farmer's perceptions of silvopastoral system promotion in quindo, colombia

B O I S E T F O R Ê T S D E S T R O P I Q U E S , 2 0 0 9 , N ° 3 0 0 ( 2 ) 79SYSTÈMES SILVO-PASTORAUX / LE POINT SUR…

Alicia Calle1

Florencia Montagnini1

Andrés Felipe Zuluaga2

1 Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies370 Prospect StreetNew Haven, CT 06511, USA

2 Centro para la Investigación en Sistemas Sostenibles de Producción Agropecuaria (CIPAV),Carrera 2 Oeste # 11-54Cali, Colombia

Farmer’s perceptions of silvopastoral system promotion

in Quindío, Colombia

Photograph 1.Two centuries ago, Andean forests with high biodiversity and endemism still covered this watershed in Quindío,Colombia. Over the past century, fragmentation occurred as the landscape was transformed into an agriculturalmosaic. Today, small isolated forest fragments like this remain only on very inaccessible slopes. Photograph by A. Calle.

RÉSUMÉPERCEPTIONS PAYSANNES DE LA PROMOTION DE SYSTÈMES SYLVO-PASTORAUX À QUINDÍO, COLOMBIE

L’élevage classique est une des utilisationsdes sols les plus répandues en Amériquelatine, et se solde souvent par leur dégrada-tion rapide. L’adoption de systèmes sylvo-pastoraux (SSP), associant des arbres àusages multiples à des pâturages amélio-rés, est susceptible de rendre d’importantsservices environnementaux tout en rédui-sant les pressions qui entraînent de nou-velles déforestations. Cependant, des obs-tacles liés aux besoins d’investissement etd’information freinent souvent la générali-sation de ces systèmes. Entre 2002 et 2007,le Fonds mondial pour l’environnement(Global Environment Facility - GEF) a financéun projet pilote pour la promotion des SSPdans certaines régions à pâturages forte-ment dégradés en Colombie, au Costa Ricaet au Nicaragua. Sur cette période de cinqans, l’état des terres s’est très sensiblementamélioré grâce à l’accroissement de la cou-verture végétale et de meilleures pratiquesd’utilisation des sols. L’étude que nous pré-sentons concerne la région de Quindío enColombie, où le succès du projet a permisde s’en servir comme modèle pour générali-ser l’initiative au niveau national. En organi-sant des entretiens semi-structurés et desvisites de terrain, nous avons recueilli desinformations sur les raisons de la réceptivitédes paysans de cette région à l’égard desSSP. Les motivations, les informations enretour et les difficultés ayant influencé lesdécisions des paysans ont été évaluées. Lesrésultats de l’étude mettent en évidence lerôle d’une bonne assistance technique pouraider les paysans à comprendre les consé-quences passées et futures de leurs déci-sions en matière d’utilisation des terres. Ilsmontrent également comment le principede rémunération des services fournis par lesécosystèmes permet d’emblée d’engendrerun climat de confiance et d’appréhender lelien entre l’adoption d’un SSP et les béné-fices environnementaux et économiquesqui en découlent. Les leçons qui découlentde ce projet sont applicables à la conceptionde stratégies de promotion des SSP etd’autres pratiques de gestion durable à plusgrande échelle, contribuant potentiellementà réduire la dégradation des sols et la défo-restation en milieu tropical.

Mots-clés: rémunération des servicesfournis par les écosystèmes, systèmessilvo-pastoraux, utilisation durable desterres, adoption de technologies, assis-tance technique.

ABSTRACTFARMER’S PERCEPTIONS OF SILVOPASTORAL SYSTEM PROMOTION IN QUINDÍO, COLOMBIA

Conventional livestock production is oneof the most prevalent land uses in LatinAmerica, and often results in rapid landdegradation. The adoption of silvopastoralsystems (SPS) which combine multipur-pose trees and improved pastures, couldprovide important ecosystem serviceswhile reducing the pressure to clear moreforests. Investment and information barri-ers, however, can discourage the wide-spread adoption of SPS. From 2002 to2007, the Global Environmental Facility(GEF) funded a pilot project to promoteSPS in degraded, pasture-dominatedregions of Colombia, Costa Rica andNicaragua. A substantial transformation ofthese lands was achieved over a five-yearperiod, through increased vegetationcover and improved land use practices.This study focuses on the Quindío regionin Colombia, where the successful projectnow serves as a model to take the initiativeto nation-wide scale. Through semi-struc-tured interviews and field visits, we gath-ered information on why farmers in thisregion were receptive to SPS. We assessedthe motivations, feedback and difficultiesthat influenced the farmers’ decision-mak-ing processes. The results highlight therole of adequate technical assistance (TA)in helping farmers understand the pastand future implications of their land usedecisions. They also demonstrate howPayment for Ecosystem Services (PES) canhelp to build initial trust, and to link theadoption of SPS to environmental and eco-nomic benefits. The lessons from this proj-ect can be applied in designing strategiesto promote SPS and other sustainablepractices at a larger scale which can poten-tially help to reduce land degradation andtropical deforestation.

Keywords: payment for ecosystem serv-ices, silvopastoral systems, sustainableland use, technology adoption, technicalassistance.

