Livelihoods transformation and climate change adaptation: The case of smallholder water buffalo farmers in the Philippines

Journal Pre-proof Livelihoods transformation and climate change adaptation: The case of smallholder water buffalo farmers in the Philippines Jacquelyn F. Escarcha, Jonatan A. Lassa, Eric P. Palacpac, Kerstin K. Zander PII:

S2211-4645(18)30352-X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2019.100468

Reference:

ENVDEV 100468

To appear in:

Environmental Development

Received Date: 27 September 2018 Revised Date:

16 October 2019

Accepted Date: 24 October 2019

Please cite this article as: Escarcha, J.F., Lassa, J.A., Palacpac, E.P., Zander, K.K., Livelihoods transformation and climate change adaptation: The case of smallholder water buffalo farmers in the Philippines, Environmental Development (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2019.100468. This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Tables Table 1: Friedman’ tests result showing water buffalo’s buffering functions to farmers livelihoods, N=298 Livelihood function1

Reasons for importance

Income

For buying viands2, Household basic items Covering unexpected costs, or insurance mechanisms in case of crop losses To increase income and production, buying more caracows We cannot afford to buy milk and beef To be able to work with other farmers and call them for assistance

Buffering

Accumulation

Consumption Social integration

Mean

SD

Mean Ranka

4.73

0.45

5.42

4.28

0.65

4.81

3.34

0.76

3.48

2.58

0.59

2.45

2.08

0.81

1.82

Friedman Test

χ2 (5, N=298) =914.54, p<0.001

Kendall's W

0.614

a

The higher the mean rank of a function, the greater the level of importance in the livelihoods.

1 2

Categories adopted and modified from Dorward et al., 2005. A viand is a meat, seafood, or vegetable dish that accompanies rice in a typical Filipino meal.”

Figures Figure 1: Historical production volume changes of major crops and water buffalo, plotted against loses from typhoons and El Niño damages in Nueva Ecija province, Philippines. (Data sources: PSA: Philippines Statistics Authority, http://psa.gov.ph; and PAGASA: Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration. Philippines: http://www.pagasa.dost.gov.ph)

Figure 2: A mixed method conceptual design of the data collection process (exploratory sequential) and analysis (convergent concurrent), modified from Guest (2013).

Figure 3: Reliance on farming and the evolution of major contributors to total household income, Nueva Ecija, N=298 (data source: household survey).

Figure 4: The interplay of causal drivers to farming livelihoods, highlighting a pattern of relationships and link for livelihood security of farmers in Nueva Ecija province, Philippines. Positive polarity on the arrows indicates variables are directly proportional to each other (e.g. when farm income increases, household welfare increases). A negative polarity shows opposite direction of change in the next variable (e.g. when the extent of societal pressure increases, livelihood resources pool decreases).

Land + fragmentation +

Variability Rainfall

Societal Pressure Loop

Population growth

Urbanisation

Climatic Changes

Flooding +

+ Demand for + animal-based products

-

Temperature

Drought + Heat

Typhoons

-

Extremes

Recurring Crop Failure

-

Access to water, irrigation + Farm mechanisation

Market shocks

+ -

-

Traditional farming knowledge

Income generation

-

Farming

+ Cash deficits

+ +

-

+

Adaptation plans

Livestock

+

Livelihood Resources Pool

+

Bigger household size -

+

+

+

Cash-crops

+

Family labour

Policies Programs

Coping strategies

+ Social networks, farm cooperatives +

Food

+ + Income

+

+

Smaller farm size Local support services, gov't and private

+

other livelihood function + +

Legend:

--

Variable source: own data

causal relationship correlational relationship

+

Household welfare

Livelihood security

-

+

Highlights •

The study examined the livelihood adaptation process of smallholders in the Philippines.

•

Empirical findings show a shifting focus from cropping to water buffalo dairying across villages.

•

Milking water buffaloes serves as a buffer activity against income and climate extreme shocks.

•

Farmers voluntary take adaptation actions that reflect the dynamics of their livelihoods.

•

Integrating adaptation into existing water buffalo sector’s development program is suggested for smallholders’ climate-resilient livelihoods.

Livelihoods transformation and climate change adaptation: the case of smallholder water buffalo farmers in the Philippines

Author names and affiliations: Jacquelyn F. Escarchaa, Jonatan A. Lassaa, Eric P. Palacpacb, and Kerstin K. Zanderac a

Charles Darwin University, Northern Institute, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia

b

Philippine Carabao Center, National Headquarters and Gene Pool 3120 Science City of

Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines c

German Development Institute, 53113 Bonn, Germany

Corresponding author: Jacquelyn F. Escarcha Email: [email protected] Telephone: +61 8 8946 6659 (International) Mailing address: Northern Institute Charles Darwin University Ellengowan Drive NT 0909, Australia

1

Livelihoods transformation and climate change adaptation: the case of

2

smallholder water buffalo farmers in the Philippines

3

Abstract

4

Livelihood transitions in most agricultural nations are conditioned by changes in both human

5

and climate systems. In the Philippines, climate change related extreme weather events such

6

as typhoons, floods, and droughts have detrimental impacts on crop production and have

7

significantly affected the livelihoods of cash crop focused rural villages. A shift from crop to

8

livestock production is emerging as a buffer activity to recover from crop losses; however,

9

whether this adaptive response is viable is still unexplored. The aim of this study is to

10

understand how farmers perceive water buffalo as a transformative opportunity and how they

11

use water buffalo in the adaptation process to sustain their livelihoods when the climate

12

becomes more volatile. Data were collected from farming villages in the Nueva Ecija

13

province, the Philippines using mixed methods. It was found that farmers' livelihood patterns

14

evolved as economic consequences of recurrent crop failures caused by typhoons, flooding,

15

and dry spells. Farmers’ changed their farming activities as an adaptive response driven by

16

past experiences of climatic changes, farmers’ social relations, household capacity, and

17

resources available. The increasing trend of shifting to water buffalo dairying demonstrated

18

farmers’ preferences for less risky sources of income in lieu of the opportunities and options

19

available. Thus, local adaptation can be understood to be an outcome of both farmers’

20

livelihood survival strategies and the institutional dynamics in their localities. The results

21

imply a need to integrate adaptation programs that are linked to local livelihood development,

22

particularly in the Carabao Development Program (CDP). This study concludes by suggesting

23

issues to be considered for water buffalo dairying as a viable adaptation option for climate-

24

resilient livelihoods.

25

Keywords: climate change adaptation; climate-resilient livelihoods; dairy production; natural

26

disasters; mixed crop-livestock; mixed methods

27

1. Introduction

28

Major global changes in both climate and social systems induce livelihood transformation

29

and pose immense pressure to the ~570 million smallholder farms worldwide (Leclère et al.,

30

2014; Lowder et al., 2016). Smallholder production systems are known to be vulnerable, yet

31

remain as the backbone of agriculture in developing regions (Morton, 2007). Smallholder

32

farmers manage less than two hectares of land each, operate about 75% of the world’s

33

agricultural land (Samberg et al., 2016), and produce as much as 80% of the food consumed

34

in Africa and Asia (FAO, 2013). Mostly occurring in the form of a mixed crop-livestock

35

system, smallholders often optimise the utility of both components: cash crops mainly for

36

income generation, and livestock as capital assets (Devendra & Thomas, 2002; Tarawali et

37

al., 2011). However, the repercussions arising from the serious impacts from climate changes

38

to smallholder farmers’ livelihoods demonstrate that a better understanding of their

39

production systems is needed (Thornton & Herrero, 2015; Ghahramani & Moore, 2016).

40

In the Philippines, recurring crop failures due to more frequent typhoons, flooding, and dry

41

spells have hampered the cash-oriented smallholders’ farming economy. In rice production,

42

for instance, a return period of 13 years is needed to recover from losses caused by a recent

43

typhoon (Blanc & Strobl, 2016). Shifting to livestock-based livelihoods is increasingly

44

recognised as a buffer activity to recover from crop yield and income losses. This transition

45

trend is similarly observed in other developing countries in South East Asia (Devendra, 2012)

46

and Africa (Jones & Thornton, 2009). For example, beef cattle production in Vietnam is

47

viewed as smallholders’ transformation to take advantage of the increasing demand for meat

48

(Stür et al., 2013). Livestock production is also considered as an evolution for upland

49

livelihoods in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Millar & Photakoun, 2008), and is

50

crucial for livelihood transitions in the African region (Jones & Thornton, 2009).

