Upload
m-mcdonald
View
230
Download
10
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
LAND DEGRADATION + DEVELOPMENT
Land De`rad[ Develop[ 00] 232Ð250 "1999#
Copyright Þ 1999 John Wiley + Sons\ Ltd[
SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION PROJECTS AND RURALLIVELIHOODS] OPTIONS FOR DESIGN AND RESEARCH
TO ENHANCE ADOPTION AND ADAPTATION
M[ McDONALD0 AND K[ BROWN1
0 School of A`ricultural and Forest Sciences\ University of Wales\ Ban`or\ Gwynedd\ UK1 School of Development Studies\ University of East An`lia\ Norwich\ UK
Received 09 September 0888^ Accepted 29 November 0888
ABSTRACT
This paper synthesizes the _ndings of a workshop which sought to consider the issues of poor uptake\ adoption andadaptation of soil and water conservation techniques by farmers post!project by examining the experiences of projectswhich had research and extension elements[ Critical factors contributing to the adoption and adaptation of soil andwater conservation techniques by farmers are identi_ed as
, a more ~exible approach and which enables learning within projects^, a process rather than output driven approach to soil and water conservation^, demonstration of immediate and tangible bene_ts of soil and water conservation to farmers "production\ income\ risk!
minimization#^ and, avoiding a narrow focus on soil and water conservation*alternatives are {better land husbandry| or {sustainable rural
livelihoods| approaches[
A number of areas are identi_ed as priorities for further research which would aid the successful adoption of sustainableagricultural techniques and which should guide future research\ development and extension\ bringing more sustainedbene_ts to farmers\ particularly in humid and subhumid hillside regions[ Copyright Þ 1999 John Wiley + Sons\ Ltd[
KEY WORDS] soil and water conservation^ livelihoods^ project evaluation^ social and natural capital
INTRODUCTION
Half a century of failed soil and water conservation "SWC# projects in tropical developing countries demandsa reconsideration of strategy "Critchley et al[\ 0883#[ Recognition of this\ and the changing attitude of SWCprogrammes since colonial times has placed much greater emphasis on people|s participation in all aspectsof project design and implementation[ This has resulted in the adoption\ in some areas at least\ of a moreholistic attitude towards the maintenance of land productivity "e[g[ Shaxson et al[\ 0878^ Douglas\ 0883^Scoones et al[\ 0885#[ Much emphasis on helping farmers to improve land husbandry and less on e}orts tocombat erosion alone is expected to provide a more e}ective solution to an old problem[ It has beenpostulated that if farmers _nd it feasible and worthwhile to improve the texture\ organic matter content\porosity and nutrient levels of the soil\ natural fertility will be raised and soils will recuperate and runo}and erosion be diminished "Shaxson et al[\ 0886#[ For example when farmers have incentives such as secureland tenure\ they have been shown to invest considerable capital in conservation methods\ without externalassistance or intervention\ when bene_ts of increased production are demonstrated "Ti}en\ 0885#[ It is nowcrucial to identify the motivating factors for farmers to carry out such measures\ given the widespreadand worsening poverty and stagnating agricultural production in many countries in recent years[ Raising
� Correspondence to] K[ Brown\ School of Development Studies\ University of East Anglia\ Norwich\ NR3 6TJ\ UK[ E!mail]k[brownÝuea[ac[uk
M[ McDONALD AND K[ BROWN
Copyright Þ 1999 John Wiley + Sons\ Ltd[ LAND DEGRADATION + DEVELOPMENT\ 00] 232Ð250 "1999#
233
productivity and reducing land degradation makes a contribution to meeting development objectives andovercoming these constraints to poverty elimination[
In the past soil erosion was considered as a universal bad thing\ and the converse\ soil conservation\ asgood[ However\ it is now well recognized that the impacts of erosion are experienced di}erentially\ and thatsome land managers bene_t from the processes of soil erosion\ or {redistribution of soil nutrients| "forexample\ Stocking 0885 cites examples from Kenya and Sri Lanka#[ Other _ndings suggest that rapid soilerosion may be a {passing phase| and that when appropriate institutional\ economic and social factors arein place then environmental degradation can become environmental enrichment "Ti}en et al[\ 0883#[ Thedynamics of change and cause and e}ect and the interactions between these factors demonstrate that theassumption that more people�more erosion�greater poverty is not only simplistic but also sometimesmisplaced "Blaikie\ 0875^ Blaikie and Brook_eld\ 0876#[ {Crisis| narratives have developed as a result of thesesimplistic assumptions leading to a large!scale\ inappropriate and largely unsuccessful policy prescriptions\particularly in subSaharan Africa "Roe\ 0884^ Ti}en et al[\ 0883^ Hoben\ 0884^ Rocheleau et al[\ 0884#\ butalso in Himalayan regions "Ives and Masserli\ 0878# and the Sahel "Benjaminsen\ 0887#[
It is increasingly recognized that the technical solutions o}ered by external intervention are rarely sustainedby farmers in the long!term\ and this has led to a partial reconceptualization of SWC[ The need to take intoaccount socio!economic and cultural\ as well as biophysical or technical factors\ is widely accepted "Garforthand Gregory\ 0886#[ In addition\ institutional factors have been highlighted as key "Hudson\ 0880#[ Con!straints to adoption are gaining increasing recognition[ Some of these arise because of historical factors[ Forexample\ coerced soil conservation during the colonial period in parts of subSaharan Africa and othercountries had many negative impacts and have left a negative legacy in terms of attitudes towards interventionin SWC "Pretty and Shah\ 0888#[ Other constraints may be related to factors way beyond the boundaries ofthe local or rural sphere^ Blustain "0874# diagnosed poor project performance to be a result of a high degreeof centralization at governmental level\ combined with a clientistical political culture[
Such insights have contributed to a reframing of issues conventionally perceived as land degradation andsoil erosion and depletion^ and thus solutions proposed\ in a number of di}erent ways by di}erent authors\such as better land husbandry "Shaxon et al[\ 0886#\ soil fertility management and nutrient cycling "Gregoryet al[\ 0886^ Smaling\ 0886# or watershed management "Hinchcli}e et al[\ 0888#[ Recent policy documentsfrom the UK Department for International Development "DFID# recast natural resource and environmentalmanagement in terms of sustainable rural livelihoods "SRL# "Carney\ 0887#[ One question we address is howuseful it is to assess SWC in the light of these di}erent approaches to natural resource management[ Is sucha reassessment likely to aid in critically evaluating the factors in~uencing the adoption\ adaptation of SWCmeasures post!project by farmers<
Many research projects have examined particular prescriptions for land use\ and an important componentof the adoption of these prescriptions is farmers| adaptation of technologies and practices to their speci_ccircumstances[ It is important to examine the signi_cance of these farmer innovations\ and the institutions\information and processes that are necessary to sustain innovation[ Farmers may reject or abandon manytechnologies that have been useful\ and adopt others in their place[ Bunch "0888# produces evidence of ahalf!life of just six years in Honduras for new well!adapted technologies before farmers replace them withnew methods[ Thus\ an appropriate understanding of farmers| attitudes requires examination of the natureof and reasons for adaptation after the project period[ The issues and options presented by such projects areused to identify the reasons for farmers| adoption and adaptation and to identify the most appropriatedissemination pathways for what is shown to be successful[
Massive expenditure by international donor organizations in land improvement projects in recent decadeshas resulted in the formulation of technological prescriptions for SWC for resource!poor farmers[ However\there has often been a failure in the application of these techniques after the conclusion of project periodand funds "notably Hudson\ 0880#[ This may be caused by a range of factors*for example\ lack of politicalwill\ lack of participation by farmers or lack of tangible bene_ts in the short term[ There is increasedawareness of the need to move away from a narrow\ technical focus on soil conservation measures per se to
ENHANCING ADOPTION AND ADAPTATION IN SWC PROJECTS
Copyright Þ 1999 John Wiley + Sons\ Ltd[ LAND DEGRADATION + DEVELOPMENT\ 00] 232Ð250 "1999#
234
more ~exible approaches supporting farmers| responses to a changing resource base and other external
and internal environmental\ social and economic pressures[ Technical solutions to SWC have been well
documented\ but there is a need to synthesize the experience and _ndings of research and development
projects in order to learn what constitutes and encourages success in terms of adoptions of suitable tech!
