EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



FINAL REPORT OF

JAMAICA - PLEC

Prepared by

Elizabeth Thomas-Hope, Balfour Spence, Karyll Johnston

Environmental Management Unit

Department of Geography and Geology

University of the West Indies

Jamaica

February, 2002

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The PLEC team

The Jamaica PLEC team has been comprised of scientists and postgraduate student members, principally in the Environmental Management Unit of the Department of Geography and Geology, University of the West Indies. Associate members have been based in other departments of the University as well as in public sector agencies involved with environmental, agricultural or community development issues.

The PLEC Demonstration Site

The Demonstration Site is located in the lower valley of the Rio Grande, in Jamaica’s northeastern parish of Portland and includes five communities – Fellowship, Tom’s Hope, Stanton Harcourt, Berridale and Golden Vale, together comprising a population of 1,023 people. The social dynamics within and between communities are complex and influence the potential effectiveness of any efforts in the transfer of knowledge among the population.

The Rio Grande watershed is characterized by high elevations, steep slopes and high rainfall. Humidity varies with elevation but is everywhere high. The valley is characterized by the richness of its biological diversity and the location of a number of indigenous species. The watershed is generally under tropical rainforest and the valley dominated by small farming, which is mostly mixed farming for the domestic market and household consumption, and bananas the main crop for export. The loam, sand and gravel soils are among the most productive for agriculture in Jamaica. However, fluctuations in the market for the major crops cultivated, traditionally bananas for export, provide a weak economic base for small farmers. Besides, the agro-ecosystem is vulnerable, being prone to flood and landslide hazards, high levels of soil loss and land degradation. Farmers suffer regular losses resulting from these events.

PLEC activities

PLEC project activities have included the characterization of the landscape in the context of diversity both of farm management and biodiversity cover. Expert farmers were selected and a series of community meetings and farm-based work-days arranged with expert and collaborating farmers. Other activities have included meetings with external stakeholders, including agricultural agents and policy-makers.

The combination of activities overall have brought about a process of change that has taken various forms. The overarching achievement has been the acceptance by the expert and collaborating farmers, of a new paradigm for the dissemination of knowledge based upon a process of two-way exchange rather than instruction always coming from outside the community. It is further based upon the building of social capital based on networks that have developed through the PLEC activities.

The implications of the PLEC activities

These relate to the farmers at the demonstration site as well as to the PLEC researchers themselves.

The farmers gradually recognized that the PLEC demonstration activities did not follow the usual uni-directional flow of information from external agent to farmer/community. The farmers therefore came to recognize that they themselves had valuable knowledge in terms of agricultural and environmental management. Besides, not only has the knowledge flow occurred between farmer and scientist in a two-way direction, but it has also occurred between farmers and other farmers. Future activities propose the transfer of knowledge and practice relating to agrodiversity from farmers to other members of their communities. A further important implication of the PLEC activities has been the development of collaborative experimentation on the farms of the expert farmers, with farmers discussing strategies and outcomes of the experiments.

The research team came to appreciate that the specifics of the relationships and the process are unique to each group and therefore are different from one demonstration site to another – even within the same region or country. There is no template or fixed model for the successful transfer of knowledge at a demonstration site, except that both agricultural practices and social relations must be considered in facilitating the process of agrodiversity knowledge transfer. The way in which the process unfolds is always tentative. The researchers must therefore be led by the specific dynamics of each demonstration site in which they may work.

Dissemination of the methodology and sustainability of the process

Not only has the PLEC activity included (and will continue to pursue) meetings with agencies involved in community development and agricultural projects, but the PLEC student members have moved on to positions in national and international agencies where they will be in positions of influence.

To ensure the sustainability of the process that has begun, follow-up work at the demonstration site and with the other stakeholders is needed, both to facilitate additional mechanisms for communication between farmer and the wider community of farmers and others, including children and young persons. Further dissemination of the PLEC methodology will be required to effectively alter practice at the official level.

1.0 History of the Work in the Cluster

1. 1. Background to the Jamaica PLEC Cluster

Scientists of the Department of Geography & Geology, University of the West Indies (UWI) have been the core members of the Jamaica PLEC team since 1998.

The early intention was to develop a Caribbean inter-disciplinary team of Jamaican scientists in association with scientists at the UWI Cave Hill Campus (Barbados) and Universidad de Pedro Hernandez Ureno (UNPHU) in the Dominican Republic. Preliminary meetings were convened in Jamaica and Barbados.

In Jamaica, initial work commenced on establishing the Jamaican field sites in the small-farming areas of three contrasting agro-ecosystems: one in the central part of Jamaica, in the north-western part of the parish of St. Catherine; the second in the ‘Cockpit Country’ of the western parish of St. Elizabeth; the third in the eastern parish of Portland in the watershed of the Rio Grande. The focus of the work was on establishing the comparisons in the patterns of traditional farming practices. Preliminary work aimed to examine the extent and rate of erosion and soil loss; the extent of biological diversity loss and the nature of biodiversity change; landuse changes with reasons for the changes; land tenure, farming systems and the relationships between them; the nature of farming practices, technologies used conservation practices employed; the nature of ancillary economic activities; household social structures and gender roles in farming; demographic changes and migration and their implications for farming systems and practices.

In 1998, with the development of the GEF-PLEC emphasis on Demonstration Site activities, it was decided that to achieve a more manageable and productive project, the work should focus on Jamaica alone. A Jamaica-PLEC team was constituted and the decision made to focus on the watershed of the Rio Grande only.

I. 2. Selection of the Demonstration Site

The Rio Grande Valley was selected as the appropriate location for PLEC-related research and demonstration, as it is rich in biodiversity, relatively remote, dominated by small-scale farming, and is well integrated into national and global markets.

On the basis of the preliminary reconnaissance work that was done up to 1998, three focus sites were selected in the Rio Grande Valley - in the upper, the middle and lower sections. The site in the upper valley was centred on Moore Town, in the mid-valley, on Millbank and in the lower valley, on Fellowship. The intended selection was based on the view that the three sites would represent the different agro-ecosystems within the Valley.

In the determination of the locations for the demonstration sites, a community meeting was arranged in the Fellowship area. landslides and their management, and on existing systems of agroforesty.

From late1998 and early 1999, work proceeded on landscape characterization, focusing finally on the lower valley and discontinuing work at the other potential sites.

On the basis of the household sample (indicated in section III. 3), the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the population, the systems of farm management and the biodiversity of all the farms were recorded.

Primarily because of the small size of the active PLEC team, the final decision made was that the Demonstration Site would comprise only one section of the Valley. Based on the preliminary reconnaissance activities in all three areas and characterization of the lower and middle valley sites, it was decided that one area - the lower Valley incorporating the communities of Fellowship, Tom’s Hope, Stanton Harcourt, Berridale, Golden Vale - would be selected as the Jamaica-PLEC Demonstration Site.

I. 3. Characterization of the Demonstration Site

A team of four PLEC scientists and six field assistants carried out the initial characterization of the Demonstration Site in November-December1998. Using participatory methods, the research was conducted in the five communities of the Demonstration Site, documenting the characteristics of the diversity of small-farming systems.

a) The demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the farm households

b) The organizational and management structures of the farms

c) The biodiversity characteristics of the farms.

Methods used for characterization

The collection of data at farm household level involved systematic sampling. The main access road into each farming community was used as a transect line and, beginning with the first household on both sides of the road, every fifth household was chosen as a possible unit for selection. Where the household was not a farm household, the next household in sequence was substituted. A total of 45 farm households were selected, representing 20% of the total number of households in the Demonstration Site. The household members were interviewed and biological characteristics of the farm plots recorded with the assistance of the farmers.

