Sustainable Agriculture and Food: Four volume set (Earthscan Reference Collections)

Performance of Low External Input Technology in Agricultural Development 61

Table 2.1

Summary of case studies

Case

Honduras

Kenya

Sri Lanka

Project

NGO projects in central Honduras, beginning in late 1980s, for soil restoration on hillside farms. Each project included 30–35 villages.

National Soil and Water Conservation Programme, 1988–1998, worked in catchments of 2–300 contiguous households. Study done in Nyanza Province.

Sri Lanka Department of Agriculture and FAO supported 610 farmer field schools for IPM nationwide, 1995–2000. Study done in Southern Province.

Technology

In-row tillage, cover crops, physical barriers.

Small terraces, vegetative strips, unploughed strips, retention ditches.

Reduction of insecticide use; straw incorporation, single-nutrient fertilizers.

Participants

Open to all members of village; various levels of participation, from development of farmer leaders to occasional attendance at activities.

Majority of farmers in project villages signed up to participate, had farms surveyed by committee and discussed options.

Participation in farmer field school limited to about 20 farmers per village.

Labour input Majority of in-row tillage and cover crop

adopters say these save labour. Few who abandon technology cite labour input as a reason.

Strips more popular than physical structures, partly because of lower labour requirement. Adoption related to household labour availability.

Reducing insecticide lowers labour and cash investment, with no yield penalty. Straw incorporation requires labour but increases yields.

Technology utilization

Majority of participants continue using some LEIT. Utilization related to access to irrigation, area under cash crops; not related to farm size or slope of field.

Majority of participants establish some structures, but at low density. Greater use in high potential areas and on farms dependent on crop sale.

Those who work as farm labour less likely to participate and rely more heavily on insecticide. Rice is important income source.

Diffusion of technology

Most adopters share information with others. Little spread of technology in project villages; some (largely temporary) uptake in neighbouring villages.

Modest evidence of subsequent diffusion to neighbouring villages, but other projects promoting similar technology.

Little evidence of spread of IPM message to other farmers, despite enthusiasm of participants.

Further group activities

Participants and adopters belong to more groups, but no permanent organizations emerged from project.

Most catchment committees ceased activities after project completion. Various other projects draw on former participants.

Few groups survive after project; continued activity depends on extension or other project support.