RESUMENPERCEPCIONES DE LOS GANADEROSSOBRE UN PROYECTO DE PROMOCIÓN DE SISTEMAS SILVOPASTORILES EN QUINDÍO, COLOMBIA

Uno de los usos dominantes del suelo enAmérica Latina es la ganadería convencio-nal, que con frecuencia conduce a unarápida degradación de la tierra. La adop-ción de sistemas silvopastoriles (SSP), unacombinación de árboles multipropósitocon pasturas mejoradas, puede generarimportantes servicios ambientales y redu-cir la presión sobre los bosques. Sinembargo, las barreras de inversión e infor-mación suelen dificultar la adopción deestos sistemas. Entre 2002 y 2007, elFondo Mundial para el Medio Ambiente(GEF) financió un proyecto piloto para pro-mover el uso de SSP en regiones domina-das por pasturas degradadas en Colombia,Costa Rica y Nicaragua. Se logró una trans-formación significativa en un período decinco años, gracias al aumento de cober-tura vegetal y mejores prácticas de manejo.Este estudio se enfoca en la región deQuindío, Colombia, donde el proyecto sirvecomo modelo para la expansión de la ini-ciativa a nivel nacional. Por medio deentrevistas semiestructuradas y visitas decampo, obtuvimos información sobre porqué los ganaderos de la región fueronreceptivos a los SSP. Identificamos lasmotivaciones, beneficios y obstáculos queinfluyeron en su proceso de toma de deci-siones. Los resultados resaltan el papel dela adecuada asistencia técnica para ayudara los ganaderos a entender las implicacio-nes pasadas y futuras del uso que le dan asus tierras. También demuestran cómo elPago por Servicios Ambientales (PSA)puede contribuir a generar confianza inicialy a establecer la conexión entre la adop-ción de SSP y los beneficios ambientales yeconómicos. Las lecciones de este pro-yecto pueden ser aplicadas en el diseño deestrategias para promover SSP y otras prác-ticas sostenibles a gran escala, contribu-yendo a reducir la degradación ambiental yla deforestación en los trópicos.

Palabras clave: pago por serviciosambientales, sistemas silvopastoriles,uso sostenible de la tierra, adopción deteechnología, asistencia técnica.

80 B O I S E T F O R Ê T S D E S T R O P I Q U E S , 2 0 0 9 , N ° 3 0 0 ( 2 )

FOCUS / SILVOPASTORAL SYSTEMS A. Calle, F. Montagnini, A. F. Zuluaga

Introduction

Forests with high biodiversityand endemism once covered La ViejaRiver watershed in Quindío, inColombia’s central Andes. Over thepast century, the landscape wastransformed into an agriculturalmosaic dominated by single-crop cof-fee plantations. With collapsing worldcoffee prices, many coffee planta-tions have been converted to pas-tures (Calle, Piedrahita, 2007),despite the unsuitability of thesefragile soils and steep slopes for cat-tle ranching (Sadeghian et al., 2001).Plant and animal diversity, forestcover, nutrient cycling, soil fertility,and water availability were all negati-vely affected by the large-scale shiftfrom agriculture to pasture that tookplace during the 1990s (Chará,Murgueitio, 2005).

In this watershed, as in manyother regions of Latin America, expan-ding livestock production is one of themain drivers of high deforestationrates (Fao, 2005). Widespreadconventional ranching practices pro-vide few ecosystem services andresult in rapid land degradation, lea-ding to further forest clearing(Pagiola et al., 2004; Montagnini,2008). According to Fao (2005),South America will lose an extra 18million ha of forests by 2010, when62% of the non-forested area will beoccupied by pastures (Steinfeld etal., 2006).

This destructive cycle, however,can be broken. The use of silvopas-toral systems (SPS) can turn livestockproduction from an environmentallydetrimental activity into a more sus-tainable one that increases ruralincomes, enhances family nutritionand provides employment, while stillhelping to protect ecosystem func-tions (Murgueitio et al., 2006).Thus, the large-scale adoption of SPSin Latin America could help transformvast cattle production areas intofunctional landscapes, providing keyecosystem services at the local andglobal scales.

From 2002 to 2007, the GlobalEnvironment Facility (GEF) funded aproject to promote the adoption ofSPS using a combination of technicalassistance (TA) and payment forecosystem services (PES) in degradedregions of Colombia, Costa Rica andNicaragua. The project resulted insubstantial transformation of the rurallandscape through increased vegeta-tion cover and better land manage-ment practices in the three regions(Ibrahim et al., forthcoming). In thisstudy we focus on La Vieja Riverwatershed in Quindío, Colombia,where the physical and socio-eco-nomic characteristics of the partici-pating farms were the most heteroge-neous. This enabled us to understandthe wider range of factors that moti-vated farmers to adopt SPS, providingimportant guidelines in designingstrategies to scale up such initiatives.

SilvopastoralSystems:

a sustainablealternative for

cattle production

Silvopastoral systems (SPS)combine trees and livestock produc-tion on the same land, generatingeconomic and productive benefits tothe farmer while protecting the eco-logical capital (Pattanayak et al.,2003; Montagnini, 2008). Their useallows farmers to increase pastureproductivity without depending onexpensive commercial inputs. Thecombination of grass and tree fodderspecies adds nutritional value to thecattle’s diet, while tree litter deposi-tion stimulates nutrient cycling, pro-tects the soil, and enhances its fertil-ity (Ibrahim et al., 2006; Pagiola etal., 2007). Cattle grazing under the

Photograph 2.At the beginning of the project, conventional ranching practices were the norm in the participating farms, and had resulted in severe land degradation. Largeanimals were grazing on the steep, deforested slopes, compacting the fragilesoils and causing severe erosion problems. Vegetation cover was minimal andpastures had low productivity.Photograph by A. Calle.


shade of trees suffer less heat stressthan in open pastures; they grazemore and have lower respiratoryrates, producing more milk and meat.SPS can also create new job opportu-nities for rural people and generateadditional farm products such asfuelwood, timber or fruit (Mur-gueitio et al., 2006).