On individual farms, five transects were taken on each plot surveyed. Four of these transects followed the cardinal compass directions from the edge of the plot while the fifth was taken in up-slope an up-slope direction following the border of the plot.

Assessment of agro-diversity was conducted at the PLEC Rio Grande site, covering in detail most aspects of the bio-physical diversity, crop systems and land management practices. In farmers’ fields, observed field types and land-use stages were identified and recorded. In all cases farmer input and information were solicited to promote the participatory exchange of information between scientists and the farmers.

For the assessment of bio-diversity, five transects were taken on each farm, four of which followed the diagonals within the farm, while the fifth followed the edge of the farm. For the edge, the perimeter of the farm was measured to determine the interval for quadrat sampling. Using a 1 ( 1 m quadrat frame, the plant species that fell within the same quadrat were identified by their local and scientific name where possible. The frequency of plant occurrence and the known uses were recorded.

Four 5 ( 5 quadrats were pegged within the four transects and these quadrats were further divided into numbered 1 ( 1 m, so that each 5 ( 5 m quadrat carried 25 – 1 ( 1 m quadrat. Using random tables 4 – 1 ( 1m quadrats were chosen from each 5 ( 5 m quadrat and the plant species within these were identified and recorded. Quadrat sampling was done in a north-west direction for each farm. Additional information on the sample area, namely location, elevation, slope and aspect were also collected.

Management systems were assessed in terms of crop and cropping systems, planting and other land management practices. Crop and cropping systems were assessed in terms of crop dominance, income earning function and the farmers’ market orientation. Planting was assessed in terms of planting material, land preparation practices and labour inputs. Land management was assessed on terms of farm layout and crop management practices such as agrochemical use, soil conservation, and hazard response and impact management practices. For the collection of this information questionnaires were administered to farm households.

a) The demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the farm households

Information on the demographic composition of the farming households included:

• The age and sex composition of the farm households

• Educational levels of household members

• Occupational and income-generating activities other than farming of household members

• Gender roles in terms of the functional relationships of the household members in farm organization and management.

b) Farm Management Regimes

Information on the characteristics of farm management at the Demonstration Site included:

• The diversity, location and distribution, cropping patterns and functions of all plots of which the farms were comprised. From these data it was possible to identify the land use stages and field types on each farm.

• Conservation techniques and technologies used by farmers

• Responses to flood and landslide hazards

• Agricultural chemicals used

• Food security management

c) The biological characterization of the farms

Characterization of the diversity of plant species present in the Lower Rio Grande Valley was organized by land use stages and field types for which biological data collected involved :

• The detailed assessment of plant occurrence and abundance by land use stage

• The uses of all the plant species.

Understanding the Social Dynamics at the Demonstration Site

Even with the conclusion of the landscape characterization, the full characterization of the demonstration site was incomplete without an understanding of the social dynamics of the communities. The issues, all of which needed to be researched and recorded qualitatively, included:

• The characteristics and explanations of inter- and intra-community conflict and trust

• The factors conditioning acceptance of persons as leaders and effective transmitters of knowledge within, or on behalf of the community.

The social dynamics between and within the communities of the demonstration site was a critical aspect of knowledge that had to be gained and fully appreciated in order to proceed effectively with site activities, especially demonstration activities. These insights and understanding were gained through the information given as well as the behaviours and attitudes observed and recorded in focus group meetings and other encounters in the process of obtaining data and in other, non PLEC-specific visits to the area.

Non PLEC-specific activities at the Demonstration Site

Groups of postgraduates engaged in coursework for a degree in Environmental Management at UWI, and being taught by members of the PLEC scientific team, were taken to the area of the Demonstration Site, where PLEC farmers participated in their field work exercises. This greatly boosted the confidence of the farmers involved and deepened the relationship between themselves and the PLEC scientists in a two-way sharing of knowledge.

In addition, six postgraduates (over three years) engaged in their M.Sc. project research in the Demonstration Site, under the supervision of PLEC researchers. The students lived for weeks at a time in the area, becoming well known in the commuities, thus helping to build our network of connections in the area. The themes of study undertaken for these projects were agrobiodiversity in relation to: conservation techniques and technologies used by farmers; perceptions of, and decision-making in response to flood and landslide hazards; agricultural chemicals used; food security; farmer responses to flooding and landslide hazards.

Altogether, the interactions brought about the gradual building of trust between the PLEC researchers and members of the communities and with this, the farmers became increasingly open in the views and attitudes that they disclosed. This made it possible for the researchers to gain an understanding of the nature of the social dynamics of the communities and the areas of cooperation or conflict between individuals and groups. These factors were particularly significant where they affected the pattern of farmer interaction and thus the strategies necessary to ensure the success of the PLEC activities.

1. 4 Progress of Work at the Demonstration Site (1998-2001)

Community Meetings

Following the completion of work on landscape and social characterization, two Community Meetings were organized in so that the wider community would be aware of the activities and objectives of the project. These meetings were also used to introduce members of the wider farming community to the nature and objectives of the PLEC project. In each case, farmers responded by raising a number of related issues of concern to them and discussion would ensue.

The first community meeting was held in Fellowship in the main community in the demonstration site (August, 2001). This meeting sought to introduce the ‘demonstration-activity’ phase of PLEC, to communicate the objectives of PLEC and the concept of agro-biodiversity. The benefits to be gained from this approach, both to the community as well as the environment, were emphasised.

This was followed by a further meeting in Tom’s Hope (September, 2001), at which the common problems and strategies for coping with the problems raised by the farmers brought the focus of PLEC onto substantive issues of concern within the wider context of agrodiversity and biodiversity. This meeting was also instrumental in the planning of the field-based demonstration activities that would be implemented on the farm plots of expert farmers. These field days, by common agreement termed ‘Work Experience Days’, became the primary means of knowledge sharing, thus serving as a forum for the sharing of experiences and the transfer of knowledge on sustainable agrobiodiversity practices, from farmer to farmer and between farmer and researchers.

Selection of the Expert Farmers

The identification of ‘good practice’ in terms of agrodiversity, together with the social relations within the community that had been observed by the PLEC scientists were used as the criteria of selection of the Expert Farmers. The selection was finally made of five to form the first group. This was later expanded to include a further three farmers.

Work Experience Days

Work with the Expert Farmers primarily took the form of field days, termed, ‘Work Experience Days’, when they and other collaborating farmers met on the farm of one of the Expert Farmers. Based on the issues demonstrated and discussed on these field days, decisions were made concerning the focus of the proposed experimental activities.

Experimental Plots

Two themes that had been a topic of the community meetings and field day discussions were evaluated for possible experimentation: The introduction of peas and beans into orchard/agroforestry plots and the introduction of ackee tree seedlings into edges and agroforestry plots.

There were a number of hindrances to the accessing of sufficient ackee seedlings in the desired time-frame and together with the greater enthusiasm for trying out the inter-cropping of peas and beans on orchard and/or agroforestry plots, led to the farmer’s request to begin with the implementation of peas and beans. The PLEC researchers undertook to provide the seeds. However, this activity that was scheduled to take place in early November 2001 had to be postponed because of the occurrence of a flooding that were so severe that they constituted a national disaster. The results of the activities on the experimental have therefore, not yet been monitored.

Stakeholder Meetings

While the work proceeded at the Demonstration Site, stakeholders meetings took place at national and local levels in 1999 and 2000.

