Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
however, this does not hold for the group of agroforestry farmers. If they would be
motivated, they could easily circumvent the capital constraint by piecemeal expan-
sion of their agroforestry area, adding a few seeds and seedlings from their own
stock each year, just like, for instance, farmers in the Philippines do with invest-
ment in terracing (Romero 2006). And, coming to that, what would really be the
capital constraint also for a non-agroforestry farmer to plant a few trees with some
help from his agroforestry neighbors?
“Delay in profit earning”, mentioned by half of the non-agroforestry farmers
(Table 11.5), may be seen as a capacity constraint factor as well, referring to the lack
of capital to bridge the gap before the agroforestry species bear fruit. The argument
contradicts our financial analysis based on field data from the same village (see Fig.
11.1). Either farmers do not know the performance of the multi-strata system or they
do not believe it will also be possible in their farm, or they may refer to a time span
of less than 1 year, since even the fast agroforestry species are not as fast as the rice
or wheat that mature within a few months. The income of the agroforestry planter
will therefore be lower than of the seasonal cropper for, say, half a year before com-
pensated by the agroforestry crops. We may doubt if this argument really cuts ice,
however, e.g. since farmers may again spread the investment over the years. If a
farmer would plant the agroforestry system on, say, five percent of his land each
year, his income flow would be delayed only once by only that percentage.
By way of interim conclusion, we hypothesize that if farmers would be moti-
vated for the agroforestry system, they would easily find ways to circumvent their
capacity constraints. In other words,
motivational
factors rather than capacity con-
straints appear to underlie the lack of spreading of agroforestry in the village, in
spite of the results of the financial analysis. We now take a look at these motiva-
tional factors.
First of all, it might be proposed that a negative cultural value of agroforestry
could somehow block a positive economic motivation of farmers, e.g. if agrofor-
estry would be associated with poverty or low prestige. This is the case in our study
area, however. Agroforestry has a positive prestige value and gifts of fruits such as
litchi or mango play an important role in the maintenance of social networks.
Moreover, banana is positively regarded in Hindu religion, e.g. its leaves are used
in ceremonies.
“Unstable market prices” are the major motivational issue mentioned by the
farmers themselves (Table 11.5). In view of our financial analysis, they must be
referring here to something more structural than just a simple drop of prices as has
been taken up in the sensitivity analysis of the previous section. We surmise that
farmers here refer to a deeper feeling of insecurity than only regular price fluctua-
tions. Investing in agroforestry amounts to locking oneself practically irreversibly
into the markets of vegetables, spices and fruits - markets that to the farmers may
feel more like niche markets for luxury goods, which are inherently less stable than
those of rice and wheat. Rice and wheat are basic food grains; the agroforestry
products are frivolous fruits with a volatile economic future.
Moreover, wheat and rice are basic subsistence crops for the farmers themselves,
too. Whatever may happen, a good area under rice or wheat secures the family food
Search WWH ::
Custom Search