THE LANDCARE PROGRAM IN 3 Landcare program in Lantapan

he Landcare Program in Lantapan grew out of two antagonistic to the initiatives in natural resource separate but related developments in the 1990s. management introduced by the previous mayor. Hence the TFirst was the emergence of the Landcare Program early impetus for the Landcare Program came almost in Claveria, ICRAF’s original research site, as described in entirely from ICRAF. Chapter 1. Second was the selection of Lantapan as the Asian research site for the Sustainable Agriculture and The landcare campaign Natural Resource Management Collaborative Research ICRAF managers were conscious of the need to preserve Support Program (SANREM-CRSP), as described in Chapter as far as possible the farmer-led or “demand-driven” nature 2. ICRAF became a major partner in the SANREM program, of Landcare as it had evolved in Claveria. Hence the establishing its second research site in Landcare Program began with a broad information Sungco in the upper part of the municipality. The emphasis campaign (termed Information, Education and in the SANREM program on participatory, local-level, Communication, or IEC) on environmental3 issues and community-based approaches helped prepare the way for conservation technologies developed from ICRAF’s Landcare. research, especially natural vegetative strips (NVS). This 23 campaign was implemented in all 14 barangay and included DEVELOPMENT OF LANDCARE IN LANTAPAN a Landcare Radio Program that is ongoing. A survey was The beginnings of landcare then conducted to determine the level of farmers’ interest. As a result, seven barangay in the upper part of the The involvement of ICRAF researchers in the first phase of municipality were given priority. Subsequently, major the SANREM program in Lantapan (1994-1998) led them to activities in these barangay included slide shows, cross- identify two essential conditions for sustainable use of the farm visits, and training (Fig. 3.1). The first Landcare group buffer zone in the Mt Kitanglad Range Natural Park: (1) was formed six months after the IEC campaign, in May 1999. community endorsed and supported enforcement of the boundaries of the protected area and (2) intensification of agroforestry in the buffer zone to provide income growth from fixed land resources (Garrity et al., 2001). Hence ICRAF’s technical research centred on smallholder tree production, contour hedgerows, indigenous fallow management, and understanding the ecology of the park and surrounding landscape. This was supported by institutional and policy research related to understanding the issue of ancestral domain and contributing to the development of protected area and watershed management plans (Garrity et al., 2001).

Thus ICRAF and other SANREM researchers were major Figure 3.1 Information and training sessions for Lantapan technical partners of the local government in developing a farmers municipal Natural Resource Management and Development The increasing demand for IEC sessions and training Plan. This gave an opportunity to introduce the Landcare activities at the sitio level necessitated additional staff. concept, which had first emerged at ICRAF’s Claveria site However, the municipal agricultural technicians were over- in 1996. Hence the plan that was completed in 1998 committed with their existing functions. The assimilation incorporated Landcare as a major extension program. A of Landcare into their regular extension activities was memorandum of understanding was drawn up to formalise difficult due to insufficient travel allowances. The loss of the relationship between the local government and agencies political support also undermined their involvement. Only such as ICRAF for the implementation of the plan. a few committed technicians maintained active involvement

By mid-1998, ICRAF had commenced to implement the in the Landcare Program. ICRAF then decided to hire Landcare Program, appointing a full-time facilitator with “volunteers” to facilitate the activities of Landcare groups. funding from the Spanish Agency for International Four young extension graduates from nearby Central Cooperation (AECI). The local government also designated University started as volunteer facilitators on a an agricultural technician as a Landcare facilitator. However, stipend of P2,500 per month. With additional staff, the as mentioned in Chapter 2, local government elections in number of IEC activities and training events doubled. 1998 led to a new administration that was initially Landcare in

Farmers involved in training on the handling and sowing of seeds at a landcare training session 24 Farm walks and cross-visits are an important component of the IEC activities

IEC activities mainly focused on slide shows in the sitio, The formation of a sitio-level Landcare group usually which usually ran for 2-3 hours. The volunteers received followed the first training event. By the third quarter of 1999, requests for slide shows in remote places that were 41 Landcare groups had been formed. These were then inaccessible even by motorcycle. They had to carry a associated at the barangay level and later at the municipal generator to those sitio without electricity. Technical training level. The Lantapan Landcare Association was registered concentrated on NVS establishment, nursery establishment, with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on seed collection and handling, seedling production, soil June 21, 2000, with 840 members, making it the largest analysis, and agroforestry (Fig. 3.2). These were half-day farmer group ever organised in Lantapan. By 2001, 58 or whole-day sessions. They usually began with hands-on Landcare groups had been formed and four existing farmer training in establishing NVS, using different techniques to groups were affiliated with the Landcare Association, identify contour lines, or with training in nursery making 62 groups in all. management. This training was supported by visits to farms Once farmers had gained confidence in NVS, they were where the practices had been adopted. encouraged to plant useful annuals or perennials along the contour strips, a process termed “enrichment planting”. Some farmers tried pineapple, root crops, coffee, banana, and timber trees. However, trees were more commonly planted in small lots or around farm boundaries. Later, interested groups were trained to compute optimal fertiliser application rates using a simple soil-analysis kit.

