BUFF BAY/PENCAR WATERSHED PILOT AREA SOCIO-ECONOMIC … · Buff Bay/Pencar Pilot Area...

BUFF BAY/PENCAR WATERSHED PILOT AREA

SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDY

AND

AGROFORESTRY BASELINE SURVEY

APRIL 2000

FORESTRY DEPARTMENT/TREES FOR TOMORROW PROJECT

173 Constant Spring Road Kingston 9

Jamaica W. I.

Buff Bay/Pencar Pilot Area Socio-economic Study and Agroforestry Baseline Survey Page i

Forestry Department/Trees for Tomorrow Project

Buff Bay/Pencar Watershed Pilot Area Socio-Economic Study and Agroforestry Baseline Survey

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................................................................................................I

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................III

LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................III

ACRONYMS............................................................................................................................... IV

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .........................................................................................................V

PREFACE....................................................................................................................................VI

PART 1: SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 2

1.1 RATIONALE AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2 1.2 METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF THE PILOT AREA ............................................. 3

3.0 ORGANISATIONS CURRENTLY WORKING IN THE PILOT WATERSHED...... 5

4.0 AGRICULTURAL PROFILE OF THE PILOT AREA.................................................. 6

4.1 LAND ACCESS AND TENURE .................................................................................................... 6 4.2 COFFEE PRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 7 4.3 OTHER AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 8 4.4 FARMING SYSTEM ................................................................................................................... 8 4.5 ORGANISATION OF WORK ON THE FARM ................................................................................. 9 4.6 MARKETING OF FARM PRODUCTS ........................................................................................... 9

5.0 THE DYNAMICS OF FARMING AND LAND USE IN THE PILOT AREA. .......... 11

5.1 FARMERS’ STRATEGIES......................................................................................................... 11 5.2 PROBLEMS AND CONSTRAINTS.............................................................................................. 12

6.0 CONCLUSION: MANAGING THE FOREST IN BUFF BAY /PENCAR WATERSHED ................................................................................................................... 13

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................. 14

7.1 CONCENTRATE EFFORTS AND RESOURCES ............................................................................ 14 7.2 DEVELOP PRACTICAL ACTIVITIES AND TOOLS WITH FARMERS.............................................. 14

Buff Bay/Pencar Pilot Area Socio-economic Study and Agroforestry Baseline Survey Page ii


7.3 DEVELOP TRAINING PROGRAMME......................................................................................... 14 7.4 DEVELOP AND MULTIPLY PUBLIC AWARENESS ACTIVITIES ................................................... 15 7.5 ADDRESS SPECIFIC MATTERS IN THE CONTEXT OF FOREST MANAGEMENT ............................ 15 7.6 DEVELOP MECHANISMS FOR CO-ORDINATION BETWEEN AGENCIES ...................................... 15

PART II: SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS OF THE AGRO-FORESTRY BASELINE SURVEY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 16

8.0 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................ 17

9.0 PRESENT LAND-USE IN BUFF-BAY/PENCAR WATERSHED.............................. 17

10.0 CLASSIFICATION OF AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS.............................................. 18

11.0 SUMMARY OF FARMERS’ PROFILES IN SURVEY AREA ................................... 18

11.1 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GENDER............................................................................. 18 11.2 FARM SIZE AND TENURE ....................................................................................................... 18

12.0 DESCRIPTION OF FARMING SYSTEMS IN SURVEY AREA ............................... 19

12.1 FARMING SYSTEMS............................................................................................................... 19 12.2 EXISTING AGROFORESTRY AND FARMING PRACTICES ........................................................... 19

13.0 PRODUCTION AND MARKETING.............................................................................. 20

14.0 TYPES OF AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS IN THE SURVEY AREA ...................... 22

14.1 BOUNDARY PLANTING.......................................................................................................... 22 14.2 MULTIPLE-USE TREES AND PLANTATION CROP COMBINATIONS ............................................ 22 14.3 IMPROVED (MANAGED) TREE-FALLOW SYSTEMS ................................................................. 23 14.4 TREE ENRICHED WINDBREAKS (OR TIMBER BELTS) ............................................................... 23 14.5 MIXED MULTI-STORY TREE AND CROPS COMBINATIONS....................................................... 24 14.6 LIVE FENCES......................................................................................................................... 24 14.7 CONTOUR HEDGEROWS WITH TREES (OR GRASSES) ON EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES...... 24 14.8 HEDGEROW INTERCROPPING................................................................................................. 24 14.9 MIXED FRUIT AND TIMBER STANDS....................................................................................... 25 14.10 ON-FARM DEMONSTRATION AREAS (FIELD GENE BANKS) ..................................................... 25

15.0 AGROFORESTRY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 25

15.1 AGROFORESTRY INTERVENTIONS......................................................................................... 25 15.2 AGROSILVOPASTORAL INTERVENTIONS................................................................................ 26 15.3 DEVELOPMENT OF ON-FARM DEMONSTRATIONS................................................................... 26 15.4 DEVELOPMENT OF COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND TECHNICAL SHEETS.................................. 26 15.6 ON-FARM RESEARCH AND EXTENSION ................................................................................. 27

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 28

GLOSSARY OF TERMS........................................................................................................... 30

LIST OF SPECIES REFERENCED IN REPORT.................................................................. 33

Buff Bay/Pencar Pilot Area Socio-economic Study and Agroforestry Baseline Survey Page iii


LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: SOCIAL-ECONOMIC INDICATORS: PARISHES OF PORTLAND AND ST. MARY, AND BUFF

BAY/PENCAR WATERSHED................................................................................................................................ 4 TABLE 2: MAIN ORGANISATIONS AC TIVE IN BUFF BAY/PENCAR WATERSHED....................................................... 6 TABLE 3: LAND TENURE PATTERNS AND FARM SIZE IN THE PILOT AREA................................................................. 7 TABLE 4: DISTRIBUTION OF COFFEE PRODUCTION IN ACRES (1999)* ..................................................................... 8 TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF COMMON PERENNIAL AND ANNUAL CROP COMBINATIONS............................................ 10 TABLE 6: PROBLEMS AND ISSUES ON FARMING ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................... 12

LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 Report on the “Profile of the communities living in the Buff Bay/Pencar

watershed.” APPENDIX 2 Agroforestry Baseline Survey Report APPENDIX 3 Agroforestry Survey: Sampling and Field Application of Questionnaire

Buff Bay/Pencar Pilot Area Socio-economic Study and Agroforestry Baseline Survey Page iv


ACRONYMS AIGBA All Island Banana Growers Association BUBADAC Buff Bay Development Action Committee CBO Community Based Organisation(s) CEA Canadian Executive Agency CIDA Canadian International Development Agency CIB Coffee Industries Board CIDCO Coffee Industries Development Company FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations FD Forestry Department FIDCO Forest Industries Development Company JAS Jamaica Agricultural Society JCDT Jamaica Conservation Development Trust JET Jamaica Environmental Trust LFMC Local Forest Management Committee MoA Ministry of Agriculture NGO Non-Governmental Organisation(s) NRCA Natural Resources Conservation Authority NWC National Water Commission PEPA Portland Environmental Protection Association RADA Rural Agricultural Development Authority SMRDP St. Mary Rural Development Project TFT Trees for Tomorrow

Buff Bay/Pencar Pilot Area Socio-economic Study and Agroforestry Baseline Survey Page v


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We wish to thank all the people who provided input to the socio-economic study and the agroforestry baseline survey. First among this group are the members of the team who applied the questionnaire in the field: Radcliffe Beckford, Extensionist – Trees for Tomorrow Project; Ainsworth Grant, Forest Officer – Forestry Department; Walter Buchanan, Forest Officer – Forestry Department; and Keith Minnott, Extensionist – Rural Agricultural Development Agency. We greatly appreciate information provided by local NGOs (BUBADAC, SMRDP and PEPA) and from the local branches of JAS and comments from Trees for Tomorrow Project and Forestry Department staff. Thanks to Susie Latham for editing this document. Special thanks to all farmers who took some of their time to answer our questions and help us to understand their situation. We hope that the profile presented in this document corresponds to their reality.

Buff Bay/Pencar Pilot Area Socio-economic Study and Agroforestry Baseline Survey Page vi


PREFACE The Buff Bay/Pencar watershed was selected as the pilot area for implementation of extension activities proposed under the Forestry Department/Trees for Tomorrow Project. To obtain up-to-date information about the Buff Bay/Pencar pilot area, two studies were carried out. The first study is a report prepared by the Trees for Tomorrow Rural Sociologist entitled Profile of the Communities Living in the Buff Bay/Pencar Watershed which revisits a socio-economic study prepared in 1994 during Phase I of the Trees for Tomorrow Project. To gain further insight into the farming systems of small-scale farmers, a second study called Agroforestry Baseline Survey was carried out in the Buff Bay/Pencar area. This document presents the summaries of the revised socio-economic study and the findings of the agroforestry survey, and the recommendations. The full reports are attached in the appendices. The organisation of this document is as follows: Part I: Summary of the Findings of the Socio-economic Study and

Recommendations - prepared by Marie Giasson. Part II:` Summary of the Findings of the Agroforestry Baseline Survey

and Recommendations - prepared by Dan Orcherton. Appendix 1: Full text of the report Profile of the Communities Living in the

Buff Bay/Pencar Watershed prepared by Marie Giasson. Appendix 2: Full text of the report Technical Analysis of the Agroforestry

Baseline Survey prepared by Dan Orcherton. Appendix 3: Schedule of field application. Survey Questionnaire.