nologies[ The synthesis presented in this paper moves beyond reviews such as that of Hudson "0880# by
examining the experience of research and development projects to identify what factors contribute to the
continued uptake\ adoption and adaptation of SWC measures\ and to suggest research that can better
support these processes[
This paper is based on a series of case studies and discussions at a workshop on {Issues and options in the
design of SWC projects| held in Llandudno\ Wales\ in February 0888\ funded by the United Kingdom
Department for International Development "DFID# Forestry Research Programme[ The workshop sought
to synthesize _ndings and experiences from SWC projects from di}erent regions of the world\ with a special
emphasis on hillside systems in humid and subhumid tropical areas[ The following sections of the paper
outline some of the key features and _ndings of the case studies themselves^ the factors are synthesized from
discussions of the studies which are likely to enhance the adoption and adaptation of SWC technologies by
farmers and make suggestions for further research and development to support more successful interventions
in SWC[
THE CASE STUDIES
Seven case studies of innovative approaches to SWC from di}erent regions of the world are reviewed in
order to assess the impacts of interventions of di}erent aspects of farmers| livelihoods and practices[ The
case studies represent a diversity of situations\ and di}er in terms of agroecological\ social!economic and
cultural\ institutional\ methodological conditions and approaches[ They each concern development and
research projects at di}erent stages in the project cycle\ implemented by a range of di}erent agencies[ Each
case study assesses the e}ectiveness of interventions "development and research projects# in SWC[ The case
studies are summarized in text Boxes 1Ð7[
The context for the discussion is set by Jules Pretty "Box 0#[ He places SWC within the framework of
sustainable rural livelihoods "SLR#[ The SLR approach has become central to DFID policy and practice in
natural resource and environmental management[ The paper presents an alternative means of conceptualizing
SWC by considering how SWC contributes to the maintenance of the _ve capital assets constituting SLR
"see Box 0 and also Carney\ 0887 for further details#[
The case studies re~ect a range of approaches to research and development[ Some focus on grassroots
development working with local NGOs to implement SWC measures\ for example\ the projects described
by Roland Bunch team local grassroots organizations with international environmental and development
NGOs\ such as Oxfam and World Neighbours "Box 1#[ Other case studies were initiated as research projects
by academic institutions[ Sawaeng Ruaysoongnern reports a research project undertaken by the Khon Kaen
University of Thailand|s Farming System Research project "Box 3#[ The key points from each case study
have been summarized in Table I to identify the type of implementing agency\ and thus the institutional
in~uence\ the duration of the project and the time since completion\ if appropriate[ It is important to consider
whether this in~uences or changes in capital assets of rural communities\ and to consider the project outputs
in the light of whether they have impacted on capital assets[ The case studies\ because of their di}erent
timing and duration\ o}er insights to the adaptation of the technologies which were being promoted within
the projects[ The following subsections outline the diversity of the approaches presented in the case studies\
drawing out their key features and characteristics[
M[ McDONALD AND K[ BROWN
Copyright Þ 1999 John Wiley + Sons\ Ltd[ LAND DEGRADATION + DEVELOPMENT\ 00] 232Ð250 "1999#
235
Box 0[ Capital assets and natural resource improvements] linkages and new challenges\ Jules Pretty "0888#[
Five capital assets are vital for sustainable development*natural\ social\ human\ physical and _nancial capital[Sustainable systems\ whether farms\ _rms\ communities or economies\ accumulate stocks of these _ve assets[ Theyincrease the capital base over time[ But unsustainable systems deplete or run down capital[ They spend capital assetsas if there were income\ so liquidating assets and leaving less for future generations[
In practice\ it is common to _nd trade!o}s between the capital assets\ with gains in one or more capitals resultingin losses of another[ What characterizes non!sustainable and vulnerable systems\ therefore\ is that there is someimbalance between the capitals\ leaving inadequate levels of one or more to produce the desired outcomes[ Naturaland social capital are also largely public goods[ They are easily run down by those who underinvest in them andoveruse them[ They can\ however\ be regenerated[
Social capital is fundamental for economic growth[ It lowers the costs of working together and so facilitatescooperation between people[ In the past\ it has been commonly overlooked[ But it is becoming increasingly clear thatsocial capital is a vital prerequisite for sustainable\ productive and long!term management of natural resources[Development assistance has long recognised the fundamental challenge of _nding solutions that persist beyond thelifetime of projects and external assistance[ But despite the widespread adoption of the language of {sustainability|and {participation|\ too few sustainable solutions have emerged[ Too little attention has been paid hitherto to theforms of social capital necessary for the emergence of sustainable solutions to natural resource management[
Recent years have seen remarkable advances in social capital creation in a variety of resource management sectors[Group!based programmes centred on participatory and deliberative learning processes leading to social capitalformation have brought substantial welfare gains in watershed:catchment management\ in irrigation management\in micro_nance delivery\ in forest management\ in integrated pest management and in farmers| research groups[ Inthe past decade\ more than 299 999 new groups have arisen in these sectors*mostly in developing countries[
From this and other comparative evidence\ it is clear that social capital pays[ Group!based programmes are morelikely to deliver substantial private and public bene_ts than those with an individual focus[ It is also true that socialcapital will not appear without investment in participatory learning processes[
SWC\ Capital Assets and Extent of Trade!Offs
How do SWC projects a}ect the di}erent capital assets which farmers utilize to build livelihood< A criticalissue in evaluating the impacts of SWC measures concerns not only the extent to which di}erent forms ofcapital are enhanced\ but also whether there are trade!o}s between them[ The extent to which trade!o}s arepossible or desirable will depend on the degree of substitutability between di}erent forms of capital andwhether some forms of capital need to be maintained at a particular level[ This is especially true for naturalcapital\ where some forms of natural capital "biodiversity\ for example# may not be substitutable\ and wherea minimum level may be necessary to maintain vital ecosystem functions[ The implications of some of thesetrade!o}s are discussed in later sections[
Technical versus {Holistic| Approaches
The case studies illustrate a lively and on!going debate around the balance between technical "naturalscience# and socio!economic "social science# concerns[ This encompasses project design and implementation\assessment and evaluation\ personnel and approach[ The cases have taken di}erent approaches to integratingsocial and natural sciences[ While it is generally acknowledged that multi! or interdisciplinary approachesare necessary*to identify projects\ design appropriate interventions\ evaluate projects and develop dialoguewith farmers*the emphasis and balance of di}erent perspectives "and by implication di}erent knowledgesand discourses# is contested[ Related to this issue is the extent to which the case studies represent morespecialist and holistic approaches[ Some projects started with a very focused perspective\ perhaps aiming to
ENHANCING ADOPTION AND ADAPTATION IN SWC PROJECTS
Copyright Þ 1999 John Wiley + Sons\ Ltd[ LAND DEGRADATION + DEVELOPMENT\ 00] 232Ð250 "1999#
