Selection of indicators and thresholds

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

A large amount of data were collected by the NARES collaborators in the three case studies Phien et al., 1997; Santoso et al., 1997; Wattanasarn et al., 1997. These data were used in combination with earlier data from the network Sajjapongse, personal 140 R.D.B. Lefroy et al. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 81 2000 137–146 Table 1 Productivity indicators and threshold ratings, with farmer rankings and comments Indicator Qualitative ratings Farmer importance ranking Farmer comments Very Medium Not Yield average of 7 years ≥ village mean 4 12 4 Average over 10 years village mean by 0–25 village mean by ≈25 village mean by 25 Soil colour as an estimate of SOM Dark soilhigh SOM 15 5 Soil depth Brown soilmedium SOM Yellowishlow SOM Plant growth Vigorous 10 10 Normal Stunted Leaf colour Dark green 15 5 Normal Yellowish on whole leaf Yellowish on tipsmargins Older leaves purple Table 2 Security indicators and threshold ratings, with farmer rankings and comments Indicator Qualitative ratings Farmer importance ranking Farmer comments Very Medium Not Average annual rainfall Excessive: 2400 mm per year 15 5 Rainfall distribution Sufficient: 1200–2400 mm Limited: 1200 mm Residue management returned 50 for 3 years or more 10 5 5 Use of organic manure 50 for 3 years 50 for 3 years or more 50 for 3 years Burnt or removed Drought frequency 2 years continuously 16 4 2 years in 7 2 years in 7 Income from livestock 25 of total income 10 10 Normally 20–30 10–25 of total income 10 of total income communication, with the aim of achieving a more structured approach to developing SLM strategies. Partially as a result of the complex nature of the data, they were analysed qualitatively, rather than quan- titatively. The data were used, with comments from researchers and feedback from the collaborating farm- ers, to identify a suite of evaluation factors and indica- tors, with associated thresholds or qualitative ratings, for each of the five pillars of the FESLM: productivity, security, protection, viability and acceptability. These indicators have been used to develop a prototype decision support system DSS Rais et al., 1998a. The selected indicators and thresholds are listed in Tables 1–5, along with rankings and comments made R.D.B. Lefroy et al. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 81 2000 137–146 141 Table 3 Protection indicators and threshold ratings, with farmer rankings and comments Indicator Qualitative ratings Farmer importance ranking Farmer comments Very Medium Not Topsoil eroded amount in last 7 years 4.5 cm lost, rills on 50 20 Amount in last 10 years 0.7–4.5 cm lost, rills 25–50 0.7 cm lost, rills on 25 Cropping intensity and extent of protection 2–3 crops with conservation 20 2–3 crops, no conservation 1 crop with conservation 1 crop, no conservation Cropping pattern Rice or corn then fallow 14 6 Include fruit gardens and agroforestry Rice then corn Ricecorn then legume etc. Ricecorn between perennial Table 4 Viability indicators and threshold ratings, with farmer rankings and comments Indicator Qualitative ratings Farmer importance ranking Farmer comments Very Medium Not Net farm income Rising B:C1.25 20 Total income of family Constant B:C=1 Declining B:C1 Fluctuating Off-farm income 25 of total income 15 5 Normally about 10 10–25 of total income 10 of total income Difference between market and farm price 50 13 4 3 25–50 25 Availability of farm labour 2 full-time adults 10 6 4 Labour per land unit 1–2 full-time adults 1 full-time adult Land holding size 1 ha 20 1.5–2 ha per family 1–2 ha 2 ha Availability of farm credit 50 of requirement 15 5 25–50 of requirement 25 of requirement Nil Percentage of farm produce sold in market 50 of produce sold 8 7 5 25–50 of produce sold 25 of produce sold 142 R.D.B. Lefroy et al. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 81 2000 137–146 Table 5 Acceptability indicators and threshold ratings, with farmer rankings and comments Indicator Qualitative ratings Farmer importance ranking Farmer comments Very Medium Not Tenurial status Full ownership 20 Long term user rights No official land title Access to extension services Full technical support 12 7 1 Limited technical support No support Access to primary schools 1 km 8 12 1–3 km 3 km Access to health centre 3 km 7 12 1 3–5 km 5 km Access to agricultural inputs 5 km 5 18 7 5–10 km 10 km Subsidy for conservation practices 50 15 5 10–20 of total cost 25–50 25 No subsidy Training in conservation practices Once in 3 years 18 2 School for young farmers Once in 5 years None available Village road links to major roads Full access 1 17 2 Limited access No access by the 20 Vietnamese farmer-collaborators when an early version of the DSS was first used to assess the sustainability of their farming systems. The farmer rankings indicate their assessment of the importance and relevance of the indicators and the qualitative ratings with respect to sustainability, while their com- ments indicate alternative or additional indicators and alterations to threshold ratings.

4. Use and assessment of indicators