Buff Bay/Pencar Pilot Area Socio-economic Study and Agroforestry Baseline Survey Page 1


Buff Bay/Pencar Watershed Pilot Area Socio-Economic Report and Agroforestry Baseline Survey

PART 1: SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS As part of the Forestry Department/Trees for Tomorrow extension programme being implemented in the pilot area of Buff Bay/Pencar Watershed, a report was prepared by the Trees for Tomorrow Rural Sociologist entitled Profile of the Communities Living in the Buff Bay/Pencar Watershed. A summary of the findings of this socio-economic report is presented in Part I. The full report is contained in Appendix 1.



1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale and Background Between 1993 to 1994, during Phase One of the Canadian International Development Agency funded Trees for Tomorrow Project (TFT), and within the context of activities developed with the Forestry Department (FD), a socio-economic study was undertaken in order to “…define the people who inhabit the pilot watershed and gain an understanding of their use of trees and forests”. This study followed a land use study (TFT, 1993) using aerial photos (1991), ground reconnaissance and field data collection on biophysical properties and general land use patterns of the Buff Bay/Pencar watershed.

The need to update the information on the communities living in the Buff Bay/Pencar watershed was justified primarily by the fact that since the completion of the socio-economic study in 1994, the expansion of coffee cultivation has brought some major changes in land use in the area. These changes are significant not only in the scope of the forest and land use management, but also in relation with the socio-economic environment and the needs and expectations of the communities.

Recent visits to settlements and farms confirm the importance of coffee as a major crop in the Buff Bay area, and interviews with key informants reveal that wage labour on coffee farms is a primary source of income in some communities. This situation has brought up new environmental concerns and issues such as the extensive use of chemicals and water pollution, deforestation and soil erosion. Coffee cultivation represents the most challenging issue for the conservation and management of forest reserves in the Buff Bay/Pencar watershed. Farmers’ interests and strategies will impact on FD/TFT Project efforts to achieve long term objectives, hence they have to be fully understood.

Accordingly, the purpose of the present revision of the socio-economic study is to update the data on specific issues such as: the current situation of coffee cultivation in the watershed, the assessment of other agricultural production and potential for development, and the interests, needs and constraints of the farmers. It is also an opportunity to look at the dynamics of changes in the watershed in the broader context of the Parish and of the Region. This exercise should help us to re-think the approach to be adopted with the different stakeholders in the scope of a co-management strategy, and to make the necessary adjustments at institutional level - namely the Forestry Department - to meet this new challenge. 1.2 Methodology Updating the information on the social and political aspects of the rural communities was achieved through consultation of relevant literature and documentation, multiple field visits and interviews with key individuals and groups (governmental agencies, NGOs and CBOs). Non formal interviews were also helpful in identifying the major groups active in the area as well as the local leaders and other driving forces within the



communities. Gender approach and perspective was of concern in the actual updating of the information.

Re-visiting the study in the light of updated information was an opportunity to re-structure, re-arrange and summarise some of the existing information so as to present a fresher and clearer image of the socio-economic reality of the Buff Bay/Pencar watershed.

In an effort to focus on relevant farming activities, an agroforestry baseline survey of 43 farmers (among them 6 women) located in different areas of the Buff Bay/Pencar watershed was conducted by FD/TFT during the months of June and July 1999. The survey quentionnaire and schedule is reproduced in Appendix 3. Two FD officers, one RADA outreach officer and one TFT extensionist, as well as the CEA/TFT Rural Sociologist and counterpart and the CEA/TFT agroforester, took part in the survey. Due to time constraints and limited resources, some areas (such as Dry River and White River areas) where forestry issues seem less acute were consciously left out. Initially, the pilot watershed was divided into 8 areas, 5 in Buff Bay and 3 in Pencar watersheds respectively, according to geographical and social considerations. However, a brief look at the raw data showed that the Pencar watershed should be addressed as one area. For the analysis and in the following report, the watershed was then divided into 6 different areas, 5 located in Buff Bay and 1 in Pencar. Comparison and outlined particulars – where and when significant – will then refer to the following 6 different areas with their respective number of farmers interviewed (Total = 43 farmers): Bangor Ridge area: 10 farmers Balcarres area: 8 farmers Tranquillity area: 4 farmers Spring Hill area: 4 farmers Cascade area: 6 farmers Pencar area : 11 farmers

2.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF THE PILOT AREA

The Buff Bay /Pencar watershed, designated as the pilot area in the context of Forestry Department and Trees for Tomorrow Project, is located on the Northeast coast of Jamaica. The area is under the administration of two parishes. Buff Bay River watershed covers more than half of the area and is located in the parish of Portland while Pencar River watershed lies in the parish of St. Mary. General socio-economic data for the parishes of Portland and St. Mary reveals that the region is essentially rural and agricultural with a high rate of unemployment and an aging population. Both parishes were recently ranked as the poorest in Jamaica.



The profile of the communities living in the Buff Bay/Pencar pilot area offers some similar features except for the coffee growing activity which represents the major source of income for many households.

Table 1: Social-economic indicators: Parishes of Portland and St. Mary, and Buff

Bay/Pencar watershed

Social Indicators Portland St. Mary Buff Bay / Pencar watershed

Population 75,493 (1991) 107,502 (1991) 30,700 (estimate 1991)

Pop. density / sq. mile 93 (1991) 176 (1991) N/A

No. of person per dwelling 3,74 (1997) 3,97 (1997) 4.7 (1991)

Rate of functional illiteracy 31.5% (1994) 33.1% (1994) N/A*

Access to electricity N/A N/A 60% (1994)**

Access to piped water N/A N/A All settlements ***

Public Hospitals**** 1 type C 2 type C 1(Annotto Bay), type C

Rate of unemployment 30% (est. 1997) 20.5% (est.1997) N/A * N/A= not available. ** This figure is probably close to 100 % today. *** Not necessarily to houses. **** Type C Hospital provides primary health care and includes a prenatal clinic The population in the pilot area is unevenly distributed. The majority of the settlements are stretched along rivers and major roads however some areas such as Belvedere, White Hall, and Pleasant Hill have low population densities. Farming is the main occupation for a majority of households in the pilot watershed. But families have generally more than one means of making a living and the marketing of farm products is often combined with wage labour in the agricultural sector (especially on coffee farms or estates), other seasonal or part-time activities (construction work, shop keeping) and pension or remittances coming from relatives working abroad. As a result of the lack of working opportunities, low interest in farming and the strong influence of American culture, the young people tend to migrate to town, first to Kingston and then overseas, where possible. Consequently, in the pilot area as in most of rural Jamaica, ageing farmers are often the only manpower on the farm, assuming the bulk of the work. The tourism industry does not impact much on the local economy at present but this is likely to change with the major improvements being made on the Buff Bay-Papine road. Access to marketing facilities for agricultural products should improve and opportunities should open up in the eco-tourism industry. In the Buff Bay/Pencar area, like elsewhere in Jamaica, communities are not formally organised at the village level. At the political-administrative level, the local government



area is the parish, which is divided into parliamentary constituencies and further into electoral divisions. For rural communities, the immediate representative is the councilor (one for each electoral division) who sits on the parish council. Community based-groups are quite numerous in the area, but many are not very active. The co-operative model has never gained much popularity in Jamaica and people tend to gather around churches. Hence, churches of all denominations are very active and every settlement usually has more than one church. In many instances the presence of different church followers – like political partisans – results in the division of the community. Nevertheless, church representatives together with local political leaders, school principals and other prominent members of the community are held in respect.

3.0 ORGANISATIONS CURRENTLY WORKING IN THE PILOT WATERSHED

Many government agencies are present in the pilot watershed, although most of them now have reduced their level of their activities because of budget cutbacks. A few environmental NGOs are also working in the pilot area. The main community based organisations are the Citizens Association, the Parents-Teachers Association, and Youth Groups, but not all of them are functioning on a regular basis. They tend to revive from time to time when local problems surface (maintenance of road, landslides, poor quality of water) or whenever funds are available. Table 2 summaries the organisations active in the Buff Bay/Pencar watershed and their respective activities.



Table 2: Main organisations active in Buff Bay/Pencar watershed

Name - Acronym - Type Brief description of mandate

Rural Agriculture Development Agency - RADA - government.

Extension, training and assistance to farmers.

Jamaican Agriculture Society - JAS - government.

Regroups all farmers at national and local levels.

Coffee Industry Board – CIB – government Main buyer and processor of coffee production in Jamaica. Brings technical assistance to coffee growers.

Forestry Department – FD -government.

Implements forest regulations and patrol forest reserves.

Buff Bay Development action Committee – BUBADAC - NGO.

Does extension work with farmers and support fruit tree planting. Operates small nurseries with schools.

St Mary Rural Development Project - SMRDP – NGO.

