Preliminary draft for discussion, do not cite

ADOPTION STATUS AND PATTERNS OF SMALL-SCALE IRRIGATION SYSTEMS IN

HIGHLAND VEGETABLE FARMING IN THE CORDILLERA REGION, PHILIPPINES

Cheryll C. Launio, Marivic Abyado and Erlinda Alupias

Benguet State University, Philippines
c.launio@bsu.edu.ph

Abstract

This study contributes information on the use of agriculture water resource which is a
critical factor for increased production, lower food prices, and sustainable development. It
determined the status, patterns, and constraints of the adoption of small-scale irrigation systems
and water-saving practices in highland vegetable farming systems. It involves the conduct of focus
group discussions in 30 barangays of Benguet, Mountain Province and Ifugao in Cordillera Region
in the Philippines, and household survey of 264 highland vegetable farmers from 26 barangays.

Findings indicate the sources of irrigation water, characteristics and management of small-
scale irrigation systems and irrigation distribution systems being used, farmers’ water
management and conservation practices, and awareness and use of water-saving technologies.
Problems commonly encountered in the irrigations sources, systems and facilities and suggested
solutions were also elicited. Based from the findings of the study, implications to policy and S&T
were put forward.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Availability of irrigation water and water-use efficiency are critical factors for increased
production, productivity and lower food prices. Worldwide, 70% of total water use is for agriculture,
8% is for domestic use, and about 22% for industry (World Bank, 2016). For low- and middle-
income countries, 82% of freshwater is used for agriculture, 8% for domestic use, and 10% for
industry. In the Philippines, as much as 85% of the water demand is for agriculture (Water
Dialogues, 2009). It is estimated that the country’s 26 BCM/year agricultural water demand in
1995 will increase, with business-as-usual scenarios, to 73 BCM/year by 2025 or 2.8 times the
1995 level (JICA).

Improved agricultural water management is thus a significant and potential impact area
for adaptation. In a study of gaps in adaptive capacity of 8 ASEAN member countries, for example,
some of the identified principal gaps for the water sector are the inefficient use of water, especially
in agriculture; and insufficient drought management (AIT/UNEP, 2010). With water being scarce,
it is important to ensure that every drop of water counts for crop production.

Much technical and policy research has been done on irrigation and irrigation development
in the Philippines, particularly on large irrigation systems and pump irrigation (David, 2003; 2008;
Moya, 1985; Moya and Valencia, 2002; Inocencio and Barker, 2006). These researches, however,
largely focused either on the large irrigation systems as applied to rice and rice-based farming
systems or small-scale pump and tubewell irrigation systems. Inocencio and Barker (2006) found,
for example, the increasing importance of private-sector investment in pumps and tubewells
supporting not only rice-based farming systems but more diversified cropping systems. Launio
(2016) looked at the use of deepwell and shallow tubewells in rice-based farming systems. To the
best of our knowledge, however, while there were studies that included some information on
irrigation sources and practices for Philippine highland vegetable farming (De Leon, 2011; Simon,
2010), few studies focused on small-scale irrigation systems, particularly the use of drip and
sprinkler irrigations, as well as other water-saving technologies applied in the context of Philippine
highland fruit and vegetable farming systems.

Small-scale irrigation systems particularly has long been supporting the highland
vegetable farming systems in Benguet and other parts of the Cordillera. With natural sources such
as springs and rivers being the most common source of irrigation water, the use of hose and
sprinkler irrigation distribution system revolutionized the cropping patterns and made life much
easier for farmers given the highland farming landscape.

1
 The use of drip irrigation is seen to be one useful option in ensuring sustainable use of
water resources. It is identified as both having potential for adaptation and mitigation (Zou, 2013;
Kumar and Palanisam, 2010). The advantages of drip irrigation based on literature include: 1)
increased water use efficiency; 2) more efficient and precise application of fertilizer and other
chemicals; 3) adaptability to oddly shaped fields or those with uneven topography or soil texture;
4) yield and quality responses observed in selected crops; and 5) possibility of automation (Shock,
2006). Accordingly, among its disadvantages are: 1) relatively more costly than other irrigation
systems; 2) management of plugging or leaking; and 3) disposal of drip tape after harvest. Use of
sprinkler irrigation, on the other hand, has significantly made life easier for farmers given the
highland farming landscape where canals cannot be easily constructed. Not many studies,
however, have been done looking at the patterns of use of sprinkler and drip irrigation systems,
characteristics of adopted technologies and practices and operation gaps.

The Department of Agriculture has been promoting the adoption of water-saving

technologies, such as drip irrigation since 1990s thru the key project “Key Commercial Crop
Development Program” (KCCDP) by BPI and BSWM through technology demonstration farms (T.
Sandoval, pers. comm.). However, accordingly, the adoption status of this technology has not
been evaluated.

The main contribution of this paper is it hopes to provide a general overview of the extent
of use of the various small-scale irrigation systems in highland vegetable farming in the CAR and
the patterns of use and characteristics of drip and sprinkler irrigation distribution systems in the
Cordillera region. The feedback information will be useful in identifying constraints and gaps as
well as providing evidence for the need for more research in irrigation and water management
technologies in relation to highland vegetable farming. BSU as a premier state university in the
Cordillera majors in research on highland farming technologies which are largely effective only
when irrigation water is not a limiting factor. Looking more closely at irrigation distribution systems
and irrigation methods will therefore, not only contribute to the sustainable development goals of
responsible production, and climate action and sustainable communities but also indirectly to no
poverty and zero hunger, and good health and well-being.

The general objective of this study is to characterize the irrigation sources, and use of
sprinklers, drip irrigation and other small-scale irrigation and irrigation systems used in the
highland vegetable farming systems in the CAR. Specifically, it aimed to 1) characterize the small-
scale irrigation sources and systems used in highland vegetable farming; 2) determine the
adoption status of sprinklers, drip irrigation and other small-scale irrigation and distribution
facilities; 3) determine the history of use of sprinkler and drip irrigation systems in the CAR; 4)
determine problems and constraints in the use of sprinkler and drip irrigation, and other small-
scale irrigation systems; and 5) identify gaps and provide policy recommendations on the use of
small-scale irrigation systems in the highland farming systems of the CAR.

2.0 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Data Sources

Secondary data from the Office of the Provincial Agriculturist (OAPG), Philippine Statistical
Authority (PSA) and National Irrigation Administration (NIA) were used in the study. In addition,
barangay level information on irrigation sources and facilities, irrigation system management, and
problems and constraints were elicited through key informant interviews and focus group
discussions conducted in 30 major highland vegetable farming barangays in the CAR. Finally, a
household survey using face-to-face interview method was conducted covering the major
highland farming areas of Benguet, Mountain Province and Ifugao.

