138 R.D.B. Lefroy et al. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 81 2000 137–146
1.1. Maintaining soil quality or developing sustainable land management systems?
There has been a critical transition from a focus on soil quality, to land quality and finally to SLM. The
maintenance of soil quality is a vital component of the maintenance of land quality, however, defining soil
quality, which is an essential first step to maintaining soil quality, is very complex Carter, 1996, involving
a myriad of physical, chemical, and biological factors. The transition from a focus on soil quality to land
quality involved broadening the criteria to include factors such as climate and cropping system, as there
is much more to land husbandry than soil husbandry. Similarly, although identifying useful land quality
indicators LQIs is requisite for SLM, there is much more to developing SLM systems than maintaining
land quality. An important aspect of the development of SLM is an approach to land management that is
not just concerned with output, but encompasses the need for long term preservation of the resource base
to allow adequate future food production in a manner that is socially acceptable, economically viable and
environmentally sound. The framework for evaluat- ing sustainable land management FESLM Smyth
and Dumanski, 1993 attempts to connect all aspects of land use under investigation with the interacting
conditions of the natural environment, the economy, and socio-cultural and political life. The aim of the
FESLM is to develop a tool for identification of un- sustainable and sustainable systems and which will
produce a structured and interrelated checklist of variables and factors which can be used to systemat-
ically evaluate the sustainability of a wide range of agroecological systems.
The objective of this study was to assess whether such a structured approach to evaluating the sustain-
ability of land management could produce accurate and efficient assessments of the sustainability of farm-
ing systems on sloping lands of Southeast Asia.
1.2. Farmer involvement in developing sustainable land management
The development of LQI and indicators of SLM re- quires major involvement by the farming community.
Firstly, they possess an intimate knowledge of their land and have access to the important temporal com-
ponents of land quality; they can monitor how their system has changed. Secondly, it is the farming com-
munity, the human element, that is the essential step in broadening from land quality to SLM. Thirdly, as
managers of the land, it is the farming community that observes and responds to the various indicators of
SLM.
The concept of sustainability is a dynamic concept in the sense that what is sustainable in one area may not
be in another, and what was considered sustainable at one time may no longer be sustainable today or in the
future because conditions or attitudes have changed. In addition, sustainability varies with the frame of ref-
erence in which it is considered, particularly with re- spect to socio-cultural, economic and political factors.
What one group considers sustainable may not be sus- tainable for another group. The aim is to merge the
knowledge of farmers, extension workers, and scien- tists to gain a broader perspective on the constraints
and potential of land management systems. Due to the different perspectives of these groups, however, it is
possible that consensus is not reached easily, if at all; assessment of sustainability is a compromise based on
negotiation. This process should develop criteria and indicators for evaluating whether land management
and agricultural practices should lead towards or away from sustainability. The complete involvement of the
farming community will ensure the recommendations that arise are realistic, efficient and acceptable for the
end users.
2. Methods for case studies in Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand
Implementation of the FESLM in this study was at- tempted in three countries in Southeast Asia. The areas
chosen in Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand were in villages on sloping land that have been involved in soil
conservation activities in the IBSRAM ASIALAND Management of Sloping Lands network. In each case
study, one group of farmers was selected from those who had been collaborating with activities in soil con-
servation networks, and the other group was selected from non-collaborators in the same village. In both
Vietnam and Indonesia, 10 families were chosen from the group of collaborators, from projects with the Na-
tional Institute of Soils and Fertilizers, Vietnam, and
R.D.B. Lefroy et al. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 81 2000 137–146 139
the Center for Soils and Agroclimate Research, In- donesia, and 10 were non-collaborators. In Thailand,
seven farmers were selected from collaborators in the IBSRAMDepartment of Land Development soil con-
servation project and six had never participated in soil conservation projects.
Data were collected from a number of sources and using a number of techniques. Firstly, data from
previous studies were used, particularly from stud- ies in the IBSRAM network. Secondly, data from
the village level and above were collected in inter- views with heads of villages, communes, districts,
provinces, etc., and from various village groups, such as groups for women, youth, the elderly, etc. Thirdly,
household level data were collected in interviews with the individual farmers. Finally, rapid rural appraisal
and farmer participatory techniques were used with selected groups of farmers.
The information was collected at a number of lev- els and for a number of reasons. A primary reason
was to characterise the particular site, farming sys- tem, village community, etc. This is an essential step
in understanding the degree of universality or speci- ficity in evaluating SLM in different agroecological
and socio-cultural systems. The appropriate scale varies between characteristics. For some characteris-
tics, farming systems across a wide geographic range may be very similar. Equally, systems that are very
similar in many characteristics may be very different in a limited number of characteristics. Establishing
management domains relies on good characterisation. Secondly, the aim in data collection was to indicate
the constraints experienced in current practices and the potential for improvement. In part this involved
analysis of cause and effect, as well as evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of alternative
land management systems. Thirdly, the aim was to develop evaluation factors and indicators of SLM and
to ascertain the critical thresholds of these indicators.
None of these activities are exclusive of each other. Information that characterises a farming system may
outline the constraints in the systems, may be useful as an indicator of SLM, or may be a modifier for
use with another indicator. For instance, soil type may be a characteristic of the system, and it may be a
modifier for an indicator of soil moisture constraints or of some aspect of soil fertility. Similarly, tenurial
status can be a characteristic of a system, a constraint to implementation of SLM, and an indicator for that
constraint. A practical protocol was established for use by the
researchers and their assistants from the collaborating NARES who conducted the case studies. Develop-
ment of the protocol was based on the action frame- work outlined by Smyth and Dumanski 1993 and on
guidelines for conducting FESLM case studies Du- manski, 1998. The practical techniques used included
open-ended questionnaires, for the collection of vil- lage and household level socio-economic data and
farm level biophysical data, as well as a range of par- ticipatory rural appraisal PRA techniques Bechst-
edt, 2000a,b. The PRA techniques included problem identification, ranking and solution finding, village
and resource mapping, time trends of crop yield, as- sessment of the innovation in soil improvement tech-
niques, seasonal labour-input calendars, and gender analysis of the division of labour and decision-making.
Information was collected at both the village or community level, and at the single household level,
to cover areas such as demography, history of the set- tlement and households, ethnicity and belief systems,
farming systems, cropping patterns, livestock pro- duction, forest and water management, conservation
strategies, tenurial status, marketing, agricultural and non-agricultural income and expenditure, road sys-
tems, education, health and nutrition, local organisa- tions and social co-operation, internal conflicts, major
problems and solutions to these problems, access to capital, and access to outside support services.
Evaluation of biophysical factors included detailed descriptions of the cropping systems, including inputs,
fallow periods, etc., the physical characteristics of the fields in terms of erosion, crusting, rills, runoff, com-
paction and salinisation, the fertility status, including fertility ranking and plant growth symptoms, the soil
water status, the weed, pest and disease management, and the quality of off-farm water.
3. Selection of indicators and thresholds
