1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Book project: Making sense of research for sustainable land management (GLUES) {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1019, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) - Philippines', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1019, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) - Philippines', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1019, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) - Philippines', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Ecological engineering in lowland rice agroecosystems by planting of flower strips in rice fields as habitats for beneficial arthropods which control pests.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

To counteract the negative impact of agricultural intensification, in particular the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, more sustainable management for crop land and surrounding habitats is required. ‘Ecological engineering’, in this case meaning the provision of habitats for beneficial arthropods, has recently gained considerable attention as a method of reducing pesticide input, through stimulating biological pest control by natural enemies.

Purpose of the Technology: The concept of ecological engineering is aimed primarily at the regulation of pest species, through the provision of habitats for their natural enemies. However, other ecosystem services, such as pollination and cultural services, may simultaneously be enhanced by using the same measures. One such measure, which is popular and effective in temperate countries where agro-environmental schemes are implemented, is the planting of flower strips as habitats.
In intensively managed tropical rice production systems, biological pest control, pollination services and landscape aesthetics could also benefit from the establishment of flower strips on the bunds within irrigated fields. The specific aim of the technology featured here is to increase biodiversity in rice fields and provide habitats for beneficial organisms such as predators of rice pests (e.g. spiders) or parasitoids (e.g. hymenopteran parasites), which in turn will help to minimize the use of pesticides. An additional benefit is landscape beautification.

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: The process comprises collecting seeds of flowering plants (e.g. flowering annuals such as Melampodium divaricatum) and planting them in a nursery. After a month or so they can be transplanted into rice fields on bunds, with a strip size of 0.25 x 5 metres, and a distance between strips of 5 metres (to enable access for farm operations such as fertilizer application). Farmers are requested not to spray insecticides when they test this system. The flowering plants should be pruned during the fallow period in the wet season; and they will require watering during the dry season when rice is cropped. The flower strips will need to be replanted after the rice crop is harvested, if an annual species are chosen.

Natural / human environment: While this SLM technology is for an irrigated rice ecosystem in the center of the island of Luzon in the Philippines, it has already been applied in other rice producing areas – for example in Vietnam and, with some adaptations, should be applicable to irrigated lowland rice production systems throughout Southeast Asia.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Comments:

Major cash crop: vegetables
Major food crop: rice

Major land use problems (compiler’s opinion): pest outbreaks; low population of natural enemies; loss of biodiversity and health hazards to farmers. High levels of pesticide use leading to insect resistance. Complete loss of forest leading to degraded watersheds and sedimentation of dams, soil erosion, and temperatures rising as a result of climate change. Intensive agriculture causing degraded soil conditions and compromising the sustainability of productive lands. Intensive agriculture also means increased use of water resources, more chemical inputs and more pest pressure.

Major land use problems (land users’ perception): Pest problems

Type of cropping system and major crops comments: vegetables are planted between rice cropping seasons

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• full irrigation

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• integrated pest and disease management (incl. organic agriculture)

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Main measures: vegetative measures

Specification of other vegetative measures: Annual flower strips

Type of vegetative measures: aligned: -along boundary

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

Main type of degradation addressed: Bp: increase of pests / diseases, loss of predators

Secondary types of degradation addressed: Bs: quality and species composition /diversity decline

Main causes of degradation: deforestation / removal of natural vegetation (incl. forest fires) (Complete deforestation), population pressure (Growing population)

Secondary causes of degradation: crop management (annual, perennial, tree/shrub) (intensive lowland rice production)

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• prevent land degradation
• reduce land degradation

Comments:

Main goals: prevention of land degradation

Secondary goals: mitigation / reduction of land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Flowering plant seed collection	Fallow period
2.	Flowering plant nursery establishment	Fallow period
3.	Transplanting flowering plants	vegetative stage of rice

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Flowering plant/ nursery / transplanting	Person/day	13.0	7.0	91.0
Labour	Trasnportation	-	1.0	41.5	41.5
Equipment	plastic bags / plot	-	1.0	19.0	19.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Compost	kg	250.0	0.12	30.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Fertilizer	kg	4.0	1.0	4.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					185.5
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					185.5

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

NA

Comments:

Duration of establishment phase: 1 month(s)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Flowering plant maintenance, i.e. trimming, removal of volunteer seedlings out of the strips and thinning during cropping season. Watering and replacement in times of long drought fallow period	rice cropping season

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Flowering plant maintenance	Person/day	10.0	4.0	40.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					40.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					40.0

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

NA

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Costs are given for the first year of testing. If flower strips with annual flowering plants will be planted recurrently, then ‘establishment’ costs will be the same each year.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

5.3 Soils

If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

Soil depth: plow layer of paddy soil

5.4 Water availability and quality

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

Land users applying the Technology are mainly common / average land users

Population density: 200-500 persons/km2

Annual population growth: 1% - 2%

10% of the land users are rich and own 30% of the land.
70% of the land users are average wealthy and own 50% of the land.
20% of the land users are poor and own 20% of the land.

Off-farm income specification: Farming

Manual labour: Transplanting, fertilizer application, pesticide application and other maintenance activities

Mechanised: land preparation and harvesting

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	not well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	not well

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• > 50%

If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

70 familes (90 percent of the area)

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 11-50%

Comments:

90% of land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

70 land user families have adopted the Technology with external material support

10% of land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

20 land user families have adopted the Technology without any external material support

There is a moderate trend towards spontaneous adoption of the Technology

Comments on adoption trend: adaptation for now is mainly by the project farmer cooperators and technicians (for demonstration)

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Farmers save money by reducing pesticide use How can they be sustained / enhanced? Present research study results to farmers
Ceasing or reducing pesticide use improves farmers' health How can they be sustained / enhanced? Educate farmers in the harmful effects of pesticide use

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Enhances biodiversity in rice ecosystem How can they be sustained / enhanced? Continue demonstration

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
Additional work for farmers	Incorporate activities in traditional rice growing activities
To achieve maximum impact, neighboring farmers and fields should also reduce the use of pesticides and agro-chemicals	A management plan for the whole area needs to be developed

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Does not solve all problems with pests, i.e. pest outbreaks are still possible	Develop integrated pest management, e.g. use pesticides only in emergencies, and/or develop an insurance system for farmers.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Westphal, C. et al. (2015) Promoting multiple ecosystem services with flower strips and participatory approaches in rice production landscapes

Available from where? Costs?

http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.baae.2015.10.004

Title, author, year, ISBN:

LEGATO website

Available from where? Costs?

http://legato-project.net/