51

Understanding how farmers take livestock, as a transformative opportunity is important to

52

local policy design, and to determine its potential for more adaptive and sustainable

53

livelihoods. However, there are limited studies on livestock’s role in adaptation process under

54

the smallholder livelihood systems context (Phuong et al., 2017). The pastoralism system is

55

an exception, as it has been widely studied in Africa and other arid regions, though studies in

56

the Asian setting are very limited (Escarcha et al., 2018).

57

This study considers water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) production in response to the livelihood

58

challenges by following the Carabao1 Development Program (CDP) in the Philippines. The

59

CDP exemplified a case of sustained developmental agenda for small farm settings in rural

60

villages, mainly to provide farmers with a supplementary source of income from meat and

61

milk in addition to draft and hide (Cruz, 2013). The emphasis on water buffalo is based on

62

climate suitability and its multifunctional role in smallholder farmers’ livelihoods. Shifting

63

from cash crops to dairy buffalo is emerging as an adaptive response mainly in pursuit of

64

income security of farmers. However, the question of why and how farmers are taking water

65

buffalo as a potential lever for adaptation is still unexplored.

66

Accordingly, some contend that livestock are a potential resource for livelihood adaptation

67

amidst climatic changes, as well as the other challenges that farmers are facing (Diniz et al.,

68

2013; Thornton & Herrero, 2015; Hänke & Barkmann, 2017). This is due to the robustness of

69

some livestock species, the capacity to survive in hot, dry conditions and to explore larger

70

areas, their resistance below thresholds of feed requirements, and that they are easy to

71

exchange for other assets (Devendra & Leng, 2011; Tarawali et al., 2011). However, there is

72

a lack of evidence that the shift from crop to livestock production has been a viable climate

73

change adaptation strategy that can sustain farmers’ livelihoods.

74

The aim of this study was to understand water buffalo’s role in the livelihood adaptation

75

process and to present the dynamic ways in which water buffalo production can contribute to

76

farmers’ livelihoods. In doing so, livelihood trajectories were examined to draw empirical

77

evidence of livelihood patterns, changes, and transitions over the past decades, and on the

78

process, explore the climate change adaptation that arises across farming households and

79

villages.

80

2. Conceptualising adaptation and livelihood trajectories

81

Climate is one defining features of farming livelihoods. Smallholder farmers are a repository

82

of rich traditional knowledge and practices and have always adapted and developed farming

83

systems in response to both constraints and opportunities faced over time (Netting, 1993; 1

The ‘carabao’ is local term for Asian water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) in the Philippines, or called ‘kerbau’ (in Indonesia and Malaysia). To understand the diverse variety of Bubalus bubalis including the one in the Philippines, see Barker et al., 1997.

84

Altieri & Koohafkan, 2008). However, as climate extremes become more frequent,

85

adaptation occurs often in ad-hoc approaches, which are normally a reactive type of climate

86

adaptation (Smit & Skinner, 2002). In contrast are long-term adaptation plans, not only in

87

response to a sudden event but to the cumulative impacts of climate change. Farmers are

88

likely to be able to adapt autonomously by interpreting the signals of climate change with

89

appropriate adaptation strategies (Easterling et al., 2003), and that the chosen strategies make

90

them better off (Seo & Mendelsohn, 2008).

91

In this study, we assume that the decision to shift from crop to livestock production is

92

consciously made by farmers more than just an adaptation response to climate change, but

93

also to preserve household livelihoods2 (Adams et al., 1998; Ellis, 2000). There is increasing

94

evidence of how autonomous adaptation occurs and reflects existing livelihood strategies and

95

connects with planned adaptation within developing countries (Smit & Pilifosova 2003;

96

Ayers, 2011). These studies have also indicated that the capacity for local adaptation can be

97

planned because autonomous adaptation might not occur spontaneously but according to how

98

certain changes impact on local needs and livelihood strategies (Forsyth & Evans, 2013).

99

To understand the livelihood dynamics and adaptation process, we used the livelihood

100

trajectory approach (Bagchi, 1998). Livelihood trajectory can best illustrate experiences of

101

smallholder farmers’ over time, as it has been used to describe the direction and pattern of

102

individuals or groups of livelihoods embedded in historical repertoire and social context (De

103

Haan & Zoomers, 2005). Mostly used in the context of development intervention, livelihood

104

trajectory is increasingly important in exploring shocks and stresses in relation to

105

vulnerability (West, 2013), beyond the descriptive analysis of livelihood capitals (McLean,

106

2015). Further, livelihood trajectory is constituted by arrangements within the realms of

107

family, community, state, and the private sector (Dijk, 2011). It allows a deeper penetration

108

of the beliefs, needs, aspirations, and limitations of peoples’ lives, and is also contextualised

109

in relation to power and institutions (De Haan & Zoomers, 2005).

110

As for livestock systems, interactions with the other livelihood factors are closely linked to

111

the evolutionary framework of local farming economies. Livestock production is directly

112

proportional to the level of population density (Delgado et al., 2001). Besides environmental 2

A livelihood can be defined as the best expression of the idea of an individual or a group striving to make a living, attempting to meet various consumption and economic necessities, coping with uncertainties, responding to new opportunities, and choosing between value positions (De Haan & Zoomers ,2005).

113

factors, the evolution of livestock is driven by more complex socio-ecological factors

114

influencing farmers (Thornton, 2010). Growth in livestock production, termed as livestock

115

revolution was also linked to major societal changes, as in population growth, rising incomes,

116

and progressive urbanisation (Delgado et al., 2001; Millar, 2008). In this case, it is assumed

117

that by examining livelihood trajectories under smallholder farming context, the adaptation

118

process will be better understood and that the shifting focus from crop to livestock-based

119

livelihoods will be justified holistically.

120

3. Data and methods

121

3.1 Study area

122

The Nueva Ecija 3province located in the Central Luzon region, Philippines was selected for

123

this study to represent a case of farming livelihood transition research in the country.

124

Agriculture is the key industry in this area, which has extensive flat alluvial plains,

125

facilitating crop cultivation as the main source of peoples’ livelihoods. Commonly known as

126

the rice granary of the Philippines, farmers in Nueva Ecija are leading producers of rice - the

127

country’s staple food. Nueva Ecija is fundamental to the country’s agricultural economy as a

128

major agricultural production corridor. Most of its villages produce various foods and

129

commodity crops both for household consumption, and the regional and national markets

130

(PSA, 2017).

131

For the past 30 years, Nueva Ecija’s crop oriented production system has been threatened by

132

progressive urbanisation, with developmental direction heading towards industrialisation

133

following the trend of the Central Luzon region (PSA, 2017). Rice fields compose about 28%

134

of the total land area, but about 25% of rice and vegetable farms had been converted into non-

135

agricultural commercial areas (PSA, 2016). Nueva Ecija farmlands were registered at 223.8

136

thousand hectares in 1991, but are now down to 196.3 thousand hectares (PSA, 2016). The

137

number of farms decreased by 5% from 132 thousand-farm units, down to 125 thousand-farm

138

units. The farm size is slowly getting smaller to a current average of 1.6 hectares. Likewise,

139

many farmers are being deprived of their means of livelihood, especially considering the 2.1

140

million people living in the province have an annual growth rate of 1.84 (PSA, 2017).

3

For map of the study area showing location and climate risk characterization, see Escarcha et al., 2018.

141

Alongside socio-economic developments, climatic risks also continuously pose a challenge to

142

farmers by negatively affecting crop yields (Bohra-Mishra et al., 2017). Climatic variability

143

and changes, particularly increasing temperature pattern became apparent from the historical

144

data since the 1990s (Trouet & Van Oldenborgh, 2013). Manifestations of extreme climatic

145

events were also widely perceived by farmers (Escarcha et al., 2018) while dry spells and

146

drought in the area are predicted to increase (PAGASA, 2015). There are two rice production

147

seasons a year in Nueva Ecija: a dry season (characterised by limited rainfall, few typhoons,

148

and higher temperatures) from December to April, and a wet season (characterised by

149

frequent rain showers and typhoons) from late May to November. Many farming villages are

150

affected by typhoons (average of 8 per annum), and most farms are near or bounded by rivers

151

or creeks, which make them more susceptible to flooding.