At the national level, PLEC researchers met with senior officers of:

The Ministry of Land and Environment (formerly Ministry of Housing and Environment);

The Land Administration, Management and Policy Programme under the Office of the Prime Minister;

The national Office of Disaster Management;

The Ministry of Agriculture;

The Natural Resource Conservation Agency

The College of Agricultural Science Education.

The Jamaica Sustainable Development Network Programme.

At the local level, meetings were held with local representatives of the Rural Agricultural Development Agency from the Portland office.

Policy Seminar

A seminar was organized by the PLEC researchers on the Mona Campus of the University of the West Indies in December 2001. This brought together PLEC researchers, expert and some other Collaborating Farmers, policy makers from a range of government agencies, non-governmental organizations, international agencies and tertiary institutions.

Dissemination of information

Dissemination of information has been promoted in the following ways:

Power point or poster presentations have always been made by the PLEC researchers about the work of the PLEC international partners and local team at formal meetings.

The Jamaica Information Service has been invited to the major PLEC meetings, for example in November 2000 and December 2001.

Posters have been displayed at a range of events, including the ‘Green Expo’ 1999 and 2001, The University of the West Indies Research Day, annually from1998 to 2001.

Radio interviews with the PLEC cluster leader were broadcast on three stations: two in December 2001, just prior to the date of the policy seminar, and one in January 2002. The script of an interview with the Jamaica Information Service (JIS) was also posted on the JIS website in January 2002.

Interruptions to progress/work at the demonstration site

Heavy rains, floods and landslides have interrupted the demonstration activities each year. In 1998 and 2001, the flooding in the areas, including the Demonstration Site constituted a national disaster. These events interrupted activities for several weeks at a time.

1. 5 PLEC Scientists and Farmers

With the new focus of PLEC on demonstration activities in 1998, the composition of the Jamaica-PLEC scientific team changed significantly.

Table 4:1 indicates the numerical changes that occurred over the following four years. Although there have always been a number of scientists associated with PLEC, there has only been a very small group of scientists actually implementing the activities at the Demonstration Site. Student participation is by its very nature short-term though some have subsequently remained in contact with the project as associated scientists.

However, an important aspect of the pattern of PLEC participation is that the attrition in the team of core members (the PLEC Scientists) has taken place while the numbers of farmers participating has increased significantly.

Table 1.1: Number of Persons involved in PLEC-Jamaica activities at the end of each year

|Category of Involvement |March1998 |March1999 |March2000 |March 2001 |

| |- Feb 1999 |- Feb 2000 |- Feb 2001 |-Feb 2002 |

| | | | | |

|Core Members |4 |4 |4 |3 |

| | | | | |

|Research Associates |- |- |1 |1 |

|Associated | | | | |

|Scientists/Researchers |6 |8 |8 |8 |

|Collaborating | | | | |

|Farmers |- |3 |8 |22 |

| | | | | |

|Expert Farmers |- |- |4 |8 |

| | | | | |

|Student Associates |- |10 |1 |1 |

| | | | | |

|TOTAL |10 |25 |26 |43 |

2. 0 Description of the Demonstration Site

PLEC-Jamaica’s demonstration site is located in the Lower Rio Grande Valley (RGV) within the easterly parish of Portland (See Figure 2.1). The site covers an area of 10.36 square kilometres with a population of 1023 people distributed among the five communities of Fellowship, Toms Hope, Berridale, Golden Vale and Coopers Hill. This distribution of results in a population density of 99 persons per square kilometer, which in the context of rural Jamaica is fairly low. However, owing to the predominantly steep terrain, physiographic density is relatively high, and suggest fairly intensive cultivation of land.

1: 50,000

2.1 Physical Characteristics

Discussion of the physical characteristics of the PLEC Demonstration Site focuses on topography, geology, soils climate and land use.

Topography

The Rio Grande watershed in which the demonstration site is located consists of steep, hilly terrain with 75 percent of the area having elevations exceeding 1500 metres and over 50 percent of the area having slopes exceeding 20 degrees. At the demonstration site, elevations generally exceed 600 metres and slopes range from less than 10 degrees in Toms Hope to over 30 degrees in Coopers Hill (Morrison 2001).

Geology

The geology of the demonstration site is comprised primarily of Cretaceous Sedimentary Rocks with subordinate Volcanic and Volcaniclastic deposits. These deposits are sporadically interrupted by White and Yellow Limestone outcrops especially in the Fellowship, Coopers Hill and Berridale areas. The permeability of these rocks is low which along with their high swelling potential, makes them susceptible to landslides. Low permeability also contributes to high runoff potential, which increases the possibility of flooding. Much of the Rio Grande, which drains the area is bordered by moderately permeable Alluvial deposits (Harris, 1998).

Soil

Clay loams and stony loam dominates the soils of the demonstration site. These soils are for the most part moderately well drained and sometimes consist of deeply weathered conglomerates tuffs of acid shale. Deeply weathered conglomerates on steep slopes contribute to slope instability during periods of moderate to high rainfall.

Climate

The area receives an annual average rainfall ranging from 3810mm to over 5080mm per annum. The temperatures range between 23.30C and 26.1 0C in January and February, with fluctuations of 2.80C. The humidity varies with elevation but for the study area it is estimated to be more than 60%, with a high of 85% in the morning (Jamaica Country Environmental Profile, 1987). There is therefore a prolonged wet season. High frequency and intensity of rainfall in conjunction with geology, slopes and anthropogenic activities are major factors in the high vulnerability of the area to flood and landslide hazards.

Land Use

Forestry is the dominant land use of the Rio Grande Valley (19,657 hectares is covered by forest) while the second dominant land use is agriculture (2072 hectares of the parish are covered in cultivated crops for both export and local markets). A further 944 hectares are covered by pasture and 638 hectares in settlements (Ferguson, 1998). Within the PLEC RGV demonstration site area, the dominant agricultural land use stages are house gardens and orchard, consisting primarily of banana monoculture and agroforestry. The settlements are concentrated on lower lands close to the river and its tributaries, while the farms are located on the steep slopes and are thus susceptible to erosion resulting from landslides (Thomas-Hope, Spence and Semple 1999).

2. 2 Population Characteristics

The demonstration site farmer population showed trends of an aging population although there were a number of younger farmers who actively farmed. The modal age of the sample population was 43 years with the majority of the farmers being male. It is important to note that while the substantive farmer is male, there are significant female contributions to the farming process, particularly in the areas of field maintenance, planting and marketing. A significant number (> 60%) of the demonstration site farmers was involved in farming for 25 years and over, having been involved in farming from childhood. For most farmers, traditional export crops were the main income generators although over 40% indicated that farming was supplemented by other income generating activities such as shop keeping, rafting and work outside of the Valley. Remittances from relatives abroad or who worked outside the study area was also an important source of income from some older farmers. Farm income is difficult to assess as farmers rarely keep record of inputs costs and expenditures. In addition, expenditure and income generation will vary from month to month depending on the stage of crop development.

Generally farm households have 1 – 2 plots, which are planted in Domestic Root Crops such as yams, dasheen, and sweet potato as well as Traditional Export Crops such as Banana, Coffee and in some instances plantain, some of which is consume by the farm households. Most of the income generating farming activity is concentrated on the 2nd farm plot, while the first, commonly dubbed the house plot supports a variety of food and medicinal plants for household consumption.

Agricultural surplus is normally sold in local markets (as is the case of domestic food crops) and overseas markets (as is the case of banana and coffee). Overseas marketing is normally organized by commodity associations and tends to be the preferred option by farmers because of the relative ease of market access. Although the farmer and members of his households private farm labour input over 64% of farmers interviewed hired additional help.