236
address a special technical constraint in a particular situation\ and subsequently diversi_ed^ perhaps forcedby circumstance to take on board considerations to do with local social\ economic and cultural factors[Other cases\ for example the KRIBHCO project in India "Box 5#\ are nested within wider\ integrated researchand development programmes\ which view SWC as part of a broader\ perhaps systems\ approach todevelopment[
The boundaries between research and development and extension are often blurred^ many projects includeaction research\ participatory research and extension[ Each project combines research and implementation^in many some form of action research is a component in evaluating the impacts of SWC interventions andadoption and adaptation of SWC techniques[
Institutional Arran`ements
The case studies demonstrate the range of di}erent institutional arrangements for SWC projects\ as well asdi}ering scales\ both spatial and temporal[ The case studies span action research and development projectsinitiated by grassroots NGOs "Roland Bunch\ Box 1# and by government agencies[ Others are governmentinitiatives\ for example Box 4 describes the Kenyan Government|s catchment approach\ and Box 6 thePhilippine Government|s nationwide Social Forestry Programme[ Other case studies represent interventionsled by aid donors and agencies\ for example the KRIBHCO Indo!British Rainfed Farming Projects "Box 5#is a partnership between the Indian government and British aid[ Sam Fukisaka|s project "Box 2# broughttogether the government of the Philippines and an international research centre\ IRRI[ The case studies thusrepresent a wide range of partnerships\ collaborative arrangements and relationships with local farmers andcommunities[
Scale Issues
The case studies report SWC initiatives over a range of spatial and temporal scales[ Tang Ya "Box 7#\ forexample\ reviews the SALT approach across six countries of the HimalayaÐHindu Kush region[ PaulOngugo reports how the catchment approach to SWC has been implemented across Kenya\ discussingimpacts in three diverse districts of the country "Box 4#[ Roland Bunch provides a valuable picture ofadoption\ adaptation and bene_ts of techniques up to 04 years after projects in Guatemala and Honduras"Box 1#[
Incentives for Farmers
The case studies reveal a variety of approaches to incentives for farmers to adopt SWC techniques[ Someprojects provide direct cash incentives to local people to participate in SWC projects\ for example theKRIBHCO project "Box 5#[ Others have less direct incentives[ In the case of the Philippines "Box 6# adoptionof SWC measures was a means to secure tenure rights[ Other papers argue that the productivity gainsresulting from SWC "in terms of either labour or land productivity# must provide immediate\ tangiblebene_ts in terms of increased production and:or income[ This is a strong message from Roland Bunch|spaper "summarized in Box 1#*the need for rapid recognizable results[ In general it was shown that short!term bene_ts must be clearly demonstrated and proven in order for farmers to invest in SWC[ This wouldseem to support a SLR approach to SWC where there must be net increases in capital and thus enhancementof farmers| livelihoods if interventions are to be successfully adopted and adapted by farmers "see Box 0#[
M[ McDONALD AND K[ BROWN
Copyright Þ 1999 John Wiley + Sons\ Ltd[ LAND DEGRADATION + DEVELOPMENT\ 00] 232Ð250 "1999#
237
Table
I[Sum
mary
ofth
em
ain
_ndin
gsfr
om
the
case
studie
s
Auth
or"
s#and
Imple
men
ting
Pro
ject
dura
tion
Tec
hnolo
gie
spro
mote
dPro
ject
outc
om
esIm
plied
positive
loca
tions
agen
cy"A
�adopte
d^
impact
on
capital
Ad�
adapte
d^N
�not
ass
ets
adopte
d#
Rola
nd
Bunch
\N
GO
*W
orld
Canta
rranus
In!r
ow
tillage
"A#
Ero
sion
reduce
d¦
physica
l:natu
ral
Hondura
sand
Nei
ghbours
0876Ð82
Gre
enm
anure
s"A
#O
ver
_vef
old
incr
ease
inZ
eam
ays
¦natu
ral:_nanci
al
Guate
mala
Guin
ope
0870Ð
Dra
inage
ditch
es"A
#pro
duct
ivity
¦natu
ral:_nanci
al
78
Conto
urhed
ger
ow
sof
Over
_vef
old
incr
ease
inP
hase
olu
s¦
_nanci
al
San
Mart
inta
llgra
sses
\su
chas
vul`
arispro
duct
ivity
¦_nanci
al
0860Ð68
Pen
niset
um
Cash
inco
mes
incr
ease
dby
div
ersi_ca
tion
¦_nanci
al:so
cial
purp
ure
um
"Ad#
toca
shcr
ops
¦so
cial
Conto
urro
ckw
alls"N
#In
crea
sed
wage
rate
s¦
natu
ral:_nanci
al
Conto
urditch
es"A
d#
Incr
ease
dla
nd
price
s¦
hum
an
Em
igra
tion
reduce
dorre
ver
sed
¦so
cial
Red
uce
dher
bic
ide
usa
ge
Fin
anci
alsa
vin
gsuse
dfo
red
uca
tion
Incr
ease
dgro
up
involv
emen
tSam
Fujisa
ka\
Inte
rnational
0876Ð80
Conto
urhed
ger
ow
sof
Ero
sion
reduce
d¦
physica
l:natu
ral
Cla
ver
ia\
Res
earc
hG
lirici
dia
sepiu
mF
ertilize
rlo
ssre
duce
dfr
om
~att
ened
¦_nanci
al:natu
ral
Philip
pin
esIn
stitute
*IR
RI
and
Pen
niset
um
terr
ace
s¦
_nanci
al:natu
ral
purp
ure
um
"Ad#
Hig
her
valu
ecr
opscu
ltiv
able
on
~att
ened
¦_nanci
al:natu
ral
terr
ace
s−
natu
ral:_nanci
al
Anim
alfo
dder
pro
vid
ed¦
physica
l:_nanci
al
Com
pet
itio
nbet
wee
ncr
op
and
hed
ger
ow
¦physica
l:natu
ral
Ter
race
sfo
rmed
per
mitte
dcu
ltiv
ation
of
¦physica
l:natu
ral
cash
crops
¦so
cial
Moru
salb
ahed
ger
ow
sadapte
d{W
eedy|hed
ger
ow
sadapte
dF
arm
er!t
o!f
arm
erex
tension
and
transf
erpre
sum
edto
resu
ltin
gre
ate
rem
pow
erm
ent
Saw
aen
gA
cadem
ic0884Ð87
Conto
urhed
ger
ow
sof
Adoption
ofte
chnolo
gie
sw
asatt
ribute
d¦
hum
an:_
nanci
al
Ruayso
ongner
n\
Inst
itution*
Leu
caen
aand
to]
¦so
cial
Nort
hea
stK
hon
Kaen
Phase
olisvu
l`aris
Additio
nalsu
pport
from
gover
nm
ent
¦hum
an
Thailand
Univ
ersity
with
fruit
tree
agen
cies
and
rese
arc
hin
stitute
s¦
soci
al:hum
an
pro
duct
ion
"A#
Cle
arid
enti_ca
tion
ofer
osion
pro
ble
mF
arm
ers|
gro
upsst
rength
Pro
ject
sta}
mora
leIn
terd
isci
plinary
pro
ject
mode
PaulO
ngugo\
Bilate
ral
0863Ðpre
sent
Cut!
o}
dra
insand
Impro
ved
yie
lds
¦_nanci
al:natu
ral
Ken
ya
Pro
gra
mm
e*w
ate
rways"A
#E
rosion
reduce
d¦
natu
ral:physica
lK
enyan
Min
istr
yF
anya
juus"A
#Sel
f!su
.ci
ency
info
od
report
edin
som
e¦
_nanci
al:hum
an
ENHANCING ADOPTION AND ADAPTATION IN SWC PROJECTS
Copyright Þ 1999 John Wiley + Sons\ Ltd[ LAND DEGRADATION + DEVELOPMENT\ 00] 232Ð250 "1999#
238
Table
I["c
ontinued
#
Auth
or"
s#and
Imple
men
ting
Pro
ject
dura
tion
Tec
hnolo
gie
spro
mote
dPro
ject
outc
om
esIm
plied
positive
loca
tions
agen
cy"A
�adopte
d^
impact
on
capital
Ad�
adapte
d^N
�not
ass
ets
adopte
d#
ofA
gricu
lture
Fer
tility
impro
vem
ent
are
as
¦_nanci
al
with
Sw
edish
mea
sure
s"N
#In
com
egain
edfr
om
tree
pro
duct
s¦
natu
ral
Inte
rnational
Tre
epla
nting
"A#
Asm
all
per
centa
ge
use
dm
ulc
hes
\tr
ee−
_nanci
al:natu
ral
Dev
elopm
ent
Gra
ssst
rips"A
#pru
nin
gs\
mix
edcr
opsand
gre
en−
_nanci
al:natu
ral
Agen
cy"S
IDA
#Z
ero
gra
zing
"A#
manure
forfe
rtility
enhance
men
t−
_nanci
al:so
cial
support
Poss
ibility
oftr
eesact
ing
asalter
native
¦_nanci
al:natu
ral
host
sfo
rcr
op
pes
tsand
bird
roost
sIn
crea
sed
wee
din
ess
Incr
ease
dla
bourre
quirem
ents
Fodder
supple
men
tspro
duce
dPaulSm
ith\In
dia
Bilate
ral
0881Ðpre
sent
Wate
rre
tention
Enhance
dyie
lds
¦_nanci
al:natu
ral
Pro
gra
mm
e*st
ruct
ure
s"A
#In
crea
sein
cropped
are
a¦
natu
ral
Gover
nm
entof
Changes
incr
oppin
gpatt
erns
¦_nanci
al:natu
ral
India
with
UK
Incr
ease
dw
ate
rin
_ltra
tion
¦natu
ral
DF
IDsu
pport
Red
uce
dlo
ssofse
edsand
fert
iliz
ersin
¦_nanci
al:natu
ral
surf
ace
runo}
¦physica
lIn
crea
sed
wate
rta
ble
and
hen
ceirrigation
¦hum
an:_
nanci
al:
and
dom
estic
wate
rso
cial
Incr
ease
din
com
esdue
topro
visio
nof
subsidie
sle
adin
gto
reduce
dm
igra
tion\bet
tered
uca
tion
and
impro
ved
hea
lth
and
hygie
ne
Gil
Saguig
uit\Jo
seG
over
nm
ent
0874Ð81
Conto
urhed
ger
ow
sof
Conto
urhed
ger
ow
sofH
ibiscu
sro
sa!
¦natu
ral
Nes
torG
arc
ia\
agen
cy*
Leu
caen
asinen
sisand
Glirici
dia
sepiu
mes
tablish
ed¦
natu
ral
Rober
tC
ram
b\
Dep
art
men
tof
leuco
cephala
and
Incr
ease
inuse
ofdra
ughtanim
als
¦natu
ral:_nanci
al
Sitio
Dom
ang\
Environm
entand
Glirici
dia
sepiu
mL
imited
pro
duct
ion
ofch
icken
and
pig
s¦
_nanci
al
Philip
pin
esN
atu
ral
"Ad#
fordom
estic
consu
mption
¦_nanci
al
Res
ourc
esB
ench
terr
aci
ng
"A#
Incr
ease
dhouse
hold
inco
mes
¦physica
lIn
terc
roppin
g"A
#In
crea
sed
cred
itavailability
thro
ugh
co!
