Browsing by Subject "Local indicators"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1

Participatory evaluation of sustainability of farming systems in the Philippines
(2010) Vilei, Sonja; Dabbert, Stephan
Forest cover in the Philippines has been greatly reduced in the past and slightly recovered since, estimated at around 24% of land surface currently. Small-scale farmers have to survive on small landholdings (2 ha on average and mostly under 5 ha), face insecure land tenure, and the high population density leaves little scope for gaining new agricultural land. Their farming systems continue to form an important part of their livelihoods, but often their strategies are unsustainable in the long run. While the need for evaluating common farming systems and compare them with new alternatives exists, it is important to involve local stakeholders in the search for suitable sustainability indicators. In this study, the search was based on the Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Framework and therefore organised under its five types of capital assets: natural, financial, physical, human and social capital. Farmers from five study sites along the Western side of the island of Leyte were gathered in eight focus group discussions to discuss the issues of success and sustainability of their farming systems and identify and rank possible criteria for an evaluation of sustainability. Nine other stakeholders from the same sites were interviewed individually. In a second research phase, all 49 identified criteria were given to 30 farmers and 18 other stakeholders for ranking. Three groups of farmers from the municipality of Baybay were used for comparison: one group of rice and coconut farmers; a second group with (additional) exotic timber trees (usually Gmelina and Acacia mangium); a third group with (additional) indigenous timber trees (?Rainforestation Farming?). The identified indicators were tested regarding their usefulness for comparing the three groups of farmers. Rainforestation Farming, as promising alternative farming system, was analysed further regarding financial aspects and its adoptability with regard to small-scale farmers. The Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Framework was useful for identifying suitable evaluation criteria. The importance of the five capital assets groups was perceived similarly by farmers and other stakeholders, but ranking results for single criteria (i.e. soil quality, membership in organisation) differed. The same holds true when comparing results for the four study regions, where the individual ranking was carried out: significant differences existed for single, mostly financial, criteria (i.e. record-keeping, investment costs) but not for importance of the five capital asset groups. The ranking results differed quite substantially, though, between focus groups and individual farmers, indicating on the one hand the influence of group leaders. But, on the other hand, farmers had the complete list of criteria for the individual ranking, including several criteria which they had not thought of previously, but which they still regard as important. Fifteen criteria were selected as indicators for comparing the three farmers groups. Rainforestation farmers were the group scoring significantly higher on most indicators (i.e education level adults and children, land available per capita, (perceived) soil quality, number of soil conservation measures used, membership in organisation) than farmers without timber trees. Farmers having planted exotic timber trees scored closer to Rainforestation farmers. But to be able to judge if the specific farming system leads to a more sustainable livelihood, time series data would have been necessary. The data of this study allowed concluding that tree farmers planting (indigenous or exotic) timber trees are endowed with higher resources ? more land, higher income, higher education levels. Most likely they had these resources before starting their farming systems. In addition, these farmers were also more actively engaged in organisations and had more contact to extension agents, therefore enhancing their social (and human) capital. The higher score regarding (perceived) soil quality and (non-) use of pesticides these farmers groups reached are likely to be an outcome of the farming system practiced. Analysing the financial feasibility and adoptability of Rainforestation Farming, it shows that the system has the potential to be profitable, but coming with a high risk: investment costs are very high and it takes up to 13 years to regain them. Consequently, the first adopters either had unused land areas or substantial off-farm income, and the subsequent adoption rate is low. Sustainability has to be understood as a dynamic and not a static concept and the concept of sustainable land management must consequently evolve as well. This study tried to add further findings regarding the use of suitable methods for this cause, but as already mentioned above, time series data would be necessary to assess the progress of farming systems towards ?sustainability?.