2.3 Resource Degradation, Out-migration, Constraints.

Resource degradation at the demonstration site takes the form physical resource erosion as well as the erosion of human resources. Physical resource degradation results mainly from destructive agents such as floods and landslides. The impermeable nature of the underlying geology in conjunction with frequent and intense rainfall and human use system, in particular banana monoculture on steep slopes has resulted in recurrent flood and landslides events at the site. Both floods and landslides are major agents of soil loss in the valley and while the are no specific estimates from the demonstration site, soil loss estimate from similar environments in Jamaica is in the region of 99 to 124 tons per hectare per year (NRCD, 1983). Loss of topsoil at this magnitude has serious implications for livelihoods and incomes owing to impacts on crop production.

Loss of human reources relates primarily to out-migration of young potential farmers as well as the ageing of the farm population. The entire Rio Grande Valley is a major feeder for cruise ship labour demand and more recently for an overseas hotel labour programme. These options are extremely attractive to young people given the vagaries and uncertainties associated with small farming. In addition, as is the case for the rest of Jamaica the average age of farmers has been on the increase and as older farmers die the community loses valuable knowledge and skills, many of which relate to the sustainable management of agrobiodiversity.

3.0 PLEC Activities at the Demonstration Site

3. 1. Growth of a Population of Collaborating Farmers

The population of collaborating farmers developed throughout the process of characterization of the landscape and farming communities at the demonstration site. Because of the use of participatory research methods for the characterization, the PLEC scientists were able to identify those who were engaged in ‘good practice’ with respect to agrobiodiversity. These farmers became the first group of four collaborating farmers.

Following the first community meeting, held in Fellowship, the group of collaborating farmers increased to 17. The second meeting, held in Tom’s Hope, led to a further increase of the population of collaborating farmers, bringing the number to 30.

3. 2. Selection of Expert Farmers

In the selection of the Expert Farmers, it was important that practices that promoted agricultural diversity were complemented by specific factors that reflected the social dynamics of the communities at the Demonstration Site. In light of these considerations farmers were identified as ‘expert farmers’ on the basis of two main criteria:

a) the management practices and especially the biological diversity of their farms and

b) their acceptability in the community to impart and disseminate information and thus be effective demonstrators of agricultural management practices.

It was also intended that the expert farmers would reflect the gender balance of farmers in the community. However, none of the early collaborating female farmers could be selected in the basis of the above criteria. It was only at a later stage in the process of community meetings and work experience days when additional female farmers became involved, that suitable female representation became possible.

Five Expert Farmers were initially selected. This included Henry Smith from Fellowship; Duke Cuthbert and Neville Campbell from Golden Vale; Ewart McKenzie and Linval Hazel from Toms Hope. First, they were all distinguished by their mixed farming practices, including the combinations and configurations of plants on their farm. Second, they represented the various communities in terms of political affiliation and third, it seemed that they would all be effective communicators of farm practice. Linval Hazel, in particular, was highly respected by the other farmers and is the local representative to the Jamaica Agricultural Society. The later expanded group included three women: Viola Knight and Veda Atkinson in Tom’s Hope and Anetta Ferguson in Fellowship

3. 3. Farmer-to-Farmer Training

The transfer of knowledge between farmers took place in meetings and in the work experience days.

Meetings

Part of the success of the meetings was due to the level of discussion of common problems and strategies that occurred. A range of topics relating to agrodiversity and the conservation of biodiversity within the context of farmer livelihoods and land management were raised by farmers and discussed with reference to their own experience and knowledge. The topics included:

• Models of tree and crop combinations that could be used in the edges land use stages. Specific attention was paid to the possibilities of introducing ackee plants into the management of edges and the species of ackee that would best suit the soil and climatic conditions of the valley

• Models relating to fallow in agricultural management

• The aspects of traditional agricultural practices that should be retained, particularly in relation to biodiversity on plots versus monoculture

• The benefits and problems involved in high levels of agrochemical use in agricultural management regimes

• The role of beans and peas as nitrogen fixing agents and the implications for the application of nitrogen fertilizers

• The role of plant diversity in pest management and experiences of this

• The changing knowledge levels and usage of local plants for medicinal purposes in the community and the value of conservation of such plants

• Strategies for harvesting and marketing specific fruit crops out-of-season

• The nature as also the benefits and problems involved in inorganic farming

• The problems involved in obtaining and retaining a regular market for locally cultivated produce

• The problems of crops losses resulting from floods primarily and landslides second. The best types of plants that should be used as a measure in the management of flood and landslide-prone farm plots.

Work Experience Days on the Demonstration Farms

In the PLEC-Jamaica context, as compared with other PLEC sites, it was deemed appropriate to use the farms of the Expert Farmers on which to conduct experimental and other demonstration activities. The farmers selected the plots for the demonstration that took place on what were referred to as ‘work experience days’. Characteristics of the Demonstration Farms are illustrated in Table 1. In all cases, the plots that represented the agroforestry land use stage of the farms, together with the edges, were used for demonstration purposes.

Table 3.1: Characteristics of the Demonstration Farms

|Farmers Name |Farming Size (acres) |No. of Plots | Main Income-Generating Crop |

| | | |on |

| | | |Demonstration Plot |

|Ewart Mckenzie | 10 | 3 |Banana |

|Neville Campbell | 12 | 2 |Pack Choy |

|Duke Cuthbert | 11 | 2 |Callaloo |

|Linval Hazel | 5. 5 | 2 |Banana |

|Henry Smith | 6 | 2 |Plantain |

Activities of the ‘work experience days’ sought to facilitate farmer-to-farmer training, using plots with different cropping and other farm management systems as well as plots on different slope steepness. In each case, the expert farmer hosting the work day demonstrated the nature of the system used, and discussed the advantages of cultivating the multiple crops selected, as well as their values for market and household uses as well as for land management. The measures used by the farmers to reduce erosion and mitigate the effects of flooding were also demonstrated and discussed.

3. 4. Interventions

PLEC introduced interventions

The PLEC scientists raised the following issues:

a) Innovative and cooperative marketing approaches and the seeking of niche markets for select products. This was essential in the communication of the more diverse PLEC approach since the unavailability of easily accessed markets were one of the main complaints voiced by farmers of the demonstration site.

b) The value of inter-cropping with peas and beans for their nitrogen-fixing qualities. The farmers were unaware of this and became very interested and enthusiastic about the indirect benefits of producing additional cash or subsistence crops as well as developing a strategy for reducing the volume and therefore the cost, of nitrogen-based fertilizers.

c) The idea of developing corridors of agroforestry in the edges land use stage, through the introduction of trees such as the ackee, foir which there would the prospect of good markets. The farmers further suggested the introduction of june plum trees as well, since this grows well in the area and its fruit produce a good juice.

Farmer adaptations of PLEC ideas

The establishment of experimental fields on the plots of the Expert Farmers will be one of the principal ways in which farmers will evaluate the benefits of adapting their existing systems to incorporate the new features that have been introduced. This will include both the improved production through additional diversification through the crops introduced on the experimental plots, and also the cost effectiveness and environmental benefits that may be derived through future efforts to reduce the volume of agrochemical fertilizers and pesticides currently used.

3. 5 Value of PLEC activities to farmers and their families

A major impact of PLEC activities has been the networking and the building of social capital that has taken place within and between the communities of the expert and collaborating farmers. Some farmers who had not previously communicated with each other concerning farming strategies, especially in relation to the various challenges they faced, are now discussing these issues. Now, specialized management issues are raised and shared.