152

3.2 Farming and production patterns

153

Smallholder farming in Nueva Ecija has meagre resources, especially land where farmers try

154

to maximise their profits through a mix of livestock and crop production. Livestock

155

production usually involves the entire family, including the women and children (Devendra

156

& Thomas, 2002). Although farmers are predominantly smallholders, farming in Nueva Ecija

157

is no longer categorised as subsistence, which is a common characterisation of smallholders

158

(Garner & de la O Campus, 2014). Farming practices have advanced in terms of inputs such

159

as seeds, fertilisers, and small farm machinery such as tractors and harvesters. However, as

160

profit from rice and cropping is highly dependent on input costs (Mottaleb & Mohanty,

161

2015), with soaring prices, the income of farmers remains low (PSA, 2016).

162

Farmers’ production patterns were predominantly driven by cash crops; mainly rice, corn,

163

onion, and garlic. A dramatic decline in the yield of garlic was recorded from 1995 as a result

164

of damages from typhoons and became relatively flat since 2000 (Figure 1). Rice and onion,

165

considered as top crops by farmers, similarly had volatile growth but also slipped into a

166

decline from 2014. Corn, however, is slowly increasing in volume, as is water buffalo since

167

the declining pattern reverted around the year 2000.

168

[Figure 1 here]

169

In the Philippines, the water buffaloes are generally swamp type and mainly used as draft

170

animal. However, the farm machineries particularly in irrigated areas are replacing the

171

swamp buffaloes in recent years. The easy and practical move of farmers who found no more

172

interest to keep buffaloes is to dispose their animals, majority of which end up in

173

slaughterhouses, resulting in negative growth in water buffalo population from around 1990s.

174

Through the implementation of CDP in 1999, the government efforts to transform the

175

population of swamp buffalo from being work animals to efficient milk producers were

176

initiated. The CDP is focused on the potential benefits from crossbreeding the riverine

177

buffaloes with the local swamp breed with the aim of producing close to purebred dairy

178

buffaloes on the third or fourth generation.

179

Recently, because of the crossbreeding efforts in different provinces in the country, the CDP

180

has directly affected the utilisation of water buffaloes. With around 2.88 million headcounts,

181

and operated by 99.7% smallholders, the water buffalo keeping has thrived in many villages

182

(Cruz, 2013; PSA, 2017). As of 2018, the Philippine Carabao Center (PCC) estimates that at

183

least 10% of the total population are crossbred buffaloes, less than 1% are purebred buffaloes,

184

and the rest are swamp buffaloes (carabaos).

185

In Nueva Ecija province, which is the study site, the adoption of CDP related technological

186

interventions are high that dairy water buffalo production is believed to have played a key

187

role in the transition of small-hold farming livelihoods. Continued backcrossing of

188

crossbreeds with purebred buffaloes has also resulted in increasing milk productivity. First

189

generation crossbreeds produced from the crossing (mating) of purebred Murrah buffalo and

190

the local breed grow as much as 70%-100% faster and produce 200%-300% more milk than

191

their local parents without detrimental effects on draft ability and reproduction (Cruz, 2015).

192

The additional income generated from this increased productivity is expected to significantly

193

improve the economic status of smallholder farming families.

194

3.3 Data sources and analysis

195

Figure 2 describes the data collection and analysis used in this study. An exploratory

196

sequential design was applied in the data collection process using qualitative data to inform

197

the qualitative household survey (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Qualitative methods

198

included direct observations and key informant interviews, followed by the complementary

199

household survey. The data collection was undertaken between January and October 2016.

200

[Figure 2 here]

201

Direct observational data of underlying livelihoods and socio-environmental processes in the

202

area were undertaken via field notes and supplemented with secondary statistical data, mainly

203

from an online repository of the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA). The interviews were

204

semi-structured, and a narrative approach was adopted to collect in-depth information on

205

livelihood systems characteristics of the villages, notable changes in social and climate

206

systems, perceptions of climate change impacts, livelihood challenges, and common adaptive

207

responses to these challenges. The key informants were either the chairs or officers of

208

farmers’ cooperatives, which were randomly selected from villages across the study area.

209

The household survey was administered face to face with only smallholder4 household heads

210

using a structured questionnaire developed from the qualitative data collected. A sample of

211

30% of farmers was randomly selected from a list of smallholder water buffalo farmers

212

provided by the PCC. Of the selected 310 farmers, only 298 completed the survey and were

213

included in further analysis. A more detailed data on household’s socio-demographic profile,

214

economic or livelihood resources data, livelihood activities, challenges, and adaptation

215

strategies were collected. These quantitative data revealed the patterns of responses across the

216

study sample.

217

A convergent concurrent design described by Guest (2013) was employed in the data analysis

218

because the data sets from each method were analysed separately and mixed in the

219

presentation of results and discussion (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Qualitative data were

220

analysed using a systematic qualitative content analysis in NVivo11. This included coding

221

and identification of emerging themes. The individual themes were identified first consisting

222

of farmers’ overall contexts such as social environments, climatic challenges, economic

223

resources, and livelihood motivations and strategies. In order to identify how different themes

224

knit together to form a whole, the themes’ relationship to each other was mapped out

225

diagrammatically using the model explorer tool in Nvivo (Bazeley & Jackson, 2013). The

226

inter-relationships between the identified themes were visualised through inductive

227

interpretation. Quantitative data were transformed using SPSS23, and descriptive tests were

228

employed. Common findings were drawn together, with the qualitative information providing

229

an explanation for the patterns observed in the quantitative survey findings.

230

4. Results

231

4.1 Household and livelihood characteristics

232

The mean age of respondents was 49.8 (SD: 7.9) and the average household members 4.9

233

(SD: 1.2). Almost all (98%) produced a mix of crop and livestock on 2.08 (SD:0. 9) hectares 4

We adopted the definition of smallholder from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), which are farms with no more than 20 head counts of animal (mixed age).

234

of land on average. Land was either owned (53%) or shared or leased (47%) among close

235

family members (between brothers and cousins). Land5 was allocated for different farming

236

activities such as rice cultivation (78%), forage production (60%), animal sheds (86%), and

237

other cash crops (25%). Respondents kept a herd size of eight water buffaloes on average

238

(either purebred or crossbred), with a range of one to 20, and a median of six. Farm labour

239

depended on the number of animals raised and milking caracows (mature female buffalo that

240

have given birth). Most often, labour was shared by the household head and their wife (78%),

241

or with their children during their non-school days (16%). Some farmers hired labour (23%,

242

particularly those who have ten headcount or more animal holdings), mostly for collecting

243

fodder and maintaining the milking cows. The average distance to the nearest road was 0.8

244

km (SD:0.6) and to the nearest market was 6 km (SD:1.9).

245

Livelihoods were not limited to farming. Almost half of the respondents (46%) were involved

246

in other income generating activities, mostly during the off-planting season. This included

247

driving public transport and a temporary labour migration to nearby cities (mostly for

248

construction work). Cash constraints in each household limited the scale of off-farm

249

activities, so some women (18%) engaged in petty trades like the selling of homemade food

250

products such as pastries and local delicacies. Many farmers (86%) availed animal loans

251

(dairy stocks) and cash loans (67%) used for buying crop-farming inputs (seeds, fertilisers,

252

pest controls) mainly from private lenders and through their cooperatives. About half (52%)

253

had a negative cash balance (farm income/household expense flow) while 48% had positive

254

farm revenues. Farm capital investments were allotted mostly on farm equipment, animal

255

housing (shelter and milking area), and dairy stocks (water buffaloes).