As interest in fruit tree propagation emerged, a survey on preferred fruit trees was conducted. Farmers tried propagating durian, lanzones, rambutan, and jackfruit. Training sessions on asexual propagation and seed collection were also conducted with interested groups. Consequently, some groups became interested in Figure 3.2 Training events conducted for Lantapan farmers propagating native tree species for communal reforestation Costs incurred for meals and other materials during projects in ravines and riparian areas. This prompted ICRAF meetings, training events, and cross-farm visits were met researchers to try different propagation techniques for by the farmers, while ICRAF paid for the seed required for significantly important native tree species. nursery training and the transportation of trainees during At the same time the Landcare facilitators were finding farm visits. The municipal government initially provided group formation and development more challenging. As plastic bags for bagging seedlings, pineapple suckers, and the number of groups increased so did the range of needs promotional and monitoring noticeboards. Some barangay and interests, placing heavy demands on the team of councils also provided additional nursery materials. However, facilitators. They were primarily engaged in formation of technicians observed that there was not much tangible new groups and supporting them in their early support for Landcare from local government officials. development, hence the main activities were group Landcare program in Lantapan

in the Program. There was little interest in NVS in low-lying areas where sugarcane and rice were the dominant crops and slopes were gentle. However, there was widespread demand for training in nursery establishment for timber and fruit trees and in soil analysis for optimal fertiliser application. There was also interest in new technology such as mushroom culture.

The Landcare Program also moved off-farm. A “Landcare in Schools” Program was initiated, with two private secondary schools experimenting with a customised agroforestry curriculum. Several elementary schools also came to ICRAF to seek assistance in the establishment3 of nurseries and school gardens. This resulted in the formation Slide shows were an important visual means of introducing 25 farmers to landcare concepts of school-based Landcare groups that led to some community development activities. As a way of reaching meetings and planning. However, group needs ranged from out to the urban community, a group of like-minded learning how to implement NVS, for the new groups, to professionals were helped to form the Landcare various livelihood issues for the more advanced groups. Association based in City. Two seminars were Landcare officers identified a major need for training in held, attracting the interest of the professional sector. This organisational management and leadership. Hence a group also raised funds to support the activities of the farmer training session for Landcare leaders in leadership and team- groups. building was implemented in November 1999. From 2000 there were increasing requests from projects Consolidation, diversification and decline sponsored by other agencies for training in the technologies provided by the Landcare Program (Fig. 3.3). These included In 2000, a second Landcare facilitator was hired through the Kitanglad Integrated NGOs (KIN) and the Adventist the ACIAR Landcare project to help meet the growing Development Relief Agency (ADRA). Landcare also became demand in Lantapan and to explore opportunities for a major component of training events and field visits beginning a Landcare Program in other municipalities in organised by the Municipal Agriculture Office. Bukidnon. It was decided that, in Lantapan, facilitation would focus on strengthening the existing groups more than the The Landcare Program was being extended to Manolo formation of new groups. Hence this period saw a decline Fortich, Malaybalay, and – other municipalities in IEC activities, particularly slide shows, and in NVS training in Bukidnon – and this also added to the demand for training (Figs. 3.1 and 3.2). The approach had become more diverse and field visits. Lantapan became a major site for field visits and site-specific. For some groups, it was more effective to and educational trips by students and local government start with a cross-farm visit before any training activity. It officers from within and outside Bukidnon. ICRAF staff were had also become the norm to use the existing sitio and heavily involved in hosting and training these different barangay governance structures to initiate Landcare. groups.

At this stage, some established groups shifted from To address the growing needs for training, facilitators individual farm activities to group-based activities that had developed a more formalised training program covering not been initially planned, including riparian stabilisation, the technical and social aspects of Landcare. They invested river clean-up, collection of forest wildlings, and farmer field considerable time in developing slide shows, picture charts, schools. A second training session on leadership and brochures, and newsletters. In addition, in 2002 there were organisational management was conducted for Landcare moves to shift more of the responsibility for training to leaders, this time with financial support from the municipal leading members of the Landcare Association, beginning government. The Landcare Association was able to gain with a “training the trainers” course in conjunction with the the support of the Federation of Cattle Raisers in the Claveria Landcare Association. By 2003, a farmer training Philippines (FCRAP) for a small cattle-breeding program. group was established with 12 trained farmer-members, Five bulls were distributed to selected Landcare members. each of whom received a facilitation fee when called upon to assist in training visiting groups. Despite the intention to consolidate existing groups, Landcare was expanding to additional barangay at middle However, within Lantapan, after the initial rapid upsurge in and lower elevations as farmers actively sought involvement 1999-2000, the rate of group formation began to decline Landcare in Bukidnon

• 16 cross-farm visits, generally whole-day activities within Lantapan for groups of 15-40 farmers, but including one visit to Claveria and one to Central Mindanao University;

• 8 other events, including meetings, symposia, and orientations for officials.

