ORGANIC AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES AMONG ANSOFT-NETWORKED RURAL DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTIONS IN...

ORGANIC AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES AMONG ANSOFT-NETWORKED RURAL DEVELOPMENT

INSTITUTIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES: ACCENT ON HOLISTIC APPROACHES TO CROP PRODUCTION

Rodelio B. Carating and Silvino Q. Tejada

Bureau of Soils and Water Management Elliptical Road, Diliman, Quezon City, PHILIPPINES

Paper to be presented during the Workshop Korean Society of Organic Agriculture Research

During the IFOAM Organic Agriculture Congress 1 October 2011, CH302, Second Office Building, Namyangju City Hall

INTRODUCTION

The Asian Network for Sustainable Organic Farming Technology (ANSOFT) The Asian Food and Agriculture Cooperation Initiative (AFACI) was launched in November, 2009 as an agricultural cooperation network in Asia to share technology and experiences and contribute to sustainable agriculture and food security in the region. There are twelve member nations – Korea, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Mongolia, Nepal, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. AFACI’s research projects and activities involve two Pan-Asian Projects, one regional project, twelve country projects, workshops and training courses, and meetings. The two Pan-Asian Projects are (1) the Establishment of Agricultural Technology Information Network in Asia which in the Philippines has the Bureau of Agricultural Research (BAR) as the principal investigator, and (2) the Construction of the Asian Network for Sustainable Organic Farming Technology (ANSOFT) with the Bureau of Soils and Water Management (BSWM) as the principal investigator. The objective of this paper is to report on the ANSOFT implementation in the Philippines. ANSOFT recognizes that organic agriculture is environment friendly but needs to be protected from the multi-national agro-chemical industry because the Asian traditional and small-sized farms face many obstacles as they pursue organic farming methods. There is a need to share information and experiences among ANSOFT member countries for strategic development and promotion of organic agriculture within the region. As against their European and American counterparts, Asian policy makers need to look into extensive versus intensive farming (big farms as against small farms), reliance on machinery versus labor intensive practices, different education levels among farmers, and different marketing and certification system. Organic farming remains a major factor in the Asian agricultural scene considering the adherents’ claim for higher productivity with less external inputs, more sustainable and safe environment, and healthier option for the farmers and the consumers alike. ANSOFT therefore considers that the development and promotion of organic agriculture in Asia is a mission of both government agencies and private institutions. At country level, a networking for sustainable

organic farming technology is established among government, non-government organizations, and civil societies pursuing organic agriculture in rural development work to share and exchange farming technology and information. The Mindanao Network on Sustainable Organic Farming Systems (MINSOFS) The Mindanao Network on Sustainable Organic Farming Systems (MINSOFS) was organized as part of the Asian-organic agriculture alliance, called the Asian Network for Sustainable Organic Farming Technology (ANSOFT), which is the second the two Pan-Asia Projects of the Asian Food and Agriculture Cooperation Initiative (AFACI), a Korean-based twelve member country agricultural alliance. The ANSOFT networking in the Philippines focuses on Mindanao island because it has the largest organic agriculture sector in the country. The organization of the network is timely and comes at a time when the Philippine Legislature enacted the Republic Act 100681 known as the Organic Agriculture Law. The law was crafted as response for the country to be globally competitive by addressing appropriate, effective, and efficient use of organic agricultural practices and the production and processing of organic products by farmers, manufacturers, and producers. The law is envisioned to encourage stakeholders to adhere to international standards and practices for the country’s organic products to be globally competitive. The MINSOFS Inception Workshop was held on 27-28 April 2011 at the Southeast Asia rural Social Leadership Institute (SEARSOLIN) of the Jesuit-run Xavier University College of Agriculture, in Mandela Campus, Cagayan de Oro City.. MINSOFS is a network of networked members. Some of the members are actually network of organic agriculture practitioners themselves. MINSOFS represents the link to ANSOFT with which to pursue and accomplish ANSOFT goals of technology and information sharing. A Governing Council was established, as follows: Chair: Vic Tagupa, Sustainable Agriculture Centre, Xavier University (SAC- XUCA) Co-chair: Sansen Ramos Maglinte, Sibol ng Agham at Teknolohiya (SIBAT) Secretariat: Rodelio Carating, Bureau of Soils and Water Management Members: Magsasaka at Siyentipiko Para sa Pag-unland ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG) Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE) Department of Agriculture Regional Field Unix X – Focal on Organic Agriculture Bureau of Soils and Water Management Current Roster of Members Government: Bureau of Soils and Water Management Local Government Unit of Dumingag, Zamboanga del Sur Department of Agriculture, Regional Field Unit X

City Agriculture Office, Valencia City, Bukidnon Academe: Xavier University – College of Agriculture/Sustainable Agriculture Centre (SAC-XUCA) University of Southern Mindanao Non-Government Organizations/Civil Society Sibol ng Agham at Teknolohiya (SIBAT) Magsasaka at Siyentipiko Para sa Pag-unland ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG) Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE) Social Enhancing Restoring Values for Integral Community Empowerment (SERVICE) Kalitungan Upland Sustainable Farming Stewardship Association (KUSSA) Tongantongan Organic Farming Society on Sustainable Agriculture (TOFFSSA) Organic Agriculture Agri-Enterprise Eco-Agri Development Foundation Centre for Natural Farming Initiatives Religious Organization Sustainable Agriculture Ministry, Cagayan de Oro City

BACKGROUND AND ACTIVITIES OF THE NOTABLE ORGANIC AGRICULTURE NETWORK MEMBERS WITH NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL NETWORK

Since four of the MINSOFS members were mentioned by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) in its website to be instrumental in the development of organic agriculture in the Philippines, we will discuss these four institutions:

One of the pioneers in the sustainable organic agriculture movement in the Philippines. Magsasaka at Siyentipiko Para sa Pag-unland ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG) which can be translated as Farmers and Scientists Partnership for Agricultural Development started in 1984 as a partnership project to encourage small rice farmers adapt or develop their own appropriate farming technologies, practice farmer-to-farmer extension, and have access and control over production resources such as seeds and technology through seed banks. It was in the 1990’s when other farmer organizations and non-government organizations (NGOs) actively emerged and engaged in the development of alternative farming technologies, three of which – SIBAT, SAC-XU, and SEARICE are members of MINSOFS. MASIPAG has a total of 635 base people’s organizations (POs), 60 Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), and 15 people in its pool of scientists, 67 farmer rice breeders, 21 corn breeders, and 200 farmer trainers. The Secretariat is based in Los Baños, Laguna. It has a Regional Project Management Team (RPMT) in major regions of the country that spearhead program implementation in Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao.

A major effort is the collection, identification, multiplication, maintenance, and evaluation of fast disappearing biodiversity in the country. MASIPAG is known for its rice selections being promoted to various farmer groups. It is also involved in corn and livestock breeding by farmers themselves with 67 farmer-breeders and 273 rice crosses developed. It has collected a total of 1,090 traditional rice varieties, 1,274 MASIPAG bred lines and farmer-bred lines, and 75 native corn varieties. As of 2006, it has 81 farmer-managed trial farms in Luzon, 81 in Visayas, and 61 in Mindanao, covering 47 provinces. MASIPAG has also engaged in the retrieval, reaffirmation, systematization, and practical use of knowledge relating to traditional agricultural practices and as they are improved by the farmers. The MASIPAG rice cultural management practices proved to have long-lasting positive impact on farmers’ practice of organic agriculture in the Philippines. Among the notable and cheap organic farming techniques are:

- Use of sea water for seed treatment (disinfection) - Development of carabao-driven rotary for rice farming - Use of pangi leaves as botanical pest control - Use of urine and banana sap as foliar spray

