Enhancing economic subsistence: diversification activities and labor intensification as economic setback mitigation in upland agriculture communitiesSimeon C. Bernados, Jr11College of Arts and Sciences, Cebu Technological University, Cebu City, PhilippinesE-mail: simeonjr.bernados@ctu.edu.phAbstractTo demonstrate that pluriactivities can contribute to the economic condition as a response to economic setback, the diversification activities of upland farmers and the utilization of their available labor pool were used to illustrate that economic well-being is attainable through the use of lucrative undertakings. Using the 1995 and 2015 data to compute two growth years, upland farm household strategies to cope with financial challenges were documented and analyzed. Variables included in the analysis were the socioeconomic status of upland households, the different agricultural phases, the labor types used relative to the different agricultural phases, and the time expended on the use of labor types in relation to the different agricultural phases. Results showed that diversification activities have helped the upland household meet the financial requirements needed for both the farm and households. Recommendations for governments and development planners to undertake development projects for upland communities were discussed.Keywords: upland farming, livelihood diversification, crop diversification, labor utilization, agricultural phases, povertyIntroductionStudies have shown that participation in rural nonfarm employment (RNFE) have contributed to income increase, wealth and even agricultural productivity (Barrett, Reardon, & Webb, 2001; Haggblade, Hazell, & Reardon, 2005). These findings suggest that the correlation between participation and higher income is a way out of poverty (Bezu, Barrett, & Holden, 2012). But, studies of determinants of participation suggested the opposite, that an unequitable access of remunerative nonfarm activities only favors the rich rather than the poor (Barrett et al., 2001; Corral & Reardon, 2001; Davis et al., 2010; Dercon, 2006; Meert, Van Huylenbroeck, Vernimmen, Bourgeois, & Van Hecke, 2005). Thus, there is a good reason to examine the positive trajectories of the correlation.Studies on economic activities of poor households in the rural areas showed positive trajectories on the contribution of livelihood activities to the well-being of rural household (Avila-Foucat & Rodríguez-Robayo, 2018; Kassie, Kim, & Fellizar, 2017; Mentamo & Geda, 2016; Saha & Bahal, 2015). These studies demonstrated that the ultimate outcome of pluriactivities was for the improvement of the well-being of household through increase of income and high productivity. Households engaged in numerous activities like trade, handicrafts, services to meet their daily needs (Srisopaporn, Jourdain, Perret, & Shivakoti, 2015). To measure affluence, accumulation of assets became the gauge (Barrett et al., 2001; Ellis & Freeman, 2004; Saha & Bahal, 2016).Farmers’ economic activities have not only improved their financial capacity but also the ecological outcomes associated with the activities. Studies have shown that crop diversification, for instance, have improved soil condition through the cultivation of nitrogen-fixing crops, reduced pest infestation through effective pest management control, and lessened soil run-off or soil erosion (Gaba et al., 2015; Kidane & Zegeye, 2018). Moreover, going beyond the carrying capacity of the natural resource could be prevented by liberalizing access to the different livelihood resources (Kamanga, Vedeld, & Sjaastad, 2009).However, quantification of farmers’ labor expenditures in relation to agricultural phases and their contribution to agricultural productivity was rarely reported in the literature. This is the gap of research that this paper addresses. Most of the discussions on farmers’ labor use were placed in broad headlines, leaving out the specific value of time use and their allocation of it in cognizance of their economic activities. This method of inquiry is directed at the understanding farmers’ values and needs for time use is expressive of prioritization of needs (Chambers, 1995; Rhoades & Booth, 1982).The main objective of this paper then is to demonstrate that pluriactivities can contribute to the economic condition of the upland farmers. This paper used the diversification activities of farmers and the utilization of their available labor pool as means of improving their economic condition.Theoretical FrameworkAs a response against uncertainties and as alternative means to increase household income, diversification of livelihood and resources becomes the default response over specialization, and in fact, becomes the norm (Barrett et al., 2001; Kasem & Thapa, 2011; Kyi & Doppler, 2011). This subject was discussed extensively by Altieri (2018), Ellis & Freeman (2004), Kidane & Zegeye (2018), Meert et al (2005), Saha & Bahal (2016), Salvioni, Rondinelli, Esposito, & Henke (2009). Two types of diversification strategies stand out in the literature i.e. livelihood diversification and the agriculture or crop diversification.Livelihood diversificationLivelihood diversification is the use of non-specific household assets for non-agriculture activities unconnected to the farm business (Meert et al., 2005) and is associated with increased income (Makate, Wang, Makate, & Mango, 2016). Rural poor farmers diversify by adopting a range of activities, e.g. trade, handicrafts, services, and rents like plow animal rentals, to improve economic condition (Haggblade et al., 2005; Saha & Bahal, 2016; Srisopaporn et al., 2015). Assets