Compared to open pasture-lands, SPS also provide more ecosys-tem services. They favor biodiversityby creating complex habitats thatsupport diverse plants and animals,harbor a richer soil biota, andincrease connectivity between forestfragments (Ibrahim et al., 2006). In

humid regions, SPS can sequestermore carbon than pastures or evennative forests, and store it deeper andmore permanently (Amézquita et al.,2005). The combination of grassesand trees helps retain soil and water,protecting watersheds and soils fromerosion (Ibrahim et al., 2006). Astrees mature, nutrient cycling speedsup and habitats become morewildlife-friendly (Murgueitio et al.,2006). Ultimately, SPS can remainproductive for longer periods thanconventional pastures, and the pres-sure to clear more forests is reduced(Steinfeld et al., 2006).

Adoptability of Silvopastoral

Systems

Despite their potential to createbetter socio-economic conditionsand generate local and global ecosys-tem services (Fao, 2005), adoptionrates for SPS have remained relativelylow for two main reasons. First, esta-blishment costs can be high whilecapital availability in rural areas isusually low, and returns on theinvestment can be delayed for seve-ral years. Second, SPS can be com-plex so their adoption is risky wheninformation and TA are insufficient(Ibrahim et al., 2006; Murgueitio etal., 2006). Programs intended to pro-mote the adoption of SPS need toaddress both of these obstacles.

Predictive models were used toexamine the correlation betweenmeasurable external factors overwhich the farmer has little control,and adoption rates in their region(Mercer, 2004; Thangata, Alavalap-ati, 2003). These factors weregrouped into five categories: house-hold preferences, resource endow-ment, market incentives, biophysicalcharacteristics, and perceived riskand uncertainty (Pattanayak et al.,2003). The predictive model devel-oped by Pagiola et al. (2007) forQuindío found that PES was the vari-able that most affected the extent ofadoption, while others like incomelevel or farm area were less important.

Beyond the external factors,adoption decisions are also largelybased on more subjective factorssuch as individual motivations andperceptions of the new systems. Thus,understanding the outcome of a SPSpromotion effort requires considera-tion of these personal factors thatoperate at an individual level. Ourstudy takes this approach, exploringindividual farmer’s perceptions andattitudes and how they influenced theadoption of SPS in Quindío.

Figure 1.Localisation de la zone d’étude au Cameroun.


FOCUS / SILVOPASTORAL SYSTEMS

Photograph 3.The replacement of conventional fences with live fences is a simple system withmultiple benefits, and was adopted on most of the farms. Gliricidia sepium wasthe preferred tree species for the fences because of its easy propagation and rapidgrowth. At finca La Meseta, more than 5 km of new Gliricidia fences were planted.These fences provide shade and can also be pollarded directly for fodder.Photograph by A. Calle.

The SPS Projectin Quindío

The Integrated SilvopastoralApproaches to Ecosystem Manage-ment Project was funded by the GlobalEnvironment Facility (GEF), supportedby FAO’s Livestock, Environment andDevelopment Initiative (LEAD) andimplemented by the World Bankbetween 2002 and 2007. The projectused PES to promote the adoption ofSPS in three regions dominated bydegraded pastures in Colombia, CostaRica and Nicaragua (Pagiola et al.,2007). The sites were selected fortheir potential to provide globalecosystem services —biodiversity con-servation and carbon sequestration—through adoption of more sustainableland use practices. The local imple-menting agencies were the Center forResearch on Sustainable AgricultureProduction Systems (CIPAV) in Colom-bia, the Tropical Agriculture Research

and Higher Education Center (CATIE) inCosta Rica, and the Institute forResearch and Development (NITLA-PAN) in Nicaragua. The American BirdConservancy (ABC) provided the tech-nical support for biodiversity monitor-ing (Pagiola et al., 2004).

To encourage SPS adoption, par-ticipating farmers were paid forincreasing the ecosystem servicesrendered by their farms. The differentland uses identified in the region —from treeless pastures to forest frag-ments— were ranked based on theirpotential to provide such services(Pagiola et al., 2007). Farmersobserved a range of productive landuse options and SPS during their vis-its to demonstration farms, and werethen expected to adopt those thatwould help them intensify productionin suitable portions of their farms,leaving unsuitable lands for usessuch as riparian forest corridors ornatural forest regeneration. TA wasprovided to ensure that the benefits

of SPS were understood and to facili-tate implementation. Detailed moni-toring of the land use changes andtheir effects on biodiversity and car-bon sequestration was used to calcu-late the annual PES delivered to eachfarmer during the five years of the pro-ject (Pagiola et al., 2004; Steinfeldet al., 2006).

Study site: La ViejaRiver watershed,

Quindío, Colombia

The project site in La Vieja Riverwatershed was located in the depart-ments of Quindío and Valle del Cauca, inColombia’s central cordillera (figure 1).It covered a 500 km2 area with eleva-tions ranging from 900 to 1300 masl. The annual average rainfall was2000 mm, distributed bimodally. Onaverage, the 80 participating farmshad an area of 36 ha and a herd size


Figure 1.Map (a) shows the location of the La Vieja River watershed in Colombia’s Andean region. The project area shown in map (b) covers 9 municipalities in the departments of Quindío (darker) and Valle del Cauca (lighter). The 80 farms that participated in the SPS project were scattered across the 500 km2 area delineated in map (b).Source: CIPAV.

of 57 animals, raised for both dairyand beef production. Participantswere diverse in terms of sex, age,education and income level, andincluded both rural and urbanlandowners (Pagiola et al., 2007;Ibrahim et al., forthcoming).

At the beginning of the project in2002, treeless pastures dominated65% of the landscape and most of thenearly 3000 ha of pastures were underintensive grazing. The few forest frag-ments were small and unconnected(photograph 1). Simple SPS such aslive fences were uncommon, and morecomplex ones were unknown (Pagiolaet al., 2007). Watersheds were unpro-tected and erosion problems were evi-dent (Chará, Murgueitio, 2005)(photograph 2).