Set up 4 marketing co-operatives (3 are in the pilot area).

Portland Environmental Protection Association – PEPA – NGO.

Operates environmental awareness and education programme in schools in the parish of Portland.

Jamaican Conservation and Development Trust – JCDT – NGO.

Manages the Blue and John Crow Mountains National Park. Works with communities through “Local Advisory Committees”.

4.0 AGRICULTURAL PROFILE OF THE PILOT AREA 4.1 Land access and tenure Of the Buff Bay/Pencar watershed’s total area of 52,290 acres, private land accounts for approximately 63 percent while the rest (roughly 37%) is public land. Over 1/3 of the entire territory is in agriculture and coffee alone covers approximately 6 percent of the total watershed area.1 With the exception of the large estates (e.g. St. Mary Banana Estate), or the large coffee farms operated by the CIB, the general and most common tenure pattern in the watershed is private ownership by individuals or families. Nevertheless, land can be accessed by leasing, renting and buying from previous owners, or capturing Crown land. Most farmers have crops on more than one plots of land. Land access is usually not a problem, except in the upper part of the Buff Bay watershed where most of the land is occupied by large coffee plantations.

1 Land use study, 1993, p.44.



Table 3: Land tenure patterns and farm size in the pilot area

Patterns of tenure (as declared by respondents)

No. of cases (in %) (data from agroforestry survey, 1999)

Own land 07 (16%)

Have title 14 (33%)

Family land 22 (51%)

Rented or leased 07 (16%)

Capture land 05 (09%)

Total acreage of land

< 4 acres 19 (44%)

between 4.1 – 9 acres 11 (26%)

> 9 acres 13 (30%)

N.B. Usually divided in two or more plots and not all area under cultivation.

Total = 43 = 100%

* For tenure patterns, the total exceed 100 % because some farmers are present in more than one category, for example, they might have title on one plot and work on family land and even rent one or more plots at the same time. 4.2 Coffee production In the 1999 agroforestry baseline survey, all farmers (32/32) interviewed in the different areas of the Buff Bay watershed cultivate coffee while only 36 percent (4/11) do so in the Pencar area. Recent data (1999) from the Coffee Industry Board confirms the importance of coffee in the pilot area. An estimated 2,978 acres are under coffee cultivation in the Buff Bay valley alone. Roughly 25 percent of the coffee crop produced in Jamaica comes from the Blue Mountains, part of which cover the middle and upper areas of the Buff Bay/Pencar watershed. Table 4 gives an idea of the distribution of coffee production in the Blue Mountains, the parish of Portland and the Buff Bay watershed area. In the parish of Portland 4,454 acres are under coffee cultivation distributed on 1,942 farms. Twenty-five (25) large farms (over 25 acres) account for over 26 percent of the total acreage under coffee cultivation in Portland. Most of these large coffee farms are owned by “absentee landowners” and operates with a “patron”, i.e. farm manager, and local hired labour. Coffee is also widely grown on small (2 to 5 acres) and very small (less than 2 acres) farms, and account for more than 2000 acres or 45 percent of the total area in coffee in Portland.



Table 4: Distribution of coffee production in acres (1999)*

Areas Acres in coffee Number of coffee farms

In Jamaica 26,000 23,000

In the Blue Mountain area 12,000 6,000

In the parish of Portland 4,454 1,942

In Buff Bay watershed 2,978 1,176

*Estimate data from CIB

On all the 32 farms surveyed in the different areas of Buff Bay (1999), coffee generally occupies more than half of the land under cultivation and represents by far the most valuable commercial crop for farmers. Coffee production is also a very important source of employment, especially in the upper parts of the watershed (Bangor Ridge and Cascade), not only for the communities living in the area, but also for young people coming from the whole region at harvest time. 4.3 Other agricultural production The production of perennial crops – other than coffee - is a common feature of farming systems in the Buff Bay/Pencar watershed. Every farms grow a variety of fruit trees including banana, plantain, coconut, citrus and cocoa (the latter is found mostly in the Pencar area). These species are often cultivated in plantations while others such as mango, breadfruit, avocado pear and pimento are usually dispersed on the land or combined with a more valuable crop (usually coffee) in a mixed agroforestry system. Annual crops (locally called cash crops) such as dasheen, gungo pea, yam, callaloo, carrots, cabbage, pumpkin and sweet potato are also produced on most the farms surveyed but they usually occupy one square2 or less. Scattered but numerous timber trees are a feature of the farm’s landscape. These trees have not necessarily been planted by the farmer but most likely left there for shade or other purposes when the land was cleared. In the few instances where timber has been planted and occupies an entire plot, cedar, mahogany and mahoe are the most common species to be found. 4.4 Farming system The agroforestry baseline survey identifies seven groups of perennial tree crops and annual crops cultivated in the Buff Bay/Pencar watershed:

1 - Traditional crops (coffee cocoa and coconut) 2 - Banana and plantain 3 - Fruits

2 One square is 66 feet by 66 feet and is one-tenth of an acre.



4 - Legumes (red peas, gungo peas) 5 - Vegetables 6 - Roots and tubers 7 - Timber trees The way these different crops or groups of crops are combined on the farm varies according to farm location (agro-climatic conditions), farm size, and farmer’s interest and strategies. Different combinations correspond to different farm production systems. Table 5 (next page) gives a summary of crop combinations found on the farms surveyed in the different areas of the Buff Bay/Pencar watershed. 4.5 Organisation of work on the farm Except for a few absentee landowners located in the upper parts of the watershed, most farmers work their own land, in come cases, with the help of family members. The majority of farmers use hired labour occasionally, particularly for coffee harvesting. However, paid workers are a common feature on farms operated by single women as they tend to rely much more on hired labour. 4.6 Marketing of farm products Most farm products (other than coffee) are marketed through higglers.3 Some farmers take their products to local markets (Annotto Bay, Buff Bay or Kingston) with a “taxi”4 or, in a few cases, with their own vehicle. Given the poor state of the roads, the high cost of transport, the length of time involved to get to market, and the insecurity of prices, marketing some products, especially fruit crops, is a real problem. Many farmers choose not to harvest some of their fruit crops, leaving them for home consumption or to rot on the tree.

3 Middlemen (women in most cases) who come to rural areas to buy products directly from the farmers for resale. 4 Many of the settlements in the pilot area are not on regular routes of buses. Thus private ‘taxi-men’ or individual operate transport service that is referred to here as ‘taxi’.



Table 5: Summary of common perennial and annual crop combinations Area Common perennial

crop combinations Common annual crop combinations

Potential agroforestry systems

Bangor Ridge Coffee-banana Coffee-citrus Coffee-plantain Coffee-coconut Coffee-pine or cedar Food forests or MSTG Coconut-banana

Yam-dasheen Yam-s.potato Gungo pea, red pea-s. potato, irish potato Gungo pea-dasheen Calalloo-cassava-gungo pea Coconut-sweet potato Dasheen–banana-or plantain Dasheen-coffee-timber tree combination

Balcarres Coffee-citrus Coffee-banana Coffee-coconut Coffee-plantain Coffee-coconut-quickstick Coffee-timber tree combinations MSTG and food forests Mahogany alone Papaya-citrus Mango-pimento or pimento with coffee

Yam-dasheen Yam-sweet potato Gungo pea, red pea-sweet potato, irish potato Corn-gungo pea, red pea Banana-sweet potato Coconut-sweet potato Dasheen–banana-or plantain

Tranquillity Coffee-coconut Coffee-banana Coffee-other fruit trees Plantain-cocoa Fruit tree-pimento combinations

Yam-sweet potato Gungo pea-dasheen Cassava-pumpkin Cabbage-dasheen

Spring Hill Coffee-citrus Coffee-banana Citrus-pineapple barriers Coffee-pine Coffee-other timber trees MSTG or food forests

Yam-sweet potato Gungo pea, red pea-sweet potato, Irish potato Gungo pea-dasheen

Cascade Coffee-banana Coffee-citrus Coffee-plantain Coffee-coconut Coffee-breadfruit Coffee-mango-papaya Coconut-coffee-quickstick Coffee-other timber trees

Gungo pea, red pea-sweet potato, irish potato

Pencar Coconut-banana or plantain Mango-cocoa Coffee-banana Coffee-cocoa Coffee-breadfruit or jackfruit Citrus-banana or plantain Citrus-pineapple (live barriers) Coffee-timber tree combinations MSTG or food forests Cedar-pine Cedar-mahogany

Calalloo- cassava-gungo pea Corn-gungo pea or red pea Cabbage–dasheen

• Boundary planting for various products • Multiple use of trees in plantation crop

combinations • Improved (managed) tree fallow • Hedgerow intercropping (alley cropping) • Tree enriched windbreaks • Mixed multi-story tree and crop arrangements

(improvements-diversification of backyard gardens and food forests)

• Live fences with common native trees for N2 fixation or soil rehabilitation properties

• Contour hedgerows with trees (or grasses) on erosion control structures

• Mixed fruit and timber stands (especially for several products, fruits and honey)

• On-farm demonstration areas for the production of improved fruit and timber species. (field gene banks)

*From Appendix 2. (Table 16)



5.0 THE DYNAMICS OF FARMING AND LAND USE IN THE PILOT AREA. As observed elsewhere in Jamaica, small farmers in the Buff Bay/Pencar watershed “…adhere to an export rather than to a domestic model in their production emphasis, in actual as well as preferred land use … and consequently …allocate more of their farmland to export than domestic production”.5 The main features of this export model are striking when applied to coffee farmers in the pilot area: • Predominance of hillside farmers in upland ecological zones, hence a strong

influence of ecological considerations on type of farming (Blue Mountain coffee growers).

