ISPC-2

In 2003, the CGIAR Secretariat asked the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA) to initiate a series of impact assessment studies on natural resources management (NRM) research. The main objectives of this SPIA initiative were to obtain better information on the demonstrable impacts of CGIAR investments in NRM research, to identify gaps in data and methodology, and to provide avenues for better NRM impact assessment in the future. The impact brief presented here describes the major results of one of seven center NRM impact assessments emerging from this SPIA initiative: Dalton T.J., Lilja N.K., Johnson N., and Howeler R. Forthcoming. Integrating germplasm, natural resources, and institutional innovations to enhance impact: cassavabased cropping systems research in Asia. In: The Impact of Natural Resource Management Research: Studies from the CGIAR (Zilberman D. and Waibel H., Eds). CAB International: Wallingford, UK.

Science Council Brief Standing Panel on Impact Assessment Number 15

Participation Works: Evidence from Thailand and Vietnam

FAO/17448/A. Odoul

The vast majority of Southeast Asia’s poorest farmers eke out a living on marginal or degraded land. What can be done to help these people break out of the double bind of chronic poverty and dependence on farm fields with low agricultural potential? Cassava (Manihot esculenta) is one answer.

It is a hardy crop, yet easy to grow; it requires few inputs; and it is extreme­ ly versatile, providing food, fodder, and a variety of other products.

Nourishing the Future through Scientific Excellence

Cassava was at the heart of a 10-year quest (1994–2003) to raise living standards while protecting soil health, undertaken in four of the region’s countries by the Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) and national partners. CIAT’s Regional Cassava Office for Asia worked with national researchers in Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, and China on the ­project, which was entitled ‘Improving the sustainability of cassava-based cropping systems in Asia’. The work was funded by the Nippon Foundation.

Although previous research had identified numerous options for ensuring soil health in cassava systems, farmers had not adopted them. The CIAT project aimed to identify and adapt existing technologies using farmer ­participatory research (FPR). In this inclusive approach, farmers would be ­actively involved in identifying, testing, and promoting promising technol­ ogies, thereby ensuring their relevance and adaptation to local conditions.

This, it was hoped, would increase adoption rates.

At the end of the project, researchers found that more farmers had indeed adopted the improved cassava varieties and soil fertility management and conservation practices, leading to sizeable gains in productivity. Crucially, it was found that the participatory learning process had generated yield gains through increased managerial expertise.

Background Vietnam and Thailand posted declining or stagnating cassava yields in the period 1970–1999, but the pace of development has since picked up.

C o n s u l tative Group on International Agricultural R esea rch

Between 2000 and 2004, Vietnam reported average annual yield gains of just over 11 per cent, while Thailand achieved 2.8 per cent.

Cassava presents a conundrum in that its strength is also its weakness. Because it is a hardy crop that copes well with poor soils and unreliable rainfall, it is often planted on steep slopes where no other food crop can survive. Such slopes are usually eroded and stripped of nutrients by the crops that preceded ­cassava. Widely spaced when first sown and a slow grower in its early stages, cassava cannot – at first – adequately stem soil erosion. As a result, this resilient crop is often unfairly coupled with legitimate environ­ mental concerns over soil fragility.

CIAT is custodian of the world’s largest collection of cassava germplasm. Since 1983, the Center has worked with national partners on selective breeding for local adaptation. The result: improved varieties with higher yields and higher starch contents.

In Asia alone, 38 cassava varieties developed with genetic material from CIAT have been released. These varieties now account for more than 1.5 million hect­ ares, or 43 per cent of the region’s total area under ­cassava. In addition to breeding, CIAT is also involved in a collaborative research program on cassava nutri­ ent requirements and soil management.

Why were farmers not adopting?

The CIAT project did not seek to reinvent the wheel; instead, the researchers drew on existing natural resources management (NRM) principles and tech­ nologies which nevertheless had not been widely adopted by farmers. The project investigated these principles and technologies through applied and adap­ tive research in close collaboration with farmers. It also complemented NRM technologies with improved cassava ­varieties.

