (Swift and Sanchez 1984).

30

Soil fertility decline

Whereas the deterioration in the chemical, physical and biological properties ofthe soil is discussed separately in the previous three sections their combined effectscan be considered under the heading of soil fertility decline (FAO 1994a). Decline infertility is a major effect of erosion and the term is best used to describe thecombined effect of processes other than erosion. The main processes involved are:

• Lowering of soil organic matter, with associated decline in soil biologicalactivity;

• Degradation of soil physical properties (structure, aeration, water holdingcapacity), as brought about by reduced organic matter;

• Adverse changes in soil nutrient resources, including reduction in availabilityof the major nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium), onset ofmicronutrient deficiencies, and development of nutrient imbalances; and

• Build-up of toxicities, primarily acidification through incorrect fertiliser use.Such a decline in fertility has occurred in some of Tonga's rich volcanic soils,

where the large-scale expansion of squash cultivation has led to unprecedented treeremoval and the indiscriminate use of fertilisers and pesticides. It has been reported(Ofa Fakalata in Clarke and Thaman 1997) that an increasing number of growers arefinding that no matter how much fertiliser or pesticide they apply their yields aredropping. The damaged areas are referred to as "Hot spots ... big areas of land thathave been cleared with hardly any trees left, and where the land has been farmedcontinuously for a number of years ... so that the structure of the soil in these areashas been destroyed and the soil no longer can absorb water to feed the plants".

A study of land degradation in South Asia (FAO 1994a) noted that aninterrelated set of soil fertility problems had been reported, directly or indirectlyassociated with fertiliser application.

• Organic matter depletion - crop residues are widely used as fuel andfodder and not returned to the soil. Response to fertiliser may be lower as aconsequence of decreased organic matter.

• Continuing negative soil nutrient balance - removal of nutrients from thesoil in crop harvest appears substantially to exceed inputs as naturalreplacement and fertilisers. Negative soil nutrient balances have beenreported for all three major nutrients in Bangladesh and Nepal; forphosphorus and potassium in Sri Lanka, and a large deficit for potassium inPakistan. For India it has been estimated that the nutrient deficit is 60 kg/haper year, or 9 million tons for the whole country (Tandon 1992).

• Imbalance in fertiliser application - Fertiliser use is dominated bynitrogen. When fertilisers are first applied to a soil, a high response isfrequently obtained from nitrogen. The improved crop growth depletes thesoil of other nutrients; “In such systems, nitrogen is simply used as a shovelto mine the soil of other nutrients” (Tandon 1992).

• Secondary and micronutrient deficiencies - Sulphur deficiencies havebeen reported in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka and zincdeficiencies in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. Micronutrient deficienciesare being increasingly reported in Pakistan.

• Failure of increases in fertiliser use to be matched by increases incrop yield - A levelling off, or plateau, in the crop yield increases which took

31

place in the 1960s and 1970s has been found in many countries of SouthAsia.

• Lower responses to fertilisers - long term experimental work in India hasshown low or zero response to particular fertilisers when one or more othernutrients have been deficient.

Although the study focused specifically on countries in South Asia similarproblems associated with the Green Revolution emphasis on the use of chemicalfertilisers for increasing crop production can be expected to occur in most if not allthe Asia Pacific countries.

A particular problem associated with the increased use of nitrogenous fertilisersis that, irrespective of how efficiently it is applied, nitrogen recovery efficienciesgreater than 50% are rarely achieved (FAO 1994b). Much of the unrecoverednitrogen ends up in groundwater in the form of nitrate,13 or in the wetlands asammonia in the atmosphere. When it is washed off the soil surface (or throughextremely sandy soils) into waterways it may cause eutrophication problems,proliferation of algal growth and exhaustion of dissolved oxygen with consequencesfor fish and other aquatic species.

Vegetation degradation

Vegetation degradation is usually regarded as a reduction in the availablebiomass, and decline in the vegetative ground cover, as a result of deforestation andovergrazing. Such degradation is a major contributory factor to soil degradationparticularly with regard to soil erosion and loss of soil organic matter. The term alsoapplies in situations where the reduction is not in the quantity of biomass but inquality - for instance bush encroachment into rangelands, and the loss of palatablepasture grasses and their replacement with nonpalatable species. In such a situationthe value of the land will have declined from an agricultural point of view with adecline in its livestock carrying capacity. However the degraded vegetation may stillbe contributing to the soil in terms of ground cover and organic matter. In practice soildegradation usually accompanies rangeland degradation but it may not be such aclearcut relationship as that associated with deforestation.

A particular form of vegetation degradation affecting significant areas withinsome Asia Pacific countries, notably Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, the Philippinesand Vietnam, is the replacement of tropical forest with Imperata cylindrica grasslands(Scherr and Yadav 1996). This typically follows forest clearing for agriculture. Poorsoil management practices then lead to the onset of soil degradation with theImperata invasion of the farmland. It is an extremely difficult weed to control by handlabour alone and has an adverse effect on crop yields often resulting in theabandonment of the field.

13 Problems could arise if the groundwater is tapped by wells and boreholes for drinking water. The WHOupper limit for acceptable drinking water is 10 ppm of nitrate nitrogen, a level which it is believed is rarelyfound in the Asia Pacific region except where excessively high amounts of nitrogen fertilisers are beingused. Such a situation is only likely to apply with high input large-scale intensive commercial farming.

32

Deforestation in small islands of Asia and the Pacific

Natural ecosystems are exceptionally important for island societies, eventhough their total area may be minuscule. Small island forests, for example, can beabsolutely critical for life support systems, especially for water supplies, subsistencewood, food and medicine, and soil stabilisation. The watersheds of small islands arefar smaller than those of the Asian continent and smaller than those on the largerislands in the Asian Archipelago nations. On these smaller islands (in both Asia andthe Pacific) even slight forest degradation can destroy watershed functions (Bassand Dalal-Clayton 1995).

Deforestation as a result of timber extraction and the establishment of plantationcrops has led to significant anthropogenic environmental transformation within thesmall islands of many Asian and Pacific nations. The typical process has included(Bass & Dalal-Clayton 1995):

• Logging of valuable hardwoods.• Replacement of natural forests by erosive and pest/disease-prone

plantation agriculture.• Soil exhaustion and plantation epidemics.• Market or price collapse for plantation products.• Plantation collapse and the subsequent marginalisation of poor people to

upland forests.• Upland deforestation.• Consequent upland erosion, and hence further appropriation of the island's

natural ecosystems - and subsequent further degradation.• Economic disinvestment of the degraded island interior in favour of coastal

development or, where environmental degradation leads to collapse of life-support systems, emigration.

• Extreme lack of investment in managing the ever-diminishing forests. And• Dependence on remittances from migrant labour, aid and foreign

investment.

• In the Pacific the process has often been exacerbated by the following:• Natural disasters such as typhoons which periodically destroy the

vulnerable plantation monocultures and remaining forest;• Neglect of `unprofitable' islands on the part of the central government and

donors; and• Inability of small island populations to muster the skills and the political and

economic power to counteract the trend.As a result, biological productivity, diversity and resilience have diminished, and

much land in many islands now lies derelict (Bass and Dalal-Clayton 1995).

Agrodeforestation

An environmental report on the Pacific (ADB/SPREP 1992) describedagrodeforestation as a major threat to sustainable development. The termdeforestation is well known in the context of the destruction or removal of forests.The term agrodeforestation covers the loss of trees from within existing agriculturallandscapes, an issue that has received far less attention (Clarke and Thaman 1997).Trees are an important component of many Asian and Pacific farming systems. With

33

a combination of both cultivated and wild species there is considerable bio-diversityto be found amongst the tree species within individual traditional farming systems.The different tree species may be:

• Widely cultivated or deliberately planted within farm fields, on boundaries oraround the homestead;

• Protected or preserved when clearing garden areas; and/or• Protected upon spontaneous generation within the farm.In the Pacific on the larger Melanesian islands over 100 tree species are

commonly integral parts of rural and urban agricultural systems, whereas atollsystems have up to 30-40 different species. Such trees serve at least 12 distinctecological functions, have over 70 cultural and economic uses (see box 5), andprovide up to 70% of the real income and production of rural Pacific people.Replacing the products from these trees with imported substitutes would either beimpossible or too expensive. Elimination of these trees thus constitutes a majorecological, cultural and economic disaster which would undermine self-reliance andsustainability in the Pacific islands.

Agrodeforestation is a problem in Asia and the Pacific as agriculture becomesmore intensive and specialised. When cultivation is undertaken by hand, retaining orplanting trees within fields is not a problem, but once tractors are used, then treeshinder tillage operations and are usually removed. Within a traditional mixedbiodiverse farming system the number of trees per unit area may be high, whereasthe numbers of an individual species may be low, given that a farm family may beable to meet its subsistence needs for a particular product from just one or twoplants.

As farm families become more commercially oriented there is a tendency tospecialise in the production of a more limited number of cash crops (annuals and/orperennials). This results in the removal of many existing trees as they are perceivedas occupying land that could be used for more “valuable” purposes. If trees areplanted then they tend to be in monocultural plantations (coffee, cocoa, rubber,coconut etc) with a resulting loss in bio-diversity and the ecological benefits of thetraditional mixed home garden/farm forest.

Examples of agrodeforestation can be drawn from Fiji, where trees of culturaland ecological value that were traditionally almost always protected when clearingfallow land for new gardens are now disappearing from the agricultural landscape. Asreported in Clarke and Thaman 1997:

Instead of being protected or pruned and pollarded, they are nowbulldozed, uprooted, ringbarked, or burn-girdled at the base tomaximise monoculture , often plow-culture, of sugarcane, taro, sweetpotato, cassava, kava, ginger, or cocoa for export or local sale.

Water degradation

Land degradation, particularly soil and vegetation degradation, has resulted in adeterioration in the quantity and quality of both surface and groundwater resourcesover much of the Asia Pacific region. With less vegetative cover to protect againstthe impact of raindrops causing surface sealing, a decline in pore spaces resultingfrom loss of organic matter and loss of structural stability following cultivation, lessrain infiltrates the soil. Runoff increases, stream flows fluctuate more than before (inparticular stream flow storm hydrographs are likely to have sharper and greater

34

peaks), flooding becomes more frequent and extensive. Groundwater rechargedecreases, streams and springs may cease and the water table is likely to drop sothat wells and boreholes may dry up.

Box 5List of ecological and cultural functions and uses of trees

in the Pacific IslandsEcological functions

ShadeErosion controlWind protection

Soil improvementFrost protectionWild animal food

Animal/Plant habitatsFlood/Runoff controlWeed/Disease control

Cultural and economic functions

Timber (commercial)Timber (subsistence)FuelwoodBoat building (canoes)SailsToolsWeapons huntingContainersWoodcarvingHandicraftsFishing equipmentFloatsToysSwitch for children/disciplineBrush/paint brushMusical instrumentsCages/roostsTanninRubberOilsToothbrushToilet paperFire-making

BroomParcels/wrappingAbrasiveIllumination/torchesInsulationDecorationBody ornamentationCordage/lashingGlues/adhesivesCaulkingFiber/fabricDyesPlaited wareHatsMatsBasketsCommercial/export productsRitual exchangePoisonsInsect repellantsDeodorantsEmbalming corpsesLovemaking sites

Prop or nurse plantsStaple foodsSupplementary foodsWild/snack/emergency foodsSpices/saucesTeas/coffeeNon-alcoholic beveragesAlcoholic beveragesStimulantsNarcoticsMasticants/chewing gumMeat tenderiserPreservativesMedicinesAphrodisiacsFertility controlAbortifacientsScents/perfumesRecreationMagico-religioousTotemsSubjects of mythologySecret meeting sites

Source ADB/SPREP 1992

Increased runoff encourages upland erosion while an increase in severity offlash flooding encourages stream bank erosion. As a result sediment loads in riversare increasing. The storage capacity of dams and weirs is reduced by siltation,lowland irrigation schemes are affected by silted up canals and sediment depositedin the fields, hydro-electric schemes are damaged, navigable waterways are blockedand water quality is deteriorating. High silt loads reduce the fish catch not only ininland waters but also where silt-laden rivers discharge into coastal waters.

In Thailand measurement of the suspended sediment and bedload transportedby the Ping, Wang, Yom and Nan rivers suggests that each year some 27.5 milliontons of soil are removed from a total catchment area of about 70,000 km2. TheHarbour Authority of Thailand reportedly dredges over 19 million m3 of sedimentevery year out of the last 18 km of the Chao Phya River at a total cost of 424 millionbaht in order to keep the channel open and to control floods.

The implications of water degradation for sustainable agriculture are serious.With less water entering the soil and stored for use during dry periods, crop yields

35

are falling. In the drier agroclimatic zones of the Asia Pacific region this may meanthe difference between success or failure in producing a worthwhile crop. In Asia asignificant amount of the staple food crop production (rice and wheat) depends onirrigation, with water being supplied from dams, run of the river offtakes andboreholes. In these areas widespread catchment degradation has affected bothsurface and groundwater resources. With less water available for irrigation, less landcan be irrigated and less water used in individual fields with the consequence thatcrop yields and total production is declining. Many farm households are unable tomeet their subsistence consumption needs from the production of their lowlandirrigated plots. Frequently they grow a mixture of dryland crops, and/or gather forestproducts for sale in adjacent upland areas, to supplement their lowland farmproduction. The result is further degradation of the upper catchment areascontributing to yet further decline in the quantity and quality of the water resource.

A recent environmental study (van Gils and Baig 1992) has identifiedgroundwater depletion as the most ominous component of the land degradationprocess in Baluchistan Province, Pakistan. This is because the vast majority of boththe rural and urban population of the province depend on groundwater, for which noeconomic alternative is available. Current levels of groundwater pumping areunsustainable with the level of the watertable dropping in some places by as muchas 3 metres per year. New tubewells are continuing to be sunk leading to increasedexploitation of a declining resource. If this present situation continues the studyconcludes that in the next 10-20 years loss of the groundwater will lead to a declineof the province's largest economic sector, irrigated agriculture, as well as thecollapse of the Quetta City water supply.

In some areas the rising use of fertilisers and pesticides has led to adeterioration in water quality due to increasing contamination from a range ofagrochemicals. This, combined with bacterial and chemical contamination fromindustrial, urban and rural (humans and livestock) sources has affected drinkingwater supplies. Ill health arising from water borne diseases will seriously affect theagricultural productivity of farm households.

Climate deterioration

Although the short-term effects of land degradation are serious, evidencesuggests that loss of vegetative cover and soil degradation may also be disruptinglong-term rainfall patterns and increasing the likelihood of drought (Cook 1992). Forinstance, the climate in the agricultural upland areas of the Northern region ofThailand appears to have become much drier following the clearing of the mixeddeciduous dipterocarp forest for cultivation. Given the climatic fluctuations that occurnaturally this has been difficult to prove from meteorological records.

Computer models suggest three ways in which deforestation and soildegradation may reduce rainfall (after Timberlake 1985, Harrison 1987, Milner &Douglas 1989):

• Firstly, overcultivation, overgrazing and deforestation can all strip soil ofvegetation. Bare soil and rock reflect more solar radiation back into theatmosphere than do grass, shrubs and trees. Increased reflectivity (albedo)keeps the atmosphere warmer, disperses cloud and reduces rain.

• Secondly, a general lowering of soil moisture could itself suppress rainfall.Much of the rain in tropical moist forests comes from water evaporated off

36

the vegetation, and not from outside. Wholesale clearing of rain forestbreaks this hydrological cycle and may well produce a drier local climate.

• Thirdly, deforestation and loss of topsoil structure allows the wind to throwmore dust into the air. This dust reduces the amount of sunshine reachingthe earth surface, which would have the same rain-reducing effect asbouncing more solar radiation back off the earth's surface.

Although none of the models conclusively proves the link, it is necessary toconsider the possibility that (under the stresses imposed by growing population) landdegradation and climatic deterioration reinforce each other (Cook 1992).

It is theoretically possible that SARM programmes, which tackle the problems ofdeforestation and soil degradation, could have a positive impact on the local climate.Irrespective of possible macro climatic changes, considerable scope exists forameliorating microclimatic conditions to improve soil conditions for the benefit of cropproduction. For instance the use of windbreaks, shade trees, and mulch will reducesoil surface temperatures and conserve moisture.

It has been suggested (FAO 1991b) that there is a link between soil degradationand the threat of global warming from increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2.Terrestrial ecosystems play an important role in the global carbon budget. In additionto the effects of deforestation, world soils also have a significant impact on the globalcarbon budget. Rapid depletion of soil organic matter through the use of non-sustainable land use practises, may lead to emission of greenhouse gases into theatmosphere. One estimate suggests that reduction of about 1% in organic carboncontent of the top 15 cm layer of soils of the tropics could lead to an annual emissionof about 128 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere (Lal 1990). Others questionthe evidence for global warming, and its possible effects on food production,believing that much of it is speculative and based on massive extrapolation anddoubtful assumptions (see Hudson 1992).

Should global warming prove a reality, then the expected result would be a risein sea level and increased storm (typhoon) frequency. Some reports indicate that thisis already happening in the Pacific (Commonwealth Secretariat 1996c). A 30 cm searise is possible by the year 2030 as is a rise of 1.5oC in the temperature of the seasurface. This could result in an increase in the frequency of typhoons and their windstrength, and an increase in wave energy and destructive power, with the followingphysical effects (Bass and Dalal-Clayton 1995):

• inundation of coastal low terrain;• increased beach and cliff erosion;• migration and/or reduction of wetlands;• saltwater penetration; and• altered tidal currents.The lowlying island nations in the Asia Pacific region, notably Maldives, Kiribati,

Marshall Islands, Tokelau and Tuvalu could be almost totally inundated. The coastallands of many other Asia and Pacific countries are highly productive (for crop andaquaculture production) as well as the location of important infrastructure (ports,airports, roads, urban and industrial areas) and are highly vulnerable to rising sealevels and storm surges. A consequence of the threat of global warming may be theincrease in the comparative advantage of areas which are less sensitive to climatechange, and particularly to sea level rise. This will affect land prices and alter landuse patterns, reversing the current trend towards investment and settlement in thecoastal zones. Population groups can also be expected to shift to `safer' upland

37

areas increasing pressure on areas where the risk of land degradation is higher(Bass and Dalal Clayton 1995).

Losses to urban/industrial development

Economic development within the Asia Pacific region has led to expansion ofurban and industrial land. This has been particularly rapid over the last few years inmany of the newly emergent countries of Asia. Much of the present urban andindustrial development has taken place on what was formerly good agricultural land.The expansion of such cities as Bangkok, Jakarta and Metro Manila has resulted inthe loss of considerable areas of good quality paddy rice land. Given the presentshortage of such land, in Thailand, Java and the Philippines respectively, theselosses increase the pressure on the remaining areas. Being so mountainous, withonly 10% being arable land, and a population in excess of 30 million Fujian provincehas possibly the most acute land shortage problem in China. The uncontrolled urbanand industrial development in the coastal zone (following the new policy of economicliberalisation) has seen the loss of much prime agricultural land to new roads andbuildings.14

The expansion of urban settlements is a particularly acute problem in the smallPacific countries with little arable land. Population pressure is most acute in thecapitals of the atoll nations (e.g. Tarawa in Kiribati) but is of concern even in thosecountries with larger land areas (e.g. Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea).Throughout the Pacific, people are gravitating from the mountains to the coastalcities, from the outer islands to the provincial or national seats of government, andfrom scattered rural hamlets to larger villages and towns. Under customaryownership laws, land is not readily available for housing estates. Hence squattertowns develop with health problems from overcrowding, unsanitary conditions andwater pollution; valuable agricultural resources are lost; and forests, lagoons andreefs are degraded. (ADB/SPREP 1992)

Farm households affected by urban expansion may be forced to use theirremaining plots more intensively or to seek land elsewhere, which in a land scarcitysituation usually means moving into marginal upland areas. Hence urban andindustrial expansion may be a contributory factor to soil degradation elsewhere.

Causes of land degradation

The causes of land degradation can be divided into natural hazards, directcauses and underlying causes (FAO 1994a). Natural hazards relate to those factorsof the bio-physical environment that increase the risk of land degradation takingplace e.g. steep slopes are a hazard for water erosion. Direct causes are unsuitableland use and inappropriate land management practices. Underlying causes are thereasons why inappropriate types of land use and management are practised andusually relate to the socio-economic circumstances of the land users and/or thesocial, cultural, economic and policy environment in which they operate.

14 In 1993 when travelling on the main road from Fuzhou to Xiamen one passed through long stretches ofagricultural land. In late 1996 urban and industrial development had expanded to such an extent that atleast 70% of the route was now flanked by factories, shops, houses and offices.

38

Natural hazards

The major natural hazards in the Asia Pacific region, bio-physical conditionswhich act as predisposing factors for land degradation are (after FAO 1994):

For water erosion:§ monsoonal rains of high intensity;§ steep slopes of the mountain and hill lands;§ soils with low resistance to water erosion (e.g. silty soils, vertisols and

topsoils low in organic matter).For wind erosion:§ semi-arid to arid climates;§ high rainfall variability, with liability to drought spells;§ soils with low resistance to wind erosion (e.g. sandy soils);§ an open and often sparse cover of natural vegetation.

For soil fertility decline:§ strong leaching in humid climates;§ soils which are strongly acid, and/or with low natural fertility;§ rapid decay and mineralisation of soil organic matter in tropical climates.

For waterlogging:§ alluvial plains or interior basins which restrict outward drainage of

groundwater.

For lowering of the water table:§ semi-arid to arid climates with low rates of groundwater recharge.

For salinisation:§ semi-arid to arid climates with low leaching intensity;§ plains and interior basins which restrict outward drainage of groundwater;§ soils which are naturally slightly saline;§ lowlying atolls with thin lenses of freshwater.

In some cases these natural hazards are of sufficient intensity to give rise tounproductive land without human interference. Examples are the naturally salinesoils which occur in some interior basins of dry regions, or areas of natural gullying(badlands). With respect to land degradation, the key feature is that land shortagewithin the Asia Pacific region has led to the widespread use for agricultural purposesof areas with natural hazards. These are the passive, or predisposing, conditions forland degradation (FAO 1994a).

Erosion is a natural process. The conventional wisdom has been that soilerosion, following the growing of crops and/or grazing of livestock in upland andhighland areas, is the primary cause of high river sediment levels. However, aconsiderable proportion of the eroded sediment found in river systems can beattributed to natural causes such as mass wasting (e.g. landslides) and various on-going geomorphological processes associated with the shaping of uplandlandscapes (e.g. Carson 1985). Hence when looking for the cause of landdegradation a key question that has to be asked is, what proportion of the presenterosion and river sediment levels is attributable to on-going natural processes, and

39

what proportion is largely the result of `accelerated erosion' because of inappropriateland use?

High annual rainfall totals are a feature of many highland areas, much of whichmay fall within a limited portion of the year (the rainy season) and often as isolatedheavy storm events. Even with excellent forest cover the soil can become totallysaturated during periods of heavy and prolonged rainfall. With high levels of naturalrunoff, often concentrated into a single channel, flooding associated with high volumestream flows (with the ability to transport large quantities of sediment) can beexpected to occur on a periodic basis within many parts of the Asia Pacific region. Itis worth remembering that the floodplains of the Indo-Gangetic river systems weredeveloped by inundation from forest-covered mountains long before watersheddamage by man had become a significant factor.

SARM in geologically recent hill and mountain landscapes has to recognise thatvarious natural denudation processes are at work even in areas where there hasbeen no human disturbance. Such processes have to be considered as naturalhazards, and therefore fixed design constraints when seeking to develop improvedland use management practices. As one recent UNESCO publication states "It isoften conveniently forgotten that floods are a natural hazard in areas with heavyrainfall" (Bruijnzeel & Critchley 1994).

Direct causes

There is a distinction, although they overlap, between unsuitable land use andinappropriate land management practices (FAO 1994a).

Unsuitable land use is the use of land for purposes for which it is bio-physicallyunsuited on a sustainable basis. An example would be the growing of annual cropson steep hillsides with shallow soils.

Inappropriate land management practices refer to the use of land in ways whichcould be sustainable if properly managed, but where the necessary practices are notadopted. For instance the failure to adopt soil conservation measures on sloping landor to replenish soil nutrients removed in harvested products. It can also refer to landuse which is ecologically sustainable when the intensity of use is low due to anabundance of land but becomes inappropriate when land scarcity leads to higherintensity of use. Examples are shifting cultivation and the grazing of semi-aridrangelands.

Various types of human activity can be identified as direct causes of landdegradation. These can be considered under the following headings (after vanLynden 1995, FAO 1994):

Poor agricultural activities: defined as the improper management of cultivatedarable land. It includes a wide variety of practices, such as insufficient or excessiveuse of fertilisers, shortening of the fallow period in shifting cultivation, use of poorquality irrigation water, absence or bad maintenance of erosion control measures,untimely or too frequent use of heavy machinery, improper crop rotations etc. Thiscategory would also include the extension of cultivation onto lands of lower potentialand/or high natural hazards. Degradation types commonly linked to this causativefactor are erosion (water or wind), compaction, loss of nutrients, salinisation, pollution(by pesticides, fertilisers).

Deforestation and removal of natural vegetation: defined as the near completeremoval of natural vegetation (usually primary or secondary forest) from largestretches of land, for example by converting forest into agricultural land, large scale

40

commercial forestry, road construction, urban development, etc. Deforestation oftenleads to erosion and loss of nutrients.

Overexploitation of vegetation for domestic use: contrary to "deforestation andremoval of natural vegetation", this causative factor does not necessarily involve the(near) complete removal of the "natural" vegetation, but rather a degeneration of theremaining vegetation, thus offering insufficient protection against erosion. It includesactivities such as excessive gathering of fuelwood, fodder, (local) timber, etc.

Overgrazing: besides actual overgrazing of the vegetation by livestock, otherphenomena of excessive livestock amounts can be considered under this heading,such as trampling. The effect of overgrazing usually is soil compaction and/or adecrease of plant cover, both of which may in turn give rise to water or wind erosion.

Overexploitation of surface and groundwater resources: In areas of non-salinegroundwater, the technology of tubewells has led to abstraction of water in excess ofnatural recharge by rainfall and river seepage and a progressive lowering of thewater table. In some parts of the region the over-extraction of water (for irrigation,urban and industrial use) from rivers and other surface water sources has led toreduced downstream availability. Where water is returned after use it may have ahigher salt content and/or be polluted from agro/industrial-chemicals and humanwastes.

Industrial activities: includes all human activities of a (bio)industrial nature:industries, power generation, infrastructure and urbanization, waste handling, traffic,etc. It is most often linked to pollution of different kinds (either point source ordiffuse).

Underlying causes

The nature, extent and risk of land degradation, and the potential sustainableyield of individual crop, tree and livestock enterprises, will ultimately be determinedby the prevailing biophysical conditions within a specific area. Decisions as to whattheir landholdings are actually used for, and the management practices to befollowed, will be influenced primarily by the socio-economic circumstances in whichindividual rural households operate. While current land use enterprises andmanagement practices may accelerate land degradation, technical remedies will onlysucceed if they can function within, and address, local socio-economic constraints.

In the past too much emphasis has been given to assessing what is happeningrather than why it is happening. Priority has wrongly been given to tackling the visualsymptoms of land degradation (e.g. soil erosion control, gully plugging, reforestationetc), whereas the first step should have been to analyze why undesirable land usesand poor management practices were being followed (Sanders 1992a). Attentionshould be directed to identifying the ultimate cause, which in the case of accelerated(as opposed to natural) erosion, more often than not, will have a socio-economicorigin.

Failure to consider the socio-economic dimension may result in the underlyingcauses of land degradation being overlooked and much time, effort and money spentin dealing with the symptoms of a problem rather than with the problem itself(Douglas 1994). SARM therefore requires that the issue be looked at, not just from abiophysical perspective, but in terms of the economic, social and politicalenvironment of those directly affected. These issues will be addressed in subsequentchapters.

41

Recognising the source of erosion/downstream sediments

Downstream sedimentation problems are attributed to erosion in the fields ofsmall-scale farmers who grow annual crops within the upper reaches of a watershed.This is often backed up with experimental data from small research-managed runoffplots showing high rates of soil loss under so-called farmers’ traditional practices.The true source of eroded material may lie elsewhere. What is needed is for moreextensive field assessments to determine what the reality is on the ground.

The initial results from the IBSRAM PACIFICLAND trial sites15 indicate thatrates of soil loss and runoff are much less than suggested by previous assessments(Howlett 1995). For instance one of the highest annual rates of soil loss from one ofthe Fiji plots was only 2.6 tonnes per hectare, whereas an earlier study hadsuggested a rate of 60-66 tonnes/ha/yr. In Western Samoa infiltration rates werefound to be high, often over 90% even on 25o slopes with over 4,000mm annualrainfall. The trial plot under the farmers’ traditional practice produced virtually no soilloss or runoff. Such results beg the question as to the source of the observeddownstream sedimentation problems in the country. If it is not from the fields of thesmall-scale farmers then it has to becoming from elsewhere, e.g. roadside cuttings,stream bank erosion or forestland.

Qualitative techniques exist for the visual field assessment of erosion (seeDouglas 1995 and Herweg 1996 for examples) and these should be used todetermine whether erosion is taking place, and if so is it associated with:

• areas used for annual crop production (maize, upland rice, cassava, yams,taro, vegetables etc);

• areas used for perennial crop production (rubber, oil palm, coconuts,banana, coffee, sugarcane, fruit tree orchards etc);

• pastures and natural grazing areas;• fallow areas;• forest areas (plantations, woodlots, natural woodlands and logged over

forests);• settlement/factory areas;• mining and quarrying areas;• roads, access tracks and farm footpaths;• unconsolidated and active land slide areas; and/or• stream bank and river bed erosion.

In many cases the worst downstream sedimentation problems may beattributable to one or more of the following:

• Poor logging practices in conjunction with badly constructed forestextraction roads;

• Poorly built and aligned rural roads and farm access tracks;• Uncontrolled expansion of settlements and industrial areas;• Land clearing and development activities associated with the establishment

of commercial mono-cropping (e.g. ginger in Fiji, cassava in Thailandpersonal observation) and orchards and woodlots on hillslopes (e.g. inFujian Province PRC China personal observation). Thus the regions small-

15 The IBSRAM PACIFICLAND Network currently has trials in Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, WesternSamoa and Fiji.

42

scale hillside farmers, who typically get the blame, may not be the realculprits.

Reversible degradation and land reclamation

The effects of water and wind erosion are largely irreversible. Plant nutrientsand soil organic matter may be replaced, but given the slow rate of natural soilformation, replacing the actual loss of soil material would require taking the soil out ofuse for many thousands of years, an impractical course of action.

In other cases, land degradation is reversible: soils with reduced organic mattercan be restored by adding plant residues, and degraded pastures may recover underimproved range management. Salinised soils can be restored to productive use,although at a high cost, through salinity control and reclamation projects.

Land reclamation frequently requires inputs which are costly or labour-demanding or both. The reclamation projects in salinised and waterlogged irrigatedareas demonstrate this fact clearly. In other cases, the land can only be restored bytaking it out of productive use for some years, as in reclamation forestry. The cost ofreclamation, or restoration to productive use, of degraded soils is invariably morethan the cost of preventing degradation before it occurs. (FAO 1994a)

43

Chapter 4Key bio-physical constraints and opportunities

Biophysical factors of production

he factors of the bio-physical environment facing an individual farmhousehold, such as climate, soil type, topography, pests and diseases, willimpose biological and physical limitations on plant growth and thereforedirectly influence the component enterprises within an individual farming

system. Agriculture is ultimately based on the exploitation of plants, whether they becrops, trees or grasses. The growth of a particular plant species will depend on thecombination of bio-physical conditions at a specific locality. Different crops havedifferent environmental requirements for optimum growth, likewise fuelwood andmulti-purpose tree species, pasture grasses and legumes will respond in differentways to variations in the bio-physical conditions, notably differences in climate, soilproperties and hydrology. Equally environmental influences affect livestockenterprises either acting directly on the animals eg. temperature and humidity, orindirectly through their effects on the growth of pastures and browse species(Douglas 1992, Young 1984).

The limitations imposed by the combination of bio-physical conditions in aspecific locality, in conjunction with the level of management applied, determine thelevel of production that can be achieved for a specific agricultural enterprise.Comparison of the natural environmental conditions in an area with those requiredfor optimum production of farmers' existing crop, tree and livestock enterprises willdetermine their ecological suitability and whether the constraints to sustaining andincreasing production are in part due to natural causes.

Recognition of variations in land potential

The terms high potential and low potential tend to be used generally to imply therelative value of land for arable purposes. However land potential is only reallymeaningful in relation to a specific use, e.g. land with potential for maize productiondoes not necessarily have potential for paddy rice, land with high potential forpastoralism may have a low potential for rainfed crop production (Douglas 1994).

An area with high potential is one where the land qualities match the biophysicalrequirements of the agricultural enterprise for optimum production so that few, if any,of the constraints to increasing production will be due to natural causes. An area withlow potential is one where one or more of the factors of the natural environmentimpose sufficiently severe constraints (e.g. low rainfall, adverse soil properties, steepslopes etc) as to limit, or prevent, production on a sustainable basis.

Within the Asia Pacific Region the term marginal land denotes areas with lowpotential for the sustainable production of staple food crops, e.g. upland areas withsteep slopes and shallow soils, lowland areas with waterlogged soils, or semi-aridand arid areas with soil moisture constraints. In much of the region, populationpressure coupled with inequitable access to high-potential land is forcing more ruralhouseholds into such marginal areas. The use of inappropriate managementpractices in land with low potential for crop production is leading to considerable landdegradation.

T

44

Whereas yields can be increased in marginal areas by moisture conservationand use of drought tolerant cultivars, sustainable yields will always be lower than forhigh potential areas. As a result the potential population supporting capacity (FAO1982) of marginal areas will be lower than that of high potential areas. Improvingagricultural productivity within high potential areas will enable far higher populationlevels to be supported per unit area than improving productivity within low potentialareas. Likewise preventing degradation within high potential areas will give higherreturns to resources invested in conservation in terms of “saved yield” (Stocking1984). Investment in land reform and agricultural development programmes in highpotential areas, enabling them to support larger numbers of farm households, couldbe one way to reduce pressure on adjacent marginal areas.

The above paragraph should not be seen as a justification for directinginvestment solely to high potential areas. The reality in the Asia Pacific Region is thata significant proportion of the rural population of the region live in many of the lowpotential, or marginal, areas (some 263 million people, according to Hazell andGarrett [1996]). From a social equity point of view there is a need to invest in suchareas so as to ensure that their inhabitants have the means to meet their subsistenceneeds, either by improved on-farm food production or from on-farm and off/non farmactivities. There is also a growing belief that the possibilities for sustainableagricultural intensification in some marginal areas are much greater than originallythought. The key is to improve the productivity of the natural resources and peoplethere with the right investments, technologies, policies and institutions (Ibid.).

Concentrating agricultural development in the high potential areas may ensurenational food security. However, it does not solve the problem of how individualhouseholds in low potential areas gain access to the food they need. Distribution offood through famine relief or food for work programmes is not a viable long-termsolution (Douglas 1994). The United Nations calculates that relief operations costabout US$70 per person in external resources. Investment in less favoured areascould save part of that money by reducing the need for such programmes (Hazell &Garrett 1996).

Soil as a resource

Soil is basic to life. It is the primary means of food production, directly supportingthe livelihood of most rural people, and indirectly everyone, in the Asia Pacific region.It is an essential component of terrestrial ecosystems, sustaining their primaryproducers (all living vegetation) and decomposers (microorganisms, herbivores,carnivores) while providing major sinks for heat energy, nutrients, water and gases(Wild 1993).

The soil resources of landscapes vary widely in their suitability for use. Each soiltype has its limitations, and each agro-ecological zone its climatic factors restrictingcrop growing seasons (FAO 1978). For example in the humid tropics, plant stressesare mostly the result of nutrient deficiencies exacerbated by leaching and surfaceremoval making the soil acidic and nutrient-poor. In contrast, plant-available watercapacity is the major handicap in some areas of Asia and the Pacific dependent onmonsoon rainfall which occurs only part of the year. Indeed soil degradation maymanifest itself in many forms. What often masquerades as drought is nothing morethan the reduced ability of soils to retain sufficient water for plant growth betweennormal gaps in rainstorms (Stocking 1995).

