4 A SURVEY OF FARMHOUSEHOLDS INBARANGAY SUNGCO

37

4A survey of farm households in Barangay Sungcos described in Chapter 3, ICRAF statistics show amarked increase in the adoption of contourfarming measures in Lantapan since around1995. Much of this adoption has occurred in BarangaySungco, which is centrally located in the municipality andoccupies a transect from the left bank of the Manupali Riverto the buffer zone of Mt Kitanglad Range Natural Park (Fig.2.1).A household survey was conducted in August 2002 in this

barangay to assess the extent of adoption of conservation

farming practices and some of the factors associated with

adoption, including the role of the Landcare Program. A

stratified random sample of 104 households was drawn from

all sitio in the barangay (excluding one remote sitio

comprising the members of an exclusive sect). Two trained

research assistants administered a one-hour questionnaire

to each selected household.

Sixty two of the respondents (60 per cent) had adopted

contour farming measures (natural vegetative strips,

hedgerows, or other contour barriers) on part or all of their

farms, and forty two respondents (40 per cent) had not.

The following analysis uses only a sub-set of the data

collected and focuses largely on a comparison between

adopters and non-adopters. Where relevant, statistical tests

were used in the analysis, principally two-tailed t tests with

5 per cent as the level of significance.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOUSEHOLD HEADThe average household head in Sungco was male, aged 44

years, had received 6 years of formal education, and had

resided in his current location for 29 years. Adopters were

on average 4 years older and had been resident for 8 years

longer, but these differences were not statistically significant

(Table 4.1).

Forty five per cent of respondents were born in Sungco

(somewhat higher among adopters), while 40 per cent had

migrated from outside Lantapan, mostly from provinces

other than Bukidnon (Misamis Oriental and Agusan del Norte

in Mindanao; Cebu, Bohol and Negros Oriental in the

Visayas; and Mountain Province in Luzon). The incidence

of migration from outside Lantapan did not differ greatly

between adopters and non-adopters (Table 4.1).

However, a somewhat higher proportion of adopters were

from indigenous cultural groups (73 per cent compared with

60 per cent), including local indigenous groups (Talaandig,

Higaonon, and Bukidnon) and indigenous groups who had

migrated from other provinces (Manobo from southern

Mindanao and Ifugao and Igorot from northern Luzon). The

non-indigenous groups included Cebuano, Boholano,

Waray, Ilocano and Tagalog (Table 4.1).

Thus the farming population in Sungco included people

from a diversity of geographical and cultural backgrounds,

but mostly with considerable farming experience in the

municipality.

Almost all adopters (98 per cent) pursued farming as their

main occupation, whereas 12 per cent of non-adopters

worked mainly as labourers or government employees or

ran a small business. Similarly, only 16 per cent of adopters

had a secondary occupation, compared with 33 per cent of

non-adopters, most of whom had additional work as

labourers (Table 4.1).

Over two thirds of adopters were members of one or more

local group (on average 1.7), mostly concerned with

agriculture and/or forestry. Nearly one third were members

of a Landcare group and 10 per cent were Landcare officials.

Group membership was not so widespread among non-

adopters – 55 per cent did not belong to any group and

only 10 per cent were members of Landcare (Table 4.1).

CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERSAdopters averaged larger households (6.9 members) than

non-adopters (5.5 members), this difference being

significant at the 5 per cent level. Examination of the

distribution of household size (Table 4.2 and Fig. 4.2)

confirms the difference, with 31 per cent of adopter-

households having 6-7 members, and the same percentage

of non-adopter-households having just 5 members.

Table 4.3 shows that a large part of the difference was in

the number of dependants (4.4 for adopters and 3.4 for

non-adopters), though the dependency ratio was similarly

high for both groups at around 63 per cent. Nevertheless,

adopters also averaged more workers than non-adopters

(2.5 compared with 2.1), and had significantly more workers

engaged in full- or part-time farming (2.4 compared with

1.6). This corresponds with the lower incidence of off-farm

work among heads of adopter-households, as discussed

above.

The highest education level of a household member

averaged 7.9 years, somewhat higher than that for

household heads alone (6.1 years), and ranged up to 15

years (i.e., college education) in both groups (Table 4.4).

This shows the potential importance of better-educated

younger household members in household decision-

making. However, non-adopters were more likely than

adopters to have a household member with 10 or more

years’ education (48 per cent compared with 27 per cent).

In nearly two thirds of households, one or more member

was involved in a local group, averaging 1.6 groups per

household (Table 4.5). Once again, group membership was

A

38

Landcare in Bukidnon

more common among adopter-households (69 per cent)

than non-adopters (52 per cent). Overall, 24 per cent of

households were represented in a Landcare group, with

adopters three times as likely to be Landcare members

(Table 4.6). Membership of other agricultural and forestry

groups was even more common, with 52 per cent of

households belonging to at least one such group.

Table 4.1 Characteristics of household head by adoptioncategory, 2002

Characteristic Adopters Non-adopters Total(n=62) (n=42) (n=104)

Mean age (years) 45.7 41.6 44.1

Gender (% male) 98.4 95.2 97.1

Mean level of education (years) 5.8 6.6 6.1

Mean period of residence (years) 31.8 24.0 28.7

PLACE OF ORIGIN (%)

– same sitio 46.8 40.5 44.2

– other sitio 1.6 0.0 1.0

– other barangay 11.3 19.1 14.4

– other municipality 9.7 19.1 13.5

– other province 30.7 21.4 26.9

CULTURAL GROUP (%)

– local indigenous 58.1 50.0 54.8

– non-local indigenous 14.5 9.5 12.5

– non-indigenous 25.8 40.5 31.7

– no response 1.6 0.0 1.0

MAIN OCCUPATION (%)

– farmer 98.4 88.1 94.2

– labourer 0.0 4.8 1.9

– small business 0.0 2.4 1.0

– government employee 1.6 4.8 2.9

SECONDARY OCCUPATION (%)

– farmer 0.0 0.0 0.0

– labourer 11.3 21.4 15.4

– small business 4.8 11.9 7.7

– government employee 0.0 0.0 0.0

– none 83.9 66.7 76.9

MEMBERSHIP OF GROUPS (%)

