GeoJournal 50: 47–54, 2000.© 2000Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

47

Incentives of land users in projects of soil and water conservation, the weight ofintangibles

Eelko BergsmaSoil Science Division, ITC, International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences; Haydnlaan 2 7522HE,Enschede, The Netherlands (Tel:+31-(0)53-435 16 81; e-mail: bergsma@itc.nl; Fax:+31-(0)53-4874 379. webpage:http://www.itc.nl/ bergsma)

Received 21 October 1999; accepted 20 June 2000

Key words:Alp farming, attitude of the adviser in development projects, incentives of rural land users, rural development inthe third world, soil and water conservation

Abstract

Many studies of soil and water conservation in third world situations show that among the farmers’ incentives the commer-cial view on rural management is important and that at the same time intangible considerations are playing an importantrole. Traditional belief, local customs as well as inner conviction are also significant in the farmer’s life. An example ofincentives of land husbandry in the first world is given by a case of the Swiss Alp-farming. Their great attachment to thistype of farming as well as the national support for mountain farmers’ income play a role. In activities aimed at improvementof rural development in a third world country, the viewpoint of the expert may easily dominate any kind of plan makingbecause of his position in the projects. However, his cultural background may limit his understanding of the rural situationin countries foreign to him. This has frequently lead to misjudging the importance of other than commercial incentives.A critical self-appraisal of motives and attitude to life by the adviser would often be needed in order to take immaterialincentives into account in development projects and in the achievement of agricultural policy. From the experience obtainedin the third world and from the case study of the european alp-farming, the weight of intangibles in the land users’ incentivesappears as one of the crucial factors in rural management. This weight will grow with the present increasing need forsustainable agricultural productivity as well as with the need to create a sustained use of the environment in many parts ofthe world.

Introduction

Incentives for soil and water conservation are ways to influ-ence farmers to engage in certain types of management. Howmuch do farmers have wider aims than producing dollar-equivalent output, and therefore how far are they inclinedto respond to dollar-equivalent incentives? Observations inliterature about immaterial incentives of farmers in devel-oping countries show the intangible nature of importantconvictions of farmers and how these convictions affect ruraldevelopment projects.

In developing countries the partial acceptance or com-plete refusal of advice for soil and water conservation isoften attributed to the backwardness and stubbornness of theland users. Less attention has been focussed on the attitudeof the expert who gives the advice. His limited understand-ing of the non-material motivations of the land users hascontributed its share to inappropriate advice.

Incentives arising from farmers’ tie to the land may rep-resent an element that is of an increasing importance in themanagement of natural resources in countries both north andsouth.

Third world farmer’s incentives in projects of soil andwater conservation

The business view on farming

One of the most important incentives for farmers that operatein development projects for soil and water conservation maybe described as the business view on farming.

The business perspective on a farm undertaking is de-scribed for instance in a study of tobacco growing in SriLanka. The study states that a farmer usually views soilconservation from a business perspective because he hasto survive in a competitive world while often struggling tomeet his basic needs. Although he may be concerned overthe social cost of erosion, his decision whether or not toadopt soil conservation practices is dominated by economicimpacts. (Gunatilake et al., 1993, p. 106; Lovejoy et al.,1986). The high cost of conservation measures and the neg-ative Net Present Values with conservation imply that in thiscase, most likely, farmers will not adopt soil conservationmeasures unless there are incentives such as subsidy for soilconservation (Gunatilake et al., 1993, p. 109).

48

A World Bank study emphasises profitability, but putsthis in a wider context:

– “Profitability of conservation practices is a necessarycondition for their adoption, but it is a wide, encom-passing concept. Factors other than strict cost-benefitconsiderations also play a role. The effect of imperfectmarkets, for example, is reflected in higher prices forinputs, and this affects the profitability of production ac-tivities. And most often institutional issues, such as landtenure and access to credit must be considered togetherwith the results of the cost-benefit analysis” (Lutz et al.,1994).

Tobisson (1993, p. 61) makes important adjustments tothe purely economic view on farmer’s management:

– “Peasant economies do not operate according to theeconomic laws assumed by neo-classical economists.For example, risk minimisation and family subsistence,rather than profit maximisation, constitutes a fundamen-tal principle. Therefore sound economic analysis mustbe broader than the conventional cost-benefit analysis.”