45

Crop, tree and pasture species have certain specific site preferences for optimalproduction. Some are very particular and site-specific, others are less demandingand more versatile or adaptable in this regard. For each particular site, the integratedeffect of climatic and soil conditions determines the production from a given plant,cultivated or in the case of natural woodland and pastures exploited under aspecified management system. The effect of climate, through temperature andmoisture supply, is overriding in determining biomass and plant production. Theeffects of soils and land management are modifiers. In general, the modifying effectsof soils and land management become greater, the more the climatic conditions of agiven area deviate from the optimum for the growth of the crops, tree or pasturespecies. As climatic conditions become more adverse, soil and managementconditions become more important in determining production.

The basic soil requirements of crops can be characterised in relation to theirinternal and external properties, are show below (FAO 1978):

Internal requirements

Ø soil temperature regimeØ soil moisture regimeØ soil aeration regimeØ natural soil fertility regimeØ effective soil depthØ soil texture and stoninessØ absence of soil salinity and/or other toxic substancesØ other specific properties, e.g. soil tilth

External requirementsØ slope and other landform characteristicsØ occurrence of flooding (incidence, regularity and depth)Ø soil accessibility and trafficability under certain management systems.

Regional climatic constraints

There is considerable variation in the macro-climatic conditions in different partsof the Asia Pacific Region, ranging across the spectrum from arid to humid. Annualrainfall varies from over 10,000 mm in parts of the Central Highlands of Papua NewGuinea to virtually zero in the Gobi and Australian deserts. Likewise across theregion there is considerable variation in recorded temperatures. During the wintermonths in Mongolia the temperature commonly falls to below zero whereas in thesummer months in the arid regions of Pakistan and Australia daytime temperaturescan rise to over 50oC.

Within the region can be found considerable variability in the length of growingseason. Rainfed agriculture is restricted in many countries to that period of the yearcoinciding with the monsoon season(s). However in some of the more humid parts ofthe region rainfall occurs throughout the year giving an effective 12 months growingseason. In addition in the northern and high altitude parts of the region the length ofgrowing season will be curtailed by the occurrence of low temperatures (below 5oC).

Tropical cyclones and typhoons are a feature of much of the region and result inheavy downpours with the risk of high runoff and flooding. The worst effects of thestrong winds, tidal surges and heavy rainfall are mostly felt in coastal and island

46

areas; the influence of some cyclones may extend into the interior of the Asiancontinent. For instance in early November 1995 the weather system associated withan unseasonal cyclone in the Bay of Bengal resulted in heavy snowfall in themountains of Nepal, subsequent avalanches resulted in the deaths of severalfarmers and trekking tourists.

Islands in the Pacific and the Philippine archipelago are especially vulnerable totyphoons and cyclones. The smallest islands cannot deflect typhoons and cyclones,and are not large enough to moderate general climatic circulation patterns, makingthem vulnerable to drought and other climatic events, which can destroy completeecosystems. Certain island ecosystems are resilient to such events e.g. the “typhoonforests” and indigenous farming systems of the Batanes Islands in the north of thePhilippines (ASOCON 1990).

Where island ecosystems are used for human purposes, such long-termecological resilience is commonly inadequate, and the natural disaster of a severetyphoon/cyclone event can be highly damaging to the local agricultural sector in theshort term. The productive agricultural resource base is eroded, and naturalregeneration (of soil and vegetation) is not fast enough to restore essentialecosystem processes (Bass and Dalal-Clayton 1995). The unusually destructiveCyclone Ofa that struck Western Samoa in February 1990 is reported to have soaffected local food supplies that it took eight months before 80% of its agriculturalcapacity had recovered (Clarke 1994).

Several features of the climatic variability within the Asia Pacific region lead tohigh natural hazards of degradation. Much of the region's rainfall is associated withstorm events and hence can be expected to fall at erosive intensities. In those partsof the region with distinct wet and dry seasons, a severe dry season will lead to thedeath of annual vegetation and much bare soil exposed to the first rainstorms. In thearid and semi-arid parts of the region, rainfall is not only low but highly variable,leading to recurrent drought with consequences for wind erosion and loss ofvegetative cover.

Many countries of the region have mountain ranges which typically exhibit awide variety of micro-climates as both temperature and rainfall can vary significantlydepending on altitude and aspect. There is a marked decrease in mean temperaturewith increasing altitude. The highest mountain ranges in the region (the HinduKush/Himalayas) may progress from tropical climatic conditions in their footslopes toarctic conditions at their peaks. Above certain altitudes the occurrence of regularfrosts will limit crop production. The problems of cold may be exacerbated by strongwinds. Rainfall usually increases with altitude particularly on the side of a mountainrange facing the prevailing rain bearing winds. On the leeward side rainfall may dropoff markedly. Within a mountain ecosystem there may be localised and severe rainshadow effects. Within and across mountain ranges the climate may vary from veryhumid to desert conditions.

While climatic variability in the region is a constraint to SARM it is also regardedas an opportunity. The range of macro and micro climatic conditions means that agreat variety of annual crops, as well as perennial tree crops, can be grown withinindividual countries and across the region as a whole. This contributes to thediversity of agricultural production within the Asia Pacific region.

47

Regional soil constraints

Variability in the nature and properties of the soils contributes to the diversity ofagricultural production within the region. However many of these soils haveproperties which limit or preclude their use for sustainable agricultural production.The process of grouping land areas according to their soil constraints for SARM isparticularly complex because in many cases individual tracts of land will exhibit acombination of soil and agro-climatic constraints (Dent 1990). It should also be notedthat what may be a severe constraint for one agricultural enterprise may be lesssevere or a requirement for another. For instance waterlogging within the rootingzone will severely reduce the yield of many annual and perennial crops, but isessential for high yields of paddy rice.

Any attempt to assess the areal extent of soil constraints within the region hasto be general in nature given the biophysical diversity and the variability in theavailability and reliability of the necessary data. One such assessment has beenmade using data from the FAO/UNESCO Soil Map of the World (mapping scale of1:5 million) to identify the major natural constraints to agricultural production (Dent1990). Twelve soil constraint categories were recognised (see box 6) and figures fortheir proportional extent by country and for the region as a whole (see table 3) werearrived at, utilising a process of elimination based mainly on a somewhat arbitrarychoice of the most limiting constraints.

Because of the limited data on which they are based the figures in table 3should be regarded as first approximations rather than definitive assessments of thesituation at either the country or regional level. However they do show that, with fewexceptions, only a limited proportion of the land area of each country within theregion is constraint-free. Where there are natural constraints, sustainable agriculturalproduction may still be possible, providing the limitations can be overcome, with theaid of appropriate land management practices. Inevitably sustainable use of suchareas involves higher investment costs than in constraint free areas, as well as goodland management skills. However where individual constraints, or combinations ofconstraints, are particularly severe the costs and means of developing such areas foragricultural purposes may be beyond what is possible with today's knowledge andtechnologies.

The implications of the above for SARM are that the first priority should be toprevent misuse and loss of those lands that are constraint-free. Other areas cannotbe ignored as the demand, from a growing population, for food means that agricul-tural production will have to be take place in areas where it is technically and finan-cially possible to overcome the natural constraints. However the costs of such pro-duction can be expected to be higher, and returns lower, than in constraint-free ar-eas.

Water resource constraints

Water like land, is becoming a scarce resource within the Asia Pacific region.Much of the extra food produced in Asia between 1960 and 1980 was grown inirrigated land. Unfortunately the rapid expansion of the irrigated areas in that periodis not continuing, and the demands on existing supplies for non-agricultural purposes(e.g. urban and rural drinking water, industrial and mining enterprises)

48

Box 6Problem soils of the Asia Pacific Region

When considering the natural constraints to agricultural production the soils of the Asia Pacific Regioncan be subdivided into 12 categories as follows (Dent 1990):

A. Too Cold - land areas with a 24-hr mean temperature of less than 5oC during the growing period*.Within the FAO Asia Pacific Region land areas identified as too cold are also too steep (see category C).

B. Too Dry - desert and semi-desert (excluding cold deserts which are included under category A)which are either rainless/dry or with growing periods of between 1 and 74 days duration.

C. Too Steep - land areas neither cold nor dry; but which are dissected and with slopes in excess of30%.

D. Too Shallow - land areas which are not too cold, dry or steep but where rooting depth is limitedwithin 50cms of the surface by the presence of coherent and hard rock or hard-pans.

E. Too Wet - land areas which are not cold, dry, steep or shallow; but which are waterlogged and/orflood for a significant part of the year. Poorly drained saline/sodic, acid sulphate and peat soils areexcluded from this category because of the special nature of their constraints, and are considered undercategories I, J and K respectively.

F. Too Coarse - land areas which are not cold, dry, steep, shallow or poorly drained; but which arecoarse textured (less than 18% clay and more than 65% sand) or have gravel, stones, boulders or rockoutcrops in surface layers or at the surface.

G. Vertic (Heavy Cracking Clay) - land areas which are not cold, dry, steep, shallow, poorly drainedor coarse textured; but which have 30% or more clay to at least 50cm from the surface (after the upper20cm of soil are mixed), with cracks at least 1cm wide at 50cm depth at some period in most years (unlessirrigated), and high bulk density between the cracks.

H. Infertile - land areas which are not cold, dry, steep, shallow, poorly drained, coarse textured orheavy cracking clays; but which, to a greater or lesser degree, exhibit deficiencies in major, secondary andminor plant nutrients when cultivated.

I. Too Salty (Saline/sodic limitations - land areas comprised of soils with a high salt content orexchangeable sodium saturation within 100cm of the surface.

J. Acid Sulphate - land areas comprised of soils in which sulphidic materials have accumulated underpermanently saturated, generally brackish water conditions. Upon drainage the sulphides oxidise to formsulphuric acid; and the pH, which is around neutral prior to drainage drops below 3.5.

K. Peat - land areas in which more than half of the upper 80cms is composed of organic materialssaturated with water for long periods of time or artificially drained.

L. No Constraints - land areas with no physical constraints to sustained agricultural production.• Growing period is defined as the duration in days when both soil moisture and temperature

conditions permit crop growth.

increasingly compete with irrigation. It is becoming more difficult to identify newopportunities to develop water storage facilities. The construction of large dams isnow generally recognised as uneconomic when based on a realistic estimate of thecosts, which include the need for erosion control in the catchment area and drainagefacilities in the command area (Greenland et al 1994). Also many dam projects in theAsia region are faced with growing opposition from local communities and the widerpublic due to their potential environmental, social and cultural impact.

Rather than large-scale dam construction, developing water-harvestingmethods and microcatchment storage systems appear to merit more attention.However for crop production the most important problem is to improve water-useefficiency. This requires efficiency in the supply of water to the field, and efficiency inthe use of water by the crop to increase economic yield. Many irrigation schemesalso function at very low efficiencies (Greenland et al 1994). The expected life ofmany irrigation systems has also had to be drastically reduced because of soilerosion problems in the catchment area of the reservoir, causing excessively rapidsiltation (box 7). In addition to improving the efficiency of the irrigation system there isscope for better crop selection. Different annual and perennial crops (or cultivars) willhave varying water requirements for optimum growth. Thus crops with high water

49

demand could be substituted for less demanding crops in order to match crop waterrequirements with water availability at critical times of the year.

Box 7Siltation of reservoirs in India

Reservoir Catchment area1000 km2

Sedimentation rateha m/100km2

Predicted ObservedHirakud 83 2.5 3.6Tungabhadra 26 4.3 6.6Mahi 25 1.3 9.0Rana Pratap 23 3.6 5.3Nizamnagar 19 0.3 6.4Pong 13 4.3 17.3Pamchet 10 2.5 10.1Tawa 6 3.6 8.1Kaulagarh 2 4.3 18.3Mayurakshi 2 3.6 20.9

Source Narayana & Ram Babu 1983

Soil productivity

In the past too much emphasis was placed on assessing soil degradation on thebasis of the weight of soil lost (expressed in tonnes of soil lost per ha, or millions oftonnes of sediment carried by rivers). The real issue is not the amount of soil lost orthe area of land degraded, but the effect of this loss on the productivity of the land(Hudson 1992). Within the Asia Pacific region innumerable experiments have soughtto quantify erosion, but only a handful have measured the loss of plant nutrients, andeven fewer have attempted to correlate the nutrient loss with productivity (Stocking1988).

50

Table 3. Extent of problem soils within Asia and the PacificCountry/Subregion

Total landarea

Cold Land Dryland Steeply SlopingLand

Land with ShallowSoils

Poorly DrainedLand

Coarse Tex -tured Soils

HeavyCrackingClay Soils

Severe FertilityLimitations

Saline/Sodic Soils Acid SulphateSoil Limitations

Peat Land Constraint-freeLand

('000 ha) Area('000ha)

% Area('000ha)

% Area('000ha)

% Area('000ha)

% Area('000ha)

% Area('000ha)

% Area('000ha)

% Area('000ha)

% Area('000ha)

% Area('000ha)

% Area('000ha)

% Area('000ha)

%

Bangladesh 13,017 0 0.0 0 0.0 1,393 10.7 78 0.6 6,261 48.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 273 2.1 638 4.9 78 0.6 521 4.0 3,775 29.0Bhutan 4,700 2,312 49.2 0 0.0 982 20.9 19 0.4 0 0.0 216 4.6 0 0.0 771 16.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 400 8.5India 297,319 16,650 5.6 28,840 9.7 29,732 10.0 16,947 5.7 7,433 2.5 3,568 1.2 60,653 20.4 7,136 2.4 12,190 4.1 297 0.1 297 0.1 113,576 38.2Iran 163,600 2,127 1.3 113,866 69.6 22,086 13.5 1,636 1.0 1,145 0.7 2,618 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 6,871 4.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 13,252 8.1Maldives 30 0 na 0 na 0 na 0 na 0 na 0 na 0 na 0 na 0 na 0 na 0 Na 0 naNepal 13,680 4,542 33.2 0 0.0 2,531 18.5 506 3.7 780 5.7 1,094 8.0 0 0.0 629 4.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 178 1.3 3,420 25.0Pakistan 77,088 17,268 22.4 54,655 70.9 2,081 2.7 231 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 77 0.1 0 0.0 617 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 2,158 2.8Sri Lanka 6,463 0 0.0 0 0.0 827 12.8 336 5.2 375 5.8 271 4.2 45 0.7 814 12.6 439 6.8 19 0.3 58 0.9 3,277 50.7S Asia Total 575,897 42,899 7.4 197,361 34.3 59,632 10.4 19,754 3.4 15,994 2.8 7,767 1.3 60,775 10.6 9,623 1.7 20,755 3.6 395 0.1 1,054 0.2 139,857 24.3Cambodia 17,652 0 0.0 0 0.0 3,936 22.3 706 4.0 3,336 18.9 265 1.5 229 1.3 5,825 33.0 477 2.7 212 1.2 0 0.0 2,665 15.1Indonesia 181,157 1,812 1.0 0 0.0 64,311 35.5 13,043 7.2 10,507 5.8 8,877 4.9 3,261 1.8 26,449 14.6 1,630 0.9 906 0.5 17,391 9.6 32,971 18.2Lao PDR 23,080 0 0.0 0 0.0 17,010 73.7 1,177 5.1 462 2.0 577 2.5 138 0.6 2,008 8.7 115 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 1,593 6.9Malaysia 32,855 0 0.0 0 0.0 15,705 47.8 263 0.8 1,741 5.3 164 0.5 361 1.1 8,542 26.0 789 2.4 657 2.0 2,136 6.5 2,497 7.6Myanmar 65,754 526 0.8 0 0.0 29,721 45.2 5,655 8.6 8,351 12.7 395 0.6 1,578 2.4 9,863 15.0 723 1.1 1,184 1.8 395 0.6 7,364 11.2Philippines 29,817 0 0.0 0 0.0 8,557 28.7 954 3.2 954 3.2 149 0.5 775 2.6 2,624 8.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 15,803 53.0Thailand 51,089 0 0.0 0 0.0 17,575 34.4 1,482 2.9 3,832 7.5 1,584 3.1 562 1.1 14,305 28.0 1,379 2.7 1,022 2.0 51 0.1 9,298 18.2Vietnam 32,549 0 0.0 0 0.0 14,582 44.8 1,269 3.9 4,101 12.6 586 1.8 293 0.9 6,640 20.4 716 2.2 1,497 4.6 130 0.4 2,734 8.4SE Asia Total 433,953 2,338 0.5 0 0.0 171,397 39.5 24,549 5.7 33,284 7.7 12,596 2.9 7,198 1.7 76,256 17.6 5,830 1.3 5,477 1.3 20,102 4.6 74,925 17.3China 932,641 13,990 1.5 118,445 12.7 428,082 45.9 15,855 1.7 69,948 7.5 0 0.0 12,124 1.3 97,927 10.5 62,487 6.7 0 0.0 7,461 0.8 106,321 11.4DPR Korea 12,041 0 0.0 0 0.0 8,657 71.9 0 0.0 60 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 217 1.8 36 0.3 0 0.0 132 1.1 2,938 24.4Mongolia 156,650 940 0.6 51,538 32.9 54,358 34.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4,073 2.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 45,742 29.2Rep. of Korea 9,873 0 0.0 0 0.0 4,917 49.8 0 0.0 385 3.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 3,159 32.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1,412 14.3Japan 37,652 0 0.0 0 0.0 15,324 40.7 414 1.1 941 2.5 75 0.2 0 0.0 6,326 16.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 14,571 38.7E Asia Total 1,148,857 14,930 1.3 169,983 14.8 511,338 44.5 16,269 1.4 71,335 6.2 75 0.0 12,124 1.1 107,629 9.4 66,596 5.8 0 0.0 7,594 0.7 170,984 14.9Cook Islands 23 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 28.3 10 45.2 0 0.0 3 13.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 13.5Fiji 1,827 0 0.0 0 0.0 1,337 73.2 24 1.3 0 0.0 385 21.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 80 4.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0PNG 45,286 0 0.0 0 0.0 28,032 61.9 589 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 6,159 13.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 679 1.5 9,827 21.7Samoa 283 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 283 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Solomon Is. 2,799 0 0.0 0 0.0 1,881 67.2 81 2.9 0 0.0 490 17.5 0 0.0 263 9.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 84 3.0Vanuatu 1,219 0 0.0 0 0.0 158 13.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 48 3.9 93 7.6 106 8.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 814 66.8Tonga 72 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 14 19.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 58 80.9Australia 764,444 0 0.0 214,809 28.1 41,280 5.4 61,920 8.1 38,987 5.1 187,289 24.5 86,382 11.3 27,520 3.6 81,031 10.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 25,227 3.3New Zealand 26,799 0 0.0 0 0.0 15,677 58.5 80 0.3 161 0.6 3,832 14.3 0 0.0 2,251 8.4 107 0.4 0 0.0 107 0.4 4,583 17.1Pacific Total 842,752 0 0.0 214,809 25.5 58,997 7.0 62,082 7.4 39,147 4.6 191,672 22.7 86,475 10.3 30,140 3.6 81,138 9.6 0 0.0 107 0.0 30,766 3.7A/ P Total 3,001,459 60,166 2.0 582,153 19.4 801,364 26.7 122,653 4.1 159,760 5.3 212,111 7.1 166,573 5.5 223,649 7.5 174,319 5.8 5,872 0.2 28,857 1.0 416,532 13.9Source: Total land area taken from FAO RAPA 1996 Selected Indicators of Food and Agriculture Development in Asia Pacific Region 1985-95 RAP Publication 1996/32

51

Definition

In the context of SARM, productivity can be defined as the productivepotential of the soil system that allows accumulation of energy in the form ofvegetation (crops, pastures, trees and shrubs) of value to farmers (after Stocking1984, Stocking and Peake 1985). Soil productivity is a function of many factorsincluding individual soil parameters, climate, vegetation, slope and management.It is a central element to any discussion on sustainable soil use becauseproductivity implies the potential for future agricultural production.

Crop yield a proxy indicator

Like soil fertility, soil productivity is a real property of the soil, but is incapableof direct physical measurement (Stocking 1984). Crop yield is therefore commonlytaken as a useful proxy indicator of soil productivity because of its measurability,its relevance to farmers and planners, and the possibility to quantify it in monetaryterms (Stocking and Peake 1985).

A superficial look at the figures in many countries suggests that mean cropyields have increased over the past years. However this should not be taken tomean that soil productivity has not declined. Improved crop husbandry practices(use of higher yielding varieties, chemical fertiliser, pesticides etc) may havemasked a decline in the soil's productive potential. The real question is, what levelof agricultural production could have been achieved if improved crop husbandrypractices had resulted in significantly increased yields, instead of compensatingfor reduced soil productivity (Norman and Douglas 1993)? It is clear that had soildegradation not taken place average crop yields would be higher, or could havebeen achieved at lower cost.

Very few long-term yield experiments have been conducted within the regionto assess long term soil productivity. One of particular interest is a 33-yearfertiliser experiment at Ranchi, Bihar. This found that despite changes toimproved varieties, wheat yields declined substantially over the period with N, NPand NPK fertilisation, whereas they rose with farmyard manure (Goswami andRattan 1992).

Factors underlying soil productivity decline

No single parameter consistently explains the loss of yield potential followingsoil degradation. The most important factors would appear to be (after Stockingand Peake 1985):

• Adverse changes in the chemical and biological status of the soil, e.g.depletion of nutrients, loss of organic matter, change in pH (acidification),salinisation and other toxicities.

• Reduction in the water available to plants due to: reduced soil depth aserosion brings limiting horizons (those that provide a lower limit to rootingdepth) progressively nearer to the surface; and reduced water capacityof the remaining soil, as the coarser sands that remain followingselective removal by erosion of the organic matter and fines have littleability to retain water.

52

• Decline in structural stability and increase in bulk density e.g. crusting,compaction and decrease in porosity will influence seedling emergenceand root development.

Within the humid tropics the first of these factors, with the exclusion ofsalinisation, is probably the most important contributor to yield loss. Decline inavailable water capacity, and locally salinisation, will be most significant in arid,semi-arid and strongly seasonal climatic regimes. When physical degradationoccurs it can have a significant impact in any climatic zone.

Erosion-induced loss in soil productivity

It has long been accepted that the productivity, or yield potential of soils isreduced by erosion (see Stocking 1984, Stocking and Peake 1985). However,erosion research has focused mainly on rates of soil loss, the detailed processes,and the variables which might be used to estimate rates. A good understanding ofthe processes of soil degradation is therefore now available, and rates of erosionmay be predicted in many environments with reasonable accuracy (Stocking andSanders 1992).

Research is still largely focused on the causes and description of erosion,with far less attention given to the consequences. Despite this there is anemerging consensus that:

• Erosion rate is a poor indicator of impact as measured by crop yield.• Erosion can have a large impact even when rates of erosion are low

(applies particularly to the tropics).• Assessments of soil erosion need to be quantified in order to generate

data which can allow an economic value to be calculated (Stocking andSanders 1992).

The work undertaken so far shows that there is no simple equation that canbe used to calculate that a soil loss of `x' mm (or tonnes/ha) will result in a `y'kg/ha reduction in crop yield. However comparison of the results of different trialsdoes suggest that the consequences of erosion-induced loss in soil productivityare far more severe in the tropics than in temperate regions. The impact of a unitloss of tropical soil on yield can be at least 20 times greater than its temperateequivalent (Stocking and Peake 1985). It also needs to be remembered that it isthe `quality' of the soil that remains, rather than the volume and properties of thesoil that has already been lost, that will determine the future productive potentialof the land (ABLH in press).

Restoring the productivity of a degraded soil is usually costly and will requireconsiderable time and effort on the part of the farmer. It may also not be fullysuccessful with yields remaining below those of adjacent uneroded sites (Stocking1984). The implication is that it is better to focus resources on the prevention ofsoil degradation, thereby preserving the productive potential of a soil, rather thanon rehabilitating degraded areas.

More to maintaining productivity than erosion control

Whereas there is a clear link between soil erosion and yield decline there ismore to the maintenance of soil productivity than just the installation of runoff

53

control measures. In the past such sayings as “Soil conservation must be donebefore yields can rise,” and “Soil conservation raises yields,” have been used tojustify the construction of conservation banks in farmers' fields. If bankconstruction is all that is recommended in the name of sustaining soil productivity,then farmers are being deceived (Shaxson 1992). Even where land is “protected”by earth banks, productivity will continue to decline due to mismanagement of theinterbank areas, resulting in adverse changes in the chemical, biological andphysical properties of the soil (e.g. nutrient loss, decline in organic matter,crusting, compaction etc).

Soil resilience and sensitivity

Resilience and sensitivity are critical to the sustainability of soil productivity(see box 8). Central to the concept of resilience and sensitivity in SARM is the soilarchitecture and its regeneration after damage (Shaxson 1996). The spacesbetween the particles and structural units regulate movement and water retentionas well as fluxes of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the root zone. They also affectroot growth and function, and house the mass and species diversity of soilinhabiting micro-, meso- and macro-organisms. The reformation of relativelystable soil architecture after it has been damaged - by collapse, compaction,interstitial sealing, pulverisation - is achieved primarily through the activity oforganisms acting on organic materials produced in situ and/or brought in fromelsewhere (Shaxson 1996).

Role of vegetation in sustainable soil use

Combating vegetation degradation usually figures prominently in anyprogramme concerned with the sustainable use of agricultural soils. This isbecause vegetation, whether natural (forests, woodlands and grasslands) orplanted (crops, pastures, trees and shrubs), has the potential to contribute directlyto the maintenance and improvement of soil productivity. The role played byvegetation can be considered under the following headings: protection;conservation and increase of soil organic matter; as a nutrient source; andimproved moisture status (after Ingram 1990).

Protection

The ground cover provided by vegetation can prevent splash erosion byprotecting the soil surface from the impact of erosive rains. The cover may beprovided by the leaves and other parts growing above the surface (the canopy) orthe dead materials deposited on the soil surface below the plants (litter). In anatural system the litter may be composed of leaves, stems, twigs, branches,seeds and fruits, whereas in cropping and agroforestry systems it may consist ofdeliberately applied mulch and/or crop residues.

Research on crop and rangeland productivity has found that because of thecurvilinear relationship between erosion and cover, provided that mean coverexceeds 40%, erosion is low (less than 10% of that on a bare plot) under tropical

54

Box 8Resilience and sensitivity: a matrix for SARM

•Resilience: a property that allows a land system to absorb and utilize change; resistance to shock.•Sensitivity: the degree to which a land system undergoes change due to natural forces, followinghuman interference; how readily change occurs with only small differences in external force.

Examples1.The deep volcanic soils of central Java (Andosols). They erode easily but because of good reservesof nutrients and the availability of fertilizers and irrigation, they are quick to restore. High sensitivity;high resilience.2.The acid sulphate soils and peatlands of some coastal areas in S.E. Asia. Can become rapidlydegraded when drained and extremely difficult if not impossible to restore to a productive condition.High sensitivity low resilience.3.The meadow soils of the cooler areas of north and east Asia (Chernozems). Well structured humusrich soils resistant to erosion when under natural grasslands (steppe) but can be severely degraded bywind erosion when used for continuous cereal production. Low sensitivity low resilience.4.The wetland rice soils of the delta regions of much of S.E. Asia (Gleysols). Some of thesehave been continuously cultivated for rice production for centuries. Low sensitivity highresilience.

Sensitivity

High Low

R High Easy to degrade, but Only suffers degradatione responds well to land under very poor management

s management that and persistent mismanagementi restores capabilityli Low Easy to degrade, Initially resistant to degradatione unresponsive to but after severe misuse landn management and management has great

c should be kept in difficulty in restoring capabilitye as natural a condition

as possible

Source of definitions and matrix table Stocking 1995

Box 9Erosion recorded from various land use systems

involving trees (tons/ha/yr)Land Use System Recorded Erosion Rate

Minimal Medial MaximalMultistoried tree gardens 0.01 0.06 0.14Natural forests 0.03 0.30 6.16Forest plantations undisturbed 0.02 0.58 6.20Forest plantations burned/litter removed 5.92 53.40 104.80Tree crops with ground cover/crop mulch 0.10 0.75 5.60Tree crops clean weeded 1.20 47.60 182.90Shifting cultivation cropping period 0.40 2.78 70.05Shifting cultivation fallow period 0.05 0.15 7.40Taungya cultivation 0.63 5.23 17.37Source: Wiersum 1984 cited in Qwist-Hoffman 1994

55

conditions (Elwell 1980, Zobisch 1992). 16 Such a degree of protective cover iscommonly achieved by traditional shifting cultivation systems in the humid tropicswhere some trees may be left standing while the trunks and branches of thosefelled are left on the soil surface with the crops planted in between. It is alsoachieved by many traditional mixed cropping systems practised in the sub-humidto semi-arid tropics (Stocking 1985). The figure of 40% critical cover indicates thatrangelands do not require a continuous sward of grasses, pasture legumes andbrowse species (something that may be difficult to achieve, particularly in arid andsemi-arid environments) to protect the soil from erosion. It is also possible withimproved crop husbandry practices to quickly provide this amount of ground coverwith the leaves of well grown crops.

Many environmentalists believe that erosion can be stopped by plantingtrees. Regrettably it is not as simple as that. It all depends on the way the treesare planted and managed, as benefits in soil and water protection do not accrueautomatically by having trees on the land (Hamilton 1986). On a recent trip to YouXi county Fujian Province PR China it was observed that the forestry departmenthad burned all the vegetation prior to planting tree seedlings. The end result wasa series of very steep and bare slopes at serious risk of erosion in the first 2-3years of the forest plantation, when surface ground cover would be inadequate toprotect against raindrop impact.

The forestry practice of screefing (scraping bare the soil surface aroundplanted seedlings) is undertaken to reduce weed competition duringestablishment. When trees are planted in straight lines on steep slopes (acommon practice) screefing can produce cleared strips of bare soil up and downslope leading to excessive runoff and erosion during periods of heavy rainfall(personal observation in northern Thailand and other parts of Asia). It is also clearthat the litter below the trees rather than the tree canopy itself provides the bulk ofthe protection against erosion (see box 9). If the litter is removed for mulch,fodder, fuel etc then the conservation benefits from planting trees are seriouslyreduced.

It is also questionable that trees are more efficient at protection than annualcrops which can cover soil far quicker (Ingram 1990). When mulched or managedwith low tillage, annual crops give the same results for soil loss as do secondaryforests (Lal 1977). Trees can take more than two years to close canopy in humidtropics during which time the ground is bare, as litter is still insufficient to cover it.This contrasts with annual crops which can provide adequate cover within 30 -45days and pastures within 2-6 months (Sanchez 1987). Well-managed rotationalcropping or well-managed pasture may be preferable alternatives to poorlymanaged forestland use (Shaxson 1992a).

Plants can also protect against rill and gully erosion by reducing runoffvelocity and increasing infiltration. Litter, crop residues and a continuous grasssward will provide a sufficiently rough surface to reduce the velocity of moderatelevels of runoff. Hedgerows of closely spaced tree and shrub species and grassstrips across the slope can provide partly permeable barriers that reduce thevelocity of higher levels of runoff, while encouraging infiltration and trapping soilon the uphill side. Widely spaced trees and shrubs as in an orchard or woodlot will

16 Although the cited references refer to research work undertaken in Africa it is believed that thesame relationship between mean ground cover and erosion applies in the Asia Pacific region.

56

have little direct effect on runoff as their trunks are too far apart to have anybarrier effect. It is their litter and any herbaceous undergrowth that offer protectionagainst runoff.

Trees and shrubs can protect soil against wind erosion by retarding themovement of soil particles. Hence the well-established use of windbreaks andshelterbelts to combat soil degradation in semi-arid regions (FAO 1976b). Treeand grass roots are also valuable in anchoring unconsolidated soils (e.g. sanddune stabilisation). The landslides that follow logging of steep hillsides (AIADP1990) indicate that forest cover also protects against mass movement ingeologically unstable landscapes.

Conservation and increase of soil organic matter

Soil organic matter is critical for SARM. Plants contribute directly to soilorganic matter from two sources: below ground (roots) and above ground (leaves,stems, twigs, branches, flowers, seeds and fruit). In the case of perennial cropsand plants, roots make a constant contribution to soil organic matter throughsloughing off, rapid decay and exudation. These below ground processes aresignificant for maintaining soil organic matter levels and are part of the “hidden”benefits of perennial cropping and agroforestry systems, where tree root biomassis typically 20-30% of a tree’s total biomass. The percentage will vary dependingon environment, for instance in rain forests it can be as low as 15%, in moistsavanna it may be 35-40%, and can rise well above 50% in semi arid vegetation(Young 1989).

For annual crops, in addition to the sloughing off and exudation during thegrowth period, most of the roots will be left in the soil to decay following harvest.This root-derived soil organic matter is inadequate to maintain high amounts butwill ultimately stabilise soil humus at a low-level equilibrium. In the tropics this maybe at 30-40% of the level under natural vegetation (Young 1976). Thus if farmerstake no measures other than those necessary to prevent physical erosion, croproot exudation and decay will maintain soil organic matter in a low but steadystate.

To sustain the productive potential of soils used for agriculture, soil organicmatter levels should be maintained at a level of at least 50-75% of that undernatural vegetation (Ibid.). Given that these levels cannot be attained from the rootcontribution alone, additional inputs of organic material will be required fromabove ground sources.

The actual quantities of such plant residues that need to be added to the soil,to maintain adequate soil organic matter levels, are estimated at 8,000 kg of drymatter/ha/yr in the humid tropics, 4,000 kg DM/ha/yr in the subhumid tropics and2,000 kg DM/ha/yr in the semi-arid zones (Young 1989). In natural ecosystemsthis is no problem as the net annual primary production of above ground biomassis more than adequate (see box 10). However the amount of organic materialavailable may be below what is required when the land is used for agriculturalpurposes, particularly annual crops. Not only may the total annual biomassproduction be reduced but much of it will be removed in the form of harvestedproducts.

Under traditional shifting cultivation systems the deficit in available organicmaterial during the cropping period is compensated by the ultimate surplus

57

accumulated during the long bush fallow period. Given that long bush fallowsystems are, due to land shortage, no longer an option for much of the tropics,there is a need for alternative means of supplying the necessary plant materialsrequired to sustain soil organic matter levels.

One option is for shorter fallows in which the natural bush fallow is “enriched”with the introduction of faster growing tree species and herbaceous legumes. Asthis still involves leaving land idle and `unproductive' this is not an option wherefarm family holdings are small in size and alternative land is unavailable.

Ensuring that all crop residues are returned can make a significantcontribution to sustaining soil productivity. Returning the residues from a maize orsorghum crop could well restore half the organic matter lost during one year ofcultivation (Young 1976). However the common practice of burning crop residuesduring land preparation seriously reduces the quantity of organic matter returnedto the soil let alone the quantities of nutrients.

Box 10Natural dry matter production

Various studies of natural ecosystems suggest the following rates of net primaryproduction (above-ground dry matter) can be expected, according to climatic zone(Young 1989):

Humid tropics (no dry season) 20,000 kg/ha/yr or more

Humid tropics (short dry season) 20,000 kg/ha/yr

Subhumid tropics (moist) 10,000 kg/ha/yr

Subhumid tropics (dry) 5,000 kg/ha/yr

Semi-arid zone 2,500 kg/ha/yr

Another option is to grow specific plants as a source of “green manure.” Inthe case of agroforestry systems this involves taking the prunings from nitrogenfixing trees or shrubs and either applying them as a mulch or digging them intothe topsoil. An alternative is to grow a herbaceous crop, usually a legume,specifically for the purpose of hoeing or ploughing it into the soil. This would havethe effect of very short “enriched” fallow with the crop typically occupying the landfor no more than 12 months.

The planting of a grass ley as part of a crop/livestock production system haseconomic value with proven capabilities of improving the properties of agriculturalsoils (Young 1976). Organic matter levels are raised by means of root exudationand the incorporation of the grass at the end of the ley. Grass roots also have amarked and beneficial effect on soil structure. The inclusion of a pasture legumewith the grass seed, while not only improving the quality of the ley for livestockproduction, will also improve the soil's nitrogen status.