– not a member of any group 30.7 54.8 40.4

– one group 32.3 33.3 32.7

– two groups 29.0 7.1 20.2

– three or more groups 8.1 4.8 6.7

TYPE OF GROUP MEMBERSHIP (%)

– Landcare member 32.3 11.9 24.0

– Landcare official 9.7 7.1 8.7

– other agricultural/forestry 54.8 38.1 48.1

– non-agricultural/forestry 8.1 4.8 6.7

Table 4.2 Distribution of household size by adoptioncategory, 2002

Household size Adopters Non-adopters Total

No. % No. % No. %

1 0 0 2 4.8 2 1.9

2 1 1.6 2 4.8 3 2.9

3 5 8.1 3 7.1 8 7.7

4 7 11.2 5 11.9 12 11.5

5 6 9.7 13 31.0 19 18.3

6 10 16.1 5 11.9 15 14.4

7 9 14.5 5 11.9 14 13.5

8 4 6.5 3 7.1 7 6.7

9 10 16.1 1 2.4 11 10.6

10 4 6.5 1 2.4 5 4.8

11 4 6.5 2 4.8 6 5.8

12 1 1.6 0 0.0 1 1.0

13 1 1.6 0 0.0 1 1.0

Total 62 100.0 42 100.0 104 100.0

Figure 4.2 Distribution of household size

Table 4.3 Economic activity of household members byadoption category

Economic activity of Adopters Non-adopters Totalhousehold members (n=62) (n=42) (n=104)

Mean no. % Mean no. % Mean no. %

Full-time farming 1.65 23.8 1.05 19.2 1.40 22.1

Part-time farming 0.78 11.3 0.52 9.5 0.68 10.7

Off-farm employment 0.11 1.6 0.50 9.1 0.26 4.1

Non-working 4.39 63.4 3.41 62.2 3.99 62.9

Total 6.92 100.0 5.48 100.0 6.34 100.0

39

4A survey of farm households in Barangay SungcoTable 4.4 Highest education level of household members inSungco by adoption categoryEducation level Adopters Non-adopters Total(years) No. % No. % No. %1-3 4 6.5 3 7.1 7 6.74-6 26 41.9 10 23.8 36 34.67-9 15 24.2 8 19.1 23 22.110-12 11 17.7 14 33.3 25 24.0

13-15 6 9.7 6 14.3 12 11.5

No response 0 0.0 1 2.4 1 1.0

Total 62 100.0 42 100.0 104 100.0

Table 4.5 Participation of household members in Sungco inlocal groups by adoption category

No. of groups Adopters Non-adopters Total

No. % No. % No. %

0 19 30.7 20 47.6 39 37.5

1 21 33.9 16 38.1 37 35.6

2 17 27.4 4 9.5 21 20.2

3 5 8.1 0 0.0 5 4.8

4 0 0.0 2 4.8 2 1.9

Total 62 100.0 42 100.0 104 100.0

Mean 1.6 - 1.5 - 1.6 -

Table 4.6 Types of group in which household members inSungco participated by adoption category

Type of group Adopters Non-adopters Total(n=62) (n=42) (n=104)

No. % No. % No. %

Landcare 20 32.3 5 11.9 25 24.0

Other agricultural/forestry 36 58.1 18 42.9 54 51.9

Non-agricultural/forestry 4 6.5 4 9.5 8 7.7

One or more type 43 69.4 22 52.4 65 62.5

FARM SIZE AND TENUREThe average farm size was 3.2 ha, but adopters averaged

3.7 ha, significantly larger than non-adopters (2.4 ha). The

difference was not due to different numbers of parcels –

both groups averaged around 1.8 – but to different parcel

size, with adopters averaging 2.1 ha and non-adopters 1.4

ha.

The difference emerges more clearly when examining the

distribution of farm size (Table 4.7 and Fig. 4.3). Over a

quarter of non-adopters had farms of less than 1.0 ha and

over a half had farms of less than 2.0 ha. While some

adopters also had small farms, the greater proportion (55

per cent) was clustered in the 2-6 ha range, and a further

20 per cent had farms of 6-12 ha.

There was also a difference in the tenure status of farmers

(Table 4.8). Overall, 80 per cent of farmers were owners or

part-owners of the land they farmed, but ownership was

more prevalent among adopters. Non-adopters were three

times as likely to be renting their land.

Table 4.9 examines the tenure status of individual parcels.

Eighty four per cent of adopters’ parcels were owned,

compared with 61 per cent of non-adopters’ parcels.

Moreover, adopters were more likely to have a document

of title for the land they owned, though in both groups

ownership claims were frequently asserted without formal

title to the land. In a number of cases ownership was in the

form of a Certificate of Stewardship Contract (CSC), a 25-

year renewable lease issued by the DENR for public forest

lands.

Most rented parcels were subject to a leasing agreement,

involving a fixed payment in cash or kind, rather than share

tenancy. Mortgaging, whereby a lump sum is advanced for

the use of the land over several years, accounted for only 5

per cent of parcels.

The incentive provided by secure tenure for the adoption

of conservation practices is indicated in that 48 per cent of

cultivator-owned parcels in the survey had conservation

measures in place, whereas the corresponding figure for

rented parcels was only 20 per cent.