Rock
walls"A
#oper
ative
esta
blish
men
tT
ree
pla
nting
"A#
More
_nanci
alre
sourc
esuse
dfo
rhousing
mate
rials
and
infr
ast
ruct
ure
Tang
Ya\H
indu
Inte
rnational
0880Ðpre
sent
Slo
pin
gA
gricu
ltura
lC
onto
urhed
ger
ow
sofM
oru
salb
a¦
_nanci
al:natu
ral
Kush
Him
ala
ya
Res
earc
hL
and
Tec
hnolo
gy
esta
blish
ed¦
natu
ral:_nanci
al
"HK
H#
Inst
itute
*"A
and
N#
Soil
erosion
contr
olled
¦natu
ral:_nanci
al
ICIM
OD
Soil
fert
ility
enhance
d¦
natu
ral:_nanci
al
Cro
pyie
ldsin
crea
sed
M[ McDONALD AND K[ BROWN
Copyright Þ 1999 John Wiley + Sons\ Ltd[ LAND DEGRADATION + DEVELOPMENT\ 00] 232Ð250 "1999#
249
Box 1[ Learning how to {make the soil grow|] Three case studies on soil recuperation adoption and adaptation fromHonduras and Guatemala\ Roland Bunch "0888#[
Much has been written about the adoption and non!adoption of soil conservation "SC# technologies[ Nevertheless\few published studies give evidence of the programmes impact years after the outside intervention ended[ To help _llthis void\ three case studies examined the qualitative and quantitative results of three agricultural developmentprogrammes in Guatemala and Honduras[ Measurements of the spread and adoption of the promoted technologiesand of the agricultural yields that resulted were done preceding the programmes "as base!line studies#\ during and atthe end of the programmes\ and from 2Ð04 years after the termination of each programme[
The results showed that in many\ but not all\ of the villages\ the farmers achieved considerable increases inproductivity up to 04 years after outside intervention[ They also indicate strongly that while speci_c technologies donot generally have long!term sustainability\ the process of agricultural innovation can[ The case studies pointed to aneed for future soil conservation programmes to design their work in such a way that they create among villagers astrong motivation to innovate and work for the common good[
From this\ speci_c recommendations were made to combine SC technologies with technologies that raise yields orlower costs[ These include water harvesting as a technology wherever the irregularity or scarcity of water is thelimiting factor in productivity^ reducing as much as possible the labour required by SC technologies^ using simple\appropriate technologies^ maintaining ~exibility in technological recommendations^ using the {Farmer First|Approach^ achieving rapid\ recognizable success^ initiating the process with the smallest number of technologiesconsistent with achieving signi_cant success^ doing all programme planning with the idea in mind that the main goalis to work towards a system whereby farmers learn to\ and become motivated to\ continue developing their ownagriculture[
Box 2[ A retrospection of soil conservation in Claveria\ Philippines\ Sam Fujisaka "0888#[
Soil losses on upland agricultural plots in Claveria\ Misamis Oriental Province\ Philippines were 199 t ha−0 yr−0[Farmers wanted to solve problems of low and declining yields\ and many believed soil erosion was part of theproblem[ Through farmer!to!farmer training\ a group learned about contour hedgerows and the use of the A!frame[ We expected\ correctly\ that the technology would not necessarily be suited to local circumstances[ Farmersexperimented over four years[ They continued using the A!frame to establish contours\ but did not continue bundand trench construction because of high labour costs\ use of Gliricidia sepium because of lack of interest in greenmanure use\ and use of Pennisetum purpureum because of strong competition with crops[ Although farmers testedvarious forage and other species\ many settled on the use of natural weed hedgerows\ which required less land andreduced establishment labour inputs from 11 to 7 hr per 099 m of hedgerow[ Crop yields remained the same "0=7 tha−0 of maize# with and without hedgerows[ Erosion was reduced to 01Ð19 t ha−0 yr−0[ At the end of the researchperiod "0876Ð81#\ some 199 farmers had been trained using farmer!to!farmer methods[ More than 79 adoptedcontour hedgerows[ Adopters saw bene_ts in erosion control[ Problems were labour for hedgerow maintenance\grazing of hedgerows by neighbours| cattle\ and soil nutrient depletion[ A substantial proportion of farmers\ however\was able to switch from grains to higher value crops and inorganic fertilizer use on their terraced _elds[ Farmers wholearned about the technology\ but did not establish contour hedgerows\ had higher proportions of ~at land and:oro} or non!farm income opportunities[ Adoption continued after the project\ reaching a total of 199 farmers or more[A 0886 survey found 64 per cent of original adopters continuing to maintain their contour hedgerows[ A goal of thecollaborative research by the International Rice Research Institute and the Philippine|s Department of Agriculturewas to increase the latter|s capacity to conduct participatory natural resource management research[ The goal waslargely unmet[ Farmer empowerment through facilitation of their experiments and technology development wasexpected but not measured[
ENHANCING ADOPTION AND ADAPTATION IN SWC PROJECTS
Copyright Þ 1999 John Wiley + Sons\ Ltd[ LAND DEGRADATION + DEVELOPMENT\ 00] 232Ð250 "1999#
240
Box 3[ Adoption of sloping land conservation practices by farmers in the Northeast of Thailand\ Sawaeng Ruay!soongnern "0888#[
An agricultural extension programme was launched in 0884 for a soil conservation project in the sloping land ofnortheast Thailand\ using a methodology compiled by Khon Kaen University Farming System Research Project[The programme expanded on a stepwise basis by one representative village for each agroecological zone at a time[Up to 0887\ four villages had been involved with varying success and failure due to a lack of clarity in identifyingand analyzing problems prior to planning the project[ The successful cases created a rapid expansion of participatingfarmers within the villages[ However\ the expansion was limited due to the in~exibility of the project[ The resultsinitiated a project planning process allowing for a greater ~exibility than is usually feasible in government sectors[Factors that allowed farmers to actively participate in the project at village level were "0# clear problem and potentialidenti_cation and associated project planning\ "1# strength of farmer groups\ "2# clear but not too severe landdegradation problems in the village\ "3# proven e}ectiveness of the potential technology by demonstration\ and "4#continuous project support through knowledge and some previously unavailable external inputs[ At the householdlevel the factors were "0# land!holding size\ "1# land location\ "2# available labour\ "3# potential _re protectionmeasures\ "4# strength of farmer groups\ "5# available capital input\ "6# available water resources\ and "7# _t torequirements of family production system[ Failures were also derived from "0# limited family resources of targetfarmers\ "1# heavy involvement of farmers in other\ o}!farm activities\ "2# physical inappropriateness of the tech!nology\ "3# ine}ective _re control\ "4# unsuitable crop species\ "5# con~ict with existing main family activities and "6#insu.cient project ~exibility to farmer requirements[ As such\ there were continuous changes of farmer members inand out of the project[
Box 4[ The catchment approach to SWC in Kenya\ Paul O[ Ongugo "0888#[
Soil and water conservation in Kenya started in the 0829s[ The strategies adopted by the then colonial governmentresulted in the use of force\ with little education on the importance of SWC measures to the local communities[During the _rst decade of independence SWC activities received low priority from the nacent national government[During the same period\ more steep lands were opened up for cultivation of agricultural crops\ forests were clearedand river banks and water catchment areas were encroached resulting in accelerated rates of land degradation[
The government soon realized the negative impacts of such practices[ In its statement to the United Nationsconference on the environment in 0861\ the Kenyan government identi_ed land degradation as its major environ!mental problem\ which required urgent support from the international donor community[ A response to this problemcame from the Swedish International Development Authority "SIDA# which resulted in the establishment of theNational Soil and Water Conservation Programme "NSWCP#[ The programme started in four pilot districts and itnow covers all the districts in Kenya[ The Ministry of Agriculture implements the programme[ The pilot districtswere Homa Bay\ Muranga\ Machakos and Kili_[ These districts occur across the four most important agroecologicalzones of the lake lowlands\ the central highlands\ the semiarid lands and the coastal moist lowlands[
The overall objective of the programme is to increase and sustain agricultural production with minimum damageto the environment in order to achieve national goals of food self!su.ciency\ income generation\ employment creationand foreign exchange earning[ The programme is implemented through the catchment approach[
Flexible Approaches
A key feature which emerges from the studies is the need for ~exibility*in terms of the technologiesdeveloped and how they could be adopted and adapted by farmers\ the approaches used and the institutionsworking with farmers[ The case studies highlight the dynamics of adaptive learning and participatoryresearch[ But just as farmers adapt and learn\ so must projects\ research and development and extensioninstitutions[ The emerging approach thus highlights the importance of recognizing process\ so that projects
M[ McDONALD AND K[ BROWN
Copyright Þ 1999 John Wiley + Sons\ Ltd[ LAND DEGRADATION + DEVELOPMENT\ 00] 232Ð250 "1999#
241
Box 5[ Participatory SWC in India*experiences from the KRIBHCO Indo!British Rainfed Farming Project\ PaulSmith "0888#[
Soil erosion in the hilly tribal lands of India is widely recognized by both outside observers and indigenous peopleas a serious problem that has decreased agricultural productivity and exacerbated poverty[ Most earlier attempts toinitiate SWC activities in such areas\ have adopted a top!down approach[ Even in projects with a so!called par!ticipatory approach\ much of the {participation| amounted to persuading the farmers to participate in work plannedentirely by project personnel\ resulting in a low sense of ownership[
The KRIBHCO Indo!British Rainfed Farming Project "KRIBP# has attempted to develop participatory approachesto natural resource management including SWC[ The KRIBP found that pre!existent social groups of 04Ð14households at falia "hamlet# level which had started project!assisted savings and credit schemes could become e}ectiveunits for the implementation of farmer!led SWC activities[ Participatory approaches were used in group levelplanning\ implementation and evaluation[ Village level soil and water specialists "jankars# were pivotal to the successof the project[ However\ it was recognized that both the implementing agency and the groups were clear at the outsetabout the extent of the commitments in terms of _nance and time that the project was willing to give the group[There is a need to consider the continuity of activities when funding ceases and have a clear idea about how tomanage the winding down process[
should be oriented to establishing and developing processes*of communication\ participation\ learning\adaptation and empowerment*rather than outputs "number of bunds\ hedgerows planted\ farmers adopt!ing#[ This has implications for the design and evaluation of SWC interventions[ These factors are outlinedin the next sections\ synthesized from case study _ndings and workshop discussions[
DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTING BETTER SWC INTERVENTIONS
De_nin` and Assessin` Success
A central question in de_ning the success of SWC projects is success for whom< The farmer and the donorwill most likely have di}erent perceptions of success and may have di}erent time!frames and scales for itsassessment[ Farmers need to see more immediate indicators of success\ at least by the termination of theproject^ donors may perceive success some time after the project itself has _nished[ Donors may also measuresuccess on a wider scale than the farm\ family or village\ to regional\ catchment or even national levels[ Thisthen leads to the question of which aspects of projects should be used as a measure of success\ ranging fromimpacts in terms of improved yields\ to improved livelihoods[