Plants as a nutrient source

Within the soil-plant nutrient cycle there are a number of ways in whichplants can supply the soil with nutrients. Knowledge of these can lead to improved

58

management systems that use the natural processes to maintain and enhancesoil productivity for agricultural purposes.

There is a limit to the capacity of plant residues to supply nutrients, as whatis not there in the first place cannot be recycled. The original source forphosphorus, potassium, and the secondary and micronutrients is rock weathering.If the soil parent material is low in these elements then, however closed the soil-plant system may be, it cannot become richer without external inputs. Nitrogen onthe other hand originates from atmospheric fixation and can be increased in situby biological means.

Plant litter, either naturally occurring or resulting from a farm practice such asmulching or leaving crop residues on the soil surface, will contribute to thereplenishment of soil nutrients. As a nutrient source the humus resulting from litterbreakdown has the following favourable characteristics (Young 1987):

• Supply is balanced across the range of primary, secondary andmicronutrients.

• Nutrients in the form of organic molecules are protected from leaching.• There is a steady release of nutrients in an available form through

mineralisation.Different plant residues (i.e. from different parts of the plant as well as from

different plants) will decay at different rates and vary in their chemicalcomponents. From a biological soil management perspective, there aredifferences in the “quality” of different plant residues (Swift et al 1979). Litter ofhigh quality (high in nutrients, low in lignin and polyphenols) decays and releasesnutrients rapidly; that of low quality (low in nutrients, high lignin and/orpolyphenols) decays slowly. Woody residues (stems, branches, twigs and coarseroots) are of low quality, but so are some herbaceous products including straw.

The significance of litter quality for agriculture is that it opens up thepossibilities of using residues from different plants for varying purposes. Highquality residues, because they decay rapidly, could be used to provide a short-term release of nutrients, their application timed to meet peaks in croprequirements. Low quality residues when applied as a mulch will remain as aprotective cover for much longer while giving extended release of nutrients,protected against leaching until mineralised. This has been recognised in thecontext of agroforestry where leaves of different trees and shrubs vary widely intheir quality and rates of decomposition. For instance the leaves of Leucaenaleucocephala decay within a few weeks, those of Cassia simea, at anintermediate rate, whilst Gmeligna arborea, Acacia mangium and manyEucalyptus species are relatively slow decaying (Young 1989). Knowledge ofdifferences in litter quality offers the scope for using combinations of plantmaterials to provide for both a rapid release of nutrients and a slower regularrelease over a longer period.

There are four management alternatives for using litter to supply nutrients:placement on the surface, burial in the soil, composting, or use as fodder with thenutrients returned via the manure. Buried litter decomposes faster than surfacelitter (Wilson et al 1986) but surface placement is desirable for erosion control.Burial, composting or use as fodder and/or livestock bedding may be moredesirable for cereal crop residues, which are high in lignin, than for the generallyhigh litter quality of tree leaves.

59

The decay of dead roots, the below ground equivalent of litter, is also asource of plant nutrients. Little data is available on the nutrient content of rootresidues or on rates of addition of residues to the soil, but given the amount ofroot biomass in proportion to the total plant the contribution from this source cannot be ignored (Ingram 1990).

Biological nitrogen fixation takes place in the soil through non-symbiotic andsymbiotic means. Non-symbiotic fixation is that carried out by free-living soilorganisms. It can be of substantial importance relative to the modestrequirements of natural ecosystems, but is small in relation to the greaterdemands of agricultural systems. Symbiotic fixation occurs through theassociation of plant roots with nitrogen-fixing bacteria. Many legumes areassociated with Rhizobium, while a few non-leguminous species are associatedwith Frankia (Young 1989).

Nitrogen fixation by herbaceous legumes has long been a recognisedagricultural practice (either as a productive crop, e.g. pulses, groundnuts), a greenmanure crop (e.g. Stylosanthes spp, Centrosema pubescens, including grass-legume leys), or a cover crop in perennial plantations (eg. Pueraria phaseoloides).In improved cropping systems it is usual to recommend that legumes be grown inrotation with non-legume crops. In many traditional cropping systems in Asia andthe Pacific cereals and rootcrops may be intercropped with one or more legumecrops such as beans, pigeon peas and groundnuts. Such traditional systems,along with intercropping of annual crops with nitrogen-fixing multi-purpose treesand shrubs, have in recent years become the focus of much research attention asa means of introducing organic nitrogen to the soil, for the benefit of the nonnitrogen-fixing crops.

With regard to crop production in the tropics, the conventional wisdom is thathigh yields, particularly of cereal crops, depend on inputs of commercial nitrogenfertilisers, low soil nitrogen levels being a major factor in low yields under lowinput systems. On the basis of work undertaken by ICRAF and others it appearspossible to identify trees and shrubs with a nitrogen-fixing capability (when grownin agroforestry systems) of 50-100 kg N/ha/yr (Young 1989). This opens up thepossibilities for developing low external input farming systems using on-farmbiological means to raise soil nitrogen levels thereby increasing crop production.

In addition to making available additional supplies of nutrients, there is scopefor improving the efficiency of nutrient cycling in agricultural systems by improvingthe uptake capacity of plants. Under low nutrient conditions in nature, most plantsare infected by one or other type of root-inhabiting mycorrhiza. The very fine andextensive mycelial network put out by these fungi improves the efficiency ofnutrient and water uptake by greatly increasing the plants effective absorbingsurface within the soil (Swift and Sanchez 1984). Like nitrogen, low phosphoruslevels limit the agricultural productivity of tropical soils. It appears that mycorrhizanot only improves the efficiency with which plants take up available phosphorus,but with other organisms they can make rock phosphate soluble and transfer it tothe host plant (Kugler 1986).

Research into mycorrhiza suggests that most of the important crop plants inboth commercial and subsistence agriculture in the tropics have the capacity toform associations with appropriate mycorrhizal fungi. In low nutrient status soilscrops may derive very considerable benefits from such associations (Swift andSanchez 1984). Mycorrhizal infection is favoured by minimum tillage and low

60

inputs of fertiliser and pesticides and so lends itself most readily to agricultureunder low-input constraints. As a plant's ability to fix nitrogen may be improved byinoculation with the appropriate Rhizobium, in the future it may become possibleto improve the plants uptake of phosphorus and other soil nutrients by inoculationwith the appropriate mycorrhiza.

The established feeder root system of trees and shrubs is believed to exploita greater volume and depth of soil for soil nutrients than those of annual orpasture crops (Swift and Sanchez 1984, Ingram 1990). In particular tree roots arebelieved to be able to capture nutrients freshly released by weathering in thedeeper soil layers (below 2m) and to transfer them to the above ground parts ofthe plant. Such nutrients can then be made available to annual crops by utilisingthe natural tree litter and prunings (leaves and fine stems) as a mulch.

Agroforestry combinations appear to have considerable potential forenhancing the sustainability of agricultural soils in terms of nutrient status. Theidentification and use of multi-purpose trees and shrubs that can carry bothnitrogen-fixing bacteria and mycorrhizal fungi infections therefore offeropportunities for the development of sustainable low external input farmingsystems.

Improved moisture status

Plant canopy, litter and mulch can reduce moisture loss from the soil surfaceby shading it from the direct rays of the sun. They can also act as a barrier(windbreak) intercepting and reducing the speed of winds that would otherwisereduce soil moisture by means of evaporation and evapotranspiration. Theresulting improved moisture conditions facilitate the decomposition of organicmaterials. The improved surface structure and reduced runoff under trees andgrasses also favour infiltration.

Hydrological conditions

The hydrological conditions prevailing at a particular site can have a markedinfluence on land use; this is critical to SARM. Of major significance for plantgrowth is the degree of surface waterlogging. This can be taken as the basis for asimple threefold classification into areas which are wet permanently, seasonally ornot at all. With annual crops, whether or not waterlogged conditions extend intothe rooting zone during the growing season will be critical. For paddy rice surfacewaterlogging is necessary whereas crops like maize and tobacco can suffer yieldlosses if the rooting zone is waterlogged for no more than 24 hours. Equallyimportant is depth to the groundwater table. Perennial crops may be dependenton getting their roots down to the water table to survive a prolonged dry season,whereas a rising water table due to poor irrigation practices can result not only ina risk of waterlogging but also an increase in salinity within the rooting zone.

Small-scale farm households depend on water supplies not only for domesticuse, but for livestock and irrigation. There may be more than one source and theymay be used for different purposes, e.g. boreholes and wells used for domesticuse, with livestock watered from rivers or dams, and shallow wells in valley floorsites used for dry season vegetable production. The location of water sources

61

(surface or groundwater), water quality and seasonal availability can determinethe suitability of an area for particular land use enterprises.

Many of the upland and mountain landscapes within the Asia Pacific regionhave high energy river systems with considerable ability to scour soil andtransport coarse as well as fine sediment. Steep slopes lead to high rates ofsurface runoff and high velocity channel flows. Runoff is often seasonal inoccurrence associated with the monsoons and in the case of the high mountainranges of Asia, Australia and New Zealand the melting of winter snows.

Pests and diseases

The presence or absence of pests and diseases is an importantcharacteristic of the biophysical environment for resource poor small-scalefarmers. Vanuatu is reported as one the world's few truly cattle disease-freecountries (Keith-Reid 1997). As a result it produces high-grade beef free of thedrugs used in other countries to ward off disease. It thus reduces productioncosts and gives it a premium on price in the Japanese market.

The incidence of particular pests and diseases and the technical/ financialdifficulties in controlling them could be a major constraint with regard to theproductive potential of particular agricultural enterprises that would otherwise beecologically suitable. The sudden occurrence of a pest or disease in an areawhere it has not previously been recorded can be devastating. The traditionalfarming system in Western Samoa was based on Colocasia taro as the mainstaple food crop. The outbreak of taro leaf blight in 1993, virtually wiping the cropout, forced on farmers significant changes in their cropping systems. Whereaspreviously Colocasia taro was the dominant crop grown by most farmers, within12 months of the outbreak farmers had replaced the crop with significantlyincreased plantings of bananas, yams Alocasia, Xanthosoma taro, kava andcassava (Rogers and Losefa 1996). The outbreak has had severe economic andsocial consequences at both the national and household levels. Taro had been amajor export crop for the country as well as being culturally important forSamoans.

Many land factors influence the relative incidence of pests and diseases, themost common being climate and soil. Among climatic factors, high humidity isparticularly likely to cause increased incidence or effects of plant diseases. Soil-borne pests may be affected by texture; for example, nematode damage tosugarcane is most serious on sandy soils. The facts of biological distribution inthemselves constitute a land characteristic, even if unrelated to climate, soil orother factors. For instance in 1995 the FAO Investment Centre formulationmission for the Indonesia Second National Estate Crop Protection Project foundduring its field visits that it was still possible to grow cocoa as a cash crop onsome islands whereas the presence of cocoa pod borer on other islands had suchan adverse effect on yield as to rule this out. During the same mission farmers onBali whose citrus orchards had been infected with the citrus greening disease hadno option but to abandon citrus production and look for alternative cash crops.

62

Pesticide-induced pest resistance and resurgence

The conventional approach of scientists and development planners to theproblem of pests and diseases has been to promote the application of pesticides.The aim has been to prevent pest damage, yet ironically they can causeoutbreaks themselves. Pesticides can be inefficient for several reasons (Pretty1995):

• They can cause resurgence by killing off the natural enemies that controlpests.

• They can produce new pests by killing off the natural enemies of specieswhich hitherto were not pests.

• They can induce resistance in pests to pesticides.Resistance can develop in a pest population if some individuals possess

genes which give them a behavioural, biochemical or physiological resistancemechanism to one or more pesticides. These individuals survive applications ofthe pesticide, passing their genes to their offspring so that with repeatedapplications the whole population becomes resistant. High and frequentapplications of pesticides exert the greatest selection pressure on populations(Pretty 1995). Resistance has now developed in all insecticide groups; at least480 species of insect, mite or tick have been recorded as resistant to one or morecompounds (Georghiou 1986). Unfortunately natural enemies appear to evolveresistance to pesticides more slowly than herbivores, mainly because of thesmaller size of the natural populations relative to pests and their differentevolutionary history (Risch 1987).

Resistance has also developed in weeds and pathogens. Before 1970 fewweeds were resistant to herbicides but now at least 113 withstand one or moreproducts. Likewise some 150 fungi and bacteria are also resistant (WRI 1994).An agroforestry trial in Western Samoa found, when monitoring weedy speciesunder alley-cropping systems, a shift away from grasses to broad-leaved species(which were less competitive and easier to control), whereas the excessive use ofthe herbicide Gramoxone (paraquat) to control weeds over the past decade hadled to increasing dominance by rhizomatous grassy species (Rogers et al 1993).

There are numerous reports of disease and insect outbreaks from within theAsia Pacific region (Khush 1990, Kenmore 1991, Winarto 1994). Brownplanthopper (Nilaparvata lugens) outbreaks have at various times destroyedhundreds of thousands of ha of rice in countries from India in the west to theSolomon Islands in the east (Pretty 1995). In Indonesia the first problems startedin 1974. Losses jumped in 1975 after the government started subsidizingpesticides and in 1997 over 1 million tonnes of rice were lost, enough to feedsome 2.5 million people (Kenmore 1991). In 1979 750,000 ha were infested,followed by lower, but not insignificant, levels of infestation of between 20-150,000 ha per year during the 1980s. During this period the pest was only reallychecked with the release of new rice varieties containing genes that conferresistance, though even some of these have been attacked by new biotypes ofthe pest (Khush 1990).

Studies in the Philippines and Indonesia showed that outbreaks occurredafter increases in insecticide use (Kenmore et al 1984, Litsinger 1989, Winarto1993). Brown planthopper is kept under complete biological control in intensified

63

rice fields untreated by insecticides. Even with over 1000 reproducing adults persquare metre the natural enemies exert such massive mortality that rice yields areunaffected (Pretty 1995). As described in a report (Kenmore 1991):

insecticide applications disrupt that natural control, survival increases bymore than 10 times, and compound interest expansion then leads tohundreds of times higher densities within the duration of one rice crop.Trying to control such a population outbreak with insecticides is like pouringkerosene on a house fire.

Other countries in Southeast Asia still suffer significant losses to brownplanthopper. In Central Thailand some 250,000 ha were infested in 1990, theworst year on record (Pretty 1995). In addition to the problems of pest resistanceand resurgence there are other economic, environmental and related social costsassociated with the use of pesticides (see box 11). Hence a need to take intoconsideration the full costs and benefits of pesticides before advocating their usefor sustainable agricultural production.

Geographic isolation

Many small-scale farmers live in remote, often ecologically fragile areas, withfew roads and little in the way of physical infrastructure such as trading centres,schools and health facilities. Such people are generally politically marginalised aswell as economically disadvantaged, their access to government developmentfunds is limited and as a result have few alternatives to exploiting their localnatural resources on a short-term basis for their immediate survival needs.Historically, due to the nature of the terrain, highland and mountain communitiesin particular have been comparatively isolated (both from each other and thelowlands) requiring them to be largely self-reliant.

Many such isolated societies have evolved land use practices adapted totheir local ecological conditions which enabled them in the past to meet theirneeds on a sustainable basis. These are now beginning to break down aspopulation pressure increases due to the provision of better health care facilities.

Likewise increased exposure to the market economy encourages greaterexploitation of natural resources (e.g. timber and charcoal) to generate cash forthe purchase of consumer goods.

Improving road communications within small-scale farming areas can havemixed consequences. On the positive side overcoming geographic isolationthrough road construction may:

• Stimulate an increase in production by providing farm households withbetter access to farm inputs and markets (fertiliser can come in, andproduce go out by truck rather than being hand carried); and

• Open up opportunities for the growing of alternative higher value crops,some of which may be better from a soil conservation point of view e.g.perennial tree crops.

However road construction may escalate land degradation problems if:• New market opportunities encourage short-term non-sustainable cash

crop production, e.g. ginger growing on steep slopes.• New roads attract new settlers, not only leading to increased pressure on

available resources, but also land degradation should the settlers followthe traditional land use practices of the area they have come from and it

64

turns out that these are unsuited to the specific ecological conditions ofthe areas they have moved into, e.g. lowland farmers moving intomarginal upland areas.

• Poor road construction results in the loss of protective vegetation,unstable roadside banks and concentrated runoff thus directlycontributing to increased soil erosion and downstream sedimentationproblems.

Box 11Some economic, envThe principle locus of environmental risk in a pesticides based crop production strategy is the user

of the pesticide, i.e. the farmer or labourer. If the full economic costs of the relatively indiscriminate andpoorly regulated use of pesticides in many countries within the Asia Pacific region could be calculated,it is doubtful that even their claimed benefits, much less their actual, more limited benefits, would justifytheir continued use, especially in food crops (Tarrant 1992).

Direct RisksDirect risks of using pesticides affect many different ecosystem components in various ways. Their

costs can be summarised as follows:a) human pesticide poisonings and deaths;b) loss of yields from pesticide induced secondary pest outbreaks;c) livestock and livestock product losses;d) increased pest control costs due to losses of natural enemies and increases in pest

resistance to pesticides;e) crop and other vegetation losses due to destruction of pollinators and seed dispersers;f) direct crop and crop product losses from using pesticides (including herbicides and high food

residue content);g) fish and wildlife losses from pesticide poisoning;h) increased government expenditures required to reduce or mitigate environmental and social

costs resulting from pesticide manufacture, storage, transport, distribution, and use and disposal(including health costs).

Indirect RisksIndirect risks to using pesticides include the following:a) long-term morbidity and loss of earnings and household income, and reduced quality of life

for pesticide exposed individuals (presumably also increased expenditure on health for treatment andmedicines);

b) reduction in biological diversity due to the destruction of target and non-target organismsand/or their habitat;

c) long-term dependence upon non-ecological, i.e. chemical based crop protection strategies,which are economically and ecologically less efficient, stable and sustainable than IPM strategies.Source: Tarrant 1992 Environmental and related social costs of using pesticides

Geographic isolation is a particular problem for many island states,especially in the Pacific (Commonwealth Secretariat 1985). Not only are they along distance from the nearest continent (e.g. Western Samoa is over 4,320 kmfrom Australia), but also from each other. Many Pacific states are made up ofwidely scattered component islands. In consequence, although the capital islandsare separated from each other by an average of upwards of 1,120 km., in severalcases the outlying islands of two states may be less than 400 nautical miles apart.This gives rise to problems of the delimitation of their respective 200-mileexclusive economic zones.

Remoteness is reinforced by the difficulty of establishing viable transport andcommunication links. While new technology is easing the communicationsproblem, efforts to improve transport links are impeded by the increasing use ofcontainer vessels and wide-bodied aircraft, which require large volumes of traffic.

65

Whereas the main island in each Pacific Islands country may have reasonablelinks with the outside world in terms of an international airport and a port capableof handling large container vessels, the other islands frequently have to transshiptheir imports and exports using smaller ships and poorer handling facilities,greatly adding to their costs and increasing the disadvantages of the isolatedlocation. The shipping costs for bulk produce from Vanua Levu to Viti Levu (themain island) were reported at 1½ times what it cost from Viti Levu to Australia.

Similar problems occur in some of the Asian archipelago states such asIndonesia and the Philippines where the economies of scale, important forreducing transport costs, work against the smaller and more remote islandcommunities when it comes to the import of external agricultural inputs and theexport of surplus produce. For instance there is anecdotal evidence that it is oftencheaper for the supermarkets in Manila to purchase imported apples from theUSA than to buy tropical fruits from the islands in the south of the Philippines.

In terms of total effect and the number of states affected, remoteness is asignificant problem mainly for small island states. It encourages persistence of asubsistence economy. In contrast, modernisation and outward orientation havecome early to the island states that are more favourably located on sea routes ornearer to other states and continents (Commonwealth Secretariat 1985).

This isolation can at times be a bonus as many Pacific Island countries arefree of most pest and diseases that affect crops and livestock in Asia. However,maintaining this state requires strict enforcement of quarantine regulations.Should a new pest or disease reach one of these countries its effect can bedevastating due to the lack of natural resistance amongst the local plants andanimals.

66

Chapter 5Social, cultural and political considerations

oil degradation results primarily from inappropriate land use and poor landmanagement - from land being used in a manner incompatible with its bio-hysical capability (Sanders 1992a). Farm households and other land usersrarely deliberately degrade the land resources on which their livelihoods

and welfare needs depend. In the past inappropriate land use and poor man-agement has wrongly been claimed to be symptoms of local land users' lazinessand environmental ignorance (IFAD 1992). In reality the root cause lies in therange of economic, social and political pressures that force farmers to use theland in the way they do. This chapter focuses primarily on the social and culturaldimensions; the following chapter deals with the economic and financial dimen-sions.

Historical setting

There is usually a direct link between current and past land use. Typicallythe land's present condition owes a great deal to past land use and managementdecisions that would have been taken within the context of the social, cultural andpolitical circumstances that prevailed at the time. An understanding of the waysuch circumstances have changed over time, and a knowledge of past eventsthat may have directly or indirectly influenced land use, may help explain presentland use. Understanding the historical setting for present land degradation mayhelp identify its true cause and enable the right interventions to come up (Doug-las 1994).

An understanding of the historical setting is important in improving the effec-tiveness of national conservation programmes. The limited institutional memoryof many agencies has hampered efforts to evaluate, and learn from, the history ofpast soil conservation activities. This is a serious failing because the operationalmechanisms and social, economic and political conditions of the past will haveinfluenced the present organisational structures and institutional linkages of thevarious agencies involved in combating soil degradation.

They also influence the expectations and attitudes of farmers and techni-cians towards soil conservation. Neglect of the historical setting means that cur-rent conservation initiatives are in danger of wasting resources as they reintro-duce unsuccessful methods, follow narrow disciplinary and institutionally con-strained approaches, or fail to take account of the perceptions of farmers, andtechnical staff, generated from exposure to past soil conservation efforts (Wood1992). A review of the institutional development of agroforestry in Fiji over thelast 100 years (Howlett et al 1996) notes that

. . . many of the concepts as promoted by todays' adherents to agrofor-estry were already recognised well before the second world war. Theearly research and extension officers of the thirties and forties were al-ready promoting trees for such `modern' purposes as soil fertility im-provement and erosion control.

The review also found that contour hedges of vetiver grass were first pro-

S

67

posed and demonstrated to farmers in the 1930s. The Department of Agriculturestill promotes the use of vetiver, which technically is a very good erosion controlmeasure, but the same issues restricting its present adoption are similar to thoseexpressed in 1948

. . . the main reasons for slow progress are beyond the immediate con-trol of the Department since they are concerned with . . . involved sub-jects as land tenure, rural credit, compensation for improvements, con-trolled land utilisation and landlord-tenant relationships.

Social and cultural issues

A social issues analysis can help in understanding how a community is or-ganised and how it functions. Different members of the community play signifi-cant roles as producers and consumers in the rural household and in sustainingthe natural resources of the environment. The roles assigned to gender and agegroups are often based on the status of economic classes. The socio-economicneeds of households determine differing relations among various groups en-gaged in on-farm and off-farm activities.

Cultural values involve belief systems and customs governing relationshipsamong genders, age groups and economic classes. They also determine rules ofconduct at the household and community levels. Some belief systems favourablyimpact on the progress of the community while others hinder the growth and de-velopment of individuals and groups within the community. Favourable social andcultural practices foster cooperation among people, promote innovation, facilitateexchange of information and services, and encourage formation of networks andenterprises. Unfavourable practices usually create rigid barriers among differentgroups and between the genders. These tend to fragment the household's andthe community's efforts, often resulting in conflicts of interest and friction.

In any community there are culturally defined roles for the men, women, el-ders and youth (box 12). These groups also exist within social and economiccontexts which may position them as high, medium and low on the status scale.Their social status depends on material wealth, birthright positions in clan andcaste structures, leadership in indigenous knowledge and cultural practices, ex-perience from age and social recognition in the community through various tradi-tional and religious affiliations.

Social issues

Many soil conservation programmes have failed because they did not takeinto consideration the social circumstances of those expected to adopt the rec-ommended land uses and management practices. Likewise the limited successof many agricultural development programmes is ascribed to promoting tech-nologies that fail to conform to the specific goals and social structure of individualfarm households (Sands 1986).

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

68

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

Box 12Division of labour in traditional Pacific societies

FIJI TONGAMale Female Male Female

WarfareRitual/magicClearing landHorticultureHeavy cookingOccasional deep seafishingWoodcarving/HousebuildingCanoe buildingInter-island trading

HealingMedicine makingWeeding cropsHorticultureLight cookingRegular subsistenceFishingPandanus weavingPottery/tapa/oilLocal trading

Worker/horticultureDeepsea fishingCanoe buildingWeapons productionAll cookingChild careHouse buildingTraditional medicineBartering mens'sproducts

Coconut oilLagoon fishingTapa clothHandicraftsSpecial chiefly dishesChild careInterior finishingTraditional medicineBartering womens'sproducts

Source Slatter 1984

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

Elders pass on their material wealth to their children when they retire fromfarm work, that excludes them from direct participation in economic activities. Butthey often play a prominent role in influencing the custom and cultural practiceswhich determine social behaviour in the household and the community. Theyenjoy a recognised status based on lifetime experience and cumulative knowl-edge.

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

In addition, village elders, clan/caste leaders, local artisans, traditional heal-ers and religious leaders are vital sources of community leadership organisation,information and communication. However extension and development pro-grammes focusing on sustainable agriculture and environmental protection havetargeted exclusively at male adult farmers. This effectively leaves out more thanhalf the rural population consisting of women, elders, youth and others who are

69

opinion leaders, labourers, traders and artisans within individual households andthe community.

Cultural dimensions

Cultural dimensions affect gender relations and impact on household func-tions and on community organisations. This is because culture influences rela-tionships between members of the farm household. Culture also determines howmen and women share their resources and coordinate their responsibilities, con-sidering the limitations on their supply of capital, time, labour, and other re-sources. In addition, culture also determines division of labour among gender andage groups, relations between high income and low income farmers, and tradi-tional institutions which facilitate cost sharing or labour cooperation.

Cultural practices also give emphasis to belief systems influencing behav-iour in human relations between genders among elders, adults and youth withingenders, among different economic classes and interest groups of occupationalassociation (i.e., religious leaders, traditional healers, weavers, potters, blacksmiths, rain-diviners, traders etc).

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

Social customs regulate everyday human relations because of grantingstatus, allocating work between genders, spreading authority in community lead-ership, building hierarchy in family and community structures and among interestgroups. Social and cultural influences have a direct effect on people's percep-tions and attitudes, shaping behaviour patterns in society.

Changing social values and evolving cultural conditions

Social values influence behaviour patterns which are culturally determinedbased on economic demands of the community and physical constraints in theenvironment. Often, belief systems and customs develop and change to meetbasic needs. As a result, culture changes over time. Social values, customs andbehaviour patterns once considered tradition gradually change to accommodatenew situations. The community makes adjustments to changing economic andpolitical realities responding to the demands of the environment. People use lim-ited available resources in a rational manner by being socially and culturally flexi-ble to meet their economic needs. This is borne out by an FAO project on partici-patory upland conservation and development in Balochistan, Pakistan, whoseexperience has shown that:

70

. . . simple techniques and opportunities can be found to over-come the small hurdles and social taboos hindering the betterorganisation of women allowing what was once seen as excep-tional to become ordinary (Kane 1996).

The incorporation of women, community elders, the youth, artisans, tradersand labourers should aim to utilize indigenous knowledge of farmers and women,combined with the experience of elders and modern techniques of the youth. Theessential objective is to integrate various members of the community, utilizingtheir talent and human resources, in a manner that will complement the efforts ofone group with the resources of another. Food self sufficiency, soil and waterconservation, sustainable agriculture or rural development must address theseissues.

Farm household structure

The social organisation, or structure, of the farm household has importantimplications for SARM in particular with regard to the availability of labour (Sands1986). Small-scale farmers rely on labour, largely supplied by household mem-bers, as the most available and flexible factor of production. The amount of familylabour available will determine how much land can be cultivated and the timeli-ness of crop husbandry operations such as planting and weeding. Much of theearthworks recommended for conservation purposes require high inputs of labourfor both construction and annual maintenance. Likewise alley cropping and theuse of compost and manure have high labour requirements.

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

Within the farm household there is often significant specialization in agricul-tural tasks, and enterprises, among sex and age groups (Ibid.). Such can causeeach group to evaluate land use recommendations differently according to theirown set of incentives and constraints. It cannot be assumed that one householdmember is responsible for all operations connected with a particular farm enter-prise. Men may clear and plough the land while the women plant, weed and har-vest. Women commonly take sole responsibility for all aspects of food crop pro-duction, whereas men assume control of cash crop production but still expect thewomen to do some of the work such as weeding. Men may control the acquisitionand disposal of cattle whereas daily decisions on when and where to graze theanimals may be left to the young boys or adolescents herding them. Women maytake care of the small livestock (sheep, goats, pigs and poultry), and be able todecide when and where to dispose of them.

It is often assumed that the male head of household is the sole decision-maker, whereas responsibility for decision-making is usually spread among thosemembers active in particular farm enterprises. This creates distinct spheres ofwork, goals and authority and often results in a complex process of shared deci-sion-making. The decision-making structure needs to be understood to ensurethat the appropriate household member(s) is consulted about land use improve-ments. For instance if women are responsible for a particular enterprise, im-provements may be jeopardised if only the male household heads are consulted

71

and involved. Where responsibility for an enterprise is shared, the need is to con-sult all those involved. The aim is to avoid introducing changes that might be un-acceptable to some household members should they alter the way the costs andbenefits are currently shared.

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

Community structure

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

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

In the Philippines within an administrative village unit (barangay) somehouseholds may come from very different ethnic or tribal groups with differentlanguages, customs and livelihood systems. Hence even though they residewithin the same village area individual households may view the same agricul-tural production problems and development opportunities from different perspec-tives. A knowledge of the social structure, as well as the means by which collec-tive decision are made and action taken within a community is important whenland degradation problems have to be dealt with on a wider than individual farmbasis.

Community dynamics

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

Interest groups exist in both genders, including those single, married, wid-

72

owed and elderly in addition to their status in high, middle or low income catego-ries. There are distinct roles for each category of men and women defined bycustoms and habits. Men and women also form interest groups along occupa-tional lines such as potters, weavers, traditional healers, traders, etc. However,due to custom and belief systems women perform tasks that men would not beexpected to undertake and vice versa.

Box 13Activities undertaken by women in Bunga Village, Haryana, India

Farm Non-Farm

Crop Animal Ancillary Household Non-household

• grazing/feeding theanimals• chaffing of fodder• cleaning the animals& cattlesheds• milking the animals• processing of milk

• collection of fodder • filling of manure pits • kitchen gardening

• cooking• cleaning• child care• firewood collection• making cow dung cakes• collection of drinking water

• marketing• rope making• dari making• kot making• knitting,embroidery

WheatMaize

Others: sugarcane, pulses, sorghum, fodder, oils seedsand others

• owing• fertilizer & manure application• irrigation• weeding• harvesting• post harvest: threshing, cleaning, storage, preparation for marketing

• sowing• weeding• harvesting• cleaning• storage

Source Arya & Samra 1995

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

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

73

Box 14Bunga Village (Haryana India) Watershed Management Project

Time spent by farm women on key activities pre and post project

Activities Time spent(hrs/annum)

Percentageincrease/decrease

Pre Project Post ProjectFarm work 434 1078 + 148Transporting fodder 218 495 + 127Grazing animals 512 220 - 132Animal husbandry (excluding grazing &bringing fodder)

191 562 + 194

Collecting fuelwood & fetching water 661 285 - 132Household chores 1360 1441 + 6Child care and personal care 547 442 - 24Miscellaneous (social & leisure timeactivities e.g. knitting, carpet making, cotmaking)

657 498 - 32

Total 4580 5021 + 10Source Arya and Samra 1995

This person would play different roles and fulfil different functions in each ofhis affiliate membership network or organisations. Often his belief and behavioralpractices may show changes given his differing circumstances in these interestgroup affiliations.

There is scope for using group dynamics within farming communities to :• resolve conflicts of interest;• integrate activities of members i.e farmers, women, elders and youth;• facilitate the transfer of indigenous and modern knowledge on conser-

vation practices;• address community needs including income generating capabilities,

skills training, marketing, water supplies and health services;• expand and organise farm enterprises and farmer networks; and• optimize capabilities of various community members using available

natural resources in self help schemes.

Women and land degradation

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

There is growing evidence from the Pacific that rural women’s workload hasincreased in recent years and that some are beginning to feel the strain. InPapua New Guinea a report on the potential impact of crop diversification notedthat in some areas of the country women were already working themselves "toand beyond the point of exhaustion.” The increase in the workload of women wasdue to such factors as the intensification of the gardening system, the use of fe-

74

male labour in cash cropping, male outmigration, longer school attendance ofchildren and larger family size due to infant and child mortality (Booth 1991). ATongan women's group leader advised one investigator that they were not pro-moting agricultural-income generating projects as vigorously as before becausewhile their workload had increased, men were becoming idle and beginning tolose sense of their responsibility for their families (Siwatibau 1993).

Role of gender analysis

For policy and planning purposes, the factors that facilitate or hamperwomen's participation in SARM should be identified. This requires that genderanalysis form part of any SARM development programme. Gender plays a criticalpart in determining women's access to resources because male and female rolesin society are at the core of social relations, economic structure and family com-position. Gender analysis provides an important entry point for the identificationand examination of some of the underlying causes of SARM problems. It enablespolicy-makers and practitioners to examine factors such as social structures, le-gal frameworks, cultural barriers and opportunities that operate either individuallyor collectively to present obstacles to, or opportunities for, one group in societyas opposed to another.

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

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

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

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

75

Key questions when considering gender for SARM

The necessary information for gender analysis in the context of SARM willvary from situation to situation. But the following are some of the key issues thatneed to be considered in the formulation and implementation of any SARM proj-ect or programme:

• the different roles of men and women, the elderly and the youth in mak-ing decisions on agricultural production and marketing;

• the amount and type of agricultural work performed by men, women, el-ders, youths and children;

• the level of knowledge of each gender/age group on the various agri-cultural technologies used and production tasks performed within thefarm household;

• the ease or difficulty of each gender or age group in accessing newknowledge;

• differences with regard to men’s or women's control over and use of ag-ricultural resources and other natural resources such as fuelwood andwater;

• differences with regard to men’s or women's access to services such asextension, credit, and training.

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

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

• Who are the farmers within the household?• Which members of the household are the relevant decision-makers with

regard to particular farm enterprises?• Who is responsible for carrying out the various tasks associated with a

particular farm enterprise and how much time do they spend on thetask?

• Do all household members benefit equally from the farm enterprise?• Have there been any recent changes in the decision-making responsi-

bilities and tasks of different household members; if so why (e.g. changein family circumstances due to migration of some members, family sizeor alternative cash crop/income-generating activities)?

Need for female extension officers

For cultural and religious reasons, it can be difficult for male developmentworkers/planners in some countries to talk directly with, or organise programmesfor, women. In some SARM programmes this may require a totally separatewomen's development programme with its own set of female development work-ers (see box 15). In others it may be sufficient to ensure that there are one ormore female extension/research workers who can when necessary obtain infor-

76

mation from the household's female members separately. Some projects nowhave a separate women in development (WID) programme with its own specialiststaff. Whereas this raises the profile of WID issues other staff members may tendto delegate responsibility for gender analysis to the WID programme rather thanconsidering it integral to their own work.

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

Constraints and barriers women face in society

Women especially faced by a range of social, cultural and economic con-straints are often marginalised from formal programmes of natural resource man-agement (Commonwealth Secretariat 1996b). Their acceptance as equal part-ners in community development has been severely affected by continuing barri-ers to their full participation in the development process. The absence of a con-scious and specific focus on women has prevented their needs from being rec-ognised and integrated into the programmes being developed. It is now acceptedthat if women are to fully participate in the development process, important ad-justments are required in order to increase their access to education, training,resources and decision-making.

Two major barriers face women in society (Commonwealth Secretariat1996a): the first relates to the social, cultural and legal norms that relegatewomen to occupying only limited and circumscribed positions in society; the sec-ond relates to women's invisibility in decision-making.

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

• Diminish women's capacity at environmental health managers for theirfamilies and communities;

• Diminish women's capacity as effective natural resource managers;• Result in diminished control over the social and economic choices that

women are able to make for themselves, their families and communities;• Further reduce women's socio-economic status and also contribute to

the feminisation of poverty.