During the five years of the proj-ect, more than 800 ha of degradedpastures were replaced by SPS withvarying degrees of tree cover. Over350 km of new live fences and wind-breaks were established, usingmostly Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) Kunth

ex Walp (photograph 3). Fodderbanks of Tithonia diversifolia(Hemsl.) A. Gray and other species(photograph 4), and more than 100ha of intensive SPS with Leucaenaleucocephala (Lam.) deWit, wereplanted. Cattle were removed fromthe steepest slopes on many farms,and multipurpose trees like Albiziasaman (Jacq.) Merr., Cassia grandis Lfand Inga spp. were planted instead(photograph 5), or natural regenera-tion was encouraged to prevent soilerosion (photograph 6). Locallyendangered species like Syagrussancona (H.B.K.) Karst. Ex Dahlgren(Colombian foxtail palm) were alsoused. Watersheds were protectedfrom cattle and reforested with nativespecies like Guadua angustifoliaKunth (Colombian thorny bamboo),resulting in improved water supplyand better landscape connectivity(Chará, Murgueitio, 2005).

These changes positively affectedthe rendering of ecosystem services,especially carbon sequestration and

biodiversity protection. Bird abun-dance and species richness in the newSPS were found to be higher than in theoriginal pastures and similar to thoseof the remnant forests. Of the 170 birdspecies recorded in these SPS, 54%are considered forest dependent (Ibra-him et al., forthcoming), and oneendangered species, Ammodramussabanarum, was found. Milk produc-tion increased, while herbicide and fer-tilizer use declined substantially. Theseresults led the National Cattle RanchersFederation (FEDEGAN) to join CIPAVand GEF in the replication of the projectnation-wide, and the government cre-ated an economic incentive for inten-sive SPS (Murgueitio, forthcoming).For a more complete description of theland use changes and ecosystemsservices generated by this project, seePagiola et al. (2007) and Ibrahim etal. (forthcoming).

Methods

Data for this study were col-lected during June-August 2007,through semi-structured interviewsand informal conversations with 28farmers from the project in Quindío.The selected farms represent thewatershed’s geographic variability,different SPS adopted and varyingdegrees of success. During a guidedtour of the farm, farmers describedtheir land’s initial condition,explained the innova tions imple-mented, and discussed the benefitsand difficulties encountered. Theirmotivations for participating, theirattitudes about environmental issuesof concern, and their assessment ofconventional and sustainable ranch-ing practices were discussed. Thisinformation was then coded to iden-tify common themes and their relativeimportance, according to the empha-sis they received in the interviews.Other key infor mants such as CIPAVresearchers and local environmentalauthorities provided additional infor-mation on the technical challengesand the factors affecting the process.

Photograph 4.Some farmers chose to establish fodder banks, like this one in finca La Cabañathat combines the nitrogen-fixing tree Gliricidia sepium with Trichanteragigantea. These species are used to supplement the animals’ diet with protein-rich fodder, partly replacing expensive commercial products.Photograph by A. Calle.



Results and Discussion

Farmer’s motivations for adopting SPS

Farmers cited four major typesof motivations for participating in thisproject (table I):Economic motivations

High prices of external inputscan stimulate the adoption of lessinput-intensive practices (Lee, 2005;Thangata, Alavalapati, 2003). InQuindío, the rising price of animalfeeds and fertilizers was the top worryfor 64% of the respondents, and 39%doubted the economic viability ofranching. Many farm inputs inColombia are imported, so prices fluc-tuate with the volatile exchange rate.Since local markets are not as elastic,prices of farm products can only shiftso much and thus profits are con-stantly shrinking. Hence, keeping pro-duction costs under control was astrong motivation to adopt SPS.

On the other hand, farmers inthis study did not consider PES astrong motivation for adopting SPS,probably because the amount paiddid not cover the full costs of imple-mentation. Nevertheless, the PESincentive did play a role in buildinginitial trust in the project, and perhapsmost importantly, in helping farmersvisualize the link between sustainablepractices, provision of environmentalservices and economic benefits. For adetailed discussion of the economicimpact of PES on this project, seeIbrahim et al. (forthcoming). Productivity motivations

When population density is highand land scarce, intensification is thebest way to increase productivity(Mercer, 2004). In Quindío landprices and opportunity costs are high,but road infrastructure and basic serv-ices are good and markets are readilyavailable, so most farmers are reluc-tant to relocate. Thus, 46% of thefarmers decided to use SPS hoping toregain previous levels of productivityand reclaim some of the lost profits.

Environmental degradationmotivations

Because of its direct link to pro-ductivity, land degradation oftenmotivates adoption of more sustain-able methods (Mercer, 2004). InQuindío, years of intensive cultiva-tion, excessive use of chemicals, andirresponsible land management prac-tices had resulted in the rapid degra-dation mentioned by 39% of thefarmers. According to one farm man-ager, “soil fertility was lost over a sin-gle generation.” Farmers expressedconcern over decreased fertility andthe increasing need for fertilizers(36%), hillside erosion (32%), nutri-

ent depletion (25%), and loss of thefragile topsoil (18%) and water qual-ity and quantity (29%), especiallyduring summer (table I).

Older owners remembered thediversity of birds, monkeys, snakes,small mammals and fish present inthis region before sun-grown coffeeand chemical inputs were introduced.About 46% of the interviewees men-tioned biodiversity loss as a motiva-tion for seeking other production sys-tems. We think this answer may partlybe the result of the impressiveincrease in wildlife presence thatmany farmers noticed after imple-menting SPS.

Photograph 5.Inga trees deposit abundant, nutrient-rich litter, increase biodiversity, and mostimportantly for SPS, have the ability to fix nitrogen. On finca Pinzacuá, these Ingatrees were planted at high density on degraded soils. The pastures have nowrecovered their productivity and no longer require expensive urea fertilizers.Photograph by A. Calle.




