Farmer sharing the technology with his fellow farmers.

LANDCARE - Claveria Landcare Association (CLCA) (Philippines)

Description

Associations that help diffuse, at low cost, soil and water conservation technologies among upland farmers to generate income while conserving natural resources.

In parts of the Philippines, farmers who are interested in learning and sharing knowledge about sustainable land management and new SWC measures organise themselves into the so-called 'Landcare' associations. These self-help groups are a vehicle for knowledge exchange, training and dissemination of SWC technologies. A main objective is the empowerment of farmers' groups in their efforts to improve their livelihoods as well as the environment. Landcare has three components and aims at strengthening collaboration between those: (1) grassroot farmers' organisations (Landcare organisations); (2) technical facilitators, for example the World Agroforestry Centre (formerly the International Centre for Research in Agroforestry: ICRAF) and government and academic agencies and (3) Local Government Units (LGUs). The Landcare associations are structured as municipal groups, village groups (barangay level or affiliate peoples' organisations), and village sub-groups (sitio or purok level). This ensures effective dissemination of technologies from the municipal level down to the smallest village. To give the associations a legal status, they are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Landcare associations conduct regular monthly meetings to promote exchange of information, ideas, and experience, thus promoting spread of SWC technologies. Extension service is carried out through the Local Government Units, which allocate 20% of their development funds for Landcare related activities such as meetings, training and visits, and nursery establishment. Farmers organised in Landcare groups have better access to technical and financial support for SWC activities from LGUs and other technical facilitators.

LGUs also enact local laws to encourage adoption of SWC technologies, such as giving tax incentives, and Landcare members are given priority access to programmes and financial assistance. Landcare acts as a guarantor against loans. The facilitating agencies provide technical assistance, and also help create an environment of dynamism among Landcare groups. A link is created between Landcare associations and these service providers. Landcare enhances sharing of labour, builds camaraderie, and encourages group decisions on matters relating to SWC. The approach is spreading rapidly: from the original one association with 25 members in 1996, this increased to 45 groups with over 4,000 members by 1999.

Location

Location: Misamis Oriental, Philippines

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 124.66268, 8.47065

Initiation date: 1996

Year of termination: n.a.

Type of Approach
-
-

Approach aims and enabling environment

Main aims / objectives of the approach
- organise farmers with common concerns, problems, needs and aspirations into self help groups.
- establish farmers' groups as conduits for financial and other support for SWC technologies.
- empower farmers' groups in their efforts to improve their livelihoods as well as the environment.
- strengthen working linkages between farmers and the LGU, NGOs and technical facilitators.
- promote sharing of new technologies, information, ideas and experiences about sustainable agriculture and natural resources management among Landcare groups and members.
- facilitate collective efforts in activities - which cannot be carried out at household level (eg communal nurseries).
- assist in the marketing of agroforestry-derived products of the members, and to develop links to studies on agroforestry based farming
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Social/ cultural/ religious norms and values: Members of Landcare are recommended to lending institutions for production loans.
  • Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): Speed up the land reclassification and land registration program of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
  • Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: farmers training and cross visits to nearby farmers.
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach

Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
What stakeholders / implementing bodies were involved in the Approach? Specify stakeholders Describe roles of stakeholders
local land users/ local communities land user driven (bottom-up). Spontaneous adoption with technical assistance from donors Working land users were mainly men (Men do the main job in the field. Women do home-related agricultural activities e.g. corn shelling. Men do the heavier works (plowing, harrowing). Women in light
SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers ICRAF facilitated the organisation of farmers. Specialists established the linkage between Landcare and LGUs/NGOs. technical assistance from donors
local government Local government units (LGU's)
national government (planners, decision-makers) Department of Agriculture
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
x
public meetings, rapid/participatory rural appraisal, workshops/ seminars
planning
x
public meetings, rapid/participatory rural appraisal, workshops/ seminars
implementation
x
organisation of major and minor activities: coordination of casual labour
monitoring/ evaluation
x
measurements/observations, public meetings, interviews/ questionnaires
research
x
on-farm research supported by LGU, academics, ICRAF
Flow chart

The diagram demonstrates the collaboration, complementarity, interdependence and synergism between the actors.
Explanations: ->Support (technical, financial, policy) --->Demands, requests, feedback IC

Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology

Decisions were taken by

  • land users alone (self-initiative)
  • mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists
  • all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach
  • mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
  • SLM specialists alone
  • politicians/ leaders