Table 4.7 Distribution of farm size in Sungco by adoptioncategory, 2002

Farm size (ha) Adopters Non-adopters Total

No. % No. % No. %

< 1.0 9 14.5 11 26.2 20 19.2

1.0-1.9 6 9.7 12 28.6 18 17.3

2.0-2.9 11 17.7 5 11.9 16 15.4

3.0-3.9 8 12.9 2 4.8 10 9.6

4.0-4.9 7 11.3 1 2.4 8 7.7

5.0-5.9 8 12.9 1 2.4 9 8.7

6.0-6.9 6 9.7 4 9.5 10 9.6

7.0-7.9 3 4.8 1 2.4 4 3.8

8.0-8.9 1 1.6 0 0.0 1 1.0

9.0-9.9 1 1.6 2 4.8 3 2.9

10.0+ 2 3.2 0 0.0 2 1.9

n.a. 0 0.0 3 7.1 3 2.9

Total 62 100.0 42 100.0 104 100.0

Table 4.8 Tenure status of farmers in Sungco by adoptioncategory

Tenure status Adopters Non-adopters Total

No. % No. % No. %

Owner 47 75.8 22 52.4 69 66.4

Non-owner 7 11.3 14 33.3 21 20.2

Mixed 8 12.9 6 14.3 14 13.5

Total 62 100.0 42 100.0 104 100.0

40

Landcare in Bukidnon

Table 4.9 Tenure status of individual parcels in Sungco byadoption category

Tenure status Adopters’ Non-adopters’ All parcelsparcels parcels

No. % No. % No. %

OWNED

– Land title 37 33.9 11 15.7 48 26.8

– Tax declaration 21 19.3 14 20.0 35 19.6

– No document 20 18.4 16 22.9 36 20.1

– CSC* 7 6.4 1 1.4 8 4.5

– Other 7 6.4 1 1.4 8 4.5

– Total owned 92 84.4 43 61.4 135 75.4

RENTED

– Leased 10 9.2 18 25.7 28 15.6

– Share-cropped 2 1.8 4 5.7 6 3.4

– Mortgaged 4 3.7 5 7.1 9 5.0

– No formal agreement 1 0.9 0 0.0 1 0.6

– Total rented 17 15.6 27 38.6 44 24.6

TOTAL 109 100.0 70 100.0 179 100.0

PARCELS/HOUSEHOLD 1.76 - 1.67 - 1.72 -

* Certificate of Stewardship Contract

LOCATION IN THE LANDSCAPEThe individual purok or sitio in Sungco were grouped into

broad geographic zones to reflect their location in the

landscape. Progressing from lower to upper slope, Zone I

encompasses Puroks 2 (Tulugan), 2A, and 7; Zone II

encompasses Puroks 1, 1A, and 3 (Bul-ugan); and Zone III

encompasses Puroks 4 (Mapawa), 5 (Catamanan) and 6

(though Purok 6 was not included in the survey). Table 4.10

and Fig. 4.4 show the numbers of respondents who were

adopters and non-adopters in each of these zones. The

numbers of adopters and non-adopters were relatively equal

in the lower and middle zones, whereas almost all

respondents were adopters in the upper zone.

This may be partly due to farmers in the upper sitio having

steeper land and therefore a more urgent need to adopt

conservation measures. (Another reason may be

remoteness from alternative income-earning opportunities.)

The effect of slope on adoption can be examined using Table

4.11, which shows the distribution of adopters’ and non-

adopters’ parcels by slope class. The allocation of parcels

to slope classes was made by respondents during the survey

with the aid of simple diagrams, using the following

categorisation: gently sloping, moderately sloping, and

steeply sloping. In many cases farmers classified their

parcels as including more than one slope class, reflecting

the often-complex topography.

Table 4.11 shows that non-adopters had a much higher

proportion of flat to gently sloping land (44 per cent) than

adopters (15 per cent). Conversely, adopters had a higher

proportion of parcels that were moderately sloping or that

combined gently and moderately sloping land (72 per cent,

compared to 43 per cent). The two groups had a similar

proportion of parcels that included significant areas of steep

land (14 and 11 per cent, respectively).

Table 4.10 Geographical distribution of respondents byadoption category

Zone Sitio Total no. Adopters Non-adoptersrespondentsin sitio

No. % of total No. % of totalin sitio in sitio

I Purok 2 (Tulugan) 16 8 50.0 8 50.0

Purok 2A 14 9 64.3 5 35.7

Purok 7 3 1 33.3 2 66.7

II Purok 1 23 10 43.5 13 56.5

Purok 1A 9 3 33.3 6 66.7

Purok 3 (Bul-ugan) 14 8 57.1 6 42.9

III Purok 4 (Mapawa) 17 16 94.1 1 5.9

Purok 5 (Catamanan) 8 7 87.5 1 12.5

Purok 6 0 - - - -

Total 104 62 59.6 42 40.4

Figure 4.4 Number of adopters and non-adopters in Sungcoby geographic zone

Figure 4.3 Distribution of farm size in Sungco

41

4A survey of farm households in Barangay SungcoTable 4.11 Slope class of parcels in Sungco by adoptioncategorySlope class Adopters’ Non-adopters’ Totalparcels parcels parcelsNo. % No. % No. %Gentle 16 14.7 31 44.3 47 26.3Gentle/moderate 40 36.7 15 21.4 55 30.7Moderate 38 34.9 15 21.4 53 29.6Moderate/steep 2 1.8 2 2.9 4 2.2

Gentle/moderate/steep 4 3.7 1 1.4 5 2.8

Steep 9 8.3 5 7.1 14 7.8

Not ascertained 0 0.0 1 1.4 1 0.6

Total 109 100.0 70 100.0 179 100.0

Within the adopter category, the incidence of conservation

measures on individual parcels tended to increase with the

slope class of the parcel (Table 4.12 and Fig. 4.5). Eighty

one per cent of parcels on which conservation measures

had been implemented were moderately sloping or included

significant areas of moderately sloping land. Only 12 per

cent of parcels with conservation measures were gently

sloping. The incidence of adoption declined on the steepest

land, perhaps reflecting its lower suitability for cultivation.

Table 4.12 Incidence of conservation measures on adopters’parcels in Sungco by slope class

Slope class Total Parcels with conservation measuresparcels inslope class

No. of % of total in % of totalparcels slope class with consvn.

Gentle 16 9 56.3 12.3

Gentle/moderate 40 25 62.5 34.3

Moderate 38 28 73.7 38.4

Moderate/steep 2 2 100.0 2.7

Gentle/moderate/steep 4 4 100.0 5.5

Steep 9 5 55.6 6.9

Total 109 73 67.0 100.0

Figure 4.5 Percentage of adopters parcels with conservationmeasures, by slope class

On average, parcels were about 1.5 km from the homestead,

reflecting a clustered rather than dispersed settlement

pattern in each sitio. The distance varied in individual cases,

from parcels that were adjacent to the houselot to those

that were 10 km or more distant. There was no significant

difference between adopters and non-adopters in the

distance to their parcels.

