Capacity for the Conservation

7/29/2019 Capacity for the Conservation

1/55


2/55

1Strategies of the Agriculture Sector in Koreafor the post-Kyoto Regime

Capacity for the Conservationof the Ifugao Rice Terraces:

The Hungduan Farmersof Ifugao

Margaret M. CalderonNathaniel C. Bantayan

Josefna T. Dizon

Asa Jose U. Sajise

Analyn L. CodilanMyranel G. Salvador

SEARCA

Agriculture & DevelopmentDiscussion Paper Series

No. 2011-3

SOUTHEAST ASIAN REGIONAL CENTER FOR GRADUATE

STUDY AND RESEARCH IN AGRICULTURE

Science and education for agriculture and development


3/55

Capacity for the Conservation of the Ifugao Rice Terraces: The Hungduan Farmers of Ifugao 1

1 Situated in the original, natural, or existing place or position.

Abstract

T he study aimed to build the capacity of Hungduan farmersin preparation for a full-blown Payments for Environmentaland Cultural Services (PECS) project, by engaging themin environmental and cultural resource assessment in a watershedcontext. Speci cally, the study facilitated activities that enhancedIfugao farmers knowledge in community-based resource and

damage assessment and mapping, identi ed the environmentaland cultural services of Hungduan, and formulated community-

based management plans for four sub-watersheds. The processes inimplementing the study were also documented.

The total areas of rice terraces in Clusters 1, 2, 3, and 4 wereestimated to be 623 hectares (ha), 631 ha, 1,171 ha, and 637 ha,respectively. Damaged terraces ranged from 13 percent to a maximumof 20 percent, while abandoned terraces were found to be minimal.

The farmers identi ed water, carbon sequestration, and soilconservation as the ecosystem services produced by the rice terraces;whereas organic farming, native customs, and the maintenance andrestoration of stone walls, terraces, and woodlots were regarded asthe cultural services. The farmers developed management plans that

were similar in terms of objectives and strategies but different inimplementation strategies, costs, and scheduling.

Some farmers did not readily accept the use of the watershed asa management unit. In addition, their harvests from the terraces were

barely enough for their subsistence; they had no surplus income thatcould be used for terrace repair.


4/55

Capacity for the Conservation of the Ifugao Rice Terraces: The Hungduan Farmers of Ifugao2

The study found, among other things, that complementing

indigenous knowledge with classroom and research techniques iseffective in generating reliable information needed for management

planning, and the use of three-dimensional (3D) maps can facilitatemanagement plan preparation.

Farmers activities in rice terraces management and conservation

should be supported or subsidized, possibly by the local governmentunits and the countryside development fund of congressmen andsenators (short-term), or through a sustainable nancing mechanismsuch as PECS (long-term). Aside from tourism revenues, such a

nancing mechanism may also be supported by payments for other environmental services produced, such as water, biodiversity, andcarbon sequestration.


5/55


Introduction

T he Ifugao Rice Terraces (IRT) of the Philippinesthe mostfamous among the rice terraces found in the Asia-Paci cregionattract a signi cant number of local and foreigntourists annually. Nine of the 11 municipalities of Ifugao provinceare home to rice terraces, and those in the municipalities of Kiangan,Hungduan, and Mayoyao, and the barangays of Batad and Bangaan

in the municipality of Banaue have been inscribed in the UNESCOWorld Heritage List under the category of organically-evolvedlandscapes. Though the municipalities of Asipulo, Aguinaldo,Hingyon, Lagawe, and Tinoc are not mentioned, there are initiativesto include more rice terraces in the list.

In a workshop conducted by the project proponents in March2008, a number of stakeholders noted that conservation effortshave focused only on the heritage municipalities even as the same

problems have been observed in the non-heritage ones. Theyexpressed concern that this may result in the deterioration of the riceterraces in other areas.

As with other heritage sites, the rice terraces were an offspringof necessity and were not made deliberately as heritage areas.

Originally carved from the mountains more than 2,000 years ago, theterraces were created by the people of Ifugao for rice planting. Theindigenous knowledge of the Ifugao allowed them to sculpt terraceson mountain slopes that both conserved soil and water, which madefor sustainable rice production. The terraces have gained recognitionthroughout the world; the use of traditional skills and hydraulicworks in the engineering and construction of the terraces has beenmarvelled at. However, the condition of the terraces has deterioratedover the years, owing to problems that include low rice productivity,outmigration, overcutting of woodlots, erosion and landslides,


6/55


problematic irrigation system, and the presence of pests such as

golden snails and giant earthworms. These problems have resultedin the abandonment of many terraces that, if allowed to continue,could compromise their very existence.

The research team completed a two-phase project funded by theEconomy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA)that aimed to develop a sustainable nancing mechanism for theconservation of the IRT. Phase 1 was undertaken to explain thesocio-cultural factors that in uence the Ifugao farmers practicesin relation to the terraces; analyze the water allocation system inIfugao and how this affects the availability of water for irrigation;and assess the availability of labor to undertake rehabilitation and

protection of the terraces. On the other hand, Phase 2 aimed toevaluate alternative approaches to capture tourists willingness to

pay (WTP) to partly nance conservation efforts, estimate the extent

and occurrence of abandonment of and damage to the rice terracesin the four heritage municipalities in Ifugao, and lay the groundwork for institutionalizing a sustainable nancing mechanism.

Among the signi cant ndings of the project are (1) the Ifugaofarmers need for nancial support to rehabilitate the irrigation systemand terrace walls, and other livelihood activities to augment farmincomes; and (2) a strong demand for the cultural and environmentalservices that the terraces provide, which if captured, would possibly

become a signi cant source of funds to support the farmers.

In a meeting on 19 January 2009, Ifugao Governor TeodoroB. Baguilat, Jr. mentioned that the efforts of the University of thePhilippines Los Baos (UPLB)-EEPSEA research team will help the

province meet the benchmarks set by UNESCO to remove the IRT

from the World Heritage in Danger list. One of these benchmarksis the development of a sustainable nancing mechanism for theterraces, which when in place, will help nance the restorationof damaged walls and support the initiatives under the Globally-


7/55


Important Agricultural Heritage Systems, such as reforestation,

livelihood, ecotourism, and community-based land use and zoning.

The research teams earlier work has demonstrated that thefarmers need support to continue farming the rice terraces andsustain the provision of the cultural and environmental servicesthat they, in the process of farming, provide. In addition, there is ademand for these services and the potential to raise revenues fromthe demand side (e.g., local and foreign tourists and other possibledonors) is high. To complete the picture, the problem of securing thecontinuous provision of these services, which may be compromisedif the current problems are not addressed, has to be tackled. That is,how revenues, if generated, will be used effectively and ef cientlyto secure the cultural and environmental services of the IRT.

This study focused on capacity building for the farmers

of Hungduan in preparation for a full-blown Payments for Environmental and Cultural Services (PECS) project. It aimed toengage farmers in environmental and cultural resource assessment ina watershed context with particular focus on the Ifugao indigenousknowledge system. Speci cally, the project facilitated activities thatenhanced Ifugao farmers knowledge of community-based resourceand damage assessment and mapping, identi ed the environmentaland cultural services of Hungduan, and prepared community-basedmanagement plans for four sub-watersheds.

Payment for Environmental Services

An increased global awareness of the need to conserveenvironmental resources has led to the development of a number of natural resource management policies. There has been a recent

shift from rigid top-down decision making towards more exibleand voluntary approaches. This shift is part of a wider governancereform designed to increase the effectiveness of conservation effortsand the ow of more bene ts to the communities.


8/55


Environmental degradation is occurring at an alarming rate,

prompting immediate action and more direct and innovativesolutions for environmental conservation (Leimona and Lee 2008).Among these innovations is the payments for ecosystem services or

payments for environmental services (PES).