The PLEC activities at the demonstration site have also brought about increased. awareness of the importance of agricultural biodiversity among the farmers and their families. This has brought about greater confidence on the part of those already engaged in such diversity, which has helped them to take a firmer stand in relation to the monocropping and heavy use of agrochemicals that are promoted by the banana export company.

There has also been evidence of enhanced morale, interest and enthusiasm among farmers in a situation where small farming is regarded as marginal both in terms of economic return and social status.

4. Analysis of Agro-biodiversity at the PLEC Rio Grande Demonstration Site

4.1 Introduction

The biophysical description of the Rio Grande Valley emphasizes diversity as a characteristic feature of the Rio Grande Watershed and from the PLEC work within the delineated demonstration site this legacy of agricultural diversity has been supported. This legacy is particularly evident when one examines the small farming systems characteristic of this area, as small farmers have been found to cultivate and support a wide variety of crop and plants for their food, nutrition, cultural and economic needs. The findings of PLEC participatory research supports the proposal that good agricultural management can sustain bio-diversity.

Assessments of agro-biodiversity were conducted at the PLEC-Jamaica Rio Grande demonstration site outlined and detailed in Sections 1 and 2 of this report. This assessment attempted to capture most aspects of the biophysical, crop and land management diversity that characterized small farming at the site, in a bid to better understand the dynamics of these farming systems. The assessment also supports the main tenets of the PLEC working groups, namely that diversity is a feature of agricultural systems which is often overlooked in biodiversity assessments, but which must be better understood in the process of biodiversity preservation and conservation.

The assessment established and named current land-use stages and field types (Zarin et al 1999, pp3-16) which characterized the site. The farm management regimes within the demonstration areas were also assessed, particularly in terms of crop and associated cropping systems and land management practices (which included planting, land preparation, soil management and crop management).

This analysis focused on the cultivated, wild, and semi-domesticated plant species found on the farms in order to highlight local trends in the following basic research themes:

- The dynamics of agro-biodiversity and biodiversity at the demonstration site, particularly land and crop management decisions and tenurial arrangements and their impacts on diversity

- The environmental and socio-economic impacts of change on diversity; and

- Models of tree and field crop combinations found on small farm at the PLEC demonstration site

4.2 Land Management Diversity at the Rio Grande Demonstration Site

Within the sampled farm units of the demonstration area, there were 5 dominant land-use stages. Within each land-use stage, the identified field types varied as a function of farm management and reflected a complex mix of different types of cultivated and non-cultivated crops, trees and shrubs promoted by each farmer. Field types, within land-use stages ranged from 1 – 8, with Agroforest and Edge land-use stages showing the highest variations in field types (Table 1). A total of 235 different species of plants were identified on the farms in the study area. These plants included roots and tubers, vegetables, legumes, cereals, fruits, condiments, ornamental and medicinal plants and timber trees. Approximately 70% of the plants were used by local residents. Use values included food, building material, erosion and flood water control mulch, medicine, spices, stimulants and fencing material.

Assessments also showed that field types on some farms changed frequently, primarily as a function of the farmer's crop and land management decisions. For example, one farm was initially characterized to have 3 dominant land uses stages with six field types. This farmer, occupied flat lands on the floodplains of a river where he inter-cropped plots of banana, coffee and coconuts, along with a variety of vegetables, (including pumpkin, cucumber, cabbage, pack-choi, peppers). This farmer indicated to researchers that his decision to farm this mix of crops was based primarily on the availability of markets, access to technical assistance and the availability of the lands (and their proximity to water sources). Subsequent visits with this farmer showed that changes in market availability and other socioeconomic pressures led to a change in his cropping

Table 4.1: Description of land-use stages and field types at the Rio Grande Valley, Portland Jamaica

|Land Use Stage |Field Types |Field Type(s) |Frequency of |

| | | |Incidence |

|House Garden |FT 1 |Spontaneous growth of grasses (Commelina diffusa, Panicum maximum), shrubs (Gliricidia sp.) and |1 |

| | |ornamental plants (Croton sp.) | |

| |FT 2 |Multi-storied mixture of staple crops (Musa sapientum (Banana), Colocasia (dasheen), Xanthosoma |5 |

| | |sagittifolium (coco), Artocarpus altilis(breadfruit) with herbs/medicinal plants (Aloe vera) and | |

| | |fruit trees ( Mangifera indica) Ornamental Plant (Croton sp.) | |

|Shrub Dominated Fallow |FT 3 |Multi-storied mixture of abandoned staple crops (Banana, dasheen, coco, breadfruit) with |1 |

| | |herbs/medicinal plants and fruit trees | |

|Orchard (Banana Plantation) |FT 4 |Musa Sapientum (Banana) fields with little or no intercropping of other crops and undergrowth of |3 |

| | |shrubs | |

|Agroforest |FT 5 |Mixed crop of Musa sapientum (Banana) between which Colocasia (dasheen), and Xanthosoma |1 |

| | |sagittifolium (coco) are intercropped and other food crops (yams, corn, pumpkin) and fruit trees | |

| | |(Ananas comosus - pineapples) are planted randomly | |

| |FT 6 |Musa sapientum (Banana) dominant farm intercropped with (Colocasia) dasheen |1 |

| |FT 7 |Dormant Musa Sapientum (Banana) Plantation and actively farmed vegetable ground |1 |

| |FT 8 |Musa Sapientum (Banana) / (Musa paradisiaca) Plantain dominant field |1 |

|Land Use Stage |Field Types |Field Type(s) |Frequency of |

| | | |Incidence |

|Agroforest (Continued) |FT 9 |Mixture of Musa Sapientum (banana) plantation and vegetable farming |1 |

| |FT 10 |Mixed Array of Musa Sapientum (Bananas), dasheen (Colocassia) / (Xanthosoma sagittifolium) coco and|1 |

| | |a number of fruit trees | |

| |FT 11 |Mixture of food crops e.g Colocassia, Musa Sapientum (banana) and Musa paradisiaca (plantain) |1 |

| |FT 12 |Timber intercropped with coffee sp. (coffee) and Musa sapientum (bananas) |1 |

|Edge |FT 13 |Grassy verge around edge of agroforest with a mixture of grasses, ornamental plants and fruit trees|3 |

| |FT 14 |Grassy verge and mixture of shrubs (e.g. Sida acuta - broomweed )and medicinal plants (e.g. Aloe |5 |

| | |Vera) | |

| |FT 15 |Grassy verge around edge of agroforest with a mixture of grasses, ornamental plants and fruit trees|4 |

| | |and food crops (Musa sapientum, Xanthosoma sagittifolium) | |

| |FT 16 |Grassy verge mixed with a number of wild growing herbs and shrubs (Gliricidia sp., weldelia |1 |

| | |trilobata), food crops (Xanthosoma sagittifolium) and fruit tree (e.g. Syzgium malaccense, and | |

| | |Cocus nucifera | |

| |FT 17 |Spontaneous growth of grasses (Commelina diffusa, Panicum maximum), shrubs (Gliricidia sp.) and |2 |

| | |ornamental plants (Croton sp.) | |

| |FT 18 |Verge around farmhouse dominated by shrubs e.g. Gliricidia sp., weldelia trilobata and Boerhavia |2 |

| | |cocinea | |

system. He had converted his vegetable stands to the banana monoculture (banana orchard land-use stage). This case also highlighted the dynamic nature of the farmer activities at the demonstration site, and hence the need for long-term monitoring as a means of accurately capturing the occurrence of diversity and the impact of change.