Most of the slide shows were conducted in 1999, the first full year of the Landcare Program, and most of the cross- farm visits occurred in 2000 (Fig. 3.1). Though the number of slide shows increased again in 2001, the IEC campaign Figure 3.3 Site visits and training events conducted in did not reach the intensity of the 1999-2000 period. Lantapan for external groups Over the same period, around 115 training events were 26 conducted, involving more than 2,000 farmers (Fig. 3.1). and many existing groups became inactive. As noted above, These were generally half-day events involving 5-15 by 2001 there were 62 Landcare groups in Lantapan. participants, though some were one- or two-day events. However, by mid-2002, ICRAF records indicated that 39 of The training was undertaken by the Landcare facilitators these groups (63 per cent) had become inactive, with at with support from other ICRAF staff and, on occasion, other best two or three members still occasionally participating partner agencies such as the Extension Office of Central in activities such as nursery maintenance. A year later the Mindanao University and the Municipal Agriculture Office. records showed that 73 per cent of groups had disbanded, ICRAF usually met the cost of materials for these training 10 per cent remained in existence but were inactive, and sessions (e.g., notebooks, pens, planting materials) while only 17 per cent were still active. farmers and partner agencies usually met the cost of meals. The training events included: PROGRAM RESOURCES AND IMPACTS • 46 sessions on NVS establishment;

Program resources • 44 sessions on nursery establishment;

From 2000 the Landcare team in Lantapan comprised two • 19 sessions on soil analysis. senior facilitators and four volunteer facilitators, all employed by ICRAF with funding from various sources, In addition, there were sessions on various technical topics including AECI and ACIAR. ICRAF researchers provided part- (including asexual propagation, mushroom culture, liquid time technical back-up. The facilitators were university fertiliser, seed collection, and maize breeding) and graduates who required skills, not only in farmer-training managerial topics (including farm planning, leadership and and group facilitation, but in the development of extension capacity building, and training of farmer-trainers). The materials, including photography, desktop publishing, poster emphasis on both NVS and nursery management was high making, and other communication media. In addition, they initially, then declined, as interest in more specialised topics needed to develop and apply a variety of methods for grew (Fig. 3.2). documentation and monitoring, including questionnaires, The costs incurred by ICRAF for the Landcare Program over monitoring boards, databases, maps, photo albums, and a period of three years (2000-2002), based on project funds story collections. Improving the skills of the facilitators so made available at the site level, amounted to P3.65 million, that they could meet the requirements of their challenging or P1.22 million per year. This included budget items for roles was a priority for ICRAF. Additional training was staff salaries, staff and farmer training, and operating costs provided on technical aspects of their work, such as seedling such as transport and extension materials. As mentioned propagation techniques, soil analysis, organic fertiliser above, there was some support from local government as production, and marketing, as well as social and managerial well as other partners, but this is difficult to quantify in aspects, such as group facilitation, process documentation, monetary terms due to the irregularity of the resource flow. and the design and management of training programs. Farmers’ participation in Landcare activities also involved

From 1999 to mid-2002 the Landcare facilitators conducted an opportunity cost, but this is even harder to quantify. In around 86 IEC events, including: any case, it is likely the net cost to farmers was low, as participation in IEC activities, group meetings, cross-farm • 63 slides shows, generally half-day (i.e., evening) visits, and training sessions was often seen as an enjoyable activities for groups of 15-80 farmers; Landcare program in Lantapan social activity as well as a form of investment in the future barriers (hedgerows, NVS) is examined separately from the productivity of the farm. planting of trees on farms (agroforestry) as these are distinct technologies with different requirements for adoption and Hence the P1.22 million annual outlay by ICRAF provides a different impacts on soil conservation and the farming fair indication of the overall costs of the Landcare Program. system. The total budget for the Municipal Agriculture Office in 2001 was P2.37 million. Hence, purely in financial terms, for the (a) Contour barriers. ICRAF has kept a database on the MAO to take on the Landcare Program would require a 50 adoption of vegetative contour barriers in Lantapan (initially per cent increase in its budget. However, as described contour hedgerows, then mainly natural vegetative strips above, part of the Landcare Program was directed to other (NVS)) going back to before 1990 (Fig. 3.4). Some adoption municipalities in Bukidnon and beyond. occurred in the 1980s and early 1990s, with 41 adopters recorded by 1995. From then there was a sharp increase to Impacts on adoption 196 adopters by 1998, just before the Landcare3 Program The Landcare Program had two immediate goals: was launched in Lantapan. This represented an average 27 rate of 52 adopters per year during 1996-8. The increased • to facilitate the adoption of conservation measures, adoption rate was due to the increase in on-farm trials and especially NVS; informal farmer training activities associated with the • to facilitate the formation and development of local SANREM Project. Adopters in this period indicated they Landcare groups. learned the technology from various sources, including ICRAF, the San Herminigildo Agro-Industrial School (SHAIS) Achievement of the second goal was expected to further in Barangay Alanib, the Department of Agriculture’s the achievement of the first, though in practice the two were Integrated Agricultural Research Centre “joint products” of the initial IEC and training effort. This (NOMIARC) near Malaybalay, the Philippine Eagle section examines data on the adoption of conservation Foundation, the Community Organising Participatory Action measures while the following section deals with the and Resource Development (COPARD) project in Lantapan, landcare groups. The adoption of vegetative contour the UPWARD network associated with the International Potato Centre, the radio, and other farmers.

With the major Landcare campaign in 1999, the number of adopters of NVS increased by 100 in that year. This was the largest annual increase recorded. The cumulative figure increased from 196 adopters at the end of 1998 to 404 at the end of 2002, an average rate of 52 per year. Thus the rate of adoption was no higher during the Landcare Program than in the preceding three years, and was largely due to the record adoption in the first year of the Program. The annual adoption rate declined each year thereafter.