2.2 Sampling

For the household survey, two-stage sampling was used. In the first stage, the highland vegetable
farming municipalities and barangays were identified and served as the sampling population. The
data on the area planted to highland vegetables from the Office of the Provincial Agriculture
(OPAG) and barangay agricultural profile survey of the Philippine Statistical Authority (PSA) were
used to determine the top municipalities planted to highland vegetables in the region. The number
of farmers in these municipalities were then summed and used as the sampling population. The

2
sample size calculated considering 95% confidence interval and confidence level of 6 was 264.
Sampling distribution per municipality was determined based on the proportion of area planted to
highland vegetables.

In the second stage, list of farmers in the sampled barangay were obtained either from the
Barangay records or from the Barangay Health Unit. Farming households considering the major
crops planted in the sampled barangay were randomly sampled from the list. Table 1 shows the
final sampling distribution for the household surveys and number of focus group discussions or
key informant interviews.

Table 1. Sampling distribution for Household Survey and Focus Group Interview

Municipality Household Survey FGDs/KIIs

No. of No. of
Barangays Respondents
Atok, Benguet 4 36 5
Buguias Benguet 10 96 13
Kibungan, Benguet 4 54 4
Mankayan, Benguet 4 42 3
Bauko, Mt. Province 3 26 3
Tinoc, Ifugao 3 10 2
Total 28 264 30

2.3 Data Analysis

The study used descriptive analysis such as frequency distribution, means, and range using
STATA or SPSS software. FGDs and KIIs were meant to gather more extensive information and
barangay-level information, while the survey tackled more detailed accounts per household.

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Household and Farm Characteristics

A typical highland vegetable farmer using sprinkler irrigation is relatively young at around 41 years
old with 26 years of farming experience, with elementary or high school formal schooling (Table
2). The average household size is five. Around 40% of farmers are members of organizations,
mostly cooperatives and farmers’ associations.

In terms of income structure, 77% of the total household income of the respondents is derived
from crop production followed by income from off-farm labor (Figure 1). The mean annual
household income of the respondents is Php155,640 with mean per capita annual income at
Php39,107. This is much higher than the poverty threshold income level at Php19140 for Benguet.
Looking at the income distribution of the respondents, however, will show that 20% of the
vegetable farming households are living on under Php10000 and 25% are living on around
Php10000 to Php19000 per capita annual income. This result indicates that there are still pockets
of poverty even among vegetable farming households even while around a quarter have annual
per capita income greater than Php50000. On average, a vegetable farming household receives
much higher compared with the typical Filipino household which has a per capita income of
Php16871 in 2015 (PSA, 2018).

Table 2. Socioeconomic profile of household survey respondents (n=264)

BENGUET MT. PROVINCE IFUGAO

PARTICULARS Atok Buguias KIbungan Mankayan Bauko Tinoc ALL
Farmer classification
Sprinkler-user 77.78% 85.71% 94.79% 57.41% 88.46% 100.00% 82.95%
Sprinkler-user and irrigation
pump-user 5.56% 11.90% 4.17% 7.41% 11.54% 0.00% 6.82%

3
 Rainfed 16.67% 2.38% 1.04% 35.19% 0.00% 0.00% 10.23%
Mean age 39.89 42.17 40.20 40.56 40.65 45.70 40.80
Mean no. of household
members >13 yrs. old 1.39 1.31 0.97 1.57 1.50 2.10 1.30
Mean no. of years in farming 16.47 17.79 40.24 17.57 16.65 20.40 25.81
Average household size 4.31 4.98 4.74 4.65 5.35 6.10 4.81
Highest educational attainment
Elementary Undergraduate 19.44% 16.67% 29.17% 24.07% 23.08% 16.67% 24.24%
Elementary Graduate 11.11% 19.05% 3.13% 9.26% 0.00% 19.05% 7.95%
High school Undergraduate 27.78% 14.29% 27.08% 27.78% 23.08% 14.29% 23.86%
High school Graduate 13.89% 23.81% 10.42% 18.52% 19.23% 23.81% 16.29%
College Undergraduate 16.67% 11.90% 23.96% 14.81% 19.23% 11.90% 18.94%
College Graduate 8.33% 4.76% 4.17% 3.70% 15.38% 4.76% 5.68%
Senior High School 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.85% 0.00% 0.00% 0.38%
Vocational 0.00% 2.38% 1.04% 0.00% 0.00% 2.38% 0.76%
College Level 0.00% 2.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.38% 0.38%
None 2.78% 4.76% 1.04% 0.00% 0.00% 4.76% 1.52%
% member in organization 36.1% 40.6% 35.2% 35.7% 42.3% 70.0% 39.4%
Membership in organizations
Cooperative 30.8% 26.7% 39.5% 15.8% 45.5% 0.0% 13.64%
Farmers Association 38.5% 53.3% 52.6% 57.9% 45.5% 71.4% 21.97%
Irrigators Association 15.4% 0.0% 2.6% 5.3% 0.0% 14.3% 3.70%
Multiple Responses 0.06% 0.02% 0.01% 0.0% 0.0% 0.10% 4.85%
Others 0.0% 13.3% 2.6% 21.1% 9.1% 0.0% 3.79%

Table 3. Frequency Distribution of the Respondents according to Annual Per Capita Household
Income

Income Bracket n %
Under 10,000 53 20.08
10,000 - 19,000 67 25.38
20,000 - 29,000 43 16.29
30,000 - 39,000 24 9.09
40,000 - 49,000 16 6.06
50,000 and over 61 23.11

local remittances
salary from self-
own business 0.1% pensions
employment
salary from 4.3% OCW remittances 0.3%
3.4%
employment 0.2%
1.4% others
others 0.2%
income from 0.3%
capital rentals
3.8%
income from farm
off-labor
Livestock and
7.3%
poultry
1.3%

Crop farming
77.4%

Figure 1. Income structure of highland vegetable farming household

4
Table 4 shows the farm characteristics of an average vegetable farmer based on the survey. The
average farm size is 5438 sqm with the average number of parcels at 1.5 and average parcel size
of 3851 sqm. Only around 1% of the highland vegetable farms in Benguet are practicing protected
cultivation or with greenhouse or rain shelter, and most are located in hilly or undulating areas
and terraced. Around 70% of the respondents reported that they own the farms they are operating
or own the farms but operated under an output-sharing labor contract arrangement or “suplay”
system in Benguet. In this contract arrangement, the “supplier” or financier provides the farming
inputs such as seeds, fertilizers and pesticides, while the hired operator or “suplay” provides all
the labor and technical expertise in the farm operations and in return gets 50% or 30% of net
returns after all the expenses from planting to harvesting of crops have been deducted from the
gross sales of the harvested crop. Although the literature appears to be not consistent on the
implications of sharecropping and fixed rental on productivity and efficiency, land ownership has
implications on farm productivity as many studies have shown (Ghebru, 2015; Koirala et al.,
2014).

