policy and institutional priorities for sustainable agriculture ......for diversifying rainfed rice...

Policy and Institutional Prioritiesfor Sustainable Agriculture

and Rural DevelopmentResults of a Regional Workshop of the SARD-FSE Project

19-21 July 2004Antipolo City, Philippines

ANGOC

2 Asian NGO Coalition (ANGOC)

AcknowledgmentsAcknowledgmentsAcknowledgmentsAcknowledgmentsAcknowledgmentsThe Philippines Case Study and the Regional Workshop were made possible

by the generous financial support ofthe Governments of France and Japan.

The Workshop Organizers would also like to thankthe Department of Agriculture and Secretary Luis P. Lorenzo Jr.

Mr. Arcadio Cruz, FAO Representative, Philippines OfficeFr. Francis B. Lucas

Nueva Ecija municipalities and local stakeholders involved in the case studyParticipants from Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Italy,

Japan, Laos, Nepal, and PakistanPCARRD, SEARCA, CLSU

Workshop Chairpersons, Facilitators and PresentersSecretariat Staff

3SARD-FSE Regional Workshop Report of Proceedings

The Regional Workshop of the Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development-Farming Systems Evolution (SARD-FSE) Project was held in AntipoloCity, Philippines on July 19-21, 2004. Forty-four partici-pants from 14 countries took part in this activity, whichaimed to: (1) review the methodological guidelines, les-sons learned and recommendations of the SARD-FSE casestudy implemented in the Philippines; (2) identify the keypolicy and institutional issues that must be addressed inorder to develop agriculture and the rural sector towardSARD in the Philippines and Asia; and (3) formulate pre-liminary proposals for regional and FAO HQ collabora-tion on SARD policy and institutional analysis and imple-mentation, involving different actors, and in support ofnational efforts.

Opening remarks were given by Fr. Francis B. Lucas,chairperson of the Asian NGO Coalition (ANGOC),project holder in the Philippines, emphasized the “sa-credness of food” that is at the heart of the workshop.Likewise, Mr. Arcadio L. Cruz, assistant FAO representa-tive, Philippines Office, said that sustainable agricultureand rural development has the potential to effectively tacklemany of the critical problems facing the world today, andthus underlined the significance of the SARD-FSE Work-shop. Philippine Agriculture Secretary Luis Lorenzo Jr.talked about the impact of globalization on small farmersand enjoined non-government organizations (NGOs) togo beyond talk of an empowered farming sector towardsconcrete implementation strategies to achieve such a vi-sion.

Dr. Danilo Vargas, research team leader for the SARD-FSE Project, described the Project management structureand the rationale for the research study. His presentationincluded a description of the rainfed rice-based farmingsystem in Nueva Ecija based on current trends. He thenpresented two scenarios: an anticipatory one, based oncurrent trends; and an exploratory or improved scenario.The anticipatory scenario projects a continued increasein farm inputs; reconsolidation of lands by the rich; re-ceding water levels; and deforestation. The exploratoryscenario, which forecasts reduced production costs, a haltto or reversal of rural outmigration, better extension ser-vices, and improved market integration for farmers, amongothers, is contingent, however, on the restoration of wa-tershed systems; the implementation of a comprehensiveorganic farming program; adequate provision of technol-ogy, irrigation services, and pre- and post-harvest facili-ties; a moratorium on land conversion; an enhanced role

for women in farm production; and better services fromgovernment agencies. Dr. Vargas concluded by offeringfive recommendations—in order of importance—toachieve implement SARD: (1) Increase agricultural pro-ductivity; (2) Increase investment in agriculture; (3) Re-view policies on trade and market linkages; (4) Strengthenpeople’s organizations; and (5) Improve farmer extension/education.

Dr. Miguel L. Aragon, director of the AgribusinessProgram of the Central Luzon State University (CLSU),provided the stakeholders’ perspective of the study. Hethought that the composition of the team and the inclu-sion of all stakeholders in the rainfed – lowland rice –based farming system met the requirement of a supra –disciplinary approach. He commended the “diagnosis”which he considered complete and fully elucidated. Dr.Aragon also thought that the “driving forces” were fullyaccounted for but that further analysis and a more com-plete integration of the recommendations are necessaryso that the ultimate objective of SARD could be accom-plished. He likewise proposed that the study shifts itsfocus from equitability—which Dr. Aragon said is “diffi-cult to meet”—towards equilibrium of the farming sys-tem—which would provide for present needs of the fam-ily without damaging the resource base. Finally, Dr. Aragonregarded the recommendations set out in the study asvalid and attainable, except for the widespread adoptionof organic farming practices, which he thought might com-promise the goals of achieving food security and increas-ing yield.