NVS strips enriched with trees

Figure 3.4 Annual and cumulative adoption of contour Working in a Lantapan landcare nursery barriers in Lantapan Landcare in Bukidnon

By the end of 2002 the total number of recorded adopters was 404, or about 7 per cent of farm households in Lantapan (though it needs to be remembered that the NVS technology was not relevant to all households, particularly those lower in the landscape). The approximate total area of land protected by contour barriers was 500 ha or about 1.2 ha per adopter. The extent of adoption varied from 5 to 100 per cent of the farm but was generally 50 per cent or less. The area protected in this way was only about 3 per cent of the estimated 17,500 ha of agricultural land in Lantapan. However, both the number of adopters and the areal extent of adoption were greatest among maize and vegetable farmers and in those barangay situated in the more sensitive 28 upper slopes of the catchment, notably Sungco, Kibangay, Victory, Alanib, and Capitan Juan. If the total area of maize and vegetable cultivation (about 8,500 ha) is taken as the Basilio Decano and his wife, Lantapan landcare members, in a grove of timber trees on their farm appropriate denominator, the extent of land protected with contour barriers rises to 6 per cent. If the area identified by ICRAF as “environmentally critical” land (about 5,000 ha) is used, the extent of protected land rises to 10 per cent.

Of the farms with NVS recorded at the end of 2002, 27 per cent had been enriched by planting field crops (taro, sweet potato, pineapple, lemon grass, banana) or forage grasses along the contour strips, while 14 per cent had been planted with trees and shrubs (fruit trees, coffee, timber species, or shrub legumes) (Fig. 3.5). Some of those recorded with shrub legumes had probably been established as hedgerows at the outset rather than NVS.

(b) Trees on farms. The Landcare Program also facilitated the planting of trees on farms (agroforestry), both as a longer-term conservation measure and an alternative source of livelihood. By mid-2002 a total of 64 local landcare nurseries had been established, mostly at the sitio level, Training in nursery techniques for the propagation of fruit and timber trees, including rambutan, durian, lanzones, coffee, and eucalypts. By the end of 2002 a total of 162,000 tree seedlings had been established on farms, some of them along contour strips but mostly in separate lots, scattered plantings, or along farm boundaries. This was up from 9,000 seedlings in 1998. (Many more seeds and seedlings were sold to tother farmers within and beyond Lantapan but there is no record of their use or impact.) There were no data on survival rates of planted seedlings, though observation by facilitators suggests these were reasonably high, around 80 per cent.

Fig. 3.6 shows that the number of farmers adopting tree planting increased sharply with the Landcare Program, from 170 in 1998 to 585 by 2002, or about 11 per cent of the total number of farm households in Lantapan (though, again, A landcare farmer proudly demonstrates his new land not all households were potential adopters). Once again management techniques – NVS, agroforestry and high value there had already been an increase in the rate of adoption crops in the preceding three years (1996-8), mainly as a result of Landcare program in Lantapan

annual crop areas (up to 1 ha) and increasing fruit and timber tree crops on the remaining farm area (Garrity et al. 2001).

Cross-referencing ICRAF’s databases for NVS and agroforestry adoption reveals that, by the end of 2002, there were 862 adopters of one or both conservation measures, or 16 per cent of the total number of farm households in Lantapan. Of these, almost a third had adopted NVS only (though some had enriched their NVS with annual or perennial crops, as discussed above), just over half had adopted agroforestry only, and 15 per cent had adopted both measures (Table 3.1).

Combining the estimated areas under NVS and3 agroforestry (bearing in mind the difficulties of such estimates already 29 Figure 3.5 Enrichment of NVS in Lantapan by mid 2003 (per noted), the total area under conservation measures by 2002 cent of NVS area) was about 1,150 ha (43 per cent under NVS and 57 per ICRAF’s activities under the SANREM program, but the cent under agroforestry). This was 7 per cent of agricultural additional impact of Landcare on tree planting was more land, 14 per cent of maize and vegetable lands, and 23 per marked than on NVS adoption, especially in 1999 and 2000. cent of “environmentally critical” land. The latter percentage This relates to the early interest of farmers and groups in is suggestive of a significant impact on catchment training and support for the establishment of tree nurseries. processes, especially considering that parts of the remaining area were not cropped but under grass or other secondary The areal extent of tree planting is harder to determine, growth, hence also protected to varying degrees. given the varied planting patterns, growth habits, and management practices. Nevertheless, ICRAF data suggest However, the 1,150 ha figure needs to be qualified with the an aggregate area of around 660 ha had been planted with observation that an unknown area established with NVS tree seedlings by the end of 2002 (implying a planting and hedgerows was subsequently abandoned and an density of just under 250 seedlings per ha). This area unknown number of tree seedlings did not survive and were accounted for about 4 per cent of cultivated land in not replaced. Better estimates of the rate of loss of Lantapan, 8 per cent of maize and vegetable lands, and 13 established conservation areas are still needed. per cent of “environmentally critical” land. Table 3.1 Cumulative number of adopters of conservation measures (NVS and agroforestry) in Lantapan by end of 2002 (c) Combined conservation measures. Of course, many farmers adopted both vegetative contour barriers and tree Conservation measure No. of adopters Per cent planting on different parts of their farm. This accords with NVS only 277 32.1 the findings of a mid-1990s farm planning exercise Agroforestry only 458 53.1 conducted by ICRAF in three buffer zone barangay (as NVS and agroforestry 127 14.8 mentioned in Chapter 2), that there was greatest interest Total 862 100.0 among farmers in establishing contour hedgerows on Impacts on group activity As already noted, following the initial Landcare campaign there were 62 Landcare groups in Lantapan, including four affiliated groups. Hence group formation had been rapid. However, by mid-2002, only 23 of these groups (37 per cent) were considered active. By mid-2003 this number had dropped to 12 (20 per cent) and 45 groups (73 per cent) were reported to have disbanded. Nevertheless, many farmers in the inactive and disbanded groups still claimed membership in Landcare by virtue of having implemented conservation technologies on their farms.