accumulated coming from different sources become the measure of wealth and well-being (Barrett et al., 2001; Ellis & Freeman, 2004; Saha & Bahal, 2016).To understand rural small farmholders’ income seeking-behavior, myriads of variables were drawn-out from various econometric models (Avila-Foucat & Rodríguez-Robayo, 2018; Kassie et al., 2017; Mentamo & Geda, 2016; Saha & Bahal, 2016). Among these were household age, environmental consciousness, government regulatory requirements and subsidies, civic engagements, education level, access to credit and other financial resources, perceptions on land tenure, possessions of livestock, and dependency ratio. These studies argued that these variables need to be incorporated into the development plans to ensure farmers’ chances of survival and well-being.Livelihood diversification protects the overutilization of the natural resources, such as the forestland. Forestland resource was one of the sources of farmers’ alternative livelihood (Kamanga et al., 2009). In this study, authors demonstrated that households of economically poor farmers constituted the vast majority of forest consumers, implying that limiting the poor households’ access to the forest resources could contribute to disparity in income inequalities. But in granting them liberal access to forest resources, pressure on forest resource is inevitable (Vadez, Reyes-García, Huanca, & Leonard, 2008). Hence to lessen the reliance on the use of forest resources, lucrative enterprises should be made available to the rural poor farmers (Nguyen & Tran, 2018; Wei, Chao, & Yali, 2016). In this study, the authors argued that extremely poor households consumed and utilized forest resource more than their well-off counterparts implying that access to forestlands leads to increase in household per capita income, thereby contributing to the reduction of poverty incidence.Agricultural diversificationAgricultural or crop diversification increases household income (Dorsey, 1999) and household resiliency during lean periods (Singh, Kumar, & Woodhead, 2002). It is performed either by growing a variety of crops at one time or by growing different crops in different locations at the same time. Farmers diversify crops for numerous ends (Bosma, Udo, Verreth, Visser, & Nam, 2005).Aside from financial necessity, crop diversification has non-finance advantage (Kidane & Zegeye, 2018; Makate et al., 2016). These studies reported the practical value of crop diversification e.g. improvement of soil fertility, efficiency of agro-ecological systems which reduces crop production risks, enhances production stability, yields, and improvement of the diversity of human diet, suppression of diseases and pests, weeds, and volunteer crops. Studies concluded that crop diversification promotes ecological balance, reduces farm input use such as fertilizers and pesticides through intraspecies management and mitigation of environmental impacts, reduces pest infestation by  preventing their growth, reproduction, or dispersal, and minimizes soil erosion and the associated loss of nutrients by acting directly on soil fertility through nitrogen fixing species such as legumes (Gaba et al., 2015). In conclusion, crop diversification could be implemented for food production as well as ecosystem equilibrium.Has diversification really improved the lives of the marginalized farm households?As a response to curb poverty among the marginalized farmers in the rural areas, modernization of agro-technology improves rural farmers lives and eliminate rural poverty (George, 2014). Lessons from Green Revolution proved that by adoption of new technologies, lives of farmers could be improved and the national production goals could be achieved as well (Gollin, Hansen, & Wingender, 2018; Horlings & Marsden, 2011; Pingali, 2012). However, there were reports in some few studies that farmers rejected the introduced technology of the risk involved in the adoption of modern technology, thus resulting to low income and productivity (Fermont & Benson, 2011; Garibaldi et al., 2017; Loos et al., 2014).In poverty studies, crop diversification improved farmers’ livelihood outcomes (Kasem & Thapa, 2011; Kyi & Doppler, 2011). For instance, in one region in China, a five-year average yield increase was achieved from 67.9% to 97% as a result of crop diversification (Zhang et al., 2016). Similar gains were observed in South Africa (Michler & Josephson, 2017) and in some developing countries like Malawi, Nepal, Vietnam, Pakistan, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Albania, and Panama (Pellegrini & Tasciotti, 2014).Allocation of human resources in diversified householdDiversification activities begin at the household (Koomson & Asongu, 2016). Levy (1985), and Zepeda (2006) reported on the economic value of children and their contribution to the agricultural production; Adewale, Oladejo, & Ogunniyi (2005) examined the attitudinal factors of children pertaining the drudgery of agricultural operation; Dinku, Fielding, & Genc (2018) examined the roles children played in the household.The division of labor by gender has been extensively published in the literature and concluded that women has contributed to agricultural production (Haddad & Reardon, 1993; Matshe & Young, 2004; Neitzert, 1994; Saenz & Thompson, 2017; Shiferaw, Gebremedhin, & Zewdie, 2017; Udry, 1996; Udry, Hoddinott, Alderman, & Haddad, 1995). Saenz (2017) reported on the marketing and production involvement of women; Shiferaw (2017) documented women’s access to credit services reporting that some government and nongovernment organizations preferred to extend credit and other