256

4.2 Water buffalo’s functions to farmers’ livelihood

257

The reasons for keeping water buffalo were motivated mainly by the need for alternative

258

livelihoods, or specifically income source (95%), and others through intervention of related

259

non-governmental associations (42%), government programs (28%), and to continue family

260

practice (24%) and passion for water buffalo keeping (6%). Water buffaloes were valued for

261

their multiplicity of functions, with most farmers having benefited from selling live animals

262

(94%, mainly males and culls), milking (86%), traction/power service (70%), sales from

263

manures (39%) and processing further their products (3%, local milk-based pastries). Further,

5

Proportion of land allocated for different farming activities exceeds 100% because respondents utilised the same farm area for more than one category of activity.

264

household survey respondents have mentioned that production decisions were mainly driven

265

by the objective to earn more income, mainly to gain tangible benefits through cash sales

266

from their products. Increased stable income from milk, compared to cropping, motivated

267

73% of farmers to focus on buffalo dairying.

268

Next to income source, water buffalo function as a buffer to households in case of unexpected

269

family cash needs and as insurance mechanisms during crop losses. All respondents stated

270

that they were both producers and consumers, but rarely did they keep water buffalo derived

271

products for self-consumption (Table 1). Rice was mentioned as the most crucial staple food

272

for self-consumption, but the milk and live animals (slaughter for meat) were mainly sold in

273

the nearby urban areas where there are consistent buyers and demand. The importance of

274

water buffalo to social integration was ranked at least important reason. Farmers have

275

mentioned that offering or slaughtering their animals as a social obligation (e.g. weddings,

276

village fiestas (religious celebrations of the birth of a patron saint), or funerals) were no

277

longer appealing in times of economic hardship. The median difference among and between

278

the rankings is significant (p < 0.001). The resulting Kendall’s coefficient of concordance

279

value (61.4%) indicates that our respondents strongly agree with each other on their ratings of

280

water buffalo’s function to their livelihoods.

281

[Table 1 here]

282

4.3 Livelihood trajectory and the emerging trend of water buffalo dairying

283

Profit was the main push factor in farmers’ livelihood decisions and activities. The household

284

survey revealed the reliance on farming and the changes in farming activities in terms of both

285

crop and livestock components. Farmers never relied on one livelihood activity alone as a

286

source of income but diversified their activities while always focusing on those with the

287

highest returns. The shifting trend from cropping to buffalo dairying was reflected in the

288

pattern of income contributions of each farm components (Figure 3). Between 1990 and

289

2010, crops contributed to over 90% total income. After 2010, income from water buffalo

290

dairying exceeded the share from crops, and the shift to livestock production started.

291

[Figure 3 here]

292

Accordingly, the analysis of the interviews with the key informants confirmed this trend and

293

revealed two major reasons for the choice of livelihood or income generation activities. The

294

first reason was the market-related factors. Farmers’ livelihood strategies were strongly

295

market-oriented, while most of the key farmer informants reiterated that cropping choices

296

were largely driven by market demand; however, unpredictable product sale prices were a

297

constant battle for farmers’ whenever harvest season came, especially for rice and onions.

298

The second reason was increasing negative impacts of climate-related disasters. All the key

299

informants recalled and considered farming to be linked to their past harvest experiences.

300

Cropping was often at a loss because of either flooding or lack of irrigation water during El

301

Niño periods, and strong winds brought on by typhoons.

302

For example, one of the key farmer informants described his almost 50 years of farming

303

experience as results of factors that were mainly beyond their control. He further described

304

farming as the struggle to have a better life for his family;

305

“I was one who earned a jackpot when the onion market favoured us years ago. There

306

were consecutive harvest times that I was able to build this concrete house from my 2-

307

hectare land, send all my children to school, and to not worry about the following

308

planting expenses. However, when onion prices dropped, all of us here suffered even

309

when harvests were good, as no traders came to buy, or there were a few that offered

310

a very low price. I don’t know why… they just said that they were many onions now in

311

Manila. I have heard they were imported. In those times many of us lost money, and

312

were in debt, so I decided to rent out my two hectares of land. I tried to find a job in

313

Manila, but I returned. I couldn’t live there. I resorted to planting rice again, but it

314

was not really good. Fertilisers were too expensive now, aside from the not so good

315

price, and harvests were so low because of either too much rain or no water at all.

316

Worst if we have flooding and these typhoons, harvests were not even enough for a

317

family to use. Then I’ve heard about this ‘carabao loans’ that I can earn cash from

318

milk. In 2007, my wife and I started to learn dairying. Now half of my land still has

319

rice, and on the other half, I have Napier grasses and corn for my animals. It is hard

320

work, but now we have a salary from the milk we sell, and my youngest will finish

321

university soon.” – (KI 8, 28 June 2016)

322

Several other key informants (80%) made similar statements about specialising in buffalo

323

dairying. When asked about how their livelihood changes, farmers explained that their

324

occupation did not change, as they are ‘farmer’ still, but they just changed what they do, as

325

well explained by a male informant’s experience:

326

“As a farmer, if you know what to do you will still earn and never go hungry. We

327

always plant vegetables and everything as possible. Vegetables were very productive,

328

and we can sell soon while waiting for rice, but the weather lately is so bad. Too

329

much rain and typhoons always come in surprise. We also raise animals to save for

330

bigger expenses. My wife had been raising pigs to save for children school fees, but

331

we stopped because the feeds become so expensive; pigs now don’t grow if you only

332

give leftover foods and rice bran. My friend invited me to get this caracow from PCC.

333

It was also hard because you need to take care really of these animals or they will not

334

give you more milk. My wife and I must wake up as early as four in the morning to

335

start milking, after which we collect forage and bath them. I have four now giving

336

milk. We only get our income from here because if you work hard, they will give you

337

milk every day. I’m happy that one of my cows gave 12 litres today. My rice is only

338

for the family; I only sell if have extra.” – (KI 16, 20 July 2016)

339

4.4 Causal factors to livelihood changes

340

Figure 4 illustrates the interplay of causal factors to changes in livelihoods, highlighting the

341

interrelationships and links of livelihood security of farmers in the Nueva Ecija province.

342

Content analysis of qualitative data from key informant interviews and direct observations

343

showed three inter-related themes as causal factors to livelihood changes: societal pressures,

344

climatic changes, and the subsequent effects to the livelihood resource pool of farmers.

345

[Figure 4 here]

346

Both of these societal pressures and climatic changes reinforced the livelihood resources pool

347

of farm households, which consequently influence their livelihood outcomes. Farmers have

348

indicated these societal factors to further influence their resources mainly in terms of

349

availability or access to irrigation, farm mechanisation, labour, farm size, traditional

350

knowledge, social networks, and local institutional supports. Climate change impacts were

351

generally linked to limited access to irrigation and other resources such as updated climate

352

knowledge, information, and extension supports.

353

Societal related causal drivers were land fragmentation, urbanisation, and increasing local

354

population and demands for animal-based products. Land fragmentation became an emerging

355

constraint to farming livelihoods. This was evidenced by the size of farmlands getting smaller

356

because of the growing tendency of locals to sell agricultural land at an attractive price, for

357

conversion to residential areas, or it had been part of rapid infrastructure development trend

358

in the region. Reduction in land size has far-reaching implications to production, and to the

359

growth of farming livelihoods. Land that was getting smaller was identified as a major factor

360

contributing to livelihood difficulty, that smallholders, even with high productivity levels, are

361

not able to generate enough income to sustain the needs of the household. As one respondent

362

articulated;

363

“In farming, the wealth came from land. My father told us that if we stand at least on

364

our own land, we could survive. I can’t say we are rich, but when I was young, we

365

had. I think, over 5 hectares. He divided it among us children. This is my share,

366

around 2 hectares…and the only portion left now…my brother sold his part and used

367

the money to trade because he doesn’t want to plant anymore…my younger brother

368

also left for a good job, and I’m sharing his rice farm for now. I need more land for

369

grasses and forage, so I’m planting corn also. I like it here, now that my animals are

370

giving me a fortune. I can sell as much milk as I can produce as I have a good buyer

371

now.” – (KI 11, 12 July 2016)

372

Direct observations reflected Nueva Ecija being an urbanising rice granary that also triggered

373

livelihood developmental changes. Construction of quality market roads has undeniably

374

favoured good market access, including delivery of farming inputs and services. In the past

375

30 years, it was observed that the traditional and labour-intensive small-hold farming Nueva

376

Ecija had been replaced by modernised way of production. Technological changes, evidenced

377

by farm mechanisation and infrastructure improvements (e.g. roads and irrigation systems)

378

were visible across villages. For example, 87% of survey respondents used modern farm

379

machinery such as tractors and harvesters in rice cultivation. This came along with substantial

380

road and transport developments.