Several authors point to a wide view that is needed foreconomic analysis (Stocking, 1988, p. 382):

– “The farmer in developing countries is certainly an eco-nomically rational being, subject to incentives and disin-centives as is the farmer in developed nations. But valuesattached to commodities and to money are often surpris-ingly different. So can cattle have a value while moneycannot buy what is needed. The cattle are like a walkingbank, and a symbol of wealth and prestige. So the valueof money in a developing country can be very different.Extra cash offered in return for soil conservation maymiss fundamental realities and will, therefore, not work.”

The farmer’s view

In the approach to land improvement and the conservation ofwater and soil, the farmer’s perspective must be understoodand taken into full consideration if assisting programs are tosucceed (Shaxson, 1997).Many authors stress this point. Brouwers (1993, pp. 121)observed that in the daily practice of farmers, a constantattentiveness to possible improvement is present. Conceptu-alising types of farmers with terminology like ‘progressiveversus conservative’, or ‘innovator’ versus ‘laggard’ doesnot do justice to the fact that each farmer is constantly in-volved in an active search for possible improvements inagricultural practices, although in a variable, individual way.

The World Bank article, quoted earlier, examines the re-turns to investment in conservation measures mainly fromthe farmer’s point of view (Lutz et al., 1994, p. 276). Nextto economic factors, the authors mention‘the conservationethic’ of farmers.

Photo 1. Thai farmer near his beds of ginger shoots, in an orchard ofplantain, mango and leechee.

Adjusting to the farmer’s interest and need is easier withthe now often recommended approach of presentinga rangeof conservation optionsto farmers, and readily deliver-ing related technical assistance on request of the farmerthemselves, while avoiding ‘red tape’ (Attaviroj, 1996).

Economic forces govern part of the local farmer’s deci-sion making and the cultural context governs the rest. Soilconservation, from a developing country’s perspective, is aminefield for the unwary (Stocking, 1988, p. 385).

Immaterial incentives, part of the farmer’s view

In literature, discussion of the farmer’s viewpoint touches onfactors that can be considered as immaterial incentives.

Shaxson et al. (1977) stress respect for farmers’ prioritiesand their goals. Conditions, aspirations and needs determinethe prime concerns of farmers. Sutherland (1993) writingon soil and water management in Zambia states that landhusbandry is also a spiritual concept. Planning will needinsight in the importance of the rural life for the communityconcerned in the project.

Bweya and Mulenga (1993, p. 29) reporting on Malawi,say it is essential that the farmer does regard the improvedpractice as in line with his farming system. Brouwers (1993,pp. 123) studied in Benin the reaction of rural people to

49

chemical soil degradation and found that yield assessmentdoes not only relate to production ‘as most change agentstend to expect’ but also to political, social, economic andother factors. Similar attention for immaterial incentives ofthe people involved in a project is discribed by Kiwanuka(1993, p. 173), Stocking (1988, p. 382) and Cheatle (1993,p. 86).

A case that is a clear example of inner conviction derivedfrom faith is the development on the Kingwill farm in theKarroo of South Africa (Bergsma, 1996a). In this farm anexcessive number of sheep started to produce acceleratederosion. The worried farmer tried to find out what to do.By listening to his inner voice and by collecting thoughtsthat he felt were showing the way, he decided to reduce theherd by one third. Hardship for the family was of coursethe result, but their conviction made them persevere. Thesigns of gradual grass recovery and increasing discharge inthe streams helped them to continue. At present the land onthe farm has a sufficient buffer capacity to severe drought,being a climatological factor in this region. Eventually thedevelopments on the farm helped achieving official grazingrecommendations.

A case of incentives in the first world: a Swiss Alp-farm

IntroductionThe picture of the farmer given in the previous sectionsrelates mostly to situations in developing countries. There,under pressure of war and conflict, and to some degree dueto natural disasters and by the influence of urbanisation, thestructure of rural society is sometimes disturbed. Then anacute need occurs whereby the providing of food, shelterand income dominate as incentives.

In less disturbed rural areas, farmers more noticeablyhave a mixture of economic and social incentives, as wasshown from literature. To find out if this is also true fordeveloped countries, a case in Western Europe is chosen.There, commercialisation of agriculture is in general strongand leads often to the dominance of the business perspectivein agriculture. Even then, as in Holland, leaving the farm andthe land in case of inheritance, sale or abandonment, is oftena difficult, heart rending step.