Workshop Session IWorkshop Session IWorkshop Session IWorkshop Session IWorkshop Session I undertook a review of SARD-FSE methodological procedures/elements. Group I (Re- Group I (Re- Group I (Re- Group I (Re- Group I (Re-view of SARD-FSE methodological procedures/ele-view of SARD-FSE methodological procedures/ele-view of SARD-FSE methodological procedures/ele-view of SARD-FSE methodological procedures/ele-view of SARD-FSE methodological procedures/ele-ments)ments)ments)ments)ments) commended the manner in which the project wascarried out, but proposed that a more flexible approachbe adopted to take into account the peculiarities of Phil-ippine culture; that bottom-up assessments be worked intothe initial stages of the Project, that rice research institu-tions be more actively involved; and that the role of womenand the youth be highlighted, among others. and pro-vided corresponding comments on how each was doneright and how it can be improved.

Group II (Review of pro-SARD recommendationsGroup II (Review of pro-SARD recommendationsGroup II (Review of pro-SARD recommendationsGroup II (Review of pro-SARD recommendationsGroup II (Review of pro-SARD recommendationsand interventions)and interventions)and interventions)and interventions)and interventions) argued that agricultural productivitywould be improved by adopting mixed cropping and or-ganic farming methods, boosting crop improvement ef-forts, developing seeds at community level, setting upirrigation facilities and finding alternative water sources,

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


among others. The group emphasized the need to increaseinvestments in agriculture, develop efficient market link-ages, set up local enterprises, strengthen people’s orga-nizations, as well as link farmer extension with local gov-ernment plans and programs.

Group III (Strategic objectives and interventionsGroup III (Strategic objectives and interventionsGroup III (Strategic objectives and interventionsGroup III (Strategic objectives and interventionsGroup III (Strategic objectives and interventionsfor diversifying rainfed rice based farming system to-for diversifying rainfed rice based farming system to-for diversifying rainfed rice based farming system to-for diversifying rainfed rice based farming system to-for diversifying rainfed rice based farming system to-ward SARD)ward SARD)ward SARD)ward SARD)ward SARD) proposed to add value to rice products byproviding/improving storage and processing facilities, andgiving credit support for organic farming. INRM shouldfocus on the management of rainwater and communitybased watershed systems, and addressing problems ofsoil depletion and crop infestation. Meanwhile, the farm-ing system can be protected from untimely events by grow-ing drought tolerant crop varieties, legumes, fruit trees,etc.

Group IV (Strategy for communicating with rel-Group IV (Strategy for communicating with rel-Group IV (Strategy for communicating with rel-Group IV (Strategy for communicating with rel-Group IV (Strategy for communicating with rel-evant key stakeholders for SARD advocacy and col-evant key stakeholders for SARD advocacy and col-evant key stakeholders for SARD advocacy and col-evant key stakeholders for SARD advocacy and col-evant key stakeholders for SARD advocacy and col-laboration)laboration)laboration)laboration)laboration) considered five key stakeholder groups (i.e.,policy makers; local government units; women and youthfarmers or producers; academic and research institutions;and training centers, and determined the priorities formobilizing each group and how best to get their atten-tion.

Workshop Session IIWorkshop Session IIWorkshop Session IIWorkshop Session IIWorkshop Session II tackled four themes for regionalcollaboration for SARD.

Workshop Group I (Rural Enterprises and Mar-Workshop Group I (Rural Enterprises and Mar-Workshop Group I (Rural Enterprises and Mar-Workshop Group I (Rural Enterprises and Mar-Workshop Group I (Rural Enterprises and Mar-kets)kets)kets)kets)kets) put together five recommendations: (1) Promotingbetter understanding of market opportunities and require-ments; (2) Establishing links with the market and build-ing the negotiating capacity of small farmers; (3) Promot-ing rural enterprises for livelihood diversification; (4)Support services and infrastructure; (5) Social marketingof SARD itself for environmental services and buildingcommunity cultural identity.

Group II (Solidarity Network and Information Ex-Group II (Solidarity Network and Information Ex-Group II (Solidarity Network and Information Ex-Group II (Solidarity Network and Information Ex-Group II (Solidarity Network and Information Ex-change)change)change)change)change) includes a recommendation to “Build up coop-eration & partnership among NGOs/GOs/ CSOs/Privatesectors and UN/donors and enhancing policy advocacyfor SARD”, which should lead to the establishment of aninformation network secretariat, putting together a SARDdatabank, research and development, and enhanced policy

advocacy. The second recommendation—“Strengtheningcapacity (human and institutional) for SARD”—shouldresult in increased capacity for SARD at regional, institu-tional and local levels, development of a course curricu-lum for SARD, and empowerment of women, youth andmarginalized and senior farmers.