There are a number of possible measures of success[ For example\ the number of farmers taking uprecommendations promoted during a project period\ particularly if that was by farmer!to!farmer auton!omous spread[ However\ if farmers have preferred alternatives for action\ they may not take up the SWCmeasures proposed] it depends on how they perceive soil loss and runo} in relation to their list of constraintsand problems in their production systems[ Farmers have been shown to respond to fertility and moistureproblems rather than to an externally identi_ed {erosion problem|[ Another measure might be increasedrecognition and commitment to the need for farmer participation at all stages\ and of the importance offarmer!led research\ by the institutions involved[ A very important measure is the post!project continuationof uptake[ If there is no e}ective agricultural extension service\ the uptake and farmer!to!farmer dis!semination may be very localized or group!speci_c\ according to where informal local networks extend[There is a paucity of projects that have had any formal post!project analysis of uptake by farmers of themeasures being promoted[
ENHANCING ADOPTION AND ADAPTATION IN SWC PROJECTS
Copyright Þ 1999 John Wiley + Sons\ Ltd[ LAND DEGRADATION + DEVELOPMENT\ 00] 232Ð250 "1999#
242
Box 6[ Promotion of soil conservation measures in the Philippines] the ISF project in Sitio Domang\ Gil Saguiguit\Jr[\ Jose Nestor Garcia and Robert Cramb "0888#[
The Integrated Social Forestry Programme "ISFP# has been implemented nationwide by the Department of Environ!ment and Natural Resources "DENR# since 0871 and is considered the Philippine government|s major initiative inupland development[ Its main feature is the promotion of agroforestry and soil conservation measures[ The pro!gramme has the twin objectives of improving the socio!economic condition of people and communities dependenton forest resources and protecting the quality of the environment in these areas[ It provides material incentives\training and extension and security of land tenure\ and initiates community organization to enhance the adoption ofthe various technologies it promotes[
A number of soil conservation measures and agroforestry practices were introduced in Sitio Domang\ a remoteupland area located in Nueva Vizcaya Province\ northern Philippines\ between 0874Ð81 as part of the ISF Project|straining and extension activities[ All ISF Project participants adopted the technologies in varying degrees\ withcontour hedgerows being the most preferred soil conservation technology[ The lack of recommended hedgerowplanting materials made Hibiscus rosa!sinensis a popular substitute[ Farmers found it more convenient to grow andmanage while being e}ective in controlling soil erosion[
Signi_cant factors that motivated the adoption of these technologies were the monetary incentives provided by theprogramme\ the threat of cancellation of Certi_cate of Stewardship Contracts "CSCs# for non!adoption of soilconservation technologies\ and the strong in~uence of respected community leaders[ On the other hand\ understandingthe value and bene_ts of soil conservation did not rate among the farmers| reasons for adoption[ A lack of deepunderstanding of the necessity for soil conservation or the detrimental e}ects of soil erosion was evident in the waythe farmers applied the technologies[ These explained in part why there was a wide variation in adoption of prescribedtechnologies by farmer participants of the project[ Inadequate understanding of the prescribed technologies andpractices resulting in limited expansion to non!participants and among original participants led to doubts on thesustainability of technologies introduced by the ISF project[ However\ certain conservation measures used by farmerseven before the start of the ISF Project were observed to have continued and spread up to the present[
The case studies demonstrate several internalized bene_ts\ such as increased income and greater foodsecurity\ not just the conservation or saving of soil per se[ There is also a further need to consider downstreambene_ts of less erosion in catchment areas[ However\ the converse may also be true and there is a need toconsider the costs incurred as a result of SWC[ Success might also be assessed in terms of policy changes\for example those concerning research formulation\ land tenure\ criteria for sta} promotions\ and thosea}ecting sta} motivation[
In general\ better land\ crop and animal husbandry which proves to be conservation!e}ective can be seenas a means to the end of better livelihoods\ not as an end in itself[ Holding back soil can be argued to preventfurther decline towards soil!loss!related poverty[ It also allows agriculture to be sustained without the needto shift or abandon cultivated areas\ and thus saves the extra labour of new land clearance[ A furthercriterion is whether SWC leads to increased security of tenure and results in a change of policy to favourthese results[ However\ there can also be negative spin!o}s\ for example in some cases where physicalimprovements have occurred\ the market value of the land may be raised\ and the landlord may revoke thetenancy arrangement and sequester the bene_ts resulting in decreased tenure!security for the farmer[
A number of important institutional hindrances to success\ which in some cases constitute serious obstaclesfor SWC projects\ can be identi_ed[ These include the di}erent procedures and requirements of di}erentdonor agencies\ which can cause confusion\ duplication\ and extra work[ Indeed there are many factorsacting against good coordination^ donors may not wish to collaborate\ and national governments may notwish them to do so[ There may be in~exibility in thinking\ for example in terms of research priorities andstrategies\ inter!institutional planning and management in many institutions[ National governments may beembarrassed or sensitive that NGOs appear to assume government responsibilities in rural areas and\ even
M[ McDONALD AND K[ BROWN
Copyright Þ 1999 John Wiley + Sons\ Ltd[ LAND DEGRADATION + DEVELOPMENT\ 00] 232Ð250 "1999#
243
Box 7[ Factors in~uencing farmers| adoption of Soil Conservation Programme in the Hindu KushÐHimalayanregion\ Tang Ya "0888#[
Soil erosion has been recognized as a major contributing factor to soil fertility decline and reduced land productivityserious in the Hindu KushÐHimalayan "KHK# region[ The consequences of soil erosion have been getting moreserious despite the e}orts which have been made in soil conservation programmes[ In order to e}ectively conservethe soils\ numerous technologies and approaches have been developed\ tested and extended in the region\ but theiradoption has not been as widespread as anticipated[ With government subsidies\ terracing and a few others inter!ventions have been the major techniques promoted in the region[ In view of the diverse environments\ cultures andsocio!economic conditions\ and given the limitations of terracing\ Sloping Agricultural Land Technology "SALT# orcontour hedgerow technology has been introduced and is being monitored and modi_ed to suit local conditions[ Thepreliminary data from the region have indicated that this technology is e}ective in soil conservation and soil fertilityimprovement[ It has also shown numerous comparative advantages over the terracing technique[
However\ the adoption of the technology is limited in the region[ Out of six HKH countries\ farmers| adoptionoccurs only in Bangladesh and China[ An analysis of the factors contributing to this situation may be useful for thesuccessful extension of the technology to farmers| land and may also be useful for extension of other SWC tech!nologies[ The analysis of factors in~uencing adoption of the technology reveals that successful adoption of therecommended technology occurs only when aid agencies\ implementation agencies\ and farmers work together andhave close collaboration[
It was found that the inadequate demonstration of the technology in terms of its bene_ts and disadvantages\ lackof direct and visible bene_ts\ and lack of farmers| awareness of the environmental problems might be the mainreasons for low adoption rates[ The inadequate demonstration of the technology is mainly due to inadequatecommitment by the project sta} and lack of communication with farmers[ Lack of understanding of the technologyand lack of awareness of damage caused by soil erosion and the consequent environmental degradation have beenthe other reasons for the low rate of adoption\ which resulted from insu.cient and ine}ective communication withfarmers[ Lack of government policy to promote extension and adoption are mainly due to lack of awareness of thetechnology[ Socio!economic factors are major limiting factors[
It has also been discussed how to promote the adoption of the technology in the region[ For wider adoption\ therecommended technology should be able to address e}ectively the soil and water erosion problem and be appliedwithout many limitations[ Before it is accepted and adopted by the farmers\ the technology should be adequatelydemonstrated and not only the potential bene_ts\ but also the possible limitations should be pointed out[ Necessarymechanisms need to be developed to encourage project sta} to commit to the work[ Various media which farmersfeel familiar with should be used to increase awareness of soil erosion and other environmental degradation problems[Government policy is needed to promote the adoption of the technology by farmers and incentives should be providedbased on what has been achieved but not on what is planned to be done[
if governments are unable to replicate the work of the NGOs\ this militates against cooperation[ This resultsin a need for ~exibility in terms of how we conceptualize and view the issues concerning SWC projects^actions for achieving the desired e}ects of SWC should be part of overall strategy for bringing aboutimprovements in sustainable livelihoods[ The relationships between {sustainable livelihoods| and {SWC| needto be carefully de_ned[
In general there should be an open!ended two!way learning process between the rural communities at whichthe SWC programmes are aimed and the researchers\ NGOs and governments implementing programmes\ soas to lead to de_nition of appropriate solutions to clearly identi_ed and characterized problems[ The casestudies and subsequent discussions indicate that farmers themselves should de_ne the level of success ofSWC programmes\ and the programmes should help them to facilitate innovation[ The best indicator ofsuccess may well be the spontaneous adoption and adaptation by the farmer and his or her neighbours\and on!going innovation[ Experience shows that technologies are often adopted when they represent aminimization of risk[ This is a factor which is still to be re_ned within the SLR approach[ Once again this
ENHANCING ADOPTION AND ADAPTATION IN SWC PROJECTS
Copyright Þ 1999 John Wiley + Sons\ Ltd[ LAND DEGRADATION + DEVELOPMENT\ 00] 232Ð250 "1999#
244
implies the need for evaluation some time after the end of a project or intervention^ studies of {success| _veyears or more after the project has _nished are often the most useful[
Identifyin` Mechanisms to Facilitate Greater Adaptation and Flexibility
Farmer participatory research "FPR# and participatory technology development "PTD# approaches buildon existing farmer experiments and adaptation\ combine indigenous and scienti_c knowledge resulting infuture improved farmer experimentation and thus increased adaptation and increased impact[ Theseapproaches recognize the dynamic nature of the process of adaptation[ But such approaches must havesomething tangible to o}er with a reasonable chance of success\ and be implemented by a joint planningprocess[ In this way\ rapidly recognizable results will be achieved in a realistic and feasible time!frame\and provide results which can be readily communicated by farmer!to!farmer transfer\ not only by thedemonstration from on!farm research[ Thus\ the identi_cation of farming groups\ and the recommendationdomains that they represent is crucial to the projects| success "Ellis!Jones and Mason\ 0888#[