MASIPAG’s website is http://www.masipag.org/cms/ The national sustainable agriculture network member. Sibol ng Agham at Teknolohiya (SIBAT) can be translated as the Wellspring of Science and Technology. SIBAT advocates for and develops groundbreaking technologies using science and technology that are appropriate for community development work. This network believes that Appropriate Technology (AT) application should directly respond to the needs of the poor communities; thus, uplifts the people’s day-to-day living while preserving their natural environment. One of its main instrument to achieve its mission is Community-Based Sustainable Agriculture (CBSA) with different NGOs and POs that pursue development work in the Philippines. Currently, it promotes community-based Village-Level Sustainable Development (VLSD) model that integrates AT applications with sustainable agriculture programs based on community-crafted plans. SIBAT also does research and development on sustainable agriculture and renewable energy to continuously improve its current competencies by working closely with poor communities in making technologies relevant and responsive to community needs. They have programs on organic farming, irrigation, infrastructure development for drinking water, non-conventional energy sources for rural electrification. Diversified and Integrated Farming System (DIFS) constitutes the core technological approach to sustainable food production in their model. Their experiences showed that DIFS proceeds even in rigorous resource-scarce conditions. It flexibly proceeds in five stages or phases towards maturation, relying on organizational cohesion and individual resolve at every stage. Figure 1 presents the phases of DIFS and the various activities under each phase. It is worth mentioning some of the sustainable agriculture technologies that they introduced to the communities:

1. Integrated community seedbanking. Among the activities are germination tests for traditional rice varieties and organic rice breeding training for farmers. They also conduct organic rice varietal trials.

2. Alternative pest management. 3. Soil fertility management 4. Farm design based on farm appraisal and planning 5. Soil conservation and management for erosion control 6. Sloping agricultural land technology 7. Organic vegetable production 8. Organic rice production 9. Urban food production 10. Gravity-fed water system installation 11. 15kW Micro Hydro Power for rice milling 12. Solar water pumping for vegetable gardens

Figure 1. Phases of Diversified and Integrated Farming System, SIBAT

A number of the technologies that SIBAT promotes are available as published materials

some of which are in vernacular or Tagalog. It is quite interesting that when asked to formally submit an organic agriculture technology report for the annual ANSOFT workshop, instead of

submitting one of their publications, they opted to present Korea’s Natural Farming as espoused by Dr. Han-kyu Cho. This shows their familiarity and reliance on Natural Farming methods and approaches in many of their community projects and programs relating to sustainable agriculture. It is quite obvious that without getting a copy of their publications such as those relating to pest control or livestock production, the underlying philosophy is hinged on Natural Farming principles.

SIBAT partners with local NGOs, faith-based groups and local government agencies that have shown commitment to genuinely serve communities through capacity building by recognizing the local resource potential, and enhancement of local knowledge and culture. Their project sites cover practically the whole country. SIBAT website is http://sibat.org/index.shtml The international sustainable agriculture network member. The Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE) is a Philippine-based regional Non-Government Organization (NGO) that focuses on community-based conservation, development, and sustainable use of plant genetic resources. Aside from the Philippines, its areas of operation cover Bhutan, Laos, Vietnam, and Thailand. Among its battle cry is “Conservation through sustainable use of plant genetic resources.” SEARICE considers agriculture as the backbone of the economy and that food is a basic need of man. But agriculture today is threatened by various issues and concerns such as loss of biodiversity, pollution of our fragile agro-ecosystems, to cite some of those that need attention. For sustainable development, SEARICE considers a sustainable agriculture as vital. We need to combine environmental concerns with development goals. SEARICE philosophy considers three types of agricultural tenancy: (1) the land tenancy where the farmers do not own the land they till, (2) the market tenancy where the price of the product is determined by market forces, which would have impact on farmer decisions on what to plant; and (3) technological tenancy where farmers are not part of research and development but are mere recipients of technology. SEARICE focuses its operations on addressing the technological tenancy by bridging farmer science with formal science and empowering the farmers with practical knowledge and skills to address their problems, assist in organizing them into groups, dialogue with policy makers for support, and develop a network of farmers to improve their access to agricultural resources. Of course, SEARICE also tries to contribute to address the market and land tenancy. As most Asian countries are parties to or in the process of acceding to several international treaties and agreements that have important implications to agriculture, particularly seeds, and since Asia is among the centres of origin and diversity of many important food crops, including rice, SEARICE emphasizes seeds in its program of activities. This regional NGO asserts that as much as 95% of human nutrition is derived from no more than 30 plants, of which three crops – wheat, maize, and rice – account for 75% of our cereal consumption and a mere 20 vegetable species are used in field cultivation.

A major issue is the loss of biodiversity and genetic erosion because of breeding programs, agricultural policies such as those relating to the promotion of a single variety, and land conversion. In the Philippines, of more than 3,500 traditional rice varieties were replaced by only 8 modern rice varieties planted in more than 80% of rice lands. In 1994, about 91% of post IR8 varieties can be traced to Cina, the Chinese parent material. There has been increased incidence of pest resistance and resurgence of diseases due to crop and genetic uniformity. SEARICE asserts that in 1970, there were only around 50 known crop pests but by 1999, there are more than 500 known pests. Furthermore, it is noted that there is deteriorating state of soil fertility due to intensive and massive use of chemical inputs. We now have decreasing yields in intensively cultivated areas and deterioration of water quality and depletion of water sources. Despite investments on characterization, evaluation, and documentation by gene banks, many of these collections were not fully used by local breeding programs because countries do not use their genetic resources but favoured existing cultivars to generate new ones due to the pressure to have immediate results. The preference is adaptation through selection rather than generation of new variability or maintenance of adaptability. This translates to loss in utilizing the rich genetic resources and narrower genetic base increasing the risk of crop vulnerability to a host of pests and diseases. We also have to consider Intellectual Property Right (IPR) or the monopolistic rights over seeds which is traditionally a common property resource confounded by increasing privatization of national seed systems and the growing role of private companies over research, and the supply and distribution of seeds. In fact, IPR is now a pre-condition for WTO accession or as part of Bilateral Trade Agreements. Intellectual property regimes do not recognize or protect the rights of informal innovators such as farmers over their genetic resources and knowledge. This contradicts traditional seed exchange system of farmers which has been the source of diversity for ages. The Bohol, Philippines and the Mekong Delta research results show that farmers’ rice seed materials are comparable if not better than the certified seeds in terms of seed health, germination, and purity. SEARICE looks at the important role of farmers to conserve seeds through continuous planting or conservation by utilization as well as through establishment of farmer gene banks in the form of home gardens. Continuous crop improvement can come in the form of selection from stable varieties, by creating composite population through mixing several varieties to form one variety, or by selection from segregating materials. With actual breeding, SEARICE reported that 239 newly developed varieties were made by farmers in Mindanao and Bohol islands of which 124 varieties were through crossing and another 115 varieties were through off-type selections. SEARICE advocates for the important role of farmers in plant genetic resource conservation, development. They maintained that the farmers were the first plant breeders. The opening of the Global Seed Vault in Svalbard, Norway which has duplicate of seeds held in gene banks worldwide is considered an important development because at present, its collection is accessible only to depositing seed banks. Furthermore, the farmers’ role in breeding is enshrined in international treaties like the FAO Global Action for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA) and the International Treaty on PGRFA (ITPGRFA).

In addition to strengthening the control of farming and indigenous communities over agricultural resources and technologies, SEARICE also works towards policy and structural reforms to ensure the conservation of biodiversity in agriculture; strengthen community organizing work and facilitate the establishment of self-reliant grassroot organizations through education, training, and linkages. An important approach is the Farmers’ Field School (FFS) which includes field studies, field exercises, discussion of special topics, and farmers’ field day. In coordination with the local government, the three-season-long FFS on Corn Breeding for example, builds the farmers’ skills on integrated pest management, participatory corn breeding, integrated nutrient management with emphasis on the Korean natural farming and vermiculture. Additional topics by SEARICE include agro-biodiversity, genetics and heritability, agriculture policies, variety development, variety maintenance, postharvest and household-based seed keeping. SEARICE website is: http://www.searice.org.ph/ .

