2.1. Project Sites

The project was conducted in Isabela province, which is considered the “corn capital of the Philippines” and has been the top corn-producing province in the country for the past 10 years (Philippine Statistics Authority [PSA], 2024). The three target municipalities were selected based on selection criteria set by a multi-stakeholder group represented by the Provincial LGU, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Provincial Environment and Natural Resource Office (DENR-PENRO), Isabela State University (ISU) Cabagan Campus and the Institute of Agroforestry (IAF). The criteria include: (a) representativeness to the corn farming area, (b) accessibility of the site, (c) peace and order condition in the area, (d) presence of upland farming communities with majority of smallholder farmers cultivating 2 hectares and below, (e) willingness of the LGU to actively participate in the entire project cycle, (f) presence of active farmer organisation and (g) inclusion of agroforestry development in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) of the LGU. The selected study sites were: Barangay DyAbra, Tumauini; Barangay Masipi East, Cabagan; and Barangay Limbauan, San Pablo.

After selecting the project areas, farmer leaders and other local stakeholders were included in the multi-stakeholder group in each project site. The formation of multi-stakeholder groups served to spearhead project implementation and facilitate activities at the project sites, including utilisation of resources, monitoring and evaluation, identification of problems and constraints in project implementation, and getting farmers’ feedback on the project. This also strengthened the stakeholders’ capacity in the participatory collaborative resilience-building project for the possible institutionalisation of the project in the area.

2.2. Data Collection

The data was gathered using mixed methods, including a household survey and focus group discussions. A household survey was conducted with a representative sample of farming households. The sampling intensity was determined using the Slovin’s formula n = N/(1+Ne²) at a 95% confidence level (Thomas, 2013). Representative corn farmers were selected using simple random sampling techniques. A household survey was administered to the selected respondents in each project site (Table 1). Focus group discussions were conducted at each site to augment the survey data gathered involving sectoral key informants.

2.3. Participatory Resiliency Assessment of the Upland Farming Communities

Resiliency assessment was conducted in the farming communities through a workshop involving local participants, using the LAC and Sustainable Livelihoods Framework as a theoretical foundation (UNDP, 2017). The framework utilises capital assets as indicators of livelihood resilience, which include human capital, social capital, natural capital, physical capital and financial capital. Human capital encompasses the abilities, experience, work skills and good health that, when combined, allow populations to engage with different livelihood strategies and reach their objectives. Social capital refers to the social resources individuals rely on to achieve certain objectives relating to their livelihoods, including networks and connections, and participation in formal groups. Natural capital is the stock of natural resources from which further resources and services can be developed, which may prove useful to livelihoods. In contrast, physical capital comprises the basic infrastructure and producer goods needed to support livelihoods. Financial capital refers to the financial resources that people use to achieve their livelihood objectives (Table 2).

The framework used a participatory scoring method where participants were asked to give scores to each indicator included based on their importance/relevance. The corresponding weights of each indicator and variable were calculated following the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), which allows users to assess the relative weights of multiple criteria or multiple options against given criteria intuitively (Saaty, 1990). The weights and scores are achieved by pairwise comparisons between all options with each other (Kazpercyzyk & Knickel, 2006). The weights of the indicators were measured vis-à-vis the household survey results to determine the current level of resilience of the three upland communities.

2.4. Policy Analysis

Policy analysis was conducted through a workshop involving the different stakeholders from the three project sites. This was done using Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis on the status of the agroforestry programme and policy of LGUs and government agencies in the Province of Isabela. Based on the results of the SWOT analysis, appropriate actions and recommendations were formulated to mainstream and strengthen the agroforestry agenda in Local Government Units’ resilience-building initiatives. Future programmes at the municipal and provincial levels and possible policies to be promulgated were identified.

2.5. Assessment of Land Capability for Agroforestry Development

Prior to the establishment of agroforestry farms, assessment of land capability for agroforestry development was conducted in each of the selected project sites, using the ALCAMS, a tool that aids in determining land suitability for agroforestry. ALCAMS is based on three factors: slope (S), vegetation (V), and soil fertility (F) of a given land. Measurements on these three factors are made based on the specifications. The land is then classified according to the criteria from Class I, which is highly capable for agroforestry, to Class IV, which is not for agroforestry use (Table 3).