ICRAF records indicated there were 763 Landcare members Figure 3.6 Annual and cumulative adoption of tree planting in 2002. Of these, 208 had both established conservation on farms in Lantapan Landcare in Bukidnon

30 Gigi Boy, Lantapan Landcare facilitator, addresses a landcare meeting Leo Zambrano (Lantapan Landcare Association President) and Restie Gamayon prepare timber seeds for sale during a farmer training workshop measures on their farms (contour barriers and/or agroforestry) and were still active in a group, while 551 had organisations outside of the community and the farmers established conservation measures but were not active in and local organisations they’ve influenced is important for a group. That is, the number of active members had declined sustaining local interest and progress” (2001: 6). by around 75 per cent, from 840 in mid-2000 when the However, at the municipal level, Landcare groups fared Landcare Association was registered (assuming all better. The Lantapan Landcare Association was formed in registered members were active at the time), to 208 two June 2000 and by mid-2002 displayed a number of signs of years later. organisational strength. The Association had completed the Two main reasons for the decline in group activity were construction of a Landcare central office at a strategic identified by Landcare facilitators: location by the main road through Lantapan. This involved more than 18 months of voluntary labour. The complex • for most farmers, once they had learned about included a nursery and demonstration farm and was to be conservation practices and implemented them on their used for the propagation of fruit and timber seedlings for farms, the need to meet and function as a group Landcare projects. There was a major election of office- seemed less important; bearers in 2002 in which a number of key positions changed • the growth of agribusiness resulted in a significant hands, indicating the strength of leadership within the decrease in smallholder farming in some barangays, association (though most leaders came from one cluster in with 70 per cent of farmers in Cawayan and 80 per cent the central part of the municipality). A third Landcare in Alanib employed by the plantation companies. President was elected in 2003 following the ill-health of the incumbent. There was a close relationship with the ICRAF- The too-rapid expansion of the Landcare Program may also facilitated Agroforestry Tree Seed Association of Lantapan have been a factor. Following nine months of PhD fieldwork (ATSAL), with key leaders involved in both Landcare and in Lantapan in 2001, Mog observed: “By trying to spread ATSAL. There was also good support from the Kaamulan Landcare through Lantapan too quickly, ICRAF has over- Landcare Association, a group of professionals from stretched its resources (especially extension staff) to the government, NGOs, private business, and academia. This point of undermining the effectiveness and sustainability group had conducted cultural events to raise money for of the movement. As a result of insufficient continued Landcare, sponsored a Landcare display at the Kaamulan support and guidance from ICRAF, a significant number of Festival, and was developing plans for further support Lantapan’s Landcare groups exist almost entirely on paper, activities. are inactive, or are struggling despite local interest in the idea and a promising start” (2001: 5). According to Mog, “many Landcare groups without on-going contact from FACILITATOR PERSPECTIVES OF LANDCARE ICRAF are in the position of wondering what to do next or In the first three years of the Landcare Program, two senior are lacking sufficient knowledge, information, materials/ facilitators and a total of seven volunteer facilitators were capital, or leadership to move forward” (2001: 6). This led hired (at various times) to work with the Landcare groups him to conclude that “a continuing relationship between in Lantapan. Each one completed a confidential, open-ended Landcare program in Lantapan questionnaire about their perspectives of the Landcare each other, sharing expertise, and participating in group Program. This section summarises their responses. action. Facilitators identified the core values of Landcare as volunteerism, partnerships, application of participatory The facilitators included five men and four women whose processes, and sharing of appropriate technologies. ages ranged from 20 to 33. They had college degrees in agricultural extension, education, forestry and biology. The The facilitators saw their necessary skills as good volunteers had no prior field experience or special training communication, sufficient technical and social skills, group in facilitation as they were new graduates. The senior