381

Population growth also favoured product markets because of increasing demand for milk and

382

meat. Related shops and agribusiness opened up in towns and rural areas. Some farmers have

383

mentioned that feeds and fertilisers sellers allowed credits and offered free delivery service to

384

their farms. Besides cooperatives and formal purchase markets in towns, private traders (e.g.

385

milk collectors) came on-site to buy their farm products. The majority of respondents (95%)

386

agreed that these arrangements had made selling their products more convenient, especially

387

for women and elderly farmers who cannot carry heavy physical loads, and farmers who

388

don’t have hauling vehicles. However, unpredictable market movements and lack of related

389

policies, for example on the reasonable pricing of farmers produce, often resulted in

390

livelihood instability.

391

Climatic uncertainties manifested in variabilities (rainfall and temperature), and extreme

392

events (heat, drought, flooding, typhoons) directly posed negative impacts on livelihoods.

393

Rainfall variability and the more frequent and stronger occurrences of extreme weather

394

events were among the causal drivers of water availability, a crucial resource for farming.

395

Although irrigation systems are established in Nueva Ecija (survey respondent’s farms were

396

40% fully irrigated, and 51% partially irrigated), distribution did not reach all farms,

397

especially in drought periods where more water was needed. Conversely, dams and water

398

reservoirs were not able to hold water during heavy rains, with spillages that added to

399

flooding. More frequent flooding caused serious damage and loss in crop production, and

400

most farmers recalled in the household survey that the heavy flooding due to monsoon rains

401

and typhoons always came before the crops harvest times.

402

4.5 Livelihood adaptation dynamics

403

Survey results showed strong social networks and farmers’ cooperation determined the

404

livelihood dynamics in the area. All of the farmers surveyed have lived in the province

405

(farming experience of 27.0 ± 9.7 years) to which their livelihood activities were connected

406

to and where they established networks across the villages. This resulted in a very strong

407

presence of different groups and organisations. Almost all respondents (98%) were members

408

of cooperatives and other non-governmental associations; about 18% were members of more

409

than one cooperative or related group or were exposed to governmental led activities and

410

programs. Across all respondents, 35 farmer cooperatives were identified, which were

411

organised either based on location (exclusive membership within the same village) or

412

according to a more specialised focus (vegetable growers, dairy farmers, and women’s

413

groups).

414

As expected, almost all farmers had one way or another availed themselves of adaptation

415

support (92%), which either came from their cooperatives (41%), family relatives and friends

416

(37%), through government programs (20%), or via other means (2%). Specific support from

417

the government came in the form of free technical training for farm management and

418

production improvements, and technology-based interventions that enhanced the adaptive

419

capacity of farmers. Membership to cooperatives also supported farmers through assisted

420

marketing and financial programs. Close ties with family and friends often extended support

421

in the form of camaraderie, knowledge, resources, beliefs sharing, and – sometimes –

422

financial support. Other adaptation support came from private sources such as informal

423

lenders.

424

Water buffalo dairying emerged as a specialised livelihood strategy that offered farmers’

425

economic returns amidst farming challenges. Profits from buffalo dairying have improved

426

households’ welfare, enabled farmers to accumulate more livelihood resources, and improved

427

their livelihood security (Figure 3). Of the surveyed households, 70% were confident that

428

they could send their children to colleges or universities, 55% of respondents had recovered

429

from shortages in basic household expenditures, 26% had improved their house or living

430

condition, 95% were able to increase their animal holdings, 46% had improved farm

431

facilities, and 3% had purchased land.

432

Key informants’ narratives also reflected the challenges of specialising in dairy water buffalo

433

production. Farmers concerns that exposed their livelihoods to risks were noted;

434

“Around 2012, I started this dairy carabao. They gave me females, and according to

435

the technician, they were more beautiful as they have blood from Brazil. But, I did not

436

earn any profit for years because they don’t get pregnant. Although bigger, they

437

looked lame and got sick sooner than my native carabao. I think the imported breed

438

needs a different technique to manage. They look that they can’t live here in my

439

backyard. I also need to put in a better shed and provide more feeds. I even allocated

440

some land for forage and also ask them to inseminate artificially (AI), but it did not

441

work, so I returned those animals. I’m not lucky at the start; I knew I need to learn

442

from others who became successful, such as my cousin.” – (KI 25, 7 August 2016)

443

The strong presence of social networks and farmer cooperation among villages has caused

444

financial and marketing related challenges to some farmers. The village association or

445

primary producers’ cooperatives undertake the pooling of milk in the study area through a

446

collection system. The dairy federation facilitates the formal milk markets by buying raw

447

milk from the farmers, operating the milk processing facility, and handling the distribution of

448

raw milk and processed milk-products (local milk-based pastries) to the final consumers.

449

However, credits and buying (farmers produce) mechanisms extended to the cooperative

450

members had created doubts and income instability, as noted below;

451

“Milk gave us a salary like a normal job. I just deliver to our coop every day, and we

452

can get the payment every 15 days, by the middle and end of the month, just like I’m

453

employed in an office. We like it because its sure money and my family anticipate

454

those days. I also have some loans to the cooperative, but my salary can pay for it,

455

and I can still have some cash to bring home. Up till two years ago, the cooperative

456

delayed the payment. I can always deliver milk to them, but I stopped because even

457

now, I still have some payment to collect. It was a bad experience, and I think it was

458

mismanaged. I don’t know if I can still recover [the money], but we have new officers

459

already in the coop. Now most of us here sell to one of our friends; he collects and

460

delivers to his buyer. The price is also okay, and it’s good because he pays us every

461

week.” – (KI 7, 5 May 216)

462

5. Discussion

463

This study illustrates how smallholder farmers in Nueva Ecija province, Philippines, have

464

adapted to both social and climatic challenges over time. Farming remains the key source of

465

livelihoods despite the urbanising trend and climatic changes in several villages. Over the

466

past 30 years, farmers followed a distinctly market-oriented and cash crops - focused

467

production pattern. However, recurrent cropping and market failures spread the risks of

468

falling incomes among households. As an adaptation strategy, farmers used water buffalo

469

dairying as a buffer activity that based on their experiences has lowered the income risks of

470

their other livelihood options.

471

5.1 Water buffalo dairying for climate-resilient livelihoods

472

Shifting from crop production to water buffalo dairying suggests that farmers might have

473

taken advantage of differences in risk-proneness between farm components. In this process,

474

farmers depended more on their animals for income wherein the water buffalo keeping turns

475

from a multifunctional (draft power, meat) into a commodity (milk) focused activity of

476

smallholders. Ellis (2000) concluded that the new ways of trying to sustain the existing

477

income sources are also forms of adaptation, and this is closely related but not synonymous

478

with diversification. Accordingly, some studies reveal that adaptation strategies of

479

households are practically linked to livelihood diversification to adapt to climatic changes

480

(Agyei et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2014).

481

Our findings reveal that water buffalo dairying played the role of a buffer against income and

482

climate extremes shocks, thereby increasing farmers’ income security and livelihood

483

resilience. Because animals are portable and mobile, they have a special role to play when

484

people are physically displaced during extreme events and natural hazards (Campbell &

485

Knowles, 2011). For instance, during tropical cyclones and flooding, a family can move and

486

safeguard their animals but must leave their houses and crops behind. Livestock function in

487

farming households after a natural hazard has also been identified as an adaptation in several

488

studies and areas (Nakamura et al., 2017; Coppock et al., 2018).

489

Water buffalo serve as an expanded asset base of farm households, a similar livestock role in

490

smallholder farmers in other developing countries (Ali, 2007; Tarawali et al., 2011). Farmers’

491

respondents aspire to own more animals to milk, and as their herd size increased it

492

strengthens social relations by helping the households through livestock loans and

493

contributing to better family well-being (Fafchamps & Lund, 2003). Farmers are managing

494

their dairy water buffalo herd both as a productive asset and indirect mechanism for savings.