2. Land Use Stages and Field Types in the Study Area

The results of agro-biodiversity assessments of farming systems in the Rio Grande Valley indicated that species occurrence and abundance varied according to land-use stages and field types. The Agroforest, House garden and Edge land-use stages were the most commonly observed within the demonstration area, constituting over 80% of the total sample units. These land-use stages also displayed the highest diversity of crop, fruit trees, shrubs and other valuable plants as the species richness[1] index reflects (Table 2). The Margalef Index, abundance index showed that the agroforest, edge and house garden land-use stages respectively, showed a higher abundance index than that of the orchard. Margalef Index values for the dominant land-use stages ranged from 20 - 58, while that of the Banana Orchards were as low as 6. From this index it may be concluded that the type of land-use stage has implications for the on the abundance of species found on the farm. Where other plants were intercropped within banana fields (generating the agroforest or housegarden land-use stage), the abundance index increased dramatically, sometimes as much as a factor of three. Another land use stage showing high species diversity was the fallow, which is an area that is not actively managed due to its susceptibility to flooding.

The higher diversity in the occurrence of crops and trees common to the agroforest, house garden and edge land-use stages can be attributed to the intensive management practices employed by farmers as physical and economic coping mechanisms. In many ways these strategies allow for the diversification of agricultural production, allowing for better market access, which will in-turn assist in fulfilling the needs of the farmer and his household for food and cash. The management practices associated with the coping mechanism allow for the variations in cropping types and patterns from farm to farm, further increasing agro-biodiversity at the site.

These practices/approaches to crop production, land management and livelihood security formed the basis of the "good practice" models developed by the PLEC researchers (farmers and scientists) and demonstration by Expert Farmers in the latter stages of project work.

Table 4. 2: Species Richness as a Function of Land-Use Stages

|Land-Use Stage |Average Species Richness |Incidence of the Land-Use Stage |

|Agroforest |26 |9 |

|Housegarden |27 |6 |

|Edge |16 |20 |

|Fallow |26 |1 |

|Orchard |12 |3 |

The field types of the sampled areas again support the observation that variations in diversity is as a function of farmer management. The sample area showed species richness that ranged from 7 to 59, with the observed variations following the observed trends in the land-use stages discussed above. The Agroforest land-use stage showed the highest variation in field types, with over 9 field types identified (Table 1). Field type species richness within this land use stage ranged from 13 – 59. However, on farms where there was an emphasis on a mixture of banana, root crops, vegetable, fruit and lumber trees, there was greater organizational diversity and the species richness index was above 25. The field type showing the highest species richness (59) was found on a farm divided into a number of subplots upon which a number of crops were planted, for sale to the local market. This farm also showed the highest level of species abundance within the agroforest and Edge field type. This farm and the farmer's management practices also reflect the relationship between market orientation and the occurrence of diversity as this farmer sells all his produce locally. In converse farmers targeting export markets receive technical support from the Banana Export Company (BECO) which promotes a reduction in diversity to facilitate greater efficiency and reduced production costs. For example, the banana farmer producing for the export market will clear his banana plot to reduce "wastage" of nutrient inputs through uptake by other plants, and reduce the incidence of diseases on his farm. This approach promotes a reduction in diversity and is reflected in the uniformity in field type observed in the Banana Plantation/Orchard land-use stage. The single field type within this banana plantation/orchard land-use stage showed the lowest species richness values, which ranges from 7 - 19, with an average of 12. Most farms had species richness of 20 and above.

The field types of the house garden land-use stage showed less variation within field types. Other assessments of the observed field types showed that the edges also had a significant contribution to make to diversity, as in many instances the edge contained crops, fruit trees and medicinal plants not commonly grown in the main farming area.

4. 3 Crops and Cropping Systems at the Study Area

Diversity within the demonstration site can also be examined at the level of the crops and crop management systems employed. Land use stages and field types of the demonstration site are dominated by the banana crop (Figure 4.1). Within the farming systems sampled over 75% of the farmers indicated that a second major crop was cultivated alongside the main income generating crop. In addition 61% of the farmers indicated that they also farmed a third income generating crop alongside the 1st and 2nd main farm crops. Commonly observed secondary and tertiary crops farmed are plantain, yam breadfruit and dasheen. Some farmers will also include vegetables such as tomato and legumes. Thirteen different types of vegetables were observed on the sampled farms. These included cabbage, cucumber, pumpkin, tomato, cauliflower, okra and calaloo. Legumes are both widely cultivated and consumed in the Valley, but farmers grow limited varieties, mainly kidney beans, string beans, gungo peas, cow peas and broad bean.

Table 4.3 shows the combination of dominant and secondary crops selected by farmers within the Rio Grande Valley and illustrates that dasheen, plantain, and fruit trees which when intercropped with banana, generate the agroforest land-use stage and associated field types.

Table 4. 3: Matrix showing the Dominant and 20Crops Grown in Combination on

Rio Grande Farms

| |Secondary Crops |

| | |

|Dominant Farm | |

|Crop | |

| | | | |

| |Banana |Plantain |Coconut |

|Agroforest |Banana |Grow/Fence Stake |Mint (varying species |

| |Plantain |Ackee |Bird Pepper |

| |Dasheen |Coconut |Aloe Vera |

| |Sweet Potato |Mango |Susumber |

| |Yam |Apples | |

| |Peas/Legumes |Coffee | |

| |Vegetables |Citrus | |

| |Pineapple | | |

|Housegarden |Banana |Grow/Fence Stake |Ornamental Plants |

| |Plantain |Ackee |Mint (varying species |

| |Dasheen |Coconut |Bird Pepper |

| |Sweet Potato |Mango |Aloe Vera |

| |Yam |Apples |Susumber |

| |Peas/Legumes |Coffee | |

| |Vegetables |Citrus | |

| |Pineapple |Soursop | |

| | |Sweet sop | |

| | |Guinep | |

|Edge |Yam |Nutmeg |Grasses |

| |Banana |Apple |Mints |

| |Plantain |Mangoes |Growstake |

| | |Citrus |Hogmeat |

| | | |Aloe vera |

| | | | |

|Orchard |1. Banana |2. Apple |Wihtin the Orchard very few aggressive|

| | | |wild growing plants were found e.g: |

| | | |Hogmeat |

| | | |Marigold |

| | | |Guinea Grass |

|Shrub Dominated Fallow|Dasheen |Coconut |Bachelor Button |

| |Coco |Yam |Mongoose Weed |

| | | |Milk Weed |

| | | |Watergrass |

| | | |Rat Ears |

| | | |Cowfoot |

| | | |Marigold |

| | | |Guinea Grass |

4. 4 Conclusions

The assessment of agro-biodiversity data on the PLEC - Jamaica demonstration site support the premise that agricultural diversity has a significant role to play in the conservation of biological diversity. Data analysis also highlighted the facts that:

- Despite socioeconomic, cultural and political pressures, agro-diversity is flourishing within the Rio Grande Valley demonstration site, from which other farmers can learn more sustainable farm management practices

- Coping strategies are reflected in the land-use stage variations observed

- Substantial diversity has been noted in:

1. Cultivated and non-cultivated species

2. Management practices/techniques

3. Land-use variations

5. Data Analysis 2 – Non-PLEC funded Research at

Demonstration Site

The establishment of a PLEC demonstration site and the subsequent activities at the site has spawned a plethora of collateral analyses that have not been directly funded by the PLEC. Most of these analyses were undertaken within the context of research projects and dissertations by candidates registered in the European Union-funded MSc programme in Integrated Rural and Urban Environmental Resource Management offered in the Department of Geography and Geology at the University of the West Indies. The objectives of these research and their findings are presented below.