management, rapport and partnership building, and conflict facilitators, however, had at least two years’ experience in management. They felt they had to be resourceful, patient, a related field. people-oriented, honest, and sensitive to group needs. Good public relations, the ability to work with people, and Facilitators normally underwent a week or two of field a good-natured character were all said to be important orientation and hands-on training before embarking on attributes of good facilitators. The credibility of facilitators fieldwork. During their term of employment, professional 3 was also seen as very important, resulting in trust and development was provided through formal and informal 31 confidence building. training, as well as through participation in conferences, meetings, and workshops. As noted above, in-house On a day-to-day basis, facilitators faced the challenge of training covered conservation farming, agroforestry, soil dealing with different types of farmer attitudes, but the analysis, propagation techniques, seedling production, greater challenge was in sustaining a group’s momentum watershed management, production of extension materials, and enhancing genuine participation. In addition, getting process documentation, facilitation, monitoring, and the tangible support from the local government on a sustained design and management of training events. basis had been a major bottleneck. Added challenges were monitoring and documentation, as well as articulation of Each facilitator was initially assigned to at least three the lessons and gains from Landcare, as there were no clear barangay with an average of 10 Landcare groups. However, measures or time-bound results. Nevertheless, facilitators this decreased in succeeding years when a number of identified their own victories in terms of the rapport and groups disbanded after adopting the conservation relationships established with farmers. The increased level technologies. Facilitators’ activities broadened from farmer of environmental awareness and technology adoption, as training and group formation to include group well as the increasing interest of external groups, also gave strengthening, monitoring, data management, them a sense of success. They identified their own need documentation, training needs assessment, improvement for continuous education and training, moral support and of training design and management, and facilitating farm guidance, and a commensurable salary package. visits and training for farmers and development workers from other regions and agencies. The facilitators saw the sustainability of the Landcare groups as depending on good leadership, unity, commitment, All the facilitators saw the relevance of Landcare in resource sharing, cooperation, and a long-term vision. In Lantapan, considering that most farmers were cultivating the facilitators’ view, the groups also required continuous sloping land with limited resources. Hence farmers would support in terms of technical and market information and benefit from “Landcare technologies” to sustain and linkages, education and training, financial support, improve production. They felt that, with increasing incentives, and effective facilitation. Lack of these supporting agricultural investment in the area, the ecological integrity measures would increase the probability of failure. They of the watershed was clearly threatened and the potential felt the risk of failure was exacerbated by political conflicts, for smallholder farmers to expand had become limited. mistrust, over-dependence on external support, Hence there was a need for pragmatic and balanced action individualism and self-interest, and extreme poverty. by the affected communities and the institutions that supported them. Four facilitators found it easy to learn to implement Landcare, while five found it difficult. However, most felt Most of the facilitators saw Landcare as a community that a month-long exposure to the program provided ample development approach that fostered volunteerism and time to understand and internalise the Landcare approach. grassroots empowerment, with simple conservation The difficulty lay in the inherent heterogeneity of the groups technologies as the entry point. They also viewed Landcare and the range of situations and priorities of farmers and as a participatory extension approach that focused on other stakeholders. In addition, circumstances external to beneficial technologies and improving farming systems. the facilitators, such as negative political influences, made One of the nine facilitators expressed the view that Landcare it more difficult to implement the program. They felt that referred to groups of farmers working together, encouraging Landcare in Bukidnon

