The following are the key findings from a review of SARM within the Asia Pacific region:
The main message that can be concluded from the above findings is that sustainable agriculture can be economically, environmentally and socially viable. Additional conclusions can be considered with respect to six cross-cutting themes, namely: technologies, costs and benefits, processes and methods, institutions, policies and projects and programmes.
The land use requirements of individual agricultural enterprises should match the land qualities present in the areas where they are undertaken. That is the biological, chemical and physical properties of the soil, the local climatic conditions (temperature, rainfall etc) and the areas topographic characteristics (slope, aspect, altitude etc) must all match the bio-physical requirements of the land uses followed. The combination of crop, livestock and land husbandry practices followed should be able to reduce rainfall impact, improve surface infiltration, and reduce the velocity of surface runoff to ensure any soil loss is below the `tolerable' level for the soil type. Soil nutrients lost by leaching and/or removed in harvested products should be capable of being replenished by weathering of soil minerals, biological nitrogen fixation, use of organic manures and as necessary the application of limited quantities of mineral fertilizers.
The starting point for SARM at the small-scale farm level should be the farm household's existing farming practices (e.g. tillage techniques, crop, livestock and tree management practices, and soil conservation/fertility maintenance measures) and on-farm agricultural resources (local crop varieties, livestock breeds and tree species). There is a need to correct the tendency to undervalue, or ignore, the inherent potential within traditional farming systems given that these have usually evolved within the local environment with the objective of meeting a household's welfare needs with the minimum of risk. Assisting farmers to make adaptive improvements to what they are already doing, and what they already have - and in the process expanding their local knowledge - is invariably more successful than requiring them to adopt radically new practices.
The traditional farming systems of the Asia Pacific region are characterised by considerable agro-bio-diversity in terms of the range of crops, livestock and trees present and the number of local land races/varieties/breeds developed to fill specific agro-ecological and socio-economic niches. Commercial agriculture in the region is typically characterised by mono-cropping with single varieties or clones. There is a need to maintain the diversity of the traditional systems, not only to maintain the genetic resource this represents, but also a diversified farming system is less prone to the uncertainty and risk associated with market fluctuations, climatic hazards (drought, cyclones) and pest and disease outbreaks.
Resource conserving technologies either: a) conserve existing on-farm resources, such as nutrients, pest predators, water or soil; or b) introduce new elements into the farming system that add more of these resources, such as nitrogen-fixing crops, water harvesting structures or new predators, and so substitute for some or all external resources (Pretty 1995). This requires the documentation and dissemination of what is already known about research derived and farmers own successful resource conserving technologies. Likewise there is a need for further research and development of alternative low external sustainable agriculture (LEISA), integrated plant nutrition systems (IPNS) and integrated pest management (IPM) technologies.
SARM practices should not just be conservation effective (e.g. reduce soil loss, provide ground cover, conserve moisture, maintain organic matter levels) but also improve the productivity of the farming system (e.g. raise yields, reduce labour, provide additional fodder, fuel, poles etc). In this regard biological and agronomic measures (hedgerows, green manures, cover crops, composting, reduced tillage, intercropping) will usually be favoured by farmers over conservation structures (terraces, earthbanks, hillside ditches, check dams) because they improve productivity rather than just conserve soil.
Research into soil, water and nutrient management should be undertaken on a holistic basis within the context of integrated farming systems. Thus soil erosion management research should not be undertaken as a separate task but be part of an integrated programme in which the problems of soil, water and nutrient management as they relate to sustainable crop, livestock and tree production systems are addressed at the field, farm, community and micro-/sub-watershed levels.
SARM requires that when farm households adopt resource conserving technologies they be assisted to substitute knowledge, labour and management skills to make up for the foregone added values of external agro-chemical inputs.
SARM technologies need to allow for flexibility within the farming system so that household production strategies can evolve and change in response to changing circumstances within the household and society at large (e.g. change in labour availability and market opportunities).
Agriculture must figure as an important component within the household economy with farming perceived as profitable from a subsistence and/or commercial perspective. The returns to the household's labour from on-farm enterprises must match, preferably exceed, those that could be obtained from using that labour for off-farm income generating activities (particularly in comparison with unskilled labouring).
