 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|||||
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
    |
|
ILEIA Newsletter Vol. 11 No. 2 p. 28 Learning about sustainabilityMary-Ann Bimbao, Teresita Lopez and Clive LightfootResource poor farmers often find themselves "trapped" in extractive ways of farming. They do not know what to do. This article describes a participatory process for NGOs to assist farmers get out of the trap. Using a set of sustainability indicators farmers and NGO staff brainstorm ways to experiment with, and monitor changes in, the sustainability of their farming system. This process was developed over three years of collaborative work between farmers in two communities of Cavite province, the Philippines, the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction and the International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management. Because all of us know so little about sustainability it is difficult to prescribe ways to measure it. What we can do though, is start a process to learn about it. Such learning experiences improve our understanding and, over time, make farming practices more sustainable. A learning process cannot cope with all factors involved at once. We started talking with farmers about ecological aspects such as the number of species they used, the amount of recycling of farm wastes and the productive capacity of their fields. We also talked about the costs and returns of farming. Obviously, there is more to sustainability than this. Equity and food security are also important, but there again, so are many other biological, socioeconomic and institutional factors. Farmers helped us find indicators from a long list of important factors. In making their suggestions they gave consideration not only to the importance of factors to them, but also to indicators that would suggest direct actions they could take. As our understanding increases the indicators will no doubt be changed. Thus, the following indicators were chosen:
Because sustainability is not about getting the highest result in any one indicator, but rather, achieveing a balance between all of them we draw the results out in a "kite" diagram as shown in Figure 1. Thus, the larger the area created by the kite the more sustainable the farming system. Bioresource flows Data for making a kite diagram can be obtained by preparing a "bioresource flow diagram" and estimating values for each indicator. A bio-resource flow diagram, as shown in Figure 2, is drawn by first sketching cross-sections of each natural resource type that is used by the household (eg. flat lowlands, sloping uplands, ponds, and streams). "Use" here does not only refer to land owned but also common property and open access resources as well. Next, on to each natural resource type cross-section are drawn icons of each species used (eg. rice, grass, mango trees, goats and fish). Lastly, arrows to represent biological material (the bioresources such as manure, rice hulls, straw) that are recycled within the farm are drawn to complete the diagram. This process has been more fully described in previous articles in the ILEIA Newsletter. Estimating indicators Estimating some of the indicators is easy. For instance, the number of species and the number of flows can be obtained by simply counting the species icons and flow arrows on the diagram. However, estimating the amount of biomass produced on all the natural resource types and profit is much harder. To estimate biomass produced, farmers must not only remember all the harvests from each natural resource type and all the waste materials taken for recycling, but also estimate the changes in standing biomass of the materials left behind – how much larger has the herd grown, how much larger are the trees? These are not easy estimates to make. Moreover, if estimates are attempted for each species then the task quickly becomes impossible. Lumping species into groups gets us around this problem. We lump all livestock species, all tree species and all crop species together. While this estimate is not accurate it does give us a "feel" for the tons of biomass produced by each natural resource type. Over time, as farmers’ ability to estimate biomasses improves, so will the accuracy of the data. Estimating economic efficiency is just as crude, if not more so. The input-output data for each species group, as shown in Table 1, require farmers to put a cash value on recycled wastes. Clearly, this kind of economics can only give us a general impression. Undertaking rigorous whole farm budgeting, however, requires a level of data gathering way beyond the means of farmers and most NGOs. Beware that only very rough estimates can be obtained from farmers’ memory. Trying to remember how much of a crop was harvested at the end of the season might be easy but recalling how much manure was used is much harder. The accuracy of farmers’ estimates can be greatly improved if they record inputs and outputs directly on their bioresource flow diagrams as they occur. Brainstorming Farmers and NGO staff use the bioresource flow diagram and the kite diagram to brainstorm ways to improve sustainability. With the two diagrams side by side the "facilitator" asks the farmers to explain the performance of each indicator and give ideas on how it could be improved. Once the farmers have finished NGO staff and other "outsiders" are asked for their ideas. Typically, the species diversity indicator stimulates discussion on how new species can be added. For the