Small-scale Forestry

, 8:381 | Cite as

Bringing Agroforestry Technology to Farmers in Leyte, the Philippines: A Comparison of Two Extension Assistance Regimes

  • Jack Baynes
  • John Herbohn
  • Iean Russell
Research Paper


The response of farmers to personalised forestry and agroforestry extension assistance has not been well documented in the Philippines, thus providing the impetus for this research in which the effectiveness of extended on-farm assistance was compared with more limited assistance. In four municipalities in Leyte Island, farmers responded positively to an extended program which helped them overcome problems in germinating and growing seedlings and establishing trees on their land. A limited assistance program which sought to make use of farmers’ familiarity with growing and raising plants was relatively unsuccessful, with less preparation of tree planting sites and a higher rate of abandonment. Allowing farmers freedom to select planting sites and aspects of technical advice which suited their personal circumstances, encouraged a high degree of cooperation between extension staff and farmers, but 38% of farmers neglected post-planting weed control and 35% of sites were inappropriate for growing trees. Destruction of sites by flooding and grazing also caused farmers to blame extension staff even though these risks had been discussed with them beforehand. This suggested that a more interventionist approach would be appropriate for site selection although it may reduce recruitment. The number of farmers recruited through local government staff was low, but attendance by neighbours at locally held demonstrations was high, suggesting an avenue for further recruitment. Overall, the program was successful in shifting the initiative for further planting from extension staff to those farmers who received extended extension assistance.


Self-efficacy Small-scale nursery Swietenia macrophylla Home nursery 


  1. Balbarino E, Urich P, Malvicini P (2002) Cross visits: facilitators guide. CFTU (Conservation Farming in the Tropical Uplands) Leyte State University, Visca, LeyteGoogle Scholar
  2. Bannister ME, Nair PKR (2003) Agroforestry adoption in Haiti: the importance of household and farm characteristics. Agrofor Syst 57(2):149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baynes J, Garcia PP, Villamayor F, Gordon M (2007) Combining GIS and expert opinion to model landscapes for a smallholder forest extension program in Leyte, the Philippines. Ann Trop Res 29(1):49–66Google Scholar
  4. Bertomeu M, Bertomeu M, Giménez JC (2006) Improving adoptability of farm forestry in the Philippine uplands: a linear programming model. Agrofor Syst 68(1):81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cannell MGR, van Noordwijk M, Ong CK (1996) The central agroforestry hypothesis: the trees must acquire resources that the crop would not otherwise acquire. Agrofor Syst 34(1):27–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carandang WM, Tolentino EL Jr, Roshetko JM (2006) Smallholder tree nursery operations in southern Philippines—supporting mechanisms for timber tree domestication. For, Trees Livelihoods 16:71–83Google Scholar
  7. Chokkalingam U, Pulhin JM, Carabdang AP, Lasco RD (2006) Conclusions and recommendations. In: Chokkalingam UA, Carandang AP, Pulhin JM, Lasco RD, Peras RJJ, Toma T (eds) One century of forest rehabilitation in the Philippines: approaches, outcomes and lessons. Centre for International Forestry Research, BogorGoogle Scholar
  8. Cramb RA (2000) Working with farmers: the key to adoption of forage technologies. In: Stür WW, Packer JB, Kerridge PC (eds) Proceedings of an international workshop held in Cagayan de Oro city, Mindanao, Philippines 12–15 October 1999. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, pp 11–22Google Scholar
  9. Dart PJ, Brown SM, Simpson JA, Harrison SR, Venn TJ (2001) Experience from ACIAR trials of the suitability and performance of Australian tree species. In: Harrison SR, Herbohn JL (eds) Socio-economic evaluation of the potential for Australian tree species in the Philippines. ACIAR Monograph 75, Canberra, pp 7–20Google Scholar
  10. Fisher A, Vasseur L (2002) Smallholder perceptions of agroforestry projects in Panama. Agrofor Syst 54(2):103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Franzel S, Scherr SJ, Coe R, Cooper PJM, Place F (2002) Methods for assessing agroforestry adoption potential. In: Franzel S, Scherr SJ (eds) Trees on the farm: assessing the adoption potential of agroforestry practices in Africa. CABI, Wallingford, pp 11–35Google Scholar
  12. Gregorio N, Herbohn J, Harrison S (2004) Small-scale forestry development in Leyte, Philippines: the central role of nurseries. Small-scale For Econ, Manag Policy 3(3):337–351Google Scholar
  13. Gregorio NO, Herbohn JL, Harrison SR (2007) The operational effectiveness of the forest nursery sector in Leyte the Philippines. In: Harrison SR, Bosch A, Herbohn JL (eds) Improving the triple bottom line returns from small-scale forestry. Proceedings from an international conference held in Ormoc, the Philippines, 18–21 July 2007, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  14. Harrison SR, Herbohn JL (2000) Forestry systems, policy and regulation in the Philippines. In: Harrison S, Herbohn J (eds) Socio-economic evaluation of the potential for Australian tree species in the Philippines. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, pp 45–53Google Scholar
  15. Harrison SR, Herbohn JL, Dart PJ, Brown SM (2000) Sustainable small-scale forestry in the Philippines. In: Harrison SR, Herbohn JL, Herbohn KF (eds) Sustainable small-scale forestry: socio-economic analysis and policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 165–178Google Scholar
  16. Howcroft ND (2002) The balsa manual: techniques for establishment and the management of balsa (Ochroma lagopus) plantations in Papua New Guinea. International Tropical Timber Organisation, JapanGoogle Scholar
  17. Murdiyarso D, Lebel L (2007) Local to global perspectives on forest and land fires in Southeast Asia. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 12:3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Murray GF, Bannister ME (2004) Peasants, agroforesters and anthropologists: a 20-year venture in income-generating trees and hedgerows in Haiti. Agrofor Syst 61(3):383–397Google Scholar
  19. Nissen TM, Midmore DJ, Keeler AG (2001) Biophysical and economic tradeoffs of intercropping timber with food crops in the Philippine uplands. Agric Syst 67(1):49–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Peque D (2003) Value-adding in forestry at the farm and community level. Ann Trop For 25(2):29–36Google Scholar
  21. Russell D, Franzel S (2004) Trees of prosperity: agroforestry, markets and the African smallholder. Agrofor Syst 61(3):345–355Google Scholar
  22. Severino HG (2000) The role of local stakeholders in forest protection. In: Utting P (ed) Forest policy and politics in the Philippines: the dynamics of participatory conservation. ADMU Press, Quezon City, pp 84–89Google Scholar
  23. Snelder DJ, Klein M, Schuren SHG (2007) Farmers preferences, uncertainties and opportunities in fruit-tree cultivation in northeast Luzon. Agrofor Syst 71(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tacconi L, Moore PF, Kaimowitz D (2007) Fires in tropical forests—what is really the problem? Lessons from Indonesia. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 12:55–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Venn TJ, Harrison SR, Herbohn JL (2001) Impediments to the adoption of Australian tree species in the Philippines. In: Harrison SR, Herbohn JL (eds) Socio-economic evaluation of the potential for Australian tree species in the Philippines. ACIAR Monograph 75, ACIAR, Canberra, pp 167–181Google Scholar
  26. Wallace BJ (2006) The changing village environment in Southeast Asia: applied anthropology and environmental reclamation in the northern Philippines. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Steve Harrison, John Herbohn 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Integrative SystemsThe University of QueenslandSt LuciaAustralia

Personalised recommendations