j Natural Resources for Sustainable Agriculture in the Philippine Uplands learning to change, changing to learn DINDO M. CAMPILAN STELLINGEN 1. Managing natural resources for sustainable agriculture involves not only learning to change but also changing to learn. 2. There can be as many definitions of "sustainability" as there are islands in the Philippines. 3. Problem situations in natural resource management emerge as a consequence not only of biophysical but also of social "degradation''. 4. "Resources are not, they become." (Zimmerman) 5. Far from being powerless and subjugated, subsistence farmers in the Philippine uplands successfully strategise their way towards pursuing their own agricultural goals. 6. For a foreign student, living in the Netherlands is as difficult as learning to pronounce the Dutch "g" sound. 7. To rethink post-Transfer of Technology (TOT) intervention approaches means to ask: which clients, how participatory and what systems? 8. Contrary to what Westerners claim, Magellan did not discover the Philippines - it was the Philippines which discovered Magellan. 9. "Farmers are much like the lowly sweetpotato, we crawl on the ground to survive but deep underground you will see the fruits of our labour." (Matag-ob farmer) 10. Production and sustainability are the wheels of a bicycle called agriculture. In order to move forward, we need to keep on pedalling while making sure to maintain balance. 11. Doing PhD work is in itself a problem situation that a doctoral candidate seeks to effectively improve by introducing an innovation in the form of a dissertation, and with the support of intervening actors such as the research supervisors. 12. In running for public office in the Philippines, politicians try acting like showbusiness personalities — and showbusiness personalities like politicians. 13. "All things are possible for him who believes." (Mark 9:23) Dindo M. Campilan Learning to change, changing to learn: managing natural resources in the Philippine uplands Wageningen Agricultural University, 7 June 1995 Learning to change, changing to. learn managing natural resources for sustainable agriculture in the Philippine uplands Dindo M. Campilan Promotoren : dr. Niels G. Röling, bijzonder hoogleraar m.b.t. landbouwkennissytemen in ontwikkelingslanden dr. Gelia T. Castillo, emeritus hoogleraar in de rurale sociologie, Universiteit te Filipijnen Los Banos Dindo M. Campilan LEARNING TO CHANGE, CHANGING TO LEARN Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Agriculture in the Philippine Uplands Proerschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor in de landbouw-en milieuwetenschappen op gezag van de rector magnificus, dr. CM. Karssen, in het openbaar te verdedigen op woensdag 7 juni 1995 des namiddags te half twee in de Aula van de Landbouwuniversiteit te Wageningen. CIP-GEGEVENS KONINKLDKE BffiLIOTHEEK, DEN HAAG Campilan, Dindo M. Learning to change, changing to learn: managing natural resources for sustainable agriculture in the Philippine uplands/ Dindo M. Campilan - [S.l. :s.n.]. - Hi. Thesis Wageningen - With ref. - With summary in Dutch. ISBN 90-5485-410-3 Subject headings: agricultural extension; Philippines; rural sociology; sustainable agriculture. BIBUOTHEEK LA VD-KYUvV J Mi VERS:J v; r WAGEMNGEN AUTHOR'S ABSTRACT LEARNING TO CHANGE, CHANGING TO LEARN Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Agriculture in the Philippine Uplands Dindo M. Campilan The study explores problem situations in natural resource management in the Philippine uplands. It examines, through a knowledge systems perspective, the changing nature of development intervention that is required as sustainability becomes an important criterion of agricultural performance. As me empirical case studies show, sustainable agriculture in the uplands not only requires introducing technological solutions to the biophysical degradation of natural resources. Equally necessary is mat the different actors involved are able to seek ways of synergically managing these resources. The findings suggest that sustainability is an emergent property of intentional, sense-making actors who learn to reach, a shared understanding of the problem situation, resolve conflicting perspectives and goals, decide on trade-offs, and agree to work collectively towards desired improvements. A holistic understanding of the complex social processes in managing natural resources is therefore a precondition to develop effective intervention for sustainable agriculture. Client-oriented, participatory and systems-focused approaches have contributed to refocusing agricultural development in the country towards marginalised farming communities in upland areas. However, in order to better respond to emerging sustainability concerns, these post-Transfer of