77

Box 15Overcoming Purdah: forestry extension with rural women in Pakistan

In Pakistan, purdah, the social segregation of men and women, is the cultural norm. Thegovernment forest service in general and the extension service in particular are exclusively staffed bymen. Moreover, development efforts including social or community forestry projects have yet to developapproaches that are culturally compatible with the participation of women. This has resulted in the virtualexclusion of women from forestry and watershed management development efforts, despite the fact thatwomen are responsible for many activities that have a direct bearing on natural resource conservationand use. The Balochistan pilot effort, of the FAO Interregional Project for Participatory UplandConservation and Development, established in 1992, in Mastung District in the subwatershed of Noza inthe Kanak valley, has experimented with methods designed to promote the involvement of local womenin sustainable natural resource management.

Since the local custom dictated that women must be separated from men, it was necessary for theproject to train and prepare two teams of extension agents, one composed of men the other women.Although each team could not work directly together they were jointly responsible for integrating genderissues in overall village planning and development. Given the lack of women within the BalochistanForestry and Wildlife Department the project had to hire its own women `group promoters' from outside.Rather than recruit urban female graduates it was decided to hire women from the general locality, whonot only spoke the local Brahui language but would be more likely to identify with the low-incomecommunities with whom they would be working. A deliberate commitment was made by projectmanagement to upgrade their skills to ensure professional equity between men and women workingunder the project. The project found that critical to reaching rural women was the ability to organisemeetings. However women in the area had no experience of holding meetings or doing exercises as agroup. Most of them had never been visited by female group promoters or government extensionworkers before the advent of the project. The first step in the process of involving women in naturalresource management was to conduct a participatory rural appraisal (PRA) with them. This wasconceptually difficult, as the traditional hierarchy and culture provides individuals and groups with astylised forum for communicating needs to traditional leaders and outsiders (such as project staff). PRAon the other hand depends on people speaking for themselves. Thus a good deal of time was spent ondeveloping interactive participatory tools that could be utilized by the women, nearly all of whom wereilliterate. Two PRA tools proved particularly useful. Firstly village mapping, in which the womenconsistently included natural resources on their map, unlike the men. Secondly daily time profiles used topromote discussions of women's daily routines and seasonal activities. To aid the discussion the grouppromoters designed a series of colour pictures depicting typical women's tasks with different sizepictures being used to determine the relative time spent on each.

For cultural reasons the project could not immediately work with the women on field based naturalresource management issues. Instead project entry point activities with women have centred on thedevelopment of income generating packages. The strategy has been to create self-help organisationsthrough which the women could learn to hold meetings, make group decisions and manage credit thusbuilding the skills, organisation etc necessary for long-term sustainable natural resource management.As the project has gained the confidence of the women and their male relatives it has been able toorganise a variety of short village based training courses bringing in women extension agents andtrainers from other organisations and projects within the district. Given the local culture one of the mostremarkable achievements of the project has been to organise a series of exposure trips and exchangesfor the women. For this purpose, the project hires a van or a bus for women only and group promotersaccompany them on short day trips. Women must have permission from their husbands or families toleave the village and at first, only the old women were allowed out with the project, but gradually moreand more women of different ages have been allowed to travel.

More recently the project has begun to involve women in the planning and implementation of treeplanting in the compounds - although the trees are actually planted by children to avoid conflicting withlocal social taboos. In the case of the project's activities with the regeneration of common lands oruplands women are now included in the planning process. They are asked to decide which shrubspecies (for fuel), and which medicinal plants, they would like to grow in the uplands. What the projecthas been able to demonstrate is the possibility of including women who have limited mobility anddecision-making power in social forestry and natural resource conservation programmes. It has alsoshown the necessity and potential of adjusting programmes to existing cultural norms. In Balochistan theprocess has taken time. Rural women need first to gain confidence through working in a group. Theyneed training in developing leadership and managerial skills and functional literacy. They need to learnhow to use credit and to operate bank accounts. when they are organised, they provide an easy settingfor women extension agents to teach additional skills. (source Kane 1996)

78

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

In the context of SARM and food security the end result of the above is thatfarmers are frequently assumed to be male, hence men are commonly the solerecipients of agricultural extension advice. This ignores the fact that in manycases women are the farm managers or traditionally in charge of the specific cropor activity for which recommendations are being given. Women are increasinglytaking a more active role in farm production in response to the depletion of thelabour force in rural areas, due to the outmigration of the male household mem-bers. This can affect sustainable agricultural production (FAO 1991c). On thenegative side the increased workload of women places an unbearable strain ontheir time and health. On the positive side off-farm employment provides a flow ofremittances for investment in farm inputs (fertilizer, improved seed, hired labour)and other farm improvements.

As a group rural women are at particular risk from the effects of land degra-dation (Commonwealth Secretariat 1996a, 1996b & 1996c). Their livelihoods andresponsibilities make them more dependent than men on the local natural re-sources. The constraints and pressures which they face leave them more vulner-able to declining crop yields, fuelwood shortages, deteriorating water suppliesetc. Despite the higher international profile given to `women and development'issues the specific problems of rural women, as opposed to men, are still largelyoverlooked in formulating SARM programmes.

Women and SARM: The Asian perspective

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

• About 55% of the world's women live in Asia.• Approximately 14% of Asian households are headed by women, al-

though in some countries this figure is as high as 30%. A disproportion-ate number of female-headed households live in poverty, as the deliveryof the majority of services has failed to acknowledge the large number offemale headed households.

• The subsistence sector, the mainstay for a large proportion of ruralcommunities, is largely dominated by women.

• Women have traditionally provided the majority of agricultural labour inmost Asian countries. Between 50-60% of economically active women inAsia are in agriculture (although sharp contrasts exist between differentAsian countries).

• Women are the main gatherers of forest products and, in many parts ofAsia, have a significantly higher involvement than men in shifting agri-culture. Household needs of food, fuel and water and often cash, areusually fulfilled by women.

• Women are increasingly left solely responsible for the family and farm,as environmental degradation results in large-scale male migration totowns.

• A salient feature of the Asia region comprises a rapid growth of urbancentres, coupled with squatter settlements and high unemployment.

79

Women in such situations are the people most affected by the lack ofbasic services such as water, sanitation and shelter.

Women and SARM: The Pacific Perspective

With regards to the Pacific (Commonwealth Secretariat 1996c):• Women lead many households as sole sustainers and carers (the num-

ber of households headed by women in the Pacific is increasing).• Women traditionally provide the major agricultural labour in most Mela-

nesian societies, and are taking on this non-traditional role in Polynesia.• Women are the main harvesters of reef and freshwater fisheries, gath-

erers of forest foods and craftspeople in Pacific societies.• Women are increasingly meeting families' needs for food, fuel, water

and small amounts of cash.• Women have conservation methods built into their traditional subsis-

tence activities.

Disadvantages faced by women

• Rural women in Asia and the Pacific commonly suffer particular disad-vantages (Commonwealth Secretariat 1996b):

• Government extension services, training and credit facilities often reachonly men as the traditional heads of households. This is largely a con-sequence of the failure to recognise the full extent and nature of thecontribution made by women.

• Social constraints limit women's access to services, resources and deci-sion-making processes at all levels. This prevents them from taking partin the processes that manage the resources with which they work soclosely.

• In some Asian and Pacific countries, women are marginalised from mostsocial and economic structures such as access to education, healthcare, nutrition and employment (see box 15).

• Women have heavy workloads, including farmwork, marketing, house-hold chores, casual labouring and working in small-scale home indus-tries for cash income (especially so with increasing male-migration forurban employment).

• Women have limited access to technology and tools that would easetheir work load. Technological innovations have invariably been made inthe activities typically performed by men, whereas human labour andtraditional techniques continue to be used in most day-to-day activitiesperformed by women, both inside and outside the house.

• Women have limited access to land and credit facilities.

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

For instance, as forests recede, women must spend more time walking longdistances in search of fuelwood and plants for food. The physical effort is greater,

80

there is less time to do the other essential household chores, and they end upworking longer hours. Little or no time is available for other activities such as at-tending health clinics and literacy programmes, forming local organisations, orsimply for personal leisure time. This affects their political participation and theirlevel of empowerment. Thus not only do women themselves risk ill health, buttheir families, especially children, suffer too (Commonwealth Secretariat 1996b).

Farm household access to land and other resources

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

More needs to be known about the distribution of land, conditions gov-erning tenancy, and the programmes instituted to influence the distribu-tion of land and rural incomes.

This policy statement reflects, what is now a widespread concern within de-velopment circles, that in many countries the fact of unequal access to land is amajor constraint to sustainable land use (Danida 1989). Likewise it is now widelybelieved that suboptimal use and management of natural resources are ex-plained by the tenure regime under which farm households operate (Southgate1988).

Box 16Tenure Affects Adoption of Conservation Practices

During the course of a conservation project design training exercise in Sukabumi District, WestJava, Indonesia (ASOCON 1990a) the participants conducted an informal farmer survey. They foundthat farmers who owned the upland plots they were cultivating were far more likely to have planted treesand/or constructed bench terraces (the recommended conservation practices), than those who weretenants or sharecroppers.

Tenant farmers gave several reasons for not following the recommendations, but a commonanswer was that they did not feel that if they planted a tree they would be the ones to harvest theproducts (existing trees were regarded as the property of the landlord), nor were they prepared to investtheir own labour and cash resources in bench terracing as they saw few short-term benefitscommensurate with the costs. At best the benefits were long-term and therefore it should be thelandlords’ and not their responsibility, as they had no guarantee that they would be able to farm the landlong enough to reap the benefits.

The difference in land tenure status of the farmers clearly influenced their decisions about whetheror not to invest in long-term land use improvements. The implications are that either alternativeconservation practices will need to be developed for tenant farmers (i.e. with short-term benefits) orthere will be a need to change the tenancy agreements whereby the tenant can be compensated for anylong-term investments if he/she is required to leave.

Individual household rights

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

81

Box 17Farm Household Land Tenure Categories in the Philippines

In the Philippines private as opposed to communal land tenure arrangements for specific plots farmed byindividual farm households will generally fit one of the following categories:Owner - operator: the household's ownership of the land is based on a legal certificate;Permanent user: the household occupies and uses the land without a legal certificate, but claimsownership through payment of tax, right of inheritance or ancestry;Share tenant: the household operates a `holding of a farm by another' in return for a share of theharvest (the percentage, or the agreed amount, of the harvest shared between the household and theowner may vary from area to area);Lessee: the household leases an area of land from the land owner (including the government) in returnfor an annual cash payment (e.g. rent) or for an agreed share of the harvest;Stewardship agreement: the household enters into a formal agreement with the government for use ofa specified area of land within what is legally public forest land. This is usually for a specified period e.g.25 years renewable for a further 25. In return for the right to use the land, and to pass those rights ontotheir children, the agreement may stipulate certain land use requirements e.g. tree planting and soilconservation practices to be part of any hill farming enterprises;Squatters: the household occupies and uses the land without having legal possession or land userights, i.e. their occupation and use of the land is not covered by lease, title or tenantship.

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

Although Fiji’s Agricultural Landlord and Tenant Act requires the tenant tocompensate the owner should there be any dilapidation, deterioration and dam-age, in practice no one enforces the act and land degradation, directly attribut-able to the short-term leasing of land for inappropriate uses, continues.

Determining the effect a household's rights to land has on its land use man-agement decisions can be a complex issue as there are many different forms ofland tenure arrangement, varying widely from one country, or region, to another. Inthe Philippines, for example, the private tenure status of individual farm householdswill usually conform to one of some six categories (see box 17). To complicate theissue, different tenure arrangements may apply to the different plots of land usedby one household, e.g. the paddy rice plot may be farmed on an owner-occupierbasis with the hill farming plots being used on a shared tenancy or squatter basis.Furthermore in the case of share tenants and lessees the owner of the land maynot have given the farm household full rights to decide how the land is to be used.In many cases the decision on which crops to grow will be taken by the absenteelandlord who may also supply the material inputs, eg seed and fertilizer, with thehousehold providing the labour in return for a share of the crop. In some societies(e.g. the so-called tribals or forest dwelling cultural minorities of Asia and through-out the Pacific) there is traditionally no individual ownership of land instead land iscommunally owned by all those belonging to the village or community with indivi d-ual farm households being granted usufruct rights to a particular piece of land.

The authority to grant land is usually vested in the village headman, or other

82

traditional leader, with a moral obligation to allocate land to individual householdsin conformity with their needs. Under such a system, once land has been allo-cated, and providing the household is using it for crops, livestock and others, itcannot be taken away from them without their agreement. They have full rightsto the products of the allocated landholding.

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

Land tenure systems within the Pacific are highly variable but are commonlybased on communal land ownership patterns (ADB/SPREP 1992). These cus-tomary ownership and tenure systems are intimately associated with traditionalconservation practices throughout the Pacific (see the example of Tonga in box18); and where they are even partially enforced, the customary systems continueto be important for the development and management of land (and some offshoreresources). In many situations negotiations on land use (for instance for permis-sion to cut or harvest a forest) are not undertaken through national or provincialgovernments but directly between the proponents of the economic venture andthe traditional landowners.

Box 18Land rights in Tonga

Under the 1875 Constitution each Tongan male over 16 years of age is entitled to register both atown `api (place not exceeding 0.2 ha) and a garden `api ("place" not exceeding 3.3 ha). Title to theallotments becomes hereditary. A person can have only one hereditary town `api and one hereditarygarden `api. The land may not be sold, but it can be mortgaged as security for a debt. Tenure isdependent on the fulfilment of a number of strict conditions, including two of specific environmentalimport: i) the allotment must be maintained in a `reasonable' state of cultivation; and ii) the land may notbe `abandoned' for more than two years.

All land in the Kingdom is Crown Land with four categories: Hereditary Estates of i) the King; ii) theRoyal Family; iii) the nobles and chiefs (`eike and matapule); and iv) Government Land. Land from anyof the four categories can be leased, with the possibility of a single individual holding up to 10 `api f rperiods up to 20 years.

The development of more intensive agricultural production systems is discouraged by the smallsize of the garden `api. However the general level of soil fertility has been maintained and erosionminimized because many farmers must continue the traditional agroforestry production system. TheTongan land-use system has protected its citizens from the economic, political and environmentalproblems experienced in other Pacific states where the best agricultural land with the easiest accesswas often converted to monoculture plantations. ADB/SPREP 1992

Communal ownership is not a constraint to sustainable agriculture in situa-tions where population density is low, farming systems based on traditional low-input technologies, and community adherence to traditional systems strong. Butevidence suggests a breakdown of communal ownership in other situations in theface of population pressures and technological change with a desire for moresecure occupancy rights than possible under most traditional systems (Panton1987). In the Pacific, communal land tenure arrangements are slowly adapting tochanging demographic and economic conditions, often by informal (thoughsometimes legally questionable) means but also by legislation and formal ar-

83

rangements (Clarke 1994). There is also a growing trend toward de facto indivi d-ual acquisition of control over land and away from the traditional systems ofcommunal or community landholdings. There is also a belief that individualisation(and to some extent land aggregation into bigger holdings) is a requisite for thesuccessful commercialisation of agriculture.

Inheritance rights

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

Land tenure in socialist societies

In Asian countries with a socialist system (China, Vietnam and DPR Korea)there is no private ownership of land which is regarded as state property. In thepast the emphasis in these countries was on large state or communal farms in-volving all households within the community in communal production. However inboth China and Vietnam, government-initiated reforms in the agricultural sector,related to the move towards a market-oriented economy, have led to majorchanges in farmers’ land use rights. Although private land ownership is still notallowed, farmers can obtain individual land management contracts with rights touse a certain area of land.

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

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

84

Box 19Land tenure and management contracts in China

The following land management contractual arrangements are possible in China (APAN 1996):1. Family contracts : agricultural land is proportionally distributed to individual families for their sole

management through contracts with the village or township. Under these contracts farmers areobliged to sell a certain quantity of a specific food crop to the state at a fixed price.

2. Collective or family-group contracts : basically the same as the above except that families worktogether to overcome problems that arise from small plots.

3. Sharecropping contracts : due to the large population in some villages, individually allocated plotsmay be too small to be viable for agricultural production. In such cases the land may be managedby some of the villages inhabitants in the form of an `agricultural enterprise'. Those who prefer tofind off-farm work can lease their allocation to these enterprises in return for a share of the harvest.

4. Specialised households' contracts : applies to production systems that require a high level ofspecialisation (e.g. fish or fruit production), or involve high financial inputs/risks (e.g. wastelanddevelopment). Such contracts can be established between the government and individualhouseholds, household unions, collectives or private enterprises.

5. Specialised contract within State-owned farms: changes have also taken place in state-ownedagricultural enterprises whereby different production groups within the enterprise have becomeindependent. Each group has to meet a pre-determined production quota to guarantee a basicsalary for their members. The workers get a bonus for crop production in excess of the quota hencehave a direct financial incentive to increase production.

As a result of the land reform policy, there are now four distinct kinds of landmanagers in China (APAN 1996): state, private enterprises, collectives, and indi-vidual farmers. This requires major institutional changes in the agricultural sup-port services, because in the past they were focused exclusively on collectivesand state farms. Furthermore top down directives on what crops to produce, andnational technical standards can no longer be enforced as farmers have greaterfreedom in the market economy to decide what crops to grow and how to growthem.

Vietnam: The allocation of land use rights to individual households began in1986. This was formalised in the revised land law approved by the National As-sembly in 1993 which makes it clear that land is still owned by the whole popula-tion and that likewise integrated management is the responsibility of the State.The agricultural land within individual communes/villages has been subdividedwith each household being allocated an equal sized plot of land for sedentarycultivation of annual and in some cases perennial crops. The size of allocatedplot varies between communes, with the smallest plots being found in the riceproducing Red River and Mekong River Delta areas with larger plots in uplanddryland farming areas. In only a few areas would the agricultural plot exceed amaximum of 2-3 ha. However much larger plots of land may be allocated to indi-viduals for the establishment of forest plantations and orchards on areas of bareland and denuded hills. The user rights areas of agricultural land are allocated fora maximum of 20 years, and those for tree plantations or forest for 50 years.Land use rights can be transferred to others and they are inheritable (APAN1996).

Communal resources

Communal resources are those over which no individual household has ex-

85

clusive legal or usufruct rights. A distinction can be drawn between what aretermed common property resources and open access resources (Southgate1988). Common property resources, far from being available to anyone, can onlybe used by members of a well-defined group (e.g. those living in a particular vi l-lage, or belonging to a particular clan or tribe). Members of the privileged groupmust observe certain resource rules. By contrast open access resources are notproperties as such but can be used by anyone.

The conventional wisdom is that the use and management of communal re-sources is poor, leading inextricably to land degradation. Certainly in many areassuch resources are subject to unsustainable pressures, particularly overgrazingof communal rangelands and excessive removal of timber, poles and fuelwoodfrom communal forests and woodlands (Hudson 1981b). The worst problems areassociated with open access resources where any individual who considerspractising conservation knows that any gains will be dissipated by increased de-pletive pressure exerted by other resource users. Attempts to improve the re-source, which is nominally regarded as government property, are unlikely to suc-ceed without altering its open access status (Southgate 1988).

In contrast the use of common property resources does not have to lead totheir degradation. Individuals with access to such resources do not automaticallyopt for activities that will deplete them. There is often tacit cooperation with usersrecognising that individual short-term restraint, to conserve a resource, will ulti-mately benefit them all (Southgate 1988). A growing number of case studiesshow how various communities can manage their common property resources ona sustainable basis. One such study is of a small catchment protection project inIndia (Mishra and Sarin 1988). This revealed that poor villagers were willing toforgo grazing by their goats in an eroded communal grazing area when they hada shared stake in the early benefits that would result from protection, notablythrough ropemaking with bhabbar grass grown in the former grazing area.

It would appear that the way to develop the sustainable management ofcommunal natural resources is by converting open access resources (includingpoorly managed state forest and grassland areas) into common property re-sources with ownership vested in clearly defined user associations. This is thestrategy which is pursued in Nepal where a policy decision has been taken toturn over management of the nationalised forestlands to exclusive user groupswithin the adjacent rural communities (box 20). The Master Plan for the ForestrySector in Nepal envisages that such community user groups will become respon-sible for the protection, management and utilisation of existing forests and newplantations for subsistence needs (Denholm 1991).

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

Watershed management programmes that restrict particular land use activi-ties in the communal woodlands and/or grazing areas to enhance the quantityand quality of water available to farmers for irrigation purposes may inadvertentlyremove one of the key livelihood strategies of the landless households within the

86

rural community. Not only would this lead to increasing social inequality but couldbe a cause for social conflict within the community as one section benefits at theexpense of another.

Box 20The Forest User Group Concept of Nepal

Empowerment of the communityLocal people themselves identify the forest users, who form a user committee from their number.

Forestry Department staff act as catalyzers and facilitators to ensure the representation of all interestgroups within a forest user group, but they do not interfere directly in forest user group and usercommittee formation.

Users do their own planningWith the assistance of forestry field staff, users prepare an operational plan (OP) for their forest.

An OP may include details about the protection and management of the forest and the system forsharing benefits amongst users. The role of the forestry staff is an advisory one, although the approval ofthe Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) is also needed. Users can set the time period of an OP, and canmodify or change it if necessary, subject to DFO agreement.

Forest user group/committee - a legal statureOnce the OP has been signed by two concerned parties (i.e. the DFO and the forest user group

chairman), the new Forest Act 2048 (1992) recognises the forest users committee as a legal body,empowered to execute the OP. The committee can also punish any violator of the rules stipulated in anOP.

All benefits go to the local peopleUnder the rules and regulations in community forestry in Nepal the government provides land free

of charge, invests capital, and assists in technical support to the local community or user group forcommunity forestry development but does not expect a direct share of any benefit. All the benefits fromcommunity forests go to the user group or local community.

No time limitationIn Nepal there is no set time period for community forestry and no sharing of benefits with the

government. Once an area of forest is handed over to a user group, it can manage and utilise the forestfor an unlimited period of time. It is made clear, however, that the government has only handed overrights to forest management and utilisation and not the right of tenure; the forest users cannot sell ormortgage the land on which the forest is growing.

Singh B.K. 1992

Rights of indigenous groups and cultural minorities

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

There is some evidence that the situation regarding the rights of indigenous

87

groups within the Asia Pacific region is improving (see box 21 for recent legisla-tion on this in the Philippines). However, problems remain where large numbersof people from overpopulated and overexploited parts of a country are resettledin areas that traditionally belonged to a different ethnic group. The issue is furthercomplicated when the settlers bring with them land management practices thatmay not be suited to the bio-physical conditions of their new area.

Box 21An important piece of recent legislation in the Philippines with a bearing on SARM concerns therecognition of ancestral lands and the rights of indigenous peoples. The critical sections of thePhilippines Constitution on this are:

Section 22 - Article IIThe State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities (ICC) withinthe framework of national unity and development.Section 5 - Article XIIThe State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development policies andprogress, shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands toensure their economic, social and cultural well-being.The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws governing property rights orrelations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain.

The rules and regulations for the identification, delineation and recognition of ancestral land anddomain claims are set out in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)Department Administrative Order (DAO) No. 2 of 1993. DAO 2 is based on the premise that effectivelong-term forest management is possible only if forests are managed by communities or individuals whohave a financial stake in and derive direct and sustained economic benefits from the publicly heldresource.

DAO 2 makes a distinction between ancestral domains and ancestral lands. Ancestral domainscomprise the territories possessed, occupied or utilised by ICCs, by themselves or through theirancestors, in accordance with their customary laws, traditions and practices, irrespective of their presentland classification and utilisation. Ancestral domains may include land used for residences, farms, burialgrounds, communal and/or private forests, pasture and hunting grounds, worship areas, individually-owned land whether alienable and disposable (A&D) or other wise. Ancestral lands are those occupied,possessed or utilised by individuals, families or clans who are members, by ancestral descent, of anICC. Ancestral land may include residential lots, rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden farmsand tree lots.

This is a social and ethical problem rather than macro-economic, and maygive rise to serious civil strife, with environmental degradation as an added com-plication (FAO 1995c). In Indonesia the Government-sponsored transmigrationprogramme has sought to move households from the densely populated island ofJava to other less densely populated islands within the archipelago. The settlershave often faced considerable difficulties when forced to adopt new crops andland management practices due to the very different soil and climatic conditionsin their new environment compared to their former home. There have also beenreports of violent clashes between the migrants and the original inhabitants (whoresent the loss of their ancestral lands) in parts of Sumatra and Irian Jaya.

Fragmentation

One of the factors contributing to excessive pressure on land resources isthe deep-rooted cultural ethic in many traditional societies that everyone has theright to the use of a piece of land (Hudson 1983). A major reason for its continua-tion is that in dominantly agricultural economies the majority of the populationhave no real alternative but to obtain their livelihood from the land. In the past

88

when land was not a scarce resource the needs of an expanding populationcould be met by bringing more land into cultivation. With this option generally nolonger available the observance of inheritance rights can lead to progressivefragmentation of land holdings.

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

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

Land titling

Successful adoption of soil conservation requires that farmers hold indivi d-ual land titles. Hence there has been considerable debate on the pros and consof individual versus communal ownership of land and whether land titling shouldfigure in sustainable agricultural development programmes (see Falloux 1987,Wachter 1992). One view is that a title of individual land ownership provides landsecurity and therefore favours long-term investments. It also makes access toformal credit (e.g. commercial banks) easier as the title provides the collateral toguarantee loans. Others favour communal ownership from an equity point of viewas the emergence of a land market, following land titling, may aggravate socialdifferences and increase inequalities in income distribution. Socio-economicpressures can lead to the poorer households selling land to the better off farmhouseholds and land speculators. Landless rural households are rare when landis held on a customary tenure basis but may become common following land ti-tling.

Land titling, involving the need for demarcating plot boundaries, can becostly and time-consuming. Few post-project evaluations have been undertakento determine whether it results in any long-term environmental benefits. One re-view of the World Bank's experience with rural land titling looked at some 12projects in South America, Africa and Southeast Asia (Wachter and English1992). Regrettably this did not seek to evaluate the environmental impact of landtitling, but restricted itself to evaluating the effectiveness in implementing the landtitling component. In this latter regard the review concluded that very few of the

89

projects could be considered successful. The reasons for failure were summa-rised as follows:

• An overall lack of political support;• Conflicting bureaucratic priorities and/or institutional infighting;• Lack of institutional capacity and/or an unwillingness to commit ade-

quate resources; and• Underestimation of the complexity and/or cost of the tasks to be carried

out or other design weaknesses.

It is believed that before land titling is made a centrepiece of efforts to ad-dress land degradation problems a more detailed review of previous experiencewould be advisable. This review should seek evidence of any environmentalchanges following land titling so as to validate, or reject, the hypothesis that legalland title is a requisite for sustainable agriculture.

Land alienation

Land alienation involving the reservation of large areas of land for the com-mercial agricultural sector has often resulted in the marginalisation of subsistenceand semi-commercial small-scale farmers. In the competition for the limited highpotential arable land small scale-farmers invariably lose out to the needs of large-scale plantations, arable estates and cattle ranches. This has been often beendriven by the need to generate foreign exchange resulting in the expansion in theproportion of land under commercial plantations devoted to export crops such asrubber, oil palm, and coconuts in many parts of Asia and the Pacific. Elsewheresuch diverse concerns as state farms and the construction of dams has furtheralienated land.

Marginalisation occurs when the dispossessed farm households are re-stricted to smaller areas, often of low (marginal) agricultural potential, and be-cause of their remote location or poor communications cut off from the centres ofpolitical and economic power. Such marginalisation is often accompanied by landdegradation as a growing population on a restricted resource base, with only lim-ited income from other sectors, is forced to use the land intensively for agricul-tural production. Without the resources to invest in conservation and externalfarm inputs, a vicious spiral of declining soil productivity and increasing povertycommonly sets in.

Many governments have implemented land alienation policies, for alleged“catchment protection” purposes. Typically critical upland areas are declared un-suitable for cultivation and reclassified as watershed protection zones or stateland. It is not uncommon to come across a national land policy declaring all areasover a certain percentage slope (e.g. 15%) to be forest land. The effect may be torender traditional highland communities illegal squatters in their ancestral lands(e.g. the Philippines and Thailand). The result is farming communities with nolong-term security and therefore little incentive to conserve the land they aredeemed to be illegally cultivating. The situation is exacerbated where populationpressure leads to lowland farmers illegally moving into the `reserved' uplands.

Several schemes are being tried to find ways of giving such farmers securitybut without giving them freehold title. The land stewardship agreements dis-pensed under the auspices of the Integrated Social Forestry Programme in the

90

Philippines is one such scheme (UDP 1989). Those households illegally cultivat-ing within forest areas are granted long-term user rights (25 years renewable fora further 25 years) providing they follow certain conservation recommendations.The landholding cannot be sold, and remains legally forest land, although thestewardship rights can be inherited.

Social significance of livestock

Poor livestock management, particularly overstocking and overgrazing, hasoften been identified as a major cause of land degradation in the arid and semi-arid zones of the Asia-Pacific region. The conventional technical solutions havetypically focused on destocking to reduce livestock numbers, which may be un-dertaken in conjunction with controlled grazing schemes and pasture improve-ment programmes aimed at enhancing the condition of the range. Most suchprogrammes have failed, in large part because of a failure to understand the so-cial and cultural significance that livestock have in many cultures and farmingcommunities. In pastoral societies livestock (cattle, camels, sheep and goats) aresymbols of status and evidence of wealth. In India, both of these aspects apply,and there is the added factor of the religious significance of the cow (Hudson1981b).

Attempts were made in Balochistan (Pakistan) to overcome rangeland deg-radation through individual ranches instead of communal grazing, the underlyingassumption being that ranching would be sustainable whereas pastoralism wasnot. This failed, in part, because civil servants rather than the owners of therange and livestock were brought in to manage the ranch projects. It also failed torecognise that the potential ranching areas were already used by market-orientedpastoralists and agro-pastoralists, capable and willing to defend their land (use)rights (van Gils and Baig 1992).

The motives for holding livestock are varied. For nomadic pastoralists ani-mals provide a stock of wealth, one that can always be converted to cash in-come, if needed, and when there is adequate pasture due to a sequence of goodrainfall years, can also be fairly easily expanded. The animals are also a store offood. Threats to this joint store of wealth and food come from drought, land scar-city and political events. Stock levels are often held above the effective carryingcapacity of the land as an insurance against such threats. If livestock is virtuallythe only form of wealth, and if resource depletion threatens food supplies, it isrational for individual households to maintain high stock levels. With the risk oflosing animals high, this management strategy should ensure that sufficient stocksurvive from which to rebuild a depleted herd. Destocking programmes jeopard-ise such traditional survival strategies and typically fail to provide socially andculturally acceptable alternatives that individual households can use to sustaintheir prestige, status and livelihood.

In the Pacific Islands pigs have immense cultural significance that greatlyexceeds their value as a source of food. The number of pigs owned by an indi-vidual determines his status within the community and the exchange of pigs canbe a means to strengthen ties as well as resolving conflicts within and betweencommunities/tribes. At the same time feral wild pigs and roaming domestic ani-mals can damage crops, requiring major expenditure of effort and resources inerecting pig proof barriers around gardens. The problem may be so great in cer-

91

tain localities (e.g. adjacent to villages) to preclude the growing of the traditionalroot crops.

In small-scale farming systems livestock generally serve a multipurpose,rather than purely commercial, function. They may provide valuable inputs for thecropping system (e.g. draft power and/or manure) as well as output for homeconsumption and cash generation (milk, meat, eggs etc). An understanding of thesocial significance of livestock and their function within individual rural householdlivelihood systems is a requisite for improving livestock management. Livestockhave the potential to become part of the solution to land degradation and shouldnot just be regarded as a major part of the problem.

Population growth

The high population growth rates in many of the Asia and Pacific countriesare perceived by a number of authors (e.g. Repetto and Holmes 1983; FAO1991a) as a major threat to the environment. Population growth, working in con-junction with other factors, is believed to have led to widespread degradation ofagricultural land. The breakdown of traditional systems of sustainable resourcemanagement has often been attributed to their inability to accommodate theneeds of growing numbers of people, and in some cases increasing livestocknumbers. Degradation occurs in the absence of appropriate technological re-sponses to a changing social situation. However to see problems of degradationas a consequence of increasing populations and their subsistence requirementsalone is to oversimplify or to diagnose the situation incorrectly.

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

Political factors

Most politicians and most political parties pay lip service to the ideal of goodhusbandry and conservation of natural resources, but in practice soil conserva-tion does not win votes. Governments may have conservation policies but thesedo not get translated into practical effect unless there is the political will to makethem work (Hudson 1983). The strength of local political will and determination,with the backing of national authorities, can be decisive in determining the suc-cess of a SARM programme.

Technical and policy recommendations may fail if they run counter to theinterests of those with political influence and economic power (e.g. landlords,business men, commercial loggers etc). For instance while land tenure reform or

92

a ban on logging, may be highly desirable, it may end up blocked by those withmost to lose. Where the political environment is controlled by vested interests itmay require a national disaster such as occurred in Southern Thailand in 1990and Ormoc in the Philippines in 1991, to generate sufficient public concern for thepoliticians to take action. In both cases tropical cyclones produced heavy rainfallover severely degraded watershed areas leading to flash floods. Heavy loss oflife and destruction of property shocked the general public, thereby raising thepolitical profile of conservation concerns in both countries and bringing pressurefor a total ban on logging.

Political instability can also be a factor against SARM. In its most severeform it may lead to civil war, ethnic clashes, tribal fights and the presence ofarmed dissident groups, all of which may disrupt agricultural activities at the fieldlevel. When such conditions prevail land use activities will be directed exclusivelyat short-term survival, which may be to the detriment of long-term sustainability.The Asia Pacific region has seen its share of such instability in the form of pastand ongoing conflicts in such countries as Sri Lanka (Tamil separatism), thePhilippines (communist and muslim dissidents) and Papua New Guinea (Bou-gainville). Even when there has been a return to peace and order the legacy ofpast conflict in the form of mines and unexploded ordinance may make the re-sumption of agricultural production a hazardous exercise. In this regard the AsiaPacific region has one of the most heavily mined countries in the world, Cambo-dia, where civilian casualties amongst the farming population are an everydayoccurrence.

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

93

Chapter 6Economic and financial considerations

hile the processes of land degradation are physical, and may be initiatedor accelerated by human interference, the impact is ultimately viewed infinancial and economic terms (Douglas 1992a). From the perspective ofthe individual household the financial costs may be felt directly. Lost

production due to declining crop yields following soil degradation is a direct cost asare higher farming costs arising from increased application of fertilizer tocompensate for declining soil fertility. Deforestation and deteriorating watersupplies means more time and effort, especially for the female householdmembers, has to go into collecting fuelwood and water. There is an opportunitycost to this as it decreases the amount of family labour available for on-farmproductive activities.

From society's perspective the economic costs are just as real. Some such asthe shortening in the economic life of a dam due to siltation, or increased costs ofrepairing damaged roads and bridges due to flashflooding are clear and can bequantified in cash terms. Others such as decline in the health and well being of theaffected communities, are less easily costed although no less important (Douglas1994).

Poverty and economic disadvantage

Poverty is the underlying cause of much of the land degradation within theAsia Pacific region. Lack of alternative income-generating activities (off- and non-farm) means that majority of the region's rural households remain dependent onsmall-scale farming and/or forestry activities for their livelihood. Within individualcountries the indigenous and migrant population in the more remote upland andhighland/mountain areas are generally very poor and often have a struggle to meettheir basic survival needs. As a result they cannot afford to forego the chance ofshort-term production (e.g. growing of annual food crops on steep slopes) evenwhen clearly non-sustainable, for the sake of long-term conservation benefits (e.g.planting tree crops which may not give any productive returns for several years).

While a range of soil and water conservation and agroforestry technologieshave been developed for different agro-ecological zones, implementation requiressubstantial investments in labour, time, money and material resources, which manyhouseholds do not have. Hence even when aware of the need to adopt specificsustainable farming practices, socio-economic constraints within their householdcircumstances prevent them from doing so.