5.1 Dissertation Title: Agrobiodiversity Responses to Flood and Landslide Hazards in the Rio Grande Watershed, Portland Jamaica.

Purpose of the Study

In light of the vulnerability of the demonstration site to flood and landslide hazards and the dearth of extension interventions to help farmers mitigate the impacts of these destructive systems, the study was undertaken to investigate farmers’ management of biodiversity to reduce physical and economic resource losses from natural hazards.

Main Findings

Results of the study suggest that along with biological management and organisational factors, natural hazard factors influenced the biodiversity of plots at the demonstration site.

Natural Hazard Factors

Natural Hazard Factors influencing agrobiodiversity at the demonstration site relate to the mode and severity of impact, both of which affect the extent to which a plot can be replanted after the impact of flooding or landslide. Plots that are replanted following the impact of hazards tend to have less diversity than those that are left in fallow or permanently abandoned since vegetation regenerate by succession on these plot.

Mode of Impact Influence on Agrobiodiversity

Figure 5.1: Percentage Distribution of Farms by Mode of Impact

[pic]

Figure 5.1 shows the distribution of hazard impacts on farms at in the demonstration site. Flooding and chained impacts such as water logging was the more common of the two main hazards impacting the demonstration site. Flood impacts were experienced on 56 percent of farms at the site while landslide impacts were felt on 28 percent. Only 16 percent of farms did not experience hazard impacts.

Hazard impacts on crops were manifested in a number of ways (Figure 2). Direct impact of floods on crops was experienced by 52 percent of farms on the site while 18 percent experienced crop loss as a direct effect of landslides while 18 percent had crops destroyed as a result of debris deposits from both floods and landslides.

Some hazard impacts resulted in the direct loss of topsoil from plots, leading to a reduction in available space for cultivation and in some cases, loss of planting material. This is true in the case of riverine flooding and erosional landslides. In contrast, plots affected by slide deposits sheet floods and waterlogging were better able to accommodate replanting efforts thereby promoting higher levels of agrobiodiversity. However, indications are that replanting of crops such as monoculture banana following a hazard impact serves to reduce the area in non-cultivated plant species, thus reducing overall biodiversity.

Figure 5.2: Percentage Distribution of Farms by type of Impacts on Crops

[pic]

Banana planted as monoculture orchards was the most severely affected crop, reflecting not only the dominance of banana production at the demonstration site, but also the biological properties of banana which makes it vulnerable to waterlogging and bruising

Influence of Land use Stage on Hazard Impact

Figure 5.3: Percentage Distribution of Land use Stage by Hazard Impact

[pic]

That orchards are the most susceptible to hazard impacts (Figure 3) is a reflection the dominance of banana orchards at the demonstration site, as well as apparent greater susceptibility of monoculture to landslides and floods.

Influence of Severity of Hazard Impact on Agrobiodiversity Response

Overall, 87.9 percent of the plots at the demonstration have been impacted by flood and/or landslide hazard. Of the impacted plots, over 27 percent sustained damage to more than three-quarters of the area while about 30 percent sustained damages on less than a quarter of the area.

Chi-square result suggest a significant relationship between field type and the proportion of plots affected by hazards. Field types involving monoculture banana were found to be most severely impacted. Moreover, field type significantly affect the mode of impact experienced on plots. This significance results from the spatio-geological arrangement of field types because soils and topography influence farmer’s choice of crops and give rise to different crop management strategies such as appropriate spacing of crops and the ability to intercrop. These management strategies affect the vulnerability of plots to flood and landslides and can raise or lower the biodiversity of a plot.

The spatial location of field types relative to slope and drainage (hillside or riverside) directly affect mode of impact from hazards. Slope angle, soil type and distance from a drainage system render one area more susceptible to landslides and floods than another.

The more vulnerable plots are to floods and landslides the greater the likelihood that farmers will employ biodiversty response strategies to mitigate impact. For instance areas which are highly vulnerable to flooding are either planted with water-tolerant crops such as dasheen or left in fallow. Fallow icreases the level of biodiversity on plots. 66 percent of the farmers cultivating steep slopes actively employed plants to control soil erosion.

Use of Biodiversity in Hazard Mitigation

Farmers at the demonstration site use a variety of cultivated and non-cultivated species to mitigate the impact of floods and landslide. Species utilised include banana, coconut, fruit trees, grass, growsick, lumber, sugar cane, wild cane and pineapples. Bamboo and lumber were the most commonly used species. Interestingly, farmers’ knowledge and awareness of the utility of certain species in hazard mitigation did not always corresponfd with their actual use of these species. In most cases knowledge of the utility of species exceeded actual use. This is primarily because farmers’ use of specific plants in hazard mitigation is largely dependent on the income-generating capacity of that plant as well as other characteristics of the plant that might make it otherwise unattractive to farmers. For instance, in spite of widespread knowledge of the usefulness of bamboo and grass in binding soil and thereby reducing soil; erosion their utilisation was not as widespread as would be expected, because they lack economic value to the farmer. Moreover, farmers were also aware that in the case of bamboo, the matted roots stifle the growth of cultivated crops.

2. Title of Study: Agrochemical Use and the Interrelationships with Agrodiversity among Small-scale farming communities in the Rio Grande Valley, Jamaica

Purpose of the Study

The research was borne out of the need to better understand the true nature of farmers’ agro-chemical use and chemical dynamics within the demonstration site. It sought to establish:

• The types of fertilisers and pesticides being used by farmers in the study area

• The factors which influence the farmers’ use of agrochemicals; and

• The types of crops and plants present on farms, that is, patterns of agro-diversity;

• Through these assessments the study hoped to gather information on:

• Variations in agrochemical use as farm and crop types change

• Interrelationships between agrochemical use and agro-biodiversity

Main Findings

Survey data indicated that approximately 82 % of the farmers in the Valley used an agrochemical (whether fertiliser or pesticide). In addition, more than eighty percent of the farmers thought agrochemical application was a key part of crop production. The assessments demonstrated that within the Agroforest and House garden land-use stages there were less chemical inputs as opposed to that of the Banana Orchard/Plantation land-use stage. For example, farms which demonstrated the orchard land-use stage employed more than one and up to five types of fertilizers, which include ammonia, sulfates, phosphate and range of mixed grades ( Table 5.2). The number of pesticides used by farms in this land-use stage was also higher.

A total of seven fertilizers and 20 pesticides were used by farmers within the demonstration site. The names of these agro-chemicals, their functions and the distribution of uses are detailed in Tables 5.1 and 5.2.

Table 5.1 : Main Fertilizers Used Within the Demonstration Site

| | | | | |

|Fertilizers Used |Crops |Frequency (general) |Function |% of farms employing this|

| | | | |chemical |

|Sulphate |Vegetables, Plantain, Bananas, |once |To promote growth in |78 |

| |Peppers, Coffee, (A variety of | |young plants | |

| |young plants) | | | |

|Potash |Vegetables, Plantain, Bananas, |once |Applied to bananas to |33 |

| |Dasheen, Coco | |help them to shoot | |

|Miracle Gro |Vegetables |once | |7 |

| | | | | |

|15:5:35 (All purpose) |Banana, Dasheen, Coco, |Every 10 weeks |Applied to support growth|78 |

| |Plantain, Vegetables, A mixture| | | |

| |of crops | | | |

|Urea |Banana, Plantain |once |To promote growth in |11 |

| | | |young plants | |

While agro-chemical use was difficult to assess at the land-use stage level, it was found that cropping systems of the Rio Grande Valley were directly interrelated to agro-chemical use. Table 5.3 illustrates that 66.6% of the agrochemical users fell within the traditional export cropping system. These farms produced banana and/or coffee crop for export markets, which both require substantial inputs of agro-chemicals to meet local and international market standards.