There should be short term production benefits to off set any short term costs associated with the adoption of SARM. The minimum rate of return from investing in adaptive improvements to an existing crop or livestock enterprise should exceed 50%. For adopting a totally new management practice, or farm enterprise, it should exceed at least 100%. Preferably within the first year of adoption.
Any incremental costs associated with the adoption of new `conservation effective' enterprises or SARM practices, compared to those they are expected to replace, should be within the absorptive capacity of farm households given their existing financial and labour resources.
Any foregone benefits should be minimal and of short duration. When land is taken out of production for hedgerows, grass strips or conservation structures there should be compensatory benefits (e.g. fodder, fuel, green manure, from the `lost' land, and/or higher yields in the remaining area). Labour demands for the construction and maintenance of soil conservation measures should not clash with peak periods in the farm production calendar, when labour is commonly in short supply. Nor should it make demands for labour at times that have been traditionally set aside for culturally important social activities, or when it is normal practice to undertake off-season employment.
Food security at the farm household level requires that individual households be able to meet their daily food needs from their own production or have the means to obtain food from off-farm sources. In the latter case food must be locally available for purchase when required. SARM practices should either assist in increasing subsistence food production, or support commercial activities that can generate the cash resources required to make up any shortfall in on-farm food production through local purchases.
There must be a market for any farm production (annual and perennial crop, livestock, and tree products) in excess of what is required for household consumption. There should be a relatively high value (in terms of market price for produce sold, or replacement cost for produce consumed) attached to the products of crop and livestock enterprises that are conservation effective (e.g. pigeon pea), compared to those that are not compatible with good conservation (e.g. ginger).
Social and economic equity should be key SARM development objectives. Interventions should confront inequalities of access to agricultural resources between different social and ethnic groups to reduce the chance of inter-group conflict. Failure to take into consideration different gender perspectives can lead to further marginalisation of women. SARM projects and programmes should not increase the workload of particular gender and age groups vis-a-vis others unless they get correspondingly more of the benefits. Much greater efforts are needed to address equity issues if the poorest and most marginalised in any society are not to be missed. This is, at present, largely left out, even of many participatory programmes.
The on-site benefits from adopting a SARM measure should be of a far greater magnitude than the off-site benefits. Farm households in upper watershed areas should not be expected to incur costs for the benefit of others downstream.
There should be a low element of risk attached to the adoption of any SARM practice.
The capacity of individuals and institutions to innovate and experiment must be actively encouraged. It is impossible to predict the SARM technologies that may be appropriate at a particular time and place. Good technologies will be superseded by others in the future. What needs to be made sustainable is the process of innovation itself (Hinchcliffe et al 1995).
SARM requires a `bottom up' approach, one in which the project beneficiaries actively participate in the process. For too long farmers have been the passive recipients of externally derived research and extension recommendations. SARM should seek to enhance farmers' inherent skills and capability to develop and disseminate their own technologies. Given that the term participation is used by different people to mean different things there is a need to separate the rhetoric from the reality and to identify the type of participation that is possible, and desirable, given the local community and government/NGO institutional capabilities.
All stakeholders in an area where there is a problem with the sustainable use of the local agricultural resources must be identified and invited to take part in a broad participatory process to analyze problems, and express and evaluate their needs, interests and aims. Stakeholders must then be able to negotiate options and priorities for action with the aim of minimising conflicts of interest.
SARM requires a shift in emphasis away from soil conservation per se to a more holistic approach. The concept of husbandry is widely understood when applied to crops and animals. As a concept signifying understanding, management and improvement, it is equally applicable to land. Thus better land husbandry involves the care and management of the land for productive purposes - only through sound land husbandry can the land's productive potential be sustained and enhanced.
SARM requires that soil, water and nutrient management be undertaken as integral parts of a productive farming system rather than as separate land management practices. This requires that those responsible for designing such projects adopt a farming systems development approach. An understanding of the components of, and rationale behind, the existing farming systems is crucial for understanding the context in which SARM technologies are to be applied.