Many conservation recommendations (e.g. terracing, alley cropping,reforestation) have high initial investment costs when compared to current landuses and the incremental development costs are beyond what many households

W

94

can absorb.17 There is generally a lack of spare cash within the householdeconomy and access to low-cost credit is limited. Commercial banks, whenpresent, are usually unwilling to lend money to those they perceive as having nocollateral with which to secure a loan.

In whose interest?

The priority attached to SARM can be evaluated from the viewpoints of boththe individual farm household and the wider society. The farm household isinterested in the severity and frequency of an agricultural resource managementproblem in terms of its effect on the way the household seeks to meet its objectivesand production targets. Decision-makers who are responsible to society at large(farmers and others) are concerned with the extent of a problem throughout anarea, and the long-run interests of the present and future generations. Where aproblem is of major concern to both the farm households and society at large, thenthere is mutual agreement to it being tackled as part of any developmentprogramme. Where the interests of the farm household and society diverge, twopossibilities exist.

• If the problem is of interest to the farm household but not a concern ofsociety at large then it becomes difficult to justify spending muchgovernment time and money on trying to solve it, given the need for localdevelopment initiatives to fit within a national development policyframework.

• Alternatively if the problem is in the interests of society but not a concernof the local farm households, the government has the choice of whetherto alter the farming environment, including incentives, to bring farmhousehold interests in line with those of society, or to leave conditions asthey are (see box 22).

The concept of “in whose interest” is of growing concern in a number ofcountries within the region with regard to the issue of food security. This is becausefood crops increasingly give lower financial return to farmers than a variety ofalternative cash crops. Thus as small-scale farming households become lesssubsistence and more commercially oriented there is a tendency for them to switchfrom food crops to cash crops, in some instances completely abandoning thegrowing of food crops, purchasing their food requirements with the proceeds fromtheir sales of cash crops. From the perspective of national food security it is insociety's interest that individual farm households continue to grow food crops.However, when viewed from the individual's perspective the household would befinancially better off growing higher value cash crops. This divergence of interestsbetween farmers and society has in developed countries, such as Japan and theEuropean Union, been reconciled through the policy of using tax revenue from thenon-agricultural sector to provide subsidies to farmers to continue to grow food

17 Alley cropping was one of the conservation farming practices tested by the IBSRAM ASIALANDsloping lands network. Reported results show that the initial establishment of the hedgerows incurred anadditional cost of US$104 (in the Philippines) and US$58 (in Thailand) per hectare. This cost included: i)the labour needed for laying out the contour and planting the hedgerows; and ii) the cost of hedgerowmaterials (Magalinao and de Guzman 1995). Such costs would be beyond the means of most small-scale hillside farming households in both the Philippines and Thailand.

95

(e.g. rice production in Japan and wheat/sugar beet in Europe). However this is notan option for most developing countries in the Asia Pacific region given the limitedrevenue budget resources available from non-agricultural sources.

Valuation of soil degradation

The negative consequences of soil degradation for agriculture are widelyrecognised, but until recently very few attempts have been made to estimate themagnitude of the costs involved (Bishop 1992). Economic losses arising from soildegradation may be divided into on-site and off-site costs.

On-site costs refer to the direct effects of soil degradation on the quality of theland resource itself. These may be expressed in terms of reduced agriculturalproductivity (declining crop yields, livestock losses), in terms of increased costs tosustain production levels (additional fertilizer inputs, feed purchases etc) or thecosts of restoring degraded soil to its former productive condition (drainage,leaching and gypsum application to correct salinisation andwaterlogging/opportunity cost of putting the land under fallow).

Off-site costs refer to the indirect effects of soil degradation, and usually takethe form of externalities. Most off-site costs are traced to the effects of silt, soilnutrients or agro-chemical products washed into surface water or leached intosubterranean aquifers by rainfall and irrigation run-off. The deposition of sedimentover lowland paddy fields, and the downstream sedimentation of reservoirs,hydroelectric facilities or irrigation channels, as a result of poor management ofupland agricultural areas, are typical negative externalities (Bishop 1992).

Box 22In whose interest?

The interests of individual farm households and the wider society may not be the same (afterShaner et al 1982, Douglas 1992):

Commonality of Interests: If the government has concern for a specific group of farmhouseholds and they have identified a problem among themselves, such as flood damage or decliningyields affecting production then a commonality of interests exists. A SARM project planning team couldinclude such problems in a development priority list, provided the severity, frequency and extent of theproblems are great enough.

In farmers' interests but not society's: Farm households may be engaged in shifting cultivationon erodible hillsides and may be seeking help to expand this activity into adjacent forested areas. If thiswould contribute to the depletion of the nations natural resource base then it may well be that theinterests of society would be better served by not responding to the local households stated interests. Abetter solution would be to try and meet the households' needs in some other way e.g. stabilising theshifting cultivation in existing areas by the introduction of perennial crops and simple conservationmeasures.

In society's interests but not the farmers': The government may be concerned about protectingits investment in an irrigation or hydro-electric dam and wish to control erosion and sedimentation in theupper catchment area. Farm households upstream of the dam may have little interest in adopting soilconservation measures for the benefit of downstream rice growers or industrial and urban electricityconsumers. The government can try to offer incentives and compensation in the hope of persuadingfarmers to adopt the recommended measures thereby bringing the two interests together. Howeversustaining financial incentives can be difficult from government revenue sources, hence a better optionmay be to develop conservation effective solutions to local agricultural production problems that will offerreduction in downstream sedimentation as a secondary benefit.

96

A range of analytical techniques can be used to evaluate the impacts of soildegradation in terms of economic costs and benefits (see box 23 and Dixon et al1989, Stocking et al 1990, Winpenny 1991). There is also a growing body ofpapers and case studies that illustrate use of such techniques (e.g. Dixon et al1990). The most detailed studies are usually of small field plots with the focus onanalysing the on-site impacts, particularly the effect of soil loss on production (e.g.Sessay and Stocking 1992). Lack of physical data generally precludes anassessment of the off-site effects (Bishop 1992).

It is harder to estimate the costs and benefits of soil conservation on a project,regional or national level. Most such studies are based on an inadequate database,make wide-ranging assumptions and accept that the findings are approximate innature (e.g. Finney and Western 1986, Bojö 1987, FAO 1994a). Also, significanterrors can arise when data and techniques obtained at the level of individual fieldplots are extrapolated on a broader scale (Stocking 1987). Despite their limitationssuch studies provide a qualitative indication of the extent of the costs of soildegradation. For instance in Indonesia the annual depletion of soil fertility has beencalculated as 4% of the value of crop production, or as large as the annualincrease in production (Repetto et al 1989, Magrath and Arens 1989). A recentstudy of the effect of land degradation in South Asia concluded that (FAO 1994a):

the best estimate that can be obtained is that land degradation iscosting countries in the region an economic loss of the order noless than US$10 billion, equivalent to 7% of their combinedagricultural gross domestic product.

Soil - an economic asset

Soil is one of the most essential natural resources for agricultural production.Yet agricultural land use often results in soil degradation and reduced productivity.This raises the question, Is soil a renewable or non renewable resource?

Under natural systems any soil lost by erosion is largely replenished by theongoing processes of soil formation. Sustainable agriculture is based on thepremise that soil is a renewable resource and recognises that there is a thresholdlevel below which resource use renders it nonrenewable. Many of the land usesand management practices followed by farmers in the Asia Pacific region appear tocross this threshold level. Because they effectively treat soil as a nonrenewableresource they are unsustainable (Anderson and Thampapillai 1990).

Poor land use may be due to a lack of information or a misperception of thegravity of soil degradation on the part of the land users. In many cases though,farm households simply value the short-term profits obtained from activities whichdegrade the soil more highly than they value the long-term benefits of soilconservation (Bishop 1992). Such behaviour is not necessarily irrational. As onereport puts it (Bishop 1995),

. . . a comparison of the costs and benefits of conservation almost alwaysjustifies some amount of soil degradation, simply because the value offertile soil is not infinite relative to other human needs".

On the other hand, as is especially true of most Asian and Pacificcountries, arable land is neither limitless nor costless to obtain; hence some form ofconservation is warranted. As with any economic asset, determination of an

97

optimal rate of exploitation depends ultimately on a comparison of the benefits ofconservation to potential returns from other investments and activities. Farmersmay be justified in liquidating the capital value of soil fertility if the profits derivedfrom non-sustainable agriculture yield a higher economic rate of return in someother enterprise than in soil conservation (Bishop 1995).

Shifting cultivation is a rational economic activity where unexploited fertileland is readily available. The costs (primarily household labour) of opening up newfields being far less than those that would be involved in sustaining yields in the oldfields, i.e. to combat soil degradation and weed competition. Similarly farmers withinsecure tenure (e.g. short-term tenants, squatters) are following a rationaleconomic strategy when they seek to “liquidate the capital value” of their soil fertilityby using exploitative forms of crop and livestock production for short-term profit.Where land is scarce and there is security of tenure, it becomes rational for farmersto actively protect the soil as an economic asset. This fits the hypothesis thatpopulation growth (through its impact on land availability) will drive technologicalchange due to the need to increase productive capacity per unit of land area(Boserup 1965).

A recent review of economic decision models concluded that some depletionof soil fertility can be justified on economic grounds (Bishop 1995). The efficient or`optimal' rate of depletion can be defined as the point where the costs and benefitsof soil conservation are exactly balanced (in marginal, present value terms). Whilethe costs of soil conservation are easily determined, the benefits are oftenambiguous and depend on a number of factors. In general, the benefits may beexpressed in terms of the value of increased future crop yields, relative to yields ondegraded soils (the on-site impact), plus the value of any off-site costs avoided(e.g. sedimentation, siltation and pollution) (Bishop 1995).

Not all soils have the same asset value

In considering soil as an economic asset it should be remembered that not allsoils are equal i.e. have the same productive potential (see chapter 4). The impactof erosion on yield is very much site- and soil-specific, and to a lesser extent crop-specific (Stocking 1984). High levels of topsoil erosion have little effect on yieldswhere the soil is deep and has appreciable reserves of weatherable mineralsthrough the profile (e.g. volcanic ash soils). In such a situation the on-site costs oferosion (loss of yield) may be relatively low although off-site costs (e.g.downstream siltation and flood damage) may be high. For such soils this begs thequestion as to who would benefit from any soil conservation programme andtherefore who should bear the costs (i.e. the farmer or society).

Many tropical soils show very high rates of initial yield loss, decelerating aserosion progresses (Stocking 1984). This occurs where, as is common in thetropics, the bulk of the nutrients are concentrated in the top few centimetres. Hencea small amount of topsoil loss may lead to a very rapid and marked decline in yield(particularly acute for coarse textured highly leached soils). Not only is it veryserious that yields plummet with only a small amount of erosion, but reduced soilproductivity provides less vegetation cover enabling the erosion rate itself toaccelerate. In such a situation there are tangible on-site benefits to the farmer inpreventing erosion, and their quantification will help justify the costs of adoptingappropriate conservation practices.

98

Inefficient land use

Farmers may not choose an economically optimal rate of soil degradation fora number of reasons. The prevalence of market, policy and institutional failuresmeans that farmers do not always take into account the full costs of soildegradation to society. Such failures distort economic incentives leading farmers todeplete soil assets at an economically inefficient rate. The underlying causes ofinefficient land use may be grouped into the following categories (Bishop 1995):

• The presence of non-marketed and uncompensated external impacts;• High rates of time preference that diminish the present value of future

yield losses;• The availability of technical substitutes for natural soil fertility and

alternative assets;• Inappropriate policy incentives which inadvertently discourage soil

conservation; and• Other technical and economic constraints which prevent farmers from

adopting soil conserving practices.

External impacts

External impacts or externalities are costs or benefits which are not reflectedin market prices. A typical negative externality resulting from soil erosion on crop orforest land is the sedimentation of downstream reservoirs, hydroelectric facilities orirrigation channels. The protection of watersheds provided by well-managed treeplantations, orchards and other perennial crops are an example of a positiveexternality. Such off-site costs and benefits are not reflected in the prices ofagricultural outputs, nor in farmer decision-making, but are an integral part of theeconomic cont-ribution made by agriculture and forestry. Because the externalitiesescape the arena of existing markets their effects are rarely documented and areoften difficult to measure (Bishop 1995).

Time preference

Time preference refers to the simple fact that most people prefer currentincome to future income. Economists use the discount rate to determine timepreferences when comparing present and future costs and benefits. Privateindividuals (e.g. farmers) are often presumed to have a high degree of timepreference, and thus employ higher discount rates on average than society as awhole. For this reason society can be expected to ascribe a higher value to futurecrop yields foregone due to soil degradation than will farmers. Society is also likelyto be more concerned about long-run stability, sustainability and equity inagriculture, all of which may depend in some measure on conservation efforts.Hence a socially optimal level of soil depletion is usually below the level toleratedby farmers (Bishop 1995).

Farmers will not all display the same time preference. Private discount ratesand patterns of resource use will vary with the level of household income, foodsecurity and access to opportunities for investment. High rates of private time

99

preference may be associated with extreme poverty, when immediate subsistenceis uncertain. Land tenure problems can also engender high time preference rates,wherever insecure land use rights or shared access to scarce resourcesdiscourage investment and prudent exploitation (Magrath 1989a, Southgate 1988).A farming systems research project in the Eastern Visayas region in the Philippinesfound that the private discount rates of farmers were high (between 40-70%) andthis was the main determinant of their willingness to adopt soil loss preventionmeasures which had medium to longer term payoff (O'Brien 1991).

Substitutes

In SARM technical innovation is largely devoted to devising substitutes for, orincreasing the productivity, of scarce agricultural resources. Fertile land isconsidered an essential resource, particularly in the developing countries of theregion where subsistence food production is still important for the livelihood of thebulk of the rural population. The prominent role of agriculture in national welfare insuch countries justifies concern about the possible lack of substitutes for naturalsoil fertility, and the scarcity of alternative economic opportunities (Bishop 1995).

Box 23Methods for evaluating soil resources

A recent study of land degradation in South Asia (FAO 1994a) identified the following five methodsfor valuing soil resources:

1. Defensive expenditure: the cost of preventing land degradation through thr adoption of soilconservation works, drainage systems on irrigation schemes, and similar preventative measures. Thesehave both capital and recurrent elements of expenditure.

2. Lost production: crop yields, or other output, are estimated for areas of degraded and non-degraded soil and then priced. The difference measures the value of lost production. The two situations,with and without degradation, are assessed by normal methods of farm economics. This method has theadvantage of being applicable to all types of land degradation.

3. Replacement cost: the additional fertilizer inputs needed to maintain yields at the same level canbe used as a measure of the cost of degradation. It is also possible to estimate the quantity of soilnutrients (especially nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium) lost by erosion or removed in harvestedproducts and to place a value on their replacement through the application of purchased fertiliser.

4. User cost: this refers to the proportion of profits which need to be reinvested in some other way, ifthe same income is to be maintained after the resource has been exhausted. Thus a proportion of theprofits made from some exploitative, degrading, land use would need to be reinvested in some otherway, e.g. reclaiming coastal marshlands as is being done with the aid of polders in some tidal bays inFujian province China.

5. Restoration or reclamation: the cost of restoring the soil to its former productive state. In thecase of salinization and waterlogging practical means are known, such as drainage, leaching andgypsum application, and have been costed. However to restore an eroded soil to its former condition itwould be necessary to: (a) replace nutrients as in method 2 above; (b) • replace soil organic matter,and thereby restore structure (costs of applying compost, animal manure or foregone production whileplanted to a green manure crop); and (c) • replace the soil.

Replacing lost soil by physically transporting it from elsewhere is rarely a practical or economicoption and may merely be robbing one area to restore another. The only true way is to take land out ofproduction until natural weathering can restore the lost soil depth. This requires a long time, even at themost optimistic a 50 year fallow could be required to restore 5cms depth of lost soil. An unrealisticproposition but a measure of the true resource loss incurred.

100

Policy incentives

Most Asia-Pacific countries have instituted many policies affecting agriculture,including measures which stimulate production, others which dampen output, anda number which influence the way crops are grown. Many have significant impactson land use and soil conservation practices, because of the way they modifyrelative returns to certain crops, inputs or methods of cultivation. Policies mayaggravate the problem of excessive soil degradation, or alleviate it.

Changes in land use patterns can arise directly and intentionally throughpolicies affecting user rights, farm land prices or conservation incentives (e.g. landtaxes or subsidies). In many cases the effect of policy on soil conservation efforts isincidental. For example, subsidies for inorganic fertilizers can artificially reduce theprivate costs of soil degradation as they cheapen the perceived cost of substitutesfor natural fertility (Barbier 1990). Similarly price supports and export subsidies forcertain crops can lead to cultivation of marginal or vulnerable lands, which wouldbe better left under pasture or woodland. In addition to agricultural policy, othereconomic policies can also have profound effects on land use. Virtually any policywhich distorts the market prices of agricultural inputs and outputs can alterincentives for soil conservation (Bishop 1995).

Box 24Soil loss and dollar value of the corresponding nutrient losses after 5 years of

cropping (1989-1993) at an experimental site in Mabini, PhilippinesT1 T2 T3 T4

Loss(kg ha-1)

Value($ ha-1)

Loss(kg ha-1)

Value($ ha-1)

Loss(kg ha-1)

Value($ ha-1)

Loss(kg ha-1)

Value($ ha-1)

Soil Loss 300,000 26,000 15,000 19,000Nutrientlosses Total N 120 52 13 6 8 3 10 4 AvailableP2O5

78 100 5 6 5 6 6 8

Exch K2O 117 205 13 23 8 14 10 17Totalvalues

357 35 23 29

Note: Values of N, P2O5 and K2O were computed based on the equivalent value of fertilizer nutrientrequired to replace the lost nutrients.

The Four Treatments were:T1 Up and down slope cultivation (alledged farmers' practice)T2 Alley cropping with Gliricidia sepium and napier grass as hedgerows with high input

treatmentT3 Alley cropping with Gliricidia sepium and napier grass as hedgerows with low input

treatmentT4 Using fruit trees such as banana and sapodilla as hedgerows

Source Magalinao and de Guzman 1995

Other factors

Soil conservation requires access to labour, capital (including land, equipmentand materials, or the funds to obtain them) and information (technology). Poorfarmers often lack access to one or more of these inputs, preventing them fromadopting conservation measures. They may fail to perceive the gravity of soil

101

degradation or lack information about available soil conservation measures. Evenwhen they know of appropriate technologies farmers may lack access to sufficientlabour to undertake soil conservation measures on their own. They may also sufferlimited access to capital with which to hire additional manpower or purchase anytools required (Bishop 1995). For instance the best time to construct or maintainsoil conservation works, or plant vegetative conservation barriers, is shortly afterthe start of the rainy season, when the soils are softened and vegetation cover isstill light. But this is also the moment of peak labour demand for field preparationand planting. The true opportunity cost of soil conservation is thus often higher thanat first appears, when considered in relation to other demands on farmers'resources.

Land values

One direct method for valuing soil degradation is to compare the sale or rentalprice of plots which differ only in the extent of their degradation status. In principlethe difference in productive capacity is reflected in the price people are prepared topay, indicating the present value of net returns over time (Bishop 1992). In practicethis method is applicable only where land markets are well developed, and pricedata available. It also assumes that the degradation status will be a primary factorin determining the land's value. It may understate the full cost of soil degradation tosociety, as it does not take into account off-site costs.

Valuing soil productivity

Soil degradation affects agricultural productivity directly - for example whenerosion washes away or buries crops - or indirectly, due to changes in soilproperties. A method for valuing these on-site costs is to estimate farm revenuesforegone due to soil loss or reduced top soil depth (Bishop 1992). This approachrelies on estimates of the impact of erosion on crop or livestock yields, combinedwith farm budget data.

However, yield is a proxy indicator of soil productivity and the link betweensoil degradation and yields of crops or livestock is not well defined (see chapter4).Again this method takes no account of the off-site costs.

Valuing foregone revenue can be used, not only for estimating the financialimpact on individual households, but also for its economic impact on the widersociety. In a study of the costs of soil erosion in Java (Magrath and Arens 1989),the discounted present value of current and future net farm income foregone due toannual soil loss was evaluated at US$68 per hectare. In aggregate terms this wasequivalent to about 3% of agricultural GDP.

Replacement and restoration cost

Another way of measuring the on-site cost of soil degradation is to estimatethe cost of additional inputs required to compensate for reduced soil fertility. Thismay include increased labour inputs, or increased application of fertilizer tocompensate for the loss of plant nutrients due to erosion, leaching and volatization,

102

or removed in crop residues. Some studies have attempted to assign replacementvalues to lost nutrients (e.g. box 24).

There are also direct costs associated with the reclamation and rehabilitationof land already subject to physical soil degradation. This includes the use of labourinputs, machinery, equipment and/or materials to restore the land to a condition inwhich it can again be used for productive purposes e.g. the plugging and/or fillingin of gullies, deep ripping to break up compacted subsoil horizons etc.

Likewise, there are direct costs associated with the reclamation andrehabilitation of irrigated land degraded by waterlogging and salinisation. Restoringthe productivity of such soils may require investing in improved surface andsubsurface drainage (canals, pipe drains) as well as soil amendments foreliminating sodicity (FAO 1990c).

The on-site impact of soil degradation may not be fully determined by thereplacement/restoration cost approach. For example, nutrient losses do not reflectthe effects of erosion on soil structure or depth, which are also importantdeterminants of soil productivity (Stocking 1984). The approach also ignores off-site costs.

On-site and off-site costs

The direct costs of undertaking a SARM programme are readily identifiablee.g. staff salaries, consultantancy fees, buildings, equipment, vehicles, financialincentives (food for work, free inputs, cash payments) etc. When seeking to justifysuch expenditure it is worth considering both the on-site and off-site economicconsequences of allowing land degradation to continue.

Economic losses arising from land degradation may be divided into on-siteand off-site costs.

On-site costs result from the direct effects of degradation on the quality of thenatural resources (soil, vegetation, water etc) used by farmers. These areexpressed in terms of reduced agricultural and/or forestry productivity notablydeclining crop yields, reduced livestock carrying capacity and a decreasing supplyof forest products. In addition there may be an increase in costs to sustain existingproduction levels (additional fertilizer inputs, feed purchases etc). In someinstances farmers may have to change their cropping system in response to soiland/or water degradation by planting crops (usually of lower economic value) withless demanding nutrient and water requirements .

Estimating the off-site costs of soil degradation involves a different set oftechniques to those used for on-site costs (Bishop 1992). Some costs can bequantified in economic terms and, particularly in developed countries, attempts arebeing made to assign values to these as the basis for developing `polluter pays'policies (Winpenny 1991). Others are less easily quantified and require qualitativesocial value judgements e.g. good health, bio-diversity, scenic views etc cannot inthemselves be quantified in monetary terms.

The off-site costs associated with agriculture generally arise from the negativeimpact of runoff from crop lands, pastures or plantations, on downstream land andwater users. Increased costs may be associated with changes in water quantity orquality. Typically a higher proportion of rainfall will be lost as rapid surface runoffunder agriculture than natural vegetation. Downstream costs of runoff changes willbe associated with increased flood damage to fields, buildings, roads etc, as well

103

as a reduction in the seasonal quantity and reliability of streamflows used forirrigation, livestock and domestic purposes (Douglas 1994; 1996).

Box 25On and off-site costs

Analysis of soil erosion on Java (Magrath & Arens 1989) estimated annual off-site costs atUS$25.6-91.2 million, as compared to ?315 million for on-site costs (productivity losses). Off-site costestimates were as follows: increased operation and maintenance costs to remove accumulated silt inirrigation systems (US$7.9-12.9 million); total dredging costs to remove silt in major ports and harbours(US$1.4-3.4 million); reduced hydroelectric output and irrigated crop production resulting fromsedimentation of reservoir capacity (US$16.3-74.9 million).

High levels of soil loss under agriculture leads to increased sediment load andheavy deposits of silt downstream. This will increase costs associated with keepingirrigation and navigation channels open. Siltation also reduces the life span andstorage capacity of reservoirs, resulting in diminished benefits from hydro-electricpower generation and gravity-fed irrigation systems. Furthermore siltationincreases the turbidity of public water supply, requiring increased filtering andreducing equipment life in water treatment plants.

Agricultural practices also affect surface and groundwater quality. Residuesfrom fertilizer and pesticide products, or from farm wastes, may be carried insurface runoff or leached into groundwater resources polluting potable watersupplies. Excess nutrients can contribute to eutrophication of surface water bodiesand to the growth of weeds in canals and watercourses (FAO 1990c).

The expected reduction in off-site costs has often been used as the primaryjustification for investing in watershed management programmes, particularly whenan area is upstream of an irrigation or hydroelectric dam. Where the emphasis ison reducing off-site costs, much of a watershed management programme'sinvestment goes into installing physical structures (check dams, silt traps, gullyplugs etc) designed to reduce sediment flows. This ignores the fact that the off-sitecosts resulting from siltation may be a much lower order of value than the on-sitecosts related to productivity losses (see box 25).

It is often taken as axiomatic that soil conservation projects reducedownstream sedimentation and the supply of agri-chemical and other pollutantsassociated with the transport of the finest sediment fractions; but in largecatchments reduced sediment loads may not be realised for decades or evencenturies (see Mahmood 1987, Doolette and Magrath 1990, Dickinson 1995).

In practice the primary economic justification for undertaking a catchmentmanagement programme will usually come from the benefits to be gained byreducing on-site costs. Any potential to reduce off-site costs should be seen as abonus, i.e. a secondary justification, and perhaps one for deciding the developmentpriority between two competing project areas.

On-site and off-site benefits

SARM programmes can be expected to provide a range of both on-site andoff-site benefits through the promotion of improved land use practices at the field,farm and community levels. On-site benefits, notably from the maintenance andenhancement of soil productivity, come from sustaining and increasing theproductive output of various agricultural and forestry enterprises (crop, livestock

104

and tree production). Off-site benefits derive primarily from the preservation, orimprovement, of the value of downstream land and water resources and theavoidance of rehabilitation costs.

The following are the type of on-site benefits that could be expected (afterWinpenny 1991):

• Avoided incurring the costs that would result from unchecked landdegradation;a) Prevention of crop production losses from decrease in soil productiv-

ity (due to soil erosion, loss of soil depth and declining fertility);b) Prevention of land going out of production through gully erosion;c) Alternatively saved the cost of fertiliser that would have to be

purchased to maintain yields on eroded soils;• Value of enhanced food and cash crop production through increased crop

yields resulting from the `ecological benefits' of improved land husbandry(increased soil organic matter, improved topsoil structure, better soilmoisture retention, micro-climate amelioration etc);

• Value of enhanced livestock products (meat, milk, wool, dung) fromrestored or improved pasture, better use of crop residues (for feed andbedding), or from growing fodder species (grasses, shrubs and trees) incontour hedgerows;

• Value of wood and non-wood products to be obtained from increased treeplanting and sustained management of natural forest areas (timber, poles,fuelwood, forage, fruit etc).

The following are the type of off-site benefits that could be expected (afterWinpenny 1991):

• Irrigation benefits:a) value of crops preserved through reduction of sedimentation in

reservoirs and channels;b) reduced cost of maintaining and cleaning reservoirs, channels, and

works;c) output saved from preserving existing water regime;

• Hydroelectric power benefits:a) by avoiding reservoir siltation, extending the life of a hydropower

scheme, especially its ability to generate dry-season power;b) avoiding cost of raising level of dam, with all that implies for extra

inundation;c) avoiding cost of alternative generating capacity;d) plus savings in repairs and cleaning of turbines and intake works;

• Flood damage avoided; alternatively, savings in cost of flood preventionworks, or reduced cost of roads and bridge maintenance;

• Gains to fisheries;a) less silting and turbidity in reservoirs and rivers and more even year

round flows;b) avoided damage to productivity of coastal waters and mangrove

systems.• Navigation benefits:

a) from more predictable river channels;

105

b) reduced dredging costs, both in river system and inshore coastalwaters;

• Benefits to domestic water quantity and quality; avoidance of need toresite intake works through river silting and changes in channels;

• Tourism and recreation benefits preserved and enhanced.

Once the benefits are identified attempts can be made to quantify them byassigning them economic values. This generally will be easier for the on-sitebenefits where monetary values can be assigned for commodities with a marketprice. This may be less easy for many of the off-site benefits where valuation ineconomic terms may have to be based on the principle of society's `willingness topay' for the use, or protection, of a particular resource (Stocking et al 1990,Winpenny 1991).

Benefits of “soil harvesting”

Cross slope soil conservation barriers (both physical structures and vegetativemeasures) can capture and accumulate silt suspended in runoff from upstreamsources. Such eroded sediments contain higher concentrations of soil nutrientsthan the soils from which they come, and the sites in which they accumulatelikewise have better soil moisture conditions. The additional increase in yield fromthe trapped silt is distinct from the benefits associated with retaining the top soil insitu. Such soil harvesting may be an incidental benefit of soil conservationmeasures or in some cases the main aim of farmers' efforts. In parts of Indiafarmers are known to build silt harvesting structures across gullies in order tocreate plots suitable for growing crops in otherwise marginal areas.

Similarly in hilly areas they may induce erosion in the upper portions of theirland in order to concentrate the soil in the lower part (Kerr and Sanghi 1992). Inboth cases there are direct financial benefits to farmers from allowing erosion totake place in one area so as to enrich another.

There is also a positive side to the high sediment levels in many Asian rivers.A significant proportion of the sand used for building purposes within the region iseroded material from river beds. The methods used for sand extraction varies fromindividuals with a shovel and basket, to larger operations involving suction pumpsand floating dredgers. Whatever method is used sand extraction provides valuablenon-farm employment for many rural people. Should it be physically possible tostop all soil erosion then this source of easily obtainable building material couldbecome depleted.

Costs of SARM

In addition to the costs allocated within a SARM project other costsassociated with implementing particular conservation recommendations should beprovided for. Of particular concern is the short-term opportunity land costs takenout of crop or livestock production. Similarly the initial reduction in yield followingconstruction of some forms of terraces (i.e. when crops are planted in subsoilexposed during excavation). Few small-scale farmers are in a position to foregoshort-term production for the sake of possible benefits in the future (Douglas 1994).

106

Many conservation farm plans call for some 5-10% of a holding to be setaside for graded terraces, waterways etc. Farm households with only smallholdings, struggling to produce sufficient food for themselves, cannot afford to takepart of their land out of food crop production to accommodate physicalconservation structures; the lost production could mean the difference in the nextcropping season between meeting the family's food requirements or going hungry.

This also applies in the case of biological conservation measures such ashedgerows and grass strips. Whereas these may ultimately contribute to total farmproduction (by providing fodder, green manure, fuelwood etc) during their initialestablishment there is the foregone cost of lost production for the one or moreyears it takes for the productive benefits from the hedgerow or grass strip to berealised.

Who incurs the cost, who gets the benefit?

Many watershed management programmes involve the closing of areas tolivestock or other uses to allow degraded grazing lands and woodlands toregenerate. The declaration of protected watershed areas may also involve thebanning of any form of annual crop production (see box 26) in upper watershedareas. Tree planting programmes may also have unforeseen costs - for instance byencroaching into grazing lands or resulting in the loss of traditional non forestproducts when mono-plantations replace what, although degraded, was a bio-diverse natural area. Such programmes can prove unpopular with the affectedcommunities. Whereas some within the community may benefit, for instance thosewith land which can be irrigated from the `protected' water sources, many couldprove to be worse off.

The effect of the closing of traditional grazing lands may be to force livestockowners to increase grazing pressure on the remaining rangelands, and with areduction in fodder availability to decrease overall livestock productivity. Switchingto zero grazing, using cut and carry feeds grown in farmers fields, is only an optionfor those with land, and may significantly increase the workload of women who areare traditionally responsible in many Asian countries for fodder collection asopposed to herding free grazing animals. Following the implementation of onewatershed management programme in India it was found that the women’sworkload in terms of collecting and transporting fodder had increased by 127%(Arya and Samra 1995).

Consideration of short and long-term costs and benefits

Economic and financial appraisal normally involves assessing proposedimprovements in monetary terms and in comparison with, for instance, the presentperformance of a farm household system. This is effectively a before-and-afterapproach and will yield valuable information related to the short-term productiveeffects of a recommendation i.e. will this recommendation produce higher cropyields, milk and meat production etc. compared to the present situation, and if thereis an increase in the production costs is this offset by a much larger increase in thebenefits (i.e. a high marginal rate of return).

107

However the long-term sustainability issue which requires consideration of thewith-and-without scenario should also be considered. This requires predictingfuture performance depending on whether or not the recommendation(s) areadopted. For instance if present farm management practices lead to soil erosionand fertility decline in the croplands and overgrazing in the rangelands, then in fiveyears’ time the present performance of a farm household system can be expectedto have deteriorated. Crop yields may have declined (or require higher levels ofinputs to sustain production) and there may be a similar decline in the quantity andquality of the outputs from the livestock enterprises. However, had the farmhousehold adopted SARM practices, then over the same five-year period they mayhave been able to sustain, or preferably increase, the overall performance of theirsystem. The with-and-without analysis allows a comparison between the twooptions to reveal the longer term costs and benefits of staying with the presentsystem or making improvements to it.

The before-and-after analysis, with its emphasis on the short-term costs andbenefits, is likely to produce the type of information which influences decision-makers at the farm household level. On the other hand, the with-and-withoutanalysis may provide information that can be used to justify to decision-makers, atthe community and society levels, the need for particular interventions becausethey are in the long-term interests of the wider society.

In most cases the before-and-after and with-and-without analysis shouldprovide a similar assessment of the suitability of a particular improvement.However in some cases this may reveal that, in the short-term the costs exceed thebenefits, but in the long-term the situation is the reverse. In such a situation twooptions are open to planners - one is to recommend a policy of short-termsubsidies or incentives to improve the cost benefit ratio, the other is to look foralternative improvements where long-term benefits can be ensured with practicesthat offer short-term benefits. The latter is usually the more cost effective andsustainable option (Douglas 1992).

Cost benefit analysis

Cost benefit analysis (CBA) is seen by a number of authors as a useful toolfor the appraisal and evaluation of soil conservation projects (Bojö 1986a, 1986b,1987, Dixon et al 1989, Stocking et al 1990, Winpenny 1991). CBA has beendescribed as:

A highly structured method to quantify social advantages (benefits) anddisadvantages (costs) in terms of a common monetary unit. Benefits andcosts are primarily evaluated on the basis of individuals' willingness to payfor goods and services, marketed or not. Unquantified effects (intangibles)are described and put against quantified values. (Bojö 1986b)

The costs and benefits of implementing a conservation activity will occur atdifferent points in time. For instance there are costs associated with establishing acontour hedgerow (including the opportunity cost of the land in which it is planted),but the benefits in the form of fodder, green manure, fuelwood, higher crop yieldsetc will not be realised until at least 2-3 years later. Also the costs and benefits of aconservation project may be distributed unequally over different individuals at anysingle point in time. For instance restricting the growing of annual crops by hill

108

farmers in the catchment area of a lowland rice scheme, as it will be several yearsbefore they get any benefits from growing perennial crops instead.

CBA provides a technique for evaluating costs and benefits both over timeand between beneficiaries/interest groups. It allows choices between differentdevelopment options to allow the selection of those that achieve the desired aimsat lowest cost or that achieve the highest level of goal achievement with theresources available (Stocking et al 1990). It allows policy makers to address thedifferent time horizons of individual farm households and society with regard toacceptable returns to investment in land improvements (i.e. need for short-termreturns without compromising future returns). There is still a need for furtherexperience with its use for evaluating different SARM options. Particularly withregard to how to value the long-term benefits of conserving soil productivity. This isneeded to justify the costs of project intervention when some conservation benefitsmay only be realised long after the normal life span (3-5 years) of a project.

Targeting of economic resources

Recognising differences in the economic asset value of soils with different bio-physical potentials brings to the fore a development dilemma: should scarce fundsbe directed to high potential or low potential areas?

From an economic perspective returns will be greater in high potential areaswhere the opportunity exists for sustaining high levels of production, with less riskand lower cost. From a social welfare perspective the needs may be greater in lowpotential (marginal) areas, where poverty levels are usually higher and theopportunities for alternative livelihood systems lower. Such a situation requires acost benefit analysis that addresses both the economic and social dimensions.