• Most land under cultivation is occupied by export production (coffee occupies more than half of area under cultivation).

• Provision of incentives and facilities to establish themselves (coffee farmers benefited from the FIDCO/CIDCO programme in the early 1990s).

• Marketing of the product is secure through government organisation/agency (Coffee Industry Board markets about 95 percent of all the coffee produced in Jamaica).

The particularly high value of the coffee cultivated in the area (labelled Blue Mountain) can be added to the characteristics mentioned above. 5.1 Farmers’ strategies

The strategy of farmers in the pilot watershed can be identified by looking at combinations and modifications of the features of the export model. The “coffee boom” that took place in the area a decade ago is closely related to the allocation of devastated forest areas following the passage of Hurricane Gilbert. Cultivation of coffee has been promoted by easy access to land, credit and technical support. During the last decade, total acreage under coffee cultivation has increased steadily in the Blue Mountains. According to informants from the Coffee Industry Board the area has now reached “full capacity” in terms of areas under coffee. Despite the recent difficulties experienced by the Board – and by association, by the coffee growers themselves – coffee cultivation is still the major economic driving force in the development of communities in most part of the Buff Bay/Pencar watershed. When asked what they intend to do with their land, either forested or fallow areas, in the next five years, most farmers are looking forward to planting more coffee. Coffee cultivation has undoubtedly brought major changes in land use in the pilot area over the last decade. The situation has raised many environmental concerns, in particular about forest protection and watershed management. Incidences of encroachment onto protected areas (in this case, the Blue and John Crow Mountains

5 Spence, (1996) p. 133.



National Park) have already been reported, mostly in the upper part of the Buff Bay/Pencar watershed. The presence of other crops - mainly fruit trees - on the farm is also part of a land use strategy. Many farmers have opted for a coffee/agroforestry land use combination given the shortage and high cost of rural labour, together with the labour intensity of hillside farming, specially for an ageing population (average age of farmers in Jamaica being nearly 50 years). This choice, while providing diversity and additional income, confines the need for hired labour to the coffee harvesting season.

5.2 Problems and constraints

Farmers operate in a wider socio-economic and political context upon which they have very little, if any, control. Consequently, farmers’ strategies for the use of his land cannot be fully understood without looking at the problems and constraints they experience, not only as farmers, but also as citizens and members of a community.

Another critical issue mentioned only by a few but affecting the whole community in certain areas is the decline in the quality of water. Although people are quick to point out the intensive use of chemicals on large coffee farms, this problem is also the result of poor land use practices and the general lack of environmental awareness in rural areas. Table 6: Problems and issues on farming activities

PROBLEMS ISSUES

Scarcity and high cost of labour Young people tend to migrate to town. Young people not interested in farming. Difficulty to find reliable labour

Insufficient extension services Reduced number of RADA and CIB outreach officers. Less incentives ‘in kind’ (seeds, fertilisers) to farmers. Lack of proper care of fruit trees.

Poor state of the road network Problem of transport: higglers don’t reach certain areas. Difficulty and high cost to get products to the market, specially fruits. Loss and damage of fruits during transport.

Inadequacy of marketing structure Lack of control over prices. Insecurity in disposal of farm products is also related to transport problems. Most farmers concentrate on export crops (coffee and banana). Others tend to leave part of their land idle.

Difficult access to credit facilities Access to credit is linked to land tenure situation. Availability of loans is often in relation with particular crops, usually an export crop (such as coffee).

Praedial larceny Many farmers have already experienced significant losses due to praedial larceny. Farmer reluctant to intensify or expand production due to the risk of being visited by thieves.



Given the actual profile of the communities in the Buff Bay/Pencar watershed and taking into consideration the economic situation, especially in the agriculture sector, a farmer’s strategy is to adapt to changing market opportunities which lie mainly in the export sector. Farmers are looking for short-term benefits. Consequently, to interest farmers in improving his farming practices or introduce a new crop such as timber trees – which is a long term investment – represents a challenge.

6.0 CONCLUSION: MANAGING THE FOREST IN BUFF BAY /PENCAR WATERSHED The 1996 Forest Act provides guidance for a new approach to forest management but given the limited resources and time for its implementation, it is necessary to concentrate efforts and to mobilise communities and groups. However, this will not be achieved without a change of attitude and a strong commitment at the institutional level. Areas of priority and targeted groups: In Buff Bay: Middle and upper part of the watershed. Target coffee growers and

all hillside farmers, with special attention to those close to forested areas.

In Pencar: Concentrate on Long Road, Camberwell and other small communities located in the upper parts of the Pencar river area.

Community participation:

• Rely on existing groups (JAS, Citizen’s Associations, others), and deploy efforts

to reactivate and strengthen them. • Build trust and confidence at individual, group and community levels. • Acknowledge diversity of interest and work towards conflict resolution. • Promote co-management of forests and put mechanisms in place (such as the

Local Forest Management Committees). The approach:

• At the individual level, most farmers know of some good farming or agroforestry practices although they might not refer to them as such and do not necessarily implement them on their land. They are aware of the requirements of hillside farming and most of them have already experienced some soil conservation problems.

• Farmers’ willingness to improve his land use practices and turn to new

crops/products - such as timber trees - is related to land size and tenure, labour requirements and quick return on investment.

• At the community level, the weakness of the organisational structures, the lack of

environmental awareness and the past experience of the population with the



forestry sector are the most challenging issues for the setting-up of a local forest management committee.

• At the institutional level , participation being a process, improved

communication with the population and a real commitment from the Forestry Department are needed in order to arouse the interest of stakeholders and get them involved in the management of the forest. Forestry Department staff should become aware, willing and trained to accept their new role and responsibilities. Forest Officers should live in their area of work. They should also collaborate with other agencies/organisations who work in their area, for example, RADA, CIB and other NGOs.

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Concentrate efforts and resources

• Prioritise areas • Target groups (coffee growers, small hillside farmers and women farmers). • Develop specific extension strategies according to target groups (small hillside

farmer and middle/large coffee grower have different interest and economic potential).

• Work closely with existing organisations (NGOs and CBOs). 7.2 Develop practical activities and tools with farmers

• Improve actual farming practices with on-farm demonstrations. • Give priority to answering critical issues (such as soil erosion). • Prepare farm plans and promote appropriate agroforestry systems/ measures. • Continue to distribute timber tree seedlings free of charge, but for a limited

period of time. • Try to provide fruit tree seedlings at reduced price to farmers involved in

selected demonstration farms.

7.3 Develop training programme

Technical level:

• Teach proper techniques to farmers (soil conservation techniques, budding and grafting, etc.).

• Focus on groups (JAS or others). When training is done at an individual level (i.e. on a particular farm), invite neighbours and members other groups.



Organisational level:

• Concentrate on group strengthening and motivation. • Seek collaboration of – and co-ordination with - others (RADA, CIB, NGOs).

Institutional level:

• Teach and sensitise FD field staff their new role and responsibilities. • Provide field staff with knowledge and skills (participatory approaches,

communication skills, laws and regulations, etc.) that are needed to face the new challenges.

• Utilise experienced field staff to train others on an exchange basis. 7.4 Develop and multiply public awareness activities

• With farmers on good farming practices. • With schools on environmental issues. • With NGOs and CBOs on their particular mandate and objectives (ex: develop

message and educational material on school nursery with BUBADAC, or on environmental issues with PEPA).

7.5 Address specific matters in the context of forest management

• Quality of the water (protect water catchment areas with timber trees). • Encroachment (use established farms close to forest boundaries as buffer zone to

prevent further encroachment). • Eco-tourism (should be encouraged as it creates jobs for young people and opens

market opportunities for cottage industries without threatening the forest or other natural resources, if well managed).

7.6 Develop mechanisms for co-ordination between agencies

• Develop formal agreements if necessary but make sure that they can be

operational and effective at field level. • Develop a participatory monitoring system (involving the communities and

groups in the monitoring of activities will help them to take leadership roles and accept responsibilities).



Buff Bay/Pencar Watershed Pilot Area Socio-Economic Study and Agroforestry Baseline Survey

PART II: SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS OF THE AGRO-FORESTRY BASELINE SURVEY AND RECOMMENDATIONS To gain further insight into the smallholder farming systems in the Buff Bay/Pencar pilot area, an Agroforestry Baseline Survey was carried out by the Forestry Department and Trees for Tomorrow Project. A summary of the findings of the agroforestry survey is presented here in Part II. The full report is contained in Appendix 2.