Table 4. Farm size and parcel size distribution, 264, CAR highland vegetable areas, 2018

ITEM Mean Standard Deviation

Total farm size (ha) 5437.62 5273.54
Average number of parcels 1.47 0.84
Mean parcel size 3850.53 2832.51
Parcel size distribution Frequency Percentage
125- 2,333 sqm 70 26.52%
2,334- 4,541 sqm 90 34.09%
4,542- 6,749 sqm 70 26.52%
6,750- 89,57 sqm 9 3.41%
8,958- 11,165 sqm 23 8.71%
11,166- 13,373 sqm 1 0.38%
13,374-1 5,581 sqm 0 0.00%
15,582- 17,789 sqm 0 0.00%
17,790 sqm or more 1 0.38%
Type of cultivation
Open field 262 99.24
Greenhouse/rain shelter 2 0.76
Farm topography
River/flood plain 32 12.12
Hilly/undulating-terraced 208 78.79
Hilly/undulating-not terraced 22 8.33
Others 2 0.76
Tenurial status of farm parcels
Owned 178 67.42
Amortizing owner 1 0.38
Sharetenant 10 3.79
Sharetenant/supply 50 18.94
Leaseholder 11 4.17
Mortgaged 3 1.14
Owned/supply 9 3.41
Others 2 0.76
Soil texture
clayey 50 18.94
loamy 110 41.67
sandy 13 4.92
silty 15 5.68
others 55 20.83
sandy/loamy 21 7.95

3.2 Cropping systems and cropping calendars

More than 70% of the 396 parcels covered in the household survey (operated by the 264 farmer
respondents) practiced crop rotation that is planted to different crops in different cropping seasons
with 28% still practicing monocropping (Table 5). Most farmers were able to plant two croppings

5
per year and around a third of the respondents were able to plant three croppings per year. About
9% were able to plant 4 times a year. The above results show the intensive nature of highland
vegetable cropping systems in the Cordillera region.

Table 5. Cropping systems and patterns (n=396), 2018

Items n %
Cropping system
Crop rotation 283 71.5
Mixed cropping 2 0.5
Monocropping 111 28.0
Number of cropping per year
1-c ropping 49 12.4
2-croppings 143 36.1
2-croppings/mix cropping 9 2.3
3-croppings 135 34.1
3-croppings/mix cropping 9 2.3
4-croppings 34 8.6
Annual cropping 17 4.3
Cropping patterns (Chronological-harvest)*
POTATO-CABBAGE-POTATO 18 4.5
CHAYOTE 17 4.3
POTATO-CABBAGE 17 4.3
CABBAGE-POTATO 14 3.5
POTATO-POTATO 14 3.5
CABBAGE-CABBAGE 9 2.3
POTATO 8 2.0
CABBAGE 7 1.8
CARROT 7 1.8
CARROT-CABBAGE 7 1.8
CARROT-CARROT 6 1.5
CHINESE CABBAGE-POTATO 6 1.5
CABBAGE-CARROT 5 1.3
CARROT-POTATO 5 1.3
CHINESE CABBAGE 5 1.3
POTATO-CHINESE CABBAGE-POTATO 5 1.3
BROCCOLI 4 1.0
CABBAGE-CHINESE CABBAGE 4 1.0
CABBAGE-POTATO-POTATO 4 1.0
POTATO-BROCCOLI-POTATO 4 1.0
POTATO-CARROT 4 1.0
POTATO-POTATO-CABBAGE 4 1.0
TOMATO-TOMATO 4 1.0
CABBAGE-CABBAGE-CABBAGE 3 0.8
CABBAGE-CABBAGE-POTATO 3 0.8
POTATO-LETTUCE-POTATO-POTATO 3 0.8
POTATO-POTATO-CHINESE CABBAGE 3 0.8
POTATO-POTATO-POTATO 3 0.8
TOMATO 3 0.8
*Note: A total of 200 varied cropping patterns were reported. Only the top patterns were reported here.

3.2 Sources of Irrigation in Highland Vegetable Farming Areas

On the status of highland vegetable farms, only 44% of the respondents claimed that their farms
are fully irrigated while 42% are partially irrigated meaning while there is an irrigation facility, it
cannot fully support the dry season and third cropping. At least 14% of the highland vegetable
farms of the respondents are purely dependent on rainfall.

6
Based on the results of the barangay-level questionnaire where we asked the key informants the
number of irrigation sources in the barangays, most of the identified sources are privately
managed springs either by individual farmers or family or group of farmers, and rivers or creeks
tapped with hose. Table 6 shows that there is an estimated 174 privately managed springs in the
30 municipalities where the barangay FGDs were conducted and 14 NIA-managed springs. In
addition, there are 207 identified rivers and creeks where farmers tap irrigation water. These
creeks may not be exactly different river systems but can be coming from few major river systems
but may indicate the various locations where farmers tap their hose. Some 13 NIA-managed CIS
were identified in the selected municipalities covered by the FGDs. These figures are based only
on 30 selected highland vegetable farming municipalities in the CAR and the perception of the
key informants who represented the different sitios of the barangay during the key informant
interviews or FGDs.

The household survey corroborates the barangay-level results since most of the respondents
claimed that their highland vegetable farms are being supported by spring (46%) and rivers/creeks
(45%) (Table 7). This implies that the watersheds which support these springs and rivers must be
effectively preserved and conservation efforts sustained to make such sources sustainable.

Table 6. Number of sources of irrigation water, highland vegetable farming municipalities, CAR,
2018
Sources of Irrigation Selected Highland Vegetable Farming Municipalities
water BENGUET MT. PROV. IFUGAO
Atok Buguias Kibungan Mankayan Bauko Tinoc ALL
1. Spring
Private 49 68 38 4 5 10 174
NIA-managed 0 8 1 1 4 0 14
2. Rivers/creeks
Communal Irrigation
1 5 3 0 4 0 13
System
Privately managed 45 93 20 30 13 6 207
Source: Barangay-level data elicited using FGD/Key informant interviews, 2018

Table 7. Irrigation status and irrigation facilities (n=264), 2018

Items Frequency Percentage
Irrigation status
Purely rainfed 36 13.64
Partially irrigated 112 42.43
Fully irrigated 116 43.94
Source of irrigation
Spring 122 46.39
River/creek 118 44.70
NIA canal 4 1.52
NIA tank 5 1.9
Groundwater 0 0
SWIP 0 0
None 15 1.14
Source of data: own household survey, 2018