AGRICULTURAL LAND USEFarmers in Sungco engaged in a wide range of land uses.

These were enumerated for each parcel, with often several

land uses in a given parcel. Table 4.13 summarises the

parcel-wise incidence of the different land uses, using broad

categories to simplify the analysis (e.g., ‘temperate

vegetables’ includes ten specific vegetable crops).

Respondents averaged 3.3 specific land uses per household

and 1.9 land uses per parcel. Adopters averaged about 50

per cent more land uses per household and per parcel than

non-adopters, presumably reflecting their larger farm and

parcel size.

Overall, the most frequently cited land use was maize (19

per cent), the staple food of the area and an important source

of cash income. As a group, high-value temperate vegetable

crops were almost equally important (17 per cent), including

bell pepper, chinese cabbage, celery, cabbage, sweet peas,

onion, carrots, cauliflower, and broccoli (tobacco was also

included in this category). Other vegetable crops (11 per

cent) included beans, squash, eggplant, sayote, alugbati,

kangkong, and pechay. Local root crops (i.e., taro, sweet

potato, cassava, and lutya) accounted for 10 per cent of

land uses. Tomato (7 per cent) and white potato (6 per cent)

were also important in some locations. Perennial crops

(coffee, bamboo, abaca, banana, pineapple, and fruit trees),

often mixed with field crops, constituted a significant

category of land use (13 per cent), as did plantings of a

range of timber species (15 per cent).

Vegetables and maize constitute the main crops in theLantapan farming system

42

Landcare in Bukidnon

Table 4.13 and Fig. 4.6 show that adopters and non-adopters

differed to some extent in their land-use patterns. Adopters

were more likely to focus on maize and traditional root crops

(a combined incidence of 36 per cent) than non-adopters

(13 per cent). Conversely, non-adopters focused more on

high-value temperate vegetable crops (including tomato,

potato, and the temperate vegetables listed above),

recording a combined incidence of 43 per cent, compared

with 24 per cent for adopters. It may be that contour barriers

are seen as less suitable for these latter crops because of

concerns about impeding drainage and harbouring pests.

The incidence of other land uses was broadly similar

between the two groups, though interestingly non-adopters

had a somewhat higher incidence of timber plantings (19

per cent) than adopters (14 per cent).

Table 4.13 Agricultural land uses in Sungco by adoptioncategory

Land use Adopters Non-adopters Total

Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %

Maize 51 21.4 13 12.6 64 18.8

Tomato 11 4.6 13 12.6 24 7.0

Potato 12 5.0 7 6.8 19 5.6

Other root crops 34 14.3 0 0.0 34 10.0

Temperate vegetables 35 14.7 24 23.3 59 17.3

Other vegetables 24 10.1 13 12.6 37 10.9

Perennial crops 31 13.0 12 11.7 43 12.6

Timber 33 13.9 19 18.5 52 15.3

Other 7 2.9 2 1.9 9 2.6

Total 238 100.0 103 100.0 341 100.0

Land uses/household 3.8 - 2.5 - 3.3 -

Land uses/parcel 2.2 - 1.5 - 1.9 -

Figure 4.6 Agricultural land uses in Sungco by adoptioncategory

HOUSEHOLD INCOMEHousehold cash income was derived from both farm and

non-farm activities. The sources of farm cash income are

shown in Table 4.14, corresponding to the broad categories

of land use described above. Respondents typically listed

more than one source – adopters averaged 2.6 sources and

non-adopters 1.7. For both adopters and non-adopters the

most frequently mentioned category was high-value

temperate vegetables (65 per cent of all respondents).

Maize, traditional vegetables, potatoes, and other root crops

were listed more frequently by adopters than non-adopters,

whereas non-adopters listed tomatoes more frequently than

adopters. Only adopters mentioned perennial crops, timber

or livestock as sources of income, though much less

frequently than the field crops.

When asked to rank these sources of income, nearly two

thirds of adopters and non-adopters ranked maize as the

most important (Table 4.15). Tomatoes and potatoes were

ranked first by 16 per cent and 14 per cent of respondents,

respectively. That other high-value temperate vegetables

were not ranked first by any farmer probably reflects the

large number of individual crops in this broad category.

Total farm receipts averaged P65,000 per annum. The

average for non-adopters (P78,000) was higher than for

adopters (P56,000) but the difference was not significant at

the 5 per cent level. This is reflected in the distribution of

farm receipts, which in both cases was skewed to the right

(Table 4.16). Around a quarter of farmers reported no cash

income from farming. Almost half the adopters and just over

a third of non-adopters reported farm receipts of less than

P40,000. In both cases a smaller group (15 per cent of

adopters and 22 per cent of non-adopters) earned P100,000

or more, ranging up to P800,000.

About a third of households also had a source of off-farm

income (Table 4.17). This was more prevalent among non-

adopters (52 per cent) than adopters (21 per cent). In both

cases the most common source was labouring, particularly

in one of the two banana plantations recently established

in Lantapan. Thirty six per cent of non-adopters earned off-

farm income from labouring, including 21 per cent from

plantation work. Off-farm receipts averaged P22,000 (about

a third of the value for farm receipts), ranging from nil to

P468,000. In light of the higher incidence of off-farm work

among non-adopters, it is not surprising that their average

level of receipts (P27,000) was significantly higher than for

adopters (P10,500). However, the distribution in both cases

was highly skewed to the right (Table 4.18), particularly for

non-adopters, with a small number (10 per cent) earning

P100,000 or more and thus boosting the average figure.

