systems research - the IDRC Digital Library - International ...

IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH-BASED
TECHNOLOGIES IN THE PHILIPPINES: THE ISABELA EXPERIENCE
R. R. ~onza~a', C. V. C. ~ arba~, N. P. ~ordoncillo~, and N. F. C. an awe era'
The apparent inability of conventionally developed agricultural technology to serve
the needs of resource-poor farmers has led to the popularization of Farming
Systems Research (FSR) as an alternative approach to research and development.
During the last two decades, developing countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin
America have adopted FSR and, most if not all, have institutionalized FSR in their
National Research Systems (NARS). The FSR dornain is wide and varied. Activities
in all phases of FSR are carried out in an interdisciplinary manner. Farmer
participation is a key element. The approach requires a thorough understanding of
the production systems of the farmer and the ways they are conditioned by the
biophysical, socioeconomic, and political environments. The objective is to identify
important farm production problerns and to design appropriate solutions that are
not only technically and economically feasible but also sustainable. As such, FSR
employs various tools, techniques, and methods from the socioeconomic and the
biological sciences.
In spite of this methodological complexity, FSR has been accepted because it
was deemed appropriate to the varied physical and socioeconomic conditions of
farming environments in developing countries. Since then, several FSR approaches
and processes have emerged. It is imperative to assess the impact of technologies
developed through FSR, not only to gauge their effectiveness and real contributions
to small farmers, but also to make methodological improvements and redirect future
efforts.
The question, however, is by what measure should the contributions of FSR
be assessed? In general, the explicit objective of FSR is to increase cropping
intensity and improve cultural practices to achieve liigher output and factor
productivity while increasing family income. It is implicitly assumed that the
improvement of the indicators of household welfare will follow. Ranaweera (1958)
summarized the flow of the contribution of FSR to the different quality of life
indicators (e.g., positive changes in purchasing power, asset accum~llation, quality of
education, health, and household nutrition).
The pathways to tliese quality of life indic~ltors exhibit complex relatio~~ships.
Although it is con~monly mentioned that undernutrition is almost synonymous with
poverty, and that income and purchasing power are key variables that allo\v the
household to purchase food items not produced on the farm and to diversify dietary
'social Sciences Division, International Rice Research Institute, P.O. Box 933,
hdanila, Philippines.
"7nstitute of Human Nutrition and Food, College of Human Ecoloa, University of
the Philippines Los Barios, College, Laguna, Philippines.