Flexibility is a critical component of SWC projects or programmes[ Flexibility in this context is de_nedas the capacity to change\ adapt and learn in the face of uncertainty[ Adaptation can be radical\ continuousand on!going and may be rapid[ Adaptation involves diversi_cation\ and emerges from the process of SWC[This requires that creative adaptation is fostered*this is closely linked to farmer experimentation andhappens better in groups\ but may be facilitated by external stimulation and inputs[ Creative adaptation islinked to building capacity to innovate by recognizing that farmers already innovate by a process that issequential rather than spatial[ This will generate a continuous ~ow of information during and after the lifeof the project by using and developing networks which will develop the capacity of individuals and encourageleadership[
Flexibility needs to be built in at all stages from inception to evaluation\ with the objective being su.cientlynegotiable to involve all stakeholders[ This underlines the recommendation that multiple indicators areneeded to judge the success of a project[ Programmes must allow processes to develop\ which is impossiblewith blueprint approaches determined from the outset[ In addition\ there needs to be time!~exibility toaccommodate the ~attened S!shaped curve of rate of improvements "usually needing _ve years for signi_cantadvances\ and more for the programme to mature and consolidate#[
The rigidity or ~exibility possible in programme design may be dependent on cultural factors\ so theremust be sensitivity to the local context and programme managers should not be dogmatic[ Flexibility canalso be facilitated in programme design and duration by using a system of rolling budgeting "with a regularlymoving horizon# which is preferable to an approach that divides the programme into discrete time!chunks\each followed by danger of delay and loss of momentum[
Incentives for Land Mana`ers to Adopt SWC Measures
Incentives have both positive and negative aspects[ Synthesis of workshop discussions highlighted two issues[First\ groups rather than individuals should be the recipients of any {incentives|\ which themselves shouldnot be tied to adoption of a speci_c technology\ but rather to facilitating initiation of positive change andadaptation[ Second\ initial assistance\ with\ for example\ materials may be justi_ed to reduce initial risk inorder to jump!start some activity "especially where a key resource may limit before bene_t can be shown#[This may even be infrastructure provision\ such as road access to a market\ before it becomes worthwhilefor the farmers to consider growing marketable crops and looking after the land to sustain that possibility[
Incentives are not just monetary\ of course\ and a number of factors were highlighted as providingincentives for farmers to participate[ For example\ secure land tenure and diversi_ed agriculture may beprerequisites[ Under these circumstances external organizations may simply play a role in establishing
M[ McDONALD AND K[ BROWN
Copyright Þ 1999 John Wiley + Sons\ Ltd[ LAND DEGRADATION + DEVELOPMENT\ 00] 232Ð250 "1999#
245
baseline surveys\ or to introduce ideas and act as a catalyst[ But what are the pre!conditions necessary forpeople to experiment< There is a need to determine the extent to which government agencies are responsiblefor maintaining natural resources and whether there should be a shared responsibility between the govern!ment and farmers groups to maintain\ for example\ soil resources[
Rather than incentives\ empowerment is seen as a critical issue^ farmers may need to be empowered in orderto adopt and adapt SWC measures and in particular to conduct their own experimentation[ Empowerment isrelated to several factors\ such as more self!con_dence\ increased income\ and access to credit\ and thus\ itsmeasurement will be very much dependent on the context and related to the speci_c constraint[ Ensuringempowerment involves three steps] identi_cation of the key constraints for farmers\ identi_cation of the typeof empowerment required to enable and ensuring that liberation from constraint does not result in animbalance of power[ Empowering one set of actors can potentially {put down| other actors\ and e}ectiveliberation from constraints confers an ability to solve one|s own problems rather than conferring power per
se[ But this suggests a much broader and interdisciplinary approach to SWC\ taking into account social\economic\ political and institutional factors as well as technical ones[
More Holistic Approaches to Land Mana`ement
Soil and water conservation actions treat the symptoms not the causes of runo} and erosion\ withoutconsidering that these are consequences of other changes in land and soil conditions which require remedyingor indeed whether the run o} and erosion constitute a problem at all "see Stocking\ 0885#[ One view is thatthere is a need to switch the emphasis towards water and soil conservation\ with the emphasis on water morethan soil\ as saving water has multiple e}ects which are of interest and bene_t to farmers[ In addition\ it isnecessary to avoid the common assumption that the main problem with declining productivity is always orusually erosion and runo} per se\ and that therefore {SWC| is the automatic answer[ Clear and accurateidenti_cation of the nature and causes of a perceived land degradation problem are essential during pro!gramme design to avoid making recommendations or suggestions which are inappropriate to the realsituation\ ine}ective when implemented\ and not favoured by farmers[ So a careful identi_cation of theproblem itself rather than an assumption of soil erosion as a problem and SWC as the solution is necessary[It is important to distinguish between {doing SWC| as actions\ from {achieving conservation of water andsoil| as a consequence of improvements in land use and management[ Again\ careful examination of causeand e}ect and desired outcome is required to challenge conventional SWC wisdom[
One view is that a more positive and holistic approach is that of land husbandry "Shaxson\ 0882^ Shaxsonet al[\ 0886#[ Land husbandry is de_ned as the {care and management of land for productive purposes|\ andgood land husbandry as the {active process of implementing and managing preferred systems of land useand production in such ways that there will be increase*or\ at worse\ no loss*of productivity\ of stabilityor of usefulness for the chosen purpose|[ Better land husbandry\ which includes but is not restricted to someconservation!speci_c practices\ is likely to contribute to more sustainable livelihoods through improvementsin plant production and water relations at the same time as achieving better conservation of water and soil"{achieving conservation by stealth|#[ Both the land husbandry and SLR approaches which were examinedin the workshop point to the inappropriateness of a narrow focus on SWC alone[
Sustainable Livelihoods and Better Land Husbandry*How Are They Linked<
Is the SLR approach useful in analyzing SWC\ and how can SWC contribute to SLR< Better husbandrymay thus do more to raise natural capital "directly# and human capital "indirectly# than conventional {SWC|[We consider whether current thinking in SWC demands a reconceptualization\ perhaps along the lines ofSLR which is _nding favour with development agencies such as DFID "see Box 0#[ A critical issue for SWC
ENHANCING ADOPTION AND ADAPTATION IN SWC PROJECTS
Copyright Þ 1999 John Wiley + Sons\ Ltd[ LAND DEGRADATION + DEVELOPMENT\ 00] 232Ð250 "1999#
246
is the potential trade!o}s between the di}erent types of capital which are a focus of the SLR approach\ andthe implications of this for SWC projects[ According to the SLR approach one source of capital can be rundown in the short term to increase another\ but the long!term consequences may be severe in terms of soiland land productivity[ This factor may not be given enough emphasis if the focus is on short!term povertyalleviation[ The trade!o}s may incorporate several or all of the _ve capitals[ For example\ road constructionincreases physical capital but may cause increased erosion and hence result in a reduction of natural capital[Logging increases _nancial capital but decreases natural capital\ so too does growing high!value crops suchas ginger\ which may result in nutrient depletion or erosion[ On the other hand\ a decrease in _nancialcapital in the short term may increase natural and eventually _nancial capital over the long term[ The trade!o}s are incorporated into site!speci_c scenarios\ and there are no standards in location\ time or space[ Theremay also be synergy between the various forms of capital and\ if there is a trade!o}\ it should be ensuredthat the system is not disrupted to the point of collapse[ The implication here is that there may be criticalthresholds for certain types of capital\ most obviously natural capital[ For example\ what are the thresholdsfor watershed deforestation before irreversible damage to water balance results< It is important to recognizetherefore that substitution between di}erent forms of capital is not a given\ and trade!o}s need to becarefully evaluated[
The spatial context and linkages between the various capital stocks also need to be considered[ Forexample\ social capital may be high because of particular circumstance\ and often because of adversity[ Inareas with poor infrastructure social capital may be high because of a chronic lack of external resources[Increasing the physical or _nancial capital may thus decrease social capital[ Therefore\ SWC projects mustbe very explicit about the ways in which they expect to realistically in~uence changes in di}erent forms ofcapitals[ If poverty elimination is the aim\ then the project design will require an examination of prevailingasset levels to see which is the most limiting[
Capital stocks need to be evaluated over the long term\ including retrospective measures in order to assessthe impacts of SWC[ Changes in social and human capital may not be apparent before six or seven years sothis proves problematic for typical projects lasting\ say\ three years[ The case studies demonstrate that inprojects concluded some time ago "Boxes 1\ 2\ 6# there is a greater build!up of social capital than in the stillongoing projects[ Indeed\ Paul Ongugo highlighted the {dependency syndrome| during or shortly afterproject conclusion which countered against the build!up of social capital "see Box 4#[ The process ofadaptation is also linked to the passage of time after project conclusion[ This stresses the importance oflong!term monitoring after project conclusion[ Monitoring during the project or shortly after its conclusionwill indicate adoption\ but may miss the onset of farmer experimentation and adaptation[ Thus\ the processesof participatory monitoring and evaluation "PME# and measurement of sustainable livelihoods are intimatelylinked\ and this association requires more ~exibility in changing objectively veri_able indicators "OVIs# inproject design[ Project design should incorporate more preparatory phases with participatory rural appraisal"PRA#[
Soil conservation is only one aspect of sustainable livelihoods and in fact may not be a priority for farmers[Soil conservation is often a donor!led issue^ it may not be conceived as a {problem| by farmers themselves\or if it is\ it may not take priority over other factors[ A holistic view which includes all the alternatives forrural livelihoods "and which allows\ for example\ employment o}!farm# is thus necessary and this hasconsequences for how success is de_ned and measured and whether a narrow or broader view is taken[ Forexample\ current evaluations may indicate successful SWC by identifying productivity gains\ but for theseto translate into enhanced livelihoods or poverty alleviation\ other factors must be taken into consideration[We can have successful SWC without necessarily enhancing SLR\ because of trade!o}s between di}erentcapital assets or because of external institutional\ economic and social factors[ Access to knowledge isanother component of capital which does not clearly _t into the capital assets de_nitions[ This may require\rather than a project approach\ political and institutional change\ including education[ There is a need toconsider the role of government in creating social and human capital and maintaining natural capital[Innovation requires access to information\ whether from other farmers or from scientists[ Sawaeng Ruay!