3.1. Socioeconomic and Biophysical Characteristics of the Project Sites

Topography in the project sites is characterised as rolling in Tumauini and San Pablo, and flat to rolling in Cabagan (Table 4). The majority of the farms in the three project sites were rainfed, especially in the corn production areas. The average landholdings of the farmers ranged from 1.09 to 1.42 ha, with the largest average farm area in San Pablo, followed by Tumauini and Cabagan. The majority of the farmers in Tumauin and Cabagan were landowners, but most of the farmers in San Pablo were tenants.

Farming is the major source of household income in the three upland communities. This is supplemented by off-farm activities, particularly farm labour on other farms. Corn (Zea mayz) and rice (Oryza sativa) were the major crops grown in San Pablo. Aside from corn and rice, banana (Musa sp.) is also commonly grown in Tumauini and Cabagan. The farmers had been farming for an average of 20-25 years, with mostly 2-3 family members involved in farming.

Farmers in Barangay Limbauan, San Pablo and Barangay Masipi East, Cabagan have a lower farm income of less than Php10,000 than those in Barangay D-Abra, Tumauini. The low farm income of farmers in San Pablo can be attributed to the limited crops produced by the farmers, which are mainly corn and rice. On the other hand, the low farm income in Cabagan can be attributed to the smaller farm production area compared to the other two sites. The farmers emphasised that their farm income alone is not enough to meet their family’s basic needs, hence they often resorted to off-farm and non-farm activities such as farm labour, employment, working overseas, vending and working in construction projects.

Being rainfed, the three farming areas are more prone to drought, which they have experienced over the past years. Aside from typhoons and droughts, they recently experienced the Covid-19 pandemic, during which the farmers experienced an unsteady supply of agricultural inputs such as seeds and fertiliser. Most of their preferred corn varieties and fertiliser (Vikings 46-0-0) were unavailable in the market, and agricultural inputs’ prices increased 2-3 times during the pandemic. In Dy-Abra, farmers experienced an increase in farm labour and transportation costs. Mobility restrictions in Masipi East were a challenge for farmers to hire farm labour during that time. On the other hand, farmers in Limbauan with no other source of off-farm income lacked the capital to hire farm labour and merely relied on family labour.

Furthermore, during the pandemic, farmers experienced low buying prices for their corn produce, from Php17.00-Php19.00/kg prior to and after the pandemic to only Php10.00/kg. The farmers were pressed to sell their corn produce even at a low price to cover their capital and input costs, which are usually borrowed from private creditors and traders. Due to the high agricultural input prices, some farmers tilled only a fraction of their farms. In contrast, others utilised a limited amount of fertiliser, which resulted in a decrease in their farm production and income. Aside from the pandemic, farmers also experienced the impacts of climate change. Most of them were aware of climate change and often associated this with stronger typhoons, more drought, more extended periods of rain, and changing climatic patterns (wet and dry seasons), which led to unstable cropping conditions.

3.2. Resiliency Level of Upland Farming Communities

The resiliency analysis results indicated that the three upland farming communities generally have low levels of resiliency (0.1569 in Masipi East, Cabagan; 0.2114 in Limbauan, San Pablo; 0.2257 in Dy-Abra, Tumauini) (Table 5).

Among the five capital assets, social capital has the lowest score in Limbauan, San Pablo (0.0051) and Dy-Abra, Tumauini (0.0185). According to Debertin and Goetz (2013), participation in civic groups is an important indicator of social capital. In Limbauan, San Pablo, the low level of resiliency was attributed to low membership in formal groups such as farmer organisations. This significantly hinders farmers’ access to crucial services such as credit. There was also a sparse and often unsubstantiated partnership between the farmers and the community with external organisations and a meagre institutional support in San Pablo and Tumauini, respectively. Hence, minimal assistance was extended to the farmers to include technical and capacity building assistance, particularly agriculture-related training, including agroforestry.

Physical capital assessment results revealed that Masipi East, Cabagan had the lowest score (0.0206) compared to the two other sites, which could be due to the lack of irrigation facilities limiting the productive capacity of their land. On the other hand, farmers experience post-harvest losses due to inadequate drying facilities and the unavailability of storage facilities. The result of the study by Nasrnia and Ashktorab (2021) showed a higher score of physical capital, which is associated with the degree of farmers’ access to roads and facilities of the community.

