systems research - the IDRC Digital Library - International ...
systems research - the IDRC Digital Library - International ... systems research - the IDRC Digital Library - International ...
IMPACT ASSESSXIENT OF FARhIIKG SYSTEhlS RESEARCH AND DEF-ELOPRIENT AT THE FARM LEVEL: THE CASE OF KABSAKA TECHNOLOGY IN ILOILO, PHILIPPINES V. T. ~illanciol, C. H. ~analol, hl. L. V. I. ~ebulanan', A. sotornill, and N. F. C. s an awe era^ One of the most successful farming systems projects in the Philippines has been the KABSAKA project in Iloilo. The KABSAKA technology introduced the two three crops option from the traditional single crop practice that framers were involved in. This study attempted to quantify some of the benefits derived by the farring communities which adopted the technology. The study concludes that there are no strict adopters; farmers use only specific components of the technology particularly the ones beneficial to them. Also, while the income of adopter farmers is higher than the nonadopters, still the incomes are inadequate to sustain the development in the countryside. KABSAU is the acronym for Kabusugan sa Kaumahan, an llonggo phrase meaning bortnty irz tlze fanlz. The KABSAKA project was initially a rice-based crop diversification strategy in the lowland rainfed areas that served as a basis for the development of a cropping systems research methodology. Although the KABSAKA project may not have initially used the basic elements of farming systems research (FSR), most of the FSR components were tested within the project at different stages of its development. The KABSAKA project had a farming systems perspective and included adaptive trials and pilot-production programs implemented in 1974-85 in the rainfed lowland areas of Iloilo. Two or more crops could be grown because of the introduction of various components of the KABSAKA technology (which includes ezrly land preparation; use of early maturing varieties; direct seeding of the first rice crop; use of fertilizer, insecticide and herbicide; short turnaround period; and planting of upland crops, particularly legumes, in the drier areas where it is not possible to grow a second crop of rice). During the last 10 yr, several studies measured the impact of KABSAKA technoloa in Iloilo (Price 1982, Barlow et a1 1983, Wangwacharachul 1983). These studies indicated that the KABSAKA technology had increased cropping intensity, input usage, annual rice production, and farm income. a arm in^ System and Soil Resources Institute, College of Agriculture, University of the Philippines Los Bafios, Laguna, Philippines. 2~ocial Sclences Division, International Rice Research Institute, P.O. Box 933, Manila, Philippines.
Wangwacharachul (1984) examined the macro effects of the KABSAKA technology and concluded that the income structure h:id changed over a period of 5 yr in favor of nonagricultural households in partially and fully irrigated areas. It had also improved the overall income of the rural sector. Barlow et a1 (1983) concluded that the economic impact of the new technologies depended on the resource level of the farmers. Under rainfed conditions where cash is scarce, low input levels are generally employed. Price (1982) discovered that the :idoption of KABSAKA technoloo reduced input use in relation to the recommendetl rate. The objective ot'tl~is study was to quantify the direct :ind indirect benefits of the KABSAKA technology to farmers. The first part of the study was conducted in 1957-88; the second part continued until 199 1. 'The first phase of the study focused on the degree of adoption of the ne\v technology, the impact of the new technology on overall production and income, the nonqi~antifiat)lc benefits (e.g., education and nutrition) that co!llti be attributed to rhe technology, and the role of support institutions in popul:irizjng tlie technology. The second phase of the study (1989-91) focused on finding several ways to classify adopters of the new technolop according to the level of adoption and, consequently, to determine the impact of the technology on farm household income and expenditures. The with and ~ifllolit approach was al~plied. 'l'he frarnev~ork proposed by Ranaweera (1988) was used to measure the impact of the adopted technology. This was based on the premise that the inlpxct of FSR (at the farming systems level or the farm household level) can he attributed to the technology that was generated. The impact of FSR can then be measured as the difference between the adopters and the nonadopters \s.itli respect to selected in2pnct parameters. Selection of the study area The study area, Ajuy, Iloilo Province, \us selected on tlie basis of the extent of the rainfed area, the extent of the KABSAKA project activity, average yield, tenurial status of farmers, and average landholding. Except for average yield, farmers in Ajuy were, more or less, similar to farmers in lloilo in all other aspects. The study initially covered three barangays or villages (Culasi, Pili, and San Antonio) in the municipality. Another t\vo barangays (Luca anci Poblacion) were added in the second phase of the study.