Table I. Farmers’ motivations for participating in the project.

Answers(%)

Economic motivations

Low profitability Excessive dependence on expensive inputs (feeds and chemicals) 64

of traditional systems Long-term farm sustainability is at risk 39

High farm maintenance costs (conventional fences, labour) 29

Rising overall production costs 18

Cost/benefit analysis showed SPS as feasible option 14

PES incentive Not enough, but worth getting 25

Not necessary, changes are based on personal conviction 25

Helps to pay for adoption of necessary changes 21

Productivity motivations

Farm productivity Need to improve pasture quality/quantity 46

Need to improve soil quality 29

Need to recover overall farm productivity 29

Need to provide shade for cattle 4

Environmental degradation as motivation

Biodiversity loss Dramatically affected by land use change and high use of chemicals 46

Soil degradation Soils have lost productivity and now depend on fertilization 36

Severe erosion problems due to previous land use 32

Nutrient-depleted soils 25

Specific soil nutrient deficiencies on farm 21

Fertile but very fragile soils 18

Severely compacted soils 14

Water degradation Water quantity has been decreasing over time 29

Water is scarce or absent during summer months 29

Water is polluted with chemicals or sewage 14

Forest degradation Forest remnants are being cut for timber and posts 11

Land degradation Land degradation has proceeded rapidly over the past decade(s) 39

Personal or social motivations

Project credibility Group visits to demonstration farms were positive 43

Positive experience with previous environmental programs 32

Technical assistance is an incentive 32

Introduced to project by a trusted person/group 25

Had heard about CIPAV’s previous work 14

Personal or Family Strong emotional ties to land, farm has been in family for many years 39

Strong personal motivation to improve farm 25

Desire to pass on land in good condition to next generation 18

Self-starter and interested in research on farm 14

Willing to try new things, innovator 11

Social and personal motivations Helps reduce the perception of

risk that accompanies any new tech-nology by facilitating an understand-ing of how the innovation contributesto meet one’s needs (Mercer 2004;Reed, 2007). In this study, 43% of therespondents considered visits todemonstration farms as a key factorthat established the project’s credibil-ity and feasibility, offering partici-pants the opportunity to see SPS andto ask other farmers about their prac-tical and economic aspects. Suchcontact with other technology usershas been found to stimulate adoption(Lee, 2005). According to one farmer,field visits are “the best learningexperience because they challengeyou. If another farmer with a similarfarm and a similar worker can do it,you know you can too.” At a personallevel, a strong emotional tie to theland and the desire to leave it in goodcondition for the next generation werealso important motivations (table I).

Perceived benefits of adopting SPS

After trying a new technology,evaluation of the costs and benefitsdetermines the permanence of adop-tion (Current et al., 1995). Sinceeconomic returns lag behind imple-mentation, it is important that farm-ers perceive other types of immediatebenefits in the meantime (Lee, 2005).Farmers perceived four types of bene-fits (table II):Economic benefits

Even if participants were wellaware that the bulk of the economicbenefits from SPS would come in thelong run, 39% reported reductions ininput and maintenance costs withinjust a few months. Quick savings camefrom establishing relatively inexpen-sive live fences, which provided shadeand fodder and eliminated the need toreplace fence posts. One farmer saidhe previously did not use live fences“because I was a fool, we all were! Ican’t wait to have my entire farm in livefences.” The largest economic benefitscame from planting the nitrogen-fixing

leguminous tree Leucaena in intensiveSPS, but few farmers could afford thehigh investment required. Nonethe-less, 43% of them considered this asecure investment that they would bewilling to make if they had the means(photograph 7) (table II). Productivity benefits

A substantial increase in theavailable amount and quality of fod-der was mentioned by 64% of thefarmers, which was reflected in thelivestock’s improved body conditionreported by 43%. Many agreed thatSPS facilitate farm maintenance andmanagement (table II).

Environmental benefitsThe benefits related to

increased vegetation cover were mostvisible after four years of tree-plant-ing efforts, according to 50% of thefarmers. They also noticed improve-ments in water quality and yield fol-lowing stream protection (photo-graph 8), and soil benefits such aslower compaction and higher pres-ence of biota (table II).

The most frequently cited envi-ronmental benefit was an increase inbiodiversity, particularly birds andsmall mammals, with awarenessappearing to be higher in farms


Photograph 6.These steep slopes in finca El Guayabo were once used for grazing. By increasingproductivity in more suitable areas of the farm, the farmer was able to leave thisarea to regenerate. She fenced off the area, planted native trees, allowed naturaltree regeneration, and now the forest is recovering quickly.Photograph by A. Calle.



Table II. Farmer’s perceptions of the benefits of the SPS adopted

Answers(%)

Economic benefits

Less need for external Replacement of chemical fertilizers with N-fixing plants 43

inputs and maintenance Dramatic reduction in use of chemical inputs 39

Replaced conventional fences with live fences, which require 39less maintenance

On-farm propagation of recommended trees

25 eliminated need to buy wood posts 18

Producing own wood for energy 7

Future benefits to be expected From by-products of the system (wood, charcoal, seeds) 18

