|
|
Abstract
Jolly, C.M., A. Binns, D. Shannon,
M. Bannister, J. Dale and P. Lindo. 2008. Failure of farmers to participate
in a soil conservation project in Haiti JEMREST 5:00-00
The
United States Agency for International Development funded a soil conservation
project (PADF/PLUS) in Haiti
hoping that all farmers in the project area would embrace the project with open
arms. A number of farmers failed to participate in the project in spite of
technical assistance and subsidies which accompanied project participation.
Hence we wanted to find out the underlying reasons why farmers refused to
participate in the project. A total of
617 non-adopters of soil conservation from 113 locations were interviewed in
August and September 1998. Their ages
ranged from 17-90 years. Most of the
group, 84% males and 16% females, had some knowledge and previous exposure to
soil conservation (SC) practices and techniques, and 48% of them had actually
used SC techniques at some time.
Approximately 37% of the non-adopters had no formal educational
training, while the rest of them had acquired various levels of formal
training, from infant to secondary school level. The most frequently cited benefits of SC to
non-adopters were that SC ‘kept the soil fresh’ (which is an
indication of the soil fertility status), and reduced rainfall erosion. The main disadvantages were cited as
‘seeds from the hedgerows spoil the soil’ and ‘decrease in
area of land for farming’. The
most common SC techniques used by these farmers were the ‘straw
contour’, and the ‘rockwall’. These and other techniques have been
installed on non-adopters’ farms since the 1940's. However, installation seemed to peak in the
1980's and 1990's, though the individuals operating these farms were
classified as ‘non-adopters’.
Seventy-six percent of all non-adopters did not practice SC for
several reasons, the main ones being ‘lack of assistance’ and
‘negligence’ on their part.
To minimize rainfall erosion on their farms, 59% of the group used
straw contours and planted trees, while 40% did nothing. Ninety-one percent of the interviewees were
aware of the PADF/PLUS project, and 21% of them cited ‘protection of
the environment’ as its most important benefit. The main disadvantage of the project was
listed as ‘lack of information’ by 23% of the group, while
‘insufficient information about the project’ and ‘project
does not meet our needs’ were given as the main reasons for
non-participation in the project.
Finally, 23% of all non-adopters expressed the desire to be affiliated
with another project sometime in the future.
|
