Vol. 10(1), pp. 1-11, January 2019
DOI: 10.5897/JSSEM2018.0714
Articles Number: 5C2428E59775
ISSN: 2141-2391
Copyright ©2019
Author(s) retain the copyright of this article
http://www.academicjournals.org/JSSEM
Journal of Soil Science and Environmental
Management
Full Length Research Paper
Adoption of soil conservation practices through
knowledge governance: the Mexican experience
Helena Cotler* and Maria Luisa Cuevas
Centro de Investigación en Ciencias de Información Geoespacial Mexico.
Received 28 September, 2018; Accepted 12 November, 2018
Top-down and centralized soil conservation programs have caused low adoption of sustainable
practices. The adoption is a multistage and adaptive process that relies on the management of local
knowledge. The results of 61 surveys were analyzed in order to systematize experiences of soil
knowledge governance involving social organizations and farmers. Soil knowledge governance was
done mainly through the sharing of experiences among farmers. This path resulted both in the
strengthening of existing institutions and in the creation of new associative forms and rules. The
incentives for farmers to maintain soil conservation practices went beyond the financial ones and
reflected the diversity of their views and expectations: eating healthy food, diversifying agricultural
production, and improving their social position in the community. The increased adoption of soil
conservation practices that resulted from this approach led to the rethink the kind of public policies
that would better help soil conservation in Mexico.
Key words: Public policy, soil conservation, soil knowledge governance, sustainable land management.
INTRODUCTION
Soils provide a wide range of ecosystem goods and
services, particularly in terms of runoff control, waterholding capacity, ecosystem productivity, carbon
sequestration (Amundson et al., 2015), food production
(White et al., 2012) and biodiversity preservation (Ibañez
et al., 2012); they also play a key role in at least seven of
the proposed planetary boundaries (Bouma, 2014).
Soil erosion is a challenging issue not only because it
causes yield loss (Montgomery, 2007) and has
environmental impacts, but because it is also closely
linked to rural poverty (Ruben and Pender, 2004). To
address and mitigate this problem, programs have been
developed with the help of governmental and non-
governmental international funding. These efforts have
been made under different premises and different names
such as, soil conservation, conservation agriculture,
climate-smart
agriculture,
and
sustainable
land
management, which all express the same concern:
implement low-impact agriculture that maintain soil
quality.
At first, these programs were characterized by
information transfer mechanisms limited to the unilateral
transmission of specific technologies to farmers, without
incorporating
their
demands,
experiences
and
expectations (Manuel-Navarrete and Gallopin, 2012), and
without considering site-specific biophysical conditions,
*Corresponding author. Email: Helena.cotler@gmail.com.
Author(s) agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 International License
2
J. Soil Sci. Environ. Manage.
the type of agriculture (irrigated or rain-fed) or livestock
production (intensive or extensive), or land extension
(Damián and Toledo, 2016). These early programs, thus,
tended to have a simplistic view of rural issues. Such topdown, unilateral mechanisms seem to explain why the
conservation initiatives undertaken have faced low rates
of adoption of practices by farmers (Helin and Haigh,
2002; Andersson and Ken, 2012; Arslan et al., 2014;
Nkala et al., 2011; Ward et al., 2018).
Incorporating the knowledge built over decades to
centuries into conservation initiatives requires knowledge
governance, understood as ―a fluid and historical
processes of co-evolution between agents, organizations
and institutional arrangements, and the knowledge they
help to create and reproduce‖ (Manuel-Navarrete and
Gallopin, 2012). The patterns of knowledge governance
affect the mainstreaming of sustainability practices and
integrate knowledge about their multiple dimensions
(such as social, cultural, ecological; van Kerkhoff and
Lebel, 2006). Due to the wide variety of ecosystem
services performed by soils, no single level of
governance can provide incentives for users to safeguard
their long-term delivery (Orchard and Stringer, 2016).
There is also growing acknowledgement that centralized,
top-down mechanisms are inadequate for tackling land
degradation as well as ensuring the sustainable use of
natural resources more widely (Nagendra and Ostrom,
2012). Experience has shown that there is no ―best
practice‖ or innovative policy approach that can be
applied to any type of region (Tödling and Tippl, 2005),
and that no conservation practice is a panacea that can
be adopted everywhere (Hudson, 1987).
General experience from the field and literature
indicates that successful, scaled up and durable adoption
of new technology requires consideration of both agroecological and socioeconomic factors affecting the
incentives and constraints to adopt (de Graaff et al.,
2008; Soule et al., 2000; Jara-Rojas et al., 2013; Arslan
et al., 2014). It is however important to differentiate
between the adoption of a new technology, generally
done to increase economic profitability, and the adoption
of a conservation strategy, which implies transforming the
agroecosystem (de Graaff et al., 2008; Jara-Rojas et al.,
2013).
In Mexico, soil erosion affects 60% of the land and
48.6% of the agricultural production units; while loss of
soil fertility was mentioned as the main obstacle to the
development of farming activities (INEGI, 2012). Soil
erosion has costly consequences, with an estimated 38.3
to 54.5 dollars per hectare lost in yield and nutrients that
have to be replaced by fertilizers (Cotler et al., 2011). The
problem of soil erosion in Mexico has been addressed
through the creation of public programs promoting
technology packages that have not been discussed or
agreed with farmers, nor adapted to the large social,
environmental and cultural differences of a megadiverse
country (Cotler et al., 2013; Turrent et al., 2014; Cotler et
al., 2016; Damián and Toledo, 2016).