In relatively undisturbed, moderately commercializedagriculture, such as for instance in the typical Swiss Alpfarming system, a rich variety of other incentives appear tooperate. In the following an Alp household in Saanenland(Switzerland) is described.

The family and the communityThe village of Lauenen has 700 inhabitants; it is a smallplace in Saanenland, in the region of Gstaad, Switzerland. Ihave visited an Alp farmer’s home in this village in January1997.

During wintertime the farmer has an additional job at thelower skilift in the village. At the time of my visit, this liftwas closed because the snow had melted. It allowed longertalks with the farmer and his wife, to find how his farmoperates and what are the incentives of the family to havethis type of management.

Professionally the farmer is engaged in the Commu-nal Milk Association, the Agricultural Organisation and theDairy Association. In this last association the farmer is theresponsible person for the maintenance of the cattle rearingrecord. This means he has to register detailed data about allcattle that are introduced into the rearing scheme.

The Agricultural Organisation promotes understandingbetween the rural areas and the cities. For instance, it ex-plains why the work of the farmers is important for theprevention of avalanches and for the upkeep of the landscapefor tourism.

The Dairy Association takes responsibility for the milkquality, the dairy products and the price.

The farmer’s wife had been active as a nurse. After shecame to live in the village she was engaged in the Sundayschool. She is now a member of the local church council andshe has a seat in the Church Educational Committee. Thefamily has six children and the oldest is fourteen.

One of the big days in the community is the cow con-test. Two years ago the three Dairy Associations togetherhad their jubilee of 50, 50 and 75 years. After being washedwith soap and being presented in a proud way the cows arejudged. The award of the prizes is important, because theoffspring of prize winners have a higher value on the market.

Sustainability and environmental protectionThe grass yield on the farm is not declining and very littlesoil degradation occurs. Mountain shadow can give a three-week lag in the growth of the grass, but this tardy growth isusually recovered later in the year. Only some phosphate hasto be added, next to the annual spreading of the cow dungover the meadows. This is a difference between farmers ofthe mountainous upland and the lowland farmers, like thosewho live near the capital Bern. In the lower and less steepareas, more grains and other crops are grown, which needmore mineral fertiliser.

The mountain village of Törbel (Netting, 1981, p. 32) iscomparable to Saanenmöser. Some grain fields went 10 to20 years without fertiliser over there, and it was known thatstable manure increased the quantity but adversely affectedthe quality of the rye.

On the Lauenen farm soil samples are taken to obtain animpression of the soil fertility and the soil suitability, butthe samples are especially needed as a condition for joininga program of biofarming called Integrated Production (IP)(Jung, 1996).

Regarding the farm of the family which I visited, theparticipation in the Integrated Production programme hadnot demanded much change in management. The programworks in co-operation with the Environment ProtectionAgency and aims at stimulating fauna, such as birds andground animals. One had to put 5% of the land in ‘re-duced haying’, the so-called ‘lean pastures’ (Magerwiesen).In Saanenland there already exists a good mixture of smallwoodlots and meadows that allows this practice. It meansthat haying may only start after July 15. Then the mowedgrass appears not to be optimal for the farmer, because it istoo long and too old.

50

Other conditions to participate in the program of Inte-grated Production are the refraining from the use of mineralfertiliser, not using hormones, having the cattle in the openduring a certain period and having a limited use of fac-tory made cattle feed. When one follows the program, amanagement subsidy is granted.

Because of the large differences in income between themountain-land farmers and the lowland farmers, counterbal-ance controls have been introduced such as the IntegratedProduction. They support the income of the mountain farm-ers in relation to the income of the lowland farmers and pricedevelopment. This is a main aim of the Swiss agriculturalpolicy (Hermann, 1976). For the allocation of agricul-tural subsidies three zones are recognised (Neuenschwander,1976) on the basis of: climate, road network, topography andelevation and other factors.

Another income balance control is the ‘Steepness Com-pensation’. Recognised are slope classes of below 18%,18–30% and above 30%. The compensation is introducedbecause of the fact that on the steep slopes no machinescan be used, while in the flatter land the farming is moreand more mechanised. The compensation was introducedaround 1975. Further income balance controls are the cattlesubsidy, operative from around 1960 and the more recent‘wetland subsidy’, introduced about 5 years ago. This lastone concerns mowing of swampy land along streams, allow-ing faster stream flow during peak levels in order to avoidflooding. The family needs two weeks of hard work to mowand remove the grass and wild plants from their wet field. Itearns them SwF 1200 and replaces one carload of straw at aprice of SwF 800.