Why had farmers not adopted NRM technologies ear­ lier? It may be that they were unaware of the extent of soil loss or nutrient depletion, or they may have lacked resources for effective soil management. Most soil conservation and fertility technologies are ‘preven­ tive innovations’ that promote good practices today in order to secure productivity gains tomorrow. In addition, these technologies may be complex, highly site-specific, and costly to implement. All this makes

them unattractive to farmers. Indeed, farmers may be unwilling to adopt soil ­conservation technologies at all if the benefits accrue primarily outside the farm boundaries.

Another reason for low adoption rates may have been that the technologies were developed by a centralized research and extension system with little or no enduser involvement. Farmers may not have believed that such conventional ‘pipeline’ products could be practi­ cal or appropriate.

Participatory approach The project covered three kinds of technology: soil conservation methods such as contour strips and hedgerows; management practices such as intercrop­ ping and the use of manure and mineral fertilizer; and gene-based technology, namely improved cassava varieties.

This was a two-phase project, 1994–1998 and 1999– 2003. In both phases, farmers were directly involved in the development of site-specific, ‘best-bet’ practic­ es. The first phase concentrated on developing and testing both technologies and FPR as a methodology, while in the second phase FPR was implemented in many more sites, complemented by farmer participa­ tory extension, in order to disseminate the farmerselected practices as widely as possible.

The FPR methodology included selection of suitable villages, discussions and planning with officials at ­different levels, and a rapid rural appraisal with farm­ ers. The purpose of the appraisal was to gather basic information and assess farmers' interest in the project.

Farmers from the selected villages visited demonstration plots or another village where farmers had adopted recommended practices. At the demonstration plots, farmers evaluated and scored all the varietal trials and soil fertility management options, then selected some for FPR trials on their own fields (see Table 1).

The impact study was conducted in 2003 in Vietnam and Thailand only. Eight villages were selected in each country – four project and four control villages with similar natural resource and socioeconomic conditions.

In the project villages, CIAT and national partners used the FPR approach. In the control villages, the national extension services promoted technology and advised

Table 1.

Technological components selected for FPR trials: 1994–1998 Technology

Thailand

Vietnam

Cassava varieties

Kasetsart 50 Rayong 5 Rayong 90

KM60 KM94 KM95-3 SM1717-12

Fertilizer practices

15-15-15 156 kg/ha

FYM 10 t/ha (TP)+ 80N+40P2O5+ 80K2O

Monoculture (TP) C + pumpkin C + mungbean

Monoculture (TP) C + taro (TP) C + groundnut

Sugarcane barrier Vetiver barrier

Tephrosia barrier Vetiver barrier Pineapple barrier

Intercropping

Soil conservation

TP = traditional practice; FYM = farmyard manure; C = cassava.

Source: Howeler (2004)2

farmers using their usual methods, thereby providing a counterfactual for the FPR component – an indica­ tion of what would have transpired without it.

The knowledge effect Rapid change was occurring in Southeast Asia at the time of the project. Vietnam had liberalized its econo­ my and the region’s livestock feed market was devel­ oping fast. Cassava was the best feedstuff available in the region and the stage was set for rapid expansion in production. Thus, even in areas where the project did not operate, the adoption rate was high for improved varieties and fertilizer. It was, however, ­virtually nonexistent for soil conservation practices, producing a long-run hazard to the resource base and to cassava cropping itself.

In project areas, the picture was quite different. Not only did farmers adopt new varieties and fertilizers but they also managed their soils better, using hedgerows and contour ridging to combat erosion and combining inorganic fertilizers with farmyard manure to boost fertility. In short, sustainable intensification took place – without increasing the area cultivated, as was occur­ ring elsewhere.

The differences in adoption rates between participants and non-participants were more pronounced in con­ servation practices than in improved varieties and ­fertilizer, since non-project villages had access to ­varieties through traditional channels.

What was most striking was that the most important yield impact was not tied to any one technology but rather to better management of all the farm resources employed in cassava production, something that economists refer to as ‘disembodied’ technical change. This disembodied or management effect is associated with the improved knowledge of farmers that resulted from the participatory research process.

Farmers in both countries experienced large yield increases during the project, on average 68 per cent in Thailand and 80 per cent in Vietnam. Although cas­ sava yields were higher in Thailand than in Vietnam, the difference declined from 17 per cent to 9 per cent during the project period.