The academic-based sustainable agriculture network member. The Sustainable Agriculture Centre is one of the extension arms of the Xavier University College of Agriculture (XUCA), the Cagayan de Oro campus of the network of Jesuit-run Ateneo Universities in the Philippines which for decades, prides itself as the only Catholic-managed university in the country to have a College of Agriculture until the acquisition recently by the De LaSalle University of the Gregorio Araneta University Foundation’s College of Agriculture. Founded in 1990, the SA Centre has generated valuable knowledge and experiences from the interplay of its research, education, and information and extension activities in partnership with farmers, parishes, non-government organizations, academe, and the local government units. Among its core program is the Community Base Sustainable Agriculture Development Program in Tongantongan, Valencia City with a sub-program on marginal uplands hinged on asset base philosophy. Addressing watershed degradation with watershed conservation techniques does not necessarily solve the problem specially if the root cause goes deeper than cultivation practices. For instance, it is difficult to motivate farmers with improved profitability through soil conservation strategies if land tenure is a major concern. In such a situation, investing in perennials such as fruit-bearing trees and forestry species the farmer will find rather impractical in spite of its positive impact in the environment and income. Watershed management should therefore be holistic and should consider the whole gamut of the farm system and the production processes. It is holistic in the sense that it has a general overview of the farming situation prevailing in the highland community and integrates the different concerns of the system as a whole. It is essential to understand the real causes of the problem so that the mitigation efforts can be directed towards the causes rather than the symptoms.

The Asset Base Sustainable Agriculture and Community Development Concept has a more positive approach than conventional model of analyzing problems, needs and deficiencies of communities. It focuses on various existing resources or assets that can and need to be enhanced, enriched and developed by the target group or communities.

Its principles and philosophy rests on reiterative planning process that involves the different sectors of the community as well as the stakeholders in mobilizing the different available assets—biophysical, institutional, available technologies, and even human resources in order to positively act on issues and concerns (Figure 2). It recognizes the complex interactions of assets in bringing about sustainable agriculture and sound watershed management practices (Figure 3).

1 E c o lo g ic a lly S o u n d2 E c o n om ic a lly v ia b le /

A s s o c ia tive E c o n o m ic s3 S o c ia lly J u s t / E q u ita b le4 C u ltu ra lly A p p ro p r ia te

5 H o lis tic S c ie n c e6 A p p ro p r ia te T e c h n o lo g y7 D e ve lo p m e n t o f H um a n

P o te n tia l

B u s in e s s E n te rp ris e s

P E O P L E

N A T U R E

P o lit ic a l S tru c tu re s

C u ltu ra l In s titu tio n s

S c ie n c e

T e c h n o lo g y

In d iv id u a l

In n e r E c o lo g y

11

22

33

44

55

66

77

77

Figure 2. Diagram of principles of assets mobilization and sustainable agriculture.

CulturePolity

NATURE

HUMAN BEING

Agriculture

Economy

Society

CulturePolity

NATURE

HUMAN BEING

Agriculture

Economy

Society

Sust

aina

ble

Agr

icu

ltur

e In

clud

ing

food

sec

urit

y

Figure 3. Complex interactions of assets through TSP for sustainable agriculture and community development.

The framework recognizes six types of participation by the farmers or the community as a whole, ranging from passive at the lowest level to self-mobilization and connectedness at the highest level (Table 1).

Table 1. Typology of participation.

TYPOLOGY CHARACTERISTIC OF EACH TYPE

Passive participation People participate by being told what has been decided or has already happened. Information being shared belongs only to external professionals.

Participation by consultation People participate by being consulted or by answering questions. Process does not concede any share in decision-making, and professionals are under no obligation to take on board people’s views.

Bought participation People participate in return for food, cash, or other material incentives. Local people have no stake in prolonging technologies or practices when the incentives end.

Functional participation Participation seen by external agencies as a means to achieve their goals, especially reduced costs. People participate by forming groups to meet predetermined objectives.

Interactive participation People participate in joint analysis, development of action plans, and formation or strengthening of local groups or institutions. Learning methodologies used to seek multiple perspectives, and groups determine how available resources are used.

Self-mobilization and connectedness

People participate by taking initiatives independently to change systems. They develop contacts with external institutions for resources and technical advice they need, but retain control over how resources are used.

But as a consequence of holistic approach to soil conservation practices, there is a shift in emphasis from treating individual farms to managing total watersheds. The concept of integrated watershed management is being rapidly accepted as a useful tool in soil conservation extension. Because the living environment is poor, any watershed work must include activities that improve the human condition in order to be successful. While the principle of integrated watershed management is sound and acceptable, challenges and problems do exist in practice. And thus, the Sustainable Agriculture Centre’s community development concept harnesses the local populace to make the most of the available resources as an essential element of participatory watershed development. It would certainly be a difficult path to motivate farmers in the area to transcend their level of participation from passive type to the self-mobilization and connectedness type. But development of value transformation technique is the SAC’s expertise.

The Asset Base and Sustainable Land Use in Marginal Upland in the sub-community of Tongantongan, Valencia City is located in the marginal uplands inhabited by 34 farming

households with 53 families of mix culture including Indigenous Peoples.

The Xavier University College of Agriculture homepage with a section on the SA Centre activities is: http://aggies.xu.edu.ph/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

BACKGROUND AND ACTIVITIES OF THE SELECTED LOCAL-BASED ORGANIC AGRICULTURE NETWORK MEMBERS

From those with national and international tie-ups, let us move to locally-based network members and see the kind of programs and activities they promote relating to organic agriculture among their project beneficiaries. We would focus on two, SERVICE and the Municiaplity of Dumingag.

Local-based NGO. Social Enhancing Restoring Values for Integral Community Empowerment, Inc. (SERVICE) is working in the communities within the reach of Ozamis City. This NGO reaches out to empower the poor and subsistence farmers towards food and income security without compromising the integrity of the environment. Their community development program involves capability enhancement through education and transfer of appropriate technology as well as farming base livelihood development and advocacies. SERVICE is also a network of networks and has tie-ups with POs such as the Misamis Occidental Sustainable Agriculture Practioners’ Aggrupation, Inc. (MOSAPA). Among the major programs that they pursue is the Diversified Integrated Organic Farming System (DIOFS) which would engage farmers in multiple home production level integrated (crop-livestock-fisheries) farming systems. Basic is the philosophy of producing primarily for home consumption or attaining food security for the family and only secondarily for the market. With less production pressure and less capital requirement, the diversified farming approach provides consideration for the ecological and environmental needs of the community. SERVICE pursues their own organic fertilizer processing which includes the promotion of vermicomposting, alternative pest management, contour farming (also known as the Sloping Agricultural Land Technology 1 to 4), System of Rice Intensification, Natural Farming Systems, and Bio-dynamic System. Their member beneficiaries are encouraged to undertake backyard gardening, adopting the principles and philosophies of Food Always in the Home (FAITH Garden). Their members are taught on various plant propagation techniques, livestock production and management, herbal production and processing for locally produced health concoctions such as cough syrup, and also massage and reflexology. A key to their program implementation is active and dynamic interface with farmers and community organization work. Local government unit. The MINSOFS Inception Meeting was certainly rocked and shocked by presence of Mayor Nacianceno M. Pacalioga, Jr. of the Municipality of Dumingag, Zamboanga del Sur. The mayor himself presented the Dumingag experience on the implementation of Sustainable Organic Agriculture in his municipality. It was unique because rarely has a politician develops a political platform for his constituents based on the concepts of sustainable agriculture. He described the municipality to be composed of farmers of which about 84% have no sufficient production and income to support the basic needs of their family. Considering that it is a poor and landlocked municipality whose people mainly rely on