The cow-disease BSE has threatened to reach the Alp-farmers. A national compulsory slaughter was considered.But it was demonstrated that the Zimmental cattle were notill and a severe setback for the dairy farmers in Saanenlandwas thus averted. It is possible that the great care given to thecows in this region contributed to their resistance to disease.The cows do not receive hormones nor mineral feed com-posites or antibiotics. They are not fed to maximise neithermilk production nor breeding output. It has been shown thatthe cattle in the lowland, reared in an output maximisingmanagement, are more susceptible to illness. The loss of onecow in a small farm with 7–8 animals is severe, while in alarge farm with 120 animals it has relatively less impact.

The family’s view of their Alp-farmingThe family is strongly attached to the Alp landscape andconditions: “These fields and this house we do not want toleave. We value it also very much for the education of ourchildren.”I asked the farmer if he considered his farm as a business inthe middle of the competition of the economic struggle. Hesaid he did not see it that way, and that he did not regard hisefforts in this respect. I also asked the farmer if it was true tosay that the counterbalance income controls permitted him tostay free of the economic struggle permitting him to followhis preferred way of life. Also this view does not seem to

apply, because this Alp farm existed long before the incomebalance was introduced.

There is an attitude of deep attachment to the Alp. Afterthe parents of the wife had died, she was 18 years of age andher sister 14 years, but they took charge of their Alp farm.People said: “That will not work, two girls with twenty cowson the Alp”. But she thought to herself, “I am not a girlanymore.” So she worked from three thirty in the morninguntil ten o’clock at night, helped by her sister. Now she says:“When spring comes, I cannot stay in the house (located inthe valley), it pulls me to the Alp.” (see sketch map for dataon the transhumance).

In a similar way there is for instance the story of aBernese woman, who after her marriage came to live hereand who became a real cheese farmer. She makes very goodcheese and loves the life as an Alp farmer. On the other handthere is a neighbour who has never felt herself at home inthis area. But the wife says: “To me the daily cheese makingis always different”.

The number of children in Alp’ farmers’ families of theSaanenland is about a hundred and nation wide the numberis estimated at one thousand. This family is the only onein Saanenland who follows the special school arrangementfor Alp farmers: a three week dispensation from school withtasks for homework and a 5 week period of following schoolat the farm itself. A teacher can be selected by the family,to give classes for the family’s and the neighbours’ children.‘Every teacher should have this experience’ was the opinionof the teacher who was staying at the farm last year. An ad-vantage of the Alp-teacher arrangement is that the childrenreceive good teaching and when returning to school they area little further advanced than the others.

An international meeting on alpine pastures and mead-ows held in Austria in 1982, attended by 200 participantsfrom Austria, German Bavaria, Switzerland, Italy andFrance (Schwackhofer et al., 1982) stressed the importanceof the remaining areas of Alpine pasture for environmentalconservation. The president of the Swiss Alp ManagementAssociation (Alpwirtschaftsverein) recapitulated by sayingthat next to the technological development and economicconsiderations, also the spirit, the attitude, the customsand traditions of the Alp pasture household need an equalbalance in decisions of policy.

A recent report concerning a part of the alpine regionsays (Niederberger, 1995) that the economy of the Alp islinked to custom and tradition; one should preserve thesecultural values as well as the cultivated landscape with itsrich variation. The future of the part of the Alp region lookssecure because of the great interest in managing the Alpfarms by the young farm generation.

Opportunity costsHow strong is the love for the life on the Alp and what arethe opportunity costs?

In 1985 financial advice was sought when the familywanted to extend their hay storage space. The advice wasnegative. The balance of the budget meant that the familycould not afford the plans. On closer inspection of the ad-

51

Figure 1. Sketchmap with general data on this case of transhumance. The direct journey with cattle from the Alp dairy to the winter stable in Launen takesthree days.

vice, it appeared that the cost of living was estimated fivetimes higher than it actually was. It shows that the convictionabout this way of farming entails high opportunity costs. Inthis case, one year later the planned extension for storagewas completed. Four years later the family managed to con-struct, at considerable expense, a separate garage for the carand farm machines, with an upper floor to store instrumentsand equipment. It was built of concrete, stone and wood.