financial services to women rather than men for the reason that women’s economic activities were in consonance with government’s programs. However, Matshe & Young (2004) claimed that some domestic concerns prevented women to fully participate in agricultural production like children’s care, household care, and farm supportAccounting of labor and its contribution to agricultural productivity is rarely reported in literature and is usually placed in broad headlines in ethnographic efforts (Boserup, 1966). The quantification of farm labor can lead researchers to the understanding of the working patterns of farmers both in on-farm and off-farm seasons (Stone, Netting, & Stone, 1990) as well as the prioritization of farmers’ needs and the valuation of their resources in relation to their economic condition.MethodThe data used in this paper were component data of the project “Farm Labor and the Agroecological Management of Upland Rice Farming in Eastern Visayas, Philippines”. The research area is primarily agricultural with rice as the principal crop and others such as legumes, coconuts, rootcrops, and cash crops such as banana and vegetable as secondary crops. The area has limited flat lands, surrounded with high mountains with minor creeks flowing towards major creeks of three composing villages. This project detailed upland farmers farming practices.Secondary data were used in this essay. The data were formal survey interview, personal interviews with upland farmers and key informant, and notes during the participant observation phase. Household units were used as sampling units because they could be conveniently compared with other cultural units (Gross, 1984). Furthermore, it was relatively easy to observe behavior directly in a household or to use a single informant to report on the activities of household members. A total of 57 household units were used in the analysis. Prior informed consent was sought from the research participants prior the conduct of the formal survey, and personal interview with upland farmers and key informant. Furthermore, ethics clearance was granted by the departmental ethics committee of the Provincial Agricultural Office, Province of Leyte, Philippines.In this article, authors used the 1995 and 2015 data to compute two growth years. Data used in the analysis included among others: socioeconomic status of upland farmers, the different agricultural phases, the labor types used relative to the different agricultural phases, and the time expended on the use of labor types in relation to the different agricultural phases.Socioeconomic status includes the demographic characteristics of the household units, their livelihood and agronomic activities. Agricultural phases are the different agricultural tasks such as field preparation/ repair (FP), planting/ transplanting/ replanting (PL), weeding and pest management (HR), fertilizer application/ manuring (MA), and harvesting (HA). Labor types are the labor used in the performance of the agricultural phases, and these are the self labor, unpaid family labor, collective or exchange labor, and hired labor. Time expenditure is the amount of time spent in the performance of a task. These were computed in terms of hours expended as estimated by the research participant through the recall method.AnalysisIn soliciting the time expenditure data, the approximation method, instead of the diary method, was adopted. Approximation method uses the recall method. The farmer research-participant approximates the number of hours or days in an agricultural task. Researchers were very much aware of the inherent weakness of this method but was considered to be a lesser demanding task compared to the diary method (Bernard & Killworth, 1993; Paolisso & Hames, 2010). Descriptive statistics e.g. frequency count, mean, and percentage were used in the analysis. For the computation of the percentage of change, the entry of the final year (t2015) is subtracted with the entry of the beginning year (t1995) divided by t1995 and then is multiplied by the constant 100.ResultsTable 1 describes the demographic characteristics of upland farm households in terms of age of household heads, their educational attainment, household size, and number of household dependents. Majority of household heads were advanced in age (40-74 years) and have low educational attainment (2-9 years). Furthermore, household units have high population size (5-11 members) and have many dependents ranging from 5-14 dependents. Not to mention that these were factors of poverty (Jung & Smith, 2007), the data would point out that the farm household units had high overhead expenses like caring for children and the elderly, and household maintenance. Hence, capital requisites for agricultural endeavours were needed and household heads have to source out the much need capital for agricultural use.Labor management of upland farm householdFarmers allocated a labor type in relation to the agricultural phases. Households utilized four labor types, to wit: the unpaid family labor, self-labor, collaborative/exchange labor, and the hired labor. Self-labor is the type of labor performed by the household heads. In this study, household heads were the research participants. Unpaid family labor is the type of labor performed by every able-bodied member of the household; collective or exchange labor is the labor type extended to the members of the exchange group where reciprocity is the norm of the group, and; hired labor is a form of a contract labor paid by the households.Table 1. Demographic profile of upland farm household in a rural village in Eastern Visayas, Philippines