agriculture, he believes that a genuine people’s agenda is a product of collective discussion between the constituents and the leadership to come up with a comprehensive program of government, solution to challenges, right direction, and assurance of better future for the people. Mayor Pacalioga’s economic agenda focuses on the implementation of sustainable organic agriculture program, a household approach farming rather than corporate farming, and people empowerment through capacity building and people’s participation in decision making and governance. He envisions to make the municipality as the Organic Capital of the Philippines. An Organic Farming Team was tasked to lead in the implementation of organic farming program and undertake education and advocacy. A Barangay Livelihood Coordinator was trained as farmer technician on organic agriculture. The barangay is the smallest political unit in the Philippines. The organic farming practitioners were organized into an association to have greater access to various private and government services such as agricultural loans. The mayor has also concluded partnerships with various organic agriculture movements for research, and techno-demonstrations, including membership in the IFOAM. They have sent three delegates to the Republic of Korea for three month training on Natural Farming Systems. Through the mayor’s leadership, the municipal master plan on organic agriculture program was crafted by various sectors and assisted by Sustainable Agriculture Centre. The municipality has inaugurated the Dumingag Institute of Sustainable Agriculture to train the youth on ladderized courses relating to organic farming principles and technology. The accent on organic production extends to the promotion of alternative medicines. The mayor prides that from less than 20 farmers practicing organic agriculture when he assumed office in 2007, the number has increased to 438 by the time of the MINSOFS Inception Meeting and is still counting. They generate their own seeds, established vermicomposting facilities, introduced rice-duck farming system, identified their “organic vegetable basket” for farmer training and production support, institutionalized inland fisheries, promoted organically raised chickens, grow organic cassava, developed plantations for abaca (fiber crop)-rubber-falcata, and worked out marketing schemes with various corporations. The major problem the mayor faced is the proposal for large scale mining within his municipality which they are vehemently against. As he is battling a multi-national group, it is really a formidable task ahead of him.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Table 2 presents the summary of the study, the details of the first four are presented as Annexes. It is quite interesting to note that despite the more notable and pioneering organic programs they have, most of the MINSOFS members opted to submit the common ones; maybe there is apprehension that the practice would be subjected to international scrutiny during the ANSOFT annual workshop. We would prefer to see for example the Hole Method for Growing Cassava (also known as the Cerilles Method) by the Municipality of Dumingag or the Palm Method to determine when to plant as practiced by the indigenous tribal people presented during

the Inception Meeting by the Diocese of Cagayan de Oro. Because of the time constraint and deadline to prepare the paper, we were quite limited to request for supplemental submissions. The big network members (those with national and international network) also preferred to submit specific organic technique as requested by ANSOFT rather than the major organic program that they pursue for which they are well known and recognized by the public as their niche in the organic agriculture world. The principal investigator therefore opted to summarize these major organic agriculture programs based on their web sites as part of this study while retaining their original submissions. Table 2. Summary of selected organic techniques promoted by MINSOFS members. NAME OF ORGANIC TECHNIQUE NATURE NETWORK CONTRIBUTOR

1-MASIPAG Rice Production Technology Crop production system MASIPAG 2-Participatory Vegetable Breeding Selection Crop production system SEARICE 3-Asset Base Sustainable Agriculture Community development program SAC-XUCA 4-System of Rice Intensification Crop production system SIBAT 5-Natural Farming/Nutritive Cycle Theory Soil fertilization program SIBAT 5a-Indigenous Microorganisms (IMO) Soil fertilization program SEARICE 5b-Fermented Plant Juice (PFJ) Soil fertilization program Municipality of Dumingag 5c-Fermented Fruit Juice (FFJ) Soil fertilization program Municipality of Dumingag 5d-Carbonized Rice Hull (CRH) Soil fertilization program SEARICE 5e-Others: Guso Extract Soil fertilization program SERVICE 5f-Others: Urine and Banana Sap Soil fertilization program MASIPAG 6-Vermicomposting Soil fertilization program Municipality of Dumingag 7-Pelletized Feeds by Multi-functional Machine Livestock (pig) feed and nutrition SAC-XUCA 8-Sea Water for Seed Treatment Seed treatment MASIPAG 9-Varietal Adaptability Trial Seed selection and evaluation SIBAT

Summary of findings for the national and international network members. A major finding of the study is that the MINSOFS network members who operate at international and national levels do not practice nor espouse a single organic agricultural production technique nor methodology but embraces a holistic organic and sustainable approach to crop production. These would include emphasis on selection of seed cultivars with a focus on the development of farmer-produced seed varieties by capacitating them on participatory breeding principles and liberating them from dependencies on multi-national or commercial seed producers. Additional practices would include integrated pest management and integrated soil fertility management. There is much reliance on Korea’s Natural Farming methods as espoused by Mr. Han-kyu Cho and his Janong Natural Farming Research Institute. This shows familiarity by national and international network members on Mr. Cho’s philosophical framework for which much of their research and development efforts are geared on adaptation. What is important to emphasize is that these developed crop production systems or organic agricultural programs are not just the combination or sum total of the various organic agricultural technologies and techniques but rather, the synergy arising from the combination. There is nothing spectacular if we just talk of the organic technique that they promote because these are usually adoptions and adaptations from various established organic production philosophies.

They stood out from among their contemporary organic movements because of the synergy effect from the combinations of organic practices they promote and pursue. These nationally and internationally-operating MINSOFS members are network themselves and part of their core activities are community organization and advocacies on multiple and complex issues interlinking with their organic agriculture efforts the issues on multi-national investments on the Philippine agro-chemical industry, seed production and genetic engineering, and a host of other social, economic, and cultural concerns relating to agriculture for the total development of their farmer beneficiaries into well informed if not environmentally militant citizenry. They have the resources to mobilize their farmer members to be politically active in national issues and debates, especially those relating to farmer labour issues, land reform, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), organic certification, multi-national control of the agricultural production system, and other volatile topics. As network of networks, they can also mobilize their partner farmer organizations for the adoption/adaption of emerging organic agriculture technologies and have the resources for nation-wide research and technology demonstration.

Due to the holistic approach of the nationally and internationally networked members, they found some difficulty answering the questionnaire set required by ANSOFT because they are not promoting nor endorsing a single organic agricultural technique but a whole range of production system philosophy that starts from seed varietal selection and breeding down to post-harvest activities and national agro-economic policy advocacies.

For instance, while it is true that SEARICE is focused on participatory plant breeding (PPB) based on traditional varieties and other locally available improved varieties using Mendellian principles and not based on genetic engineering, its farmer capacity building through its Farmer Field School includes topics on integrated pest management and integrated soil fertility management adapting to local conditions Korea's Natural Farming philosophy. But since they were asked to submit a report on a single organic agricultural technique, they opted to introduce Indigenous Microorganisms (IMO) and Carbonized Rice Hull (CRH) which would not be relevant if we consider the purpose for which SEARICE was established and known for their work in the Southeast Asian region. IMO and CRH are neither pioneering nor outstanding for an organization with such an international level of operation and calibre. The way ANSOFT would have wanted their organic agriculture researches and programs reported is like taking a text out of context which could be looked at as nothing spectacular and subject to several interpretations not relevant to the networked members' mission and vision. But if they report on their plant breeding trainings, there is nothing organic about this activity unless we contrast it with genetic engineering and GMOs. The success of SEARICE, as well as those of other organic movements, is not in finding the right combination of organic techniques to promote, but in the synergistic effects of the holistic approach that they pursue. By isolating the organic technique, the “magic” is lost because it is not just the sum total of the organic practices but in the synergy.