M[ McDONALD AND K[ BROWN
Copyright Þ 1999 John Wiley + Sons\ Ltd[ LAND DEGRADATION + DEVELOPMENT\ 00] 232Ð250 "1999#
247
soongnern|s paper "see Box 3# stresses the importance of providing farmers with feedback from the analysesof data collected from them\ in order to better inform their management decisions[
In addition the concept of sustainable livelihoods may not fully address the issue of power[ This will a}ecta range of aspects of SWC including who is able to bene_t and participate in projects\ how impacts areperceived[ In addition it is important to note that di}erent stakeholders will have di}erent values\ perceptionsand needs\ so the ranking of project outcomes will depend on who is doing the evaluation[ For example\ inthe case of a protected area the conservation professional may place a higher value on particular aspects ofbiodiversity compared to local people "Brown\ 0887#[ It is necessary to recognize more explicitly thestakeholder diversity and interests in con~ict resolution[ This is true not only at the household level\ but atintrahousehold and community levels[ Balance and tension between individual and community interestswere evident in Roland Bunch|s paper demonstrating the di.culties in distinguishing scale issues and theoverlaps between human and social capital\ and physical and natural capital "Box 1#[
But people do invest in non!productive capital\ and this begs the question] why< There is a need to gain amore psychological understanding that includes how to distinguish between productive and non!productiveinvestment[ It is important to identify what legitimate role externally driven projects have in in~uencing theinteraction between individuals and the linkages between social and human capital[ Links and access tomarkets are essential and need to be explicitly considered as a part of sustainable livelihoods[ Social capitalplays a role in this because of the importance of self!con_dence of the individual and community\ forexample\ in dealing with external agents and traders[ Overall the discussions on the contribution of SWCprojects to rural livelihoods highlighted the need to ensure a non!mechanistic approach of the SLR approachas a project design\ monitoring and evaluation tool[
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PRIORITIES
The synthesis above leads to a number of conclusions on the factors most likely to enhance the successfuladoption and adaptation of SWC techniques by farmers[ First\ we need to be clear about how success is tobe identi_ed[ It is recognized that qualitative rather than quantitative indicators are often important[ Farmersshould de_ne success in their own terms and relative to their own objectives\ which are often markedlydi}erent to donors\ governments and other external agencies[
Secondly\ in terms of project design\ ~exibility is all important[ It is very important to build ~exibility intoall stages of project design and implementation\ which can adequately re~ect the heterogeneity of farmingcommunities and conditions[ In addition\ it should be recognized that both external and internal conditionsand circumstances change over time\ so a dynamic rather than static approach is required[ The successfulprojects reviewed were those that were able to adapt to changing circumstances over time[
Thirdly\ a more holistic approach is necessary[ Soil and water conservation projects have in the past hadtoo narrow a focus\ and a more holistic approach to improving land husbandry and fertility management isrequired to ensure sustainability[ Land husbandry is useful in linking SWC to wider land management[ TheSLR approach enables productive assets to be considered alongside other aspects of rural peoples| livelihoodsand welfare\ for example\ o}!farm employment\ remittances\ health and education[ A shift towards suchapproaches implies a need for a broader and more dynamic de_nition of success in SWC\ and greater~exibility in implementation[ It also means that wider bene_ts can be identi_ed as a result of SWC[ Suchapproaches imply changes in research and in links between research and development in order to supportSWC[ Gaps in knowledge\ such as technical aspects of trade!o}s and substitution between di}erent formsof capital\ and possible critical threshold levels for some forms of capital must be recognized[ Uncertainty*in knowledge and in terms of risk to farms of new practices and technologies*has to be incorporated intothe analysis[
A major function of research is to provide and test new ideas that are then adopted by farmers through
ENHANCING ADOPTION AND ADAPTATION IN SWC PROJECTS
Copyright Þ 1999 John Wiley + Sons\ Ltd[ LAND DEGRADATION + DEVELOPMENT\ 00] 232Ð250 "1999#
248
the process of adaptation[ As such\ the short!term adoption of technologies and innovations by farmers isnot a realistic way to judge the success of projects[ The interrelationship between research and developmentprovides the interface between rigorous scienti_c testing and the subsequent encouragement of farmer!to!farmer extension\ experimentation and innovation[ Research should prioritize developing technological andinstitutional innovations that provide some immediate bene_t to farmers and involve a low level of risk tothe farmers in their implementation[
Useful knowledge can be generated by collating\ reviewing and reinterpreting past results and experiences[One area where this is critically needed is the collation and interpretation of research results from smallfarmer experiments[ For example\ in Nicaragua the National Conference of Farmer Experimenters hascatalogued 14 green manure systems developed by small farmers[ There is a need for the research communityto more fully and actively engage with and support these farmer!led initiatives[ Research could usefullyexplore the extent to which complementarity exists between farmers| experiments and those of researchers\and how interaction and interpretation of results can be undertaken in partnership[ This also raises questionsof scienti_c and local knowledge\ and the means of linking and _nding synergy between farmers| andresearchers| knowledge is a priority for research[
Research into institutional aspects of SWC is necessary[ What do appropriate institutions look like andwhich conditions favour their development< How can the successful results of participatory SWC projectswith local farmers be {scaled!up| and particularly what are the implications for National AgriculturalResearch Services "NARS#< How can more process!oriented approaches be institutionalized within govern!ment agencies< One concern was that the SLR approach might have the same problems as the IntegratedRural Development Programmes "IRDPs#\ which were perspective rather than responsive and were oftenfound to be administratively complex and clumsy and given low priority by line ministries[ This means thatNARS will inevitably play a key role in the implementation of multidisciplinary and multisectoral processes[
No one approach or discipline can provide all the answers\ but an emphasis on learning from di}erentcontexts\ experiences and knowledge and looking for opportunities to consolidate and add value to on!going research and development projects should not be lost in the rush for new labels and buzzwords[Learning partnerships and dialogues between farmers\ communities\ NGOs\ governments\ multilateralagencies and researchers are required to enhance successful adaptation of SWC techniques[ More appropriatetechnologies and practices can be developed through such partnerships and approaches such as SLR andbetter land husbandry can support this through providing frameworks to conceptualize the complexity anddynamics of rural production systems and environments and their social\ political and institutional contexts[There is an increasingly cogent case for rethinking conventional approaches to SWC and focusing moreclearly on improvements in land\ crop and animal husbandry as better means of achieving improvement inthe conservation of water and soil\ with bene_ts to farm families and to the environment\ thus making amore e}ective contribution to SLR[