43

4A survey of farm households in Barangay SungcoHousehold receipts from both farm and non-farm sourcesaveraged P87,000 and ranged from zero to P900,000. Again,non-adopters (P117,000) averaged more than adopters(P67,000), mainly due to off-farm earnings – the differencewas significant at the 10 per cent level. Table 4.19 showsthe distribution of household receipts, once again skewedto the right. The mode for both groups was P1,000-19,000,with a secondary mode at P100,000-199,000. However, twothirds of adopters earned less than P40,000 and only 18per cent earned P100,000 or more, whereas only 45 per

cent of non-adopters earned under P40,000 and 36 per cent

earned P100,000 or more.

On average, adopters obtained a higher proportion (77 per

cent) of their total household receipts from farming than

non-adopters (56 per cent). Table 4.20 shows how this

proportion was distributed. Over two thirds of adopters

earned 60 per cent or more of their cash income from

farming, including 57 per cent who earned 100 per cent

from farming. A further 11 per cent of adopters earned no

cash income, meaning they were even more directly

dependent on farming for their livelihood. In contrast, less

than half of non-adopters earned 60 per cent or more of

cash receipts from farming, and only 36 per cent were

entirely dependent on farming for cash income.

Table 4.14 Sources of farm receipts in Sungco by adoptioncategory

Income source Adopters Non-adopters Total(n=62) (n=42) (n=104)

No. % No. % No. %

Maize 42 67.7 14 33.3 56 53.9

Tomato 9 14.5 14 33.3 23 22.1

Potato 18 29.0 8 19.1 26 25.0

Other root crops 16 25.8 2 4.8 18 17.3

Temperate vegetables 42 67.7 26 61.9 68 65.4

Other vegetables 22 35.5 8 19.1 30 28.9

Timber 3 4.8 0 0.0 3 2.9

Perennial crops 5 8.1 0 0.0 5 4.8

Livestock 1 1.6 0 0.0 1 1.0

Other 1 1.6 0 0.0 1 1.0

Mean no. of sources 2.6 - 1.7 - 2.2 -

Table 4.15 First-ranked source of farm receipts in Sungco byadoption category

Income source Adopters Non-adopters Total

No. % No. % No. %

Maize 39 62.9 26 61.9 65 62.5

Tomato 12 19.4 5 11.9 17 16.4

Potato 9 14.5 5 11.9 14 13.5

No response 2 3.2 6 14.3 8 7.7

Total 62 100.0 42 100.0 104 100.0

Table 4.16 Gross farm receipts in Sungco by adoptioncategory

Gross receipts (PHP*103) Adopters Non-adopters Total

No. % No. % No. %

0 13 21.0 12 28.6 25 24.0

1-19 22 35.5 12 28.6 34 32.7

20-39 7 11.3 4 9.5 11 10.6

40-59 3 4.8 2 4.8 5 4.8

60-79 4 6.5 1 2.4 5 4.8

80-99 4 6.5 2 4.8 6 5.8

100-199 4 6.5 5 11.9 9 8.7

200-299 4 6.5 2 4.8 6 5.8

300+ 1 1.6 2 4.8 3 2.9

Total 62 100.0 42 100.0 104 100.0

Table 4.17 First-ranked source of off-farm receipts in Sungcoby adoption category

Source of income Adopters Non-adopters Total

No. % No. % No. %

Labouring

– banana plantation 7 11.3 9 21.4 16 15.4

– other 2 3.2 6 14.3 8 7.7

– total labouring 9 14.5 15 35.7 24 23.1

Government, professional 4 6.5 7 16.7 11 10.6

Small business 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

No off-farm income 49 79.0 20 47.6 69 66.4

Total 62 100.0 42 100.0 104 100.0

Table 4.18 Gross off-farm receipts in Sungco by adoptioncategory

Gross receipts (PHP*103) Adopters Non-adopters Total

No. % No. % No. %

0 42 67.7 18 42.9 60 57.7

1-19 10 16.1 10 23.8 20 19.2

20-39 5 8.1 2 4.8 7 6.7

40-59 1 1.6 4 9.5 5 4.8

60-79 2 3.2 3 7.1 5 4.8

80-99 0 0.0 1 2.4 1 1.0

100-199 2 3.2 2 4.8 4 3.9

200-299 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

300+ 0 0.0 2 4.8 2 1.9

Total 62 100.0 42 100.0 104 100.0

44

Landcare in Bukidnon

Table 4.19 Total household receipts from all sources byadoption category

Gross receipts (PHP*103) Adopters Non-adpopters Total

No. % No. % No. %

0 7 11.3 3 7.1 10 9.6

1-19 22 35.5 12 28.6 34 32.7

20-39 12 19.4 4 9.5 16 15.4

40-59 3 4.8 3 7.1 6 5.8

60-79 1 1.6 2 4.8 3 2.9

80-99 6 9.7 3 7.1 9 8.7

100-199 6 9.7 9 21.4 15 14.4

200-299 2 3.2 2 4.8 4 3.9

300-399 1 1.6 1 2.4 2 1.9

400-499 1 1.6 0 0.0 1 1.0

500-999 1 1.6 3 7.1 4 3.9

Total 62 100.0 42 100.0 104 100.0

Table 4.20 Percentage of total household receipts fromfarming in Sungco by adoption category

% of receipts from Adopters Non-adopters Totalfarming

No. % No. % No. %

0 6 9.7 9 21.4 15 14.4

1-19 2 3.2 4 9.5 6 5.8

20-39 4 6.5 4 9.5 8 7.7

40-59 1 1.6 2 4.8 3 2.9

60-79 4 6.5 1 2.4 5 4.8

80-99 3 4.8 4 9.5 7 6.7

100 35 56.5 15 35.7 50 48.1

No cash income 7 11.3 3 7.1 10 9.6

Total 62 100.0 42 100.0 104 100.0

PERCEPTIONS OF FARMING PROBLEMS AND TRENDSRespondents were asked to identify their three major

farming problems. Many only mentioned one or two

problems, the mean being 1.5 problems per respondent

(Table 4.21).

Lack of capital was the dominant problem, more so among

adopters (58 per cent) than non-adopters (36 per cent). This

presumably refers to an inadequate cash flow to use in

purchasing farm inputs such as fertiliser and pesticides as

well as to invest in farm improvements. The higher average

cash receipts among non-adopters may help to explain the

lower incidence of capital shortage in this group.