Greater use should be made of farmer-to-farmer extension so as to encourage the active participation of rural land users in exchanging information about, and experience with, SARM technologies, both technical and cultural in nature, within and between rural communities. There are a number of informal and formal methods that have been used to enable farmers, rather than extension workers, to take the lead in training other farmers, these should be the starting points for the development of locally appropriate methods.
The farmer field school approach has been successfully used in Southeast Asia as a way for small-scale rice farmers to investigate for themselves the benefits of adopting IPM practices for paddy rice production. It is believed that this specific approach, although originally developed for IPM purposes, should be used as a model for developing a similar field based farmer centred learning approach that would enable farmers to learn about, and investigate for themselves, the costs and benefits of alternative SARM practices.
There is a need to recognise the role farmers can play as technology developers in their own right. Methods should be sought to enable farmers to actively engage in developing their own improved technologies (suited to their individual household bio-physical and socio-economic circumstances). Farmers should be encouraged to generate and evaluate indigenous technologies and to choose, test and adapt external technologies on the basis of their own knowledge and value systems.
Community level `peoples' organizations should be identified (or if necessary established) that can provide a forum, not under direct government control, in which farmers wishes can be articulated, problems analyzed, plans formulated, and agreements reached on how particular interventions are to be implemented. Management of such community level organizations should be in the hands of responsible, responsive and respected leaders.
There must be an institutional framework that enables different development support agencies, whether government or NGO, to collaborate and operate in an integrated manner for SARM rather than compartmentalised on a geographic area or disciplinary interest basis. This may require clarification of, and agreement on, the different roles of the various institutions directly and indirectly involved in SARM projects and programmes.
There should be a high level national committee or commission to advise on, and oversee, the detailed formulation of SARM strategy, the development of policy, the coordination of activities and the monitoring of progress.
Development support agencies must have the financial and skilled human resources to deliver the services required from them. Staff of these agencies must believe in what they are doing, show dedication and commitment to the work, and be sensitive to the social and cultural norms of the communities in which they operate. Essential if the necessary rapport with farmers is to be achieved to enable participatory development approaches to succeed.
The promotion of participatory planning and SARM generates a need to substantially modify current training approaches and curricula so as to create new attitudes, skills and awareness within extension staff and other development workers. There is thus a need for innovative participatory field based training methods, involving practical learning-by-doing exercises, that encourage the development of the skills and attitude required for working with farmers in a participatory manner.
There is a need for wider support for the use of participatory methods and processes, and the establishment of appropriate incentives to encourage their institutionalisation by researchers, extensionists and planners.
Government programmes should acknowledge the presence and the potential of NGOs, which often have comparative advantages when it comes to contact with resource users at the local level. NGOs local insights and links with local institutions may offer important advantages. Their administrative procedures may be simpler and their overheads lower, all of which may mean a more direct impact on a larger number of land users. Governments and NGOs therefore need to coordinate their activities more closely. However there is a need to take note of the motivation and competence of individual NGOs, to ensure that, where NGOs are involved in GO programmes, they can offer something different and better.
There is a need for the development of national SARM/better land husbandry strategies that would have a broader, more holistic, and sustainable crop, livestock and tree production focus than current national soil policies or national conservation strategies.
The starting point for any national policy on SARM has to be an inventory of the countries land resources. The data for this should be stored in a central computerised natural resource data base and retrieved and used with the aid of an appropriate Geographical Information System (GIS).
There is a need to use the data from a national natural resources data base for the development of national land use plans and to allow for the zoning of land according to its potential for agricultural and forestry production. This would allow for the reservation of prime agricultural land so as to restrict its conversion to other uses. Good zoning regulations would enable urban and industrial expansion to be directed to areas with a lower agricultural potential.
Legislation should enable communities to take direct responsibility for the preservation and management of their natural resources, rather than being to enforce restrictive land use rules and regulations formulated by `outsiders'.