In discussing dryland degradation, Dixon et al (1989) invokes the analogy ofthe wartime medical concept of triage, as a way of deciding where to concentratescarce resources. Under the triage system war casualties were divided into one ofthree groups on the basis of a very quick evaluation. Those patients in the worstcondition with little chance of recovery, even with intense treatment, were made ascomfortable as possible without expending scarce resources that would probablybe ineffective anyway. A second group included those in reasonably goodcondition and needing little or no immediate attention. The third group includethose who, with immediate help, could recover and survive; this group received themost attention. In this manner, scarce medical resources were allocated tomaximize overall benefits.

Given limits to the financial and manpower resources available fromgovernment and donor sources, this technique could be used to target those areaswhere a SARM project could have the most cost-effective impact. Its applicationmeans recognising that land in good condition may need little or no additionalattention, i.e. no current need for external project intervention. Whereas landalready so severely degraded, as to have little remaining productive potential,should be either left untreated, even if further degradation will continue, or simplyfenced off and allowed to recover by natural means as best it can. Instead the bulkof the resources should go to areas where timely intervention can arrest existingdegradation before it has become severe, or prevent it from occurring in the firstplace where land use practices are clearly non-sustainable. There may beobjections to policies allowing degradation to continue in particular areas. However

109

undesirable such policies might appear, the alternatives are often no better. Savingone area may take scarce resources away from another with higher potentialeconomic returns.

Financial considerations at the farm household level

Financial considerations will figure highly in the decision-making processwithin small-scale farming households. Specifically a farm household will seek tomaximize its present and future well-being by allocating its resources to thoseproductive activities which can be expected to give the highest returns with theminimum of risk. These resources will include the household's access to farm,range and forest lands, accumulated capital goods, financial resources (cash orcredit), family labour and the skills and knowledge of its individual members. Thehousehold's decisions on which particular activities to pursue at any one time arealso influenced by its perceptions of the local constraints and potentialopportunities.

A household's future well-being depends on its ability to maintain and expandits options, particularly through investment in land (and farm) improvements andeducation (learning about new techniques, sending the children to school to gainqualifications for skilled off-farm employment). Which options are followed willdepend on culture and tradition, access to productive resources, past experiencewith, and investment in, productive enterprises, and the way the householdinteracts with the economy at large. These include options for wage employmentand wage rates, markets for agricultural goods and prices, credit opportunities andinterest rates (Hunter 1993).

Except in very remote and isolated areas very few small-scale farmhouseholds in the Asia Pacific region are these days purely subsistence producers.Most have the option to engage in some form of market production and wageemployment. Likewise several of the items that contribute to the household's well-being are purchased. Some farm production is dictated by culture and tradition(e.g. production of certain preferred staple foods). However there will becompetition for the remainder of the households time and resources from a numberof alternative on-farm as well as off- and non-farm activities. The final selectiondepends on the household’s perceptions as to the relative costs and benefits ofeach.

Role of agriculture within the household economy

A key question that has to be asked in any SARM programme is, howdependent is the household on its farming activities for meeting its priority goals? Itis common to find that the off-farm activities by some or all of the householdmembers, contribute significantly to the overall household economy. For a growingnumber of rural households farming may already be of secondary importance.

There is an opportunity cost associated with a household's factors ofproduction, particularly in the case of labour, time, capital and academic andvocational skills. A household will take this into consideration in deciding whethermore benefits could be gained by using these for increasing production on-farm orfor obtaining income from off-farm activities. Any SARM recommendation will be

110

evaluated not just in terms of the effect on farming activities but whether it willconflict with any off-farm activities. Suggested improvements must not imposeunacceptable costs in terms of foregone benefits or should offer significantly higherreturns than could be obtained from other, particularly off-farm, activities.

In many countries the potential returns to small scale farming are low. As aresult those household members with the best prospects for wage employment,usually the young to middle-aged men, will attempt to enter the labour market.Since the available jobs are often some distance from the farm, they becomemigrant workers and no longer participate directly in on-farm subsistence or marketproduction. They remit cash to meet household welfare needs, which may alsohelp pay for farm inputs. Older men return to the farm to enjoy the fruits of theirearlier remittances. Women tend to remain on the farm because of child-bearingand their lower comparative advantage in the labour market. In such circumstancesthe function of the farm is not income generation, or food production, but provisionof a rent-free place to live with free (or at worst low cost) fuel and food and maybecommunal pastures on which to keep cattle, sheep and goats in which remittanceshave been invested. Under these circumstances households have little incentive toadopt either production or conservation oriented improvements that would requiremore resources (especially labour) to be devoted to farming. There is a highopportunity cost to a household using its labour and other resources forconservation (Stocking and Abel 1992).

In some situations it has been observed that where a household is able tomeet its basic welfare needs from off-farm sources, there may be a deliberatechange in land use away from the growing of annual food crops to perennial cashcrops, such as fruit trees. This occurs in areas with a steadily ageing farmingpopulation, due to the younger generation moving off the land as is happening incountries such as Malaysia and the Philippines (personal observation). Annualcrops, such as paddy rice, have high seasonal labour demands, which may bebeyond the resources of the old and very young within the household to sustain.However, once perennial tree crops have been planted the annual labour demandsare usually much lower. In such a situation it becomes a rational strategy to changethe households farming system, in response to a shortage of able bodied labour.Although this entails foregoing short-term returns (loss of food production) it is along-term production investment on the assumption of future, lower cost, benefits.

If the enterprises and farm management practices within a household'sexisting farming system enable it to presently meet its goals there may be littleincentive to change even if, to the soil conservation specialist, the system is notsustainable. In such a situation the motivation to change and adopt SARMpractices would be if the recommendations offered tangible benefits, such as lowercapital and labour input costs, enabling previous targets to be maintained orreduced without impairing a household's ability to meet its goals. A participant(Sabati Solomona) in a FAO farming systems workshop in the Pacific noted(quoted in FAO/IRETA 1995):

In the Northern Group of the Cook Islands, farmers practice a farming system(fish, crops and backyard livestock) that is adequate for their needs and welladapted to their environment. They often seem to have little motivation in termsof changing. However because they are not damaging the environment and therest of society does not have to subsidize them, it seems rational to let themcontinue with their way of life. After all, rational behaviour is behaviour that isconsistent with the ends.

111

Market opportunities

The decision by an individual household on what to produce, when and howmuch, if any, to sell, will depend on the market opportunities, and recentexperience of seasonal and annual price variations. It will also be based on thedifferential between the producer and consumer prices, government priceguarantees and risks associated with relying on cash income for food purchasesversus subsistence production. Similarly decisions on which, if any, inputs to usewill be influenced by their cost and local availability.

Experience shows that smallholder farmers, even when primarily engaged insubsistence production, are very responsive to market conditions, especially price.Commodity prices will determine many of their production strategies, leading attimes to environmentally poor land use practices, such as continuous mono-cropping of high value crops, where farmers find the recommended crop rotationsfinancially unattractive.

A major problem for farm households is that they lack the ability to predictfuture market demand for specific commodities. Thus they face a risk whenexpanding production of an existing crop, or planting a new one, with the primaryintention of selling the increased production.

In Asia most countries have significant local markets to stimulate andconsume a significant amount of any increased cash crop production. With risingincomes particularly in the urban business sector, this has stimulated increaseddemand for a range of agricultural commodities, such as fruit, vegetables andmeat, as people aspire to eat more than the basic traditional staples. There is thusa growing market for horticultural and livestock products within Asia. However themarket is not unlimited and there are many examples of farmers’ responding to aperceived market demand and expanding their cash crop production only to fail toget the increased cash returns. Often, as the increased production reaches themarket, prices fall as shortage has changed to surplus.

In the late 80s and early 90s citrus production was heavily promoted in partsof the red soils region of China. Large areas of citrus orchards were establishedwith the aid of a World Bank project. Once all the new trees started bearing fruitsthe supply significantly exceeded demand and prices slumped.

A similar situation is starting to appear in Northern Vietnam with theoverproduction of litchi. One of the major problems now facing the FAO/UNDPFARM project site in Ha Bac Province is how to expand the market for the surplusproduction from the recently established litchi orchards on the plots allocated toindividual households. Suggestions have ranged from introducing new cultivars(which fruit either earlier or later than the present ones so as to lengthen the freshfruit season) to finding ways to extend the `shelf life' of the harvested product (coldstores, drying, processing into juice).

In the Pacific the internal market for agricultural products is small due to thesmall size of the populations in each of the island countries. As a result most cashcrops have been produced for the export market. This has made the economies ofthese countries and the market opportunities for individual farm households verydependent on global demand and supply. Thus the history of cash crop productionin the Pacific is characterised by a series of boom and bust cycles. Pacific islandcash crops like coconut, cocoa, ginger, vanilla have all gone through such cycles.

112

Tonga has identified a seasonal market niche in Japan for squash, and farmershave responded to this in a big way to the extent that currently there isoverproduction and some 50% of the crop has to be dumped either because it isnot of the right quality or because it exceeds the quantity required by the exporters(Umar personal communication).

Box 27Need to consider social equity in watershed protection programmes

The Aurora Integrated Area Development Programme (AIADP) in Aurora Province in thePhilippines, initiated a programme to have the upper watershed areas of key irrigation schemes legallydeclared protected areas. During visits to two such areas (in 1992 and 1993), the Diamen/Dipaculao andTalatay Watershed Protection areas, it was noted that the watershed development plans that had beendrawn up risked increasing the social inequalities within the province. It was clear that the primary effectof the protection plans was to benefit the downstream irrigation associations. Those households growingirrigated rice were basically the better off farm households within the province. The poorer households(i.e. the hill farmers) were bearing the bulk of the costs by having major restrictions imposed on them interms of their permitted land use enterprises.

The watershed plan banned the production of annual food crops on hillside plots within thedeclared protection zone. While this conformed to technical watershed management principles, itinvolved major changes in the way the hill farmers could satisfy their welfare/livelihood needs, e.g.instead of growing their own food they would be forced to rely on off-farm employment or sales fromperennial crops to obtain the cash needed to purchase their food requirements. In the case of theDiamen/Dipaculao watershed it was noted that farmers who had previously been growing a mixture ofupland crops, while allowed to harvest the produce from the perennial crops in their original fields, werenot allowed to grow annual crops and as compensation were employed as labourers. At the time of thevisits they had the option of working as labourers on project supported watershed managementactivities. However such employment opportunities would cease on the termination of the project so inthe long-run such households would ultimately find themselves impoverished. In the case of the Talataywatershed there was the suggestion that those hill farmers within the protection zone should be movedto a buffer zone where they would be permitted to grow calamansi (local citrus species) rather than foodcrops. This raised the question as to what such a change in the production system would have on thehousehold (i.e. instead of growing their preferred foods having to purchase their needs), likewisewhether there really was a market for all the calamansi once the trees were producing, and how thehousehold would survive while waiting for the trees to come into full production. There was a need forthe watershed management programme within AIADP to consider the full costs and benefits to individualrural households of any watershed management proposals so as to ensure that the costs were notborne disproportionately by one group of households (e.g. loss of food production by the hill farmers) forthe benefit of another group (e.g. improved yields for lowland irrigated rice farmers).

A key point that should be considered when promoting increased commercialas opposed to subsistence production is that with annual crops farmers have moreflexibility to change their production strategy from year to year in response tofluctuating market opportunities. Commercial farming systems based on perennialcrops, particularly tree crops, have far less flexibility and may represent a morerisky investment.

Labour costs and returns

Labour is an inextricable part of SARM. All forms of conservation require it,mechanical and physical works the most, but biological conservation with itsintensification of land use also makes high labour demands. Yet the labourrequirements of conservation activities are all too often ignored or undervalued inthe design of conservation schemes (Stocking and Abel 1992). There is generallyno abundance of labour within small-scale farm households nor is their labour

113

necessarily `free' (see box 28). Whereas there may appear to be underemploymentin rural areas, in practice during the planting and harvesting seasons labour isscarce and carries an appreciable opportunity cost (Southgate 1988).

Soil conservation recommendations, especially those with rather long payofftimes and requiring heavy labour inputs, commonly fail to be adopted, not becausefarmers fail to recognise the need, but because the benefits compare unfavourablywith the opportunity cost of the labour that would have to be redirected to theseactivities. Labour intensive conservation activities are generally inappropriate forsmall-scale farm households where labour is commonly in short supply. Instead theneed is for developing labour saving, low maintenance conservation technologiesor developing farming practices that have worthwhile production benefits while atthe same time being conservation effective. Alternatively innovative forms of labourmobilisation and organisation may have to be developed at the community level(Hunter 1993).

In conventional financial analysis the costs and benefits of farm activities areexpressed in monetary terms. In primarily subsistence farming cash may play onlya small role in the decision-making process within the household economy. What isoften of greater significance is returns to labour which may be a farm household'smost limiting production factor. At first sight an activity that appears irrational inpurely financial and economic terms may prove rational when analysed in terms ofreturns per unit of labour expended.

In areas where population densities are low it is common to find traditionalfarming systems whose component enterprises and management practices offerhigh returns per unit of labour. As population densities increase and land becomesscarcer this can lead to the adoption of farming systems which produce more butgive a lower return per unit of labour. The returns per unit of labour from traditionalshifting cultivation farming systems are generally higher than from more settled andintensive systems even though productivity per unit area may be lower.

Similarly extensive grazing is likely to give higher returns per unit of labourthan stall feeding on a cut and carry basis. It is not uncommon to find that farmersare aware of quite sophisticated conservation techniques (such as mulching,ridging or terracing) or more intensive cultivation methods, but not using thembecause of their higher labour demand and the continuing adequacy of local landresources for the fallow periods of their existing systems (IFAD 1986).

When alternative economic opportunities, offering higher returns to labour,become available, more intensive farming systems may cease to be fully viablebecause they offer only low level equilibrium i.e. they give lower returns per dayworked. Indicators of this may be a failure to undertake a second weeding or tocontinue maintenance of conservation measures (e.g. terraces), activities whichwere previously an integral part of the farming cycle. In some countries ofSoutheast Asia the result of changes in the opportunity cost of a household'slabour is a growing phenomenon of `idle land', whereby previously intensivelycultivated fields have been abandoned as off-farm employment opportunities haveincreased.

Acceptable rates of return

A key issue that needs to be considered in SARM is whether or not thereturns to the factors of production (land, labour, capital, management skills etc),

114

from adopting an improved land use enterprise or farm management practice, areattractive to a farm household, i.e. significantly better than their existing on-farm(and maybe off-farm) activities.

The key factor will be the minimum acceptable rate of return i.e. the rate atwhich farm households will consider it worthwhile to change and adopt arecommended improvement. This is the marginal rate of return at which theexpected increase in benefits will more than justify any increase in the household'scosts (e.g. higher inputs of labour, purchased seed and chemicals) and foregonebenefits (e.g. land taken out of production). It is generally recognised that for themajority of situations the minimum rate of return acceptable to farmers will bebetween 50 and 100% (CIMMYT 1988).

Box 28Financial costing of labour

Whether there is a financial cost to labour used for soil conservation purposes will depend oncircumstances (Stocking and Abel 1992):- If soil conservation takes up leisure time and no other activity is reduced, the opportunity cost

is zero. Communal digging and weeding parties found throughout East and Central Africa,where groups of farmers gather for what is essentially a social occasion, are examples.Financially the labour is `free'.

- If another enterprise is curtailed in order to practise soil conservation, the cost is the income tolabour which would have accrued from that enterprise. For example if the construction andmaintenance of tie ridges prevents the production of cotton, then the cost of tie ridging is theincome that the cotton would have generated.

- If off-farm work is abandoned, then similarly the cost is the amount of earnings foregone.- If workers are employed, the cost is their wage.

If a technology is new to farmers (e.g. chemical weed control where farmerscurrently weed by hand) and requires that they learn some new skills, a 100%minimum rate of return is likely to be required. If it is an adaptive improvementrepresenting a simple adjustment in a current farming practice (such as a differentfertilizer rate for farmers who already use fertilizer), then a minimum rate of returnas low as 50% may be acceptable. Unless capital is easily available and learningcosts are low, it is unlikely that a rate of return below 50% will be accepted(CIMMYT 1988).

Insufficient attention appears to have been given to determining the minimumacceptable rates of return that farmers require before they will adopt improved landuses and management practices. Many conservation recommendations fail to beadopted because the rates are too low. An economic analysis of the use of Vetivergrass and contour bunds in soil conservation compared yield benefits to farmercosts per hectare treated (Magrath 1989). Estimated rates of return in net presentvalue terms for the two technologies varied from 22% to 95%, depending on theassumed level of yield increase and the proportion of soil loss prevented. Carewould need to be taken before promoting either technology to be sure that theactual yield levels that farmers could be expected to achieve would give rates ofreturns of at least 50%. However where the returns are perceived as worthwhileadoption may be rapid.

115

Consideration of risk and uncertainty

The decision-making process in small-scale farming households tends to bebased on risk avoidance. Often this is because they cannot rely on the market fortheir supply of food, consumer goods, tools, equipment etc. and/or their farmingsystems do not generate sufficient cash to purchase them. The lesscommercialized the farming system is, the more important the on-farm productionof food and other essential goods becomes to satisfy basic needs. For resource-poor farm households avoiding risk in the operation of their farming systems is anecessity.

Risk has three important implications for SARM (FAO 1990d).• First, changes to existing farming systems that are proposed as

improvements should be compatible with the farm households strategiesfor reducing risk. For instance before proposing that farmers should go foruniform early planting, the rationale behind their practice of staggeredplanting dates should be taken into account. Recommendations that donot take account of farmers' attempts to reduce risk have little chance ofbeing adopted.

• Second, a study of the risks faced by farmers may suggest opportunitiesfor developing recommendations to help stabilize farm production.Drought risk may be reduced with moisture conservation techniques(which will also conserve soil), and fruit tree losses due to high winds maybe reduced by introducing varieties whose flowering and fruiting seasonsdo not coincide with the typhoon or cyclone season. A recommendationthat does not necessarily increase average benefits may still beacceptable, if instead it introduces a greater degree of stability to thefarming system, by reducing the year-to-year variability.

• Third, farm households make planning decisions on the basis of seekingto ensure their survival in the worst years, not just average ones.Therefore the amount that they are prepared to give up (in terms ofaverage net benefits) to reduce the effects of an uncertain environment isa measure of their risk aversion. The degree of a household's riskaversion may depend on several factors but as a general rule, small-scalefarming households are at least moderately averse to taking major risks.This is one reason why they prefer making adaptive improvements ratherthan radical changes to their existing farming systems.

Commodity and input prices

The decision by an individual household on what to produce, when and howmuch, if any to sell, will depend on the market opportunities, and recent experienceof seasonal and annual price variations. It will also be based on the differentialbetween the producer and consumer prices, government price guarantees and therisks associated with relying on cash income for food purchases versussubsistence production. Similarly decisions on which, if any, inputs to use will beinfluenced by their cost and local availability.

Experience shows that smallholder farmers, even when primarily engaged insubsistence production, are very responsive to market conditions, especially price.

116

Commodity prices determine many of their production strategies, leading at timesto environmentally poor land use practices, such as continuous mono-cropping ofhigh value crops, where farmers find the recommended crop rotations financiallyunattractive.

Evidence from Indonesia suggests that under certain conditions changes inrelative producer prices can affect choice of crops and farming system, thusimpacting on degradation (Barbier 1988, 1989, 1990; Carson 1987). Therelationships governing farmer responses to relative crop prices are complex, anddepend on various factors such as household wealth and income, tenure security,attitudes to risk, access to off-farm employment, labour and capital constraints andintra-household allocation of land (Barbier 1991). However, farmers will respond tohigher relative prices for erosive crops by seeking short-run economic returns fromerosive crop cultivation at the expense of long-term land degradation. This resultholds mainly for sedentary farmers cultivating rainfed plots in areas whereagricultural extensification is reaching, or has already reached its limits.

In a few areas within the Asia Pacific region where there is the opportunity toexpand the area under cultivation, farmers can be expected to open new fieldswhen the returns from the new land exceed those from continuing to cultivate theexisting lands (Southgate 1990). Higher relative prices and returns to erosive cropswill not only accelerate degradation on existing land but, as a consequence, willalso induce a more rapid expansion into new areas and increased landdegradation (Barbier 1991).

At the same time, fluctuations in relative prices can increase the uncertaintyand risk borne by, in particular, small-scale producers. Switching to and investing innew cropping systems and methods of cultivating involve high upfront costs andlong pay back periods for small-scale farmers. Unless they can be assured that therelative prices and returns from the non-erosive systems will be sustained, thesefarmers may be less willing to invest in new, less-erosive cropping patterns andsystems or in improvements to these systems where they already exist. Similarlysmall-scale producers may be less willing to invest some of the short-run profitsfrom erosive cropping into expensive physical erosion control measures, such asbunds, contour ridging, bench terracing and so on, unless they can be sure that thehigh relative prices they receive for their crops today will also prevail in the future.Thus the price risk imposed by fluctuating relative prices may deter farmers frominvesting in SARM (Barbier 1991).

In Fujian Province in China, farmers receive high prices for longan fruits. As aresult there has been a massive expansion of the area under longan orchards.Much of this new planting has taken place on degraded wasteland sites.Maintaining production on such sites requires massive injections of organicmanure. An FAO project formulation mission (FAO/ADB 1993) determined that thegreatest risk to the long-term sustainability of these orchards was an inadequatesupply of organic manure within the farm household system.

Should farmers be unable, or unwilling, to continue applying the requiredquantities of organic manure the consequence would be, because of the inherentlow fertility of the upland red soils, a decline in plant vigour and severe reduction ofyield (and even death of the plant). Should yields fall to uneconomic levels, whichthey may well do on the most marginal former waste land sites, farmers mayabandon the enterprise. In this case lack of terrace maintenance, combined withdecreased ground cover, would lead to accelerating soil erosion thus very quickly

117

recreating the type of waste lands the project was seeking to rehabilitate. Shouldover production of longan lead to a fall in the market price then the process ofabandonment of orchards in the less favourable sites could accelerate.

Influenced by urban clientele, both affluent and poor, the governments ofmany Asian and Pacific countries have used price controls and other policyinstruments to keep producer prices for food low. Receiving low prices for cropsand livestock, small scale farmers are discouraged from investing in agriculturalimprovements. In particular they are less willing both to apply conservationmeasures to existing farmland and to clear new land for agricultural production(Southgate 1988).

Input levels

The inherent productive potential of land stems from the bio-physicalconditions present, but actual production levels depend to a great extent on thelevel of management and inputs used. With good management and high levels ofinputs, average crop yields may be higher in areas with lower bio-physicalpotential, than if the same crop is grown under a low input system, in a higherpotential area. The level of input use is therefore a critical factor in any discussionon SARM.

In the context of SARM input levels are defined as follows (after FAO 1982,1984):

• Low input systems: crop and livestock production primarily to meet thehouseholds subsistence needs. No use of purchased external inputs (i.e.no chemical fertilizers, pesticides or improved seeds). Cultivation done byhand or with traditional draught implements. Farmers may follow nospecific conservation practices or use indigenous techniques.

• Intermediate input systems: significant percentage of the crop andlivestock production goes to meet the households subsistence needs withthe remainder being sold, may be some production of non-food cash crops.Limited use of purchased external inputs (i.e. some use of chemicalfertilizers, pesticides and/or improved seeds but at suboptimum rates).Cultivation done by hand or with draught animals using improved tools andimplements. Farmers may adopt some improved conservation practices oruse sophisticated indigenous techniques.

• High input systems: bulk of the crop and livestock production is sold, onlysmall percentage consumed on farm, may be significant production of non-food cash crops. Extensive use of purchased external inputs (i.e. chemicalfertilizers, pesticides and improved seeds used at the recommendedoptimum rates). Cultivation done with the aid of draught animals and/ormachinery using improved tools and implements. Farmers following therecommended land management and conservation practices.

Low to intermediate input systems are still the norm for much of the region.However, in the more developed economies of Asia, more farmers are operating atthe intermediate level with some moving towards high input systems. A low inputsystem is not necessarily unsustainable. Many traditional subsistence farmingsystems utilise indigenous techniques to control erosion and maintain soil fertility.In situations where land is not a scarce resource, these may still be adequate to

118

sustain production, although at a low level per unit area, while providing worthwhilefinancial returns in relation to the investment of land and labour.

On the other hand high input systems are not necessarily sustainable andmay cause their own environmental problems. The use of high levels of fertilizerand pesticides can lead to chemical pollution of nearby water resources. Poorlydesigned conservation structures and incorrect ploughing can lead to acceleratedrunoff and erosion. Moreover mechanisation and many of the purchased inputs aredependent on the use of fossil fuels and non-renewable mineral resources (e.g.phosphates).

Impacts of SARM

A recent review on the policies and practice for sustainability and self reliancein agriculture found that activities to promote SARM can bring economic,environmental and social benefits (Pretty 1995). It recognised three distinct typesof agriculture, all of which can be found in the Asia Pacific region.

First, there are the industrialised agricultural systems of the developedcountries, notably Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Second, the high inputsystems practised in the high potential green revolution areas favoured by goodsoils, reliable water and supporting services and infrastructure. Last, are theremaining agricultural and livelihood systems which can be characterised as lowinput, complex and diverse, with considerably lower yields.

The basic challenge for SARM for each system is quite different. Inindustrialised agriculture it is to reduce substantially input use and variable costs,so as to maintain profitability. Some fall in yield is likely to be acceptable givenpresent production levels. In the green revolution areas, the challenge is tomaintain yields at current levels while reducing environmental damage. In thediverse and complex systems the challenge is to increase yields per hectare whilenot damaging natural resources (Pretty 1995).

The evidence from farms and communities in many countries shows thatSARM can be achieved in all three systems (after Pretty 1995):

• In the diverse, complex and “resource-poor” farming systems of the AsiaPacific region, farmers adopting SARM technologies have doubled ortrebled crop yields, often with little or no use of external inputs (table 5);

• Iin the high input and generally irrigated green revolution areas, farmersadopting SARM technologies have maintained yields while substantiallyreducing inputs (table 6); and

• Iin the industrialised agricultural systems, a transition to sustainableagriculture could mean a fall in per hectare yields of 10-20% in the short-term, but with better levels of financial returns to farmers.

But farmers do not get more output from less input. They have to substituteknowledge, labour and management skills to make up for the foregone addedvalues of external inputs.

119

Table 4. Impact of SARM technologies and practices in complexand diverse agricultural systems

Country andLocation

SARMTechnologies

Yieldsachieved

(t/ha)

Increase in yields (%) Scale

China, JiangxiProvince

Soil conservationand watershedmanagement

nd 152% 3200 families

India, Gujarat soil and waterconservation,biogas

nd Rice 253%Sorghum 117%Pigeonpea 222%Cotton 153%

55 householdsin onecommunity

India, TamilNadu

Contour bunds,percolation tanks,gully checks,agroforestry

Rice ndGram 0.4

Same yield of rice, butnew second cropharvested, gram % notpossible to calculateas programmeinvolved rehabilitationof lands with formerzero yields

1 communityof 100households

India,Maharashtra

Soil and waterconservation

Sorghum(dry) 0.7Sorghum(irrig) 2.2

350%176%

1 communityof 168 ha

India, Haryana Soil and waterconservation, socialfencing

Grass: nd 400-600% 50communities

India,Rajasthan

Grass strips, fieldand contourbunding

Sorghum0.33-0.46Millet0.72-0.93

210-292%120-154%

nd

Source Table 7.5 in Pretty 1995

120

Table 5. Impact of sustainable agriculture in Green Revolution lands

Country&Location

SARMTechnologies

Crops Input Use(%)

Yields(%)

Spread

Bangladesh Fish-culture & IPM Rice O 124% 58 farmers

China Waste recycling,composts, rice/fishculture

Rice 30% for N 110% 1200 ecofarms

China IPM farmer fieldschools

Rice 46-64% 110% 14 counties

India,AndhraPradesh

IPM Groundnuts

0 100% 1 community

India, TamilNadhu,Karnataka &Pondicherry

Agroforestry,green manures,multiple cropping,legumes, manures

Rice,Sorghum,Ragi

25% for N 123%151%84%

7 ecologicalfarms pairedwith 7conventionalfarms

India, TamilNadhu

Composting, greenmanures,trenching,agroforestry,resistant vars

Tea(organic)

0 111% 310 ha estate

Philippines IPM farmer fieldschools

Rice 62% 110% nd

Philippines Azolla network Rice 50% N 100% nd

Philippines Irrigationimprovement

Rice 100% 116-119%

Nationwide

Sri Lanka IPM farmer fieldschools

Rice 23% 90-108%

nd

Source Table 7.4 in Pretty 1995

121

Chapter 7The policy environment

here is more to solving the problems of sustainable agriculture than just thedevelopment of improved technical recommendations. The underlyingcause is often a failure in government policy and/or the institutions set upto effect the policy. It is here, with sufficient political will, that the greatest

advances could be made in promoting SARM (Stocking 1991). All that may beneeded is a change in government policy (eg over land tenure rights, or croppricing and marketing) or the effective implementation of existing policies andstrategies so as to create the right policy environment for the adoption of SARMpractices at the field level. If governments, through their policies, made itworthwhile for a farmer to conserve soil then soil degradation would be a thing ofthe past (Stocking 1991).

Differing priorities of farmers, governments and donors

The policy dimension to SARM has to address the fact that farmers,governments and donor agencies view the problem of soil degradation fromdifferent perspectives and have different development priorities. Likewise theymay have very different reasons for agreeing to participate in specific SARMactivities (Douglas 1994).

Small-scale farm households place more emphasis on short-term planningthan do governments and donors. Their strategy is one of simultaneouslyminimising risk, guaranteeing subsistence and generating cash income. They aremotivated to participate in improved land management when they perceive soildegradation to be an immediate threat to their livelihood (Fones-Sundell 1989).

A government's political base rarely stems from rural areas, nor is naturalresource degradation likely to pose a threat to its survival. Given the short-termperspectives of governments and the largely urban power bases they depend on,it is not surprising their preference is for `cheap food policies', and investing in theindustrial rather than agricultural sector. Conservation for conservation's sake isthus not a high priority.

However, if declining agricultural productivity becomes a problem, e.g. foodshortages or a balance of payments deficit, the agricultural sector can assume ahigher political profile. Even then soil degradation will be only one of several majorfactors (inputs, infrastructure, technology, prices, etc) addressed in the effort toimprove agricultural production (Fones-Sundell 1989). Because they want toshow that their actions can produce quick results, governments will have more togain from raising yields in areas with high agricultural potential, than investing inland use improvements in marginal areas. They will also be more interested inshort-term increases in production and less interested in how such gains could besustained over the long-term.

Donors do not suffer the same serious economic or political consequencesas farmers and governments in the event of failure. Their officials are not going togo hungry or get thrown out of office. This gives them the option of taking a longer

T

122

term perspective and defining the problem as one of achieving sustainable growth(Fones-Sundell 1989). In this regard donors are increasingly coming underpolitical pressure from powerful lobbies in the west to take an environmentalstance in the disbursement of aid. However donors are often constrained by theirfinancial procedures to think in terms of fixed duration projects (Hudson 1991) andwill want to see funds disbursed and objectives achieved within a relatively short3-5 year period. Individual donor officials may also have their status andpromotion prospects judged on their ability to disburse funds. They therefore havemore to gain personally from approving large scale projects with rapiddisbursement of funds than projects that start small and only slowly build up.Whereas donors have more scope for taking a long-term perspective onsustainable agriculture in practice their operational procedures may work againstthis.

National policy environment

In the past, national policies have been mainly concerned with economicplanning and development. Some countries have separate five-year plans foragricultural development, but the most common practice today is for an overalldevelopment plan which includes agriculture as one important component sector.The trend is no longer to deal with agriculture in isolation, but to recognise itsinteractions with other sectors of the national economy e.g. urban and rural agro-based industries, rural infrastructure development (Hudson 1992).

In many countries the framing of national development policies regardingland use and agriculture relies heavily on proposals put forward by seniorgovernment officials. They usually have an administrative, planning or economicsbackground, and will be conscious of the priorities of their `political masters'. Theissues they are most likely to consider in developing a national agriculturaldevelopment policy are therefore (after Hudson 1992):

• Relative importance of agricultural development versus industrialdevelopment;

• Development to meet short-term needs such as hard currency versuslong-term economic development;

• Self-sufficiency and food security versus more emphasis on exportcrops;

• Effects of pricing policy on production of food crops or cash crops;• Maintaining a political balance between urban and rural areas, and

between different ethnic groups and geographic regions.

The bio-physical dimension to SARM is rarely considered in any detail at thisstage, nor the possible ecological repercussions of adopting a specificdevelopment proposal (Shaxson 1992b). For instance a development policy toexpand food production may be laudable from a short-term social welfare andimport substitution perspective. But if it leads to the expansion of agriculture intomarginal areas, rather than intensification in existing areas, the end result may beincreasing land degradation (Douglas 1994).

A national development policy document often contains unimpeachablestatements about the country's determination to conserve its soils. While suchstatements may provide the national mandate for a particular technical

123

department to get into the field and do soil conservation (Shaxson 1992b), they donot automatically translate into a comprehensive programme of action.

National SARM strategies

In tackling soil degradation, individual conservation projects andprogrammes are insufficient in themselves. They need to be part of nationalstrategies of conservation-based resource development and management. Overthe last decade a variety of different strategies have been used for developingpolicies and plans related to SARM. Some of the most commonly-applied arenational conservation strategies (NCSs) and national environmental action plans(NEAPs) promoted respectively by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and theWorld Bank.

During the 1990s the South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme(SPREP) assisted some 14 Pacific countries to develop national environmentalmanagement strategies (NEMSs) (Bass and Dalal Clayton 1995). Such strategiesadopted as a component of a government's official development policies, canprovide an effective context in which to plan the utilisation and conservation of anation's natural resource base and to reconcile the need for conservation with theobjectives of economic development (Commonwealth Secretariat 1987).

In Sri Lanka for example, national policy on the conservation anddevelopment of natural resources is set out in the NCS prepared by the CentralEnvironmental Authority in 1988. In 1990 the same authority coordinated, inconcert with the relevant line ministries, government agencies and NGOs, thedevelopment of a NEAP which tabulates specific management issues, actions toaddress these issues, and the institutions responsible for these actions. More isrequired than simply developing a strategy. A case study of land use planning inSri Lanka (Dent and Goonewardene 1993) noted that the issues and responseswere familiar, having been considered by successive Land Commissions.

Box 29A national soils policy for Indonesia

FAO has been helping Indonesia to formulate a national soils policy (NSP). Drafting a NSPbegins with a round table meeting between members of the government requesting the study andrepresentatives from FAO, UNEP and the International Society of Soil Science. FAO then providessoils experts, land-use planners and lawyers to review soils data and existing land-use legislation. Thefindings are presented as draft policy guidelines.

The guidelines for Indonesia were prepared over a two-year period by a team of four nationaland international consultants. Part of the findings were that the government would need to undertake anumber of activities to implement the NSP, including:

• reviewing the mandates of institutions dealing with soils to avoid duplication of work;• introducing standardized methods and terms for soil data collection and interpretation;• developing the national data bank and introducing regular monitoring of land-use changes;• introducing land evaluation methods for use within the overall land use plan;• enacting a soil conservation act and developing technical solutions to soil erosion problems

which will increase farm production; and• introducing a public awareness campaign to stress the importance of good land use.

FAO 1995

124

The study also noted two unsettling aspects of the proposals: (1) continuingreliance on the tried-and-tested and failed policy of restrictive legislation, withfruitless calls for the enforcement of this legislation; and (2) calls for more nationalco-ordinating organizations - including one with identical terms of reference to theexisting Land Use Policy Planning Division. Furthermore implementation ofproposed actions was not in evidence.

Other countries are starting to formulate national soils policies (NSPs) withthe help of FAO and UNEP (e.g. box 29). An NSP is a document containing aplan of action or statement of aims and ideals made by a given government as towhat it will do in order to manage its soils on a sustainable basis. Such adocument and plan of action is drawn and based on background information andan analysis of the existing situation, identified problem areas, required solutions,and a set of strategies and modalities for implementing prescribed solutions forappropriate soil management (FAO/UNEP 1992).