495

Farmers’ caracows are the living banks in the villages that provide not only daily incomes but

496

also other important financial needs of household members such as in sending their children

497

to colleges or universities.

498

Moreover, livestock for smallholders represents more than just an economic asset but also

499

socio-cultural values (Gandini & Villa, 2003) that play a role in boosting farmer’s adaptive

500

capacity. In the Philippines, farmers have a strong historical association with water buffalo as

501

part of traditional land-based agriculture. In fact, the water buffalo is traditionally regarded as

502

the country’s national animal because of farmers’ strong cultural attachment, and because it

503

represents the life of farmers in rural villages. In general, water buffalos are resilient and

504

sturdy animals, i.e., they thrive well even under extreme climatic conditions and poor

505

roughages e.g. native weeds and crop residues. The apparent change in water buffalo

506

functionality from draft power to milk production also manifests farmers’ flexibility and

507

tested knowledge in water buffalo keeping (Cruz, 2013).

508

5.2 Dairy buffalo development and adaptation process

509

The adoption of dairy buffalo production across the villages practically emanates from the

510

carabao development program (CDP) of the government, by which the greater focus on

511

village-based dairying started in 1999 (Cruz, 2015). At the outset, CDP was comprised of

512

developmental activities to provide additional income source and reduce poverty among rural

513

villages. It was implemented exclusively to address a broader goal of livelihood security,

514

without reference to adaptation. It is not a program that is specifically designed in response to

515

flooding and stronger typhoon, but it has functioned as an adaptive measure after almost two

516

decades of implementation. A recent study by Parreño-de Guzman et al. (2015) has indicated

517

that one of the highest poverty incidences was found among rice and corn workers (36%) in

518

the Philippines. Shifting focus from cash cropping to buffalo dairying reflects not only a risk

519

reduction strategy of farmers but an embedded adaptation option framed by institutional

520

dynamics and farmers’ livelihood aspirations (Agrawal, 2008).

521

Our findings also provide evidence that the adaptation process is inevitably part of local

522

sustainable livelihood development. Previous studies by Berkhout (2012) and Eakin et al.

523

(2014) reveal that adaptation decision out of development programs plays an important role

524

in modifying farmers’ adaptive capacity and in boosting farm-efficiency, which in turn, leads

525

to broader livelihood adaptation at the local level. In many instances, development is seen as

526

a means to adaptation ends (Dovers & Hezri, 2010; Wise et al., 2014). Conversely, analysis

527

on the trajectory of farming livelihood suggests that shifting focus from crops to water

528

buffalo may arise from the context of ‘serendipitous’ adaptation. Under the serendipitous

529

adaptation model, the activities are undertaken to achieve development objectives

530

incidentally achieve adaptation objectives (McGray et al., 2007). Other authors also

531

emphasised that climate change is rarely the sole or primary motivator for adaptation actions,

532

and that adaptation can be inseparable to development (Berrang-Ford et al., 2011; Knaepen,

533

2014; Wise et al., 2014).

534

Accordingly, an adaptation strategy that delivers positive livelihood outcome is considered

535

sustainable (Hoque et al., 2018; Smit & Pilifosova, 2003; Wang et al., 2016). Farmer's

536

livelihood trajectories reflected small-hold farming sociocultural dimensions. Taking

537

adaptation strategy can be interpreted as an outcome of farmers’ social relations, household

538

capacity, and to the degree to which they are integrated into social and political dynamics in

539

their localities (Adger, 2003; Amaru & Chhetri 2013). Local institutions shape and serve as a

540

mechanism to facilitate adaptation (Agrawal, 2008). A shifting focus to water buffalo

541

dairying figures clearly in the government’s sustained growth objective for smallholders.

542

Wherein this objective is met through stable income source for farmers, more efficient use of

543

household labour, and increased productivity by efficient utilisation of water buffalo and

544

related local resources. Milking water buffalo can be a sustainable livelihood adaptation

545

option for farmers in the villages as climate change progressively forces cash cropping out of

546

their small farms. While this may be true, it is also common in many farms in Nueva Ecija

547

that farmers employ crop-livestock integration in their farming system; farmers who appear

548

to be full time on water buffalo dairying are actually raising crops (rice or vegetables) as well

549

on small parcels of land.

550

6. Conclusions and policy implication

551

This study contributes to a greater scientific understanding of a livelihood adaptation process

552

under the context of small-hold farming. The findings provided an opportunity to draw

553

general lessons from the adoption of governmental-led water buffalo development program:

554

on why farmers take water buffalo dairying to reduce the risks from recurrent crop failure,

555

and on the process, how different villages considered as it as viable adaptation option for

556

climate-resilient livelihoods.

557

The findings imply that in the face of varied challenges being confronted by farmers, the

558

process of adaptation to climate change does not need to start from scratch. Farmers

559

voluntarily took adaptation actions that reflect the dynamics of their livelihoods and address

560

the conditions they currently face. Water buffalo dairying is a promising resource for

561

smallholder farmers and can be a principal livelihood activity, especially for vulnerable

562

villages. A shift in focus on water buffalo dairying does not mean that it can be a replacement

563

activity to crop cultivation, but rather a crucial component that can best complement to their

564

mixed crop-livestock farming system. Cropping is a major source of feed materials through

565

residues such as rice straws and corn stovers, while crops also have benefits such as source of

566

fertiliser from animal manure. Rice, in particular, is crucial for the household food security,

567

and rice cultivation need also be sustained for consumption because it is the most important

568

staple food in the country.

569

In this case, a local policy must integrate adaptation programs that are linked to livelihood

570

development. Climate change adaptation need be mainstreamed into local policies in a sense

571

that it builds climate-resilient livelihoods and improves the adaptive capacity of farmers. The

572

livelihood activities attached to Carabao Development Program must bring the development

573

and adaptation together in the villages through a constructive engagement of mutual learning

574

and practice. In adaptation planning, it needs to consider the almost three decades of the

575

Philippine Carabao Center development experience of building capacity for smallholder

576

buffalo farmers, coupled with knowledge about climate change and its impacts, and farmers

577

experiences.

578

Positive adaptive actions need be encouraged such as programs that foster asset building or

579

livelihood activities that reduce their vulnerability to damaging impacts of extreme climatic

580

events. For example, providing improved water buffalo stocks equitably to farmers across the

581

villages. Buffalo dairying skills training need also be made to develop local expertise aimed

582

at enhancing the buffalo milk production through regular workshops and extension supports

583

to farmers. The implementation and monitoring of CDP related activities could also be

584

strengthened at the operational level. A particular example is on the improvement of

585

marketing of farmers produce through the collective efforts of different local institutions and

586

networks in between villages. Practices to mitigate the direct impacts to animals of recurrent

587

typhoons and flooding need to be in place (as we found it non-existent in the area) through

588

animal protection measures. Given the urgency of climate change and the high likelihood that

589

it will seriously affect the smallholder farmers in developing countries, adaptive systems of

590

governance are necessary.

591

Acknowledgements

592

This research was conducted as part of a PhD project financially supported by Charles

593

Darwin University. We would like to thank the farmers in Nueva Ecija province, the

594

Philippines for their time and cooperation. We also thank Rovelyn Jacang and Erwin Valiente

595

and the Philippine Carabao Center for their assistance during data collection.

596

Reference

597 598

Adams, A., Cekan, J., & Sauerborn, R. (1998). Towards a conceptual framework of household coping: Reflections from rural West Africa. Africa, 68(2), 263-283. doi:10.2307/1161281

599 600

Adger, W. (2003). Social Capital, Collective Action, and Adaptation to Climate Change. Economic Geography, 79(4), 387-404.

601 602 603 604

Agrawal, A. (2008). The role of local institutions in adaptation to climate change (English). Washington, DC: World Bank. Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/234591468331456170/The-role-of-localinstitutions-in-adaptation-to-climate-change

605 606 607

Agyei, P.A., Stringer, L. C., & Dougill, A. J. (2014). Livelihood adaptations to climate variability: insights from farming households in Ghana. Regional Environmental Change, 14(4), 16151626.