PES as a recent policy innovation has attracted attention in bothdeveloped and developing countries. PES programs aim to harnessmarket forces to obtain more ef cient environmental outcomes(Zilberman 2007). It seeks to support positive environmentalexternalities through the transfer of nancial resources from

bene ciaries of certain environmental services to those who providethese services or are duciaries of environmental resources. Over the last decade, the use of PES schemes for watersheds, biodiversity,carbon sequestration, and landscape beauty dominated (Wunder 2006; Leimona and Lee 2008).

Authors provide various de nitions of PES. According to Raben(2007), PES is an environmental management instrument that useseconomic incentives to promote the conservation of the environmentand the environmental services it provides. It aims to establish

bene t streams, whether in cash or kind, owing from bene ciariesof improved environmental services to the providers of the services.The concept behind PES is to provide incentives and bene ts to the

people who now utilize environmentally-valuable ecosystems inreturn for their agreeing to utilize these services to protect or enhancetheir local bene ts (Noordwijk et al. 2007; Pagiola and Platais 2002).PES is voluntary and involves conditioned transactions of well-de ned environmental services between at least one service provider and bene ciary. It is also designed to generate its own nancing as

bene ciaries are to make ongoing payments from their own funds.

These payments are to be conditional on the actual delivery of theenvironmental service, which demands real environmental results(Leimona and Lee 2008; Wunder 2005).


9/55


The PES Market

Environmental services may be non-material and/or non-extractive bene ts from natural resources, such as watershed

protection and carbon sequestration. Payments and rewards mayconsist of a range of positive incentives that may also include bene ts,such as decision-making power, and capacity-building (Lee et al.2007). Compensation and incentives can be economic, social, andmoral while economic incentives can be in terms of direct payments,

nancial incentives, or in kind (Lasco 2008).

The service providers in PES programs are characterized as beingrural or peri-urban. In PES programs in Asia, most service providersare small-scale farmers practicing subsistence or market farming, or horticulture in a mixed landscape that includes farms and forests.They are also users of natural resources, such as forests, based on

formal or informal rights to the resource. They have a diverse rangeof livelihood activities undertaken for survival and subsistence.Furthermore, the service providers usually have limited informationand may be unaware of the effects of their activities. They lack clear land tenures, have little political voice and even lesser power tonegotiate agreements (Lee et al. 2007).

On the other hand, bene ciaries of PES programs can be local(e.g., water users in the lower watershed), national (e.g., state, non-government organizations [NGOs] or business associations), or international (e.g., international organizations or NGOs). They canalso be multi-nationals or international, or a mix of local, national,and international bene ciaries. The nature, number, and origin of

bene ciaries directly relate to the nature of environmental servicesgenerated under the PES scheme. Transaction costs are reduced

if bene ciaries are few and well-organized (Mayrand and Paquin2004).


10/55


Requirements for PES

Before PES schemes are designed and implemented, it isrecommended that a set of requirements be addressed to ensuresuccess and effectiveness. Leimona and Lee (2008) identi ed thefollowing as requirements for PES: (1) an effective supply and demandfor PES mechanism, (2) a supportive national and internationalcondition, and (3) support by credible intermediary organizations.There should be a clear demand by buyers for a mechanism to ensurecontractual agreement between environmental service providers assellers and bene ciaries as buyers. There should also be adequatespatial and temporal scales for delivering environmental services.PES projects should cover a signi cant area and should consider thetime lag between conservation activities and their outcomes. In mostcases, the countries that had embraced security of property rights,market exchange, and environmental conservation are most likely

to implement PES programs effectively. Finally, assistance by anintermediary organization in the research, monitoring, and evaluationactivities is important to justify the establishment, implementation,and continued operation of public PES schemes.

Lee et al. (2007) suggest that a realistic PES program shouldconsider both the environmental and economic factors that arenecessary and feasible to effectively improve or maintain the

provision of an environmental service. In terms of the environmentalfactors, a realistic PES requires a clear relationship to have beenestablished between the land use modi cation that forms the basisfor the payment scheme, and the proposed environmental serviceoutcomes. This means that management practices by ES providerscould actually maintain or improve the ES provision. In addition,a viable PES program should be realistic in terms of the timing,

adequacy, and quality of implemented practices, allowing enoughtime for desired environmental outcomes to emerge. For theeconomic factors, it is important that the scheme be based on anunderstanding of the economic costs and bene ts accruing to various


11/55


stakeholders. Since there are different types of costs involved in a

PES scheme, a realistic scheme recognizes the need to match the ES bene ciaries willingness to pay and the providers willingness toaccept the offered payment or reward as the basis for negotiation of

bene t-sharing.

In terms of the PES scheme design, the following importantelements should be included and clearly de ned: (1) the environmentalservice to be provided, (2) who is paid and the amount of payments,(3) actions or results necessary to earn payment, and (4) paymentadministration (Noordwijk et al. 2007; Francisco 2003; Batie andHoran 2001; Mayrand and Paquin 2004).

Leimona et al. (2008) add that PES schemes will succeed if thecommunity involved appreciates its opportunity, role, and impactas ES sellers. The communities should be involved in the scheme

voluntarily and understand their bargaining positions based onoptimal threat and cooperation with other stakeholders. Communitiesshould have a well-functioning structure to support an operationalPES mechanism effectively.

PES initiatives in Asia and the Philippines

In 2002, a collaboration between the International Center for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF), now the World AgroforestryCenter, and the International Fund for Agricultural Development(IFAD) resulted in the birth of Rewarding the Upland Poor for Environmental Services They Provide (RUPES). Under RUPES, arange of methods that would allow the bene ciaries of environmentalservices to pay upland communities for their environmental serviceswere tried (Hargrove and Chandler 2004). Initially, six research sites

were established in the Philippines, Nepal, Indonesia, and China. Thetwo RUPES sites in the Philippines were the Manupali Watershedin the province of Bukidnon and the municipality of Bakun in the

province of Benguet.


12/55


The whole municipality of Lantapan is located in the Manupali

Watershed. About 13 percent of farm households have adopted soiland water conservation technologies in 2001, covering an area of about 1,230 ha. The large-scale adoption of conservation technologiescan potentially stabilize farming systems and generate environmental

bene ts such as soil conservation, maintenance of water quality andquantity, and biodiversity conservation ( World Agroforestry Center 2010a). In 2007, the stakeholders from Manupali, Lantapan begandeveloping a PES scheme but required technical assistance. Themunicipality has also enacted an incentive-based policy in 2009,which provided support to farmers and farmer organizations thathave adopted and invested in sustainable farming systems, andensured the continuous provision of environmental services.

The case of Manupali, Lantapan illustrates how a localgovernment-led PES scheme can be a substitute for or complement

PES efforts at the national level (Catacutan et al. 2010). Furthermore,it was noted that a locally-designed PES scheme can actually providelegitimacy at the individual and community levels, enhancing its

potential to help the poor. The municipality of Bakun in Benguet has an area of about

30,000 ha of rugged terrain (World Agroforestry Center 2010b). Ithas the distinction of having been awarded the rst Certi cate of Ancestral Domain Title in the Philippines. The Bakun Watershed,with a drainage area of 29,300 ha, has four major rivers. Two of these,Bakun and Gambang, support the hydroelectric power operationsof two mini-hydro companies. The companies provide bene ts tothe municipality in terms of taxes; they also provide other bene tsto the local government unit (LGU). The LGU has Memoranda of Agreement with HEDCOR Inc., signed in 1991, and with Luzon

Hydropower Corporation, signed in 1997.


13/55


The RUPES project in Bakun tested the existing reward/payment

mechanism with the hydroelectric companies, and assisted thecommunity in the formulation of the Bakun Integrated WatershedDevelopment and Management Plan. The plan was jointlyimplemented by the Bakun Indigenous Tribes Organization and theBakun LGU. For their conservation efforts, the community receivedincentives from the hydroelectric companies.