Relatedly, the problem of low farm-gate prices and high

marketing costs was prominent (23 per cent of respondents),

along with the associated problems of poor road access (6

per cent) and expensive inputs (5 per cent). Overall, these

economic problems (cash flow, prices, costs) dominated

adopters’ concerns (59 per cent of problems mentioned)

somewhat more than those of non-adopters (47 per cent).

Of the technical, production-related problems identified,

pests and diseases dominated, being mentioned by 39 per

cent of respondents. This presumably reflects the

importance of vegetable cultivation in the barangay.

Interestingly, the problems of soil erosion and soil fertility

were not mentioned frequently by either group (a combined

frequency of 7 per cent).

Respondents were also asked to comment on a number of

trends within their farming operations. In the case of

adopters the reference period was “since adoption”; in the

case of non-adopters, “over the past five years”, roughly

paralleling the period during which adoption had been

occurring among their neighbours. In each case their

responses included: (1) an increasing trend; (2) a decreasing

trend; (3) no change; (4) fluctuating; or (5) no response. An

overall assessment of the direction and strength of change

can be obtained by subtracting the percentage of

respondents in each group reporting a decreasing trend

from the percentage reporting an increasing trend. Fig. 4.7

shows the “net percentage” for each trend.

Figure 4.7 Farming trends in Sungco by adoption category

The strongest trend was in “land condition”, encompassing

the various dimensions of soil quality of importance to

farmers. Both groups reported a declining trend, with non-

adopters recording a net percentage of –45 per cent and

adopters –23 per cent. Maize output was also seen mostly

as declining, both by adopters (–21 per cent) and non-

adopters (–12 per cent). The output of vegetable crops was

seen to fluctuate, with no definite trend. There was an

increasing trend in the area of tree crops established, more

so among adopters (+31 per cent) than non-adopters (+14

per cent). On balance adopters reported an increase in farm

work (+10 per cent) and non-adopters an increase in off-

farm income (+12 per cent), probably reflecting the

45

4A survey of farm households in Barangay SungcoTable 4.22 Perceived trend in land condition and reasonsgiven by adoption categoryTrend and reason Adopters Non-adopters TotalNo. % No. % No. %IMPROVINGContour farming 8 12.9 0 0 8 7.7Contour and organic farming 2 3.2 0 0 2 1.9Use of fertiliser 4 6.5 2 4.8 6 5.8Tree planting 0 0 1 2.4 1 1.0

Sub-total 14 22.6 3 7.1 17 16.4

DECLINING

Acidity, infertility, 13 21.0 13 31.0 26 25.0continuous farming

Sloping lands 12 19.4 6 14.3 18 17.3

Lack of fertiliser 3 4.8 2 4.8 5 4.8

Other 0 0.0 1 2.4 1 1.0

Sub-total 28 45.2 22 52.4 50 48.1

NO CHANGE

Good soil, level land, 4 6.5 4 9.5 8 7.7newly cleared

Contour barriers 4 6.5 0 0.0 4 3.9

Fallowing, use of fertiliser 1 1.6 1 2.4 2 1.9

Tree planting 1 1.6 0 0.0 1 1.0

No reason given 7 11.3 3 7.1 10 9.6

Sub-total 17 27.4 8 19.1 25 24.0

NOT KNOWN 2 3.2 3 7.1 5 4.8

NO RESPONSE 1 1.6 6 14.3 7 6.7

TOTAL 62 100.0 42 100.0 104 100.0

Gigi Boy, Lantapan Landcare facilitator, talks to Lantapanfarmer Pearla Binahon about new crops to improve income

difference in relative importance of on and off-farm activities

between the two groups, as noted above.

The reasons behind the reported farming trends were of

interest. Table 4.22 summarises the reasons for reported

trends in land condition. As might be expected, adopters

who saw their land condition as improving (23 per cent)

mostly attributed this to contour farming, whereas the few

non-adopters with improving land condition (7 per cent)

attributed this mainly to fertiliser use. Those with declining

land condition (48 per cent of the sample) saw this in terms

of declining soil fertility due to continuous cropping (25 per

cent) or cropping on sloping lands (17 per cent), implying

soil erosion as the underlying cause. A number of plausible

reasons were given by the 24 per cent of farmers who saw

no change in land condition, from the inherent qualities of

the soil to the use of contour barriers, fallowing, and fertiliser.

Table 4.21 Farmers’ perceived problems in Sungco byadoption category

Problem Adopters Non-adopters Total(n=62) (n=42) (n=104)

No. % No. % No. %

Lack of capital 36 58.1 15 35.7 51 49.0

Pests & diseases 22 35.5 18 42.9 40 38.5

Low prices, marketing 14 22.6 10 23.8 24 23.1

Climate, natural disasters 8 12.9 7 16.7 15 14.4

Poor road access 5 8.1 1 2.4 6 5.8

No farm animals 5 8.1 1 2.4 6 5.8

Inputs expensive 4 6.5 1 2.4 5 4.8

Soil erosion 1 1.6 3 7.1 4 3.9

Soil fertility 2 3.2 1 2.4 3 2.9

Lack of technology 2 3.2 1 2.4 3 2.9

Post-harvest facilities 1 1.6 0 0.0 1 1.0

Total problems 100 - 58 - 158 -

Mean no. problems 1.6 - 1.4 - 1.5 -

46

Landcare in Bukidnon

ADOPTION OF CONTOUR FARMING PRACTICESAs noted already, 62 of the respondents (60 per cent) had

adopted contour farming measures on at least part of their

farm. Adopters obtained information and knowledge about

the use of contour barriers from a variety of sources (Table

4.23). In 39 per cent of cases their knowledge came from

other farmers, in 24 per cent from ICRAF, and in 21 per cent

from an NGO. Most (65 per cent) appeared to need no

specific advice to implement the practice, and 81 per cent

established the contour barriers with no help from other

farmers or extension staff.

Fig. 4.8 shows the time profile of adoption on a parcel basis.

