In the Philippines, about 38 per cent of the total population resides in rural areas where poverty remains a significant problem, especially in remote upland communities. Soil erosion has been a well-recognised problem in these areas, resulting in a number of impacts on the livelihoods of the rural poor. The development and dissemination of soil and water resource conservation (SWC) techniques has been seen as essential to achieving improved and lasting outcomes for the livelihoods of upland communities, with benefits spilling over beyond the farm boundary. The participatory development of a cost-effective means of controlling soil erosion, natural vegetative strips (NVS), has increased the adoptability of SWC for many upland households, enabling them to incorporate agroforestry and other practices in their farming systems. The Landcare Program in the southern Philippines has facilitated the adoption of these practices over the past decade. However, the impacts of adoption on the livelihoods of farming households, and the externalities that adoption may deliver, have remained speculative. This thesis first explores whether the adoption of Landcare practices has resulted in improved livelihood outcomes for upland farming families. Second, it analyses the potential for the piecemeal adoption of these measures to deliver tangible benefits at the watershed scale. Finally, using a benefit-cost approach, these outcomes are compared to the costs of the research and extension projects that have helped achieve them. The analysis is carried out in two upland municipalities, San Isidro and Pilar, in the Province of Bohol. Landcare households in Bohol dedicate a large percentage of household resources to the production of rainfed rice, which is the primary source of subsistence for adopting households while upland plots play a secondary role. The adoption of NVS alone did not typically generate significant economic benefits, yet created the stable platform on which more commercial investments were being made, especially through NVS enrichment. In San Isidro, the average annual income of adopters generated from upland activities was estimated to be more than double that of non-adopters, with a difference of over PHP 7,500. In Pilar, the net impacts of adoption were estimated to be only around PHP 3,700, given that many households had not enriched their NVS at the time of the survey. At the household level, the benefits of adoption are therefore contingent on the ability of the household to make further investments in their farming system, stemming from improved soil stability. Several case studies were used to describe the process of and constraints to farm development. The average impacts on incomes were found to be significant at the household level, with the potential to lift a household above the poverty threshold. Yet the marginal nature of the upland farming systems limits the aggregate on-site benefits. The expansion of activities into Pilar and Alicia was estimated to increase the net annual benefits, reaching PHP 2,270,000 (around AUD 60,000) per year by 2009. In absolute terms, this impact is still quite modest, but needs to be considered together with the off-site impacts and the costs of the Landcare Program. In Pilar, one of the clearest impacts of erosion due (in part) to upland cropping has been the sedimentation of the Malinao Dam. The significance and distribution of forgone revenue from irrigated rice as a result of sedimentation is largely determined by factors including the timing of rainfall events, the allocation of water between users, and the value of alternative land uses. Furthermore, the upland agricultural landscapes of Bohol are diverse and complex, with numerous sources and filters of sediment. A terrain analysis model was used to model the impact of incremental adoption of Landcare practices within the landscape. The results show that the spatial distribution of adoption is likely to be as important as the extent of adoption when it comes to delivering off-site benefits. The aggregate level of losses avoided as a result of Landcare was estimated to be around PHP 1,023,000 (AUD 26,900) over a 20-year period at a discount rate of five per cent. The results of the livelihood analysis and watershed modelling were combined in a benefit-cost analysis (BCA) and compared to the costs of the projects and other investments that have helped bring about the impacts. The results showed a positive but small NPV of around PHP 3.5 million, equating to around AUD 91,000, for the 20 year period simulated, using a 5 per cent discount rate. The sunk costs of the early phases of theLandcare Program, however, continue to provide the basis for ongoing livelihood projects that utilise farmer groups as a means of extension. Furthermore, when the expansion of the Program into other nearby municipalities can draw on the original research or learning hub, rapid adoption can be achieved at relatively low cost and provide a significant return on investment. Overall, the evidence presented indicates that the net economic impacts of the Landcare Program in Bohol are positive, even when taking into account the prior investment in research and training. The major beneficiaries of the Program are the individual households who adopt the conservation farming practices, with these benefits largely generated by the farming opportunities stemming from improved soil stability. The diversification and commercialisation of the upland component of the farming system has mainly utilised land and labour at low opportunity cost, though limited access to these resources prevents some households from proceeding along the identified farm development pathway. The focus on livelihood development does not deny the seriousness of downstream watershed problems arising from upland agriculture. However, it is agued that given the relativity of on-site and off-site benefits, the focus and primary justification of the Landcare Program should remain on improving the productivity and livelihoods of upland farmers through facilitated, farmer-led, group-based research and extension, with these downstream impacts being seen as side benefits of what is essentially a livelihoods program.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:ADTP/279197 |
| Creators | Jonathan Newby |
| Source Sets | Australiasian Digital Theses Program |
| Detected Language | English |
Page generated in 0.0027 seconds