Impact analysis showed that improved cassava and NRM technologies, together with improved knowl­ edge on the part of farmers, significantly affected behavioral and productivity variables. The following outcomes were noted: n Adoption of improved cassava varieties alone in­creas­ ed cassava yields and area. Yields also increased markedly in response to NRM technologies n Adoption of contour ridging led to no area expan­ sion for either cassava or total farmland. In some cases it even led to reduced cropping area n Soil conservation technologies led to more intensive and sustainable production on existing land, not to increased area cultivated n According to modeling results, female household heads tended to expand farmland area more than male household heads n Adoption of hedgerows positively affected cassava yields n Participation in the project generated a disem­ bodied yield effect that exceeded the combined ­technology effect n There were significant positive spillover effects from participants to non-participants in project villages n Percentage yield gains were larger in Vietnam than in Thailand.

Given these results, researchers concluded that farmers who participated in the project gained knowledge that

The project’s internal rate of return (IRR) was calculat­ ed at just over 41 per cent. This seems a safe bet con­ sidering that the most conservative scenarios analyzed still yielded an IRR of 20 per cent. Since the IRR does not include the environmental benefits attributable to the project from reduced soil degradation, it is proba­ bly an underestimate.

Reflections and lessons An increasing proportion of research and development (R&D) resources is being allocated to participatory methods. However, it appears that the choice is often driven more by personal experience and conviction than by solid evidence of a contribution to impact.

This study contributes to a growing effort to docu­ ment and measure the impact of participatory meth­ ods in NRM research. It is unique in that it provides a methodology that can separate technology effects from the knowledge effects ascribed to FPR. In so doing it has demonstrated that FPR does indeed have the potential to enhance farmers’ adoption of crop­ ping systems and NRM technologies.

The project also demonstrated the complementarity of NRM and crop genetic improvement (CGI) research.

The sum of the two components together was greater than that of their parts.

The project did have a number of weaknesses.

Unfortunately, no data on farmers’ knowledge levels were collected. For example, knowledge tests for ­participants and non-participants were not conducted before and after project implementation. Nor was a baseline survey conducted. This would have helped to develop a better understanding of the mechanisms through which FPR can change behavior and increase productivity. Finally, calculation of the IRR was limited

Science Council Secretariat A Unit of the CGIAR System Office c/o FAO Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy www.sciencecouncil.cgiar.org t: 39 06 57056696 f: 39 06 57053298 e: sc-secretariat@fao.org

to a financial analysis. A valuation of expected envi­ ronmental benefits would have strengthened the case for FPR still further.

These weaknesses could have been avoided with ­better planning. In this respect the project demon­ strates the need to plan for ex post impact assessment at an early stage, before the testing of innovations begins.

Unanswered questions The study leaves open the question of how, and even whether, to try to scale up the FPR approach. Since the R&D investment to date has been relatively small and the yield effects large, impact assessment has shown a good rate of return. But does this justify rec­ ommending that extension services in Thailand and Vietnam adopt the FPR approach on a broad scale?

Before that decision can be taken, more needs to be known about the quality of the FPR methodology should CIAT involvement come to an end. However, evidence from a ­different study implies that the CIAT project strengthened the FPR capacity of the national research system.2 Beyond this question lies the broader one of what would happen if large increases in cassava production were to drive down prices. This might induce farmers to give up technologies that benefit the natural resource base in the longer term in the scramble for short-term profits and market share.

Notes 1 Dalton T., Lilja N., Johnson N., and Howeler R. 2005. Impact of participatory natural resource management research in cassava-based cropping systems in Vietnam and Thailand. Working Document No. 23. CGIAR Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Program (PRGA), Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical: Cali, Colombia. 27pp.

2 Howeler, R. 2004. End-of-the-Project Report: Improving the sustainability of cassava-based cropping systems in Asia. A report submitted to the Nippon Foundation. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical: Cali, Colombia.

Further reading: Howeler, R.H. 1987. Soil conservation practices in cassava-based cropping systems, pp. 490–517 In: Proceedings of an International Conference on Steepland Agriculture in the Humid Tropics. 17–21 August 1987. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

(Tay T.H., Mokhtaruddin A.M., and Zahari A.B., Eds). MARDI: Serdang, Malaysia.

October 2006

Prepared by Green Ink Ltd (www.greenink.co.uk)

made them better farm managers. Spillover to other farmers in the participating villages indicated that spontaneous technology diffusion was taking place, also driven in part by improved farmer knowledge.