The principal investigator therefore, opted to retain SEARICE submitted report but under the Natural Farming techniques adapted to local conditions; and prepared a separate report highlighting PPB as the major contribution of SEARICE in the organic agriculture movement. The same holds true for MASIPAG with its development of the so-called MASIPAG Rice

Production Technology and with SIBAT with its promotion of Community-Based Sustainable Agriculture Program. The Sustainable Agriculture Centre focuses its research and development activities on Asset-Base Community Sustainable Agriculture Program. We would like to reiterate that these are not just organic agricultural techniques but holistic sustainable agricultural production systems and crop production protocols consisting of a set of a synergistic mix of uniquely developed as well as adapted organic agricultural technologies for which no two dynamic communities would be alike despite unifying approaches and philosophies.

It would be axiomatic to say that at the national and international level, the various organic agriculture movements and network of movements are pursuing holistic rather than reductionist approach for organic agriculture to be competitive against conventional agricultural methods. The low yield claimed for organically produced crops because the nitrogen content of organic fertilizers is certainly limiting, is compensated by premium selling price, integrated farming to include livestock-fisheries-and-other crops for diversified farmer income sources and approximation of a mature and thus stable ecosystem, accent on soil biology for enhanced crop nutrient uptake, focus on home food sufficiency rather than on commercial level of production but with provisions for surplus, and independence from the so-called yoke of bondage by the multi-national agro-chemical and seed industry. More than the technological innovations, these organic agriculture movements are deep into farmer value formation to transcend profit motive and replace conventional farming with environment-safe and human-health promoting agricultural production systems that focus more on self-sufficiency and science-based return to or adaptation of traditional and indigenous practices that enabled the country to feed its people in the past centuries. Without the value formation that accompanies the capacity building on organic agricultural technologies and the set of production protocols, there is no way to advance the cause of organic farming in the Philippines. For these organic agriculture movements, organic agriculture as opposed to conventional farming, is a way of life. It is not just a crop production system.

Summary of findings on the local-based network members. The local-based organic agriculture movements are certainly convinced of the need to return to the basics, especially those agricultural production systems thrown away in favour of modern or conventional farming. There is no doubt about it. There are three routes for these local movements, either (1) they join a particular organic agriculture philosophical bandwagon; or (2) adopt and adapt a gamut of relevant practices and technologies suited to their local conditions which includes indigenous or traditional farming systems and practices slowly being forgotten by the community and previously dismissed as nothing more than folk traditions and superstition; or (3) for the more innovative and dynamic communities, they consider both by welcoming diverse ideas of various organic movements but could remain attached to a particular organic philosophy as base for development of set of organic-based production systems. This is quite evident based on the submissions of their reports for the ANSOFT workshop. They were either among the first or among the last to comply with the requirements. But since they are local organic agriculture movements, the philosophical framework for some of the organic technologies they submitted were lacking in depth in their discussions. It is not that they do not understand the philosophy behind what they were promoting but they expectedly lack elucidation because their program coverage is limited to within the community and perhaps with their neighbouring communities. Much of the details as requested by ANSOFT were

supplemented by the principal investigator. A national or international organic movement would have a more panoramic viewpoint in terms of community dynamics and variations of farming conditions. For instance, most of the network members were unable to fill up the "Cost" set of questionnaire. Obviously, because we are dealing with home-level production, the raw material sources were freely and abundantly available in the community and labour is equally cheap and free because they are provided by the project beneficiaries. Valuation for things easily and cheaply available is not that easy for those who do not have agro-economic background. In contrast, SEARICE has come up with a book on valuation of participatory plant breeding. As an international organic agriculture movement, they have attained that level of sophistication. Since the MINSOFS members are not also into law, and their produce are for home and community consumption only and not for commercial sale, there was no conscious recognition that for trade purposes, many of these concoctions would require licensing from the Fertilizer and Pesticide Administration. This regulation is actually not applicable for the project beneficiaries because even the original organic technology developer never intended such for commercial production. Again, the principal investigator supplied these data. The same is true for the farmer-bred seeds. Because it was intended for home and community level type of production and not for commercial trade, the seed production regulatory body – the National Seed Industry Council, was hardly mentioned in their original report.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The MINSOFS members had difficulty filling up the ANSOFT questionnaire set that focuses on a particular organic technique because their program implementation is based on holistic approach and synergistic effects of the combination of the various organic techniques. There is a recognition for instance that organic fertilizer would not have sufficient nitrogen to meet crop needs; and therefore, the focus is on the use of supplemental biological strategies to enhance nutrient uptake by crops, diversification and integration for multiple income sources, use of solar energy and indigenous and abundantly available and locally sourced raw materials, among other strategies. Thus, a single organic technique would not reflect the organization’s mission and vision to promote organic agriculture. Although almost all of the consortium members practice holistic approaches, it is in the mission and vision that makes one organic movement distinctly different than the other. The principal investigator thinks it is important to reflect this in the submission to ANSOFT and made additional report for the network members with national and international linkages by highlighting their major work and contribution to the organic movement. Secondly, while it is true that the practices and the underlying philosophical framework are based on established organic agriculture principles such as Natural Farming or Bio-dynamic Agriculture, for which the submitted organic technique may not be that extra-ordinary nor pioneering for information sharing at international level, there are already adaptations in terms of procedures or raw materials used. Most of the reporters who prepared the submissions assumed that the other network members, whether local or international, are aware of Natural Farming,

Bio-dynamic Agriculture and other organic agriculture philosophies and principles and preferred to submit these rather common ones. On the other hand, the principal investigator thinks that perhaps what ANSOFT members would consider as uniquely and indigenously and locally developed organic technique is rather too common for the network members to recognize such that they fail to appreciate and report these organic techniques and did not report. Maybe we need to supplement current information sharing efforts. Way forward. MINSOFS will have a general assembly meeting after IFOAM and will organize an organic agriculture trade fair by first quarter of next year, to be hosted by the Municipality of Dumingag. MINSOFS has just participated in the Mindanao-island wide Vermiculture Congress in Cagayan de Oro and initiated a seminar on the provisions of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Organic Agriculture Act not only for its members but for all those attending the Vermiculture Congress. Acknowledgement. The principal investigator thanks the MINSOFS members for their submissions and cooperation and the ANSOFT organizers for this opportunity to share organic agricultural techniques as practiced in the Philippines with those of AFACI member countries as well as with the attendees of Korean Society of Organic Agriculture Research workshop during the IFOAM World Organic Agriculture Congress.

Annex 1

□ Name of organic technique: MASIPAG RICE PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY

<General>

Name of technique Masipag Rice Production Technology

Purpose of use A rice production system that does not use chemicals and pesticides

Outline & Principles

Chemical-based farming is not the only option for farmers in the Philippines. A more sustainable rice production technology is available without compromising the integrity of the environment, improve the quality of farmers’ economic well being and consideration of social equity, and look at development planning that includes the quality of farm life. Farmers are usually trained on the MASIPAG methods of rice culture which focuses on bringing back traditional rice varieties, improving these varieties, and minimizing the cost of production. The technology training can be divided into its component programs: Collection, identification, maintenance, multiplication, and evaluation of rice varieties Breeding (rice, corn, livestock) Soil fertility management Diversified-Integrated Farming Systems for ecological stability Alternative pest management Usually, the training also involved farmer-developed/adapted technology, network strengthening, local processing and marketing

Main Effects

Control of pests and diseases without compromising environment and health of farm workers Reduction of soil acidity Multiple-income sources Control of farming resources Increased family income

Target Crops and Application Period

Rice

Scale of application The whole farming system which could include a synergistic effects with other farming components like livestocks and other crops because of diversified farming philosophy

Other Uses The MASIPAG rice varieties are known for adaptation to various conditions such as saltwater tolerance, pest-disease resistance, low fertility soils, tillering and rationing properties, etc.