8.0 BACKGROUND

Agroforestry is not new to Jamaica - farmers have been practising it for generations, if not centuries.6 Almost all farmers in Jamaica have "food forests" which include a variety of fruit trees, e.g. ackee, avocado, breadfruit, citrus, coconut and small plots of vegetables and legumes.7 Other examples of agroforestry practices in the Portland Parish include multi-story tree gardens, various plantation crop combinations (PCC), agro-silvopastoral practices, barrier hedges and hedgerow intercopping.8 The Forestry Department through the Trees for Tomorrow Project identified the Buff Bay/Pencar watershed as the pilot area to undertake detailed biophysical inventories, as well as related watershed management and agroforestry assessments. The identification and application of agroforestry systems and appropriate technologies on a pilot scale is an important activity to aid the adoption by local farmers of sustainable land use practices.

9.0 PRESENT LAND-USE IN BUFF-BAY/PENCAR WATERSHED9

Present land-use dedicated to agroforestry systems in the Buff Bay-Pencar watershed is just over 4,000 hectares.10 This includes mixed agroforestry systems and agro-silvopastoral systems (trees on pastures, and some upland fenced goat farming and small-scale cattle production). Mixed agroforestry including coffee production is an important land use in the Buff Bay/Pencar watershed. In some cases fruit trees are part of an agricultural production scheme that includes other crops such as coffee, mixed vegetables and animal husbandry practices such as goat rearing or apiculture. In other cases, agroforestry is the dominant farm system with coffee, cocoa or pimento being the most significant tree/shrub crop. Mixed agroforestry and mixed plantation crop combinations predominate throughout the watershed with woody perennials (tree, shrubs, etc.) grown in association with herbaceous plants (crops, pastures). Despite the expansion of the larger coffee plantations, some farmers have opted to keep their holdings and to continue to develop/maintain them, including the planting of coffee with tree crops or other plantation crops. There is a marked difference between farms growing coffee as a primary enterprise and smaller holdings that have coffee as a component of their agroforestry operations. The agroforestry/coffee land use combination is centred in the Buff Bay River valley from the Tranquillity area through Balcarres and Mullet Hall to the Shantamee and Silver Hill’s area. The area is underlain

6 Suah and Nicholson, 1986. 7 F.A.O, 1972. 8 Eckman, 1997. 9 The most current land-use information for the study was derived from the following sources: TFT-Basis for a National Reforestation Plan (Second Assignment Report) June 1999; National Forest Management and Conservation Plan-Preparation and Outline for the Planning Process; Land and Land cover classification in Jamaica-Guidelines for a common classification for Forest Land Management (1999); Land Use Study of the Buff Bay Pencar Watershed (1993); Overview of reforestation in Jamaica (interim phase TFT Project-1997). External documentation regarding agroforestry systems was also referenced: Eckman (1997a) and Eckman (1997b). 10 Limbird et al., 1993.



by calcareous sandstone and siltstones with intense faults and joints (Richmond Formations) and has a very high landslide hazard.11 The area is a wet agro-climatic zone but not as wet as the coffee plantation areas at higher elevations, i.e. Section and Cascade.

10.0 CLASSIFICATION OF AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS

Primary classification of agroforestry systems was based on predominant components and land usage.12 The rationale was that this classification would provide more detail at the farm level (1:5000 scale) and offer a better explanation of present classifications schemes, especially as it relates to Jamaican agroforestry systems. The advantage of this system is that once major types of systems are identified, further classification is usefully based on the arrangement of the more permanent woody components. These may be dispersed throughout agricultural fields with intimate interactions between the tree and agricultural components, or trees may be arranged in some sort of grouping within the farm landscape. It is in some way zoned, so that the tree-crop interface length per unit area is reduced and interactions between trees and between crop plants become more important relative to interactions between the tree and crop components.

11.0 SUMMARY OF FARMERS’ PROFILES IN SURVEY AREA

11.1 Population distribution and gender

On farms surveyed in the Buff Bay area, the average age of the farmer is 47.8 years, and in Pencar, 42 years. Younger farmers are found in the upper part of the watershed in Cascade and Section, whereas older farmers are in Tranquillity and Spring Hill.

11.2 Farm size and tenure Farms in the Buff Bay have an average area of 8.5 acres, with an average cultivated area of 5 acres. Forty percent of the farmers have less than 4 acres, 32 percent have between 4.1 to 9 acres and 28 percent have more than 9 acres. The average farm in the Pencar area is slightly smaller at 7.9 acres, with an average cultivated area of 3.75 acres. Fifty-four percent of farmers are farming on less than 5 acres, and the remaining 45 percent on 5 or more acres. Farmers in Buff Bay River watershed (in the survey areas of Bangor Ridge, Balcarres, Tranquility, Spring Hill, Cascade) and in Pencar River watershed have farmed at the same location for roughly 13 years. This indicates a certain permanency with respect to farming.

The relationship between farm size and land tenure was not determined. However, over 70 percent of the farmers are operating on family land and have extended their holdings or area actually farmed in the last 5 years. This has positive implications in terms of

11 Limbird et al.,1993. 12 Sinclair, 1999.



working with farmers in implementing agroforestry systems and/or on-farm demonstration trials.

12.0 DESCRIPTION OF FARMING SYSTEMS IN SURVEY AREA

12.1 Farming Systems

Coffee, fruit and some timber trees predominate on farms in the Buff Bay/Pencar area. There were 16 farming systems observed in the Buff Bay area (Bangor Ridge, Balcarres, Tranquility, Spring Hill, Cascade) and 17 in Pencar. The most important single crop in the Buff Bay area is coffee, followed by banana, plantain, citrus and coconut, with some vegetables and tubers. Farms in the Pencar area have more plantain, banana, vegetables, with fewer areas dedicated to the production of coffee. The highest number of coffee producing farms is found in Tranquillity, Bangor Ridge and Cascade areas of Buff Bay. The least number of coffee farms are in Pencar. The analysis of the composition of farms in terms of crops and area in the Buff Bay area revealed that coffee is an important crop and occupies over half the area of the farms surveyed. Plantain, though commonly grown (on 53% of farms), occupies only 3.2 percent of the total area. Half the farms have uncultivated plots which make up 30 percent of the total area. On farms in the Pencar area, plantain and banana were grown on most farms (91% of those surveyed) but occupies an average of only 7 percent of land on the farms surveyed. Uncultivated areas are also frequent and comprise 53 percent of the area. Farmers in both areas have large proportions of uncultivated land mainly because they cannot afford to put these lands into production or lack information on alternative farming methods to make productive use of the land.

Food forests are common with farmers maintaining small squares of mixed fruit-trees, vegetables and tubers on their land. Some farms have cash-crop/timber associations, but timber tree mixes (cedar-mahogany, cedar-pine) are more common.

12.2 Existing agroforestry and farming practices

Nine agroforestry/farming practices are either known and/or applied by farmers. They are weeding, chopping down, burning, pruning, budding and grafting, mulching, soil conservation techniques, living fences and boundary planting. Weeding and chopping down are important activities. Farmers know about pruning and apply this technique to maintain their coffee and fruit trees. Farmers have some knowledge about budding and grafting, but don’t regularly use this technique. A high percentage of farmers in the Buff Bay and Pencar areas know and practice agroforestry related activities. For example, about half the farmers in the Pencar area practice green manuring/mulching and use agroforestry systems such as live fences and boundary planting. Higher yields per acre per year were brought about by the presence of trees.



Farmers are very aware of the importance of the application of common agroforestry/farming practices and use knowledge acquired through experimentation to improve their farming systems. More than 50 percent of farmers interviewed in the Buff-Bay area resuscitate their coffee (including pruning), and over 30 percent plant timber or fruit trees. Farmers are also cultivating some legumes such as gungo pea and red pea which promotes good soil conservation and adds nutrients to the soil.

Specific agroforestry or farming practices applied by the farmers positively influences the productive capacity of the farms. The survey data indicates a significant correlation between number of agronomic practices applied and total production of principal perennial crops and fruit crops in the Buff Bay area. The most successful farming system occurs where fruit trees or perennials are inter-planted among annual crops. Trees among annual crops benefit from the regular weeding, fertilising, and better protection from cattle and goats afforded to the annual crop.

13.0 PRODUCTION AND MARKETING

Seven groups of perennial tree crops and annual crops were recognised in this study. They are:

Traditional (or commercial crops): coffee, cocoa, coconuts, bananas and plantains Fruits: grapefruit, sweet orange, ugli-fruit, lime, tangerines and other fruit varieties Legumes: red peas, gungo pea Vegetables: carrots, cabbage, calalloo pumpkin, dasheen leaves, okra, etc. Roots and Tubers: yam, dasheen, coco, cassava Timber trees: mahogany, cedar, spanish elm, blue mahoe, etc.

Coffee farmers in the areas surveyed in the Buff Bay area were reaping an average of 8 to 10 boxes13 per acre per year. The average number of boxes per acre per year was slightly higher at 14 for the Pencar area. Outside the survey area, national averages for coffee production in the Portland Parish14 are considerably higher at 31.2 boxes per acre per year. Reasons for the lower production figures in Buff Bay/Pencar may be:

• Coffee plantations are older, lower density, and poorly maintained. • Lack of proper management of shade for coffee using mixed agroforestry

systems. • Information given by farmers surveyed is not accurate. • Support from the CIB has diminished, and farmers are forced to fend for

themselves.