3.3 Management of Irrigation Sources

Springs. Farmers in general manage by themselves the springs where they get their irrigation
water. Property rights are not exactly defined for springs used as sources of irrigation water. A
common understanding and practice among users of a specific spring is that tapping the water
for irrigation is on first come first serve basis where the first one to tap his hose has the priority in
locating his hose and using the irrigation water. According to key informants, depending on the
spring source and location and the size of farms of the users, most springs can support at least
two to five farmers with at least 3000 to 5000 sqm farm size. In some cases, only one can tap
water in a small spring source, usually the owner of the land where it is located or the first who
tapped. Tapping of water in springs is usually for free and based on common understanding and
verbal agreements in the community or among users.
In a few cases (at least three cases encountered in the 30 survey barangays), the owner of the
land where the spring is located or the first one who tapped who did not use that spring for that

7
year rented out the use of the spring including the hose from the source for Php2500 per year,
Php3000 per year, and Php5000 per year.
According to the respondents, the users are responsible in cleaning, fixing and maintaining the
springs. The frequency of cleaning of the spring varies widely from two to three times a month to
once a year, depending on the location and occurrences. Some mentioned that they have rotation
schedules for cleaning the springs.
Conflicts and arguments also sometimes occur among farmers such as: conflicts on not sharing
water source; using of water source without permission; stealing of hose from the source;
disconnecting hose from the source; throwing of garbage in water source; excessive use of water;
conflict in scheduling of irrigation. These conflicts are usually settled by mere talking with each
other or discussing with the barangay officials to help resolve the conflicts. Rotation and
scheduling among users in using the irrigation water is also a solution.
The identified problems and constraints with spring irrigation sources include: shortage of water
or water decreases during dry season; soil erosion occur during rainy season; easily clogged or
detached hose from the source; and burning of forests which affect the springs.
Rivers/creeks. Similar to the creeks, farmers tapping water from rivers and creeks manage the
sources among themselves. Cleaning of the river sources and pathway of the hose are done by
the users themselves. Riprappig and rotation in cleaning are also practiced in some of the rivers.
Top conflicts or problems encountered in rivers or creeks as source of irrigation include illegal
tapping of hose from the source, overlapping hoses, pollution from garbage, and erosion that
destroys fields.
Communal irrigation systems. For CIS projects built in highland farming areas with water coming
from either springs or rivers and creeks, the common problems/conflicts encountered include
distribution of water from tanks, illegal tapping of hose. Open tanks, and scheduling of users. The
recommended solutions based on the KII are same size of hose should be used to be fair enough,
and tanks should be covered to avoid clogging.
3.4 Use of Sprinklers and Other Irrigation Distribution Facilities

Table 8 presents estimates of the total number or percentages of farmers using sprinklers, drip
and number of reservoir tanks and irrigation pumps based on the barangay-level key informant
interviews. It was estimated that in highland vegetable farming communities, 98% are using
sprinklers for irrigating their farms. The average total open cultivated area supported by sprinkler
irrigation is 2882 sqm per household. No farmer-respondent claimed to use sprinkler under
greenhouse cultivated vegetable farm.

On the other hand, only about 20 farmers were identified to be using drip irrigation in the sampled
municipalities. The common crops planted by the sample drip irrigation users were cut flowers
particularly carnation, strawberry, potato, lettuce, Japanese cucumber, and tomato. According to
an agricultural educator and cutflower grower, possible reasons for carnation growers investing
on drip irrigation is that use of sprinklers may exacerbate frog eye, a disease of carnation;
carnation fetches high price; and can be harvested until up to two years so that the high
investment cost for drip irrigation can be more likely recuperated (C. Galagal, pers. comm.) On
the other hand, lettuce, cucumber and tomato are crops that have relatively high water
requirement. The use of drip irrigation will allow continuous irrigation since drip irrigation is
targeted only to the root system of the plants.

The major system for transporting water coming from springs and creeks in the study areas is
with the use of hose although a remaining few use earth or lined canals (Table 9). The NIA in the
CAR also sometimes assist in such kind of irrigation sources and distribution system by
constructing reservoir near the beneficiary farms and installing high density polyethylene (HDPE)
pipes. In this case, the NIA takes care of the pipes from the source of water to the reservoir, and
the farmers take care of the hose from the reservoir tank to their individual farms. Based on FGDs,
there have been rare cases during the dry season when some farmers use water delivery trucks
to deliver irrigation water to their farms.

For water distribution in the farm, 60% of the respondents used sprinklers during the reference
period 2017 dry season. Some 22% of the respondents who used sprinklers used pump to access
irrigation water from the source. This is usually the case when the location of the water source is
lower than their farm location. The use of pumps in order to distribute water in the farm is more

8
prevalent in the dry season. According to the farmers, this is because the water pressure is less
during the dry season. About 16% of the respondents also used reservoir tank to store water for
their sprinklers.

Table 8. Estimated total number and percentages of Irrigation Distribution Facilities, 30 highland
vegetable-producing barangays, CAR

IRRIGATION BENGUET MT. IFUGAO

TECHNIQUE PROVINCE ALL
Atok Buguias Kibungan Mankayan Bauko Tinoc
 % of farmers 84% 92% 89% 95% 98% 100% 91%
using sprinkler
 Ave. no. of 2 2 2 2 3 2 2
sprinklers per
farm household
 No. of farmers 12 3 3 0 2 0 20
using drip
irrigation
 No. of reservoir 77 97 4 18 20 5 221
tanks
 No. of irrigation 65 64 14 84 15 1 243
pumps
Source: Barangay-level data elicited using FGD/Key informant interviews, 2018

Table 9. Irrigation distribution facilities and irrigation management, 2018

Items Frequency Percentage
Distribution system from water source to farm
hose 225 85.23
earth canal 5 1.89
lined canal 0
NIA canal 1 0.38
delivery truck 0
others 0
hose/lined canal 1 0.38
Use pump to access water from the source
yes 58 21.97
no 174 65.91
others 32 12.12
Water scheduling
continuous 121 45.83
rotation 110 41.67
N/A 32 12.12
Continuous/rotation 1 0.38
Irrigation management
NIA 11 4.17
irrigators association 0
private individual 178 67.42
communal 38 14.39
others 32 12.12
NIA/private individual 3 1.14
Distribution system on farm
sprinkler 159 60.23
hose 33 12.50
hand watering can 1 0.38
watering using cups 0
drip 1 0.38
others 32 12.12
Use irrigation pump for distribution (wet season) 11 4.62
Use irrigation pump for distribution (DS) 52 21.85
Use reservoir tank for sprinkler 41 15.5
Source of data: own household survey, 2018

9
3.5 History of Use of Irrigation and Irrigation Distribution Facilities

Both the extensive data based on FGDs and key informant interviews and the household survey
data show that sprinklers were used as early as in the 1970s and 1980s, but the year the use of
sprinklers increased significantly was in the early 1990s when the use of hose also became
popular.

Similar to the use of irrigation pumps, in the case of drip irrigation, its use became most popular
from 2001 although 75% of those who are using drip irrigation started using after 2010 (Table 11).