There is no one type of approach and no single formula by which a nationallevel SARM strategy can or should be undertaken. Every country has todetermine for itself how best to approach preparation and implementation. To agreat extent the process decided upon will be fashioned by prevailing political,bureaucratic and cultural circumstances (Bass and Dalal-Clayton 1995). As aconsequence a `blueprint' approach is neither possible nor desirable. However arecent IIED/IUCN review of past strategies world-wide suggested a number of keylessons and guiding principles for successful strategies. Thus to be successful anational level SARM strategy should (after Carew-Reid et al 1994):

• Be a cyclical process of planning and action, in which the emphasis ison managing progress towards sustainability and food security goals,rather than producing a definitive plan or end product.

• Be genuinely multi-sectoral and integrative, aimed at engaging relevantinterests and overcoming institutional and policy fragmentation.

• Focus on priority issues, and identify key objectives, targets and meansof dealing with them, rather thanbeing swamped with a huge agenda atany time.

• Involve the `widest possible participation'; this means sharingresponsibility and building partnerships among all concerned - business,community and interest groups, as well as governments - but only wherethe partners feel it is appropriate.

• Take an adaptive and flexible approach, recognising that problems arecharacterised by complexity and uncertainty, and policy responses andtechnological capability change over time.

• Set up mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation and learning fromexperience, as an integral part of the process; the principles ofprecaution and continuous improvement are important.

• Recognise that preparing a SARM strategy is an exercise in capacity-building, and organised to enhance institutional arrangements, sharpenconcepts and tools, foster professional skills and competence, andimprove public awareness.

The translation of NCSs, NEAPs, NEMSs, NSPs etc into practical actionrequires in turn the formulation of a National Land Use Plan. This to determineland use and development priorities when preparing both sectoral and area plans.

125

Together they provide the framework for resolving conflicts between short-termdevelopment needs and long-term conservation of a nation's natural resourcebase. They also enable conservation considerations to be integrated into nationaleconomic planning and development policies and programmes (CommonwealthSecretariat 1987).

Surprisingly few countries have a coherent policy for the use anddevelopment of their natural resources. Without a long-term policy on land use, itis difficult to move onto the next stage, which is a strategic plan for thedevelopment of a country's land resource, and even more difficult to arrive at atactical plan for implementation by the appropriate departments, divisions ordistricts (Hudson 1993).

Natural resource inventories

The starting point for any national policy on SARM is an inventory of thecountries’ land resources (FAO 1990a, Hudson 1992 & 1993, Sanders 1992b).There is no point formulating a specific agricultural development policy, such as topromote the production of rubber or copra, without first checking whether this is arealisable aim given the available soil, climate, fuel and labour resources. Reliablenatural resource data - specifically soils, climate, vegetation, hydrology andtopography - are needed if sound land use and conservation policies are to bedeveloped (FAO 1990a).

The first need is to find out what data already exists and who has it. Inpractice most countries already have much natural resource data, but it is oftenfragmented, and located in the files and on the shelves of separate ministries,departments, institutions, libraries and universities. For instance in Sri Lanka,some 23 government departments and institutes could be sources of primary datafor land use planning purposes (Dent and Goonewardene 1993). The data willhave been collected by different people with no uniformity in the way its recorded,in the intensity of sampling, scale of mapping or reliability.

The second need is therefore to collect the existing data, review it and storethe usable data in a readily retrievable form. At this stage its possible to identifythe information gaps and to arrange for much of the missing data to be collectedrapidly by interpreting air photographs and satellite imagery, backed up withappropriate field surveys.

With computers becoming more freely available, easier to use and able tohandle larger amounts of data at greater speed, countries can establish centralcomputerised natural resource data bases. Much of the present focus is on theuse of Geographical Information Systems (GIS). A variety of GIS computerprogrammes exist which typically involve digitizing information from topographic,geological, soil, and vegetation surveys as well as meteorological andhydrological data. Entering such data into a computer not only facilitates storageand retrieval but allows the different data sources to be integrated in a variety ofcombinations with the results presented in map form. The Philippines Bureau ofSoils and Water Management was able to use the data in its GIS to model whichareas around Mt Pinatubo were potentially at risk from lahar flows, given thequantity and extent of ash fall following its catastrophic eruption in June/July 1991.Papua New Guinea has likewise used its own GIS for crop suitability evaluationpurposes.

126

Several countries have found other forms of computerised databases usefulfor collating bibliographic data (research reports, project documents, manuals,technical papers etc) and the documentation of indigenous and research derivedtechnologies (see ASOCON 1990b). Such systems can save hours of searchingthrough library shelves by allowing database searches using key words to quicklyidentify publications on specific topics, or technologies (as well as specific crops,or trees) that match specified land qualities or land use requirements.

Once such databases have been established they can easily be revised andrefined as new and better data becomes available. Providing the relevant data isentered they can be used to identify the location, extent and severity of existingland degradation, as well as areas at risk in the future, either on a national orregional basis. They can thus be valuable tools for conservation policy formulationand development planning (Sanders 1992b).

Natural resource inventories, whether in the form of computerised databasesor more traditional systems (i.e. stored in map cabinets, files and library shelves)do nothing on their own. They only become useful when used to help in decision-making (Hudson 1992). Too many inventories get bogged down in collecting factsrather than using the information they contain. Many computer based systemssuffer from the operators fascination with the technology and can end up failing tosupply information to potential users in a form they can use. GIS programmes canchurn out a variety of nicely coloured maps, many of which decorate the walls ofgovernment offices. But such maps provide little information of use to seniorpolicy makers with non-technical backgrounds (Douglas 1994).

Whereas the emphasis has been on inventories of bio-physical data(geology, soils, climate, relief) they should also contain human resource data(Hudson 1992) - not just demographic data (i.e. how many people, who are theyand where do they live) but information on land use, farming systems and socio-economic data of relevance to agricultural development (prices, markets, landtenure). There is still a long way to go before computer-based GIS and other socalled “expert systems” can properly integrate the bio-physical land base with thesocio-economic circumstances of the land users. It should be noted that computerbased systems are only as good as the data that goes in, and all outputs need tobe subject to review by the ultimate expert system, namely common sense andprofessional experience, before being acted on (Douglas 1994).

Land use zoning and allocation

For many years zoning has been used to ensure land use control in urbanand peri-urban areas. More recently it has also become associated with thedelineation of rural ecological units as in FAO’s Agro-Ecological Zones Project(FAO 1978). In the urban planning sphere the word zoning is commonly used ina prescriptive sense; for example the allocation of peri-urban land for specificuses such as housing, light industry, recreation, horticulture or intensive industrialstyle livestock enterprises, in each case with the appropriate legal restrictions toland use (FAO 1995c). In its original agro-ecologic concept the word denotes anearlier stage of rural planning. It is a subdivision of the rural lands on the basis ofphysical and biological characteristics (climate, soils, terrain forms, land cover,and to a degree the water resources), and can be used as a tool for agriculturalland use planning.

127

In the Asia Pacific region, depletion of good quality agricultural landcontinues due to the rapid expansion of land used for urban and industrialpurposes. Much of this expansion has been outside urban and peri-urban areassubject to town planning controls. There is therefore a growing need, at thenational level, for greater control over future administrative and legal land usedecisions with regard to the allocation of land for particular uses. As a prerequisitedifferent zones should be delineated according to the quality of their bio-physicalresources. The aim is to show the location and extent of a country's primeagricultural and forest lands so that those responsible for future land useallocations have the necessary information to make choices between alternativeoptions and are aware of the implications of land conversion from agricultural tonon-agricultural use.

Policy interventions

Farmers' land use practices are strongly influenced by the policyenvironment in which they operate. It is therefore important to look not only atfield level technical options but also at potential options at the policy level. Thefirst requirement is to identify those elements of the existing policy environment(prices, markets, subsidies, extension messages etc) that will influence farmhouseholds' land use practices, and to review their effect particularly with regardto the issue of SARM.

There is a need to distinguish between those influences that conform to thestated goals of government policies and those that relate to problems inimplementing them, as the actual results of a particular policy may be quitedifferent to the stated goals. Governments may have the right agriculturaldevelopment policies but lack the manpower and financial resources to implementthem. The proclamation of protected watersheds may end up inadvertentlyincreasing social inequalities by imposing costs on poor hill farmers for the benefitof the better off lowland irrigated rice farmers.

Besides identifying those policies with a negative impact, and therefore needchanging (or ameliorating), it may be possible to engage in some lateral thinkingto identify alternative policy options that could have a beneficial impact on theexternal socio-economic circumstances and constraints influencing land use atthe farm household level. For instance where a significant proportion of a farmhousehold's scarce cash resources are allocated for school fees, there is a casefor arguing that a government policy change, to reduce or abolish school fees,would be an equitable way of making more money available within the householdeconomy for investing in farming activities.

Land reform

Land reform is usually promoted on a social equity basis e.g. theComprehensive Agrarian Reform Programme (CARP) of the Philippines. Giventhat the existing land tenure arrangements, under which many farm householdsoperate, may in themselves be constraints to sustainable land use (see chapter5), land reform may be a worthwhile policy option in a SARM programme.

Land reform can also unwittingly contribute to degradation as happened inRajastan India (Jodha 1987). Land reforms, introduced in 1952, abolished the

128

feudal system of rule in villages, transferred the bulk of the common propertygrazing lands to private ownership for cultivation, and dismantled the traditionalarrangements regulating the usage of common property resources. This resultedin excessive pressure on the few remaining communal grazing areas, whicheffectively became open access resources. The end result was overgrazing anddegradation of the vegetation and soil resources. Rajastan is an arid area and thecommon property grazing lands distributed as crop lands to the landless, andothers, were mostly submarginal and unsuited to cultivation. The change of usefrom extensive grazing to intensive, low external input, cultivation has itselfcontributed to soil degradation.

Land reform programmes that have been attempted commonly encountereda range of technical, economic and political difficulties (Falloux 1987). Technicallymany of the programmes were ill-prepared with unreliable cadastral data bases,cumbersome and time-consuming, surveying and titling procedures. Economicallythe total costs were very high including the direct cost of land redistribution andthe indirect cost resulting from disruption in farm operations. Politically `popular'support for land reform eroded quickly when initial results were far fromexpectations. Political difficulties may also arise when many of those with avested interest in seeing land reform fail (e.g. large landowners) are in positions ofpolitical power and able to block the necessary enabling legislation (e.g.opposition within the Philippine Senate to the CARP programme).

Given that adjusting rights of access to land, through nationwide land reform,is often politically unacceptable to the ruling elite, as well as being technicallydifficult and costly to implement, there is a need for alternative approaches betteradapted to the social and political realities of a country. One option is for stateintervention to buy land and redistribute it to landless farmers and/or small holdersin the form of viable lots (see Falloux 1987 for a discussion on the pros and cons).Governments also have the option of opening up access to land previouslyreserved for the state (the land stewardship component of the PhilippinesIntegrated Social Forestry Programme is an example).

In the case of a private landlord/tenant farmer situation it may be morerealistic to regard tenure as a fixed constraint. The approach seeks alternativetechnical options that are not only conservation-effective but also offer short-termproduction benefits to the tenant (Douglas 1992a). In some situations there maybe scope for developing community rules and regulations (local bye-laws)governing tenancy agreements, that while recognising the interests of the landlordwould provide security for the tenant. For instance it may be possible to obtain acommunity consensus on the need for acceptable rates of compensation for anylong-term investments made by a tenant if required to leave before the benefitsare realised. In theory, under the Landlord and Tenant Act governing the leasingof land in Fiji, such an arrangement exists whereby the owner should compensatethe tenant for any improvements to the land on conclusion of the lease. In realitythere is no legal case history of this ever having been done (Sefa Tabua personalcommunication).

Direct incentives

Most soil conservation activities involve short-term costs, and many onlyoffer long-term benefits, some of which may not be realised by the present

129

generation. Projects involving the construction of conservation works, as well asthose promoting the planting of vegetative barriers, require a major labour inputon the part of the farmer, as well as foregone benefits (lost crop production fromthe land area set aside for the structures or vegetative strips). Many such projectshave found farmers reluctant to participate on a voluntary basis. Conservationplanners have been quick to compromise and offer farmers a direct financialincentive to construct terraces, grass strips etc in their own fields as well as toparticipate in communal conservation activities elsewhere. The incentive is oftenin the form of a cash payment, or food for work. In this way bottlenecks inmotivation can be bypassed and physical targets achieved (IFAD 1992).

The use of direct incentives is commonly justified on the following grounds(after Sheng 1989 and Hudson 1991):

• Small-scale farmers are too poor to take any risk and usually have noresources to meet additional labour or capital costs;

• Many soil conservation measures involve a heavy investment in labourand there is an opportunity cost associated with using family labour forconservation purposes;

• Soil conservation has off-site benefits, so if on-farm conservation is inthe interests of the state (the wider society) then it is reasonable that thestate should pay the whole or part of the cost;

• A farmer's income may be reduced in the initial stages of conservationtreatments because: a) production is lost or delayed; b) additional labouris needed for construction; c) inputs, time and effort are needed torestore soil quality following disturbance and subsoil exposure; and d)some actual loss in production area is likely;

• Financial or material incentives can be looked upon as a system of costsharing between government and farmers.

Unfortunately the all too common end result of a direct incentives policy is toinstil in farmers the belief that conservation is something someone else (thegovernment or an NGO donor) pays you to do. It does not encourage farmers tobelieve that conservation is in their own interest. The same can hold true wheresubsidies are used to encourage the planting of particular crops. As one report(Clarke & Thaman 1997) from the Pacific noted:

It is known that subsidies do encourage the planting of coconuts in thePacific Islands, but people do the work to gain the subsidy, not becausethey value having more coconut palms. Direct payment for planting orthe provision of free planting material can lead local participants to havedoubts as to their future rights to the trees and their products. Evidenceis ubiquitous throughout the Pacific Islands that where plants are givenaway, rather than being purchased or propagated by the plantersthemselves, they are generally not cared for.

Another argument against direct incentives is that a decreased sense ofinvolvement and responsibility can lead to poor standards of work and poormaintenance (Hudson 1991). Farmers may regard themselves as hired labourersrather than participants (IFAD 1992, Prior 1992). Once a policy decision has beenmade to offer financial incentives for the construction of conservation works, itbecomes very difficult to get farmers, in the same or adjacent areas, to constructthem on a voluntary basis. Particularly at the end of a project when donor funding

130

is no longer available and the incentives can not be sustained from governmentrevenue budget sources. Visiting the site of a former project all too often revealsthat when the `payment' stops the conservation stops (Douglas 1992b). As oneFAO document puts it:

The ideal conservation project is not one where farmers or other landusers are paid for their labour, or invited to join a `food for work'programme, but one where they plan and implement their own solutionsfor their own benefit" (FAO 1990b).

In the light of the above problems there is a growing awareness of thelimitations of a direct incentives policy for soil conservation. There is alsorecognition that such incentives are unnecessary where projects promotepractices that are seen by farmers to be in their own interest.

In the past many conservation technicians believed that unless farmers areprovided with a direct financial incentive for the construction of soil conservationmeasures they will not adopt the recommended practices. They argue that for thesake of preserving future benefits for society, farmers should receive a short-termincentive to compensate for the costs involved. There is a counter-argument tothis, which rarely figures in the discussions on the pros and cons of incentives.This is that, if farmers will not voluntarily adopt a technical recommendation, thesoil conservation specialists should go back to the drawing board and come upwith an alternative that farmers will find acceptable i.e. one that offers themtangible short-term benefits commensurate with the costs. In considering theincentive policy option it needs to be borne in mind that instead of trying to adaptthe farmers to the recommendation it is invariably more cost-effective to find analternative technical option, i.e. the recommendation should be adapted to thegoals and circumstances of the farmers (Douglas 1992a, 1992b).

A recommendation to change policy and stop paying incentives may run intoresistance not only from farmers, who have come to expect it as a `right', but alsofrom government and project staff. A project in Indonesia (Huszar 1992) notedthat not all of the funds allocated for cash payments reached the farmers.Administrators of these funds appeared to have appropriated a portion of thefunds as a form of `overhead charge' or `commission'. Given the low salaries ofgovernment workers such charges are generally accepted as normal practice inIndonesia. As extension workers in the project derived part of their incomes fromthe incentives they could be expected to resist any policy change

Alternatives to cash or food for work incentives

Where there is a need for external intervention to facilitate the adoption ofimproved land uses and/or management practices (for both production andsustainability purposes), there may be scope for policy interventions involving theuse of alternative incentives and subsidies, involving no direct payment of cash orfood for work.

As an alternative to cash or food several projects have provided free farminputs as a reward for undertaking conservation activities. The EU-fundedSouthern Mindanao Agricultural Programme (SMAP) in the Philippines sought toencourage farmers to adopt the sloping agricultural land technology (SALT). Theyhad developed a 0.5 ha package in which farmers were required to plant double

131

contour hedgerows of Flamengia, a broad leafed leguminous shrub, that could beused for fodder and/or green manure in addition to its soil conservation function.SMAP provided free all planting material, notably the Flamengia seed (the contourhedgerows were established by direct seeding) and various fruit tree seedlings(guava, durian, mangosteen, papaya etc). However it was noticeable during afield visit in 1994 that the participating farmers had not expanded the SALTapproach to their remaining land and that no other farmers in the area hadadopted the technology. Discussions with local farmers revealed that thehedgerow establishment costs were high and not perceived by farmers ascommensurate with the benefits, hence were not something they were willing toinvest in using their resources.

Farm input incentive packages, such as the one described above, need tobe analyzed carefully in the context of the farm household budget to assess thelonger term feasibility of any innovations (IFAD 1992). A question that needs to beasked of such an incentive is, if the crop production package is in farmers owninterests (i.e. financially attractive) why does it have to be given away free? Iffarmers need to be subsidised before they will adopt a package then perhaps thepackage should be rethought. If the only problem is a shortage of cash, withwhich to purchase inputs, then it may be a better option to tackle that with agovernment backed programme offering credit at low interest rates.

A lack of the necessary tools and equipment at the household or communitylevel can be a serious constraint to the adoption of many conservationrecommendations. Some projects have used their own machinery and equipmentwhen they deem it necessary to facilitate the construction of conservation works(see box 30). The view is that it is unfair to deny people the use of technologywhich will make the work easier and much faster.

The use of heavy earth-moving equipment (bulldozers and graders) toconstruct bench terraces, graded bunds, waterways etc was common in the pastbut is now largely rejected, partly on cost, but also because of the lack ofinvolvement of the beneficiaries in the exercise, thereby failing to engender anycommitment to subsequent maintenance. Why should farmers feel they have theresources to maintain by hand something that was constructed for them by heavymachinery? There is also a growing reluctance on the part of donors to providemachinery which may break down and prove impossible to maintain post project.

Some projects may provide, free or at subsidy, the materials for specificconservation measures when they are not available within the resources of thehousehold or community. In particular projects that promote vegetative measuresrather than engineering structures may have to take the lead in supplying theplanting materials if they are not available locally. This may involve transportingmaterials (seeds, seedlings, cuttings) from outside or establishing nurseries withinthe project area. It is rare for the full costs associated with these to be passed onto the farmers although they may be charged a token price in the belief that iffarmers have paid for something they will value it more highly than a free gift.

Any indirect subsidy policy option should be either short-term (i.e. onlyneeded to overcome an immediate constraint to the initial adoption of therecommendation) or sustainable over the long-term from revenue budget sources(i.e. to cover recurrent seasonal costs associated with the recommendation). Theaim being to make it easier for farmers to adopt conservation effective farming

132

practices perceived as beneficial in their own right, rather than as with the use ofdirect incentives needing to “bribe” farmers to conserve soil (Douglas 1992b).

Box 30Sharing of project costs in Pakistan

The Pakistan sub project of the FAO/Government of Italy Inter-regional Project for ParticipatoryUpland Conservation and Development is located within the Kanak Valley in Mastung District,Balochistan. Attention has been primarily focused on the village upland grazing lands where theprocesses of degradation have already had a severe, and adverse, impact on rangeland productivityand water table recharge. Activities have been directed at correcting the present non sustainablesituation through livestock exclusion and area protection, tree planting and reseeding, and physicalconservation works designed to reduce runoff and increase infiltration.

At present the project is responsible for providing the bulk of the inputs required to physicallyimplement the field activities e.g. provision of a tractor to construct contour trenches and excavateplanting holes, tree seedlings and seeds of native grasses and herbs, the costs of watering the treesduring the establishment year, and half the costs of a village guard. The village association provideslabour for tree planting, the water for irrigating the trees and half the costs of the village guard. Thus theproject, rather than the intended beneficiaries, is bearing the bulk of the financial costs associated withthe upland (rangeland) rehabilitation.

Project management consider that this limited cost sharing on the part of the village associations(VAs) is inevitable at this stage in the process because the VAs will require proof that the efforts areworthwhile before they would be prepared to bear a higher proportion of the costs themselves. Thusthe protected areas where the project is currently working are seen as serving a testing/demonstrationrole. The aim is to obtain visible proof that it is possible to make degraded rangelands productive again.Although the project is meeting most of the costs proof of the participatory nature of the approachcomes from the way it has been possible to protect the treated areas by marking the boundaries withpiles of white painted stones. The boundaries are respected both by the livestock owners of the villageand the passing nomads. The evidence for this is a lack of any signs of encroachment (animaldroppings, hoof marks etc) within the protected areas.

The harsh environmental conditions prevailing in the project area (low rainfall and cold wintertemperatures) mean that restoring a productive vegetative cover to degraded rangelands is a long-termprocess requiring a minimum of 3-5 years. Given the time it takes to go through the participatoryplanning process it is difficult to show tangible results within the life of a typical 3 year project. In orderto tackle the rangeland problems in the Kanak valley what is required is the support of a long-termprogramme rather than a short fixed-term project. Thus there is a clear need for some continuingproject involvement beyond the end of the present phase in mid 1997.

Alternative incentives that do not require a government capital outlay couldbe identified. For instance in north Thailand farmers reportedly voluntarily adoptthe practice of growing contour grass strips, not for their conservation benefits, butbecause by being seen to follow the recommendations they could obtain long-term land use rights in state forest land. Secure land use rights in this case is theincentive to voluntarily adopt the recommended conservation measures.

Meeting the costs of incentives

Direct incentives such as cash, food for work and farm inputs, whileattractive to farmers, are costly for governments to sustain. During the life of aproject governments may be able to meet the costs of any payment, from thedonor's contribution. However, post project the situation may be different. Thenon-agricultural tax base of most Asia-Pacific countries is small and subsidiespaid during donor-funded projects, for soil conservation and farm inputs, canrarely (if ever) be sustained from government revenue sources (Douglas 1993).

133

Given the shortage of government funds for incentives it is frequentlyproposed that farmers downstream of a project area be taxed on the benefitsreceived (reliable supply of irrigation water, lower sedimentation rates in damsand irrigation canals, reduced risk of flooding). This is rarely a realistic optiongiven the political and social realities in most Asian countries, i.e. upstreamfarmers have less eco-political influence on government than those downstream.

This option is being explored in at least one province in the Philippines. Thiswould be a development of the practice whereby farmers who benefit fromgovernment investment in an irrigation scheme are required to pay an annual levy(in the form of rice grain) to the National Irrigation Authority (NIA). The AuroraIntegrated Area Development Project (AIADP) has initiated discussions withseveral irrigators associations downstream of critical watershed areas, as towhether they would pay a small additional annual levy. This will fund upstreamconservation activities, and in particular provide short-term compensation for hillfarmers obliged to abandon their fields, or switch from annual to perennial crops,to protect the catchment area of an irrigation scheme. Members of the irrigatorsassociations have expressed willingness providing they, rather than NIA, controlthe fund (Ongkiko personal communication). Such an approach may succeedwhere hill farmers are few and the lowland farmers can see a clear link betweencatchment protection and the water supplied to their rice paddies.

Unless countries have sufficient resources (e.g. non-agricultural taxreceipts), or a politically acceptable mechanism to generate funds from thebeneficiaries of particular programmes (see box 31 for an example fromMalaysia), the payment of direct incentives to construct and maintain soil andwater conservation measures in farmers own fields is not a sustainable option.

Legislation

It is often suggested that governments should try to enforce their policies forgood land use by the use of legislation. The record on legislation was reviewedsome years ago by FAO and by the Soil Conservation Society of America (FAO1971, SCSA 1974). Their conclusion, which is endorsed by more recent papers(e.g. Hudson 1981b, Sanders 1992b, Douglas 1992b) is that enforcementlegislation that seeks to “command and control” how people use the land rarely, ifever, works.

Box 31Meeting development costs on a sustainable basis

In Malaysia rubber sales are controlled and a cess is levied on every kilo sold. The funds thusraised are used to provide a financial incentive for smallholder rubber growers to uproot their old treesand replant with high yielding clones. The payments are to compensate for loss of income for theperiod between felling the old tree and the new one coming back into production. In this case anincentives policy is a viable option as the payments can be sustained, there being an acceptedmechanism for generating the funds from within country sources.

Careful consideration needs to be given when drafting conservationlegislation as to whether the land users will consider it technically feasible andeconomically attractive. Also whether the reasons for it can be explained to them

134

through the extension services, mass media, political rallies etc. As one study(IFAD 1992) puts it:

Where the law concerns the environment, poor extension, unpopularenforcement or non-enforcement can lower respect for theenvironmental principles legislators seek to promote .

The history of state legislation regulating how land should be used, suggeststhat this is not an effective strategy for conservation purposes due to difficulties ingetting it accepted by individuals and communities at the field level. On the otherhand, the story is different where a conservation decree comes from a traditionalruler. In the Amarasi region of Timor, Indonesia a decree (adat regulation)pronounced in 1932 by the Raja required every farmer to plant rows of Leucaenaleucocephala with at least 3-metre spacings along the contour within the plotbefore abandoning it to a fallow period (Metzner 1981). Such decrees may not beuniversally popular but will be obeyed, because within the local culture the ruler'sauthority commands a traditional respect, not usually shown to the dicta ofgovernment officials and politicians.

In the United States since the mid-1980s there has been a change in soilconservation policy resulting in elements of coercion being included in nationallegislation. Increasingly national and local soil conservation objectives areenforced by the withholding of various agricultural subsidies and benefits fromthose farmers not following approved conservation farming practices (see Hudson1992 for a detailed discussion). This policy has been controversial and unpopularwith many farmers. However its adoption within a democratic society reflects thegrowing political power of the conservation lobby and the fact that farmers are aminority of the overall population. Given that few Asian and Pacific countries havea large enough non-agricultural tax base to be able to sustain agriculturalsubsidies, the carrot and stick approach of the USA to soil conservation may notbe a viable option for them.

There is a growing awareness of the need to enable land-using communitiesto monitor and regulate their own environmental behaviour. Only when suchresponsibilities are worked out and acted upon within the local community canadequate popular consensus be expected to produce a healthy agreement aboutthe need to exploit local land resources without degrading them (IFAD 1992).Land use rules and regulations agreed on, and policed by, the local communitywill always be more effective than any legislation passed at the national level.

It is therefore better for members of a village conservation committee tomonitor farmers' maintenance of terraces, rather than extension agents. Similarlygrazing control, range management, use of local forest resources should be avillage or tribal responsibility (Ibid.) Doing this may require that each communityhas its own local legal code (by-laws) governing use of private and communallands, mechanisms for enforcement, and set of punishments for those infringingthem. There may be considerable variation from community to communitydepending on past customs and present circumstances, but allowing the code toemerge from a consensus within the community should ensure its socialacceptability.

Whereas national level enforcement legislation may be inappropriate theremay be a need for enabling legislation, particularly where a technical or policyoption cannot successfully be adopted without a change in the existing policy and

135

legislative environment. For instance it may be necessary to consider introducinglegislation that would provide, at the national level, the legal framework in whichlocal communities can formulate and enforce their own by-laws. Considerationmay also need to be given to changing existing legislation restricting the type ofactivities that can legally be undertaken within forest reserves. This may beneeded before land use rights can be granted to individual households by meansof land stewardship agreements, or before local communities can assumeresponsibility for the conservation and management of local forest resources.

The Forest Law of the PRC China clearly states that trees planted by ruralinhabitants around their houses and on privately farmed plots of cropland and hillyland are individually owned. Article 28 also states that whereas anyone wanting tocut down forest trees must apply for a cutting licence, exceptions shall be madefor rural inhabitants who want to cut down scattered trees belonging tothemselves and growing on their private plots and around their houses. Howeverin Fujian Province it was found that the forestry departments in different countiesappear to interpret article 28 differently. In some counties (e.g. Ningde) thepractice is that trees grown in non-designated forest areas, i.e. in the paddy anddry cropland areas, orchards and near the house, are not subject to strict fellingcontrols. Hence farmers do not require cutting licences and are free to cut as andwhen they want.

However in other counties (e.g. Anxi and Nanan) farmers were required toobtain a licence from the county forest department to cut before they could fellindividual trees growing on the terrace banks in their dryland crop or orchardplots. The end result of such confusion over the interpretation of the law is thatany attempt to promote the growing of multi-purpose trees within farmers fields islikely to be unsuccessful unless farmers feel they are free to manage and harvestthe trees and tree products (timber, fuel, fodder, green manure etc) as and whenthey wish.

Legislation has a role to play in combating land degradation. For instancemost countries need legislation to establish the necessary institutions withresponsibility for promoting soil conservation activities, to legalise their mandateand to ensure that they receive a regular budget (Sanders 1992b). The WorldCommission on Environment and Development (WCED 1988) recognised theneed for legislative reforms to be undertaken in order to create the right policy andinstitutional environment for promoting sustainable agriculture, as have others(see box 31).

Markets and marketing

While the first concern of rural households is food security, most farmers areaware of prospects in the local market place and will respond to perceived marketniches within their resource constraints (Cheatle 1993). Smoothing the way tomarket and profit have not been subjects at the fore in soil and water conservationactivities and are noticeably absent from standard conservation manuals (e.g.FAO 1977, Hudson 1987, Sheng 1989). Yet changes in market opportunities canhave major implications for land use (see box 32).

With SARM largely dependent upon what the farmer does in the fields,knowledge of the market place is critical in determining the acceptability ofparticular recommendations. If the conservation opportunity lies with sweet

136

potatoes (because of their ability to provide good ground cover) or with pigeonpeas (because of the nitrogen fixing ability), there is a need to know if a marketexists for such crops, and perhaps what can be done about improving it.

Box 32Legislative reform

A recent FAO report (FAO 1991d) on sustainable agriculture and rural development (SARD)recommended that legislative reforms should be undertaken at the following levels:

Local, farmer and household levels1. Provide the legal basis for the development of alternative financial resources to enable

disadvantaged rural groups to adopt SARD techniques and practices.2. Design legislation to facilitate farmers' participation in the decision-making process, protecting

farmers' investments and promoting feedback and monitoring by farmers.3. Delineate limits on government intervention, including public takings and restricted sovereign

immunity doctrines, for effective decentralization and natural resource management, especially inland use planning.

4. Promote local regulation and resource management through legislative authority, property, rights,monitoring and implementation mechanisms, including use of traditional structures.

National level1. Review and revise legislation to identify and remove legal and institutional obstacles to SARD.2. Revise legislation and regulations to recognise and encourage desirable SARD goals, especially

laws on environment, agricultural and rural codes, property rights, contracts, and collectiveownership forms (including corporations, associations, co-operatives and joint ventures whichmay be used with new rights and duties.

3. Implement SARD policy with tools such as mandatory EIA, property rights, land use planning,limited command and control regulation, natural resource management frameworks, debtreductions, liability, insurance, formal and informal remedies and sustainable administrative andregulatory procedures.

4. Clarify mandates and procedures of agencies to promote desirable cross-sectoral behaviour.5. Re-orient legislation away from policing the use of resources toward providing extension services.6. Set up regional (between local and national) and sectoral (in national plans) EIA reporting

requirements.

What is good for the individual farm household might have adverseconsequences for groups or society as a whole. For instance if one farmhousehold increases its use of fertiliser by 25 kg, it is a minor change. If twomillion farmers follow this practice, the effect on the whole country is significant interms of fertiliser imports, foreign exchange requirements, additional subsidies,additional transport requirements, storage of produce, and increased taxes(CIMMYT 1988).

Likewise if a few farm households in an area switch from annual crops tolitchis or longan, their financial returns may be attractive. However if all farmhouseholds in the same area do this, supply will exceed demand, with the pricefor all farmers falling to uneconomic levels. The credibility of extension workerswho have persuaded farmers to plant perennial tree crops may plummet if, whenthe trees start to bear fruit, there is no market for the produce.

Pricing policy

Policy interventions can influence commodity and input prices to encourageenvironmentally beneficial activities or discourage environmentally damagingones. Governments have often guaranteed minimum prices for particular

137

commodities to provide farmers with a minimum income and ensure a basic levelof production. However the trend in government (often under donor pressure) is towithdraw from such interventions and leave everything to the so-called “marketforces.” For farmers with limited access to reliable market information, cash cropproduction has become more risky.

Box 33Farmers respond to market opportunities

A project in the Purple Basin of Sechuan Province in China built a new field station to service aprogramme of soil conservation and hydrological research. Although the experimental area was only10km from the market town of Ziyan, access into and around the project area was by dirt roads onlyusable during the dry winter, and impassable during the rainy growing season. The area wasintensively farmed with good soils and rainfall, suitable for a wide range of crops, including fruit andvegetables, but anything for sale had to be carried to market by foot or bicycle.

A simple all-weather road was built to give access for the research workers into the area, andthis also opened it to the trucks of wholesale merchants who could now come into the villages topurchase and take out heavier produce by the truckload. The area is ideal for the growth of watermelons, for which there is an insatiable demand in China in the hot summer. As soon as thedisadvantage of the crops weight, and a low value per kilo, was overcome by being able to ship themout by the truckload, production increased at an astounding rate. This resulted in an equally dramaticincrease in disposable income which was immediately directed into improved accommodation. At thestart of the project the only housing to be seen was traditional large extended family complex of single-storey pole and thatch buildings. Two growing seasons after the road was completed, new two storeybrick houses were springing up throughout the area.

Reducing the price of inputs such as fertiliser through government subsidiesmay encourage greater use, thereby raising agricultural production. But makingthem cheaper reduces the cost to farmers of soil erosion because they reduce thereplacement cost of soil nutrients lost through erosion (Southgate 1988). Cheapmineral fertiliser discourages the use of organic alternatives given the higherlabour costs when using compost and animal manure.

Pricing of forestry products presents special difficulties. To encouragereforestation it is possible to argue for high prices relative to agricultural products.But high prices create even stronger incentives to deforest the remaining standingtimber. Low prices on the other hand reduce incentives for loggers and forreforestation (Lutz and Daly 1991). Attaching a low value to forest products, andtherefore also to forested land, may encourage its conversion to crops or pasture.

Similarly, controlling fuelwood and charcoal prices in urban areas weakensthe financial incentive in the surrounding countryside to either adopt agroforestrysystems that yield fuelwood in addition to other commodities, or to establishfuelwood/charcoal woodlots and plantations (Anderson 1986).

Mechanisation

A number of agricultural development projects have promotedmechanisation as a way of intensifying production. However, replacing buffalo oroxen with tractors or small power tillers can have an adverse impact from a SARMperspective. Loss of draft animals from the farming system may also mean loss ofmanure ,and may mean that crop residues become a waste product rather than avaluable on-farm livestock feed resource. Mechanisation also means increasedreliance on non-renewable fossil fuels whose use ultimately is not sustainable.

138

Water demand management and pricing policy

Water is becoming an increasingly scarce resource within the region. Hencethere is a growing need for policy interventions to ensure equitable access andefficient utilisation (box 34), which is illustrated by the situation in BalochistanProvince, Pakistan (van Gils and Baig 1992). Severe rangeland degradation hasdecreased the rate of natural recharge of the underground aquifers. In additioncurrent levels of groundwater pumping for the irrigation of crops (particularly appleorchards) are greatly in excess of the recharge rate, with the level of the watertable dropping in some places by as much as 3 metres per year. New tubewellscontinue to be sunk leading to increased exploitation of a declining resource.

A range of technical interventions could be adopted to check and reverse thepresent rangeland degradation. Likewise techniques exist to encouragegroundwater recharge and a range of improved irrigation and water conservingpractices could be adopted to reduce water demand.