Decisions were made based on

  • evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
  • research findings
  • personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

The following activities or services have been part of the approach
Capacity building/ training
Training was provided to the following stakeholders
  • land users
  • field staff/ advisers
Form of training
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
  • courses
Subjects covered

Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
Institution strengthening
Institutions have been strengthened / established
  • no
  • yes, a little
  • yes, moderately
  • yes, greatly
at the following level
  • local
  • regional
  • national
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.
Type of support
  • financial
  • capacity building/ training
  • equipment
Further details
Monitoring and evaluation
Research
Research treated the following topics
  • sociology
  • economics / marketing
  • ecology
  • technology

Financing and external material support

Annual budget in USD for the SLM component
  • < 2,000
  • 2,000-10,000
  • 10,000-100,000
  • 100,000-1,000,000
  • > 1,000,000
Precise annual budget: n.a.
The following services or incentives have been provided to land users
  • Financial/ material support provided to land users
  • Subsidies for specific inputs
  • Credit
  • Other incentives or instruments
partly financed
fully financed
agricultural: seeds

x
agricultural: seeds: fertilizers

x
seedlings

tree & coffee seedlings

x

Labour by land users was

Impact analysis and concluding statements

Impacts of the Approach
No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?

The approach has greatly helped land users in the implementation of soil and water management technologies. Farmers now adopt 'natural vegetative strips' (NVS). Large farms (> 3 ha) have generally evolved into commercial production of tree crops (coffee) and trees (timber).

x
Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?

Land tenure is still an important factor in adoption of SWC technology. Providing simple technology in establishment and maintenance enhance adoption. Landcare groups exist where tenants are members. They adopt SWC technology.

x
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?

Many other NGOs, local government units (LGUs) and line agencies have adopted - and further adapted - the Landcare approach in their respective areas. The approach has been proven effective and it is now being looked upon as a model for the implementation of SWC and other related activities, particularly in Mindanao.

x
Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

Landcare has become an integral part of civil organisation. Landcare is a triangulation of grassroot organizations (farmers), local government units (LGU's), and technical failitators. The financial resource required for this approach are imbedded in the regular budget of municipal or barangay. The LGU's (politicians consider Landcare groups as political machinery and voting blocks. If they

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • Makes farm workers easier
  • Promotes social integration and addresses other social issues which are beyond individual household capacity to solve (burials, weddings, etc)
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Promotes rapid adoption of SWC technologies. Provides easy and fast access/implementation of SWC technologies
  • Encourages farmers to gain access to services and financial support from LGU, technical facilitators and service providers
  • Provides a vehicle for participatory research and technical interventions and ensures that newly-developed technologies are appropriate
  • Makes extension activities cost effective
  • Ensures sustainability of actions
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • Individual problems not easily addressed, as few members are frank and open Encourare everybody to share their problems and concerns
  • Participation entails time to be away from farm work Meetings and discussions should be scheduled during evenings or holidays.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • Over reliance on ICRAF on technical innovation Encourage farmers to conduct farmer level experimentation.
  • Lack of leadership and organisation skills of some Landcare leaders, who are unable to guide groups into cohesive, dynamic organisation. It takes time to get consensus and to make them work together Landcare group leaders need to be better trained in leadership skills group facilitation and participation
  • Some farmers join Landcare expecting handouts or grants Project objectives and strategies should be explicitly explained to farmers
  • Over-emphasis of political patronage by some LGUs alienates people of different orientation/background Encourage a more transparent government at LGU particularly at barangay level

References

Compiler
  • Romeo Villamin Labios
Editors
  • Deborah Niggli
Reviewer
  • Deborah Niggli
Date of documentation: March 13, 2017
Last update: March 14, 2017
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Key references
  • Campbell, Andrew. 1994. Landcare: Communities shaping the land and the future. Allen and Unvin, St. Leonard, New South Wales, Australia: ICRAF-Philippines. College of Forestry, UPLB, College, Laguna, Philippines
  • Garrity, Dennis and Agustin Mercado, Jr. The Landcare Approach: a Two-Based Method to Rapidly Disseminate Agroforesttry Practices in Upland Watersheds: ICRAF-Philippines. College of Forestry, UPLB, College, Laguna, Philippines
  • Mercado Jr A, Patindol M and Garrity DP (2001) The Landcare experience in the Philippines: technical and institutional innovations for conservation farming. Development in Practice, Vol. 11, No. 4:
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International