Concepcion et al. (2005) conducted a study on the multi-

functionality of the IRT. The authors clarify that the practicalapplication of multi-functionality refers to the non-marketable,collateral functions of agriculture in the forms of food security,environmental services, enhancing landscape aesthetics, and insatisfying social, cultural, and religious needs of various ethnic andlocal communities. Among other things, they identi ed the multi-functional roles that the terraces perform to include food (rice)

production; soil and water conservation, especially in supplyingclean water to Magat Dam; environmental enhancement; reductionof natural hazards (e.g., ooding, drought, and landslides); and thecreation of beautiful touristic landscapes. These uses have economicand social values not only to the rural and urban communities but tothe global community as well.

Description of the Project Area

Ifugao is a landlocked province in the Cordillera AdministrativeRegion (CAR) and bounded by the provinces of Mountain Provinceto the north, Isabela to the east, Nueva Vizcaya to the south, andBenguet to the west. It has 11 municipalities (Figure 1); Asipulo,Tinoc, Kiangan, Lagawe, Hingyon, Banaue, Hungduan, Mayoyao,and Aguinaldo have rice terraces while Lamut and Alfonso Lista do

not. The municipalities included in the UNESCO World HeritageList are Banaue, Kiangan, Mayoyao, and Hungduan.


14/55


Figure 1. Provincial map of Ifugao showing the heritage municipalities

AsipuloLamut

Tinoc

Aguinaldo Alfonso Lista

Banaue

Hungduan

Kiangan

Mayoyao

Hingyon

Lagawe


15/55


The project site is Hungduan, one of the four heritage

municipalities of Ifugao. It is bounded by Banaue to the east; Kianganto the south; Tinoc to the southwest; Sabangan, Mountain Provinceto the northwest; and Bontoc, Mountain Province to the north.Geographically located at 1650N and 12100E, the municipalityis 25 kilometers (km) from Banaue and 45 km from the provincialcapital of Lagawe.

The total land area of Hungduan is 22,911 ha, whichrepresents about 9 percent of Ifugaos total land area of 251,778ha. The municipality has nine barangays, of which Lubo-ong isthe biggest and Hapao is the smallest, with land areas of 4,550 haand 1,407 ha, respectively. The other barangays are Abatan, Baang,Bangbang, Bokiawan, Maggok, Nungulunan, and Poblacion. The

barangays covered by the project are Hapao, Baang, Nungulunan,and Poblacion (Figure 2).

The elevation of Hungduan ranges from 700 to 2,700 metersabove sea level (masl), with the lowest elevations observed in theriver valleys in Brgy. Bangbang and Brgy. Maggok, and the highestelevations in the peaks of Mt. Napulawan (2,642 masl) and Mt.Calawitan (2,714 masl). As with other areas of CAR, the terrainof Hungduan is generally mountainous. The four major rivers of Sumigar-Lubo-ong, Hapao, Dakkitan, and Galung, drain into theIbulao river. The barangays included in the study are sub-watershedsof the Hapao and Dakkitan rivers.

About half of Hungduan is forestland, particularly in the western portion. The eastern side is where clusters of rice terraces can befound.


16/55


Figure 2. Map of Hungduan, Ifugao

Source: CLUP of Hungduan, Ifugao 2010


17/55


Methodology

Research Design

The activities that were undertaken in the study, which includesite selection, capacity building of farmer groups for community-

based management planning, and process documentation, are shownin Figure 3. The development and issuance of the PECS contractsis not included in the scope of this research project funded by theSoutheast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Researchin Agriculture-Seed Fund for Research and Training (SEARCA-SFRT). The nal output of the project were enabled farmer groups,from which potential bidders for the PECS project (Figure 4) may berecruited based on the process discussed in the original proposal (seeLimitations of the Study).

Selection of study sites

The criteria considered in selecting the project sites were thewillingness of the community to participate, accessibility (for ef cient monitoring), area of the terrace-woodlot cluster, and theextent of damage based on an ocular survey that the team conductedin March 2009.

With assistance from the Ifugao Cultural Heritage Of ce (ICHO)and the local government of Hungduan, four sub-watersheds wereidenti ed, from which the farmer-participants were drawn.

Inasmuch as the unit of management would be the watershedand not the political boundaries, the participants were divided into

four clusters (Figure 5) with each cluster corresponding to one sub-watershed, namely, Cluster 1 - Nungulunan and Hapao; Cluster 2- Baang and Nungulunan; Cluster 3 - Baang and Hapao; and Cluster 4 - Hapao and Poblacion.


18/55


Figure 3. Proposed SFRT study

Capacitated Farmer Groups

Community-based Resourceand Damage

Assessment andMapping

Identification of Environmental andCultural Services

Community-basedManagement

Plan Preparation

Capacity Building of Farmer Groups

Willingness of community to participate in the project Accessibility AreaExtent of damage (based on ocular inspection)

Selectionof PECS

Sites

Capacitated Farmer Groups

Recruitment of Potential Bidders (2)

Awarding of Contracts

(6)

Second Round

Evaluation of Bids (5)

Workshop for Bidders(3)

First Round

Evaluation of Bids (4)

Implementation of Contracts (7)

Monitoring andEvaluation (8) P

r o c e s s D o c u m e n t a t i o n

Figure 4. Full-blown PECS project


19/55


Figure 5. Hungduan sub-watersheds


20/55


Capacity building of farmer groups

To build the capacity of farmer groups, three training-workshopson resource and damage assessment methods, community mapping,and management plan preparation were conducted. The samefarmers attended the three training-workshops since the lectures andhands-on exercises led towards the preparation of the nal output,which is the management plan. Aside from the farmer-participants,representatives of the Hungduan LGU and ICHO were also present.

During the rst training-workshop (15-16 February 2010), theresearch team discussed community-based management planning,resource assessment methods, and community mapping. Geographicinformation system (GIS)-based maps were produced on large sheetsof paper showing basic features such as stream network, communalforest upstream, farmlots, and trails, among others. The community

members were asked to indicate damaged areas on the map. Thefarmer groups were likewise trained on simple techniques to monitor soil erosion (e.g., erosion pins) and rainfall through the installationof simple fabricated instruments.

The second training-workshop (26-28 May 2010) was conductedto (1) validate the outputs of the farmer groups, (2) identify theenvironmental and cultural services that farmers produce as theytend the rice terraces, and (3) prepare the management plan. Tofacilitate plan preparation, the research team provided the farmerswith a simpli ed management plan template.

The third training-workshop (13-15 October 2010) was conductedto enhance the management plans prepared by the farmers and to

present these to local government of cials.


21/55


Community-based resource and damage assessment

After the rst training-workshop, the farmer groups undertook community-based resource and damage assessment. In this activity,the farmers also conducted an inventory of their communal forest/woodlots to generate an estimate of oral diversity, including theextent and scope of use of the communal forest by the communities.A socio-economic survey involving 200 farmer respondents wasalso conducted.

The resources and the damaged terraces were estimated througha participatory process involving the community members fromeach of the clusters. The process included the following steps: (1)community three-dimensional (3D) mapping of land use and riceterraces, (2) GIS-based mapping, and (3) validation workshop.

Community 3D maps help to maximize the learning experience by enhancing the visual familiarity of the landscape in whichthe community lives. In this approach, the community membersconstructed the 3D models (Figure 6).

The 3D models allowed the participants to better visualize their own landscape and thus indicate more accurately the different landuses on the map. The land uses of interest include the extent andcoverage of terraces, woodlots, and the households. The participantswere also asked to indicate the conditions of the terraces (i.e.,whether these were damaged or abandoned).