At the age of 65 farmers lose the income substitution, butmany older people continue to keep a few cows and give ahelping hand at the farm. In some cases, even people over 80years old still do some work, because heart, body and soulbind them to this type of life.

Although alpine farming has not necessarily declined inprofitability (Netting, 1981, p. 104) it can not compete withthe opportunities for permanent wage labour in the rapidlyexpanding Swiss economy. But it appears there are other

52

Photo 2. The Swiss Alp farmhouse in Saanenland.

incentives that keep people farming such as the tie to theland.

In Törbel the couples who have decided to continue tolive in their village over the last 15 years are taking pridein their cows and sheep as well as the amenities of theirhomes. They also participate in musical groups and thriv-ing voluntary associations in the community (Netting, 1981,pp. 105–108). This is all very similar to the farm, family lifeand community at Lauenen.

The viewpoint of the expert in the third worldIn third world land development projects, just as elsewhere,conservation experts must be careful not to misjudge thefarmer. In the case of Alp farming there is a large amount ofagreement of farmers’ incentives and agricultural policy, butthis is far from being the case in general. A soil conservationexpert with large experience in third world countries states:‘It would be good to look for what exactly is the motivationof the land users, and not discard what we ourselves may notfeel’ (Hudson, 1993, p. 3).

Uneasiness about the approach of the experts is possi-bly one of the explanations of both the failure of so manydevelopment projects over the years, as well as a misun-derstanding of the reasoning of local people in third worldcountries, lead Jungerius (1985) to investigate in detail how

local people make use of their natural environment in oftenadverse conditions. He found that ecological concepts, ritesand rule, even subconsciously applied, may determine theirmanagement for a large part.

Stocking (1988) stressed that the viewpoint of experts inthe third world may be put forward by such a convincinganalysis of local questions, that it suggests to encompass allessential points, even when aiming only at a partial sectorof the well being of the people involved. In this way it mayimpose a vision, which could not be easily corrected. Anexample of a seemingly complete basis for a land husbandryplan is put as: ‘The intention is to develop farming systemsthat are: - productive in the short term, namely meeting thefarm family’s immediate production goals of sufficient foodto cover its consumption needs or a cash surplus or both,and - sustainable over the long term, namely preventing thedestruction of the natural resource base or depleting the ca-pacity of the land in order to provide for the needs of presentand future generations.’

There may have been room for inviting the opinion ofthe affected land users, and incorporating it in the proposal.A plan which does not explicitly considers the opinion ofland users through participation3 with the rural populationinvolved, will easily pass it by.

The same has been expressed in strong terms by Cham-bers (1993, p. 101):

– “There is a paradox. Sustainable development is to besought first not in the farming family, or the commu-nity, but in ourselves, the trained professionals. Ourpower, beliefs, reductionism and short time horizonsare much of the problem, while farmers’ knowledge,systems thinking, long-term investments and enhancedcompetence and participation are much of the solution.It is not a case of either professional’s knowledge andcompetence, or farmers’ knowledge and competence.The need is for a balanced mix, which means a shifttowards the farmers’ side to enhance farmers’ analysisand innovation.”Brouwers (1993, pp. 129–130) also warns for an in-

complete approach of the adviser. Studies that look at thelife world of land users in terms of ‘knowledge’, socialstructures, and personal variation reduce in this manner thecontribution of rural people and do not allow for a translationof practical problems into technological answers by ruralpeople themselves. This translation is made by representa-tives of formal science who impose their scientific vision ofthe situation. An example is given of the oil palm farmingsystems, which illustrates a close relation of the oil palmsystem to different social activities as well as to the socialposition of farmers in society.

The same caution is expressed by Shaxson et al. (1997,p. 3):

– “As ’outsiders’, our own perceptions and assumptionsare derived from specific contexts of knowledge, culture,training and experience, and do not necessarily accordclosely with the experiences and realities faced by farm-

53

ers. Most often technical staff have focused solely onwhat they have seen as – technically – desirable to solveproblems of erosion and runoff.”A similar wish for a certain type of attitude of the ex-

pert/adviser is expressed by others (Dudal, 1981, p. 10;Gappa, 1993, p. 162; Mohammed, 1993, p. 171; Tukahirwaand Veit, 1993, p. 164).