13 One box of coffee weighs around 60 lb. 14 CIB, 1999.



For the group of farmers surveyed in the Buff Bay area, banana production averaged 126 bunches per farmer per year15 while plantain production averaged 35 bunches per farmer per year. The group of farmers surveyed in Pencar had lower yields in bananas at 18 bunches per farmer per year but had higher yields in plantain at 104 bunches per farmer per year. For both areas it would appear that farmers produce for both subsistence purpose and for off-farm sale. The main outlets for bananas and plantains are higglers and local markets in Kingston and Buff Bay. Farmers who cultivate more bananas or plantains tend to grow a more limited variety of other crops. Depending on the economic situation of the farmer, some risk may be reduced by devoting their time and energy to a few marketable crops. Fruits are highly perishable commodities and need to be sold quickly after harvesting. The production of fruits is not concentrated in any particular area, as the activity is fairly widespread throughout both watersheds. Citrus production was highest in the Buff Bay, specifically in the Balcarres and Bangor Ridge areas. Like fruits, many vegetables are perishable. The cultivation of vegetables is usually carried out in the most accessible areas. Vegetable and legume production is highest in Balcarres, Spring Hill, and Tranquillity areas. There is significant production of roots and tubers in the more accessible areas however the survey was not able to determine how much was grown for domestic use or off farm sale. Overall only about 60 percent of total crops produced in Buff Bay/Pencar are commercially marketed. The remainder of both perennial and annual crops are not being marketed. The main reasons for this could be:

• Farmers are using farm products for self-consumption, giving products away to

friends or relatives, or loosing some production to fungus, disease or other problems.

• Poor access to markets. • Unstable prices for vegetables and fruits, or other products.

Farmers who sell to higglers or intermediate buyers usually have no transportation of their own. This was evident for farmers in Pencar, who sold mostly fruits, roots and tubers. They have no complaints about a lack of buyers, but complained about low prices for their crops. Popular crops sold to higglers are bananas, plantains, fruits and coconuts.

Farmers who have an opportunity to sell their crops at farmers’ markets usually cultivate a greater variety of more crops. Fruits, roots and tubers are popular for this category. The farmers are generally satisfied with the prices they get for their crops but complain about high transportation costs.

15 Obtained by dividing the total reported production by the number of farmers surveyed, for the Buff Bay watershed, the total production of 4043 bunches per year / 32 farmers = 126 bunches per farmer per year.



Current markets for fruits and vegetables are somewhat unstable. Price fluctuations and changing markets make it very difficult for the small-scale producers to make a living with just these crops. The establishment of stable markets for the sale of local fruits and vegetables remains one of the most important items to be addressed in the pilot area. The coffee market has also been through a period of instability. As a result, farmers are genuinely interested in diversifying their coffee plantations. Some farmers have been participating with BUBADAC and other local NGOs in efforts to resuscitate old coffee plantations involving the gradual incorporation of agroforestry systems.

14.0 TYPES OF AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS IN THE SURVEY AREA

14.1 Boundary planting

This refers to the planting of trees along field boundaries or other borders. In the pilot watershed, boundary plantings are be used to demarcate farm boundaries, footpaths and act as natural barriers for animals or humans. These agroforestry systems are commonly used by some farmers in the Bangor Ridge, Balcarres, Tranquility, Spring Hill, Cascade and Pencar areas. Some species and/or associations are: Coffee and cedar are found in border plantings. Mahoe, German trumpet tree , red birch and quickstick are planted along roadsides or as live fences or barriers. Combinations of these species maybe used with vetiver grass for soil conservation. Logwood could be used on dryer parts of the farm or where Guinea grass is a problem. This tree casts very heavy shade under which grows providing an effective barrier and reducing the need to weed under the boundary planting. Some ornamentals such as sleeping hibiscus and bark cascarilla can also be used as markers. In some areas, Calliandra may be used because it reduces runoff on steep slopes, increases effective interception of rainfall and traps more material moving downhill.

14.2 Multiple-use trees and plantation crop combinations These agroforestry systems comprises trees or shrub crops (plantation crops) grown in combination with other plants, often timber trees or herbaceous crops. Two or more tree and shrub crops grown in combination, e.g. coffee-citrus, coffee-plantain or coffee-banana can be considered. Herbaceous crops are sometimes grown only while the perennials are immature. The tree crops are the main economic output and they are usually planted in regular patterns and all established in the same year. Table 16 in Appendix 2 summarises the most commonly observed systems used by farmers in the pilot area. Some reasons for employing these systems are:

• Farmers get better yields by using plantation crop combinations • Farmers receive multiple benefits during different cropping cycles (e.g. planting

dasheen and gungo pea, while coffee plants are still immature). • Under high rainfall conditions in Buff Bay/Pencar, weeding is costly. Although

shade in coffee reduces yield somewhat, it helps reduce weed cover.



Some species and/or associations are: coffee-citrus (main crop); coffee-coconut (main crop); coffee (main crop)-banana; coffee (main crop)-plantain; coffee (main crop)-breadfruit or jackfruit; coffee (main crop)- timber trees; citrus-banana-coconut; coffee (main crop)-Quickstick; coffee-mahogany-grass; dasheen-coffee-timber trees; ackee-fruit trees (for shade) and coffee; citrus-sugarcane-pineapple; mango-nutmeg-naseberry-otaheiti apple. 14.3 Improved (Managed) tree-fallow systems This is a rotation of planted trees with crops. After a period of cropping, trees are planted and remain for 1-5 years. These may be partially harvested each year. When cleared for the next cropping period, at least the leafy material is retained on the soil. The litter is incorporated in the soil for the subsequent crop. Improved tree-fallow agroforestry systems are not common in the Buff Bay/Pencar area, but some farmers are using Quickstick mulch on their coffee and using cover-crops within coffee to avoid soil slippage on steep slopes. Farmers also tend to leave some farmland in fallow that is unproductive or more suited to planting timber trees rather than cash crops. Some species and/or associations are: Quickstick and coffee; coffee (main crop)-Silky Oak; coffee (main crop)-Leucaena; planted ground cover in coffee with Kunta grass or banner bean, non-creeping herbaceous annual (donkey week), or shrubby gungo pea; planted legume cover with coffee may include groundnut or peanut. 14.4 Tree enriched windbreaks (or timber belts) Trees are planted in lines across the direction of prevailing winds to reduce wind or storm erosion. They can also provide shelter for animals or crops in silvopastoral systems. These systems are generally single or multi-level rows of trees that lesson the effect of wind or act as a filter to reduce wind velocities. Although wind is not a severe problem in the pilot area, there is the risk of hurricane damage. Intermixed, multi-level, linear plantings with some airflow to avoid harmful turbulences is recommended. On small farms, windbreaks act as shelter for the surrounding cropland. This type of agroforestry system would be best on farms exposed to wind or previous hurricane damage. Some species and/or associations are: Cypress-Cedar combination; Roseapple or Bamboo barriers on slopes less than 10 percent. Cashaw is also tolerant to wind as it has a moderately open canopy. This could be combined with Neem trees and Cypress-Acacia combinations to make an effective windbreak.



14.5 Mixed multi-story tree and crops combinations In this system, also referred to as backyard gardens or food forests, trees, shrubs and herbaceous plants are grown together in dense, intimate spatial sequence. There may be a large number of plant species/area. Combinations such as timber trees, coconut, jackfruit, ackee, mango, plantain, and spices are common. Planting is done at any time on an opportunistic basis when light is available. Most families in the survey area have backyard gardens as a form of subsistence agriculture. A system may be allowed to develop into a partly natural forest fallow, later to be cleared or modified according to the requirements of the farmer. 14.6 Live fences Live fences are rows or hedges, sometimes with trees attached to fencing structures or built as individual posts themselves. Common species used in Jamaica are quickstick-cedar combinations, immortelle or german trumpet tree, mahoe rose, bitter damsen, hog plum and red birch. These agroforestry systems are seen on some farms in the Buff Bay/Pencar area. Although generally used ad-hoc basis, farmers know of the benefits of live fencing and are receptive to utilisation of species that provide multiple benefits such as improving soil characteristics (through N2 fixation, mulch) and soil stabilisation on steep slopes. Live fences are also used for small-scale livestock management around homesteads. 14.7 Contour hedgerows with trees (or grasses) on erosion control structures This system is a variation of hedgerow intercropping, practised on sloping land. Trees are added to earth structures employed for soil and water conservation, such as terrace risers, banks, ditches and grass strips. The trees do not by themselves conserve soil, but stabilise the structures and make productive use of the land. Some species and/or associations are: citrus-pineapple barriers; pumpkin-pineapple hedgerows on contours; gungo pea-dasheen; gungo pea-red pea between pineapple and fruit tree barriers. These systems are often seen in the Buff Bay (Bangor Ridge, Balcarres, Tranquility, Spring Hill, Cascade) and Pencar area. Farmers employ practical measures such as "trash barriers" and interplant with cash crops on contours. The incorporation of a non-commercial woody component, such as woman’s tongue or quickstick would be an asset in terms of helping to rejuvenate soil characteristics. Using lignum vitae, guango or guinep, would benefit the farmer in terms of food crops, timber or medicinal purposes. Fruit tree barriers on contours (< 200 slope) using citrus-mango, mango-pimento or other combinations are also common. 14.8 Hedgerow intercropping