The data from the 3D models were then transformed into GISmaps. These maps were used to provide estimates of coverage (i.e.,location) and extent (ha). After this exercise (step 2), a validation

workshop (step 3) was undertaken to enable the participants to re nethe results of landuse and terrace-woodlots, especially the extent of damaged terraces. Also, the results of the validation served as inputin the preparation of the management plan.


22/55


Figure 6. Basemap construction, layering and detailing of 3D models


23/55


Socio-economic survey

A socio-economic survey involving 200 farmer respondentswas conducted, through which information regarding the farmersfarming practices, water supply situation, farm labor availability,costs and returns from farming, problems in the terraces, and socio-economic situation were gathered.

The farmer respondents were distributed proportionately acrossthe four clusters based on the area of each cluster (Table 1). Thismeans that the bigger the area of a cluster, the greater the number of respondents selected. In choosing the respondents per barangay for agiven cluster, the proportion of respondents was based on the number of households of the barangay. The sample size of each barangaywas 20 percent of the total number of households. There are 175households in Baang, 420 households in Hapao, 179 households in

Nungulunan, and 225 households in Poblacion. The respondentswere selected systematically.

The data gathered from the socio-economic survey weresubjected to quantitative analysis and descriptive statistics.

Cluster Barangay No. of Respondents

1 Hapao 011

Nungulunan 016

2 Baang 015

Nungulunan 020

3 Baang 020

Hapao 054

4 Hapao 019

Poblacion 045

Total 200

Table 1 . Distribution of respondents across clusters and barangays


24/55


Process documentation

Process documentation was undertaken throughout theimplementation of the project. The documentation includedmeeting highlights, process and photo-documentation, and regular discussions among the research team members and co-implementers(e.g., ICHO and the Hungduan LGU).


25/55


Results and Discussion

Community-based Resource andDamage Assessment and Mapping

A previous estimate (Calderon et al. 2008) concluded thatdamaged terraces in the World Heritage Sites of Ifugao ranged from4.1 ha (low estimate) to 461 ha (high estimate), or 0.04 percent to4.4 percent of the total area of the rice terraces in the heritage sites.This study estimated the total areas of rice terraces in Clusters 1,2, 3, and 4 to be 623 ha, 631 ha, 1,171 ha and 637 ha, respectively.Damaged terraces ranged from a minimum of 13 percent (Cluster 2)to a maximum of 20 percent (Cluster 4), while abandoned terraceswere found to be minimal (Table 2).

The community mapping activity focused on the forest or terrace-woodlots and extent and coverage of rice terraces. Cluster 4 had themost forested area, while Cluster 3 contained the highest number of rice terraces (Table 3; Figures 7 and 8). It may be noted that it wasonly in Cluster 4 where the area for settlements was pronounced.This is because Poblacion, where many houses are located, is foundin Cluster 4.

The erosion pins and simple rain gauges were installed in thevicinity of each cluster in three places: creek area, abandonedarea, and forest area. Readings were taken from July until October 2010. However, since only two erosion pins were installed ineach area, the results can only be considered indicative. Theexercise aimed to capacitate the farmer groups in community-

based resource assessment, which may perhaps lead to a

systematic approach in the future. The summary of the results for theerosion pins is shown in Table 4.


26/55


Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4

ha % ha % ha % ha %

Abandoned 5 1 5 1 12 1 - 0

Damaged 15 2 79 13 170 14 125 20

Undamaged 603 97 547 86 990 85 512 80

Total 623 100 631 100 1,171 100 637 100

Table 2 . Estimate of rice terraces, different conditions

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4

ha % ha % ha % ha %

Forest 182 23 1,273 67 517 31 1,600 72

Rice Terraces 623 77 631 33 1,171 69 637 28

Total 805 100 1,904 100 1,688 100 2,237 100

Table 3 . Forest and terrace-woodlots in the study areas

Cluster Location Creek Area(cm)

AbandonedArea (cm)

ForestedArea (cm)

1 Patpat, Nunguluan 03.7 03.9 00.9

1 Brgy Nunguluan 06.3 03.8 05.32 Bag-ungan, Baang 05.6 00.1 02.0

2 Capih, Baang 06.0 02.1 00.0

3 Piddol, Hapao 06.6 - 05.7

3 Hulungna, Hapao 03.8 02.9 02.3

4 Numpolia, Poblacion 03.2 01.2 00.9

4 Dakkitan, Poblacion 04.3 00.8 03.8

Total 27.4 12.2 18.9

Average 03.4 01.7 02.4

Table 4 . Summary of erosion estimates from the four clusters


27/55


Figure 7. Updated land use map of Cluster 1

Figure 8. Updated land use map of Cluster 4


28/55


As expected, the creek area exhibited the highest erosion. How-

ever, unexpectedly, the abandoned area fared better than the forestarea. Initial analysis revealed that the reason may be due to the pres-ence of more ground cover, in terms of grass, in the abandoned areathan in the forest area. Given the short period for this research, thisresult should not be taken as conclusive and should be pursued withmore resources and a longer period of research.

Socio-economic Survey

A total of 200 respondents were interviewed for the socio-economic survey, with 27, 35, 74, and 64 respondents for Clusters1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. A summary of the respondents socio-economic characteristics is given in Table 5.

Most of the respondents (84%) were male, married (80%), with

ages ranging from 24 to 88 years old, with an average age of 48.97years. The primary occupation of 59 percent of the respondents wascultivating their own farms, while 20 percent were tenant farmers.The income from their primary occupation ranged from PHP 500 toPHP 45,000 per month, with an average of PHP 6,436 per month. Itis interesting to note that 46 percent of the respondents said that theydid not have any secondary occupation, which means that they weretotally dependent on farming. About 25 percent of the respondentswere elementary school undergraduates, and only a few (7.5%)

nished college.

In terms of ownership of the terraces they tilled, 45 percent of the respondents said that these were owned by their relatives, while40 percent, 30 percent, and 28 percent revealed that the terraceswere owned by both husband and wife, husband alone, and wife

alone, respectively (Table 6). The most common mode of terraceacquisition was inheritance (70%), although kinapya 1 was also usual(Table 7).

1 Scheme where the farmer tenant and the owner of the land share the harvest equally


29/55


Almost all respondents (96%) said that they were able to plant

in all their plots. The nine respondents who revealed they were notable to plant in all their plots cited insuf cient water supply (4%),and damaged terraces as the reasons (2%). All the respondentsfrom Baang belonging to Clusters 2 and 3 said that irrigation wasavailable, and so did most respondents from Nungulunan (Clusters 1and 2) and Poblacion (Cluster 4) (Table 8). However, 21 respondentsfrom Hapao belonging to Clusters 1 and 4, said that irrigation wasnot readily available. This is because most irrigation facilities inHapao, with the exception of those in Hapao Proper, were damaged.Furthermore, all respondents except those from Cluster 4s Hapaosaid that water was suf cient during the rainy season. However,62 percent of the respondents encountered water supply problemsduring the dry season, which made them resort to other sources of water, such as springs.

According to 62 percent of the respondents, the insuf cientwater supply was the main reason for their low harvests. Water supply problems also contributed to the collapse of terrace walls,earthworm infestation, and the eventual abandonment of the terraces(Table 9). To improve the water supply for the rice terraces, 42

percent of the respondents saw the need to rehabilitate the existingirrigation canals by concretizing them, or by installing PVC pipes inthe canals (39%).

It is interesting to note that some respondents have been farmingfor more than 50 years, with a few having farmed for about 70years (Table 10). As is the common practice in other rice terracesin Ifugao, the farmers plant rice only once a year, all of them usingthe traditional variety tinawon . Only four respondents said theyused commercial fertilizers, while the rest used organic fertilizer.

Likewise, all the respondents said they observed a fallow period for their farms.