farm presented in the figures the addition of catfish, tilapia and stringbeans were among the species that increased the diversity indicator from 23 to 31. The recycling indicator prompts discussion on new flows of organic wastes. Figure 1 shows that the number of flows increased from 8 to 18. Figure 2 shows that cow manure, sesbania and gliricidia leaves and rice bran were among the new flows. Here, farmers often introduce the idea of recycled materials substituting for purchased inputs. Ways to reduce cost are discussed through the indicator for economic efficiency. Figure 1 shows no improvement here. Farmers explained that was because many of the improvements made (such as new vegetable plots and tree lots) have not borne fruit yet. Techniques for rehabilitating degraded land and water are the subject when ideas for increasing the capacity of natural resources are discussed. Figure 1 reports an increase in production from 2.6 tons per hectare to 8.4 tons. Much of this increase, as shown in Figure 2 came from livestock and recycled farm wastes. Often these discussions go beyond technical ideas to ideas on how farmers might organise themselves to gain better access to natural resources. At the end of the brainstorming sessions farmers record the new ideas on their bioresource flow diagram. A future farming system might be shown through changes in their natural resource types – contour terraces on sloping uplands, raised beds and ponds in lowlands. More icons are drawn to represent new species and more arrows to show increased recycling. Thus existing and future farming systems are captured in one diagram, as shown in Figure 2. After this, farmers and NGO staff get together and plan the needed experiments and developments. Often farmers will decide to work together to improve a natural resource. They may build a dam or contour sloping lands together. They will experiment with new crops or animals or using crop wastes that were never used before. There will of course be things that cannot be done. NGOs might take these to the appropriate research and development institutions or use them in their advocacy work with policy makers. What farmers learn Brainstorming sustainability indicators nearly always results in farmers learning something useful: a new plant they can feed to their animals, or a new waste thay can fertilise soil with. They often learn things they can do together, like impounding water for irrigation and fish culture. And, they learn about natural resources, how to estimate their productive capacity, value standing biomass and value farm wastes. There are, of course, times when the diagrams cannot help. They do not, for example, tell which specific enterprise is making the most profit or loss. Moreover, they do not help farmers decide how to divide up their meagre supplies of manure between the vegetable plot, the maize garden and the fish pond. Nevertheless, participatory procedures do allow farmers to have a greater say in what kinds of technical and organisational help they need. Many of their ideas will challenge the NGO – perhaps to find an alternative low external-input-technology or perhaps to gain access to a water resource. Implications for NGOs The learning process described here helps NGOs identify new technical and organisational inputs. Instead of providing external inputs like high-yielding varieties and chemicals to increase production of specific crops, NGOs now procure local seeds for soil erosion control and animal fodder. They also get people together so that landlords, whether government or private, can be approached to gain access to grazing lands or water resources. More importantly, this analysis helps NGOs keep track of impact on the farming system. Tracking negative trends can be more important than successes! Policy makers need to know when farming systems become less ecologically sound because this has implications for them. It is often only new policies that can correct such negative trends. If farmers cannot carry the additional costs of rehabilitating degraded lands, as occurred in our example, then subsidies need to be arranged. If landlords are preventing farmers from planting trees for soil erosion control then tenure arrangements need to be changed. NGOs can also use this process to improve their dialogue with researchers. Indeed, the participation of researchers in brainstorming sessions is necessary, not only for farmers to be exposed to new technologies, but also, for researchers to identify future research questions. Assessing whole farm sustainability does not address every need. It tells little, for example, about how much yield increased because a new variety was used. Nor does it show how much money was made from the sale of a crop, or for that matter, how much better the family is fed as a result. But, if one’s aim is to support farmers with many technical and organisational inputs and track their impact on the sustainability of the whole farming system then this process might be a way to start. Lastly, if this process helps farmers become partners in learning what is sustainable agriculture, then much could be gained. Mary-Ann Bimbao and Teresita
Lopez, ICLARM, MC PO Box 2631 Makati, Metro Manila 0718,
Philippines. Further reading – Lightfoot C, PT Dalsgaard, MP Bimbao, and F
Fermin. 1993. Farmer participatory procedures for
managing and monitoring sustainable farming systems. In:
Journal of the Asian Farming Systems Association. 2(2):
67-87. Table 1. Data required for each species group
Back to Top |
|