Participation

Participation in land development is the approach that in-cludes the ideas and concerns of the land user right fromthe inception of development plans onwards. It thereforeseems the best way avoiding the pitfalls that may resultfrom a limited view of the expert, as well as including suf-ficiently the farmer’s concerns. It may help to have an openeye for immaterial incentives that may operate in the givenconditions.

Important is to recognize the difference betweenappar-ent and genuineparticipation, which is strongly noted inthird world countries (Hurni et al., 1996, p. 8, 10). We haveto try to understand with mind and heart the kind of lifethe land users live. Introducing research studies on soil andwater conservation, Hudson (1993, p. 3) writes: “Top-downprogrammes do not work well. The need is to work from theground up, this means involvement of farms and families andcommunity groups at all stages”. The same value is given toparticipation by Douglas (1993, p. 6): “required is a bottom-up, farmer first approach, involving farmers in identifyingthe problems and taking the decisions as to how they are tobe overcome”.

For genuine participation, the approach of the adviser tothe farmer must be based on mutual trust (Bergsma, 1996a).Chambers (1993a, p. 93) describes the key to participatoryrural appraisal as ‘good rapport’. For this to happen the be-haviour and attitudes of the outsider as facilitator or catalystare basic. Some of the keys to arrive at this good understand-ing of each other are:‘listening and learning; taking a keeninterest; joining in activities; and patience’.

Conclusions

The need to provide for life’s necessities is often the dom-inant consideration of the farmer’s management. In theday-to-day life these efforts are essential for continuation ofthe farmer’s life and household.

On the longer term, the way in which a farmer providesfor these primary needs influences his decisions too. Thereis no question about his prime concern, but the farmer hasdefinite preferences about the context, the communal rela-tions and the spirit in which and by which he wants to runhis farm and family life.

Gradually much evidence has been presented about theoften unexpectedly large influence of intangible considera-tions in the decision-making process of land users in devel-oping countries. In the strongly market-driven agricultureof more developed countries the intangible considerations

become the less obvious, the more the profession of farmingis commercialized.

In the first world, in a more traditional type of farming,for instance the Alp-farming in Switzerland, the intangibleplays quite an important role in the management decisions.The typical alpine farmer household which I visited inSaanenland is supported-but not guided by the income sub-stitutions which have been created gradually over the yearsand which are in relation to the lowland farmer’s income,special conditions on the mountain and price movements.Though restricted by land shortage in case of inheritance,farmers accept large opportunity costs in order to continuefarming because of the love for this particular professionand this way of life and for the sake of the upbringing ofthe children in these surroundings.

Adjoining countries with agriculture in alpine conditionsemphasise the environmental protection that the Alp farm-ing provides and the cultural values that it cherishes andpreserves.

In developing countries the partial acceptance or com-plete refusal of advice for soil and water conservation byland users is often attributed to their backwardness and stub-bornness. Less attention has been focussed on the attitudeof the expert who gives the advice. His limited understand-ing of the non-material motivations of the land user hascontributed often to inappropriate advice.

Genuine participation is probably the best approach toland husbandry and to soil and water conservation in par-ticular, because it gives the opportunity avoiding substantialconsecuences of the limitations of the adviser’s view. It alsohelps recognizing immaterial incentives in the farmers’ man-agement, and creating mutual trust between land users andadvisers, which are all key factors in effective efforts towardsland husbandry. These basics have been realized to a largeextent in the Swiss case.

There is a close link between the intangibles which affectthe farmer’s management and the type of society in which helives. Intangible incentives related to land husbandry repre-sent typical characteristics of farming. Though agriculture isoften strongly commercialized in various parts of the world,the intangibles related to land husbandry should be takeninto account when formulating plans for agricultural struc-ture and farm policy. The experience with their importancein the third world should be a warning for policy makersin the first world. Also in industry a new emphasis is put onthe social relevance and the environmental concerns (Koster-man, 1999). Apart from commercial interests, the intangibleincentives also will be needed in the future to arrive at asustained agricultural production and a sustained use of theenvironment in the world.