Linking financial and food inducements to pre-selected conservation measures should cease. These encourage farmers to permit or engage in the construction of conservation measures that they neither agree with nor feel responsible for maintaining. When these incentives stop so does the conservation. Incentives are effective only in certain situations when they are decided in consultation with communities. In this regard any financial incentives or subsidies must be sustainable from government revenue budget resources and/or locally managed revolving funds.
Short term input subsidies on fertilizers and pesticides may hide the impact of farming practices on the long term sustainability of the farming system. Any subsidies on external inputs should not distort the value of alternative `resource conserving' technologies to the extent that these become financially unattractive to farmers.
Extension, research and training should retain their place in government agricultural institutions. It is a form of government subsidy for improving agriculture, and the best answer to widely dispersed user groups which cannot be informed and supported otherwise. With appropriate institutional strengthening and reorientation to a participatory client responsive approach the effectiveness of such services can be greatly increased. Any move to privatise extension, research and training needs to recognise that the private sector would have little incentive to work in so called `less favoured' areas as the returns to investment, in the form of sales of inputs (eg fertilizer, agrochemicals) or products for export or local agro-industries, would be low. Furthermore extension/research services run by the commercial sector tend to have a single focus (e.g. sugar cane, coconut, tea, coffee) rather than being geared to the complexity of mixed small-scale farming systems.
Project support should be of sufficient duration (at least 10 years) to realise the long term conservation benefits of improved land husbandry, as well as the short term production benefits of improved crop and animal husbandry. Likewise participatory planning processes, with the need to build mutual confidence and understanding, take time hence the need to sustain support over the medium to long term to achieve tangible results at the community level. This requires continuity of funding between different project phases to ensure no loss of momentum in field activities, withdrawal of experienced staff or loss of project credibility within the farming community (e.g. due to a failure to deliver expected services during an unfunded bridging period).
Project design should allow for flexibility in implementation to learn from experience and take account of changed circumstances. A thoroughly designed and pre-planned project with fixed output targets at the onset goes against the principle of participatory planning and can be expected to ultimately fail to have a lasting impact.
Projects should start slowly and build up momentum as farmers and project staff gain experience and confidence with the recommendations and are able to modify and adapt them in the light of their application at the field level. In this regard donors and governments should be prepared to invest in small-scale pilot projects that are planned from the bottom up in a participatory manner. However this should be within a broader programme framework allowing the lessons learnt from the pilot exercise to be spread over a wider area.
SARM activities have to fit within the realities of the agricultural seasonal calendar. This needs to be taken into consideration when planning for project start up and release of funds. A delay of only one or two months in releasing funds for specific activities or the purchase of inputs may mean missing a complete cropping season. The need to fit in with the farming calendar is particularly critical for short term (12-24 month) technical assistance projects. Any delay in start up could mean the loss of 1 or 2 cropping cycles.
There is a need to look for innovative cost sharing arrangements between the stakeholders/beneficiaries and the development agencies (government, NGO or donor) working with them. This would encourage project planners to restrict their interventions to those which could be undertaken utilising the resources of the community. It would also encourage greater self reliance on the part of the participating farm households and reduce the all too typical expectation of project handouts, or that the government will provide.
Projects should be planned on the basis that they will at a future date cease activities within a specific area. Therefore any project initiated interventions that require continuing external support for maintenance and expansion must be ones that can be sustained post project from within the resources of the community and/or revenue budget funded government support agencies.