Approved of government incentive for SPS 11

Productivity benefits

Benefits to cattle Increased quality and quantity of available fodder 64

Improvement in cattle’s overall condition 43

Shade from trees protects cattle from heat stress and dehydration 39

Cattle can feed directly on live fence prunings 21

Increased weight gain by cattle 18

Secured pasture availability even during the summer 14

Benefits to pastures Increased fertilization by N-fixing trees 43

Overall improvement (in growth, amount, colour, quality) 25

Stopped overgrazing 21

Reduced stress (heat, water and nutrient) 18

Protected from desiccation by newly planted windbreaks 4

Farm management Easier maintenance of live fences 36

Easier livestock management with live fences 11

Easier livestock management with longer pasture rotations 7

Land use More efficient and appropriate land use 25

Increased farm capacity Higher cattle carrying capacity per ha 18

Increased milk production 7

Environmental benefits

Biodiversity Dramatic increase in bird abundance and diversity 71

Increase in plant and animal diversity 54

More sightings of small wild mammals in pastures 36

More sightings of animals in forests and riparian corridors 32

Improved pest control resulting from higher biodiversity 21

Increased sightings of endangered or rare species 11

Vegetation cover Higher tree species diversity 54

Increased tree regeneration in pastures and riparian strips 50

Increased use of native species for reforestation 50

Increased regeneration of rare or hard-to-propagate species 25

More variety of plant species available for animal nutrition 21

Reduced pressure on forest fragments 14


Table II. (Continued)

Answers(%)

Environmental benefits

Water Increased water quality and/or quantity 36

Increased water availability during the dry season 29

New springs appeared on farm 25

Increased water quality indicator species (macro-invertebrates) 7

Decreased chemical output from own farm 7

Soils Improved erosion control using vegetation 25

Enhanced soil quality through tree-planting 21

Enhanced soil biota habitat through tree planting 18

Personal and social benefits

Personal and family values Satisfaction from the learning and research experience 46

reinforced by project Spiritual satisfaction from contact with nature 32

Developed new methods by experimenting on farm 29

Increased aesthetic value from more vegetation on farm 29

Interest among children in some aspects of SPS 21

Relaxation in farm forests 11

Social values and networks Frequent visits by people interested in systems adopted 36

Satisfaction from sharing results of own trials with others 25

New social network for information exchange and feedback 18

Have been stimulated by other participants’ experiences 18

Opportunity to share experience locally and internationally 11

Work values Increased environmental awareness among workers 29

Employee(s) demonstrated initiative and curiosity 21

Employer provided opportunity to experiment with new systems 14

Provided new knowledge of SPS for future job improvement 11

Provided opportunity for training and education 11

Opportunity to generate rural employment 11

Reduced social conflicts (illegal logging, intrusion) 7

Institutional benefits

Demonstration farms Helped ease uncertainty and risk associated to SPS 43

Provided valuable ideas that were applied on own farm 43

Were very helpful and motivating 43

Provided valuable lessons on how to solve own problems 21

Working with CIPAV Promoted an excellent research relationship 43

Payments and assistance were delivered promptly 36

Increased awareness of the consequences of own practices 32

Reinforced existing efforts 32

Provided good technical assistance on specific issues 29

Provided general guidelines for own experimentation 11

where scientific monitoring (i.e. birdcounts, water sampling, regenerationplots) had been undertaken. “We arenow seeing agoutis, armadillos,foxes… fortunately they are returningsince we started planting trees andmostly since we became aware thatwe need to leave the riparian stripsalone.” These improvements wereinterpreted as a hopeful sign of recov-ery in these degraded lands.Personal and social benefits

At a personal level, 46% of thefarmers valued the learning andresearch experience most, as well asthe reinforcement of spiritual valuesthrough contact with nature. Socially,the unanticipated flow of nationaland international visitors made manyrealize the importance of their moresustainable choices, while the socialnetwork fostered by the project wasvalued as a SPS information-exchang-ing forum. Increased environmental

awareness and the acquired skillswere seen as positive because theycan provide better job opportunitiesand contribute to the disseminationof SPS throughout the region(Current et al., 1995; Franzel et al.,2001) (photograph 9).Institutional benefits

Institutional backup is instru-mental in facilitating long-term adop-tion (Lee 2005; Current et al., 1995).In Quindío, farmers were satisfiedwith the many roles played by CIPAV;the participatory methodology inwhich farmers were treated as co-researchers, encouraged to carry outtrials, devise their own solutions, andshare this information, was evaluatedas effective. Farmers felt this methodprepared them to solve future chal-lenges on their own. Most expressedwillingness to continue their workwith CIPAV (table II).

Perceived barr iers to adoption of SPS

Despite the project’s good over-all results, participating farmers alsoperceived four types of obstacles(table III):Economic barriers

Lack of investment capacity,absence of economic incentives andthe time lag before returns on theinvestment were common reasons fornot trying out SPS. Government incen-tives, which often facilitate adoption(Lee, 2005; Murgueitio, 2009), werenot available when the project began.Some farmers were reluctant to seekloans due to previous negative experi-ences with banks, and others hadproblems paying for the extra laborcosts required (Lee, 2005). The tem-porary productivity drops expectedduring implementation discouraged14% of the farmers (table III), but mostdevised alternatives to maintain someproduction while establishing theirchosen SPS (Ibrahim et al., 2006).Most farmers, however, were aware ofthe long-term nature of investing inSPS, which explains why costs werenot cited more often as a barrier. Infact, Pagiola et al. (2007) found thatonce they were convinced of the bene-fits of SPS, even the poorest house-holds in Quindío came up with ways tofinance implementation. In this con-text, PES contributed to overcome theeconomic barrier among participatingfarmers (Ibrahim et al., forthcoming).Risk and uncertainty barriers

In Quindío, 21% of landownershad difficulty finding skilled workersto establish and manage SPS. Thosetrying systems new to the region alsofaced technical uncertainty, but theparticipatory research helped themadapt SPS to the area’s specificneeds, as found by Franzel et al.(2001). A few landowners wereunable to use the recommended treesbecause their lands were outside thespecies’ altitudinal range. As admit-ted by 14% of the farmers, barrierswere mostly mental and cultural, andTA was a key to overcoming some pre-conceived ideas about SPS (table III).

Photograph 7.Highly productive, intensive SPS like this one on finca La Ramada areestablished by planting high densities of the nitrogen-fixing tree Leucaenaleucocephala. Cattle feed on the vigorous pastures and the Leucaena foliage,and the system is hardy enough to allow direct browsing on a regular rotation.Photograph by A. Calle.



Social barriersSPS often counter mainstream

practices, which can trigger problems.For example, 14% of the farmersreported that their new SPS wereaffected by herbicide or fire used byneighbors, and 4% were mocked orquestioned by colleagues. Value con-flicts emerged in farms with sharedmanagement, as described by thisfarmer: “Personally I love Leucaena,and if it were my farm I would plant iteven in the patio. I convinced my sib-lings to plant Leucaena on the slopes

but they do not want it on the flat-lands, they say it looks ugly… theystill have the aesthetic concepts ofconventional agriculture.” Contrary tomany studies (Lee, 2005; Pattanayaket al., 2003), adoption rates inQuindío seemed unaffected by thelevel of education; empirical knowl-edge of the land seems to have com-pensated for lack of formal education.Farmers’ initial reluctance to trustCIPAV (18%) was explained by previ-ous negative experiences with otherinstitutional programs (table III).

Implementation barriersAll farmers found tree establish-

ment to be a challenge due to dam-age by cattle, leaf-cutting ants, windor competition by grasses (photo-graph 10). Additional difficultiesincluded the unavailability of qualityplanting material, high seedling mor-tality and excessive tree maintenancecosts. However, as found in otherstudies (Lee, 2005; Mercer, 2004),their previous tree-planting experi-ence as former coffee-growers facili-tated adoption.

Table III. Farmer’s perception of the barriers to adoption of SPS.

Answers(%)

Economic barriers

Investment SPS require investments that exceed own capacity 21

PES incentive is too small or too short-lived 18

Excessive costs of inputs (plants, transportation, labour) 18

Time lag between investment and returns 14

Uncertainty about future land tenure 7

Productivity Temporary drop during implementation 14

Markets Market imperfections (distance, scale, prices) 11

Risk and uncertainty barriers

Information and knowledge SPS require particular skills not common among workers 21

Some technical advice was not practical or applicable 14

SPS contradict farmer’s previous knowledge 14

Owner lacks tree planting expertise/mentality 1

Would have liked more technical assistance 7

Social barriers

Neighbour’s practices (fire, herbicides) undermine efforts 14

Aesthetic considerations 11

Disagreement among multiple farm managers/owners 7

Stigmatization of SPS techniques by traditional farmers 4

Institutional barriers

Mistrust of institutions due to past negative experiences 18

Excessive bureaucracy to access government incentives 7

Implementation barriers

Made costly mistakes during implementation 46

Cattle damage new trees 46

Leaf-cutter ants damage new trees 32

Aggressive grasses compete with new trees 29


Conclusions andRecommendations

The project in Quindío showedthat SPS are favored when the follow-ing conditions are met: 1) Farmers already have some motiva-tion to try out SPS. Since productivity iscommonly the top motivation, attemptsto promote the use of SPS must addressthis aspect first. But because the under-lying cause of productivity loss is gener-ally related to environmental degrada-tion, farmers need to be made aware ofthe direct and indirect links between

both issues. Thus, environmentaldegradation becomes a strong incen-tive for adoption.2) Farmers perceive benefits immedi-ately after implementing SPS.Although economic and productivebenefits are high priorities for thefarmers, they are rarely evidentimmediately. Therefore, it is crucialfor farmers to be made aware of themany additional benefits generatedin the meantime, of their importanceand their relation to productivity. Thisbroader vision of the productive sys-tem will allow farmers to persevere inthe adoption of SPS even when they

know that the economic profits willonly come in the long run.3) Farmers are provided with incen-tives to overcome the investment bar-riers. PES can be used effectively tothis end, helping farmers realize thatsociety values the ecosystem servicesthat result from implementing moresustainable practices such as SPS.Other types of incentives like credit ortax breaks might also prove effective. 4) Farmers are given the tools to over-come information barriers. TA can beused effectively to help farmers real-ize the detrimental consequences ofconventional practices, reduce therisk of implementation failure byfacilitating their understanding ofSPS, and create a positive attitudetoward the new systems. Effective TAprepares farmers to solve future chal-lenges on their own, through creativeproblem solving and informationsharing within their social networks.

Permanent adoption of SPS ulti-mately depends on farmers’ percep-tion of their costs and benefits com-pared to those of traditional systems.TA and PES can help farmers to betterunderstand both types of productivesystems so they can make moreinformed decisions. TA makes farmersaware of the less evident advantagesof SPS, and reduces the risk of failureduring implementation. PES easesthe difficulty of financing implemen-tation costs, and helps farmers realizethe value of the environmental serv-ices provided by their farms. Thus, TAand PES facilitate attitude change,which is one of the major hurdles inpromoting the adoption of more sus-tainable land uses. Used together, TAand PES can be effective tools to stim-ulate restoration and rural develop-ment in Latin America.

AcknowledgementsThanks to the farmers for sharingtheir experiences; to CIPAV for theirgenerous support; to ChristopherFinney for editing the final version.The Compton Foundation and theTropical Resources Institute at YaleUniversity funded our research.

Photograph 8.On most participating farms, gallery forest was protected by fencing off a widestrip along both sides of the stream to exclude cattle, and by planting trees andencouraging natural tree regeneration. Because cattle no longer have access tothis protected stream on finca La Alborada, water quality and quantity haveimproved substantially.Photograph by A. Calle.



References

AMÉZQUITA M.C. IBRAHIM M., LLAN-DERAL T., BUURMAN P., AMÉZQUITAE., 2005. Carbon sequestration inpastures: silvo-pastoral systems andforests in four regions of the LatinAmerican Tropics. In: F. Montagnini(Ed.), Environmental Services in Agro-forestry Systems. NY: Food Produc-tion Press, 31-49.

CALLE Z., PIEDRAHITA L., 2007.¿Cómo diseñar estrategias para elmanejo de plantas de interés para laconservación en paisajes ganaderos?Agroforestería en las Américas, 45:117-122.

CHARÁ J., MURGUEITIO E., 2005. Therole of silvopastoral systems in therehabilitation of Andean stream habi-tats. Livestock Research for Rural Devel-opment, 17. Retrieved December 2007from http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd17/2/char17020.htm

CURRENT D., LUTZ E., SCHERR S. J.,1995. Costs, Benefits, and FarmerAdoption of Agroforestry: ProjectExperience in Central America and theCaribbean. World Bank EnvironmentPaper No. 14. Washington, D.C.: TheWorld Bank.

FAO, 2005. Cattle ranching isencroaching on forests in Latin Amer-ica. FAO Newsroom, 8 June 2005.Retrieved January 2008 fromhttp://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2005/102924/ index.html.

FRANZEL S., COOPER P., DENNINGG. L., 2001. Scaling up the benefits ofagroforestry research: lessons learnedand research challenges. Develop-ment in Practice, 11(4): 524-534.

IBRAHIM M., VILLANUEVA C., CASA-SOLA F., ROJAS J., 2006. Sistemas sil-vopastoriles como una herramientapara el mejoramiento de la producti-vidad y restauración de la integridadecológica de paisajes ganaderos.Pastos y Forrajes, 29(4): 383.


Photograph 9.Efrén Aguirre, the worker in finca La Ramada, played an instrumental role in theland use changes that took place on this land. He is proud of what has beenachieved, and thinks his new skills can help him find better job opportunities in the future. Efrén frequently guides groups of visitors who want to see the farm,and explains why these sustainable SPS make more sense than conventionalranching practices.Photograph by A. Calle.

Photograph 10.The most common difficulties faced by farmers when trying to establish trees inpastures were damage by cattle, encroachment by grasses and herbivory by leaf-cutting ants. Solutions to these problems were more expensive and time-consuming than expected. These tree-protecting structures on finca El Guayabo,for example, are expensive to build and maintain, and not always effective in preventing cattle from browsing the new trees. Photograph by A. Calle

IBRAHIM M., CASASOLA F., VILLA-NUEVA C., MURGUEITIO E., RAMÍREZ E.,SÁENZ J., SEPÚLVEDA C. (Forthcoming).Payment for Environmental Services asa Tool to Encourage the Adoption ofSilvo-Pastoral Systems and Restora-tion of Agricultural Landscapes Domi-nated by Cattle in Latin America. Jour-nal of Sustainable Forestry.

LEE D. R., 2005. Agricultural sustain-ability and technology adoption:issues and policies for developingcountries. American Journal of Agricul-tural Economics, 87(5): 1325-1334.

MERCER D. E., 2004. Adoption ofagroforestry innovations in the trop-ics: A review. Agroforestry Systems,204411: 311-328.

MONTAGNINI F., 2008. Managementfor sustainability and restoration ofdegraded pastures in the Neotropics.In: Myster, R. Post-agricultural suc-cession in the Neotropics. Springer,New York, 265-295.

MURGUEITIO E., 2009 (Forthcoming).Incentivos para los Sistemas Silvo-pastoriles en América Latina. RevistaAvances en Investigación Agropecua-ria,1 (13).

MURGUEITIO E., CUÉLLAR P., IBRAHIMM., GOBBI J., CUARTAS C. A., NARANJOJ. F., ZAPATA A., MEJÍA C. E., ZULUAGAA. F., CASASOLA F., 2006. Adopciónde sistemas agroforestales pecuarios.Pastos y Forrajes, 29(4): 365-383.

PAGIOLA S., AGOSTINI P., GOBBI J., DEHAAN C., IBRAHIM M., MURGUEITIO E.,RAMÍREZ E., ROSALES M., RUIZ J. P.,2004. Paying for biodiversity conserva-tion services in agricultural landscapes.Environment Department Paper No. 96.Washington DC: World Bank.

PAGIOLA S., RÍOS A. R., ARCENAS A.,2007. Poor household participationin payments for environmental serv-ices: Lessons from the silvopastoralproject in Quindío, Colombia. WorldBank. MPRA Paper No. 4794. Wash-ington D.C.: World Bank.

PATTANAYAK S. K., MERCER D. E., SILLSE., YANG J. C., 2003. Taking stock ofagroforestry adoption studies. Agro-forestry Systems, 57: 173-186.

REED M. S., 2007. Participatory tech-nology development for agroforestryextension: an innovation-decisionapproach. African Journal of Agricul-tural Research, 2(8): 334-341.

SADEGHIAN S., MURGUEITIO E., MEJÍAC., RIVERA J. M., 2001.Ordenamientoambiental y reglamentación del uso ymanejo del suelo en la zona cafetera.In: Universidad Tecnológica de Pereiray GTZ, Suelos del eje cafetero. Pereira,Colombia: Fondo Editorial del Depar-tamento de Risaralda, 96-108.

STEINFELD H., GERBER P., WASSE-NAAR T., CASTEL V., ROSALES M., DEHAAN C., 2006. Livestock’s long sha-dow. Environmental issues andoptions. Rome, Italy: Food and Agri-culture Organization of the UnitedNations FAO.

THANGATA P. H., ALAVALAPATI J. R. R.,2003. Agroforestry adoption in south-ern Malawi: the case of mixed inter-cropping of Gliricidia sepium andmaize. Agricultural Systems, 78: 57-71.

WUNDER S., 2005. Payments for envi-ronmental services: some nuts andbolts. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 42.Jakarta, Indonesia: Center for Interna-tional Forestry Research.



farmer's perceptions of silvopastoral system promotion in quindo, colombia

Documents