While some adoption occurred during the 1980s and early

1990s, there was clearly an acceleration in the rate of

adoption from the mid-1990s when ICRAF began its

research and extension activities in the municipality. An

obvious question is whether the adoption curve will

continue to rise or is reaching a plateau. Continued rise

could take the form of those who are currently non-adopters

taking up contour practices and those who are currently

adopters expanding the practices to more of their land.

Figure 4.8 Number of surveyed parcels with contourmeasures by year of implementation

It is often assumed that “non-adopters” are simply

“laggards” in the adoption process who should (and

eventually will) adopt the farming practice in question.

However, in this case many non-adopters had quite cogent

reasons for their reluctance to implement contour farming

measures. Table 4.24 indicates that 55 per cent felt that their

land was gently sloping and/or not seriously eroding, hence

the contour measures may not have been necessary. A

further 19 per cent attributed their lack of adoption to the

fact that they were not the owners of the land they farmed,

confirming the connection between tenure and adoption

identified above. The lack of time to adopt (17 per cent) can

mean a number of things, but is likely to be related to the

role of off-farm work in non-adopters’ livelihood strategies.

Of the 42 non-adopters, 12 (29 per cent) indicated they

planned to adopt contour barriers, most of them giving as

their reason the control of soil erosion; 15 (36 per cent)

indicated they did not plan to adopt, mainly because their

farm was gently sloping and/or they did not observe serious

erosion (17 per cent) or they were not the owner of the

land (14 per cent); and 15 (36 per cent) could not say

whether they would adopt. If these intentions are carried

out, one could expect that the adoption rate in Sungco might

rise from the current 60 per cent to as high as 70 per cent,

but would probably not exceed that level.

It is important also to determine the extent of adoption within

adopters’ farms and the potential for further expansion. The

proportion of adopters’ farms on which contour measures

had been implemented averaged only 37 per cent and

ranged from 5 to 100 per cent; the mode was 20-29 per

cent (Table 4.25). Seventy one per cent of adopters had

less than 50 per cent of their farms under contour measures.

In aggregate terms this meant that the total area with contour

measures was 31 per cent of the total farm area of adopters

and 22 per cent of the total farm area of the entire sample.

The types of conservation barriers employed on adopters’

parcels are indicated in Table 4.26. In 44 per cent of cases

the barrier was simply a natural vegetative strip (NVS). In

another 48 per cent of parcels hedgerows had been

established, using forage species, perennials such as

pineapple or banana, root crops such as taro or cassava, or

fruit and timber species. Often the hedgerows had evolved

from NVS through a process of interplanting or ‘enrichment’.

In a few cases non-living contour barriers were used, such

as trash bunds or stone lines.

On half the parcels with contour barriers maize was the

crop cultivated in the alley (Table 4.27), confirming the

importance of maize in the farming system and the suitability

of contour barriers for this crop. Temperate vegetables such

as cabbage, celery, and bell peppers were also common

NVS enriched with trees

47

4A survey of farm households in Barangay Sungcoalley crops (18 per cent), as were traditional root crops suchas taro and sweet potato (11 per cent). White potato wasless commonly found in association with contour barriers.Adopters cited the obvious benefits of contour barriers,namely that they reduce soil erosion, help maintain soilfertility, and lead to formation of terraces, which permiteasier cultivation (Table 4.28). Aesthetic and social benefitswere also occasionally mentioned. Only three adopters citedproblems with contour barriers – two mentioned rat

infestation and one that they were difficult to establish

without draught animals.

Table 4.23 Adopters’ sources of information, advice andassistance for implementation of contour barriers

Source Information Advice Assistance

No. % No. % No. %

Self 0 0.0 0 0.0 50 80.7

Other farmers 24 38.7 8 12.9 3 4.8

ICRAF (+NGO) 15 24.2 5 8.1 2 3.2

NGO 13 21.0 9 14.5 1 1.6

University 5 8.1 0 0.0 1 1.6

Department of Agriculture 1 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0

No response 4 6.5 40 64.5 5 8.1

Total 62 100.0 62 100.0 62 100.0

Table 4.24 Reasons for non-adoption of contour barriers

Reason No. %

Land is gently sloping; no erosion observed 23 54.8

Not the owner of the plot 8 19.1

No time 7 16.7

Contour ploughing is sufficient 1 2.4

Contour measures not suited to potato cultivation 1 2.4

Land too rocky 1 2.4

Other 1 2.4

Total 42 100.0

Table 4.25 Percentage of adopters’ farms with contourmeasures

Percentage of farm No. of adopters % of adopters

1-9 7 11.3

10-19 11 17.7

20-29 15 24.2

30-39 7 11.3

40-49 4 6.5

50-59 6 9.7

60-69 1 1.6

70-79 3 4.8

80-89 1 1.6

90-99 1 1.6

100 6 9.7

Total 62 100

Table 4.26 Types of contour barriers on adopters’ parcels

Type of contour barrier No. of parcels % of parcels

Natural vegetative strips 33 44.0

Hedgerows

– forage species 12.5 16.7

– root crop(s) 6 8.0

– perennials/fruit trees (+ agricultural crops) 10 13.3

– wild sunflower (+ root crops) 4 5.3

– timber species (+ agricultural crops) 3.5 4.7

Sub-total 36 48.0

Balabag (trash bunds, stone lines, bunds) 6 8.0

Total 75 100.0

Table 4.27 Crops cultivated in alleys between contourbarriers

Crop(s) No. of parcels % of parcels recorded

Maize 35 49.3

Temperate vegetable(s) 13 18.3

Traditional root crop(s) 8 11.3

Potato 4 5.6

Traditional vegetables 4 5.6

Perennials (+ field crops) 2 2.8

Fruit trees 2 2.8

Timber trees (+ field crops) 1 1.4

Other 2 2.8

Total parcels recorded 71 100.0

Table 4.28 Benefits of contour barriers cited by adopters

Benefit Respondents citingbenefit (n=62)

No. %

Prevent soil erosion 51 82.3

Maintain soil fertility 21 33.8

Terrace formation, easier cultivation 10 16.1

Increase production 6 9.7

Healthy plants 3 4.8

Water conservation 3 4.8

Beautification of landscape 3 4.8

Crops planted on contour barrier 2 3.2

Model farm, many visitors 2 3.2

Minimise fertiliser use 1 1.6

48

Landcare in Bukidnon

INVOLVEMENT IN LANDCARE GROUPSAll respondents were asked what they understood

‘Landcare’ to mean. Both adopters and non-adopters saw it

mainly in terms of farming practices or technologies that

would care for or conserve the land (Table 4.29). Only one

respondent mentioned groups of farmers. Almost a third

of non-adopters had no idea or did not respond to this

question.