Technology (TOT) approaches will have to be further adapted to the multiple actors, realities and objectives that characterise problem situations ia natural resource management Overall, working towards sustainable agricultural development in the Philippine uplands suggests a rethinking of dominant perspectives ore 1) agriculture, from being the management of production enterprises to that of natural resources; 2) sustainability, from being an objectively determined set of indicators, to being a product of social construction through learning; and, 3) intervention, from being a positivist approach of knowledge generation and transfer, to being a tool for creating platforms for social learning. PREFACE A casual glance at the new acquisitions list of any major library is all that it takes to convince oneself that the sustainability bandwagon seems already filled beyond its carrying capacity. People who profess interest in the subject may thus wonder if the bookshelves still have enough room for one more, such as this one. How then does this book distinguish itself from other previous works which seek to join the sustainability debate? Firstly, it looks at sustainability from a constructivist position. Taken as a social construction, sustainability is viewed not purely in biophysical terms but rather as an emergent property of a human activity system. Secondly, the book takes an interventionist stance. It maintains that intervention continues to play a relevant role, now more than ever, as development takes a sustainability path. What is not clear yet is the exact nature of such role and how prevailing intervention approaches can be made to adapt to this new challenge. Thirdly, the book is empirically grounded by choosing to be location-specific. International media have seemed to already create an image for the Philippines as a country of ecological disasters and natural calamities. The relevance and urgency of undertaking research on sustainability issues in the Philippine uplands therefore cannot be overemphasised. In highlighting the above, I am well aware that this book is not a pioneering work dealing with sustainability in general, nor with the Philippine uplands in particular, nor with intervention or even with knowledge systems. It may, however, be the first time that an attempt is made to wtavc these particular elements into a unified framework to underpin the research upon which this book is founded. By adopting such a framework, the book aims to take a renewed perspective of an otherwise already much-argued subject of discourse. It seeks to expand the mainly technical focus of discourse, and in doing so envisions to provide readers with newer insights, to wit • the centrality of human and social factors in problem situations pertaining to natural resource management; • the critical importance ^nf^resolving multiple realities and intentionalities as the first key step to • improve such problem situations; and, •.' the need to reexamine existing development intervention approaches in light of the different The sumulus tv> do research m this paniculai area,ol inquiry for a PhD disserjation.has comt from a variety of sources, -both personal and external. Having received early academic training' development communication1, it thus comes as no surpnse that communication-related .actívims feature prominently in mj professional life. Yet the enthusiasm that normally. propelled' struggling communication specialists like me in the fn si few >cars of field exposure was slowly taken ove? b\ feelings, of inadequacy. To be put in-charg'e of the communication component of a; development program ex-aciK meant just .that." As I-'later fully realised. 1 was.only one link in a full chain intm-ening-agents, who needed my support in the .same way that I'needed theirs! in oruei to attain/tin. •;: • Coming to Wjgeningcu and working with Niels Rolimjr offered me noi only the opportunity to du PhD work but also the chance to lecoristruct die paradigm guiding my own professional practice through an assimilation of the concepts based on the unique Dutch "experience in agriculture 2And other steff at ine Department of Comnuaücaäon and Innovation Studies. Preface...iü development. The notion of intervention provided me with a vantage point from which to examine the role of communication as part of a mix of elements in the wider development arena. Meanwhile, the Dutch term voorlichtingskunde, for which no English equivalent is said to come close, helped broaden my rather orthodox view of agricultural extension. Finally, my acquaintance with knowledge systems offered me with a mem-framework for undertaking a scientific inquiry on intervention. Incidentally, writing this book took place at an opportune time when such conceptual framework was undergoing