multipurpose tree species research for small farms: strategies ... - part

Development (NERAD) Project is an attempt to
introduce improved farming practices into the
traditional farming system. The following are
innovations introduced by the project and lessons
learned as a result (Chuangcham 1987).
A machine to sow rice directly into the paddy
The idea is to plant rice by direct sowing, as
opposed to transplanting or field sowing, to avoid
the problems of drought. The equipment is
hand-operated and makes holes in the soil. It costs
2,500 Baht (US$1 = 25 Baht) and uses less seed in
less time than the traditional method with dibble
sticks.
A, a result of the field trials, farmers agreed that
the machine decreases the amount of time
necessary for sowing. But none of the farmers
bought the machines because they are too
expensive. In another village, where vegetables are
grow,'n for sal, , the machines were not purchased
citb r, becaus., planting vegetables provides a
higher return than growing rice,
Th;s result is interesting as th'. innovation
addresses one of the problems of rice growing
where rice is a major crop. The equipment can be
classified as a laboi -saving 'Anov:ation, but it was
introduced in an area where there is an abundance
of available labor during the main cropping season.
So the value gained, in terms of saved labor, is
considered low relative to the cost of the
equipment, and the effect on yield is difficult to
establish. The end result is that the innovation was
not adopted.
Improved shallow wells
A borehole is drilled until it reaches the
underground water table (8-25 meters) and a steel
pipe connecting the underground water to the
shallow well is installed. The underground wafer
continuously recharges the well. The result is
increased water availability, enabling more land to
be cropped, or the growing of higher valued crops
such as vegetables.
The innovation was strongly appreciated by the
farmers. However, there is no record of the
number of farmers who have installed this type of
well independently of the project.
These examples are presented to point out the
lack of standard cost/benefit analyses of these
innovations, which is a pity, as the information
would be illuminating regarding the returns the
farmers expect and are willing to risk.
105
Grafting fruit trees
NERAD experimented with trees as ai
innovation, through grafting to improve the
stock of fruit trees. Selected farmers were
trained in grafting techniques and were to
return to their villages and teach other villagers.
The project evaluation found that the trees
suffered from a lack of weeding and care, and a
lack of interest in general due to the perception
that fruit trees take a long time to yield. The
villagers were more interested in crops with
short rotations and fast returns. Progress was
only reported on an individual basis on certain
farms.
Management of common land
In this innovation, the farmers were organized
in village groups to manage the village common
land for grazing. The land had been
encroached to grow annual cash crops. The
village council agreed to take part in the project
by ailotting an area for planting trees and a
pasture. The pasture was sown with Hamata
and Ruzy grass which was cut for sale to the
villager, as fodder for cattle, the proceeds going
to te village fund. The project is rated a
success because of the amount of tree planting
achieved and the grass collected.
This innovation is interesting in that it
involves a whole community, as opposed to an
individual, in the decision-making process. An
interesting lesson is that the commun;ty
perspective was long-term in allocating !and for
the project, and they successfully stopped the
use of the land for annual cropping by individual
villagers.
In summary, the findings from these case
studies show that conditions leading to the
adoption ef an innovation are quite complex.
At the individual level, it appears that very clear
benefits need to be demonstrated with rap'd
returns if an innovation is to be adopted.
Innovations requiring a longer time frame
for the realization of benefits might be better
managed at the community level. There are
many reasons for this. First, resource
mobilization at the community level may
produce a total resource input that is greater
than that posibleby an inovidual. Second, a
common resource previously overexploited but
unmanaged, according to the typical "tragedy of
the commons" argument, may be brought under
more productive management, thus increasing
the productivity of the resource under the