30/55


T a

b l e 5

. S o c i o - e c o n o m

i c c h a r a c

t e r i s t

i c s o

f r e s p o n d e n

t s

C h a r a c t e r

i s t i c s

C l u s t e r

1

C l u s t e r

2

C l u s t e r

3

C l u s t e r

4

T o t a l

H a p a o

N u n g u -

l u n a n

B a a n g

N u n g u -

l u n a n

B a a n g

H a p a o

H a p a o

P o b

l a c i o n

N o

%

N o

%

N o

%

N o

%

N o

%

N o

%

N o

%

N o

%

N o

%

G e n

d e r

M a l e

9

8 1 . 8

1 5

9 3 . 8

1 2

8 0 . 0

1 5

7 5 . 0

2 0

1 0 0 . 0

4 0

7 4 . 1

1 8

9 4 . 7

3 9

8 6 . 7

1 6 8

8 4 . 0

F e m a l e

2

1 8 . 2

1

6 . 3

3

2 0 . 0

5

2 5 . 0

0

0 . 0

1 4

2 5 . 9

1

5 . 3

6

1 3 . 3

3 2

1 6 . 0

A g e

R a n g e

( y r s

)

3 1 - 6

8

2 4 - 8 3

3 5 - 7

0

2 9 - 6

5

2 4 - 7

5

2 7 - 8

7

3 5 - 7

2

2 3 - 8

8

2 4 - 8

8

A v e r a g e

( y r s

)

4 9 . 5

4 7 . 7

5 2 . 2

7

4 9 . 8

4 9 . 3

4 8 . 4

4 9 . 5

4 5 . 4

4 8 . 9

7

M a r

i t a l S t a t u s

U n m a r r i e

d

0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0 0

0

0 . 0

1

5 . 0

0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

2

4 . 4

3

1 . 5

M a r r i e

d l i v i n g

w i t h s p o u s e

7

6 3 . 6

1 6

1 0 0 . 0

1 3

8 6 . 7

1 5

7 5 . 0

1 9

9 5 . 0

3 7

6 8 . 5

1 6

8 4 . 2

3 7

8 2 . 2

1 6 0

8 0 . 0

W i d o w

/ W i d o w e r

3

2 7 . 3

0

0 . 0

2

1 3 . 3

5

2 5 . 0

0

0 . 0

1 1

2 0 . 4

2

1 0 . 5

2

4 . 4

2 5

1 2 . 5

D i v o r c e

d

0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0 0

0

0 . 0

S e p a r a t e d

0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

2

3 . 7

0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0 0

2

1 . 0

M a r r i e

d b u t

s p o u s e

l i v i n g

a b r o a d

/ o t h e r

p l a c e

f o r w o r

k

1

9 . 1

0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

4

7 . 4

1

5 . 3

4

8 . 9

1 0

5 . 0


31/55


C h a r a c t e r

i s t i c s

C l u s t e r

1

C l u s t e r

2

C l u s t e r

3

C l u s t e r

4

T o t a l

H a p a o

N u n g u -

l u n a n

B a a n g

N u n g u -

l u n a n

B a a n g

H a p a o

H a p a o

P o b

l a c i o n

N o

%

N o

%

N o

%

N o

%

N o

%

N o

%

N o

%

N o

%

N o

%

P r i m a r y

O c c u p a t

i o n

C u l

t i v a t

i n g o w n

f a r m

0 7

0 6 3 . 6

1 0

0 6 2 . 5

0 8

0 5 3 . 3

1 2

0 6 0

1 0

0 5 0

2 3 0 4 2 . 6 1 8 0 9 4 . 7 2 9

0 6 4 . 4

1 1 7

0 5 8 . 5

T e n a n t

f a r m e r

0 4

0 3 6 . 4

0 4

0 2 5 . 0

0 3

0 2 0 . 0

0 6

0 3 0

0 3

0 1 5

1 2 0 2 2 . 2 0 1 0 0 5 . 3 0 7

0 1 5 . 6

0 4 0

0 2 0 . 0

H a n

d i c r a f

t /

P r o c e s s

i n g /

c o t t a g e

i n d u s t r y

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 1

0 0 6 . 3

0 3

0 2 0 . 0

0 1

0 0 5

0 5

0 2 5

0 7 0 1 3 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 2

0 0 4 . 4

0 1 9

0 0 9 . 5

S h o p

k e e p

i n g /

u t i l i t y s t o r e

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 1 0 0 1 . 9 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 2

0 0 4 . 4

0 0 3

0 0 1 . 5

T r a n s p o r

t

o p e r a t o r

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 2 0 0 3 . 7 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 0 2

0 0 1 . 0

C o n s t r u c t

i o n l a

b o r

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 1

0 0 6 . 3

0 1

0 0 6 . 7

0 0

0 0 0

0 2

0 1 0

0 5 0 0 9 . 3 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 1

0 0 2 . 2

0 1 0

0 0 5 . 0

S e r v i c e

( t e a c h e r ,

d o c t o r , e

t c . )

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 1

0 0 5

0 0

0 0 0

0 4 0 0 7 . 4 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 4

0 0 8 . 9

0 0 9

0 0 4 . 5

I n c o m e

R a n g e

( P H P / m o )

2 , 0 0 0 - 1 4

, 0 0 0 5 0 0 - 2 5

, 0 0 0

1 , 0 0 0 -

3 4 , 0

0 0

2 , 0 0 0 - 2 , 0 0 0

1 , 5 0 0 - 5 , 0 0 0 5 0 0 - 2 0

, 0 0 0

2 , 0 0 0 -

1 9 , 0

0 0

1 , 0 0 0 -

2 4 , 0

0 0

5 0 0 - 4

5 , 0 0 0

A v e r a g e

( P H P /

m o )

5 , 1 0 9 . 0 9

6 , 3 4 3 . 7 5

6 , 9 3 3 . 3 3

5 , 8 5 0

8 , 8 6 0

5 , 8 5 3 . 7 0

5 , 6 5 7 . 9 0

6 , 8 7 7 . 7 8

6 , 4 3 5 . 6 9

T a

b l e 5

. S o c

i o - e c o n o m

i c c h a r a c

t e r i s t

i c s o f r e s p o n

d e n

t s ( C o n t

i n u e

d )


32/55


T a

b l e 5

. S o c

i o - e c o n o m

i c c h a r a c

t e r i s t

i c s o

f r e s p o n d e n

t s ( C o n t

i n u e

d )

C h a r a c t e r

i s t i c s

C l u s t e r

1

C l u s t e r

2

C l u s t e r

3

C l u s t e r

4

T o t a l

H a p a o

N u n g u -

l u n a n

B a a n g

N u n g u -

l u n a n

B a a n g

H a p a o

H a p a o

P o b

l a c i o n

N o

%

N o

%

N o

%

N o

%

N o

%

N o

%

N o

%

N o

%

N o

%

S e c o n

d a r y

O c c u p a t

i o n

N o n e

0 5

0 4 5 . 5

0 7

0 4 3 . 8

0 8

0 5 3 . 3

1 1

0 5 5 0 7

0 3 5

2 4

0 4 4 . 4

1 2

0 6 3 . 2

1 7

0 3 7 . 8

0 9 1

0 4 5 . 5

C u l

t i v a t

i n g o w n

f a r m

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 1

0 0 6 . 3

0 4

0 2 6 . 7

0 1

0 0 5 0 5

0 2 5

1 1

0 2 0 . 4

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 7

0 1 5 . 6

0 2 9

0 1 4 . 5

T e n a n t

f a r m e r

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 1

0 0 6 . 3

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 1

0 0 5 0 2

0 1 0

0 8

0 1 4 . 8

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 2

0 0 4 . 4

0 1 4

0 0 7 . 0

H a n

d i c r a f

t /

P r o c e s s

i n g /

C o t

t a g e

i n d u s t r y

0 4

0 3 6 . 4

0 6

0 3 7 . 5

0 1

0 0 6 . 7

0 5

0 2 5 0 1

0 5 0

0 3

0 0 5 . 6

0 3

0 1 5 . 8

0 4

0 0 8 . 9

0 2 7

0 1 3 . 5

S h o p

k e e p

i n g / u

t i l i t y

s t o r e

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 . 0

T r a n s p o r

t o p e r a

t o r

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 1

0 0 1 . 9

0 1

0 0 5 . 3

0 1

0 0 2 . 2

0 0 3

0 0 1 . 5

C o n s t r u c t

i o n

l a b o r

0 1

0 0 9 . 1

0 1

0 0 6 . 3

0 2

0 1 3 . 3

0 0

0 0 0 0 5

0 2 5

0 2

0 0 3 . 7

0 2

0 1 0 . 5

0 8

0 1 7 . 8

0 2 1

0 1 0 . 5

S e r v i c e

( t e a c h e r ,

d o c t o r , e

t c . )