<Technical issue & problems>


Organic regulation and criteria

Rice varieties released for commercial production is generally approved by the National Seed Industry Council, also known before as the Philippine Seed Board (PSB) which is based with the Bureau of Plant Industry. Republic Act 7308 also known as the Seed Industry Development Act of 1992 makes PSB as the responsible office in the approval and registration of crop varieties. Its website is: http://bpi.da.gov.ph/NSIC/index.php . This government agency is involved with certification of seed growers for the commercial sale of breeer seed, foundation seed, registered seed, certified seed, and good seed. It should be noted that MASIPAG is dealing with farmer-produced seeds which are not for commercial sale; and that the farmer himself is taught on breeding technologies so that he could produce his own seed requirement rather than being beholden to multi-nationals; and is therefore assumed that MASIPAG rice lines the local farmers produced are not registered with the National Seed Industry Council. Soil fertility amendments are regulated by the Fertilizer and Pesticide Administration (FPA) for licensing prior to commercial sale. But again, since these are produced by farmers for their own use, the locally produced fertilizers and home-made pesticide concoctions do not pass through FPA regulations.

Effect on human body Better health because the farmers are not exposed on the hazards of agricultural chemicals

Social issue Better income for farmers because of reduced production costs since he is in better control of farm resources such as seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides.

Knowledge transfer

Current social and human resources: 635 People’s Organizations (Pos) 60 Non-government Organizations 15 Scientists 67 farmer rice breeders 21 corn breeders 200 farmer trainors Research and support facilities: 226 PO-managed trial farms + 10 back up 9 PO managed chicken gene pools

Manufacturing, packing, application

None

Other issues Organic farmers had difficulty with the certification requirements because despite their efforts to be 100% organic, they are affected by aerial sprays (via airplane) of neighboring commercial plantations.

<Cost>


MASIPAG Full Organic (PhP) Conventional (PhP)

Equipment and maintenance -- --

Material costs (seed, fertilizer, pesticide, livestock) 1,119.00 10,453.00

labour (cost) 5,291.00 1,529.00

Disposal of waste matter -- --

Other costs: land rental 981.00 1,529.00

Other costs: irrigation fee 252.00 455.00

Source: 2009 study conducted by Dr. Lorenz Backman, et.al.

Household balance:

MASIPAG Full Organic Conventional

Mean 4,749.00 -4,992.00

Poorest quartile -3,366.00 -10,893.00

Richest quartile 11,134.00 3,868.00

Additional note: Comparative net agricultural income for MASIPAG and conventional rice production technology is available as slide in http://icss2010.net/download/documents/24-JUNE/panel-2_People%20to%20Science-to-People-experiences-from-civil-society/1_C-P-Medina.pdf

<Source of information>


Photos/sources

Source: MASIPAG

Developer of technique MASIPAG

Data sources

MASIPAG web site: http://www.masipag.org/index.html Video production on success stories is available at: http://www.miragepro.net/masipag.htm Democratizing Sustainability Science C. P. Medina, National Coordinator for Development http://icss2010.net/download/documents/24-JUNE/panel-2_People%20to%20Science-to-People-experiences-from-civil-society/1_C-P-Medina.pdf

Others IFOAM web site on MASIPAG and history of organic agriculture in the Philippines http://www.ifoam.org/growing_organic/2_policy/case_studies/philippines_early_development.php

<Other effects>


Positive environmental effects

No environmental contamination of inorganic fertilizers and toxic agricultural pesticides and insecticides

Negative environmental effects None

Farm responses (positive) Greater income and liberation from dependence on expensive multi-national agro-chemicals to grow rice

Farm responses (negative) None

Opinion of neighbor farm When entering a pilot community, it is usual experience that the target number of participants is often exceeded by more than 50%

Other effects Farmers learned to look at what are locally available bio-resources to produce crops

Network Contributor: Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG) – Mindanao Officer's Village, Zone 5, Bulua, Cagayan De Oro City,Philippines

ANNEX 2

□ Name of organic technique: PARTICIPATORY VEGETABLE BREEDING AND SELECTION

<General>

Name of technique Participatory Vegetable Breeding and Selection

Purpose of use To help vegetable growers increase their production while reducing their use of pesticides and other chemical inputs


The Farmer Field School is based on field study or physical set-up which farmers observe (material), field exercises or activities which farmers conducting using the field set-up (action/experience) and special topic which supplements the discussions and process the field exercise (concept). The training covers the following topics: Sustainable agriculture Soil fertility management Natural farming system Plant morphology and growth stages Genetics and heritability Breeding Selection Agricultural policies affecting farmers Post-harvest handling Household-based seed keeping There are practical exercises on conducting field trials on varieties of eggplants, tomato, okra, ampalaya, string beans, and squash. Each farmer conducted practical breeding for each crop using pre-determined breeding criteria. They were taught how to use organic fertilizer from vermicast Difference between conventional plant breeding (supply driven) and participatory plant breeding (demand-driven):

Conventional PB Selection of new varieties Variety release Production of certified seed Adoption

Participatory PB Selection of new varieties Adoption Variety release Production of certified seed

Commonalities: Molecular breeding is one of those technologies which is not incompatible with participatory plant breeding because of the following reasons -

1. Use of Market Assisted Selection (MAS) can help create the gene combinations chosen byfarmers more effectively and more rapidly;

2. It can facilitate the acceleration of generations (double

haploids) of the genetic materials; 3. Because of its focus on mapping, it can make up for the

limited genetic knowledge of farmers and enhance farmer participation in the identification of important traits to them;

4. It can facilitate the “fingerprinting” of farmers’ varieties, i.e. the characterization of population for official release.

Main Effects Greater crop diversity specially those suitable for stressed environments


All economically important crops

Scale of application Seed production phase, but the technology covers the whole crop production system

Other Uses

Produces same quality and quantity of data as the conventional plant breeding methods and in addition, generates information on farmers’ preferences. Increases crop biodiversity, promotes the use of landraces and wild relatives, and is ideal for organic conditions. It is possible to make improvements on more than one crop at the same time. Facilitates quick response to agronomic and/or climatic changes.




Seeds, including vegetable seeds, released for commercial production is generally approved by the National Seed Industry Council, also known before as the Philippine Seed Board (PSB) which is based with the Bureau of Plant Industry. Republic Act 7308 also known as the Seed Industry Development Act of 1992 makes PSB as the responsible office in the approval and registration of crop varieties. Its website is: http://bpi.da.gov.ph/NSIC/index.php . This government agency is involved with certification of seed growers for the commercial sale of breeer seed, foundation seed, registered seed, certified seed, and good seed. It should be noted that SEARICE is dealing with farmer-produced seeds which are not for commercial sale; and that the farmer himself is taught on breeding technologies so that he could produce his own seed requirement rather than being beholden to multi-nationals; and is therefore assumed that SEARICE varieties that the local farmers produced are not registered with the National Seed Industry Council. However, efforts to commercialize these seeds may have to pass through the National Seed Industry Council Soil fertility amendments are regulated by the Fertilizer and Pesticide Administration (FPA) for licensing prior to commercial sale. But again, since these are produced by farmers for their own use, the locally produced fertilizers and home-made pesticide concoctions do not pass through FPA regulations.

Effect on human body None

Social issue

Farmers are just as good as scientists or other groups of seed growers. The evolution of breeding in participatory plant breeding ensures continued adaptation under changing farming and market systems as well as changing climates. There is a need to supply community groups with relevant and needed diversity for local selection.

Knowledge transfer

SEARICE has several publications, videos, technical reports, and proceedings which they share freely in the internet. An example is Pathways to Participatory Farmer Plant Breeding: Stories and Reflections of the Community Biodiversity Development Program and available at: http://www.searice.org.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=36&Itemid=44


Most of the technology packages as well as position papers and advocacies are produced as books and brochures.