608 609 610

Ali, J. (2007). Livestock sector development and implications for rural poverty alleviation in India. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 19, Article #27. Retrieved from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/2/ali19027.htm

611 612

Altieri, M. A., & Koohafkan, P. (2008). Enduring farms: climate change, smallholders and traditional farming communities (Vol. 6). Penang: Third World Network (TWN).

613 614 615

Amaru, S., & Chhetri, N. B. (2013). Climate adaptation: Institutional response to environmental constraints, and the need for increased flexibility, participation, and integration of approaches. Applied Geography, 39, 128-139.

616 617

Ayers, J. (2011). Resolving the adaptation paradox: Exploring the potential for deliberative adaptation policy-making in Bangladesh. Global Environmental Politics, 11(1), 62-88.

618 619 620

Bagchi, D. K., Blaikie, P., Cameron, J., Chattopadhyay, M., Gyawali, N., & Seddon, D. (1998). Conceptual and methodological challenges in the study of livelihood trajectories: case‐studies in Eastern India and Western Nepal. Journal of International Development, 10(4), 453-468.

621 622 623

Barker, J. S. F., Moore, S. S., Hetzel, D. J. S., Evans, D., Tan, S. G. Byrne, K. (1997). Genetic diversity of Asian water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis): microsatellite variation and a comparison with protein-coding loci. Animal Genetics, 28, 103–115.

624 625

Bazeley, P., & Jackson, K. (Eds.). (2013). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. Sage Publications Limited.

626 627

Berrang-Ford, L., Ford, J. D., & Paterson, J. (2011). Are we adapting to climate change?. Global Environmental Change, 21(1), 25-33.

628 629

Berkhout, F. (2012). Adaptation to climate change by organizations. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 3(1), 91-106.

630 631 632

Blanc, E., & Strobl, E. (2016). Assessing the impact of typhoons on rice production in the Philippines. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 55(4), 993-1007, doi:10.1175/jamc-d-150214.1.

633 634 635

Bohra-Mishra, P., Oppenheimer, M., Cai, R., Feng, S., Licker, R. (2017). Climate variability and migration in the Philippines. Population and Environment, 38:286-308, doi:10.1007/s11111016-0263-x.

636 637 638

Campbell, R., & Knowles, T. (2011). The economic impacts of losing livestock in a disaster, a report for the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), prepared by Economists at Large. Melbourne, Australia.

639 640 641

Coppock, D. L., Bailey, D., Ibrahim, M., & Tezera, S. (2018). Diversified investments of wealthy Ethiopian pastoralists include livestock and urban assets that better manage risk. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 71(1), 138-148.

642 643

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

644 645

Cruz, L. (2013). Changing faces of swamp buffaloes in an industrializing Asia. In: Buffalo Bulletin. Special Issue 1. International Buffalo Information Center, pp 32-49.

646 647

Cruz, L. (2015). Institutionalization of swamp buffalo development in the Philippines. In: international seminar improving tropical animal production for food security, 2015. p 15.

648 649

De Haan, L., & Zoomers, A. (2005). Exploring the frontier of livelihoods research. Development and Change, 36(1), 27-47, doi:10.1111/j.0012-155X.2005.00401.x.

650 651 652

Delgado, C., Rosegrant, M., Steinfeld, H., Ehui, S., & Courbois, C. (2001). Livestock to 2020: The next food revolution. Outlook on Agriculture, 30(1), 27-29, doi:10.5367/000000001101293427.

653 654

Devendra, C., & Thomas, D. (2002). Smallholder farming systems in Asia. Agricultural Systems, 71(1-2), 17-25.

655 656 657

Devendra, C., & Leng, R. A. (2011). Feed resources for animals in Asia: issues, strategies for use, intensification and integration for increased productivity. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 24(3), 303-321.

658 659 660

Devendra, C. (2012). Rainfed areas and animal agriculture in Asia: The wanting agenda for transforming productivity growth and rural poverty. Asian-Australasian journal of animal sciences, 25(1), 122.

661 662 663

Dijk, T. V. (2011). Livelihoods, capitals and livelihood trajectories: a more sociological conceptualisation. Progress in Development Studies, 11(2), 101-117, doi:10.1177/146499341001100202.

664 665 666

Diniz, F. H., Hoogstra-Klein, M. A., Kok, K., & Arts, B. (2013). Livelihood strategies in settlement projects in the Brazilian Amazon: Determining drivers and factors within the Agrarian Reform Program. Journal of Rural Studies, 32, 196-207.

667 668

Dorward, A., Anderson, S., & Paz, R. (2005). A guide to indicators and methods for assessing the contribution of livestock keeping to livelihoods of the poor. FAO, Rome.

669 670

Dovers, S. R., & Hezri, A. A. (2010). Institutions and policy processes: the means to the ends of adaptation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(2), 212-231.

671 672

Eakin, H. C., Lemos, M. C., & Nelson, D. R. (2014). Differentiating capacities as a means to sustainable climate change adaptation. Global Environmental Change, 27, 1-8.

673 674 675

Easterling, W. E., Chhetri, N., & Niu, X. (2003). Improving the realism of modeling agronomic adaptation to climate change: simulating technological substitution. In Issues in the Impacts of Climate Variability and Change on Agriculture. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 149-173.

676 677

Ellis, F (2000). Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

678 679 680

Escarcha, J. F., Lassa, J. A., Palacpac, E. P., & Zander, K. K. (2018). Understanding climate change impacts on water buffalo production through farmers’ perceptions. Climate Risk Management, 20, 50-63.

681 682

Fafchamps, M., & Lund, S. (2003). Risk-sharing networks in rural Philippines. Journal of Development Economics, 71(2), 261-287.

683 684 685

FAO, IFAD and WFP (2013). The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2013. The multiple dimensions of food security. Rome, FAO. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3434e/i3434e.pdf. (accessed 13 March 2018)

686 687

Forsyth, T., & Evans, N. (2013). What is autonomous adaption? Resource scarcity and smallholder agency in Thailand. World Development, 43, 56-66.

688 689

Gandini, G. C., & Villa, E. (2003). Analysis of the cultural value of local livestock breeds: a methodology. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 120(1), 1-11.

690 691

Garner, E., & de la O Campus, A.P. (2014). Identifying the “family farm”: an informal discussion of the concepts and definitions. ESA Working Paper No. 14-10. Rome, FAO.

692 693

Ghahramani, A., & Moore, A. D. (2016). Impact of climate changes on existing crop-livestock farming systems. Agricultural Systems, 146, 142-155.

694 695

Guest, G. (2013). Describing mixed methods research: An alternative to typologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(2), 141-151.

696 697

Hänke, H., & Barkmann, J. (2017). Insurance function of livestock, Farmers coping capacity with crop failure in southwestern Madagascar. World Development, 96, 264-275.

698 699 700

Hoque, S. F., Quinn, C., & Sallu, S. (2018). Differential livelihood adaptation to social-ecological change in coastal Bangladesh. Regional Environmental Change, 18(2), 451-463, doi:10.1007/s10113-017-1213-6.

701 702

Jones, P. G., & Thornton, P. K. (2009). Croppers to livestock keepers: livelihood transitions to 2050 in Africa due to climate change. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(4), 427-437.

703 704

Knaepen, H. L. (2014). Mainstreaming climate change adaptation into Vietnamese development as a new policy arrangement. In Coastal Disasters and Climate Change in Vietnam (pp. 355-377).

705 706 707

Leclère, D., Havlík, P., Fuss, S., Schmid, E., Mosnier, A., Walsh, B., H. Valin, M. Herrero, N. Khabarov, & Obersteiner, M. (2014). Climate change induced transformations of agricultural systems: insights from a global model. Environmental Research Letters, 9(12), 124018.

708 709

Lowder, S. K., Skoet, J., & Raney, T. (2016). The number, size, and distribution of farms, smallholder farms, and family farms worldwide. World Development, 87, 16-29.