The main conclusions of the study were:

1. Agrochemical use was significant in the Valley and could have implications for diversity.

2. Agrochemical use on farms in the Rio Grande Valley is strongly influenced by the farming systems being employed.

Pesticide use on farms has short-term impacts on the agrobiodiversity of the farm, however, many of the species removed are resilient and will regenerate.

Table 5.2 List of Agro-chemicals Used by Crop Type

|Categories |Pesticides |Crops |% of agrochemical users |

|Insecticides |Mocap |Bananas |52 |

| |Furadan |" |37 |

| |Rugby |" |19 |

| |Decis |Vegatables |4 |

| |Dipel |Vegatables |4 |

| |Xentare |Vegatables |4 |

| |Sevens |Citrus |4 |

| |Primacide |Bananas |4 |

|Fungicides |Anvil |Bananas |4 |

| |Benelate |" |15 |

| |Calixin |" |52 |

| |Cocide |Vegatables |4 |

| |Tilt |Bananas |74 |

| |Spray Oil |Bananas |74 |

| |Manchocide |Vegatables |4 |

| |Ridomil |Vegatables |4 |

|Herbicides |Roundup |Weeds |4 |

| |Gramaxone |" |93 |

| |Diquat |" |19 |

| |Karate |" |7 |

Table 5. .3: Chemical Use by Cropping Systems

|Chemical Use |CROPPING SYSTEM |

| |Domestic Root Crops |Vegetable Farming |Traditional Export |Mixed Farming |

|Users |7 |2 |18 |0 |

|Nonusers |4 | |1 |1 |

3. Agro-biodiiversity and Food Security among Farming Households in the

Rio Grande Valley

Title of the Study

Agro-biodiversity and Food Security among Farming Households in the Rio Grande Valley, Jamaica.

Purpose of the Study

To assess the interrelationships between the level of agro-biodiversity on small farms and the food security status of farm households in the Rio Grande Valley, Jamaica

Main Findings

1. Generally high level of food security among households of the demonstration site. However incidences of short-term food insecurity were found among farm households in the Lower Rio Grande Valley (42% of farm households reported experiencing food shortage during the past year). Thus there was no chronic food insecurity but rather, food insecurity that was seasonal and only transitory for segments of the site population. Strong community ties and a culture of sharing contribute to the assurance of adequate food for all households. Most households utilize a number of coping strategies that are summarized below and detailed in Table 5.4. In general, most households utilize the least severe and moderately severe coping strategies. Coping strategies observed include:

o Food Seeking Strategies

Different ways were found to obtain food or the money to purchase food in the short term

o Dietary Change Strategies

Diets are altered and less expensive foods are purchased

o Rationing Strategies

Creative ways are found to manage food insufficiency and equitably distribute the available food among household members

Table 5.4 Food Insecurity Coping Strategies Employed at Rio Grande Valley Demonstration Site

|Category |Coping |Severity Rank |

| |Strategy | |

|1. Seeks off-farm employment | FS | 1 (14) |

|2. Borrows money from friends and relatives |FS |1 (35) |

|3. Gets assistance (remittances) from relatives | | |

|overseas |FS |1 (7) |

|4. Gets a meal from friends or extended family | | |

|5. Gets credit at the shop |FS |1 (7) |

|6. Cooks “one pot” (less elaborate) meals | | |

|7. Drinks more to fill tummy |FS |1 (7) |

|8. Cooks enough at midday to serve for two meals |DC |2 (71) |

|10. Adults limit intake to ensure that children get | | |

|enough |DC |2 (7) |

|11. Eats fewer meals per day |R |3 (21) |

| | | |

| |R |3 (14) |

| | | |

| |R |3 (42) |

FS = Food Seeking Strategy 1 = Least Severe

DC = Dietary Change Strategy 2 = Moderately Severe

R = Rationing Strategy 3 = Most Severe

There was only a weak relationship between agro-biodiversity on cultivated plots and food security of the household. Hence, even though cultivating a larger variety of crops gives some households greater access to food, they were not necessarily more food secure than households which grew fewer crops, but were able to purchase all the food they needed. This has helped considerably in understanding the role of crop diversity in the culture and local economy of the farmers. In general it was found that:

• A significant relationship exists between farm households experiencing food shortages and the number of crops encountered on farms (Chi- Square test; p < 0.05).

• Export farmers are least likely to be food insecure.

• Some domestic farmers are food secure, but a large proportion utilize various coping strategies to survive.

Explanation of the Observed Trends

• A large proportion of local diet is imported, e.g., milk, cheese, butter, wheat flour, rice, cod fish, etc, and export farmers are more able to purchase these products

• Income from the sale of farm products on the domestic market does not always cover household expenditure.

• Income and not level of agro-biodiversity is more critical to the avoidance of food security

6.0 Sustainability of PLEC Work

A number of measures have been taken to ensure continuation of PLEC outcomes beyond 2002. These include:

• Establishment of a framework for the continued exchange of ideas and transfer of good farming practices between Expert Farmers and other community members. The intervention by PLEC scientist has facilitated a breakdown of interpersonal suspicions and facilitated a level of openness that will allow farmers to continue the process of information transfer. However the the succes of this proces will require continued intervention by PLEC scientist as the number and site of field days that have facilitated this process have been few. This facilitation is in its infancy and may therefore not have the …to be self-sustaining.

• The success of the PLEC initiative requires a holistic approach which involves all stakeholders at the site. PLEC activities have sought to engage local stakeholders such as the Rural Agricultural Development agency (RADA) and national policy-makers, particularly within the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands but also at the Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management (ODPEM), local NGOs, such as Valley Hikes The sustainability of PLEC outcomes relies on continued engagements of this type. There is for instance, need to engage the College of Agriculture and Education (CASE) which is located in proximity to the demonstration site. Here again PLEC activities will require continued support.

• While the experimentation phase of PLEC involvement at the site has begun, monitoring and evaluation of outcomes will need to be ongoing.

References

Ferguson H. (1998) “The effective allocation of watershed resources using GIS

technology: The case of the Rio Grande Watershed, Jamaica”. University of Technology, Jamaica.

Mines and Geology Division (2000) Landslide Susceptibility Map of the Rio Grande

Valley, Portland.

Morrison, E. (2001) Agrobiodiverdity Responses to Flood and Landslide Hazards in the

Rio Grande Watershed, Jamaica. Unpublished MSc dissertation, UWI Mona, Kingston.

NRCD (1987) Jamaica Country Environmental Profile. Kingston Jamaica.

Thomas-Hope E., B. Spence and H. Semple (1999) Biodiversity within the Small

Farming Systems of the Rio Grande Watershed, Jamaica. Seminario Internacional

Sobre Agridiversidad Campesina. Toluca, Mexico.

Zarin, D. J., Guo Huijun and Lewis Enu-Kwesi (1999) Method for the Assessment of

Plant Species Diversity in Complex agricultural Landscapes: Guidelines for Data Collection and Analysis from the PLEC Biodiversity Advisory Group (PLEC-BAG). PLEC News and Views, No. 13, April 1999.

-----------------------

[1] A count of the number of species in a particular sample

-----------------------

Figure 2: 1 PLEC-Jamaica Rio Grande Valley demonstration site

[pic]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download