Box 34Conflicts of interest

Conflicts of interest between different groups of people often undermine the success andcontribute to the failure of small water resource projects. A study of six small-scale water resources(three weirs and three tanks) within Khon Kaen Province, Northeast Thailand found a number of suchconflicts of interest. At the Huay-Kor Tank two conflicts were found. One involved the fact that thepeople owning the cultivable land no longer allowed the villagers of Ban Nong Tana (where the tankwas located) to use their land to grow vegetables and other crops during the dry season. The situationwas extremely difficult to resolve because several villages were involved and the arable lands and thevillages fell under the jurisdiction of two different provinces. The second conflict was between differentgroups of landowners, those whose lands all on high-level ground who wished to have theembankment raised to increase the water storage capacity, and those who lived near the tank whoobjected because they feared raising the embankment might lead to flooding. At the time of the studyno compromise had been reached in settling the conflict.

Solutions however had been found in other areas with similar problems. At the Muang-Po Weir,local leaders stepped in to mediate a conflict by calling meetings of both sides. A compromise wasreached whereby the embankment's height was raised but not as much as originally requested, asolution satisfactory to both parties.

At the Hu-Ling Tank conflicts existed between two groups, one with lands near the tank whowanted to store up water for use during the dry season; and another group who made their living byfishing and wanted to maintain regular distribution of water. In this case the village headman didnothing as he himself made a living by fishing and had no lands around the tank that received benefitsfrom irrigation. The conflict of interests remained unresolved until those whose land surrounded thetank gave in by releasing part of the water supply from the tank during the dry season.

Another example of conflicting interests was found at the Muang-Po Weir where there as afailure to adhere to a previous agreement that those whose fields were located at the tail end of thecanal would receive their water first. The problem was only resolved by the intervention of a respectedlocal leader in whom both sides had confidence.

Tantuvanit et al 1988

139

However the institutional and legislative policy environment within theprovince does not encourage the adoption of such measures. For instance the flatrate electricity charge, for electric water pumps, means that the cost of using 1litre of water is the same as that of using 100 litres. Hence there is no financialincentive to reduce water consumption. Likewise there is no effective regulation orcontrol over the sinking of new tubewells. It is clear that without appropriatepolicies in place, and effectively implemented, any technical solutions torangeland degradation and groundwater depletion cannot be widely adopted.

A recent report on agricultural restructuring and diversification in Thailand(Poapongsakorn 1996) noted that the Thai irrigation system has some majorproblems that may seriously retard future development of the agriculturaleconomy, the most serious being the increasing water scarcity. While the annualflows of water into two large dams that supply water for the Central Plain haveshown a declining trend since 1975, urban and industrial demand has increasedrapidly, averaging about 4.6% per year during 1987-93. The increase is aconsequence of the accelerated industrialisation and urbanisation. At the sametime the amount of water use in the agricultural sector has not declined.

Despite increasing scarcity of water the agricultural sector is still the largestwater consumer in Thailand, consuming almost 89% of total water used in 1993.Since the price of water is zero, farmers tend to use it excessively. As aconsequence the marginal cost of water used in the agricultural sector is muchlower (about 0.57 baht per cubic metre) than in other sectors (e.g. 6 baht percubic metre for urban water supply). Conflicting interests in the demand for watercan be expected to increase. Hence when seeking possible solutions to theproblem of water scarcity the following issues have to be considered(Poapongsakorn 1996):

• demand management and pricing policy;• establishing and defining property rights in water as well as creating the

water market;• improving the efficiency of water delivery systems (conversion from

growing irrigated rice to less water demanding upland crops and treecrops requires major renovation;

• redesign of the current irrigation system); and• institutional reform.

Similar solutions will be required elsewhere in the Asia Pacific region asconflicting demands for scarce water resources grow.

The issue of water scarcity in the Asia region is becoming an importanttransnational issue with regard to some of the continent’s major river basins,notably the Ganges and Mekong. India and Bangladesh have recently signed anagreement on use of the Ganges water resources and the Mekong RiverCommission has contributed to resolving transboundary water resourcemanagement issues given that China, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia andVietnam all have an interest in the river. Bilateral or multilateral agreements forthe development of shared water resources are going to become increasinglyimportant to ensure equitable access to water and prevent future conflicts overwater rights.

140

Chapter 8The institutional setting

ARM embraces both the bio-physical and social science disciplines andtherefore is multi-sectoral in nature. This raises the need for co-operationbetween different interest groups and technical specialists in the planning

and implementation of SARM programmes. At the government level success willdepend on the favourable resolution of institutional issues. These includeappropriate mechanisms for inter-departmental cooperation, and the coordinationof activities of different government line agencies. It will also depend on theavailability of the necessary manpower with the appropriate disciplinary skills, andeffective extension research linkages.

At the community level, programmes to promote sustainable agriculture maycall for cooperation between different social and ethnic groups within the farmingcommunity. They also have a direct or indirect impact on the activities of otherlocal interest groups such as logging companies, traders, fishermen, large scalecommercial estates and plantations. Success in resolving conflicts of interestwithin rural communities depends to a large extent on the existence, strength andorganizational structure of local people-based institutions (box 35).

Individuals working on their own cannot hope to solve the problems of landdegradation on more than an individual field basis. Institutions therefore have arole in coordinating the activities of individuals and mobilising community effortwhere required. Without institutions capable of responding to the technicalchallenges posed by land degradation there is little hope of technical solutionsbeing implemented (Milner 1990).

Box 35The Australian Landcare experience

Landcare has evolved as one of the most significant social movements rural Australia has everseen (Campbell 1994). More than 2000 community groups involving one third of all Australian farmershave been formed in the past 5 years to tackle environmental problems that cannot be solved within asingle farm boundary. New forms of collective action are emerging, resulting in improvements to theenvironment and farm profitability. These Landcare groups are formally linked to existing institutionsincluding national level policy makers, forming a unique partnership between community andgovernment. The development of the Landcare process has required a major shift away from thetraditional modes of technology transfer that have dominated agricultural extension until recent times,with a recognition of the need for more participatory approaches to natural resource management.

In the Landcare groups from both West Hume (Woodhill et al 1994) and Balgarup (Campbell etal 1994) impacts extend far beyond those achieved by more conventional approaches. It is clear thatcollective action has enabled fencing, drains and banks to be constructed to protect remnantvegetation and to control run-off and waterlogging. Substantial revegetation of degraded lands has alsobeen initiated. However the studies also showed that family farmers felt there was a danger ofgovernment seeing `participation' as an opportunity to hand the responsibility for complex, conflictridden and costly problems to local people without adequate resources to make a significant difference.The responsibility without resources dressed up and sold as empowerment is a trap they wish to avoid.

Source Hinchcliffe et al 1995.

S

141

Box 36Establishment and strengthening of community organizations

In the Antique province of the Philippines the Antique Integrated Area Development Project(ANIAD) has chosen to go for community-based agricultural development and environmentalmanagement. A key component is its community organising programme which aims at sustainabledevelopment through helping local communities to establish their own `people's organizations' (POs).This is done by using NGOs to mobilise at the community level backed with the technical assistance ofgovernment agencies. It aims to tap what are perceived to be the inherent advantages NGOs havecompared to government to organise communities. The aim is to develop a means for empowering therural population to be able to rationally manage and develop their resources as cohesive groups.

In its first phase ANIAD has deliberately concentrated its primary efforts on PO development. Itaccepts that this will be a slow process and it will be several years before its development activities willhave any real impact on the local environment. But the whole aim is to establish POs that have thecapability to manage their own affairs, including sourcing development funds, when support from theproject is phased out. So far ANIAD has managed to organise and strengthen POs serving around 52barangays (village administrative unit). These POs have undergone basic organizational andmanagement training and some have already been involved with income generating and communityprojects which take a conscious effort to take into consideration the environmental dimension.

(EDSP 1993)

When reviewing institutions at the community level it is important torecognise that there are many types of organization. One review of the topic(Bebbington et al 1994) makes a distinction between customary institutions andnon-traditional organizations. Customary institutions refers to those communitylevel relationships between individuals and/or rural households that have longbeen the basis of social organization. These would include kinship networks,tenure rules, local concepts of the `community', the rules governing genderrelationships, local criteria determining who has authority and how decisions getmade etc. These are the rules and institutions that are most deeply bound intothe organization of rural life, and which make most sense to, and have most holdover, rural people (Moorehead and Lane 1993).

Customary institutions can serve as valuable forums to bring men andwomen, youth and elders, artisans and labourers, traders and farmers together.They will have evolved in many communities to address the felt needs of thecommunities and they are typically flexible in composition, function andorganization. For SARM purposes they could be useful for disseminatinginformation, mobilizing credit and capital, allocating communal resources forgrazing, establishing supplier networks for manure, fodder, fuelwood, consumeritems and other necessities of the farm households in rural communities.

Some societies have traditional saving schemes based on neighbourhoodassociations which exist to provide their members with a minimum level ofsecurity for meeting financial needs. Such saving schemes could also be used toeffectively mobilize savings and to establish revolving funds needed for micro-enterprise and household access to credit supplies.

Non-traditional organizations refers to the range of groups created in somemeasure by external forces and interventions, generally within recent history(Bebbington et al 1993). At the community level are associations, cooperatives,credit groups, women's groups, and landless labourers' groups. At the regionallevel may be federations of communities or cooperatives, and savings and loanssocieties. In general these are organizations created with a specific purpose in

142

mind. Sometimes when that purpose comes to an end, so does the organization.In other cases, however an organization may be long-lived enough, or maybecome sufficiently independent and effective, that it becomes a local institution,and an important part of everyday life to people. In these cases the organization islikely to outlive the initial stimulus for its creation.

A review of project experience shows that it is best to use existing groups forSARM activities. At the community level these may be traditional bodies(customary institutions), or may have been set up previously for another purpose(non-traditional organizations). In any event an existing group is easier to workwith than one which has to be specially formed (Critchley 1991). Some existingcommunity institutions, such as farmers clubs, credit groups, marketingcooperatives, irrigation or range management associations may have a direct linkwith agricultural production. Others such as women and development groups, thelocal church or mosque and the political party may be less directly related but maybe channels through which people can be brought together, problems identifiedand extension messages disseminated.

For planning purposes community organizations of one form or another arebest. A few villages or communities may not have some form of committee (tohandle development planning, administrative or social/cultural matters) whichmeets regularly and could take responsibility for planning SARM-related activities.For the implementation and construction of conservation measures the picturemay not be so clear. In some societies people are used to working in groups - inothers they are not. Some have a tradition of informal work groups, consisting offriends and neighbours working in each other’s fields on a reciprocal basis.

A measure of decentralisation of government institutions is also consideredessential for sustainable agricultural development. This would bring decision-making and technical and managerial capacities closer to the rural populations(FAO 1991c). The purpose is to:

• involve local populations more actively in decision-making andmanagement of their own affairs (including taking responsibility for theirenvironment);

• improving their access to agricultural and forestry support services,credit, input supplies and information on alternative technologies; and

• give government staff at the local level autonomy in financial andtechnical matters so they can respond promptly to requests from thecommunity for assistance.

Box 37Overlapping institutional responsibilities

In Indonesia implementation of the Forest, Soil and Water Conservation Programme involvesseven ministries: Ministry of Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of PublicWorks, Ministry of Finance, State Ministry for the National Development Planning Board and StateMinistry for Population and Environment. Primary responsibility for soil conservation lies with the SoilConservation Division of the Directorate General of Reforestation and Land Rehabilitation within theMinistry of Forestry. Whereas primary responsibility for crop production and farming systemsdevelopment lies with the Food Crops Division of the Ministry of Agriculture. In turn primaryresponsibility for development activities at the district level lies with the Ministry of Home Affairs.

143

Some countries have formal working groups registered with, or mobilised by,the government (e.g. in Vietnam people are expected to `donate' their labour forsome 10 days a year on community projects). But some people are not used toworking communally, and efforts to make them form groups fail.

Groups are not always popular (Critchley 1991). Differences in the ethnicorigin, caste, and socio-economic circumstances of the households within avillage may also mean that the presence of community organizations is noguarantee that they will be representative of those living in the same area.Likewise the majority of community organizations are likely to be run by men whomay have little interest in the problems and opportunities of the women.

The following experience of a watershed management project in Indiaillustrates how the social structure of a community might influence therepresentativeness of community level institutions:

In the Wadigera watershed a meeting was called of the families wholived and farmed there. When all the people had gathered a clear pictureemerged of the class distinctions operating. On the floor, in front, satthose farmers with lands in the lower reaches of the watershed - themost fertile and benefitting from irrigation. Behind them sat or stoodthose farmers with lands in the middle reaches - slightly less productiveand more vulnerable to dry spells, without the benefit of irrigation. Thepeople on the periphery were mainly tribals and those with holdings inthe upper reaches of the catchment. The landless hung around. Therewere no women present initially but as the meeting went on they strolledin, more as interested bystanders than as participants. (Fernandez1994)

In many rural areas, it can be hard to identify functioning local institutions.Where these do not exist, they have to be created or revitalised. This is difficultand time-consuming (box 37). In such cases, a new SARM programme will notproduce many tangible results in the first few years. Such delays may be hard formany donor agencies, national governments and the media to accept. Literature(Bebbington et al 1993) suggests considerable potential for involving ruralpeople's organizations in research and extension for SARM, both as partners andas implementors. There are also many constraints on how far they can fulfil thisrole. In some cases groups do not exist, and the local political and socio-economic environment is not conducive for their emergence as sustainableorganizations. In other cases, they exist but have a number of weaknesses, whichinclude the following (Bebbington et al 1993):

• They lack managerial skills and financial resources;• They lack contacts with research services and other formal institutions;• They are not always representative;• They do not always distribute benefits equitably;• There are multiple obstacles to their sustainability; and• Because they sometimes have multiple concerns - such as land rights,

credit, marketing, etc - they may not always place research andextension for SARM as a high priority.

144

Role of community leaders

A common element in many success stories is the key role played by arespected member of the local community, he or she having taken the lead inorganising or promoting particular activities. This element can be difficult toreplicate and may explain why two projects with the same constraints andopportunities turn out differently. We should note the experience of WesternIndia’s Kribhco Rainfed Farming Project, which found that village appraisal andplanning initiatives that did not build on existing authority structures were likely tobe obstructed by village leaders (Mosse 1993). Hence whereas many SARMprogrammes depend on community action experience has shown that (Rhoades1982):

• An agreement to a course of action by a particular community leaderdoes not necessarily mean that the people will follow it.

• A course of action embarked upon against the final view of thetraditional leader will collapse after a period of time because of his/herinfluence on consensual decision-making.

• An agreement reached with the whole community does not necessarilyinfer permanent agreement.

The transition to decentralisation requires a creative managementapproach; this is often difficult for traditional government agencies and traininginstitutes. Decentralisation implies the willingness to devolve responsibility andto share power. This is easier said than done as it is the nature of most men towant to hoard power and other resources. In the Philippines under theprovisions of the 1991 Local Government Code, primary responsibility for themanagement and maintenance of the natural resources and environment withinindividual provinces has in theory been devolved to the respective ProvincialGovernors. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)has so far devolved only some 800 junior staff (compared to the Department ofAgriculture’s several thousand) and has sought to retain control over the forestreserves and external donor funded projects.

Government institutional support

Development of the multi-sectoral approach needed for SARM is hinderedbecause government departments are still largely compartmentalised and gearedfor top down operations. Thus the soil conservation department helps build thebunds, the livestock department deals with the fodder that grows on them, theagriculture department deals with the crops that grow between, while the forestrydepartment believes it should all be under trees. Farmers can end up therecipients of conflicting advice from different subject matter specialists (even fromwithin the same agency) usually given on different occasions (Douglas 1994).

An approach based on collaboration between different disciplinaryspecialists is not easy to implement given present institutional structures. This ismade more difficult by most government staff having been trained to seeagricultural development as the passing down to farmers of separate extensionpackages for individual commodities.

145

Given that SARM is based on the belief that conservation should bepromoted as an integral component of a productive farming system, rather than aseparate land management practice, disseminating such a message will needinputs from many different technical departments. It will also need a cadre oftechnicians capable of seeing production systems as a whole, from the land usersviewpoint, while simultaneously understanding interactions between production,off-farm priorities and the maintenance of the natural resource base.

In many countries the institutional responsibility for combatting soildegradation still rests with a separate soil conservation section or department.Typically with its own team of technical specialists and equipment (graders,bulldozers etc). There are some who believe that there should be one clearlydefined government ministry, department or unit with overall responsibility forconservation and with authority to coordinate (Sanders 1992a). Others believe onthe contrary that the need is for the soil conservation specialists to be integratedas subject matter specialists within the government line departments responsiblefor agricultural development and extension activities (Hudson 1992, Douglas1992b). What is clear is that most countries in the Asia Pacific region shoulddevelop appropriate institutional arrangements that will enable the efforts of thesoil conservation specialists to be integrated into routine agricultural developmentactivities at the field level.

The institutional situation is further complicated where different departmentsand ministries have overlapping duties and responsibilities with regard to thepromotion of SARM. In Sri Lanka for example, some 26 separate institutions areresponsible for natural resource management (Dent and Goonewardene 1993),whereas in Indonesia seven different ministries are involved in the national forest,soils and water conservation programme (see box 37). Effective inter-departmental and inter-ministerial collaboration is needed if field-level SARMactivities are to be implemented as an integral part of agricultural developmentprogrammes. This is in practice often hard to achieve given differing areas ofinterest, perceived costs and benefits, work priorities, budget allocations andchains of command between the different agencies involved (Douglas 1992b).

In most of the Pacific countries agriculture and forestry are within the sameMinistry, although usually in different departments. Such an institutionalarrangement can facilitate cooperation between forestry and agriculture technicalspecialists in the development of SARM approaches like agroforestry. However inAsia, although commonly at one time part of the same Ministry, there are nowseparate Ministries of Agriculture and Forestry which often have a poor record ofcollaboration. Vietnam has gone against the Asian trend when at the end of 1996it merged the separate Ministries of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries into one(Tran Van Son personal communication).

Coordination between organizations

Increasing concern with environmental issues and a commensurate growthin interest in soil and water conservation has led to interventions in this field bymany donors and agencies. Differences in strategies, approaches and eventechnical methods may lead to duplication of effort and confusion or resentmenton the part of land users (IFAD 1992). This therefore raises the need forcoordination at both the national and grassroots levels.

146

Box 38The strength of local institutions

The Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (AKRSP) is an NGO working with village communitiesin Gujurat to promote and catalyse community participation in natural resource management. AKRSPfocuses on the formation of village institutions to implement the villagers' resource conservation plans.This approach has shown that programmes managed by local institutions result in higher investmentby farmers in soil, water and nutrient conservation. Local villagers trained as paraprofessionals wereable to create demand for their services of planning, management and monitoring. Agriculturalproductivity has increased by 30% to 100% over a two to three year period. Soil loss has been reducedand out-migration slowed. Many paraprofessionals are seen as a key resource. They have becomeconfident enough to help promote similar activities in neighbouring areas.

The Society for People's Education and Economic Change (SPEECH) has been working inKamarajar District of Tamil Nadu since 1986. This region is one of the most disadvantaged of the state,and is known for its acute droughts, erratic monsoons, poor services and entrenched socio-economicand cultural division. SPEECH has helped to build and strengthen local groups and institutions in 45villages. For example in Paraikulum village, villagers have rehabilitated 30 ha of the upper watershed,bringing severely degraded land under the plough for the first time in 20 years. They have constructedcontour bunds and structures for channelling and harvesting water. They have dug a new well, andhave developed new arrangements for sharing labour between men and women to maintain these newtechnologies. Now more water percolates into the soil and recharges the wells. Surfacewater is betterchannelled into the tank, which gives villagers a second crop on the irrigated lands. Using only locallyavailable resources, this village of 100 households now produces an extra 100 tonnes of rice everyyear.

The novelty of the approach is beginning to be recognised by government departments. a seniorengineer of the Agriculture Department visited Paraikulum. He accepted for the first time that it wasimportant to involve farmers before planning any project for them. Now government has madeparticipatory methods a part of their nearby large watershed project, and are paying village motivatorsfrom Paraikulum to help them.Source Hinchcliffe et al 1995.

There is a growing consensus on the need at the national level for acommittee or commission to advise on the detailed formulation of SARM strategy,the development of policy, the coordination of activities and the monitoring ofprogress (FAO 1990a, Sanders 1992, IFAD 1992). The committee can be madeup of senior government officials and representatives from different areas andfrom special interest groups such as farmer associations and growercooperatives. It should also include representatives from the governmentdepartments responsible for macro-economic policy and budget allocation. Thishelps to ensure both the amount and continuity of financing needed in the battleto halt land degradation. Such a committee should be formed initially to developstrategy and policy but should remain in existence to monitor progress, helprevise and reformulate policy where necessary, and ensure coordination betweenthe different government departments, non-government organizations and farmerorganizations involved (FAO 1990a) (see box 39).

Box 39National coordination

A Sustainable Farming Systems Working Group has recently been formed in Vanuatu tocoordinate and monitor farming systems activities. Government research officers, extension agents,development projects and NGOs working in the country, are all represented in this group. The ChiefExtension Officer was elected secretary of the group to ensure close contacts with the farmingcommunity.Source: Steve Rogers quoted in FAO/IRETA 1995.

147

Box 40Aspirations for project coordination

The Nepal sub-project of the FAO/Government of Italy Inter-regional Project for ParticipatoryUpland Conservation and Development sought to establish a Project Coordination Committee (PCC) inGorkha District to foster better coordination among the line agencies. It was to be composed of thechairman of the District Development Committee as chairman, National Project Director as secretary,Chief District Officer as advisor, and with the District Forest Officer, Chief Agriculture DevelopmentOfficer, District Irrigation Officer, District Livestock Officer, Local Development Officer and project CTAas members of the committee. Periodic attempts were made to convene the PCC but as of October1994 it had not met (Prakash Regmi personal communication). There was apparently some renewedinterest in the PCC and discussions were going on to try and make it functional.

From the point of view of trying to institutionalise an inter-sectoral and interdepartmentalapproach to participatory upland conservation and development, that would continue post project, themandate of such a committee should be expanded to coordinate activities and promote collaboration atthe district level rather than just within the area, and for the life, of a project.

Coordination is also needed at the district and provincial levels. In somesituations this may be easier than coordination at the national level. For instancein China the national programmes and responsibilities of the Ministries ofAgriculture, Forestry and Water Resources (the latter is responsible for soilconservation) are separate. However in Fujian Province the AgriculturalCommittee, through the Provincial Agricultural Comprehensive DevelopmentOffice, has the mandate to coordinate joint agriculture and conservation activities.Similar agricultural committees exist at the prefecture, county and township levels.However the degree to which the staff from the soil conservation, agriculture andforestry bureaus actually coordinate their activities varies considerably from placeto place. The mechanism for collaboration exists but is not always used inpractice.

Effective institutional coordination can avoid conflicting messages going to,and conflicting demands made on, farmers from different programmes andagencies. By involving government line agencies and NGOs and developing aninter-agency mechanism for coordinating activities such a committee would havea rationale for continuing post project, unlike an isolated special projectmanagement/coordination unit (see box 40).

There is a role for such inter-agency agricultural resource managementcommittees to operate at each level of government (e.g. regional, provincial,county/municipality) as a means of communication and coordinating planningbetween the various government departments and NGOs involved in field levelextension and development activities. The need for coordination of developmentactivities arises because the presence of many agricultural, forestry and soil andwater conservation related projects and programmes can create difficulties.Notably differences between projects and programmes with regard to such factorsas different incentives for extension agents and farmers, clashes in philosophyand approach in a district or region, and conflicting competence

The major objectives of such committees should be to:• Promote, at the appropriate level, inter-agency collaboration in the field

of participatory planning for SARM;• Institutionalise the exchange of information on approach, specific know-

how, and infrastructure;

148

• Facilitate and encourage the carrying out of joint activities on acomplementary basis

Representation on the committee should comprise all concerned agenciesoperating at the respective level. The chairman could be the most senioradministrative official at the appropriate level. Committee activities could cover:

• Production of an information bulletin to which all committee memberswould contribute concerning publicising the agencies and theirapproaches, technical information, training, seminars and availableinfrastructure;

• Joint scheduling of training courses and field visits for extension agentsand farmers in the district or region;

• Joint evaluations;• Joint elaboration and implementation of participatory village better land

husbandry plans;• Joint planning and execution of technical and policy interventions to

support community level participatory technology development activities.

Institutional development and strengthening

The implementation of a SARM programme requires that the variousexternal technical supporting agencies involved should have the skilledmanpower, finance, and equipment needed to deliver the services required fromthem. Also, the staff of such support agencies must believe in what they aredoing, be dedicated and committed to the work, and sensitive to the social andcultural norms of the communities in which they operate. If these conditions arenot met then an institutional development and strengthening component wouldneed to be included in the programme. Given the realities of limited governmentrevenue budget in most of the Asia Pacific region, the scope for increasing staffnumbers is limited. The main focus of any external project assistance forinstitutional strengthening should therefore be on enhancing the skills (training) ofexisting staff and providing them with the means (vehicles, equipment,extension/training materials, office facilities, finance etc) to do the job.

The small size of the population in most of the Pacific Island countries meanthat they have limited research and extension officers who can work with farmersto promote SARM. This has its problems; for instance the AuSAID supportedWestern Samoa Farming Systems Project found it difficult to keep togetherfarming systems teams due to the limited number of skilled staff available and theconflicting demands for their services (Peter Wood personal communication).

Likewise, given the small pool of agricultural and forestry research andextension officers within the Pacific, their attendance at regional workshops andtraining activities can have an adverse impact on their routine work programme,as there may be no one to can take over their duties during their absence.

However there is an advantage to small numbers. During the life of anational or regional institutional strengthening programme it would be possible tosensitise and train everyone directly concerned with the promotion of SARM atthe field level - something that, because of the size of their Ministries ofAgriculture and Forestry, would be impossible for all but a very few Asiancountries.

149

Role for non-governmental organizations (NGOs)

Government programmes should acknowledge the presence and thepotential of NGOs, which often have comparative advantages when it comes tocontact with resource users at the local level. There is much to be gained bycollaboration with such organizations (IFAD 1992).

Both in programme design and in execution, NGOs can make a valuablecontribution. The original credit for the development and packaging of the slopingagricultural land technology (SALT), widely promoted within the Asia Pacificregion, lies with staff of the Mindanao Baptist Rural Life Centre in Davao del Sur,the Philippines, and not with government conservation experts or researchers.Much of the pioneering work with the development of participatory rural appraisaltools has been undertaken by NGOs active in India (see Mascarenhas et al1991). International NGOs such as ILEIA (the Information Centre for Low-External-Input and Sustainable Agriculture), and many national NGOs indeveloping countries are at the forefront of promoting alternative low costtechniques for sustaining soil productivity (see Reijntjes et al 1992).

Local insights and links of NGOs with local institutions offer importantadvantages. Their administrative procedures may be simpler and their overheadslower, all of which may mean a more direct impact on a larger number of landusers. Governments and NGOs therefore need to coordinate their activities moreclosely (IFAD 1992). That this can be done is illustrated by the ANIAD project inthe Philippines (see box 35).

However, collaboration with NGOs does not offer a panacea. Their capacityto implement conservation programmes should not be overestimated and theymay need support, financially and technically, from government agencies. Thereis growing plethora of NGOs in the region. Many of these may be urban-based,consist of 1 or 2 individuals and have been created as a means of gaining accessto donor funds. Some are little more than commercial consulting companies butcall themselves NGOs as this is more politically attractive to donors. Care needsto taken when advocating the use of NGOs as an alternative to governmentservices to ensure that the NGOs used do offer something different and better.

NGO projects are usually characterised by being small, directed towards asmall target group, in a small area and linked only loosely or not at all to nationalprogrammes. This makes them less likely to spread or act as a catalyst. Also onlygovernments and government sponsored donors (bilateral and multilateralagencies) have the resources to operate at a regional or national level.

It is also clear that a key element in the success of many NGO projects is thepresence of one or two highly motivated individuals, prepared to make a long-term commitment to the project area, often for little remuneration. This is a lessonthat regrettably cannot be transferred to government projects which reduces thereplicability of many NGO successes (Douglas 1994).

International and regional institutions

Many institutions operating at the international, regional and/or sub-regionallevel, within the Asia Pacific region, are involved in SARM related projects andprogrammes.

150

United Nations agencies

• United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) - the donor agency ofthe UN

• Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) - the primary UN technicalspecialised agency for SARM, with its regional office in Bangkok and arecently established sub-regional office for the Pacific in Apia WesternSamoa

• World Food Programme (WFP) - involved in disaster relief and food forwork development programmes

• Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) -involved in a number of regional programmes related to desertification,the environment and sustainable development but lacks the in-housespecialist technical SARM skills of FAO

• United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has a broaderenvironmental mandate than FAO but has overlapping areas of interestwith FAO and ESCAP in the fields of desertification and deforestation.

ESCAP chairs an interagency committee on environment and sustainabilityfor the various UN agencies active in the region, which has prepared a regionalaction programme on environment and sustainable development for ESCAPexecution. However it would appear that there is little effective coordination ofactivities and often conflicting approaches being promoted by different agencies.Watershed management being one area where some agencies, and UNDPbacked projects, are still into the discredited top-down physical planning approachwhereas others are actively seeking more participatory bottom up approachesworking with communities rather than physical units.

Box 41ASOCON

The Asia Soil Conservation Network for the Humid Tropics (ASOCON) was formed withUNDP/FAO support in 1989 but became an independent network in 1993. The network aims to assistits member countries, through a programme of information exchange, regional workshops, expertconsultations and learning activities to enhance the skills and expertise of those responsible for thedevelopment and dissemination of soil and water conservation practices for small-scale farmers. Theultimate objective is to help small-scale farmers in South-east Asia use the land that is available tothem more sustainably and more productively.

ASOCON activities include collecting and disseminating information about soil conservation,documenting successful soil conservation practices, publishing a newsletter, preparing case studies ofsoil conservation projects, organising workshops and seminars, launching regional programmes,promoting the exchange of research and extension information, and providing advice and training fornational programmes.

ASOCON members include China (southeastern provinces), Indonesia, Malaysia (provisionally),Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. Each member country has a NationalNetwork Coordinating Committee, whose function is to assist the National Coordinator in coordinatingASOCON activities within the country. Membership of the Coordinating Committee includesrepresentatives from all the different national agencies involved in soil conservation.

The National Coordinators form the Network Consultative Board which, as both the steeringcommittee and the policy-forming body, determines ASOCON's work programme.

Contact address: ASOCON, Manggala Wanabakti Block VII, Lantai 6, Jalan Gatot Subroto, P.O.Box 7632 JKB, Jakarta 10076, Indonesia

Source FAO 1995b

151

International research institutions

A variety of international research institutions with interests in SARM havetheir headquarters in the region, notably:

• International Centre for Research in the Semi-Arid Topics (ICRISAT),Hyderabad India.

• International Irrigation Management Institute (IIMI), Kandy Sri Lanka.• International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD),

Kathmandu Nepal.• International Board for Soil Research and Management (IBSRAM),

Bangkok Thailand.• International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Los Banos the Philippines.• International Centre for Living Aquatic Resources Management

(ICLARM), Manila the Philippines• Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor Indonesia.

In addition the International Council for Research in Agroforestry(ICRAF) which has its headquarters in Nairobi Kenya has a sub-office in BogorIndonesia with particular responsibility for programmes in Southeast Asia. What ismissing from the above list is any international research centre looking specificallyat the improvement and development of the traditional subsistence food crops ofthe Pacific, notably taro, yam and sweet potato. The IBSRAM PACIFICLANDnetwork is one of the few programmes supported by an international researchinstitution currently looking at SARM related issues within the Pacific.

In addition the Australian Council for International Agricultural Research(ACIAR) and the Canadian International Development Research Centre (IDRC)support a variety of bilateral and regional research and information exchangeinitiatives related to SARM in the Asia Pacific region. Likewise the WorldConservation Union (IUCN) collaborates with several countries in the region onenvironmental conservation with particular emphasis on the preparation ofnational conservation strategies.

Regional collaborative programmes

Several regional collaborative TCDC programmes have made valuablecontributions to the coordination of knowledge on SARM, developed a variety ofSARM technologies and participatory planning methodologies and provided policyguidelines of action. Some of the key programmes are the following:

• Asian Network on Problem Soils organised through FAO RAP andconcerned with problem soils, environmental issues in land and waterdevelopment and collection and analysis of land degradation data.

• Asian Bio and Organic Fertiliser Network organised through FAO RAPand concerned with organic matter management, and integrated plantnutrition systems.

• Asia Pacific Agroforestry Network (APAN) a regional FAO programme tofacilitate collaborative agroforestry activities in the region.

• Forestry Research Support Programme for Asia and the Pacific(FORSPA) organised through FAO RAP and concerned with

152

deforestation, forestry's role in SARM and management of fragiletropical forest soils.

• The FAO/UNDP/UNIDO Farmer Centred Agricultural ResourceManagement (FARM) Programme aiming to enhance the capabilitiesof GOs and NGOs to support farmers in improving SARM andhousehold food security through innovative participatory approaches inrainfed areas in Asia.

• Participatory Watershed Management Training in Asia a regional FAOprogramme linked to FARM with a specific focus on human resourcedevelopment in participatory watershed management.

• Intercountry Programme for the Development of Integrated PestManagement in Rice in South and Southeast Asia a regional FAOprogramme promoting farmer centred learning approaches to IPM.

• Network on Irrigation and Water Management, a regional FAOprogramme seeking ways to promote improved irrigation and watermanagement practices in Asia.

• Asia Soil Conservation Network for the Humid Tropics (ASOCON) anindependent intercountry network, initiated with FAO assistance,focusing on the problems of soil and water conservation at the small-scale farm level (see box 8.7).

• Desertification Control in Asia and the Pacific (DESCONAP) a regionalESCAP programme concerned with desertification in the Asia Pacificregion.

• Fertiliser and Development Network for Asia and the Pacific (FADINAP)a regional network concerned with fertiliser production, trade and use.

Pacific regional institutions and programmes

Ever since the founding of the South Pacific Commission 50 years ago bythe colonial powers then in the Pacific, the small territories and expanding numberof independent nations have found intra-regional activities, organizations andcooperation to be invaluable. By now there are about 300 regional organizationsin the Pacific carrying out a wide range of functions that would normally beconfined to a single larger nation, but that a smaller Pacific nation cannot carry outeffectively alone (Clarke 1994). The South Pacific countries have also observedthe benefits to be gained when they group together as a unit on a global playingfield where size as well as economic and political power matter. The following arebelieved to be the key regional institutions and programmes related to SARMcurrently operating in the Pacific:

• The South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) whoseareas of interest include: conserving biological diversity; global climatechange and sea level rise; environmental planning and management;coastal management and planning; environmental information, educationand training; and environmental impact assessment.

• The Forum Secretariat which is primarily concerned with economic andpolitical matters. However it deals with issues related to the trade ofagricultural products and has recently appointed its first EnvironmentalOfficer.

153

• The South Pacific Commission (SPC) has its own agriculture programmeproviding advice, training and information related to general agriculture,plant protection and quarantine, animal production and animal healthand sustainable development. It also operates a tissue cultureprogramme as a means of sharing crop varieties and germplasmbetween countries with a particular emphasis on the major root crops ofthe Pacific.

• The University of the South Pacific (USP) is a regional university with itsmain campus in Fiji. It is directly involved in agricultural research, trainingand extension through its School of Agriculture and the Institute forResearch Extension and Training in Agriculture (IRETA) located at itscampus in Western Samoa.

• The Pacific Regional Agricultural Programme (PRAP) is funded bythe European Union and is into its second phase which is currently dueto run until the end of 1998. It comprises 11 projects, namely:

a) Farming systems in lowlands;b) Production and dissemination of improved coconut cultivars;c) Seed and planting material;d) Selection trial and dissemination of sweet potato cultivars;e) Taro beetle control;f) Atoll farming systems;g) Provision of tissue culture services for the region;h) Regional biometric service;i) Agricultural information support;j) Programme coordination; andk) Agricultural rural development.

There is concern as to what will happen to the various projects on thetermination of PRAP. The SPC Agriculture Programme may be able to take oversome elements of the individual projects, but the Pacific Island countries do notyet have the technical and financial resources to sustain all the current projectactivities.