Notes

1Land husbandry is the approach that concentrates on helping people toimprove and maintain their agricultural system, instead of only concentrat-ing on getting people to stop deforestation, overgrazing and overcultivationin places where success is unlikely because of the pressure. The approachemphasises productive cover of leaves, levels of organic matter, soil life and

54

soil structure. Attention to these points will improve the farmer’s result andwill also reduce erosion (Shaxson, 1997).2100 Rappen make one Swiss Franc.3‘Participation’ includes the ideas and concerns of the land user right fromthe inception of development plans onwards.

Acknowledgements

My great appreciation goes to the Trachsel family onWildeneggli, Saanenmoser, Switzerland for allowing the in-structive interviews in a very friendly atmosphere and for thepleasant stay at their Alp farm.

The author is grateful to Dr M.K. McCall, Social Sci-ence Division, ITC, for his suggestion of certain relevantreferences.

References

Pitsanu Attaviroj, 1996: Land development villages and soil doctors; strate-gies towards better land husbandry in Thailand. In: Samran Sombatpanit,Zöbisch M.A., Sanders D. and Cook M. (eds),Soil Conservation Ex-tension – from Concepts to Adoption. The Soil and Water ConservationSociety of Thailand, Bangkok, pp. 153–158.

Bergsma E., 1996: The bridge between land user and adviser.Land Hus-bandry, the International Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 1:81–93.

Bergsma E., 1996a: Land husbandry, can it be a partnership between farm-ers, land developers and extension workers? In: Samran Sombatpanit,Zöbisch M. A., Sanders D. and Cook M. (eds),Soil Conservation Ex-tension – from Concepts to Adoption. The Soil and Water ConservationSociety of Thailand, Bangkok, pp. 123–130.

Brouwers J.H.A.M., 1993: Rural people’s response to fertility decline;the Adja case (Benin). Thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University,Veenman, Wageningen.

Bweya L.A.C. and Mulenga N.J., 1993: Sustainable soil and water man-agement in Malawi. In: Hudson N. and Cheatle R.J. (eds),Working withFarmers for Better Land Husbandry. Intermediate Technology Publi-cations, in association with the World Association of Soil and WaterConservation, pp. 26–29.

Cheatle R.J., 1993: Introduction to the section of Participatory appraisal,planning, and development. In: Hudson N. and Cheatle R.J. (eds),Work-ing with Farmers for Better Land Husbandry. Intermediate TechnologyPublications, in association with the World Association of Soil andWater Conservation, pp. 85–87.

Chambers R., 1993: Sustainable small farm development – Frontiers in par-ticipation. In: Hudson N. and Cheatle R.J. (eds),Working with Farmersfor Better Land Husbandry. Intermediate Technology Publications, inassociation with the World Association of Soil and Water Conservation,pp. 96–101.

Chambers R., 1993a: Participatory rural appraisal. In: Hudson N. andCheatle R.J. (eds),Working with Farmers for Better Land Husbandry,Intermediate Technology Publications, in association with the WorldAssociation of Soil and Water Conservation, pp. 87–95.

Douglas M.G., 1993: Making Conservation Farmer-Friendly. In: HudsonN. and Cheatle R.J. (eds),Working with Farmers for Better Land Hus-bandry, Intermediate Technology Publications, in association with theWorld Association of Soil and Water, pp. 4–14.

Dudal R., 1981: An evaluation of conservation needs. In: Morgan R.P.C.(ed.), 1981,Soil Conservation; Problems and Prospects, Proceedings‘Conservation 80’, International Conference on Erosion and Conserva-tion, Silsoe, 1980. John Wiley, New York, pp. 3–12.

Gappa H., 1993: Conservation in Bariadi. In: Hudson N. and Cheatle R.J.(eds),Working with Farmers for Better Land Husbandry, IntermediateTechnology Publications, in association with the World Association ofSoil and Water Conservation, pp.159–162.

Gunatilake H.M. and Abeygunawardena P., 1993: An economic analysisof soil conservation in tobacco lands in the Hangkuranketha area of SriLanka.Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 48(1): 106–112.

Hermann T., 1976: Paritätslohn und Einkommen in der schweizerischenLandwirtschaft,Agrarische-Rundschau7: 16–21.

Hudson N.W., 1993: Preface. In: Hudson N. and Cheatle R.J. (eds),Workingwith Farmers for Better Land Husbandry, Intermediate Technology Pub-lications, in association with the World Association of Soil and WaterConservation, pp. 3–4.