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper is an output from a research project funded by the United Kingdom Department for InternationalDevelopment "DFID# for the bene_t of developing countries "R6189 Forestry Research Programme#[ Theviews expressed here are not necessarily those of DFID[ We would particularly like to thank Joshua Bishop\Geo} Bright\ Rob Brook\ Roland Bunch\ Rebecca Clark\ Malcolm Douglas\ Gareth Edwards!Jones\ SamFujisaka\ Phil Harris\ John Healey\ Jon Hellin\ Martin Hollingham\ David Howlett\ Ben Irwin\ AnnaLawrence\ Yuelai Lu\ Duncan Macqueen\ John McDonagh\ Eleanor Milne\ Paul O[ Ongugo\ SheelaghO|Reilly\ Jules Pretty\ Sawaeng Ruaysoongnern\ Gil C[ Saguiguit\ Jr[\ Francis Shaxson\ Paul Smith\ ClareStirling\ Jose Tarima\ Natsuko Toba and Emma Youde who participated in the workshop on {Issues andoptions in the design of SWC projects| held in Llandudno\ Wales\ UK in February 0888[ Their stimulating
M[ McDONALD AND K[ BROWN
Copyright Þ 1999 John Wiley + Sons\ Ltd[ LAND DEGRADATION + DEVELOPMENT\ 00] 232Ð250 "1999#
259
discussions provided the basis for this paper[ Jacques Sisson provided invaluable administrative support forthe workshop[ Constructive comments on drafts of this manuscript were provided by Francis Shaxson andtwo anonymous reviewers[
REFERENCES
Benjaminsen TA[ 0887[ Beyond {degradation|] essays on people\ land and resources in Mali[ Dissertations and theses no 2:87[ Centrefor Development and the Environment "SUM#\ University of Oslo] Oslo[
Blaikie P[ 0875[ The Political Economy of Soil Erosion in Developin` Countries[ Longman] Harlow[Blaikie P\ Brook_eld H[ 0876[ Land De`radation and Society[ Methuen] London[Blustain H[ 0874[ The political context of soil conservation programs in Jamaica[ Human Or`anization 33] 013Ð020[Brown K[ 0887[ The political ecology of biodiversity\ conservation and development in Nepal|s Terai] Confused meanings\ means and
ends[ Ecolo`ical Economics 13] 62Ð77[Bunch R[ 0888[ Learning how to {make the soil grow|] three case studies on soil recuperation adoption and adaptation from Honduras
and Guatemala[ In Issues and Options in the Desi`n of Soil and Water Conservation Projects\ McDonald MA\ Brown K "eds#[ Schoolof Agricultural and Forest Sciences Publication No[ 06^ 12Ð27[
Carney D "ed#[ 0887[ Sustainable Rural Livelihoods[ DFID] London[Critchley WRS\ Reij C\ Willcocks TJ[ 0883[ Indigenous soil and water conservation] a review of the state of knowledge and prospects
for building on traditions[ Land De`radation + Rehabilitation 4] 182Ð203[Douglas MG[ 0883[ Sustainable use of agricultural soils] a review of the prerequisites for success or failure[ Development and
Environment Report No[ 00\ University of Berne] Switzerland[Ellis!Jones J\ Mason T[ 0888[ Livelihood strategies and assets of small farmers in the evaluation of soil and water management practices
in the temperate Inter!Andean valleys of Bolivia[ Mountain Research and Development 08] 110Ð123[Fujisaka S[ 0888[ A retrospection of soil conservation in Claveria\ Philippines[ In Issues and Options in the Desi`n of Soil and Water
Conservation Projects\ McDonald MA\ Brown K "eds#[ School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences Publication No[ 06^ 28Ð35[Garforth CJ\ Gregory PJ[ 0886[ Maintaining soil fertility] farmers| and scientists perceptions[ In Inte`rated Nutrient Mana`ement on
Farmers| Fields] Approaches That Work\ Gregory et al[ Department of Soil Science\ University of Reading\ Occasional Paper No[ 0^06Ð15[
Gregory PJ\ Pilbeam CJ\ Walker SH[ 0886[ Inte`rated Nutrient Mana`ement on Farmers| Fields] Approaches That Work[ Departmentof Soil Science\ University of Reading\ Occasional Paper No[ 0[
Hinchcli}e F\ Thompson J\ Pretty J\ Guijt I\ Shah P "eds#[ 0888[ Fertile Ground] The Impacts of Participatory Watershed Mana`ement[Earthscan] London[
Hoben QA[ 0884[ Paradigms and politics] The cultural construction of environmental policy in Ethiopia[ World Development 12] 0996Ð0911[
Hudson NW[ 0880[ A study of the reasons for success or failure of soil conservation projects[ Soils Bulletin no[ 53\ FAO\ Rome[Ives J\ Masserli B[ 0878[ The Himalayan Dilemma] Reconcilin` Development and Conservation[ Routledge] London[Ongugo PO[ 0888[ The catchment approach to soil and water conservation in Kenya[ In Issues and Options in the Desi`n of Soil and
Water Conservation Projects\ McDonald MA\ Brown K "eds#[ School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences Publication No[ 06^ 46Ð55[
Pretty JN[ 0884[ Re`eneratin` A`riculture] Policies and Practices for Sustainability and Self!Reliance[ Earthscan] London[Pretty J[ 0888[ Capital assets and natural resource improvements] linkages and new challenges[ In Issues and Options in the Desi`n of
Soil and Water Conservation Projects\ McDonald MA\ Brown K "eds#[ School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences Publication No[06^ 00Ð11[
Pretty J\ Shah P[ 0888[ Soil and water conservation] a brief history of coercion and control[ In Fertile Ground] The Impacts ofParticipatory Watershed Mana`ement\ Hinchcli}e F\ Thompson J\ Pretty J\ Guijt I\ Shah P "eds#[ Earthscan] London^ 0Ð01[
Rocheleau D\ Steinberg PE et al[ 0884[ Environment\ development\ crisis and crusade] Ukambani\ Kenya 0789Ð0889[ World Devel!opment 12] 0926Ð0940[
Roe E[ 0884[ Except!Africa] Postscript to a special section on development narratives[ World Development 12] 0954Ð0958[Ruaysoongnern S[ 0888[ Adoption of sloping land conservation practices by farmers in the northeast of Thailand[ In Issues and Options
in the Desi`n of Soil and Water Conservation Projects\ McDonald MA\ Brown K "eds#[ School of Agricultural and Forest SciencesPublication No[ 06^ 36Ð45[
Saguiguit G Jr\ Garcia NJ\ Cramb R[ 0888[ Promotion of soil conservation measures in the Philippines] The ISF project in SitioDomang[ In Issues and Options in the Desi`n of Soil and Water Conservation Projects\ McDonald MA\ Brown K "eds#[ School ofAgricultural and Forest Sciences Publication No[ 06^ 70Ð89[
Scoones I\ Reij C\ Toulmin C[ 0885[ Sustaining the soil] indigenous soil and water conservation in Africa[ In Sustainin` the Soil]Indi`enous Soil and Water Conservation in Africa\ Reij C\ Scoones I\ Toulmin C "eds#[ Earthscan^ 0Ð16[
Shaxson TF[ 0882[ Conservation!e}ectiveness of farmers| actions] a criterion of good land husbandry[ Topics in Applied ResourceMana`ement 2] 092Ð017[
Shaxson TF\ Hudson NW\ Sanders DW\ Roose E\ Moldenhauer WC[ 0878[ Land Husbandry] A Framework for Soil and WaterConservation[ Soil and Water Conservation Society:World Association of Soil and Water Conservation] Ankeny\ Iowa[
ENHANCING ADOPTION AND ADAPTATION IN SWC PROJECTS
Copyright Þ 1999 John Wiley + Sons\ Ltd[ LAND DEGRADATION + DEVELOPMENT\ 00] 232Ð250 "1999#
250
Shaxson TF\ Ti}en M\ Wood A\ Turton C[ 0886[ Better land husbandry] re!thinking approaches to land improvement and theconservation of water and soil[ ODI Natural Resource Perspectives no[ 08^ Overseas Development Institute] London[
Smaling E[ 0886[ Soil fertility in Africa is at stake[ In Replenishin` Soil Fertility in Africa\ Buresh R\ Sanchez PA\ Calhoun F "eds#[SSSA Special Publication No[ 40\ Soil Science Society of America\ Madison\ WI^ 36Ð50[
Smith PD[ 0888[ Participatory Soil and Water Conservation in India*Experiences from the KRIBHCO Indo!British Rainfed FarmingProject[ In Issues and Options in the Desi`n of Soil and Water Conservation Projects\ McDonald MA\ Brown K "eds#[ School ofAgricultural and Forest Sciences Publication No[ 06^ 56Ð79[
Stocking M[ 0885[ Breaking new ground[ In The Lie of the Land] Challen`in` Received Wisdom on the African Environment\ Leach M\Mearns R "eds#[ James Currey] London^ 039Ð043[
Tang Y[ 0888[ Factors in~uencing farmers| adoption of soil conservation programme in the Hindu Kush Himalayan region[ In Issuesand Options in the Desi`n of Soil and Water Conservation Projects\ McDonald MA\ Brown K "eds#[ School of Agricultural and ForestSciences Publication No[ 06^ 80Ð091[
Ti}en M[ 0885[ Blind spots in the study of the {resource poor farmer|[ In The Lie of the Land] Challen`in` Received Wisdom on theAfrican Environment\ Leach M\ Mearns R "eds#[ James Currey] London^ 0057Ð0074[
Ti}en M\ Mortimore M\ Gachuchi F[ 0883[ More People\ Less Erosion[ Environmental Recovery in Kenya[ Wiley] Chichester[