In summary what SARM requires is a shift in emphasis, away from top down physical planning by outside technical experts, to bottom up participatory planning, with the rural communities taking centre stage in the appraisal and planning process. What is needed is a shift (after Hudson and Cheatle 1993):
From looking at land degradation in terms of what is happening |
To looking at land degradation in terms of why it is happening |
From priority given to reducing downstream sedimentation (concern with the off-site costs and benefits). |
To priority given to improving land husbandry on farm (concern with the on-site costs and benefits). |
From assessing land capability according to the bio-physical properties of the land. |
To characterising, and understanding, the socio-economic circumstances of the different land user groups. |
From ensuring catchment protection through increased regulation and restriction on land use activities. |
To an increasing emphasis on lifting local constraints to enable farming communities to manage their land resources (soil, water and vegetation) in a productive and sustainable manner. |
From conserving soil and water by physical structures. |
To water management and enhancing soil productivity by improved agronomic and silvicultural practices. |
From a single-sector approach (eg forestry or agriculture) to project design. |
To a multi-sectoral and inter-disciplinary effort (e.g. developing integrated farming systems combining crop, livestock and tree production). |
From top-down physical planning solely within the topographic boundaries of a watershed. |
To bottom-up participatory planning in conformity with catchment management principles but within the cultural, administrative and political boundaries of farming communities. |
From starting with the knowledge and technologies for soil and water management of professionals. |
To starting with the knowledge and existing technologies of farmers and other resource users. |
From professionals lecturing, promoting their ideas and retaining control of the development agenda. |
To professionals listening and learning, encouraging rural land users to express their ideas, and handing over to them control of the development agenda. |
From data collection and analysis, and planning primarily by professionals. |
To incorporating data presentation, analysis and planning by farming communities, with professionals as facilitators (community consultants). |
From extracting information from farming communities using standardized questionnaire surveys. |
To an array of participatory methods of learning from, with, and by farming communities. |
From identifying priority needs and options by professionals. |
To the identification and selection of priorities by farming communities, with assistance from outside technical expertise. |
From blanket recommendations centrally determined and disseminated. |
To a cafeteria style menu of demonstrated practices offered to farmers, and pastoralists for them to test, evaluate, and select those deemed appropriate to their needs and circumstances. |
From technology development by research scientists on-station. |
To participatory technology development that enables farmers to build on indigenous SARM practices with the technical support of research scientists. |
The following proposals arise from the above findings and conclusions. They are presented in the form of brief ideas and will require further consideration at the regional level before they can be developed into formal proposals. The proposals fall into two groups, those that would be best undertaken at a regional or sub-regional level, and those best undertaken at the national level.
Regional and sub-regional programmes provide opportunities for the transfer of experience between countries in tackling SARM. There can also be a comparative advantage in developing methodologies and guidelines first at the regional level. These can then subsequently be fine tuned to meet the specific requirements and circumstances of individual countries at the national level. Starting from scratch with separate programmes in each country would require a far greater total outlay of time and money to achieve the same end product.
There is a role for FAO to play in assisting in the establishment and operation of TCDC networks on SARM related issues. In some cases this would mean ensuring continued financial and technical support for current RAP networks notably the Asian network on problem soils and the Asian bio and organic fertilizer network. With additional resources both of these networks could play a valuable role in the development and dissemination of LEISA and IPNS technologies. The current donor funding for the Asia Pacific agroforestry network (APAN) is not expected to be continued beyond the present phase, however the need for such a network within Asia remains (APAN has not to date been particularly active in the Pacific where GTZ is currently supporting a similar network). Both the farmer centred agricultural resource management (FARM) and the participatory watershed management training in Asia (PWMTA) programmes expect to terminate within the next 18 months and there is a need to consider how to provide continuing technical support to their current in-country pilot initiatives.
The concepts and principles of better land husbandry, which are fundamental to the sustainable management of the agricultural resources of the Asia Pacific region, are currently poorly understood within the region. Combatting land degradation is still by and large seen as a watershed management issue, with the emphasis on controlling land uses and promoting a limited range of soil erosion control measures and afforestation. There is thus a need for programmes within the region to promote the broader better land husbandry approach giving emphasis to improved soil, water and nutrient management within productive and conservation-effective small-scale farming systems.
It is proposed that FAO RAP should assist in the establishment of intercountry TCDC land husbandry networks that would be able to operate independently in the medium to long term. In this regard the independent Asia Soil Conservation Network for the Humid Tropics (ASOCON), established with FAO support, can be used as a model (se box 8.7). UNDP financial support ceased at the end of 1991 since when the network has formalised its own constitution and the member countries have assumed primary financial responsibility for its core operating costs. FAO has continued to provide technical, and limited financial support, to the ASOCON Network Consultative Board. Its regional activities are currently limited due to funding constraints and donor support is being sought to resume regional learning and action programmes.