One of the main challenges to agriculture and livestock
production is to create systems that are at the same time
productive, resilient and adaptive to climate variability,
and water and energy efficient, and this without
damaging or polluting the environment (Arnés et al.,
2013). In this respect, it is important to recognize that
resilient soils are the foundation of resilient
agroecosystems (Blanco-Canqui and Francis, 2016).
Farmers working in different contexts have developed
innovative strategies to improve soil quality and deal with
climate variability (Altieri et al., 2015) to help develop
adaptive climate-change response strategies (Astier et
al., 2012). Such a ―knowledge dialog‖ between
generations and within communities has a long tradition
throughout Mexico (Moreno-Calles et al., 2013; Toledo,
1990).
Theoretical approach
Concerns about soil dates back several centuries
(Rasmussen, 1982) and grew with declining yields,
erosion and most of all, drought and deforestation
(Showers, 2006). Since the middle of the 20th century,
soil conservation programs have followed the guidelines
of international organizations, which, under certain
ideological assumptions, have understood the soil
erosion problem and outlined the steps required to
address it (FAO, 1977; Biot et al., 1995; Simonian, 1999;
World Bank, 2006; Showers, 2006).
Current governmental approaches promoted and
implemented in different countries were classified by Biot
et al. (1995) into three major categories based on the
paradigms they pose about the causes of land
degradation, the role of institutions, the market, the role
of science and the peasant behavior, among others
characteristics. These three-contested views about
degradation are neither strictly sequential in their
historical development, nor mutually exclusive (Table 1).
However, since the globalization and industrialization of
agriculture, pauperization of small farmers, and the loss
of agrobiodiversity, several researchers and social
movements have proposed new paradigms that take up
the knowledge of peasants from many latitudes. These
are based on the principles of food sovereignty,
agrodiversity, resilience and defense of the territory
(Altieri and Nicholls, 2008, Altieri and Toledo, 2011;
Gliesmman, 2013; Holt-Gimenez, 2001; Via Campesina,
2013; Turrent et al., 2017; Astier et al., 2012; Astier et al.,
2015). These proposals that collect local knowledge are
opposed to the classic and neoliberal visions, adopted by
the government agencies, in terms of values, where the
concepts of efficiency, performance and homogeneity are
not shared and in terms of participation, knowledge and
the responsibility of small farmers.
In this context, this study sought to systematize
Cotler and Cuevas
3
Table 1. Some characteristics of different peasant behavior paradigms.
Institutional
prescription
Classic
Populist
Neoliberal
Agroecology
Top-down centralized
decision making.
Bottom-up
participation
―Market‖ policies,
property rights,
resource pricing
Bottom-up recognizing
local traditions, rights
and knowledge
Peasant behavior
Immediate cause of erosion problems
Ignorant, irrational, traditional. Lack of
participation by land-users in designing and
implementing conservation technologies
Virtuous, rational, community-minded. It is
required site-specific participatory study.
Mis-management by users. Inadequacies of
state bureaucracies charged with soil
conservation strategies.
Mis-management by state, capitalists, big
business
Poor government policies and bureaucratic
rules & regulations. Direct relationships
between poverty and land degradation.
Alliances between transnational industries,
food corporations and governments that
cause the dispossession of territories to
peasants and indigenous peoples
Rational egocentric
Peasants as central social actors in the
processes of resistance to the neoliberal
trade agenda and in the construction of
alternatives based on their knowledge
Modified from: Biot et al. (1995).
experiences of soil knowledge governance involving
social organizations and farmers or ranchers, with the
aim of incorporating soil conservation practices and
promoting sustainable land management. Emphasis was
placed on: (i) mechanisms for building knowledge
governance; (ii) the implementation of sustainable land
management according to local socio-environmental
conditions; (iii) institutions promoting and adopting soil
conservation practices; and (iv) mechanisms for learning
and monitoring soil conservation practices. The results of
this study should lead us to rethink the kind of public
policies that would better help soil conservation in
Mexico.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study was conducted in two phases. The first one consisted in
a compilation of case studies from social organizations working on
farming issues at the national level, which were analyzed in light of
the following criteria:
++
(i) A working method based on both ongoing dialog between NGOs
and farmers and knowledge governance over 3 to 5 years;
(ii) The incorporation of soil conservation practices and
implementation of sustainable land management.
In the second phase, for the case studies that met these criteria, a
survey was conducted, which included both open- and closedended questions. The survey was conducted by various means: (i)
through a website; (ii) by email; and (iii) on site, for farmers without
internet access. The elaboration of the questionnaire followed
several steps. First, the questions were elaborated according to the
objectives of the research. As the questionnaire was directed
towards two different groups: agricultural systems and silvopastoral
systems, the specific questions on the systems were differentiated,
for which a bibliographic review was made on these systems in
diverse socio-environmental conditions of the country. Once the
questionnaire was prepared, a group of experts on the subject
reviewed it. They improved and validated the questions in terms of
clarity and relevance.
Subsequently, the questionnaire was applied to a small but
diverse group of 10 farmers, located in different ecological regions.
The results obtained from these samples allowed refining of the
questions. The questionnaire was accompanied by a text explaining
the purpose of the study. Once we have all the questionnaires, they
were classified according to the different type of systems, and the
answers in each group were compared and analyzed.
The following four main topics were addressed:
(i) Selection of soil conservation practices as the result of a
knowledge governance process involving social organizations and
farmers;
(ii) The local context (social, institutional and ecological)
surrounding the implementation of soil conservation practices;
(iii) New institutions promoting and adopting soil conservation
practices; and
(iv) Mechanisms for learning and monitoring soil conservation
practices.
The survey allowed information to be collected from both
landowners and NGO technicians.
RESULTS
Sixty-one survey responses were obtained from farmers
(32), ranchers (12) and technicians (17) working for
social organizations. The completed surveys covered 20
out of the 32 Mexican states. Of the 61 case studies, 36
related to agriculture and 25, to livestock production.
Slightly more than 30% of the survey responses were
from regions with a temperate climate; 27%, from regions
with a humid tropical climate; 23%, from regions with a
semi-arid climate; 16%, from regions with a dry tropical
climate; and 3%, from regions with an arid climate (Figure
1). The agricultural systems were mostly based on maize,
which forms the basis of the Mexican diet and has deep
cultural roots.
The average age of the farmers and ranchers who
implemented soil conservation practices and transformed
their systems was 48 years, which is below the Mexican
countryside’s average (55 years; INEGI, 2007).
4
J. Soil Sci. Environ. Manage.
Figure 1. Sites covered by the survey of soil conservation practices and associated production
systems and climates in Mexico.
Building of soil knowledge governance
The respondents to the survey reported the presence of
30 social organizations (NGOs), 12 community-led
organizations: ejido (collective forms of ownership)
committees,
watershed
committees,
producer
associations, 4 federal government organizations and 4
public academic institutions. These organizations had
been working at the different sites for over 5 years,
building relationships of trust, dialoguing with the farmers
and encouraging them to think about their quality of life
and expectations, thus triggering the building of new
production systems. Different means were used to raise
awareness of soil degradation problems by facilitating
discussion and the sharing and appropriation of
experiences. The main means used to build knowledge
were those that allowed greater proximity between
stakeholders (farmers, NGOs and researchers), such as
workshops and the sharing of experiences among
farmers or ―knowledge dialog‖.
The main reasons why farmers decided to incorporate
soil conservation practices and make substantial changes
to how they manage their farm were (in decreasing order
of importance): (i) preventing further soil erosion and
increasing yield; (ii) increasing soil organic matter
content, infiltration and plant diversity; and (iii) creating
local jobs. Forty-five percent of the soil conservation
practices were designed specifically for each site’s
environmental and
social conditions by social
organizations and farmers. The farmers already knew
24% of these practices; 17% were promoted through
subsidies from a government program; and the remaining
14% unknown by the farmers at first, were introduced by
the social organizations following a socialization and
acceptance process.
The reported soil conservation practices were
implemented on agricultural parcels or livestock parcels
(Figure 2).
According to the survey responses, the practices most
commonly used on the agricultural parcels were
agronomic and vegetative practices, combined with
mechanical ones. The agronomic practices most
commonly used on these systems were crop rotation, the
addition of organic matter to the soil, and intercropping
(Figure 2). Of the mechanical practices, terracing was the
most common. For 19% of the agricultural systems, a
single agronomic practice was used; for 68% of them,
two or more of these practices were used; and for the
remaining 13%, no agronomic practice was used.
On the livestock parcels, the most commonly used
practices were living fences, the reduction of animal load,
pasture rotation and the planting of trees and shrubs. As
with agricultural systems, most (over 75%) of the
respondents implemented two or more vegetative
practices. The mechanical practices were not
implemented as often as the vegetative ones: 39% of the
respondents reported that they did not use them. The
new soil conservation practices were incorporated
Cotler and Cuevas
5
Gabions
Pasture rotation
Animal load control
Others (e.g. ditches)
Minimum tillage
Fertilization
Terraces
Conservation tillage
Contour ditches
Organic matter
Trees and shrubs
0
10
20
Agricultural systems
30
40
50
60
Livestock systems
Figure 2. Results of soil conservation practices implemented on agricultural and livestock systems from
survey.
gradually and led to radical changes in the whole
production systems. Thus, the dialog and consensus built
from knowledge governance allowed not only isolated
practices to be incorporated, but also conventional
systems to be converted into sustainably managed ones.
Sustainable land management in a local context
Most agricultural systems were located on ejido land
(50%) or in communities (28%), and 48% were smallscale, consisting of 1 to 3 ha. They used mainly family
labor (52%) or a combination of family and hired labor
(33%). In most cases (57%), the production was for selfconsumption with the sale of surplus; 19% of the
production was only for self-consumption; and 24% was
to be sold in local markets. Some of the reported
agricultural systems covered more than 20 ha, used
exclusively hired labor and had their production sold in
both regional and international markets.
The livestock systems were located on ejido land (77%)
or private land (23%) and varied widely in size, from less
than 5 ha to over 100 ha. The smallest parcels used
mainly family labor, and their production was for selfconsumption only (48%) or self-consumption with the
sale of surplus. The parcels over 50 ha large, however,
tended to use a combination of family and hired labor,
with the products destined for both regional (48%) and
international markets (52%). In most cases (70%), the
soil conservation practices were applied on degraded
soils to restore soil properties and functions; they were
thus used as a corrective measure rather than to prevent
soil erosion.
Initially, the agricultural systems consisted of rain-fed
monocultures (of maize or another cereal) that used
agrochemicals and produced low yields, while the
livestock systems consisted of extensive productions on
moderate to steep slopes, with grazing lands obtained by
slash-and-burn. The incorporated soil conservation
practices mainly sought to transform the agricultural
systems into sustainable managed lands by diversifying
crops and adding organic matter to the soil. In many
sites, these practices led to the recovery of milpa, the
traditional polyculture of maize, squash, beans, chili
peppers and other edible species.
The original production systems were thus transformed
into sustainably managed lands, as shown in Table 1.
The agricultural systems were diversified into milpa
interspersed with fruit trees, maize interspersed with fruit
trees, maize grown on terraces with fruit trees, avocado
agroforestry systems and conservation tillage systems
(maize and soy). As for the livestock systems, they were
modified into silvopastoral systems (with species
compatible with the climate, humid tropical or dry tropical)
or holistic livestock systems.Although the proposed
production systems are, in principle, sustainable, the
environmental and social conditions of the sites where
they were implemented were not always appropriate. A
clear example of this is conservation tillage. In the case
of small ejido lands, it was promoted by government
organizations; while in that of large private lands, it was
initiated by the owners themselves with the help of
producer associations. In the first case, the system was
not fully adopted because when it was implemented, the
6
J. Soil Sci. Environ. Manage.
Table 2. Environmental, social and institutional characteristics of the agricultural and livestock systems converted into sustainable managed lands through soil conservation practices from
surveys.
Type of sustainable
managed land
Climate
Size of
property
Type of labor
Milpa interspersed with
fruit trees
Temperate and
humid tropical
Small
Family
Temperate
Small
Family
Temperate and
semi-arid
Small
Family
Temperate
Small
Family and hired
Temperate
Large
Hired
Conservation tillage
system (maize) without
irrigation
Temperate to
semi-arid
Small
Family
Silvopastoral system
Humid tropical
Medium
Family and hired
Silvopastoral system
Dry tropical
Medium
Family and hired
Holistic livestock
system
Semi-arid to arid
Large
Hired
Maize interspersed with
fruit trees
Maize grown on
terraces with fruit trees
Avocado agroforestry
system
Conservation tillage
system (maize and soy)
with irrigation
Support needs
High demand for training (to
design furrows and manage fruit
trees)
Demand for training (to manage
fruit trees)
Demand for training (to manage
fruit trees)
Producers learned by
themselves through observation
Long learning process through
courses, workshops and the
support of other producers
Support needed to improve the
agricultural system (leaving the
stubble on the ground) and
modify the livestock system
accordingly
Demand for support to design
the new system and manage
livestock
Demand for support to design
the new system and manage
livestock
High demand for support: radical
change in the paradigm of
livestock production
Destination of production
Land Tenure
Self-consumption and sale
of surplus
Ejido
Self-consumption and sale
of surplus
Self-consumption and sale
of surplus
Self-consumption and sale
of surplus
Ejido and community
Ejido
Private
Sale in international
markets
Private
Self-consumption and sale
of surplus
Ejido
Self-consumption and sale
of surplus in regional
markets
Self-consumption and sale
of surplus in regional
markets
Sale in regional and
international markets
Ejido and private
Ejido and private
Private
*Small: less than 5 ha; medium: 5-20 ha; large: over 20 ha.
government organizations did not consider the
fact that local production systems integrated both
agricultural and livestock activities. Stubble being
an essential input for feeding the animals, it could
not be left on the ground. In the second case, the
farmers had no livestock and simply stopped
selling the stubble to livestock producers to
incorporate it into the soil (Table 2).
New (and old) institutions to promote and
implement soil conservation practices
In over 90% of the cases, social organization
played an important role in reducing costs,
sharing knowledge, expanding networks and
contacts, and communicating risks. In the case of
ejido lands, where many decisions—regarding
government programs, the maintenance of water
infrastructure and roads, common areas—are
made by the ejido assembly, joint reflection by
Cotler and Cuevas
7
None
Local committees
Cooperatives
Groups of neighbors
Ejidos
Producer associations
0%
20%
Agricultural system
40%
60%
80%
100%
Livestock system
Figure 3. Best social organizations to successfully implement soil conservation practices
in agricultural and livestock systems according to the survey.
farmers and NGOs allowed to make commitments to
strengthen the tequio (community tasks), improve
accountability for the resources obtained, and control the
animal load in common areas, among other
achievements. Thus, the dialog about soil conservation
practices resulted in the strengthening of local
institutions.
Regarding the agricultural systems, respondents
mentioned that the creation of groups of neighbors,
producer associations and local committees proved to be
useful, as they allowed inputs like compost, bocashi
(compost activator) and organic pesticides (bioles,
caldos) to be produced jointly. For the livestock systems,
cooperatives helped reduce both the costs of buying
livestock inputs and selling prices, thanks to their many
members (Figure 3). A small percentage of respondents
mentioned that they did not need any social organization.
In all these cases, the lands were for private use, with all
management decisions made by the owners themselves.
In most cases, a single organization was considered
insufficient to accompany the process, as it rarely had all
the knowledge required to both design and assess soil
conservation practices, or lacked the financial and
technological resources to do so. The results show that
the presence of different organizations (such as, local,
academic, governmental, social, etc) working in
conjunction led to a polycentric governance that
strengthened the process of adopting these practices.
Mechanisms for learning
conservation practices
and
monitoring
soil
Soil conservation practices require extra work. For
landowners to take ownership of them, it is thus important
that they see tangible results of their implementation.
According to the survey, the results of these practices
were evaluated by: (i) measuring yield for livestock
systems and carrying capacity (evaluating product quality
was also mentioned); (ii) participatory monitoring based
on local knowledge, to identify sedimentary changes in
water bodies; and (iii) technical monitoring (such as,
monitoring of the survival of fruit trees, maintenance of
mechanical works, monitoring of the proper functioning of
furrows).
Three to five years after the implementation of soil
conservation practices, more than half of the respondents
identified positive changes in their parcels, the main ones
being, in decreasing order of importance: (i) reduced soil
erosion; (ii) increased yield; (iii) increased soil organic
matter, and thus increased infiltration and soil moisture
retention; (iv) increased plant diversity; and (v) the
creation of local jobs.
The incentives for farmers to maintain soil conservation
practices were very diverse. Among the main ones, the
following were mentioned: (i) eating healthy food (grown
without agrochemicals), particularly in the case of
agriculture for self-consumption; (ii) diversifying crops, in
order to have products to sell all year round; (iii) reducing
soil erosion, which threatened the integrity of their
property; and (iv) improving their social position in the
community by being seen as innovative people, with the
possibility of teaching and seeing their family united
around a new project (thus reducing the migration of
young people).
Most of the time, soil conservation activities are not
incorporated into traditional production systems and, as
such, may represent extra work. The respondents to the
8
J. Soil Sci. Environ. Manage.
survey identified different barriers to carrying them out.
Among the main ones, they mentioned the lack of money,
the lack of acceptance by the other community members,
the lack of technical support, and the lack of social
organization. These barriers were overcame mainly by
organizing themselves with residents of the same
community and its surroundings, looking for training
opportunities and, in many cases (51%), requesting
financial support from the government. The respondents
however mentioned that without this funding, they could
continue to carry out soil conservation practices, if the
landowner actively participates in them and they receive
support from civil society organizations.
The lack of acceptance of better practices by other
members of the community was reported to be one of the
main barriers to propose and implement them. However,
55% of the respondents mentioned that they have
replicated the practices on other parcels, resulting in
higher yields and noticeable improvements in soil
condition and agricultural biodiversity.
DISCUSSION
Historically, Mexico’s soil conservation programs have
followed the guidelines of international organizations,
which, under certain ideological assumptions, have
understood the soil erosion problem and outlined the
steps required to address it (FAO, 1977; Biot et al., 1995;
Simonian, 1999; World Bank, 2006; Showers, 2006). The
main weakness of these programs has lied in not
considering knowledge governance involving different
stakeholders as a critical success factor (Simonian, 1999;
World Bank, 2006).
Policy and attitudes regarding soil conservation
practices have changed markedly over the course of the
past half century (Carlisle, 2016). During this time,
various studies have shown that the success of a soil
conservation program depends on the adoption of
practices, and that this process relies on the
management of local knowledge, which better represents
the local conditions (Angeon et al., 2014).
The adoption of soil conservation practices is a
complex process (de Graaf et al., 2008; Eakin and
Wehber, 2009; Manuel-Navarrete and Gallopin, 2012;
Angeon et al., 2014). Here, various factors come into
play: personal and family factors (such as, attitudes,
knowledge, family situation, migration), social factors
(such as, technical support, land tenure, migration),
physical factors (such as, slope, erosivity and climate
variability, soil erodibility), institutional factors and
collective action (such as, rules, standards, community
work), as well as economic factors (such as, income,
debt, outside job).
The diversity of these factors makes it clear that the
adoption of such practices is not a linear process.
Several studies have also highlighted the importance of
understanding the adoption of soil conservation practices
as a multistage, adaptive process rather than
instantaneous, single-step decision-making (Coughenour,
2003; Carlisle, 2015). Any change in the farmer’s
situation (like the need to migrate in order to supplement
income, or a debt incurred due to health care costs) can
set back the implementation of these practices, even if
the farmer is convinced of their value. Another factor that
can undermine the adoption of soil conservation practices
is the inconstancy of regional and national policies
regarding priority issues-which tend to change with every
change of government—, or a change in NGO priorities
and funding. This instability can affect the payment of
recurring costs for the purchase of machinery, fixing
water infrastructure or training, among others. This
illustrates both the strength and the weakness of
polycentric governance systems (Orchard and Stringer,
2016) where, on the one hand, the responsibilities and
capabilities are distributed among several stakeholders,
but on the other, vulnerabilities increase accordingly.
This study shows that an important step towards
adopting soil conservation practices was having them
designed by several social organizations and farmers
through soil knowledge governance, considering the
environmental, social, institutional and economic
conditions specific to each site. As a result, most of the
chosen practices were agronomic and vegetative
measures that promote ecological diversity, reduce soil
erosion, and add organic matter to the soil, hence
improving soil quality (Lal, 2014). Such a preference for
this type of practice has been reported for other areas
with different environmental and social conditions
(Carlisle, 2016). Thus, there seems to be a departure
from the current paradigm of government programs for
soil conservation, which are often managed by a
centralized administration in a top-down manner, without
considering environmental and social differences. This
may be why mechanical practices like check dams,
ditches and stonewalls have dominated so far (Biot et al.,
1995; Lapar and Pandey, 1999; Cotler et al., 2013,
2016).