- Page 131 and 132: Table 3. Mungbean before rice areas
- Page 133 and 134: Table 5. Number of farm households
- Page 135 and 136: Table 7. Area planted to mungbean,
- Page 137 and 138: Table 9. Area planted to mungbean,
- Page 139 and 140: Table 11. Area under dry seeded ric
- Page 141 and 142: continued.. . Table 12. Socioeconom
- Page 143 and 144: continued.. . Table 12. Socioeconom
- Page 145 and 146: l~ndicative figures only. '~ature t
- Page 147 and 148: composition, increases in income ca
- Page 149 and 150: not be captured if the criteria for
- Page 151 and 152: crops (rice, maize, and mungbean) a
- Page 153 and 154: The explanatory Lwiable, nitrogen (
- Page 155 and 156: of the ratio of actual intake and r
- Page 157 and 158: Farming Systems Research and Extens
- Page 159 and 160: Table 3. Input levels and productiv
- Page 161 and 162: Table 5. Comparison of annual house
- Page 163 and 164: Table 7. Comparison of annual nonfo
- Page 165 and 166: Table 9. Comparison of percentage p
- Page 167 and 168: Table 11. Log-linear models of impa
- Page 169 and 170: INSTITUTIONALIZING THE FARILIIIVG S
- Page 171 and 172: agricultural production system by i
- Page 173 and 174: In the midwest plain, where there a
- Page 175 and 176: Varietal irnprovernent. This compon
- Page 177 and 178: solutions to problems under the bas
- Page 179 and 180: Table 2. Rice farming systems in Ca
- Page 181: Table 5. Component-technology studi
- Page 185 and 186: household basis on an income and ex
- Page 187 and 188: first crop. In 1989-90, the adopter
- Page 189 and 190: Nonfarm expenses constituted the bu
- Page 191 and 192: Herbicide is essential for DSR. How
- Page 193 and 194: o The classification of farmers on
- Page 195 and 196: Table 1. List of \,ariables idc~l~l
- Page 197 and 198: Table 3. Conlparison of cash flow o
- Page 199 and 200: Table 5. Level of input use for the
- Page 201 and 202: Table 7. Production elasticities of
- Page 203 and 204: FROXl GREEN REVOLUTION TO FARhlING
- Page 205 and 206: ainfed areas. The RIARS project app
- Page 207 and 208: stability and sustainability. 1nsti
- Page 209 and 210: o Limited feedback at all levels. A
- Page 211 and 212: Table l. Chronological sequcnce of
- Page 213 and 214: Table l. Chronological sequence of
- Page 215 and 216: Impact studies A number of studies
- Page 217 and 218: some simple statistical tests to as
- Page 219 and 220: assets). Patterns of food consumpti
- Page 221 and 222: Production functions for first-seas
- Page 223 and 224: and nonadopters indicate that there
- Page 225 and 226: E~zdowr~tcnt of l~ouselrol~f assets
- Page 227 and 228: variety, inadequate attention was p
- Page 229 and 230: Table 1. Farming system research si
- Page 231 and 232: Table 4. Comparison of levels of in
Wangwacharachul (1984) examined <strong>the</strong> macro effects of <strong>the</strong> KABSAKA<br />
technology and concluded that <strong>the</strong> income structure h:id changed over a period of 5<br />
yr in favor of nonagricultural households in partially and fully irrigated areas. It had<br />
also improved <strong>the</strong> overall income of <strong>the</strong> rural sector. Barlow et a1 (1983) concluded<br />
that <strong>the</strong> economic impact of <strong>the</strong> new technologies depended on <strong>the</strong> resource level of<br />
<strong>the</strong> farmers. Under rainfed conditions where cash is scarce, low input levels are<br />
generally employed. Price (1982) discovered that <strong>the</strong> :idoption of KABSAKA<br />
technoloo reduced input use in relation to <strong>the</strong> recommendetl rate.<br />
The objective ot'tl~is study was to quantify <strong>the</strong> direct :ind indirect benefits of <strong>the</strong><br />
KABSAKA technology to farmers. The first part of <strong>the</strong> study was conducted in<br />
1957-88; <strong>the</strong> second part continued until 199 1. 'The first phase of <strong>the</strong> study focused<br />
on <strong>the</strong> degree of adoption of <strong>the</strong> ne\v technology, <strong>the</strong> impact of <strong>the</strong> new technology<br />
on overall production and income, <strong>the</strong> nonqi~antifiat)lc benefits (e.g., education and<br />
nutrition) that co!llti be attributed to rhe technology, and <strong>the</strong> role of support<br />
institutions in popul:irizjng tlie technology.<br />
The second phase of <strong>the</strong> study (1989-91) focused on finding several ways to<br />
classify adopters of <strong>the</strong> new technolop according to <strong>the</strong> level of adoption and,<br />
consequently, to determine <strong>the</strong> impact of <strong>the</strong> technology on farm household income<br />
and expenditures.<br />
The with and ~ifllolit approach was al~plied. 'l'he frarnev~ork proposed by<br />
Ranaweera (1988) was used to measure <strong>the</strong> impact of <strong>the</strong> adopted technology. This<br />
was based on <strong>the</strong> premise that <strong>the</strong> inlpxct of FSR (at <strong>the</strong> farming <strong>systems</strong> level or<br />
<strong>the</strong> farm household level) can he attributed to <strong>the</strong> technology that was generated.<br />
The impact of FSR can <strong>the</strong>n be measured as <strong>the</strong> difference between <strong>the</strong> adopters<br />
and <strong>the</strong> nonadopters \s.itli respect to selected in2pnct parameters.<br />
Selection of <strong>the</strong> study area<br />
The study area, Ajuy, Iloilo Province, \us selected on tlie basis of <strong>the</strong> extent of <strong>the</strong><br />
rainfed area, <strong>the</strong> extent of <strong>the</strong> KABSAKA project activity, average yield, tenurial<br />
status of farmers, and average landholding. Except for average yield, farmers in<br />
Ajuy were, more or less, similar to farmers in lloilo in all o<strong>the</strong>r aspects. The study<br />
initially covered three barangays or villages (Culasi, Pili, and San Antonio) in <strong>the</strong><br />
municipality. Ano<strong>the</strong>r t\vo barangays (Luca anci Poblacion) were added in <strong>the</strong><br />
second phase of <strong>the</strong> study.
Change language