710 711

McGray, H., Hammill, A., & Bradley, R. (2007). Weathering the storm: options for framing climate change and development. WRI Report. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

712 713

McLean, J. E. (2015). Beyond the pentagon prison of sustainable livelihood approaches and towards livelihood trajectories approaches. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 56(3), 380-391.

714 715 716

Millar, J., & Photakoun, V. (2008). Livestock development and poverty alleviation: Revolution or evolution for upland livelihoods in Lao PDR?. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 6(1), 89-102, doi:10.3763/ijas.2007.0335.

717 718

Morton, J. F. (2007). The impact of climate change on smallholder and subsistence agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(50), 19680-19685.

719 720

Mottaleb, K. A., & Mohanty, S. (2015). Farm size and profitability of rice farming under rising input costs. Journal of Land Use Science, 10(3), 243-255, doi: 10.1080/1747423X.2014.919618.

721 722 723

Nakamura, H., Dorjjadamba, R., & Sodnomdarjaa, D. (2017). The impact of a disaster on asset dynamics in the Gobi region of Mongolia: An analysis of livestock changes. The Journal of Development Studies, 53(11), 1944-1961.

724 725

Netting, R. M. (1993). Smallholders, householders: farm families and the ecology of intensive, sustainable agriculture. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

726 727

PAGASA. (2015). Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration. Philippines: http://www. pagasa. dost. gov. ph. (accessed 1 July 2018)

728 729 730

Parreño-de Guzman, L. E., Zamora, O. B., & Bernardo, D. F. H. (2015). Diversified and integrated farming systems (DIFS): Philippine experiences for improved livelihood and nutrition. Journal of Developments in Sustainable Agriculture, 10(1), 19-33.

731 732 733

Phuong, L. T. H., Biesbroek, G. R., Sen, L. T. H., & Wals, A. E. (2017). Understanding smallholder farmers’ capacity to respond to climate change in a coastal community in Central Vietnam. Climate and Development, 1-16.

734 735

PSA. (2016). Philippine Statistics Authority. Performance of Philippine Agriculture. (accessed 14 June 2018)

736 737 738

PSA. (2017). Philippine Statistics Authority. Nueva Ecija QuickStat. Retrieved from: https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/attachments/ird/quickstat/Nueva%20Ecija_47.xls (accessed 14 June 2018)

739 740 741

Samberg, L. H., Gerber, J. S., Ramankutty, N., Herrero, M., & West, P. C. (2016). Subnational distribution of average farm size and smallholder contributions to global food production. Environmental Research Letters, 11(12), 124010.

742 743 744

Seo, S. N., & Mendelsohn, R. (2008). Measuring impacts and adaptations to climate change: a structural Ricardian model of African livestock management 1. Agricultural Economics, 38(2), 151-165.

745 746

Smit, B., & Skinner, M. W. (2002). Adaptation options in agriculture to climate change: a typology. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 7(1), 85-114.

747 748

Smit, B., & Pilifosova, O. (2003). Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable development and equity. Sustainable Development, 8(9), 9.

749 750 751

Stür, W., Khanh, T. T., & Duncan, A. (2013). Transformation of smallholder beef cattle production in Vietnam. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 11(4), 363-381, doi:10.1080/14735903.2013.779074.

752 753 754

Tarawali, S., Herrero, M., Descheemaeker, K., Grings, E., & Blümmel, M. (2011). Pathways for sustainable development of mixed crop livestock systems: Taking a livestock and pro-poor approach. Livestock Science, 139(1-2), 11-21, doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2011.03.003.

755 756

Thornton, P. K. (2010). Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 2853-2867.

757 758 759

Thornton, P. K., & Herrero, M. (2015). Adapting to climate change in the mixed crop and livestock farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa. Nature Climate Change, 5(9), 830, doi:10.1038/nclimate2754.

760 761 762

Trouet, V., & Van Oldenborgh, G. J. (2013). KNMI Climate Explorer: a web-based research tool for high-resolution paleoclimatology. Tree-Ring Research, 69 (1), 3-13. doi: 10.3959/1536-109869.1.3

763 764 765

Wang, J., Wang, Y., Li, S., & Qin, D. (2016). Climate adaptation, institutional change, and sustainable livelihoods of herder communities in northern Tibet. Ecology and Society, 21(1), doi:10.5751/ES-08170-210105.

766 767 768

West, C. T. (2013). Documenting livelihood trajectories in the context of development interventions in northern Burkina Faso. Journal of Political Ecology, 20(1), 342-360, doi:10.2458/v20i1.21750

769 770 771

Wise, R. M., Fazey, I., Smith, M. S., Park, S. E., Eakin, H. C., Van Garderen, E. A., & Campbell, B. (2014). Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of change and response. Global Environmental Change, 28, 325-336.

772 773 774

Wu, N., Ismail, M., Joshi, S., Yi, S. L., Shrestha, R. M., & Jasra, A. W. (2014). Livelihood diversification as an adaptation approach to change in the pastoral Hindu-Kush Himalayan region. Journal of Mountain Science, 11(5), 1342-1355.

Tables Table 1: Friedman’ tests result showing water buffalo’s buffering functions to farmers livelihoods, N=298 Livelihood function1

Reasons for importance

Income

For buying viands2, Household basic items Covering unexpected costs, or insurance mechanisms in case of crop losses To increase income and production, buying more caracows We cannot afford to buy milk and beef To be able to work with other farmers and call them for assistance

Buffering

Accumulation

Consumption Social integration

Mean

SD

Mean Ranka

4.73

0.45

5.42

4.28

0.65

4.81

3.34

0.76

3.48

2.58

0.59

2.45

2.08

0.81

1.82

Friedman Test

χ2 (5, N=298) =914.54, p<0.001

Kendall's W

0.614

a

The higher the mean rank of a function, the greater the level of importance in the livelihoods.

1 2

Categories adopted and modified from Dorward et al., 2005. A viand is a meat, seafood, or vegetable dish that accompanies rice in a typical Filipino meal.”

Figures Figure 1: Historical production volume changes of major crops and water buffalo, plotted against loses from typhoons and El Niño damages in Nueva Ecija province, Philippines. (Data sources: PSA: Philippines Statistics Authority, http://psa.gov.ph; and PAGASA: Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration. Philippines: http://www.pagasa.dost.gov.ph)

Figure 2: A mixed method conceptual design of the data collection process (exploratory sequential) and analysis (convergent concurrent), modified from Guest (2013).

Figure 3: Reliance on farming and the evolution of major contributors to total household income, Nueva Ecija, N=298 (data source: household survey).

Figure 4: The interplay of causal drivers to farming livelihoods, highlighting a pattern of relationships and link for livelihood security of farmers in Nueva Ecija province, Philippines. Positive polarity on the arrows indicates variables are directly proportional to each other (e.g. when farm income increases, household welfare increases). A negative polarity shows opposite direction of change in the next variable (e.g. when the extent of societal pressure increases, livelihood resources pool decreases).

Land + fragmentation +

Variability Rainfall

Societal Pressure Loop

Population growth

Urbanisation

Climatic Changes

Flooding +

+ Demand for + animal-based products

-

Temperature

Drought + Heat

Typhoons

-

Extremes

Recurring Crop Failure

-

Access to water, irrigation + Farm mechanisation

Market shocks

+ -

-

Traditional farming knowledge

Income generation

-

Farming

+ Cash deficits

+ +

-

+

Adaptation plans

Livestock

+

Livelihood Resources Pool

+

Bigger household size -

+

+

+

Cash-crops

+

Family labour

Policies Programs

Coping strategies

+ Social networks, farm cooperatives +

Food

+ + Income

+

+

Smaller farm size Local support services, gov't and private

+

other livelihood function + +

Legend:

--

Variable source: own data

causal relationship correlational relationship

+

Household welfare

Livelihood security

-

+

Highlights •

The study examined the livelihood adaptation process of smallholders in the Philippines.

•

Empirical findings show a shifting focus from cropping to water buffalo dairying across villages.

•

Milking water buffaloes serves as a buffer activity against income and climate extreme shocks.

•

Farmers voluntary take adaptation actions that reflect the dynamics of their livelihoods.

•

Integrating adaptation into existing water buffalo sector’s development program is suggested for smallholders’ climate-resilient livelihoods.