These are systems employed by farmers as a means of establishing perennial fruit or timber trees with annual crops. Hedges are planted in more or less parallel rows, with plants closely spaced and crops are grown in the alley between them. Fast growing,



nitrogen-fixing trees are recommended such as: combinations of acacia, calliandra, leucaena, neem. or woman’s tongue with annual crops such as dasheen, coco, gungo peas, sweet potato, or red-peas. As the intercropping scheme remains relatively flexible, consideration must be made to find compatible (non-competitive) annual and perennial combinations. 14.9 Mixed fruit and timber stands

A multiple purpose system combining species for timber, fuelwood or fruit tree production. Some species and/or associations are: citrus-coffee-timber trees; woman’s tongue tree or logwood for honey, fodder and a natural firebreak; gungo pea-neem tree combination; pimento, ackee-mango combinations; ackee-wild tamarind or cotton tree; teak -mahogany, and mango-cocoa-cedar combinations. 14.10 On-farm demonstration areas (field gene banks)

Recommended species or combination varies according to the specific objectives of each farmer. Field gene banks are collections of species and varieties of woody perennials (tree, shrubs, palms or bamboos) generally in plantations, agroforestry associations or as on-farm representative samples for the purpose of reproduction or genetic resource conservation. Demonstration areas in this context are representative plots of land or designated areas incorporating practical applications of agroforestry or farming systems research. By using participatory methods and traditional knowledge as the major building blocks, on-farm species trials with farmers will be the initial focus and genetic resource conservation and improvement of fruit and timber species, the medium to long-term benefit. On-farm trials and demonstration plots should also be focal points for providing farmers with the basic tools to improve his/her agroforestry practices, and soil conservation measures. Farmers if you will, become trainers "qualified" to train other farmers.

15.0 AGROFORESTRY RECOMMENDATIONS

The major crops grown in the area surveyed are coffee, banana and plantain. Most of the farming systems identified include one or more of these crops as well as a variety of fruit trees and some cash crops. The priority then is to prescribe agroforestry practices and techniques to improve farming systems that include one or more of coffee, banana and plantain. 15.1 Agroforestry Interventions

In general the nine agroforestry systems as described in the previous section are recommended and will be promoted. These use combinations of woody perennials and herbaceous annual mixes. They may include the use of traditional or introduced agroforestry multiple-use trees and shrubs to complement and/or improve farm



production systems. Specifically, the following basic agroforestry interventions are recommended to be widely promoted throughout the Buff Bay/Pencar watershed: • Promote soil conservations measures through contour hedgerows with trees or

grasses to control soil erosion on steep slopes and reduce loss of top soil, especially in areas planted with coffee.

• Incorporate timber species with perennial crops such as coffee, banana/plantain. Coffee farms have to be targeted with choice of timber species made according to the needs of the farmer, e.g. provide shade, enrich soil, etc.

• Given the divisions of farmland and distribution of plots in different areas, boundary planting and live fences using quickstick, immortelle and other timber species could be established to demarcate plots, keep animals away and improve the quality of the soil.

• Improved management of fallow areas on farmland by promoting the planting of timber trees in association with annual (cash) crops for the first years and develop hedgerow intercropping system.

15.2 Agrosilvopastoral interventions

Farmers in the areas surveyed are raising livestock such as goats, poultry and pigs. There is much scope for improvement in animal husbandry practices in Buff Bay/Pencar, especially "cut and carry" feedlots with improved varieties of grasses and legumes. 15.3 Development of on-farm demonstrations Demonstration farms should be established on selected farms in the pilot area, emphasising agroforestry systems and soil conservation. The demonstration farms should act as focal points in the community to facilitate training and extension work. These planned agroforestry interventions should be environmentally favourable, socially acceptable and eventually be part of economically viable, small-scale income generating projects. Examples include: incorporation of (N2 ) nitrogen fixing tree on farms; incorporation of mixed tree-stands for multiple-use and soil conservation; backyard gardens improvement and diversification, small scale eco-tourism and locally adaptable nurseries/tree improvement programmes. 15.4 Development of cost/benefit analysis and technical sheets

To demonstrate the financial benefits of an adopted agroforestry system to farmers, a simple, cost methodology has to be developed. Technical sheets on relevant agroforestry practices and techniques (e.g. contour, hedgerow system, live fences, etc.) should be prepared as practical tools that are easy for the farmer to use.



15.6 On-farm Research and Extension

• Agroforestry interventions could form part of part of the on-farm field application

of agroforestry systems component of the FD-TFT Germplasm Bank programme. • FD and RADA extension officers should be trained and integrated in on-farm

research in the Buff Bay/Pencar area, as well as in other critical watersheds. • Development of workshops or tutorials to help the FD extension officers to improve

their understanding of rigorous field survey techniques and appropriate follow-up. • On-farm agroforestry research and participatory monitoring have not been widely

used to date, and should be encouraged. This would mean developing practical on-farm training and extension activities with farmers and/or farmer groups.

• Agroforestry field manual(s) should be developed that provide practical means of addressing soil conservation and improving of tree/crop systems.



REFERENCES COFFEE INDUSTRY BOARD (CIB), 1999. ECKMAN, Karlyn. 1997. A Review of Agroforestry Systems and Practices of Small Farmers in

Northeastern Jamaica. Port Antonio: FAO. ECKMAN, K. 1997. Agroforestry Developments in Northeastern Jamaica. Project (Phase II)

Baseline Study. N.E Agroforestry project (CP/JAM/017/NET). 83.p ECKMAN, K. 1997a. Agroforestry Baseline Survey Report. Portland Parish. Northeastern

Jamaica. (GCP/JAM/017/NET) Agroforestry Development Project in Northeastern Jamaica. FAO Publication, Port Antonio, Jamaica.

ECKMAN, K. 1997b. Agroforestry Practices in the Spanish River and Swift River and Rio

Grande Watersheds of Northeasten Jamaica. (GCP/JAM/017/NET) Agroforestry Development Project in Northeastern Jamaica. FAO Publication, Port Antonio, Jamaica.

ECKMAN, Karlyn. 1998. A Participatory Approach to Agroforestry: Case Studies from Jamaica

and Haiti. Paper presented at Caribbean National Workshop on a Strategy for Better Land Husbandry. Univ. of Saint Paul, Minnesota USA..

FAO. 1972. Forest Development and watershed management in the Upper Regions of Jamaica:

Economic Study of small hillside farmers in Lucea/Cabaritta Watershed complex. Kingston, FAO (public.)

FAO. 1997. Agro-forestry Development in North Eastern Jamaica Project (GCP/JAM/017/net)

Baseline Report. FSCD, MoA, CIDA (TFT). 1994. Pencar/Buff Bay Watershed Socio-Economic Study. Prepared

by G. Scott, D. Robotham, J. Jones, C. Pomerleau. HUXLEY, P. 1999. “The Nature of Agroforestry (2).” In P. Huxley Tropical Agroforestry,

Blackwell Science Ltd. Oxford. p. 8-18. IBRAHIM, M. and BEER, J. 1998. “Agroforestry prototypes for Belize.” CATIE, GTZ Serie

Tecnica. Manual Tecnica #28. Tropical Agriculture Research and Higher Education Centre (CATIE) Turrialba, Costa Rica.

LIMBIRD, A., CUNINGHAM, C., SCOTT, G. 1993. Land Use Study. Pencar/Buff Bay

Watershed ManagementUunit. CIDA/TFT/GOJ publication. Kingston, Jamaica. MCCOUBROY, A. 1998. Traditional Agroforestry or Sustainable Development in Jamaica.

Exploratory observations.



MCDONALD, M. and EVANS, P. 1998. “Agroforestry practices for smallholder farmers in the Caribbean: an extension manual.” School of Agriculture and Forest Sciences. Publication (10). University Wales Bangor.

MCDONALD, M. 1993. On Farm Agroforestry Research Trials in Buff Bay Pencar Watersheds

of Jamaica. UWI. Botany Dept. Mona, Kingston, Jamaica. ORCHERTON, D.F. 1996. “The homegarden and other productive systems within the farming

system: The role of men and women in their management and production.” MSc (Thesis). (CATIE) Center for Tropical Agriculture Research and Higher Education. Turrialba, Costa Rica. 165p.

PIOJ. 1997. Statistical Yearbook of Jamaica. REIJNTJES, C., HAVERKORT, B, and BAYER, ANN-WATERS. 1992. Farming for the

Future: An Introduction to Low-external-input and Sustainable Agriculture. ILEIA, Leusden, The Netherlands.

SINCLAIR, F.J. 1999. “A General Classification of Agroforestry Practices.” Agroforestry

Systems. 00:1-20 (in press). SOKAL, R. and ROHLF, J. 1995. Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in

Biological Research (3d Ed.) W.H Freemand and Co. USA. p40-44 SOMARRIBA, E. 1993. “Allocation of farm area to crops in an unstable Costa Rican agriculture

community.” University of Michigan, Ph.D Thesis. 163.p SPENCE, Balfour. “The influence of small farmers’ land-use decisions on the status of domestic

food security in Jamaica.” Caribbean Geography, vol. 7, no. 2, September 1996. SUAH, J.R.R and D.P NICHOLSON. 1986. “The Role of Agroforestry in Jamaica.” In P.K

Bretting and Marjorie Humphreys (eds) Forests of Jamaica. Kingston: Jamaican Society of Scientists and Technologies.

WEIS, John. 1998. Structural Constraints to Development and Land Use in Rural Jamaica: The

Case of Long Road Study, St Mary. Master of Environmental Studies degree, Wilfrid Laurier University.

WILSON, M.H. 1994. “Community Involvement.” in Jamaica: Preparing for the Twenty-First

Century. Ian Randle for PIOJ, Kingston. YOUNG, A 1997. Agroforestry for Soil Management. (2nd Ed). ICRAF/Cabi Intern.Public. 307p.



GLOSSARY OF TERMS Acid soil: A soil having a pH less than 7.0 degrees of soil acidity. Soil is regarded as 'very acid'

when the reaction is less than pH 5.0. Agroforestry (AF): A system for mixed farming and forestry that has been practised in many

parts of the tropics. Tree crops are interspersed with food-crop patches on a continuous basis, sometimes as hedge (often called alley cropping). According to Ibrahim and Beer (1998), agroforestry is the management of the woody perennial component within a productive system of the farm.

Agrosilvipastoral system: Any agroforestry system that includes trees or shrubs and herbaceous

food crops and pastures and animals. Average: (see mean) Backyard garden: A land-use form on private lands outside the village, dominated by planted

perennial crops, mostly trees, under which annual (seasonal) crops are cultivated. When spices are grown they are called 'spice gardens'.

Budding and Grafting: Budding is a technique used to obtain new fruit trees with the same

characteristics as those already producing good quality fruit in quantity. A bud is cut from a mother tree (scion) and spliced (grafted) into the bark of a young seedling or clonally produced rootstock.

Bunches: A generic term used to describe a measure of plantain or banana grouped together in a

"bunch". Usually consists of 6-12 fingers of individual fruits. Burn: Refers to the practice of slash-and-burn as an agroforestry system. Burning is a kind of

shifting cultivation in high rainfall areas where the cropping period is followed by a fallow period during which grass, herb, bush or tree growth occurs. A pattern of agriculture in which existing vegetation is cut, stacked and burned to provide space and nutrients for cropping; also called 'swidden' cultivation and shifting cultivation

Chopping down: Refers to the activity of clearing a fallow area by cutting or brushing. Coefficient of variation (CV%): A statistic used to measure relative variability; the ratio of the

standard deviation to the mean, expressed as a percentage. Cropping system: Crop-production activity on the farm, comprising of all components required

for the production of the set of crops and the agro-ecological relationships between them and the environment. These components include physical and biological factors, technology, labour and management



Cutting back (coffee): Refers to the practice of resuscitation of old coffee plants to maximise coffee yield. Generally there is a need to cut back when there is insufficient bearing wood to obtain good yields or when the trees are too small and difficult to manage.

Enriched fallow or tree fallow systems: An agroforestry system in which useful, mainly woody

species are sown or planted before cultivation ceases, or at the time it does, so that during the fallow period, or when the land is next cleared for cultivation, products are available for household use or market that would not otherwise have been there (for example, fruits, bamboo, rattans, medicines).

Farm survey: A series of events structured by informal questionnaire with the objective of

collecting data from a sample of farms in a given population. Farming system: A unique and reasonably stable arrangement of farming enterprises that a

household manages according to well defined practices in response to physical, biological and socio-economic factors and in accordance with household goals, preferences and resources.

Food forests: Spatially diverse mixed agroforestry systems, comprising of small lots of tree-

crops( breadfruit, ackee, mango, avocado) as well as some vegetables and legumes. Fruit: Strictly the ripened ovary of a seed plant and its contents. Loosely, the whole structure

containing ripe seeds, which may include more than the ovary; of achene, berry, capsule, drupe, follicle, nut, samara.

Hedgerow, hedge: A barrier of bushes, shrubs or small trees growing close together in a line. A

hedge is similar but pruned. Inter-cropping or multiple cropping refers to the cultivation of 2 or more crops simultaneously on the same field, with or without a row arrangement (row inter-cropping or 'mixed inter-cropping'). The growing of 2 or more crops on the same field with the planting of the 2nd crop after the 1st one has already completed development. Also called relay cropping

Higgler(s): Informal merchants that buy from farmers. Some higglers provide transport. Legume: A pod-bearing member of the Fabaceae family, one of the most important and widely

distributed plant families (now split into Papilionaceae, Mimosaceae and Caesalpiniaceae). Included are many valuable food and forage species, such as peas, beans, peanuts, clovers, alfalfas, sweet clovers, lespedezas, vetches and kudzu. Not all legumes are nitrogen-fixing plants, for example, many of the Caesalpiniaceae do not form nodules.

Mean: The value obtained by adding a series of terms and then dividing their sums (∑) by the

value equal to the number of terms. Multi-strata agroforestry systems: These are also called agroforests, forest gardens, or

backyard gardens. Trees, shrubs and herbaceous plants are grown together in a dense, intimate spatial sequence. There may be a large number of plants. Combinations such as



timber trees, coconut, jackfruit, breadfruit, mango, plantain, maize and even tea-bushes and cane are typical. Small animals (pigs, chickens) may also be present. Planting is done at any time, on an opportunistic basis when light is available.

On- farm (farmer) experimentation: Consists of farmer oriented experiments where farmers

test (known or unknown) component technology within a physical environment . Often answers the question: does the technology work? How can it be fitted (adopted) into the existing production-utilisation system and is it profitable?

Reaping: Refers to the activity of harvesting coffee, fruits, vegetables or other similar farm

products. Square (of land): Refers to a measure of land area on a farm equivalent to 66ft x 66ft. Tree improvement: Involves designing and implementing strategies to produce genetically

more desirable trees including tree breeding. This is accomplished through developing species priorities and tree improvement strategies, exploring, testing, evaluation and rational utilisation of superior seed sources. Additionally, recommendations would have to be developed for choosing species/provenances, and propagation for improved material.

Watershed: A physiographic unit in the landscape defined by the drainage dividers around the

area drained by a particular body of water. If a lake, there is often one watershed with subunits for contributing streams. If a river, it may be defined for any point or all. Could also be described as: the total area, regardless of size, above a given point on a water-way that contributes runoff water to the flow at that point. A major drain-area subdivision of a drainage basin on the basis of this concept.

Weeding: Clean weeding or removal of excess weeds or invasive woody or non-woody species. Windbreak: A group of trees or shrubs in any arrangement that will afford protection from high

winds to animals or crops or both. When the arrangements are in a long line the group is called a shelterbelt. If an associated reason is also to harvest timber at some future date it is sometimes called a 'timberbelt'.



LIST OF SPECIES REFERENCED IN REPORT Commonly Used Name Botanical Name Acacia Acacia auriculiformis Ackee Blighia sapida Avocado Persea americana Bamboo Bambusa sp Banner bean Macroptilion sp Bark cascarilla Croton eluteria Bitter damsel Simarouba glauca Breadfruit Artocarpus altilis Calliandra Calliandra sp Cashaw Prosopis juliflora Cedar Cedrela odorata Citrus Citrus sp Coconut Cocus nucifera Cocoa Theobroma cacao Coffee Coffea arabica Cotton tree Ceiba pentandra Cypress; Cupressus Cupressus benthami Donkey wood (cheesy toes) Stylosanthes sp Groundnut or Peanut Arachis hypogaea Guinep Melicoccus bijugatus Guango Samanea saman Gungo pea (Pigeon pea) Cajanas cajan Hog plum Spondias mombin Immortelle/German trumpet Erythrina peoppigiana Kuntz grass (fee-fee) Centrosema pubescens Lignum vitae Guaiacum officinale Leucaena Leucaena leucocephala Logwood Haematoxylum campechianum Mahoe, Blue Hibiscus elatus Mahogany, Jamaica Sweitenia mahogani Mahogany, Honduras Sweitenia macrophylla Mango Magnifera indica Naseberry Manipkara zapotilla Neem Azadirachta indica Nutmeg Myristica fragrans Oak, silky Grevillea robusta Otaheiti apple Eugenia malaccensis Pimento Pimento dioica Plantain Musa sp Quickstick Gliricidia sepium Red birch Bursera Simaruba



Roseapple Syzygium jambos Sleeping hibiscus (mahoe rose) Malvaviscus arboreus Teak Tectona grandis Vetiver grass Vetiveria zizanioides Wild tamarind Tamarindus indica Woman’s tongue Albizia lebbeck

BUFF BAY/PENCAR WATERSHED PILOT AREA SOCIO-ECONOMIC … · Buff Bay/Pencar Pilot Area...

Documents

Transcript of BUFF BAY/PENCAR WATERSHED PILOT AREA SOCIO-ECONOMIC … · Buff Bay/Pencar Pilot Area...