Table 10. History on the use of sprinklers, drip irrigation and irrigation pumps

Year Sprinklers Drip Irrigation Irrigation Pumps

n % n % n %
1960-1970 4 1.69% - - - -
1971-1980 11 4.66% - - 1 1.96
1981-1990 36 15.25% - - 1 1.96
1991-2000 55 23.31% - - 7 13.73
2001-2010 84 35.59% 2 25.0% 18 35.29
2011-2018 46 19.49% 6 75.0% 24 47.06

Irrigation methods before the use of sprinklers

Before the advent of use of hose and sprinkler irrigation distribution system, most were rainfed
vegetable farms depending only on rain for irrigation. Those with available source of irrigation
used hose manuallyto water the plants, while others used watering can and hand watering cups.
Some of the respondents do not remember using any other method because they were using
sprinklers since they started farming.

Table 11. Method of Irrigation before using Sprinkler

Method Frequency Percentage

None/rainfed 135 51.14
Manual using watering can 22 8.33
Manual using hose 54 20.45
Hand watering cups 3 1.14
Furrow 0 0
Others (using sprinkler since then) 50 18.49

3.6 Characteristics of sprinklers and other irrigation accessories used by highland vegetable
farmers

The most common model of sprinkler used by vegetable farmers in Benguet is the automatic, full-
circle impact type which is mostly installed as portable or semi-permanent (Table 12a). Only 1%
have their sprinkler systems permanently installed in the farms. Almost all the sprinkler being
used by farmers are made of plastic although some of the local makers make use of steel. On
average, each sprinkler can service 1713 square meters. Most of the respondents report that the
diameter of the wetted area of sprinkler is around 10 meters, but can range from 6 to 40 meters.
In terms of the size of the hose or pipe where the sprinkler is attached, majority of the farmers
reported using 0.5 inch.

Table 12b and 12c presents the characteristics of the irrigation accessories—hose, reservoir for
irrigation water, pumps and engines used in highland vegetable farming. For the hose used to
transport water from water source to the farm, 86% use black hose mostly of the Moldex and
Class A brands (Figure 2a) while for the hose used to distribute water within the farm, most use
the cheaper rubber hose, although some also use the black hose.

10
Table 12a. Characteristics of sprinklers used by the respondents, 2018

Item n %
Brand/ Model
Automatic 231 97.9
Jetmatic 1 0.98
Taiwan 1 0.98
Kutsara 1 0.98
Locally fabricated(butterfly-kiked) 1 0.98
Mitsu 1 0.98
Type of Sprinkler System
Portable 126 47.7
Semi-permanent 107 40.5
Permanent 3 1.1
n/a 28 10.6
Coverage of Sprinkler System
Full circle impact 228 86.4
Half circle 8 3.03
n/a 28 11.7
Material type
Plastic 234 88.6
Brass 1 0.4
Steel 1 0.4
n/a 28 10.6
Droplet size
Bigger 1 0.4
Fine 225 95.3
Gradual 1 0.4
Misting 1 0.4
Moderate 8 3.4

Table 12b. Characteristics of hose used by the respondents according to type and brand, 2018

Hose from the water source Hose used within the farm
Item frequency % frequency %
Type
Black hose 226 85.6 93 35.2
Garden hose 0 0 6 2.3
Rubber hose 1 0.4 124 47
Others 30 11.4 3 1.1
Not applicable 7 2.6 38 14.4
Brand
Moldex 104 39.4 49 18.6
Class A 97 36.7 54 20.5
Ordinary 24 9.1 67 25.4
Others 7 2.7 54 20.5
n/a 32 12.1 40 15.2

For the reservoir for irrigation water, majority use cemented tank followed by plastic tanks (Figure
2b). Some 11% also use pond or earth embankments lined with black polyethylene plastic or
tarpaulin tolda. The water stored comes from hosed water from springs or creeks; or rainwater
harvested (Figure 2c).

11
 Figure 2a. High density polyethylene (HDPE) hose used to Figure 2b. Cement tanks and
transport water from springs to the vegetable farms or to a sprinklers used in vegetable farms.
reservoir in the farm.

Figure 2c. (Left) A pond or earth embankment (4” x 8” x 5”) built by a family in Atok to collect rainwater and water
from spring for irrigation of their vegetable farm. The pond is lined with either black polyethylene plastic and the GI
sheets help catch rainwater and direct it to the pond.

Table 12c. Characteristics of irrigation water reservoir used

Item n/mean %
% of respondents using water reservoir 42 15.9
in the source 12 4.5
in the farm 30 11.4
Average total volume capacity per farmer (cubic meters) 605
Type of reservoir
cement tank 30 54.5
plastic tank 12 21.8
galvanized iron tank 2 3.6
earth embankment 6 10.9
Others 5 9.1
Average storage capacity per tank (cubic meters) 518
Height of tank/barrel (meters) 8.5

A few respondents required use of irrigation pumps to draw water from the source or to power
distribution. Robin, Kawasaki and Yanmar are the more common brand of irrigation pumps used.
Tables 10e and 10f indicate the specific characteristics of irrigation pumps and engines used for
powering irrigation pumps.

Table 12d. Characteristics of pumps used by the respondents according to brand, model, pump
condition, and country of origin

Item Frequency Percentage

Major Brands
Kawasaki 9 22.0
Robin 9 22.0

12
 Yanmar 8 19.5
Kubota 4 9.8
Jetmatic 3 7.3
Briggs and Stratton 2 4.9
China 2 4.9
Dynamo 2 4.9
Robinson 2 4.9
Model
2015 2 3.64
2000 1 1.82
2006 1 1.82
2009 1 1.82
2003 1 1.82
2010 1 1.82
2014 1 1.82
Baldor 1 1.82
Class model 1 1.82
Echiban 1 1.82
ES120 1 1.82
I don't know 43 78.18
Pump condition
New 37 67.27
Surplus 18 32.73
Country of origin
Japan 36 65.45
China 18 32.73
Others 1 1.82

Table 10e. Characteristics of engines used by the respondents according to brand, model,
engine condition, country of origin, type of engine and cooling system

Item Frequency Percentage

Major Brands
Aviva 1 2.1
Briggs and Stratton 2 4.2
Diesel 2 4.2
Dynamo 2 4.2
Emerald 2 4.2
Honda 1 2.1
Hondanike 1 2.1
Kawasaki 6 12.5
Kubota 5 10.4
Makita 1 2.1
Mendong 1 2.1
Robin 10 20.8
Robinson 1 2.1
Yama 2 4.2
Yamaha 9 18.8
Yanmar 2 4.2
Model
2006 1 2.1
2009 1 2.1
2000 1 2.1
2010 1 2.1
2014 1 2.1
2015 1 2.1
Don't know 42 87.5
Engine condition
New 38 79.2

13
 Surplus 10 20.83
Country of origin
Japan 35 72.9
China 12 25.0
Others 1 2.1
Type of engine
Diesel 32 66.7
Gasoline 13 27.1
Electric 3 6.3
Cooling system
Air-cooled 34 70.8
Water-cooled 14 29.2

3.7 Characteristics of drip irrigation system used by highland vegetable farmers

Almost 90% of the adopted drip irrigation system in the highland vegetable farming areas of the
CAR are supplied by Harbest or Jain Company originating from India, the rest coming from
Netafim which is an Israel design (Table 13). The average area planted supported by drip irrigation
is a little more than 500 sqm. The year the drip irrigation facilities were installed was from 2008
through 2015.