In a context of public policy program, these mechanical,
structural measures may have been preferred as
―attention grabbers because they are spectacular and
conspicuous… however, they are hardly ever adequate
on their own‖ (Liniger and Critchley, 2007). The literature
on soil conservation has tended to emphasize the
importance of financial incentives in adopting practices
(Lapar and Pandey, 1999; De Graaff et al. 2008).
Although such incentives are, indeed, important in a poor
rural context, they do not meet the diversity of views,
concerns and values of this population. This study shows
that in the case of agriculture for self-consumption,
important incentives also include improving the
environment, ecological diversification, playing a leading
role in the community, and improving the quality of their
food. This contrasts with large regional and international
Cotler and Cuevas
producers, for which ―money is the best incentive‖. This
agrees with various studies that found that ―immediate
financial benefits were less important to farmers than
long-term soil health‖ and food security (Carlisle, 2016,
Damián and Toledo, 2016). Sheeder and Lynne (2011)
also concluded, ―policy instruments that facilitate
expression of (the) shared ethic may be more likely to
increase conservation technology adoption rates than
policies that stress only financial incentives‖. Other
experiences on soil conservation behavior (Lockeretz,
1990; Sheeder and Lynne, 2011) have emphasized the
multiple motivations that are at play at the time of
adopting soil conservation practices.
In Mexico, as in other Latin American countries,
decades of intense rural–urban migration have caused
the abandonment of agricultural activities, the breakdown
of local knowledge, and a weakening of social
organization (Anta and Carabias, 2008). Incorporating
young people into a process of soil knowledge
governance may thus provide them with a means of
valorizing their biological and cultural heritage (Maffi,
2001).
In the production systems analyzed, soil knowledge
governance focused mainly on the joint implementation of
practices and alternative land management, based on the
farmers’ knowledge and expectations. The methods for
assessing the practices and the system as a whole,
however, are to be strengthened. The monitoring of
works and evaluation of acceptability would transform soil
conservation into a learning process that would gradually
increase the confidence of the farmers in its efficiency.
Indeed, experience has shown that monitoring and
evaluation lead to important changes and modifications in
the approaches and technologies used (Liniger and
Critchley, 2007). Participatory research could open new
channels of communication to develop methods for the
participatory monitoring of soils using local indicators and
tools. Soil conservation should no longer be seen as an
isolated problem, separate from the other environmental
issues faced by rural areas. Since rural areas are
characterized by different biophysical and social
conditions, the goal should not be to build soil
conservation programs of a top-down nature, but
programs that are flexible, adaptable to local conditions,
and built jointly with the farmers through knowledge
governance.
Conclusions
Up to now, Mexican government programs for soil
conservation have been based on international guidelines
and implemented in a top-down manner. Specific
technologies have been unilaterally transferred to farmers
without incorporating their demands, experiences and
expectations, and without adapting the practices to the
different environmental, social and institutional conditions
9
(Manuel-Navarrete and Gallopin, 2012). This has led to a
very low adoption rate of soil conservation practices.
In recent years, a consensus has emerged that the
identification and implementation of soil conservation
practices jointly with farmers is key to redesigning new
agroecosystems that are both resilient and sustainable
(Astier et al., 2012; Stringer et al., 2014; Altieri et al.,
2015). In the cases analyzed here, the polycentric
governance of soil knowledge allowed agroecological
alternatives to be developed jointly with NGOs, academic
and government organizations, and farmers. The
incentives for farmers to continue to invest time,
resources and effort in these agroecosystems reflected
the communities’ diversity of views, concerns and values.
Small farmers were sensitive to incentives such as eating
healthy food (grown without agrochemicals), diversifying
their income, reducing soil erosion and improving their
social position in the community by being seen as
innovative people, with the possibility of teaching and
seeing their family united around a new project. Thus,
unlike the approach set forth in government policies for
soil conservation, the incentives were not limited to
financial ones.
Despite several years of working together in a
framework of soil knowledge governance, the
agroecosystems analyzed remain fragile and vulnerable,
notably to changes in the political and economic priorities
of the government and NGOs. For this reason,
polycentric governance systems should be based on
public policies that are flexible, bottom-up and adaptable
to different environmental, social and institutional
conditions and that incorporate local knowledge. What is
required for the upcoming soil conservation programs is
both vertical scale-up (institutionalization) and horizontal
scale-up (expansion of the practices), with multi-level
decision-making and a long-term, flexible funding that will
allow a learning process to take place.
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
The authors have not declared any conflict of interests.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors appreciates the Fundación Gonzalo Río
Arronte I.A.P. for funding the research through Espacios
Naturales y Desarrollo Sustentable A.C. (ENDESU). The
authors are grateful to Edge Software Services S.A. de
C.V., in particular Daniel Romero for his support in the
design, programming and follow-up of the online survey.
They also acknowledge Isabelle Gamache, Ph.D. for her
recommendations to improve the English translation.
This project received funding from the Fundación
Gonzalo Río Arronte I.A.P. through Espacios Naturales y
Desarrollo Sustentable A.C. (ENDESU). The authors
10
J. Soil Sci. Environ. Manage.
thank Edge Software Services S.A. de C.V., in particular
Daniel Romero for his support in the design, programming
and follow-up of the online survey. They also thank
Isabelle Gamache, Ph.D. for her recommendations to
improve the english translation.