Other issues

Pedagogy of participatory plant breeding. This refers to the activities of educating or instructing or to activities that impart knowledge or skills. The term is generally associated with child learning while “andragogy” defines the way adults learn. Adherents of participatory plant breeding agree that pedagogy is more widely used in reference to educational and empowerment processes. The issues that emerged were: (1) changing mindsets; (2) maintaining the quality of educational processes, and (3) building communities’ commitment to participatory plant breeding Market and economic considerations in participatory plant breeding. Government regulations that makes it illegal for farmers to reproduce seeds results with some farmers keeping their surplus seeds and reporting lower than actual production volumes. Agricultural liberalization to some extent benefits participatory plant breeders but fraught with challenges and risks.

<Cost>


Equipment and maintenance None

Material costs

As farmers are trained on plant reproduction, isolation, and purity of assessment, farmers recognize the importance of having a seed plot. Most of these are done in the Participatory Varietal Selection (PVS) plots where seed production techniques and practiced. As such, material costs such as initial seed materials and relevant production costs are shared among farmer participants

labour (cost) Assumed to be free and contributed by the farmers themselves

Disposal of waste matter No harmful laboratory wastes nor dangerous crop genetic materials

Other costs:

None. Note: SEARICE has come up with book on the valuation of participatory plant breeding: Valuing Participatory Plant Breeding: A Review of Tools and Methods http://www.searice.org.ph/index.php?view=article&catid=47%3Anew-books&id=91%3Avaluing-participatory-plant-breeding-a-review-of-tools-and-methods&format=pdf&option=com_content&Itemid=66



Photos/sources

Photo source: http://www.searice.org.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=4&Itemid=19

Developer of technique SEARICE

Data sources

The SEARICE website: http://www.searice.org.ph/ Revisiting the streams of participatory plant breeding: Insights from a meeting among friends http://www.searice.org.ph/images/stories/pdf_files/Revisiting_the_streams_of_PPB.pdf

Others Please access their websites for wealth of materials on their various programs and activities. Some of these materials concern a sub-component of the whole crop production process like fertility management or a specific policy advocacy. The website has also a section on several videos relating to these various programs.

<Other effects>



Farmers are able to adjust their crop responses to adverse environmental conditions

Negative environmental effects

None. The practitioners are not involved in genetic manipulation but use conventional Mendellian principles.

Farm responses (positive) Farmers have become aware of vigilant of their control of basic agricultural resources such as seeds. They are against introduction of genetically modified crops (GMOs).

Farm responses (negative) Certainly requires new set of social values to be able to appreciate

Opinion of neighbor farm Quite impressed

Other effects The approach is holistic and therefore the total crop production system should be looked into, not just the varietal selection process.

Network Contributor: Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE) Brgy. Poblacion, President Roxas, North Cotabato, Philippines

ANNEX 3

□ Name of organic technique: ASSET BASE SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE PROGRAM

<General>

Name of technique Asset Base Sustainable Agriculture Program

Purpose of use

Reiterative planning process that mobilizes different available assets – biophysical, institutional, available technologies, and even human resources to bring about sustainable agriculture and sound watershed management practices.


The Asset Base Sustainable Agriculture and Community Development Concept has a more positive approach than conventional model of analyzing problems, needs and deficiencies of communities. It focuses on various existing resources or assets that can and need to be enhanced, enriched and developed by the target group or communities. Its principles and philosophy rests on reiterative planning process that involves the different sectors of the community as well as the stakeholders in mobilizing the different available assets—biophysical, institutional, available technologies, and even human resources in order to positively act on issues and concerns (Figure 1). It recognizes the complex interactions of assets in bringing about sustainable agriculture and sound watershed management practices (Figure 2).

1 Ecologically Sound2 Econom ically viable/

Associative Econom ics3 Socially Just / Equitable4 Culturally Appropriate

5 Holistic Science6 Appropriate Technology7 Developm ent of Hum an

Potential

Business Enterprises

PEOPLE

NATURE

Political Structures

Cultural Institutions

Science

Technology

Individual

Inner Ecology

11

22

33

44

55

66

77

77

Figure 2. Diagram of principles of assets mobilization and sustainable agriculture

Table 1. Typology of Participation TYPOLOGY CHARACTERISTIC OF EACH TYPE

Passive participation People participate by being told what has been decided or has already happened. Information being shared belongs only to external professionals.

Participation by consultation People participate by being consulted or by answering questions. Process does not concede any share in decision-making, and professionals are under no obligation to take on board people’s views.

Bought participation People participate in return for food, cash, or other material incentives. Local people have no stake in prolonging technologies or practices when the incentives end.

Functional participation Participation seen by external agencies as a means to achieve their goals, especially reduced costs. People participate by forming groups to meet predetermined objectives.

Interactive participation People participate in joint analysis, development of action plans, and formation or strengthening of local groups or institutions. Learning methodologies used to seek multiple perspectives, and groups determine how available resources are used.

Self-mobilization and connectedness

People participate by taking initiatives independently to change systems. They develop contacts with external institutions for resources and technical advice they need, but retain control over how resources are used.

CulturePolity

NATURE

HUMAN BEING

Agriculture

Economy

Society

CulturePolity

NATURE

HUMAN BEING

Agriculture

Economy

Society

Sust

aina

ble

Agr

icu

ltur

e In

clud

ing

food

sec

urit

y

Figure 3. Complex interactions of assets through TSP for sustainable agriculture and community development.

Main Effects Inward community initiatives to adopt organic agricultural technologies


All economically important crops

Scale of application This is more of value formation to adopt and adapt sustainable agricultural practices and organic agricultural systems

Other Uses Good principle and philosophical framework for community organization




Actually there is no government regulation on community organization work but efforts to organize farmers into cooperatives must comply with the Republic Act 9520 or the Philippine Cooperative Code of 2008

Effect on human body This is more of transformations of human values

Social issue

The core value is for the farmers themselves to throw the yoke of bondage to multi-national agro-chemical industry by taking initiatives themselves to change the system and control how their community resources are used.

Knowledge transfer This is a community development program and would require living or constant interaction with community members to address value formation.


None

Other issues None. Generally, only organic agricultural practices are promoted although community initiatives later on may address social and political issues for which community action is sought.

<Cost>


Equipment and maintenance None

Material costs (seed, fertilizer, pesticide, livestock)

Depends on the type of organic technology being implemented. But additional cost is incurred for slope stabilization using vegetative techniques

Labour (cost) This is usually the counterpart of the program beneficiaries and therefore considered free.

Disposal of waste matter Farm wastes are normally converted to compost

Other costs: For the farmers, maybe we have to value their time spent with the program proponents



Photos/sources

Rapid rural appraisal with researchers interviewing farmers. Before and after introduction of soil conservation techniques Director Tagupa conducting field work and workshop Photo source: BSWM based on collaborative watershed project with SAC-XUCA

Developer of technique Sustainable Agriculture Center - XUCA

Data sources Director Vic Tagupa

Others None

<Other effects>



Well informed and vigilant farmers taking hold and control of their community’s destiny with regards to utilization of their resources

Negative environmental effects None

Farm responses (positive) Farmers are happy to be equipped with the necessary tools to address their own problems as they recognize that the solutions are within their hands.

Farm responses (negative) Requires investment in time and value formation

Opinion of neighbor farm Would like to participate also

Other effects They are able to utilize the same principles and tools to address their non-agricultural concerns.