needed to ensure the on-going usefulness of the program to farmers and other stakeholders.

The facilitators identified key strategies worth considering when scaling-up Landcare. These included information campaigns, farmer-to-farmer knowledge sharing, and the formation of links and networks between individuals and groups. They felt it important to minimise or avoid rapid group formation, high dependence on the supply of material inputs, and too great a focus on technology, in favour of spending time on group development. Facilitation skills, professional development, and information materials A sign proudly declares the landcare credentials of the required continuous improvement to suit the changing Lantapan community and local government 32 needs of farmers. Landcare implementers had to adapt to such diverse local From the facilitators’ point of view, the foremost impacts of situations, requiring sensitive reflection and learning as well Landcare were: as pragmatic planning. Hence, at the outset, goals should • rapid and widespread technology adoption by farmers; be clear but not fixed. The program should allow for • an increased range of technology options; changes, and adapt to and manage those changes. • increased production, profitability, and income; Mog’s (2001) observations support this view: “The successes of Landcare in Lantapan underscore the • increased volunteerism and group work; advantages of externally-driven projects taking an • enhanced group dynamics and decision-making; experimental and flexible approach, with a conscious effort to learn-as-you-go through adaptive management.” In • increased human and social capital;

Mog’s opinion, “the staff facilitating Landcare in Lantapan • the emergence of a conservation ethic among farmers have demonstrated themselves to be very open-minded, and other community members; curious, and willing to take risks for the sake of learning what works. As a result, the movement has been allowed • heightened environmental awareness among farmers to thrive (in some cases) and grow in unpredictable ways and communities. which build upon local interests rather than external agendas” (Mog 2001: 7). LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVES OF LANDCARE Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 key According to the facilitators, institutions that wished to informants from local government in Lantapan to ascertain implement a similar Landcare Program should invest in a their perspectives of Landcare. The informants included thorough planning process. Commitment and sincerity in elected officials (the mayor, vice-mayor, members of the pursuing the public interest with a long-term vision were municipal and barangay legislative councils, and barangay considered fundamental to success. Adequate funding was captains) and staff (the planning officer, the executive also important, especially for an effective information assistant, and agricultural technicians). program. For non-government institutions, it was important that local government support was sought and productive The informants felt that the Landcare Program was highly partnerships established. However, this should not be taken relevant to Lantapan because the technologies it was for granted so that roles and expectations were clarified at promoting were appropriate to the biophysical conditions the start. of the municipality and its goals were consistent with those of local government. At the start of the Landcare Program, The facilitators felt that in order for the Landcare program informants expected it could become a vehicle for delivering to be continually relevant, it should seek to balance the public extension services because it was a community- livelihood and natural resource management objectives of based initiative that was consonant with the local farmers. It was important to have a suite of conservation government’s development programs. Landcare was seen options and strong policy support for their adoption, but to augment the limited human resources of the municipal the conservation emphasis should be complemented with government, particularly for educating farmers with new viable livelihood projects. A continuing information program and relevant technologies. One informant felt that Landcare was also recognised as a key to maintaining the relevance of the program. Productive partnerships and networks were Landcare program in Lantapan could offset the detrimental environmental effects of the of Landcare groups. Most of the elected officials, on the many new development projects in Lantapan. other hand, saw substantial economic benefits for farmers employed in the agribusiness sector. The growth of Both elected officials and staff believed that it was generally agribusiness also provided a major source of local revenue easy to implement the Landcare Program because the and support for government development projects. The concept itself was not entirely new and the technologies elected officials also saw the agribusiness sector as a major were simple, low-cost, and appropriate to local conditions. ally in pursuing conservation goals and promoting a However, it needed strong community support, with farmers conservation ethic in the municipality. effectively facilitated and coordinated. In addition, institutional and policy support were required, directed to The local government was seen to benefit from the Landcare serving the best interests of farmers rather than local Program in a number of ways: politicians. Most of the professional and technical staff found • The program was helping the government to it difficult to implement the program in the midst of political implement the environmental and natural resource3 struggle and changing political leadership. They felt the local management (ENRM) functions that had been devolved 33 government should have a long-term vision for Landcare, to it, despite its limited human resources. The beyond the term of office of a given administration, which government thus gained experience and confidence in reflected commitment to the public good and transcended developing a localised approach to ENRM. political factions. A process-oriented approach such as Landcare required consistent support over a long time to • The program was attracting visitors, tourists, and realise long-term benefits. Hence a “clear and decisive” investors, and increasing local revenues. direction from the mayor was seen as critical to the success • The program helped the local government to identify of the program. To achieve this, Landcare should be priority projects for farmers, helped bridge the “mainstreamed” in the regular extension program of the knowledge gap of local officials on environmental local government. This required matters, and influenced the policy process.

• reprogramming of existing activities to redistribute the • The program helped to develop an attitude of self- current workload of the agricultural technicians; reliance among farmers and thus to minimise their • provision of the necessary funds to implement dependence on the government. Landcare activities and support the fieldwork expenses of the agricultural technicians. SCALING-UP OF LANDCARE IN BUKIDNON

The key informants identified some factors that they saw As mentioned above, one of the ICRAF Landcare facilitators as necessary for the success of Landcare: enhanced local from Lantapan was partly engaged in scaling up Landcare participation and acceptance; sufficient funding to support activities to other municipalities in Bukidnon. The strategy the activities; continuous education and training; was to encourage local governments themselves to take appropriate technologies; effective facilitation; policy on the promotion of Landcare as part of their normal support; farmer incentives; committed partnerships; and programs or in conjunction with other projects, using the livelihood projects. Conversely, factors that had hindered Lantapan Landcare Program as a model and a source of or would hinder the Landcare Program were the lack of training. Major efforts were directed to the Municipality of funding, poor monitoring, changes in political leadership, to the north and the City of Malaybalay to negative political intervention, conflicts, and weaknesses the east (see map on page 13). in the current municipal extension team. In addition, the potential spread of Landcare in Lantapan was constrained Manolo Fortich by factors such as poor group leadership, lack of secure The Landcare Program in the Municipality of Manolo Fortich land tenure, shortsightedness and pursuit of self-interest started in 2000, shortly after the local government’s Natural by local government officials and the farmers themselves, Resource Management and Development Plan (NRMDP) and a growing number of farmers working in the was finalised. As in Lantapan, Landcare was integrated into agribusiness sector. the plan as one of the programs for the promotion of soil and water conservation, agroforestry, and natural resource However, elected officials and local government staff management as a whole. The development of Landcare differed on the latter issue. The staff mostly viewed the thus had the full support of the local government. In addition, growth of agribusiness as limiting the potential for the mayor was already familiar with the Landcare movement sustainable smallholder agriculture by adversely affecting in Australia and his interest had been heightened when he the growth of smallholder farming and the self-help attitude Landcare in Bukidnon