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 2

0 1 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 3

0 0 5 . 6

0 1

0 0 5 . 3

0 4

0 0 8 . 8

0 1 0

0 0 5 . 0

H o m e m a k e r

0 1

0 0 9 . 1

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 2

0 0 3 . 7

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 0 3

0 0 1 . 5

G a r

d e n i n g

/ v e g e

t a b l e

c r o p

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 0

0 0 0 . 0

0 2

0 0 4 . 4

0 0 2

1 0 0 . 0

T o t a l

1 1

1 0 0 . 0

1 6 1 0 0 . 0

1 5

1 0 0 . 0

2 0

1 0 0 2 0

1 0 0

5 4

1 0 0 . 0

1 9

1 0 0 . 0

4 5

1 0 0 . 0

2 0 0

1 0 0 . 0


33/55


C h a r a c t e r

i s t i c s

C l u s t e r

1

C l u s t e r

2

C l u s t e r

3

C l u s t e r

4

T o t a l

H a p a o

N u n g u -

l u n a n

B a a n g

N u n g u -

l u n a n

B a a n g

H a p a o

H a p a o

P o b

l a c i o n

N o

%

N o

%

N o

%

N o

%

N o

%

N o

%

N o

%

N o

%

N o

%

H i g h e s t

E d u c a

t i o n a

l

A t t a i n m e n

t

N o n e

2

1 8

4

2 5

1

6 . 7

4

2 0

3

1 5

0 4

7 . 4

0 0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

1 8

9 . 0

P r e - S c h o o

l

0

0

0

0

0

0 . 0

1

5

0

0

0 0

0 . 0

0 0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

1

0 . 5

E l e m e n

t a r y

u n d e r g r a

d u a t e

4

3 6

5

3 1

7

4 4 . 7

4

2 0 1 1

5 5

0 7

1 2 . 9

0 4

2 1 . 1

7

1 5 . 6

4 9

2 4 . 5

E l e m e n

t a r y g r a d u a

t e

2

1 8

5

3 1

2

1 3 . 3

6

3 0

2

1 0

0 5

9 . 3

0 4

2 1 . 1

8

1 7 . 8

3 4

1 7 . 0

H i g h s c

h o o l

u n d e r g r a

d u a t e

2

1 8

2

1 3

3

2 0 . 0

2

1 0

0

0

0 7

1 2 . 9

0 3

1 5 . 8

1 1

2 4 . 4

3 0

1 5 . 0

H i g h s c

h o o l g r a

d u a t e

1

9

0

0

2

1 3 . 3

1

5

3

1 5

1 4

2 5 . 9

0 7

3 6 . 8

1 2

2 6 . 7

4 0

2 0 . 0

C o l

l e g e

u n d e r g r a

d u a t e

0

0

0

0

0

0 . 0

0

0

1

5

7

1 2 . 9

0 0

0 . 0

2

4 . 4

1 0

5 . 0

C o l

l e g e g r a d u a t e

0

0

0

0

0

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

9

1 6 . 7

0 1

5 . 3

5

1 1 . 1

1 5

7 . 5

V o c a t

i o n a

l

u n d e r g r a

d u a t e

0

0

0

0

0

0 . 0

1

5

0

0

0

0 . 0

0 0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

1

0 . 5

V o c a t

i o n a

l g r a d u a

t e

0

0

0

0

0

0 . 0

1

5

0

0

1

2 . 2

0 0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

2

1 . 0

P o s

t g r a

d u a t e

0

0

0

0

0

0 . 0

0

0

0

0

0

0 . 0

0 0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

0

0 . 0

T o t a l

1 1

1 0 0

1 6

1 0 0

1 5

1 0 0 . 0

2 0

1 0 0 2 0

1 0 0

5 4

1 0 0 . 0

1 9

1 0 0 . 0

4 5

1 0 0 . 0

2 0 0

1 0 0 . 0

T a

b l e 5

. S o c

i o - e c o n o m

i c c h a r a c

t e r i s t

i c s o

f r e s p o n d e n

t s ( C o n t

i n u e

d )


34/55


T a

b l e 6

. O w n e r s

h i p o

f r i c e

t e r r a c e s

C l u s t e r

B a r a n g a y

O w n e r s

h i p

C o n

j u g a

l

H u s

b a n d

W i f e

D a u g h

t e r

B r o

t h e r

S i s t e r

O t h e r

R e l a t

i v e s

R e n

t e d

N o .

%

N o .

%

N o .

%

N o .

%

N o .

%

N o .

%

N o .

%

N o .

%

1

H a p a o

1 1

4 6

0 2

0 8

0 0

0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0 0

0 7

2 9

0 4

1 7

N u n g u

l u n a n

1 3

3 1

1 5

3 6

0 8

1 9

0

0

0

0

0

0 0

0 6

1 4

0 0

0 0

2

B a a n g

0 4

1 4

0 5

1 7

0 4

1 4

0

0

0

0

5

1 7

1 1

3 8

0 0

0 0

N u n g u

l u n a n

0 8

2 4

0 6

7 7

0 3

0 9

0

0

0

0

0

0 0

1 4

4 1

0 3

0 9

3

B a a n g

0 4

0 9

1 0

2 2

0 7

1 5

4

9

0

0

0

0 0

1 4

3 0

0 7

1 5

H a p a o

0 9

1 3

1 2

1 8

1 4

2 1

0

0

1

1

1

0 1

2 5

3 7

0 6

0 9

4

H a p a o

0 3

1 3

1 3

5 4

0 4

1 7

0

0

0

0

0

0 0

0 4

1 7

0 0

0 0

P o b l a c

i o n

0 7

1 3

1 6

3 0

1 5

2 8

0

0

0

0

0

0 0

0 8

1 5

0 7

1 3

T o t a l

5 9

3 0

7 9

4 0

5 5

2 8

4

2

1

1

6

0 3

8 9

4 5

2 7

1 4


35/55


Table 7. Manner of rice terraces acquisition

Cluster BarangayManner of Acquisition

Inherited Bought FreeUse

Rented Kinapya

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

1 Hapao(n=11)

00 6 55 00 00 0 0 0 00 11 100

Nungulunan(n=16)

012 75 00 00 0 0 0 00 06 038

2 Baang(n=15)

011 73 00 00 0 0 5 33 07 047

Nungulunan(n=20)

013 65 03 15 0 0 3 15 11 055

3 Baang(n=20)

014 70 01 05 0 0 0 00 14 070

Hapao(n=54)

031 57 02 04 2 4 0 00 26 048

4 Hapao(n=19)

018 95 02 11 0 0 0 00 03 016

Poblacion(n=45)