On the adoption of associated technologies, 44% of the drip users interviewed show that 44% are
using irrigation pump for their drip irrigation, and 11% of the respondents are using timer so that
the time of irrigation is automatically regulated. The high density polyethylene Moldex is the most
common hose used in drip irrigation. Farmers use filters such as metal screens and plastic nets
to prevent clogging in their drip irrigation systems.

Table 13. Characteristics of drip irrigation used by the respondents (n=9), 2018

Items n %
Brand
Harbest/Jain 8 88.9
Netafim/Israel 1 11.1
Average area served (sqm) 528 570
No. of plots 19 15.7
No. of plant rows
4 7 77.8
2 2 22.2
% installed above ground 9% 100%
Average emitter spacing (cm) 24.5
10.16cm 1 11.1
15.24cm 1 11.1
20 cm 2 22.2
30 cm 3 33.3
40 cm 1 11.1
no reply 1 11.1
Flow rate
10L(60 drops per minute) 1 11.1
1L/hr 2 22.2
25ml/minute 1 11.1
35ml/minute 1 11.1
1drum/30 minutes 1 11.1
6L 1 11.1
1.5L/hr 1 11.1
no answer 1 11.1
% of drip users who use pump in drip irrigation 44%
Use timer in drip irrigation 11%
Mode size of reservoir tank 16.8
% of owned drip irrigation 0.875

14
 Year installed
2008 1 12.5
2009 1 12.5
2011 2 25
2012 2 25
2015 2 25

3.8 Major Reasons for Using Irrigation Distribution and Irrigation Distribution Facilities

As in the literature, the major reasons for using sprinkler is for easy irrigation of crops, and allows
multiple tasking on the part of farmers (Table 14a). For some farmers, they also see the use of
sprinklers as a mechanism for controlling pest population or prevent spread of pests like diamond
back moth (DBM). Another advantage is that it can be used regardless of the terrain or topography
of the farm and whether it is terraced or not. Further technical studies may be in order to look at
ways to capitalize on these alleged advantages and develop scientific protocols in using sprinklers
or water management in general for pest control and increasing crop productivity in different types
of highland farming systems.

Table 14a. Reasons for using sprinkler

Reason for using sprinklers n %

Easy to irrigate plants/easier task 166 69.75%
Save time/Maximize time/Can do multiple works 143 60.08%
Save labor 8 3.36%
Appropriate for my crops 6 2.52%
Available resource and affordable/no water pump 6 2.52%
Even distribution of water on the crops/uniform irrigation 6 2.52%
Common method of irrigation in the place 3 1.26%
Accessible 3 1.26%
Faster to irrigate 2 0.84%
Compatible with hose that is commonly used, easier to transfer 2 0.84%
Flooding is not applicable now in the area 2 0.84%
To control the population of pest/prevent insect damage/prevent 2 0.84%
spread of pest like DBM
Good percolation during dry season/So that the soil will not be 2 0.84%
compacted
Easy to operate 1 0.42%
Minimize damage to crops 1 0.42%
The soil will not dry easily when sprinkler is used 1 0.42%
Though the farm is hilly or terraced all the plant will be irrigated 1 0.42%
To support and maintain the moisture of plant especially during 1 0.42%
sunny days
Wet the upper part 1 0.42%

On the reasons for using drip irrigation, adopters are one with literature in saying that use of drip
irrigation saves on labor and time; saves water and allows for more uniform irrigation of plants
(Table 14b). That the use of drip irrigation prevents some particular diseases, results to better
and quality harvest, and prevents soil erosion are also claimed by some respondents. Again these
latter advantages can be further studied to provide more concrete recommendations on the use
of water management in potentially reducing crop damage due to pests, increasing productivity,
and preventing soil erosion in highland vegetable farming areas.

The use of irrigation pumps in highland vegetable farming is largely in order to access water
available in lower areas for use in higher elevation farms (Table 12c). Irrigation pumps are
generally used to hose water from rivers and creeks to farms, and increase the water pressure
during times when water supply is low for the operation of sprinklers during irrigation.

15
Table 14b. Reasons for using drip irrigation

Particulars n %
Save labor/lesser work 3 33.3%
Do not need much supply of water/conserves water 3 33.3%
Uniform wetted area/uniformity of irrigation 2 22.2%
Optimize time 2 22.2%
Better harvest 1 11.1%
Quality production 1 11.1%
Prevent soil erosion 1 11.1%
Prevent diseases particularly blight 1 11.1%

Table 14c. Reasons for using irrigation pumps

Particulars n %
Access water from the source and lower areas 47 86.54%
So that there’s supply of water for irrigation 2 3.84%
Support plant especially in dry season 2 3.84%
Transport water 1 1.92%
Used when there is no water in the spring 1 1.92%

3.9 Major Problems and Recommended Solutions Associated with the Use of Irrigation and
Irrigation Distribution Facilities

Tables 15a to 15f list the common problems and solutions and recommended solutions based on
the farmers survey. Clogging is the single most important problem of drip irrigation users. Even
for sprinklers, majority of the farmers reported clogging as a problem. In addition, farmers claim
that when there is water shortage in the dry season, the sprinklers do not function. For irrigation
pumps, the major problems mentioned are high cost of fuel and maintenance.

Table 15a. Major problems associated with the use of sprinkler

Problems n %
Clogging and easily destroyed 151 82.97%
Water shortage during dry season 7 3.85%
Typhoons destroy the hose 5 2.75%
Need to transfer so that all the plants will be fully irrigated 4 2.20%
Someone is detaching the hose 3 1.65%
Sleepless night 2 1.10%
Causes clubroot and yellowing of plants 2 1.10%
Sprinkler will not function when water is not enough to
produce pressure 2 1.10%
Because of road widening, irrigation facilities like hose
are damaged 1 1.10%
It causes the field to be muddy 1 0.55%
Size of the head of cabbage is small if water is limited 1 0.55%
Need company to transfer the sprinkler 1 0.55%
Someone claims that he owned the water source 1 0.55%
When the sprinkler pressure is not properly adjusted, the
leaves of the plants are damaged 1 0.55%

Table 15b. Recommended solutions for problems with the use of sprinkler

Recommended solutions n %
Clean and buy new 147 55.68%
Limit time to irrigate 6 2.27%
Talk to the person 3 1.14%
Patience 2 0.76%
Put rubber tightly into the hose/tying a rubber 2 0.76%