FAO should seek to work with, build on, and expand existing inter-country networks rather than setting up totally new ones. In this regard ASOCON would be in a position to assume the functions of the South-east Asian better land husbandry network. The South Asian member countries of APAN, FARM and PWMTA could serve as the nucleus for a South Asian network. Likewise the FAO Pacific Island member countries could form a Pacific network (as Papua New Guinea is already a member of ASOCON it could serve as a useful link between South-east Asia and the Pacific).
It is believed that such TCDC better land husbandry networks should be organised primarily on a sub-regional basis - i.e. the participation in individual networks should be limited to countries from South Asia; South East Asia; or the Pacific. Cultural differences between these three broad sub-regions can lessen the effectiveness of networks that span the whole of the Asia Pacific region. The Pacific countries in particular feel strongly that they have a separate identity from Asia and often feel marginalised when, because of cost, their participation in so called Asia Pacific networks is limited or non-existent.
When promoting TCDC networks there is a need to think carefully about which countries should participate to ensure universal attendance at workshops/training courses. Problems can arise should one or more member countries be unwilling (for political reasons) to issue visas to the nationals of another member country. In such a situation only some of the member countries would be able to host network meetings in which all countries could participate. Thus, as hosts, some countries would bear a greater proportion of the costs and responsibilities than others, which goes against the spirit of mutual cooperation intrinsic to TCDC networks.
The ASOCON experience has also shown the benefits of establishing cost sharing arrangements between the member countries, FAO and the donor agency as soon after network establishment as possible. This could be in the form of FAO and donor support for external activities at the sub-regional level (e.g. overseas travel, workshops, training), with national funding (from revenue budget or donor funded in-country projects) for purely in-country activities. Similar cost sharing arrangements can be entered into for specific workshops and training courses with the host country meeting the costs of its own participants as well as a proportion of the operating costs (e.g. transport, secretarial assistance).
The activities of such sub-regional networks should include information exchange, collaborative regional action learning programmes (RALP) and exchange visits in the form of study tours and practical work attachments. Topics for the RALPs could include:
Although the above networks would operate on a sub-regional basis there would be a role for FAO RAP to periodically organise regional level conferences and expert consultations for the periodic exchange of information and experiences between the sub-regions.
Whereas the primary focus of the networks proposed above would be resource poor small-scale farmers there is a growing number of large scale commercial estates and plantations engaged in crop and livestock production within the Asia Pacific region. The issues related to SARM and better land husbandry within the large-scale commercial agricultural sector are by and large of a different nature and scale to those of small-scale farmers. Hence there is a justification for separate sub-regional networks to look at these specific issues. It is suggested that initially such a network be established for the South-east Asia region with Malaysia as the lead coordinating country. The role of FAO RAP would be to act as a facilitator. There would be realistic prospects that such a network could be primarily funded by the private sector within the member countries.
The existing work of the Asian network on problem soils could be expanded into a series of sub-regional programmes with the task of developing, and then using, methodological guidelines for the assessment of current severity and extent of the different types of land degradation, and to monitor changes.
The senior staff of many countries in the Asia Pacific region are currently sent outside the region for advanced training in improved land husbandry and conservation technology. This is expensive and means that far fewer people have been trained than required. Also external training in Western developed countries may not always be relevant to the specific needs and circumstances of the developing countries within the region.
It is therefore proposed that FAO RAP should seek to identify, and assist in strengthening, existing training centres in Asia and the Pacific, that have the current, or potential, capability to offer training on a regional or sub-regional basis. Examples would be the Central Soil and Water Conservation Research and Training Institute at Dehra Dun in India, the Bureau of Soils and Water Management Quezon City the Philippines, the Farming Systems and Soils Resources Institute at the University of the Philippines Los Banos, and the Institute for Research, Extension and Training in Agriculture, on the campus of University of the South Pacific in Apia Western Samoa.
The strengthening programmes should place considerable emphasis on rethinking current curricula and developing new training programmes in order to promote the broader holistic SARM/participatory better land husbandry approach, and to introduce alternative participatory teaching/learning methods.
At the national level there is scope for FAO to assist in the following areas: