Staying Alive: Sustainability in Philippine Upland Management Systems
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
STAYING ALIVE: SUSTAINABILITY IN PHILIPPINE UPLAND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HA WAIT IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN AGRONOMY AND SOIL SCIENCE DECEMBER 1998 By Michael P. Robotham Dissertation Committee: Russell Yost, Chairperson Alice Dewey Carl Evensen Joseph O’Reilly Goro Uehara 11 We certify that we have read this dissertation and that, in our opinion, it is satisfactory in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Agronomy and Soil Science. DISSERTATION COMMITTEE Ill ©Copyright 1998 by Michael P. Robotham IV Acknowledgments As is the most often the case, this dissertation could not have been completed without the support and assistance of a number of persons and organizations. First and foremost, I would like to thank my major professor. Dr. Russell Yost, for all of his help and support over the course of my doctoral studies. I would also like to thank the other members of my dissertation committee: Dr. Joe O’Reilly, Dr. Carl Evensen, Dr. Goro Uehara and Dr. Alice Dewey for their support and suggestions that helped me to improve both the research and the final dissertation. Special thanks also goes to Dr. Michael Dove for his insight and assistance as I was conceptualizing and designing the research. The field research in the Philippines that forms the basis of this dissertation could not have been conducted successfully without considerable support from my Filipino colleagues and friends. I want to thank Dr. Percy Sajise, Dr. Gil Saguiguit Jr., Dr. Art Gomez and all the staff of the Environment and Development Program at SEARCA for their professional, personal and logistical support. I owe a debt of gratitude to the residents of the three study communities who were willing to explain their management strategies to me. These descriptions are the foundation of the research. In addition, I want to extend special thanks to: The Secreto family, CENRO Juan dela Cruz, Forester Tani Santos and Mr. Romy Salazar in Imbarasan / Himamara; Mr. Tino Walawala and Mr. Buenaventura Manalo and family in Halang; V and Mr. Odon Oliva, Father Francis Lucas, Ms. Analee Coralde and the staff of ICDAI in Upper Magsaysay. Funding support for the field research was provided by the Philippine- American Educational Foundation through a Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowship, and funding for my doctoral studies at the University of Hawaii was provided by a generous grant from the East-West Center. Last, but certainly not least, I want to thank my wife, Betchie, for her love and support throughout the last eight years; my son, Daniel, for hugs when I needed them most; and my daughter, Amanda, for bringing new joy into our family. VI Abstract Upland areas are an important but increasingly threatened Philippine ecosystem. Land use intensification, caused mainly by increasing population, has negatively impacted both the local and downstream environments. This study was conducted in three upland communities. Study goals were to describe existing systems, assess system sustainability, identify factors affecting management decision making, develop models of decision making, and identify systems that could serve as models for future development efforts. The study employed data collected from residents using informal interviews, observations, and a structured questionnaire, as well as information on agronomic, soil and climatic conditions. Three combinations of the agroecosystem analysis properties: productivity, stability, resilience, maintenance, equitability, autonomy, solidarity, diversity and adaptability, were used to assess system sustainability at the household and community levels. A decision tree framework was used to develop household management decision making models. The sustainability of all three communities was rated low to moderate, and the majority of the twenty example households had moderate sustainability levels. Two households were rated high while three were rated low. Differences in economic and biological productivity and in the magnitude of stress placed on the natural environment were the primary factors that differentiated between the sustainability ratings at both the community and household levels. Both household and community Vll sustainability levels were determined by the dynamic interactions between management activities, soil and rainfall constraints to management activities, and the availability of markets and information. Decision tree models were developed for agricultural land management decisions in the three communities. The most important influences on decision making appeared to be land availability and type, labor availability, and market opportunities. Seven case studies described household management systems based primarily on perennial species and identified land, labor, markets, and an alternative source of livelihood as the primary contributing factors to the adoption of perennial- based systems. Study results indicated that the situation in these upland areas was relatively stable. Most management systems were moderately sustainable. Results from the decision making models indicated that the provision of infrastructure, market opportunities, and tenure security were most likely to facilitate adoption of more environmentally sustainable management strategies based on perennial species. V lll Table of Contents Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................iv Abstract .................................................................................................................................. vi List of Tables ............................................................................................................... xxxvii List of Figures ......................................................................................................................xli Chapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................. 1 Definition of uplands.............................................................................................. 1 The Philippine uplands .......................................................................................... 1 Areal extent and population.........................................................................2 Importance of uplands................................................................................. 2 Conditions in upland areas...........................................................................3 Perceptions of upland management activities ........................................ 5 Upland management intervention efforts...................................................6 Responses to upland problems................................................................................. 9 Local knowledge ..................................................................................... 10 Specific study activities....................................................................................... 12 Organization of the dissertation.......................................................................... 13 Chapter 2: Important Concepts .................................................................................. 15 Introduction........................................................................................................... 15 Sustainability......................................................................................................... 15 IX Working definition of sustainability ..................................................... 16 What do we want to persist? ............................................................................... 17 Systems 17 Hierarchies................................................................................... 18 M o d els.......................................................................................... 19 Human activity systems.............................................................................20 Systems in agriculture ............................................................................... 21 Agriculture as a natural system ................................................... 21 Cropping systems ............................................................22 Farming systems ..................................................... 22 Agriculture as a human activity system ....................................23 The agroecosystem............................................................23 The coupled ecological - social systems .......................24 Household livelihood systems........................................ 24 Summary .....................................................................................................25 How do we identify persistence? .......................................................................26 Context and development of agroecosystem analysis.......................... 27 Sustainable agriculture ................................................................ 27 International agricultural development ......................................29 Human ecology ............................................................................. 31 The agroecosystem analysis (AEA) framework ................................. 32 X AEA properties .........................................................................