16
 Remove the sprinkler and clean 2 0.76%
Rotation in irrigating 2 0.76%
Secure the connection 2 0.76%
Set time to transfer 2 0.76%
Visit and check the source 2 0.76%
Buy a pipe for the sprinkler to use as the handle so that
it’s easy to transfer 1 0.38%
Make a “y” formation 1 0.38%
Make canal for good drainage 1 0.38%
Manual irrigation 1 0.38%
Need to detach the hose before transferring 1 0.38%
Peace talks with barangay officials 1 0.38%
Plant drought-tolerant varieties 1 0.38%
Plant during wet season 1 0.38%
Prolong irrigating the plants 1 0.38%
Tighten the rope 1 0.38%
Use knapsack sprayer to water the crops 1 0.38%
Use sprinkler only when water is plenty 1 0.38%
Limit also the time to saturate the plant 1 0.38%

Table 15c. Major problems in using drip irrigation and solutions to problems (n=9), 2018

Problems n % Solutions/Recommended Solutions

Clogging 6 67% Cleaning the clogged part or the hose; tapping
Poor quality 1 11% the clogged part to remove the clog
No response 2 22%

Table 15d. Major Problems Associated with the use of Irrigation Pumps

Problems n %
Additional expenses of fuel 9 23.7
Costly 7 18.4
Costly in terms of electricity 1 2.6
Damages the hose and always change oil 1 2.6
Doesn’t function well with strong winds 1 2.6
Easily damaged 2 5.3
Need to watch every time 2 5.3
It takes time to start 5 13.2
It has a damage 1 2.6
Malfunction problems 1 2.6
Needs maintenance 3 7.9
Not efficient, expensive fuel 1 2.6
Overheating problem 1 2.6
Piston problem 1 2.6
The machine was damaged including its parts 1 2.6
Other parts of the machine was destroyed 1 2.6

Table 15e. Recommended Solutions for Problems with the Use of Irrigation Pumps

Recommended solutions n %
Limit time 12 4.17%
Repair or buy new 7 2.65%
Cleaning 3 1.14%
Patience 2 0.76%
Rotation in irrigating 2 0.76%
Use of oil 2 0.76%
Turn off when not in use 2 0.38%
Change the other parts 1 0.38%
It should be operated longer 1 0.38%
Keep when not in use 1 0.38%

17
 Maintain three hours in irrigating 1 0.38%
Take good care of plants 1 0.38%
Bring under the sun to warm the engine 1 0.38%
Use manual watering by using sprinkler 1 0.38%

3.10 Farmers’ Awareness on and Practice of Water-Saving Technologies

Table 16 presents the farmers’ practices on saving irrigation water. Majority of the respondents
either had no response or said none when asked about their water-saving practices. This can
imply that they are not practicing any water saving or conservation practice, or they think water is
plenty and they do not need to save water. Some 3% of the respondents claimed that they have
no water saving practice because water is plenty. In some of the study areas, water is just free-
flowing during the wet season, while in some study areas, there is water scheduling and rotation
for use of irrigation water during the dry season.

A major water-saving practice is the use of cemented tanks or plastic drums especially during dry
season, and closing the tank faucet or clogging the hose when not in use. Some respondents
also mentioned water will not be wasted if farmers will allow others to use the water. Another
practice is to limit time to irrigate so that others can use also. This is similar to rotation or
scheduling of use especially during the dry season.

Table 16. How farmers conserve irrigation water (n=264)

Water-saving practices n
use cemented tank/conserve water in tanks/use drum 23 8.7
allow others to use so that it will not be wasted 7 2.7
close the tank faucet when not in use 7 2.7
clog the hose when not in use/close the gate valve of hose 7 2.7
limit time to irrigate so that others can use 5 1.9
do not use when not needed 3 1.1
scheduling 3 1.1
irrigate in the afternoon so that the soil will not dry so easily 2 0.8
make canals/drainage 2 0.8
manual use of hose 2 0.8
collect raindrops for spraying purposes 1 0.4
gather first the water before irrigating 1 0.4
lessen the area to be planted during DS 1 0.4
put water on the drum for spraying 1 0.4
reservoir/water impoundment 1 0.4
rotation/schedule 1 0.4
spraying of foliar instead of irrigating 1 0.4
transfer the sprinkler quickly 1 0.4
turn off gate valve 1 0.4
use hose from hose to fetch water for irrigation 1 0.4
none, plenty of water 2 0.8
none, plenty of water/open source 3 1.1
none, water sources are open 3 1.1
none 119 45.1
no response 66 25.0
Total 264 100.0

In terms of their awareness of established water-saving technologies and practices based on

literature, Table 17 presents the awareness and whether those who claim to be aware are
practicing. The top water saving or water conservation practices which majority of the farmers
were aware of include: crop specific rotation, terracing, use of compost and use of short-duration
varieties. The practice or technology that farmers were least aware of were on scientific irrigation
scheduling, use of drought-tolerant varieties, use of drip irrigation, strip tilling and rainwater
harvesting.

18
Among the farmers who were aware of the practices, the top practices that farmers were
practicing are: terracing, crop specific rotation, use of compost, and use of short-duration
varieties. At least 30% of those aware in the use of shorter-duration crops were also practicing it.
Of the 67 respondents who were aware of drip irrigation, only two farmers were practicing.

These above account of actual farmers practice in water conservation, and awareness of water-
saving practices indicate that there is a room for improvement in the knowledge and practices of
farmers in irrigation water conservation and water management.

Table 17. Awareness and practice of water-saving technologies and practices

Water-saving practices % aware % of aware practicing

Crop specific rotation 238 90.15 176 66.67
Terracing 211 79.92 192 72.45
Use of compost 187 70.57 162 61.13
Use of short-duration varieties 169 64.02 139 52.65
Use of mulch 111 41.89 29 10.94
Use of cover crops 106 40.00 58 21.89
Use of shorter-duration crops 99 37.50 78 29.55
Rainwater harvesting 82 30.94 26 9.81
Strip tilling 76 28.68 56 21.13
Use of drip irrigation 67 25.28 2 0.75
Use of drought-tolerant varieties 58 21.97 41 15.53
Scientific irrigation scheduling 8 3.02 7 2.64
n % n %

3.11 Perception on what government can do to ensure sustainable irrigation water resources

Majority of the farmer respondents think that planting more trees is necessary to ensure
sustainable irrigation water resources, and that the government should be on top of it. Also, in
their opinion, the government should also provide irrigation facilities such as water pump, hose,
and water tanks. Table 18 lists other areas for government assistance suggested by farmers.
Table 18. What do you think should the government do to ensure sustainable irrigation water
resources for your vegetable farming?