Human capital assessment results show that the lowest human capital score is still in Masipi East, Cabagan (0.0260). This can be explained by the least number of average household size and fewer household members involved in farming at this site. Han et al. (2023) highlighted that family size is positively associated with farmers’ livelihood resilience. The limited access to health services also contributed to their low resiliency level. Good health and the capacity to provide labour will enable farmers to pursue strategies and achieve positive livelihood outcomes.

In terms of natural capital, the lowest score is in Limbauan, San Pablo (0.1059), followed by Dy-Abra, Tumauini (0.2817). This can be attributed to less farm diversification, with mainly corn grown in the farms and less perennial crops in the majority of farms. According to Houben et al. (2022), a more diverse cropping system in terms of time (crop rotation with a range of crops that help maintain soil quality) and space (intercropping, agroforestry, landscape elements) promotes a more resilient system resulting from improved soil health, slower pest outbreaks, and the distribution of risks over larger areas and wider range of crops. Moreover, the low level of soil fertility in the farms and limited access to water sources directly affected crop production, thereby reducing crop yield and farm productivity. These factors contributed to the low level of resiliency of these sites.

For financial capital, Dy-Abra, Tumauini had a higher score (0.5333) than Masipi East, Cabagan (0.2751) and Limbauan, San Pablo (0.2568). Among the three sites, Dy-Abra, Tumauini had more varied sources of household income, as some household members are employed. Moreover, this site has higher income from farming, which could be attributed to more crops than Limbauan, San Pablo and a larger farm size than Masipi East, Cabagan. The low scores of financial capital in Masipi East and Limbauan can be attributed to limited access to the market for their farm produce and credit. Farmers have limited bargaining power as they are obliged to sell their produce to the traders, who provide them with capital or agricultural inputs, wherein the traders dictate prices. In addition, farmers’ access to credit is mainly from traders or private individuals with at least 5–10% monthly interest. These factors contributed to the low resiliency of these communities. The low value of financial capital (0.0218) in the study of He and Ahmed (2022) is comparable to the low scores of financial capital in Masipi East and Limbauan, which they also attribute to limited access to credit opportunities.

The findings suggest that building the resilience of the three upland farming communities requires a balanced and holistic approach that takes into account the present state of five resilience indicators.

3.3. Appropriate Agroforestry Design and Establishment

Three (3) farms were selected by the multi-stakeholders to establish an appropriate agroforestry model farm based on the criteria set by the multi-stakeholders in the project sites. ALCAMS was conducted in these areas to assess the capability of the land for agroforestry development, based on slope (S), vegetation (L) and soil fertility (F) in the selected areas, and classified based on agroforestry land capability. Results showed that the three project sites belong to class II or marginally capable for agroforestry (Table 6) with the combination of S₁/S₂/S₃ (0–50% slope) + L₃ (open, cultivated land use) + F₃ (low soil fertility). Based on the ALCAMS findings and the farmer-cooperators’ preferences, an acceptable and appropriate agroforestry model design was developed and established in a participatory manner for each project site. For a more acceptable system, corn-based agroforestry model farms were designed and established in the three sites. The monocropping farms were diversified and integrated with perennial components such as hybrid coconut (Cocos nucifera) and calamansi (Citrus x macrocarpa). In sloping areas within the farm, hedgerows were established using madre de cacao (Gliricidia sepium) as a soil and water conservation measure.

3.4. Policy Analysis and Implications

Using SWOT analysis, the multi-stakeholders analysed the current status of the agroforestry programme and related policies of Local Government Units and government agencies.

One of the challenges raised during the policy analysis workshop was the unclear inclusion of agroforestry development in the agenda of LGUs. Although in the CLUP of the three municipalities, certain areas are designated for agroforestry (Table 7), they lacked the technical, manpower and financial capacity to implement the agroforestry programmes. It was unclear which office within the Municipal LGUs should carry out the agroforestry agenda. Thus, it is recommended to institute local policies through resolution or ordinance: (a) allocate funds from the LGU for the implementation of agroforestry projects/programmes together with the DENR and other organisations in upland farming communities; (b) designate an office with technical staff within the Municipal LGU that will spearhead the implementation of the agroforestry programme/agenda; (c) harmonise agroforestry programmes/projects within various levels of LGUs from provincial down to barangay level; (d) train core farmers and LGU technicians who will proactively take the lead in promoting agroforestry systems in their respective areas; and (e) integrate ALCAMS as a tool in the appropriate design and development of agroforestry farms in upland farming communities, especially in areas designated for agroforestry development in the respective LGU’s CLUPs.