A landcare display at the Kaamulan Festival in Bukidnon Manolo Fortich Mayor, Benjamin Albarece, talks to prospective landcare members in Manolo Fortich 34 attended the Landcare Conference in Melbourne in the same As in Lantapan, an IEC campaign was started with the year. assistance of the Landcare coordinator. Eighteen barangay- level IEC events were organised, with 581 participants. Initial In the absence of any pre-existing project office (such as responses were positive and schedules were developed the ICRAF office in Lantapan) or an office of the Department for training in soil and water conservation and agroforestry. of Environment and Natural Resources, the municipal In some cases training on NVS and nursery establishment government established the Natural Resource Management followed immediately after the IEC to make better use of Council (NRMC) of Manolo Fortich. The Municipal time, considering the distance travelled and the availability Agriculture Office (MAO) was put in charge of coordinating of the participants. In most cases, schedules for subsequent and implementing the Landcare program, with an technical training were set according the community’s agricultural technician designated as the Landcare decision and level of preparedeness. coordinator. An initial orientation was conducted at the municipal level in May 2000 for the mayor, councillors, and The primary emphasis was on training in agroforestry, a number of barangay captains from the 22 barangays. The especially nursery techniques, rather than NVS. This mayor and the barangay leaders then identified two reflected farmers’ interests, given that many had access to facilitators for each barangay to assist in the implementation off-farm employment in the nearby Del Monte plantation of the program. This was done to make Landcare a and other agribusiness ventures. Hence only three grassroots activity, with local people assisting in its barangay-level training events were organised for NVS implementation and development at the barangay level. A establishment and only seven adopters were recorded. In plan of action was developed in which the main facilitator contrast, there were 17 training sessions for nursery in each barangay visited the municipal office three times a establishment with 451 participants, focusing on seedling week to liaise with the Landcare coordinator regarding establishment of fast growing exotic species. As a result, meetings and training activities for the barangays. 18 community nurseries were established. However, management problems occurred as individuals left it to each To strengthen the technical and social capabilities of the other to maintain the nurseries and the seedlings. Hence barangay-level facilitators, an initial training program was many of the seedlings died and seedling production was conducted in mid-2000, shortly after the municipal level low – just under 10,000 seedlings were distributed to around orientation. This provided an orientation to the objectives 150 farmers. Special training sessions on soil analysis and and principles of Landcare as well as training on the grafting were also requested by two barangays. technologies promoted through the Landcare Program and basic group facilitation skills. A second phase of training Formation of Landcare groups occurred after the IEC was conducted later in the year, tackling more complex programs for the barangays. The decision to form groups facilitation skills like communication, leadership, and team came from the participants after learning about the activities building. Other technological options were also introduced. and projects of Landcare groups in Lantapan and Claveria. The final phase was conducted just before the elections in The lists of group members and officers were submitted 2001 and included principles of project planning, either to the Landcare coordinator or the ICRAF facilitator monitoring, and evaluation. during the training sessions on NVS and nursery establishment. There were 7 barangay-level and 11 sitio- level Landcare groups with a total of 261 members. After a Landcare program in Lantapan

The CAO identified 10 pilot barangays in erosion-prone environments for its Upland Resource Development Program, with P500,000 allocated for training and cross- site visits. However, Landcare was not limited to these 10 barangays. Several agricultural technicians indicated their intention to promote Landcare in other barangays as well. Partnerships were also developed with other government agencies, non-government organisations, and people’s organisations, including the Northern Mindanao Integrated Agricultural Research Centre (NOMIARC), the Kitanglad Integrated NGOs (KIN), and indigenous people’s A municipal agricultural officer talks to farmers during a organisations from buffer-zone communities of the Mt cross visit to help scale-up landcare 3 Kitanglad Range Natural Park. 35 IEC and training events were held in the course of 2001. In number of IEC and training activities at the barangay level, addition, about 60 farmers visited Lantapan and about 20 the Landcare facilitators decided to elect an interim representatives from eight indigenous people’s committee for the Manolo Fortich Landcare Association. The organizations visited Claveria. In some barangay around 10- committee met monthly to report on activities and discuss 20 farmers had adopted NVS and there was considerable action plans for each barangay and was intending to register interest in nursery techniques for the propagation of fast- the association. growing exotic tree species. There was also interest in Much of this activity came to a halt following the 2001 local vegetable production, including integrated pest government elections, which saw the incumbent mayor lose management. office to a candidate who had little time for Landcare. As However, there appeared to be little felt need to form the Landcare Program was embedded in the municipal Landcare groups. For example, in Barangay , a long- government, it was highly susceptible to a change of political established barangay in the north east of Malaybalay, the priorities. barangay government supported the Landcare Program under the leadership of the chair of the agriculture Malaybalay committee. In Barangay , located in the buffer zone, The scaling-up of Landcare to Malaybalay City began in existing Talaandig people’s organisations took up the November 2000 with an initial IEC event conducted by the Landcare activities. Hence the impetus for the Landcare ICRAF Landcare facilitator for key personnel in the City Program remained with the CAO and the agricultural Agriculture Office (CAO) and the City Planning and technicians, with support from ICRAF. Development Office (CPDO). This led to support for Landcare from the city government, with the CAO designated as the Other municipalities major partner. Presentations, training events, and visits to Landcare sites Two training events were then conducted for staff of the in Lantapan were organised in 2002 for selected groups of CAO. The first focused on technical and organisational staff and farmers in the municipalities of , aspects of the Landcare Program. Field visits were organised , , and Pangantucan and the City of to Lantapan and Claveria to expose the participants to the Valencia. These activities were often held in conjunction range of activities being undertaken by ICRAF and Landcare with other projects and initiatives, such as the Bukidnon groups at those sites. The second training event was held Watershed Protection and Development Council (BWPDC), in October 2001 and covered more of the technical and the Bukidnon Integrated Area Development Project (BIADP), social issues important to the implementation of the the IFAD-funded Northern Mindanao Community Initiatives Landcare approach in Malaybalay. It resulted in discussions and Resource Management Project (NMCIREMP), and the about the challenges facing the agricultural technicians in Department of Agriculture’s forage improvement program. implementing Landcare. However, they saw Landcare as a No data were available regarding the adoption of NVS or viable tool for achieving sustainable agriculture, especially other practices, and no efforts were made to form Landcare in steeply sloping lands. groups.