Network contributor: Sustainable Agriculture Center College of Agriculture, Xavier University, Cagayan de Oro, Philippines

ANNEX 4

□ Name of organic technique: SYSTEM OF RICE INTENSIFICATION (SRI)

<General>

Name of technique System of Rice Intensification (SRI)

Purpose of use Efficient rice cropping technology and better water management


Basic SRI Management Practices Rice plants -- Seedlings are transplanted:

• very young -- usually just 8-12 days old, with just two small leaves

• carefully and quickly to have minimum trauma to the roots • singly, only one per hill instead of 3-4 together to avoid root

competition • widely spaced to encourage greater root and canopy growth • in a square grid pattern, 25x25 cm or wider in good quality

soil Some farmers are experimenting with direct-seeding adaptations of SRI principles, and even with mechanized transplanting. So these recommendations concern how to transplant rice most productively if transplanting is done. SRI is not a recipe of precise things to do, but rather a menu for bringing out rice plants’ potential. Soil -- This is kept moist but well-drained and aerobic, with good structure and enough organic matter to support increased biological activity. The quality and health of the soil is the key to best production. Water -- Only a minimum of water is applied during the vegetative growth period, and thereafter only a thin layer of water is maintained on the field during flowering and grain-filling. Alternatively, to save labor time, some farmers flood and drain (dry) their fields in 3-5 day cycles with good results. Best water management practices depend on soil type, labor availability and other factors, so farmers should experiment on how best to apply the principle of having moist but well-drained soil while their rice plants are growing. Nutrients -- Soil nutrient supplies should be augmented, preferably with compost, made from any available biomass. Better quality compost such as with manure can give additional yield advantages. Chemical fertilizer can be used and gives better results than with no nutrient amendments, but it does not enhance soil structure and microbial communities in the rhizosphere as applying organic matter accomplishes. At least initially, nutrient amendments may not be necessary to achieve higher yields with the other SRI practices, but it is desirable to build up soil fertility over time. Root exudation, greater with SRI, enhances soil fertility. Weeds -- Since weeds become a problem in fields that are not kept flooded, weeding is necessary several times, starting 10-12 days after transplanting, and if possible, every 10-12 days until before the

canopy closes. Using a rotary hoe -- a simple, inexpensive, mechanical push-weeder -- has the advantage of aerating the soil at the same time that weeds are eliminated. (They are left in the soil to decompose so their nutrients are not lost.) Additional weedings beyond two can increase yield more than enough under most conditions to more than justify the added labor costs.

Main Effects

• Young seedlings recover better from trauma • Wider distances minimize competition • Unflooded conditions create better aeration, more soil

organisms and healthier roots • Rice is not an aquatic plant • Involves some changes in rice management practices • Does not require special varieties; works with any variety • Reduces cost of seeds, inputs and water • Increases yields by 50-100% • Does not need chemical fertilizers or pesticides • Early transplanting: 8-12 days, before the third leaf appears;

transplant carefully • Wider distances (25x25 cm, up to 45x45cm, or even more);

one seedling per hill • Fields should not be flooded continuously: 1) keep soil moist;

or 2) alternate wetting and drying • Use a mechanical weeder every 10-14 days for weed control

and soil aeration • Use compost, not inorganic fertilizers, for best results

In the Philippines, SRI yields ranged from 3.3 – 12 tons/ha both from farmers’ fields and experimental plots. Compared with existing practices, farmers report 50 – 100% yield increase plus lower cost of production and lower water use.


Rice – from planting to harvesting

Scale of application Involves the whole rice production system, from seedling propagation stage to harvesting.

Other Uses Not known




None. Since the Department of Agriculture has its own set of rice production protocols to avail of government incentives, farmers practicing SRI may not be able to get such incentives. There are efforts, however, by non-government organizations, to bring SRI as acceptable conventional practice.

Effect on human body None

Social issue Refusal to change from “comfort zone” and feeling of uncertainty by farmers to try unfamiliar system of growing rice.

Knowledge transfer NGOs propagating the technology usually use farmer-participatory approach to capacitate the farmers on SRI


Not applicable. There are no products being promoted, but a whole production system being practiced.

Other issues Usual oppositors to organic farming are not convinced of the technology and question those who promote SRI in scientific fora and symposia, which is expected.

<Cost>


Equipment and maintenance With the wider planting distance, a weeder is a must to assure weed-free crop environment.

Material costs Compared with traditional rice growing system, no additional material costs but reduce inputs in terms of seeds, fertilizers, water.

Labour (cost)

The claim is that SRI does not require more labor although there are some undocumented reports that it requires more. It is possible that these are the “plant and harvest” type of farmers who do not devote much time to their rice farms in between the planting and harvesting. The active role of the farmer practicing SRI is certainly a must.

Disposal of waste matter None

Other costs None

Cost-benefit ratio

Based on the paper: “ System of Rice Intensification (SRI): Practices and Results in the Philippines by Roberto S. Verzola, Coordinator, SRI-Pilipinas (undated, possibly 2004 based on literature citations): Rene Jaranilla, for instance, estimated that his costs of production with conventional methods was P12,310/ha giving a negative net income of P3,310 with ROI of -27%; with SRI, his costs were only P7,510/ha with a net income of P9,890 (ROI = 132%). In addition to SRI, Jaranilla practices nature farming through the use of indigenous microorganisms which helps him reduce expenses of his farm. SRI as practiced by three farmer field school groups with with the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) had SRI costs per hectare nearly three times the conventional costs (P30,945 SRI vs. P10,948), but their SRI profitability was nonetheless more than three times greater than the conventional approach (P24,054 vs. P7,592). The ROI with SRI was 78% while the conventional approach had an ROI of 69%.



Photos/sources

Photo Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nadukuppam/134031240/

Photo Source: http://prrmnuevaecija.blogspot.com/2011/02/system-of-rice-intensification.html

Developer of technique

The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) is a method of increasing the yield of rice developed in 1983 by the French Jesuit Father Henri de Laulanie in Madagascar. It began as early as 1960s when Fr. De Laulanie observed 'positive-deviant' farmer practices, starting with planting single seedlings instead of multiple seedlings in a clump, and not keeping irrigated paddy fields flooded during the rice plants' vegetative growth stage. Planting with wider spacing in a square pattern, rather than randomly or in rows, followed, as did controlling weed growth by use of a soil-aerating push-weeder (rotating hoe). SRI Pilipinas was established in 2002 as a consortium of farmer groups and civil societies, academics, and government with series of workshops hosted by the Philippine Movement for Rural Reconstruction (PRRM) to promote SRI nationwide.

Data sources This is available in the internet. The website is http://sri.ciifad.cornell.edu/index.html . It has pages devoted to its applications to various parts of the world with a specific page for the Philippines: http://sri.ciifad.cornell.edu/countries/philippines/index.html .

Others Various reports and articles, powerpoint presentations and other documentation on SRI application in the Philippines can be found at the Philippine sub-page. The CIIFAD-Cornell website has also a page on SRI application in the Philippines: http://ciifad.cornell.edu/sri/countries/philippines/index.html

<Other effects>


Positive environmental effects With less crop density, there is lower methane emission

Negative environmental effects None reported

Farm responses (positive)

Farmers report the following observations: • Yield increases by 50-100% or even more • Works with any variety; does not restrict farmers to a few

varieties • Fewer seeds needed (5-10 kg/ha, not 40 kg/ha) • Uses 40-60% less water; good performance against El Nino;

Better yields with compost; does not rely on chemical fertilizers, fossil fuels

• Healthier, sturdier plants, more resistant to floods, droughts • Profuse tillering: 30, 50, 80 or even more instead of only 10-

20 tillers • Healthy root growth, which can support more tillers • More panicles, more grains per panicle

Farm responses (negative) The documentation and the monitoring of plant growth is quite tedious.

Opinion of neighbor farm Positive response. Neighboring farmers observed that the crop on SRI grow and adapt well even in drought conditions.

Other effects Farmers are encouraged to switch to SRI from conventional rice production technology.

Network Contributor: Sibol Ng Agham At Teknolohiya (SIBAT) 40 Matulungin St. Brgy. Central Diliman, Quezon City,Philippines

ORGANIC AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES AMONG ANSOFT-NETWORKED RURAL DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTIONS IN...

Documents

Transcript of ORGANIC AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY PRACTICES AMONG ANSOFT-NETWORKED RURAL DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTIONS IN...