Performance of Low External Input Technology in Agricultural Development 63one soil and water conservation structure during, or shortly after, the catchment
project; the most common technologies were grass strips or unploughed strips. In
Sri Lanka, the FFS participants made only one-third as many insecticide applica-
tions on their rice compared to other farmers, and there was also evidence that they
tended to be further ahead in several aspects of soil fertility management such as
the adoption of straw incorporation and the rational management of purchased
fertilizers.
Given that the three case studies were focused on projects specifically chosen
because of initial evidence of wide coverage, good management and relevant tech-
nology, it is not too surprising to find that there is still widespread utilization of
LEIT five or more years after project activities were completed. However, the rea-
son for selecting such cases was not merely to document continued technology use
but rather to examine differences in utilization among farmers, the extent to which
the technologies were subject to autonomous adaptation and diffusion, and their
possible contributions to strengthening human and social capital.
Labour
Perhaps the most frequent criticism of LEIT is that it is labour intensive. Labour
is a major constraint in smallholder farming and there are many instances where
farmers show little interest in a technology because of its excessive demands on
labour. The rejection of some types of LEIT because of high labour requirements
is well known; the very limited success of alley cropping in Africa is but one exam-
ple (Carter, 1995). Such cases are sometimes used to characterize LEIT more
broadly, but we need to look more carefully at how labour requirements determine
the acceptability of a technology. There are many examples where farmers are will-
ing to invest additional labour if the payoffs are adequate. In addition, there is
good evidence that the timing of labour demands may be as important as the abso-
lute amount. There are also important questions, particularly relevant to LEIT,
regarding whether the major labour investment is for learning and establishing the
technique, or is required for its repeated performance. Pretty (1995) sees the initial
investments as part of the ‘transition costs’ required to shift from conventional to
more sustainable agriculture. Finally, once farmers gain experience with a new
technique they are often able to manage it more efficiently than when they were
first introduced to it.
Thus the implications of additional labour demands for the acceptability of a
new technology are related to the flexibility available in the farming system, farm-
ers’ incentives to adopt new techniques, and opportunities to learn and adjust. The
experience of the case studies demonstrates that simply characterizing LEIT as labour
intensive overlooks these determinants. For example, the time that FFS farmers in
Sri Lanka spent in learning about pest management in irrigated rice enabled them to
permanently reduce their time and cash investments in insecticide application. This