REFERENCES
Altieri M, Nicholls C (2008). Scaling up agroecological approaches for
food sovereignty in Latin America Development 51:472-80.
Altieri M, Toledo MV (2011). The agroecological revolution in Latin
America: Rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty, and
empowering peasants‖ Journal of Peasant Studies 38(3):567-612.
Altieri M, Nicholls C, Henao A, Lana A (2015). Agroecology and the
design of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agronomy for
sustainable development 35:869-890.
Amundson R, Asefaw A, Hopmans WJ, Olson C, Sztein AE, Sparks LD.
(2015) Soil and human security in the 21 st century. Science
348(6235):647-653.
Andersson J, Ken G (2012). On heretics and God's blanket salesmen.
In: Sumberg, J., Thompson, J. (Eds.), Contested Agronomy:
Agricultural Research in a Changing World. New York, Routledge pp.
22-46.
Angeon V, Ozier-Lafontaine H, Lesueur-Jannoyer M, Larade A (2014)
Agroecology Theory, Controversy and Governance. In: H. OzierLafontaine and M. Lesueur-Jannoyer (eds.), Sustainable Agriculture
Reviews 14: Agroecology and Global Change, Sustainable
Agriculture Reviews 14, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-06016-3_1
Anta S, Carabias J (2008). ―Consecuencias de las políticas en el uso
de los ecosistemas y la biodiversidad. Capital Natural de México‖.
Políticas Públicas y Perspectivas de sustentabilidad, CONABIO,
México 3:99.
Arnés E, Antonio J, del Val E, Astier M (2013). Sustainability and
climate variability in low-input peasant maize systems in the central
Mexican highlands. Agriculture, ecosystems and environment
181:195-2015.
Arslan A, McCarthy N, Lipper L, Asfaw S, Cattaneo A (2014). Adoption
and intensity of adoption of conservation farming practices in Zambia.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 187:72-86.
Astier M, García-Barrios L, Galván-Miyoshi J, González-Esquivel CE,
Masera O (2012). Assessing the sustainability of small farmer natural
resource management systems. A critical analysis of the MESMIS
program (1995-2001). Ecology and Society 17(3):25.
Astier M, Argueta A, Orozco-Ramírez Q, Virginia González M, Morales
J, Gerritsen P, Escalona M, Rosado-May F, Sánchez-Escudero J,
Martínez TS, Sánchez-Sánchez C, Arzuffi R, Castrejón F, Morales H,
Soto L, Mariaca R, Ferguson B, Rosset P, Ramirez THM, Jarquin R,
Moya F, Gonzalez-Esquivel C, Ambrosio M (2015). Historia de la
agroecologia en México. Agroecologia 10:9-17.
Blanco-Canqui H, Francis CA (2016). Building resilient soils through
agroecosystem redesign under fluctuating climatic regimes. Journal
of soil and water conservation 71(6):127-133.
Biot Y, Blaikie MP, Jackson C, Palmer-Jones R (1995). Rethinking land
degradation in developing countries. World Bank Discussion Paper
289. Washington D.C. 94 p.
Bouma J (2014). Soil science contributions towards Sustainable
Development Goals and their implementation: linking soil functions
with ecosystem services. Journal of plant nutrition and soil science
177(2):111-120.
Carlisle L (2016). Factors influencing farmer adoption of soil health
practices in the United States: a narrative review. Agroecology and
Sustainable
Food
Systems 40(6):583613, DOI: 10.1080/21683565.2016.1156596
Cotler H, López AC, Martinez-Trinidad S (2011). How much cost soil
erosion? Approximation to an economic valuation of the loss of
agricultural soils in Mexico. Investigaciones Ambientales 3(2):31-43.
Cotler H, Cram S, Martinez-Trinidad S, Quintanar E (2013). Forest soil
conservation in central Mexico: an interdisciplinary assessment.
Catena 104:280-287.
Cotler H, Martinez M, Etchevers DJ (2016). The conservation of organic
carbon in agricultural soils of Mexico. Contributions of the research
and its relation with public policies. Terra Internacional 43(1):125-138
http://132.248.10.25/terra/index.php/terra/article/view/81
Coughenour CM (2003). Innovating conservation agriculture: The case
of no-till cropping. Rural Sociology 68(2):278-304.
Damián TV (2016). Agroecological Utopistics, peasant innovations and
food security in corn Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla.
México,
76
p.
https://www.uccs.mx/downloads/index.php?id=file_577b485e87d89
De Graaff Graaff J, Amsalu A, Bodnar J, Kessler A, Posthumus H,
Tenge A (2008). Factors influencing adoption and continued use of
long-term soil and water conservation measures in five developing
countries. Applied Geography 28:271-280.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (1977). Soil conservation and
management in developing countries. FAO Soils Bulletin 33, Rome.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/ar113e/ar113e.pdf
Helin J, Haigh MH (2002). Better land husbandry in Honduras: towards
the new paradigm in conserving soil, water and productivity. Land
Degradation and Development 13:233-250.
Hudson WN (1987). Soil and water conservation in semi-arid areas.
FAO Land and water Development Division. Food and Agriculture
Organization
of
the
United
Nations,
Rome.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0321e/t0321e00.htm#TopOfPage
Holt-Giménez E (2001). Scaling-up sustainable agriculture. Lessons
from the Campesino a Campesino movement. Low External Input
Sustainable Agriculture 17(3):27-29.