034 76 03 07 1 2 0 00 13 029

Total (n=200) 139 70 11 06 3 2 8 04 91 046

Table 8. Availability and suf ciency of water supply

Cluster BarangayAvailability of

IrrigationSuf ciency

during RainySeason

Suf ciencyduring Dry

Season

Y % N % Y % N % Y % N %

1 Hapao 05 045 06 55 11 100 0 00 03 27 08 73

Nungulunan 15 094 01 06 16 100 0 00 05 31 11 69

2 Baang 15 100 00 00 15 100 0 00 10 67 05 33

Nungulunan 17 085 03 15 20 100 0 00 05 25 15 75

3 Baang 20 100 00 00 20 100 0 00 13 65 07 35

Hapao 47 087 07 13 54 100 0 00 23 43 31 57

4 Hapao 04 021 15 79 17 089 2 11 01 05 18 95

Poblacion 38 084 07 16 45 100 0 00 16 36 29 64


36/55


Table 9. Perceived causes and recommendations to improve limited or insuf cient water supply

Cluster 1(n=27)

Cluster 2(n=35)

Cluster 3(n=74)

Cluster 4(n=64)

Total

(n=200)

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Perceived Cause

Low harvest 19 71 19 55 38 51 47 73 123 62

Collapse of terrace walls 04 15 03 09 04 05 04 06 015 08

Worm attacks 01 04 02 06 01 01 00 00 00 4 02 Abandonment of ricefelds

02 07 01 03 00 00 01 02 00 4 02

Hardening of soil 00 00 00 00 01 01 00 00 00 1 01

Recommendation to improve water supply

Rehabilitate existingirrigation canals (e.g.,construction of concretecanals)

13 48 13 37 26 35 32 50 084 42

Install PVC pipes as newirrigation canals 15 56 12 34 16 22 35 55 078 39

Reforestation 01 08 04 11 10 14 02 03 017 09

Table 10. Farming practices

Cluster Barangay

Years of Farming

No. of Times

Rice wasPlanted

RiceVariety

Planted*

FertilizersUsed*

Fallow

Range Ave. 1x >1 H T O I Y N

1 Hapao 09-55 32 11 0 0 11 11 0 11 0

Nungulunan 02-70 34 16 0 0 16 16 0 16 0

2 Baang 07-60 33 15 0 0 15 15 0 15 0

Nungulunan 10-56 32 20 0 0 20 19 1 20 0

3 Baang 01-60 25 20 0 0 20 18 2 20 0

Hapao 02-71 28 54 0 0 54 53 1 54 0

4 Hapao 05-60 31 19 0 0 19 19 0 19 0

Poblacion 02-70 23 45 0 0 45 45 0 45 0

Note: Rice varieties used: H=hybrid; T=traditionalFertilizers used: O=organic; I=inorganic


37/55


Asked about the problems they encounter in rice terrace farming,

91 percent of the farmers cited the destruction of terrace walls byearthworms as a major concern, followed by damaged walls (84%),and pest infestation (e.g., rodents and golden snail [77%]) (Table11). They also identi ed inadequate water supply and poor irrigationfacilities as problems. More respondents (72%) said that they did nothave funds to rehabilitate or maintain the terraces. This is probablythe reason why 82 percent of the respondents have not adopted anymeasure to control the earthworm problem. The respondents gave awide range of estimated damage of their terraces, from 2 percent to70 percent of the total terrace area (Table 12).

Despite their problems in rice terrace farming, 97 percent of therespondents said they did not plan to abandon rice terrace farmingin the future, mainly because the terraces are their only source of rice (96%) and they value the terraces they inherited from their

forefathers (28%). The remaining three percent who said theycould abandon terrace farming cited low rice harvests and lack of capital as their reasons. According to the respondents, the farmerswho have already abandoned their farms may come back and farmagain if they will be given subsidy to hire labor for terrace repair andmaintenance (79%), and if the irrigation system will be rehabilitated(51%). Furthermore, 76 percent of the respondents believed that theowners should rehabilitate the terraces they have abandoned, whilea few (9%) said these should be rented or leased to other farmers. Toinstill the importance of the terraces in the youth, 84 percent of therespondents said they advise their children to take care of the terraces(84%) and allow their children to help in the farm on weekends andduring vacations (45%).

Environmental and Cultural Services of Hungduan

The farmers representing the four clusters identi ed theecosystem and cultural services of Hungduan during the secondtraining-workshop. For the ecosystem services, they identi ed


38/55


T a

b l e 1 1

. P r o b l e m s

i n r i c e

t e r r a c e s

P r o

b l e m s

C l u s t e r

1

C l u s t e r

2

C l u s t e r

3

C l u s t e r

4

T o t a l

H a p a o

( n = 1

1 )

N u n g u -

l u n a n

( n = 1

6 )

B a a n g

( n = 1

5 )

N u n g u -

l u n a n

( n =

2 0 )

B a a n g

( n = 2

0 )

H a p a o

( n = 5

4 )

H a p a o

( n = 1

9 )

P o b

l a c i o n

( n = 4

5 )

N o .

%

N o .

%

N o .

%

N o .

%

N o .

%

N o .

%

N o .

%

N o .

%

N o .

%

D a m a g e d w a l l s

1 1

1 0 0

1 5

9 4

1 1

7 3

1 4

7 0

1 1

5 5

4 6

8 5

1 8

9 5

4 2

9 3

1 6 8

8 4 . 0

P o o r s o

i l

0 3

0 2 7

0 6

3 8

0 3

2 0

0 3

1 5

0 3

1 5

0 9

1 7

0 0

0 0

0 6

1 3

0 3 3

1 6 . 5

I n a d e q u a

t e

w a t e r s u p p

l y

0 9

0 8 2

1 4

8 8

0 4

2 7

1 4

7 0

0 3

1 5

3 4

6 3

1 8

9 5

2 6

5 8

1 2 2

6 1 . 0

P o o r

i r r i g a t

i o n

f a c i

l i t i e s

0 8

0 7 3

1 4

8 6

0 2

1 3

1 3

6 5

0 2

1 0

2 1

3 9

1 1

5 8

1 9

4 2

0 9 0

4 5 . 0

D e s

t r u c

t i o n

o f w a l

l s b y

e a r t

h w o r m

1 1

1 0 0

1 4

8 8

1 3

8 7

1 8

9 0

1 8

9 0

4 8

8 9

1 6

8 4

4 3

9 6

1 8 1

9 0 . 5

P e s

t

i n f e s t a t

i o n ,

r o d e n t s ,

g o l d e n s n a i

l

1 1

1 0 0

1 2

7 5

1 3

8 7

1 2

6 0

0 8

4 0

4 5

8 3

1 1

5 8

4 2

9 3

1 5 4

7 7 . 0

B i r d s

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 2

1 0

0 0

0 0

0 2

1 1

0 0

0 0

0 0 4

0 2 . 0


39/55


T a

b l e 1 2

. P e r c e n

t a g e o

f r i c e

t e r r a c e s

d a m a g e d

% o f

t e r r a c e s

d a m a g e d

C l u s t e r

1

C l u s t e r

2

C l u s t e r

3

C l u s t e r

4

T o t a l

( n = 2

0 0 )

H a p a o

( n = 1

1 )

N u n g u

l u n a n

( n = 1

6 )

B a a n g

( n = 1

5 )

N u n g u

l u n a n

( n =

2 0 )

B a a n g

( n = 2

0 )

H a p a o

( n = 5

4 )

H a p a o

( n = 1

9 )

P o b

l a c i o n

( n = 4

5 )

N o .

%

N o .

%

N

o .

%

N o .

%

N o .

%

N o .

%

N o .

%

N o .

%

N o .