Hudson N. and Cheatle R.J. (eds), 1993:Working with Farmers for BetterLand Husbandry, Intermediate Technology Publications, in associationwith the World Association of Soil and Water Conservation.

Hurni H., Cook M.G. and Samran Sombatpanit, 1996: Soil Conservationextension – a world perspective. In: Samran Sombatpanit, Zöbisch M.A.,Sanders D. and Cook M. (eds),Soil Conservation Extension – from Con-cepts to Adoption. The Soil and Water Conservation Society of Thailand,Bangkok, pp. 3–10.

Jung C., 1996: Wirtschaftliche Lage für die Milchbauern verschlechtert;Die Milchpreise in der Schweiz.Deutsche-Milchwirtschaft47(11): 509.

Jungerius P.D., 1986: Perception and use of the physical environment inpeasant societies, the 16th Wilkinson Memorial Lecture 1985, ReadingGeographical Papers, no. 93, Department of Geography, University ofReading, England, UK.

Kiwanuka R., 1993: Joint energy and environment projects (JEEP): woodenergy conservation by participatory activities. In: Hudson N. andCheatle R.J. (eds),Working with Farmers for Better Land Husbandry.Intermediate Technology Publications, in association with the WorldAssociation of Soil and Water Conservation, pp. 172–174.

Kosterman R. 1999:Peptalk?, Elsevier 23/9/1999, p. 78.Lovejoy S.B., Lee T.G. and Basley D.B., 1986: Integration of physical

and social analysis: the potential for micro targeting. In: Lovejoy S.B.and Napier T.T. (eds),Conserving Soil: Insight from Socio-EconomicResearch. Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, Iowa, USA,pp. 121–129.

Lutz E., Pagiola S. and Reiche C., 1994: The cost and benefits of soil con-servation: the farmer’s viewpoint.The World Bank Research Observer,Vol. 9(2), The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development /The World Bank, pp. 273–295.

Mohammed Y.A., 1993: Water harvesting in Darfur, Sudan. In: HudsonN. and Cheatle R.J. (eds),Working with Farmers for Better Land Hus-bandry. Intermediate Technology Publications, in association with theWorld Association of Soil and Water Conservation, pp. 169–172.

Netting R.Mc., 1981: Balancing on an Alp; Ecological change and continu-ity in a Swiss mountain community. University of Arizona, CambridgeUniversity Press, 278 pp.

Neuenschwander E., 1976: Massnahmen zugunsten der Bergbauern in derSchweiz.Agrarische-Rundschau7: 14–16.

Niederberger J., 1995: Die Nidwaldner Alpwirtschaft - bedeutendes Ele-ment bauerlicher Wirtschaft und Kultur.Schweizerische Zeitschrift furForstwesen146(7), 547–554.

Schwackhofer, Blank K. and Schwendinger E., 1982: InternationaleAlmwirtschaftstagung in Schoppernau (Bregenzerwald).Monats-berichte über die Österreichische Landwirtschaft, 29(11), 636–640.

Shaxson T.F., 1997: Soil erosion and land husbandry.Land Husbandry, theInternational Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2(1), 1–14.

Shaxson T.F., Tiffen M., Wood A. and Turton C., 1997: Better landhusbandry: Re-thinking approaches to land improvement and the con-servation of water and soil.Natural Resources Perspectives, 19, June1997.

Stocking M., 1988: Socioeconomics of soil conservation in developingcountries.Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, pp. 381–385.

Sutherland A.J., 1993: Integrating a socio-economic perspective into soiland water management in Zambia. In: Hudson N. and Cheatle R.J. (eds),Working with Farmers for Better Land Husbandry. Intermediate Tech-nology Publications, in association with the World Association of Soiland Water Conservation, pp. 64–68.

Tobisson E., 1993: Changing roles for rural sociologists. In: Hudson N. andCheatle R.J. (eds),Working with Farmers for Better Land Husbandry,Intermediate Technology Publications, in association with the WorldAssociation of Soil and Water Conservation, pp. 59–63.

Tukahirwa E.M. and Veit P., 1993: Community soil conservation in Kabale,Uganda. In: Hudson N. and Cheatle R.J. (eds),Working with Farmersfor Better Land Husbandry, Intermediate Technology Publications, inassociation with the World Association of Soil and Water, Conservation,pp. 162–165.