Suggested Government Assistance n %

Plant more trees 133 50.38
Provision of water pump, pipe and hose 53 20.08
Provide water tanks 45 17.05
Continuous maintenance/fund program of NIA in the barangay 6 2.27
Continuous implementation of reforestation and measures against illegal logging 5 1.89
Site survey is needed and inspection about the condition of farms 4 1.52
Build irrigation system like reservoir tanks for all farmers 1 0.38
In case of calamities, they would help repair damages of NIA canal 1 0.38
Maintain the trees and lateral canal for continuous flow of water to the farms 1 0.38
Make a mini-dam near the source 1 0.38
No response 14 5.30

4.0 IMPLICATONS TO POLICY AND S&T PLANNING

The study set out to characterize the irrigation sources; use of small-scale irrigation
systems and facilities in the highland vegetable farming in the CAR; and water-saving practices
of farmers with the goal of looking at relevant research, development and extension agenda in
the area of small-scale irrigation development and water management in the highland vegetable
farming systems in the CAR. The following are preliminary implications from the initial analysis:

19
 1) Preliminary findings from 30 highland vegetable farming municipalities of the region
indicate that less than 50% of the farms are fully irrigated or irrigation that can fully support dry
season and third season crop. This implies that although a significant percentage of farms are
already planting two to three crops per year, there is much room for improved cropping systems
and potential increase in crop productivity in highland vegetable farming when farms are fully
irrigated. The efforts of NIA to develop communal irrigation systems by providing high density
polyethylene pipes (HDPE), reservoir tanks and sprinklers should be sustained and focused on
areas with potential for increase in cropping intensity and are not within the geographically
hazardous areas.

In addition, to the best of our knowledge, while the major springs where domestic water
are tapped, and rivers and creeks have been mapped, the location of small springs providing
irrigation water to many of the vegetable farms have not been mapped. It may be useful for
planning, monitoring and conservation purposes to have even these small springs and creeks
mapped and conditions ascertained.

An overwhelming majority of the respondents point to watershed conservation particularly

planting of trees as suggested government assistance in order to ensure sustainable irrigation
resources. While they look up to the government to do this service, it may be an important policy
direction to match the vigorous reforestation efforts (e.g. National Greening Project) with efforts
to save and conserve existing watershed and natural resources such as springs and creeks.

2) The result that there are cases of conflicts in water-use and tapping in springs and rivers
and creeks especially during dry season also indicate that while water is abundant during the wet
season so that water from springs become open source or left flowing open even if it is not being
used, there exists water shortage in some of the study areas during the dry season. This result
points to the need for more vigorous promotion and support of water-saving strategies and
technologies such as rainwater harvesting, and use of reservoir tanks. Some 10% of the farmer
respondents in this study are presently practicing water conservation by using cemented tanks,
drums, and earth embankments lined with black plastic or tarpaulin tolda but there is room for
expansion with proper information dissemination. More studies on optimal protocols for rainwater
harvesting may be in order especially taking into consideration the terrain and soil properties of
the still rainfed vegetable growing areas in the region. (A separate paper by Alupias et al. is
forthcoming tackling indigenous knowledge systems on irrigation and water management)

3) The importance of hose in highland vegetable farming cannot be discounted. It did not
only determine the history of use of sprinklers in the CAR, but continues to be the major irrigation
distribution facility and water conveyor for the upland, hilly and terraced nature of highland crop
farming systems. While this hose system, akin to pressure piped irrigation systems where the
hose conveys and distributes the irrigation water in closed system by pressure following the most
convenient route regardless of the slope and topography of the area, contributes somehow to
water conservation compared with the traditional surface methods where water is conveyed
through open earth or lined canals and ditches by gravity following the field contours, the use of
sprinkler in the vegetable farm may be less water efficient compared to manual use of hose for
irrigation. Further S&T studies on how to optimize water management when using springs and
rivers/creeks as irrigation sources, and hoses and sprinklers as distribution systems must be
further studied for balanced water management techniques and strategies; and for more optimal
use of water resources in the field.

A limited review was conducted for this study on recommendations for established
protocols on water management using sprinklers, and there are not much studies undertaken.
Further review and meta-analysis is recommended.

4) On drip irrigation, around a few farmers were identified based on the barangay-level key
informant interviews. The average area of parcels installed with drip irrigation systems (not
including the foreign-owned farming companies with drip irrigation is a little over 500 sqm.). That
establishing drip irrigation in open field is not yet common and more studies also need to be
conducted locally on the topic. More detailed analysis of the economic costs and benefits from
using drip irrigation considering the value of reduced costs and better quality production is
recommended considering that the early adopters of drip irrigation are carnation growers, and
producers of lettuce, cucumber, and tomato. As mentioned, carnation is prone to frog eye disease
which can be exacerbated with overhead irrigation; and can be harvested in around two years;

20
while lettuce, cucumber and tomato are crops requiring large amounts of water for crop growth
compared to other vegetable crops. Use of drip irrigation will afford continuous or more frequent
irrigation for these crops since only the root system is targeted by the irrigation water. Promotional
strategy for drip irrigation can thus be informed based on this information on early adopters.

5) Most common and most important problems and constraints reported by farmers on the
use of sprinkler and drip irrigation are clogging; water shortage; and low water pressure during
dry season. While best practices and indigenous knowledge systems in irrigation and water
management can be documented and promoted as appropriate, scientific studies that foster
innovation particularly in preventing clogging; reducing the cost of drip irrigation installation and
maintenance; improving the durability of sprinklers, and providing irrigation techniques and
recommended rates of water application rates or frequency per crop will be useful.

6) The use of small-scale irrigation systems is the only option for farmers in highland
vegetable farming systems of the CAR being located in higher elevations. With the increasing
scarcity of fuel, transporting water from lower areas to higher areas appears a costly option.
Ensuring that necessary controls and mechanisms, and farmers’ practices will enhance and
sustain the current available irrigation water from springs, and rivers and creeks in the region is
important. Actual location of the many minor springs must be mapped and policies need to be put
in place to monitor and maintain these existing private springs.

5.0 LITERATURE CITED

Galagal.C. 2018. Personal communication.

Ghebru and Holden, 2015. Technical efficiency and productivity differential effects of land right
certification: a quasi-experimental evidence. Quarterly Journal of International
Agriculture 54 (2015): 1 (1-31)
Koirala, Krishna H. & Mishra, Ashok K. & Mohanty, Samarendu, 2014. "Impact of Land
Ownership on Productivity and Efficiency of Rice Farmers: A Simulated Maximum
Likelihood Approach,"2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis,
Minnesota170608, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

Kumar D. S. and Palanisami, 2010. Impact of Drip Irriation on Farming Sytem: Evidence form
Southern India. Agricultural Economics Research Review 23: 265-272.

Shock, 2006. Drip Irrigation: An Introduction. Sustainable Agriculture Techniques October 2006.
Oregon State University: Extension office

21