%

0 2

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 1

0 0 5

0 0

0 0 0

0 1

0 0 2

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 2

0 0 1 . 0

0 5

0 3

0 2 6

0 1

0 0 6

0 0

0 0

0 2

0 1 0

0 4

0 2 0

0 8

0 1 5

0 0

0 0 0

0 5

1 1

0 2 3

0 1 1 . 5

1 0

0 1

0 1 0

0 5

0 3 1

0 6

4 0

0 4

0 2 0

0 4

0 2 0

1 2

0 2 2

0 3

0 1 6

0 7

1 6

0 4 2

0 2 1 . 0

1 5

0 0

0 0 0

0 1

0 0 6

0 0

0 0

0 1

0 0 5

0 2

0 1 0

0 5

0 0 9

0 0

0 0 0

0 3

0 7

0 1 2

0 0 6 . 0

2 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 1

0 0 6

0 3

2 0

0 5

0 2 5

0 3

0 1 5

0 7

0 1 3

0 4

0 2 1

1 1

2 4

0 3 4

0 1 7 . 0

2 5

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 1

0 0 5

0 4

0 0 7

0 1

0 0 5

0 1

0 2

0 0 7

0 0 3 . 5

3 0

0 3

0 2 6

0 2

0 1 3

0 2

1 3

0 1

0 0 5

0 2

0 1 0

0 3

0 0 6

0 3

0 1 6

0 6

1 3

0 2 2

0 1 1 . 0

3 7

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 1

0 0 5

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 1

0 0 0 . 5

4 0

0 1

0 1 0

0 2

0 1 3

0 2

1 3

0 3

0 1 5

0 0

0 0 0

0 6

0 1 1

0 5

0 2 6

0 4

0 9

0 2 3

0 1 1 . 5

4 5

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 1

0 0 5

0 0

0 0 0

0 1

0 0 5

0 1

0 2

0 0 3

0 0 1 . 5

5 0

0 2

0 1 8

0 4

0 2 5

0 2

1 3

0 3

0 1 5

0 1

0 0 5

0 4

0 0 7

0 2

0 1 1

0 6

1 3

0 2 4

0 1 2 . 0

5 7

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 1

0 0 5

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 1

0 0 0 . 5

6 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 3

0 0 6

0 0

0 0 0

0 1

0 2

0 0 4

0 0 2 . 0

7 0

0 1

0 1 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0 1

0 0 2

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 2

0 0 1 . 0

T o t a l

1 1

1 0 0

1 6

1 0 0

1 5

9 9

2 0

1 0 0

2 0

1 0 0

5 4

1 0 0

1 9

1 0 0

4 5

9 9

2 0 0

1 0 0 . 0


40/55


2

Exchange labor or farmers who work in other farms, after which the owners willreciprocate by helping them

3 Consists of narrative chants traditionally performed by the Ifugao community, and ispracticed during the rice sowing season, harvest time and funeral wakes and rituals

4 Native priest

water (irrigation, hydroelectric power, and domestic uses), carbon

sequestration (global warming mitigation, fresh air, and trees),and soil conservation (protection from soil erosion). On the other hand, they listed organic farming (increased rice production), nativecustoms ( ubbu 2, hudhud 3, and mumbaki 4), and the maintenance andrestoration of stone walls, terraces, and woodlots (ecotourism) as thecultural services they produce.

The farmers were asked what they would do as a cluster toincrease their chances of getting funds for the rehabilitation of their terraces and woodlots, if their clusters would have to compete to getfunding. The farmers agreed that their strategies should be consistentwith the priorities of the Barangay Development Plan, and for suchactivities to concentrate on damaged areas with the largest number of bene ciaries. They also saw the importance of minimizing planimplementation costs, offering counterparts such as own labor,

having an active organization where the members are cooperativeand united, preparing a good management plan, and ensuring qualityof work when the plan is implemented.

If their clusters would be awarded funds for rehabilitation,

the farmers said that the system of bene t-sharing among farmer members should be discussed within their organizations, and thatareas with more damage should be prioritized over areas with lessdeterioration. The farmers also recognized the importance of contractsto institutionalize the production of services, and that the cluster members will have responsibilities under such an agreement. Theseinclude strengthening their organizations by ensuring that members


41/55


follow policies, rules and regulations, and the full implementation of

the provisions in the contract.Community-based Management Planning

The management plan preparation activity was designed such thatfarmers would be able to generate competitive management plans thatthe team can furnish and package for potential funding from LGUsand other nancing agencies in the context of a PECS scheme. Thefarmers management plans were products of the interaction of thedifferent farmer groups regarding available resources, strategies, andachievable recommendations for the sustainability and protection of their rice terraces.

The farmer groups went through the following activities todevelop their management plans: introduction to management

planning, resource characterization, identi cation of problems and

solutions (Figures 9 and 10), formulation of management goals,objectives and strategies, analysis and evaluation of managementstrategies, and management plan preparation. The farmers wereable to formulate the main objective of restoring and rehabilitatingthe abandoned and damaged rice terraces. They were also ableto identify their management objectives and listed their speci cstrategies (Table 13).

The farmers outputs from each step of management planningwere input in a simple management plan template to help themcomplete their draft management plans. The team reviewed the draftmanagement plans and provided suggestions for improvement. The

plans were then returned to the farmers during the third training-workshop for revision and detailing. It was observed that the plansdeveloped by the farmers were similar in terms of objectives and

strategies but different in implementation strategies, costs, andscheduling. Also, the plans lacked speci c details particularly in theobjectives and costs of the identi ed strategies.


42/55


F i g u r e

9 .

P r o

b l e m

t r e e c r e a

t e d b y

H u n g

d u a n

f a r m e r s

I N C R E A S I N G N U M B E R O F R I C E

T E R R A C E S T H A T A R E B E I N G

A B A N D O N E D A N D

D A M A G E D

P e s

t

I n f e s t a t

i o n

L o s s o f t h e

I R T C u l

t u r e

a n d H e r

i t a g e

L o w

R i c e

P r o

d u c t i v

i t y

N e g a t

i v e

I m p a c t o n

T o u r i s m

L o w

I n c o m e

f o r F a r m e r s

C o l

l a p s e o f

T e r r a c e

W a l

l s

M i g r a

t i o n

O p p o r

t u n i

t y

t o S t u d y a n

d

W o r

k i n O t h e r

A r e a s

I m p o r t o f

S e e

d l i n g s

a n d F e r

t i l i z e r s f r o m

O t h e r

A r e a s

L a c k

o f I n t e r e s t a m o n g

t h e Y o u n g e r

G e n e r a t

i o n

t o W o r

k i n t h e

R i c e

F i e l d s W

e s t e r n

C u l

t u r e

M e d i a

/

T e c

h n o l o g y

D a m a g e d

I r r i g a t i o n

C a n a

l s

I l l e g a l

C u t

t i n g

i n t h e

W o o

d l o t s

L a c k o f

W a t e r

S u p p l y

A c c e l e r a t e d

S o i l E r o s i o n


43/55


F i g u r e

1 0

. S o l u t

i o n

t r e e c r e a t e d

b y H u n g

d u a n

f a r m e r s

I m p l e m e n

t P e s

t

C o n

t r o l

M e a s u r e s

R E S T O R E A N D R E H A B I L I T A T E

T H E A B A N D O N E D A N D D A M A G E D

R I C E T E R R A C E S

P r e s e r v a t

i o n o f

t h e

I R T

C u l

t u r e a n

d H e r

i t a g e

I m p r o v e d

R i c e

P r o

d u c t

i v i t y / H a r v e s t

I m p r o v e d

T o u r i s m

V a l u e

I n c r e a s e

d I n c o m e

f o r F a r m e r s

R e p a i r

I r r i g a t

i o n

C a n a l s

R e f o r e s

t

W o o

d l o t s

R e p a i r o f

C o l

l a p s e d

T e r r a c e

W a l

l s

D e c r e a s e d

M i g r a

t i o n

R a t e

I m p r o v e

Documents

Capacity for the Conservation