Gliessman SR (2013). Agroecology: Growing the roots of resistance.
Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37:19-31.
Ibañez JJ, Krasilnikov P, Saldaña A (2012). Archive and refugia of soil
organisms: applying a pedodiversity framework for the conservation
of biological and non-biological heritages. Journal of Applied Ecology
49:1267-1277.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI) (2007). VII
Agricultural Census of livestock Mexico. http://www.inegi.org.mx
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI) (2012). Encuesta
Nacional
Agropecuaria
Mexico.
http://www.inegi.org.mx/est/contenidos/proyectos/encuestas/agropec
uarias/ena/ena2012/
Jara-Rojas R, Bravo-Ureta EB, Engler A, Diaz J (2013). An analysis of
the joint adoption of water conservation and soil conservation in
Central Chile. Land Use Policy 32:292-301.
La Vía Campesina (LVC) (2013). ―Llamamiento de la VI Conferencia de
la via campesina <https://viacampesina.org/es/llamamiento-deyakarta/ Accessed 3 July 2018.
Lal R (2014). Soil conservation and ecosystem services. International
Soil and Water Conservation Research 2(3):36-47.
Lapar ML, Sushil P (1999). Adoption of soil conservation: the case of
the Philippine uplands. Agricultural Economics 21:241-256.
Liniger H, Critchley W (2007). Where the land is greener. Case studies
and analysis of soil and water conservation initiatives world-wide.
WOCAT, CTA-FAO-UNEP-CDE, 364 p.
Lockeretz W (1990). What have we learned about who conserves soil?
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 45(5):517-523.
Maffi L (2001). On biocultural diversity: linking language, knowledge and
the environment. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Manuel-Navarrete D, Gallopın G (2012). Feeding the world sustainably:
knowledge governance and sustainable agriculture in the Argentine
Pampas. Environment, Development and Sustainability 14:321-333.
DOI 10.1007/s10668-011-9326-4.
Montgomery DR (2007). Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104:13268-13272.
Moreno-Calles AI, Toledo MV, Casas A (2013). The traditional
agroforestry systems of Mexico: A biocultural approach [in Spanish].
Botanical Science 91(4):375-398.
Nagendra H, Ostrom E (2012). Polycentric governance of
multifunctional forested landscapes. International Journal of the
Commons 6:104-133.
Nkala P, Mango N, Corbeels M, Veldwisch GJ, Huising J (2011). The
conundrum of conservation agriculture and livelihoods in Southern
Africa. African Journal of Agricultural Research 6(24):5520-5528.
Orchard S, Stringer L (2016). Challenges to polycentric governance of
Cotler and Cuevas
an international development project tackling land degradation in
Swaziland. Ambio 45:796-807. DOI 10.1007/s13280-016-0791-8.
Ruben R, Pender J (2004). Rural diversity and heterogeneity in lessfavoured areas: the quest for policy targeting. Food Policy 29:303320.
Simonian L (1999). The defense of the land of the jaguar. A history of
conservation in Mexico. Secretaria de medio Ambiente y recursos
naturales y pesca. Comisión Nacional para el conocimiento y uso de
la biodiversidad, Instituto mexicano de Recursos naturales
Renovables, México.
Sheeder JR, Lynne DG (2011). Empathy-conditioned conservation:
―walking in the shoes of others‖ as a conservation farmer. Land
Economics 87(3):433-452.
Showers BK (2006). Soil erosion and conservation: an international
history and a cautionary tale, pp. 369-406. In: Warketin PB (Ed)
Footprints in the soil. People and ideas in soil history. Elsevier, 548 p.
Soule MJ, Tegene A, Wiebe DK (2000). Land tenure and the adoption
of conservation practices. American journal of Agricultural Economics
4:993-1005.
Stringer CL, Fleskens L, Reed M, de Vente J, Zengin M (2014).
Participatory Evaluation of Monitoring and Modeling of Sustainable
Land Management Technologies in Areas Prone to Land
Degradation. Environmental Management 54:1022-1042.
Tödling F, Tippl M (2005). One size fits all? Towards a differentiated
regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy 34:1203-1219.
Toledo V (1990). The ethnobiological perspective: five reflections about
peasant sciences, with special reference to Mexico. Ciencia especial
4:22-29.
Turrent A, Espinosa A, Cortes IJ, Mejia H (2014). Strategy analysis
MasAgro-maiz. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas 5(8):15311547.
11
Turrent A, Cortés J, Espinosa A, Hernández E, Camas R, Torres JP,
Zambada A (2017). MasAgro o MIAF ¿Cuál es la opción para
modernizar sustentablemente la agricultura tradicional de México?
Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas 8(5):1169-1185.
Van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L (2006). Linking knowledge and action for
sustainable development. Annual Review of Environment and
Resources 31:1-33.
Ward SP, Bell A, Droppelmann K, Benton G (2018). Early adoption of
conservation agriculture practices: understanding partial compliance
in programs with multiple adoption decisions. Land Use Policy 70:2737.
White JP, Crawford J, Cruz DM, García MR (2012) Soil Management
for Sustainable Agriculture. Applied and Environmental Soil Science
202:1-3.
World Bank (2006). Enhancing agricultural innovation: how to go
beyond the strengthening of research systems. Economic Sector
Work
report,
Washington,
DC.
Available
on:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/Enhancing_A
g_Innovation.pdf