Twenty-eight of the respondents (27 per cent) were

members of a Landcare group (note that not all respondents

were household heads, hence the discrepancy between this

figure and that in Table 4.1, which refers only to

characteristics of the head). Most of these (86 per cent) were

also adopters. Hence the incidence of Landcare membership

among adopters was 39 per cent and among non-adopters

only 10 per cent.

Table 4.30 gives the reasons proffered by the 73 per cent of

respondents who were not Landcare members for not

joining or forming a group. The reasons given by adopters

and non-adopters were similar. In most cases (43 per cent)

they were too busy or not interested. Another 22 per cent

had no information about a Landcare group or had not been

invited to join. Others had specific reasons such as their

farm being rented, too small or too distant (14 per cent) or

being principally engaged in off-farm work as a labourer or

a store-keeper (7 per cent).

Of the respondents who were not Landcare members, 40

per cent indicated they planned to join a group, 28 per cent

said they did not plan to join, and 29 per cent were

undecided (Table 4.31). Adopters were more likely to

indicate an intention to join (47 per cent) than non-adopters

(32 per cent). If the expressed intentions were acted upon,

the incidence of Landcare membership in the barangay

would double to around 58 per cent.

For the majority of current Landcare members (64 per cent),

the overriding reason for joining was to learn about farming

technologies (Table 4.32). This was even more so for non-

members who indicated they intended to join (87 per cent).

Landcare members reported that their group activities

included a self-assessment workshop (50 per cent),

establishing natural vegetative strips (25 per cent), and

nursery establishment (21 per cent), along with ancillary

activities such as soil analysis and composting (Table 4.33).

The main perceived benefits of Landcare membership were

in line with the reasons for joining, namely to access, learn

about, and share technologies (86 per cent) (Table 4.34).

There were few problems reported (Table 4.35) – mostly to

do with lack of active participation or leadership (29 per

cent).

Table 4.29 Respondents’ perceptions of ‘Landcare’ byadoption category

Perception Adopters Non-adopters Total

No. % No. % No. %

Caring for the land 26 41.9 18 42.9 44 42.3

Conservation technology 28 45.2 10 23.8 38 36.5

Groups of farmers 1 1.6 0 0.0 1 1.0

No idea 1 1.6 1 2.4 2 1.9

No response 6 9.7 13 31.0 19 18.3

Total 62 100.0 42 100.0 104 100.0

Table 4.30 Reasons for not joining a Landcare group, byadoption category

Reason Adopters Non-adopters Total

No. % No. % No. %

Too busy 11 29.0 13 34.2 24 31.6

No information/invitation 7 18.4 10 26.3 17 22.4

Not interested 5 13.2 4 10.5 9 11.8

Land rented/too small 5 13.2 2 5.3 7 7.1

Farm too distant 3 7.9 2 5.3 5 6.6

Spouse a member 4 10.5 1 2.6 5 6.6

Off-farm work 3 7.9 2 5.3 5 6.6

Enough knowledge 1 2.6 0 0.0 1 1.3

Joined SARC 1 2.6 0 0.0 1 1.3

No response 1 2.6 1 2.6 2 2.6

Total 38 100.0 38 100.0 76 100.0

Table 4.31 Intention of non-Landcare-members to join aLandcare group

Intention to join Adopters Non-adopters TotalLandcare group?

No. % No. % No. %

Yes 18 47.4 12 31.6 30 39.5

No 7 18.4 14 36.8 21 27.6

Undecided 12 31.6 10 26.3 22 29.0

No response 1 2.6 2 5.3 3 4.0

Total 38 100.0 38 100.0 76 100.0

Table 4.32 Reasons for joining a Landcare group

Reason Current Intending Totalmembers members

No. % No. % No. %

Learn technology 18 64.3 26 86.7 44 75.9

Like the program 4 14.3 1 3.3 5 8.6

Plant trees 2 7.1 2 6.7 4 6.9

Improve livelihood 1 3.6 1 3.3 2 3.5

Influence the group 2 7.1 0 0.0 2 3.5

Follow others 1 3.6 0 0.0 1 1.7

Total 28 100.0 30 100.0 58 100.0

49

4A survey of farm households in Barangay SungcoTable 4.33 Landcare group activities reported by Landcaremembers

Landcare group activities No. of respondents % of respondents

Self-assessment workshop 14 50.0(+ soil analysis, composting,grafting, CB program?)

Natural vegetative strips 7 25.0(+ nursery, tree planting,seed collection)

Nursery establishment 6 21.4

Sharing knowledge 1 3.6

Total 28 100.0

Table 4.34 Benefits of Landcare group membership perceivedby members

Benefit No. of respondents % of respondents

Technology 10 35.7

Sharing technology 9 32.1

Education and technology 5 17.9

Farming development 1 3.6

Planting trees 1 3.6

Knowledge, friends, conservation 1 3.6

None 1 3.6

Total 28 100.0

Table 4.35 Problems of Landcare group membershipperceived by members

Problem No. of respondents % of respondents

Lack of participation/cooperation 6 21.4/interest

Lack of time/direction/action 2 7.1/management

Lack of budget 1 3.6

Misunderstandings among members 1 3.6

None 18 64.3

Total 28 100.0

Sungco landcare member,Henry Binahon, showingfarmers his nursery during atraining workshop

The Lantapan Landcare Association has been a key feature inthe success of Landcare in Lantapan

Cattle breeding has been one of the new opportunitiespursued by the Lantapan Landcare Association for itsmembers