Group III (Land Reform and Resource Rights)Group III (Land Reform and Resource Rights)Group III (Land Reform and Resource Rights)Group III (Land Reform and Resource Rights)Group III (Land Reform and Resource Rights) in-cludes proposals to make SARD a people-centered pro-cess; reduce conflict, and create an environment in whichSARD can succeed; rally public opinion to the cause ofthe poor and achieve a more equitable distribution of re-sources, among others. Putting a halt to or reversing thetrend of giving the corporate sector more and more con-trol over land and other resources; making land reform apriority agenda; preventing migration; and enabling morelandless people to gain access to land and thereby jointhe SARD process are additional proposals.

Group IV (Capacity-Building/Good AgriculturalGroup IV (Capacity-Building/Good AgriculturalGroup IV (Capacity-Building/Good AgriculturalGroup IV (Capacity-Building/Good AgriculturalGroup IV (Capacity-Building/Good AgriculturalPractices)Practices)Practices)Practices)Practices) recommends “Identification and promotionof good Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM)practices for SARD” by first identifying best practice inINRM, as well as SARD models, like diversified and inte-grated farming systems. “Building and enhancing the ca-pacity of stakeholders to promote SARD” requires appro-priate training and training materials as well as judicioususe of information and communication technologies(ICTs). “Identifying suitable mechanisms to communicatepolicy recommendations for SARD” involves strengthen-ing of advocacy groups and development of policy briefsand recommendations.

Workshop participants (i.e., FAO, ANGOC, PCARRD,SEARCA, CLSU, and others) were requested to explore,promote and negotiate interest, political will, collabora-tion and resources to implement the workshop recom-mendations. The FAO team committed to do the follow-ing: (1) Insert the workshop proposals into ongoing pro-grams and initiatives; (2) Use the proposals to comple-ment and strengthen project proposals that are being ne-gotiated with potential donors; and (3) Develop the rec-ommendations into fully fledged proposals in accordancewith the workshop’s intentions.


Opening CeremoniesWelcome RemarksWelcome RemarksWelcome RemarksWelcome RemarksWelcome Remarks

1. The Regional Workshop on the SustainableAgriculture and Rural Development-Farming SystemsEvolution (SARD-FSE) Project opened with welcomeremarks from Fr. Francis B. Lucas, chairperson of theAsian NGO Coalition (ANGOC), and Mr. Arcadio L.Cruz, Assistant Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO) Representative, Philippines Country Office.

2. Speaking in Filipino, Fr. Lucas welcomed theparticipants to the workshop, numbering 45 from Cam-bodia, China, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Laos,Nepal, and Pakistan. (For the list of workshop partici-pants, please see Annex A.) He said that the “sacred-ness of food” is at the heart of the workshop and thatthe whole point of the activity was to plan for foodsustenance in Asia and in the rest of the world.

3. Meanwhile, Mr. Cruz said that by sharingideas, experiences and lessons learned in the imple-mentation of SARD-FSE in the Philippines, the par-ticipants should be able to:

Report of Proceedings of the

Regional Workshop on theSustainable Agriculture and Rural Develop-ment-Farming Systems Evolution Project19-21 July 2004Antipolo City, Philippines

1 Identify and address institutional issues con-fronting agriculture and rural development notjust in the Philippines but in the whole Asianregion;

1 Discuss examples of enabling policies thathave been implemented by governments tosupport sustainable land management and sus-tainable agriculture and rural development(SARD);

1 Identify rural development outcomes that haveresulted from the successful implementationof SARD; and

1 Recommend novel institutional partnershipsand joint working arrangements that can bedeveloped for the implementation of SARD.

For the text of Mr. Cruz’s Welcome Remarks, pleasesee Annex B.

Keynote AddressKeynote AddressKeynote AddressKeynote AddressKeynote Address4. Outgoing Philippine Secretary of Agriculture

Luis P. Lorenzo Jr. gave the Keynote Address. Settingaside his prepared speech, Sec. Lorenzo tackled theissue of globalization and how this phenomenon hasimpacted on Asia’s small farmers. He echoed wide-spread objections about “free trade”, citing in par-ticular the huge subsidies paid by developed countrygovernments to their agricultural producers. “How canwe compete in an environment where the cards arestacked against us?,” Lorenzo asked.

5. Nevertheless, Sec. Lorenzo said that global-ization is “an irreversible situation”, and that, depend-ing on their response, countries will either sink or swimwith it. For one thing, developing country governments


must determine where and how best to use their nego-tiating skills for the benefit of their small farmers.

6. At the same time, he said that there must bean effort to change the mindset of people and to buildtheir confidence. Small farmers must be convincedthat they can make a difference in society, and thatthey have the ability to improve their lives. This confi-dence-building process can be helped along by propa-gating the idea that the vision of an empowered farm-ing sector is achievable. NGOs must for instance gobeyond talk of achieving such a vision and concen-trate on implementation strategies. They must alsodevelop spokespersons among their farmer andfisherfolk members so that they can tell their own suc-cess stories. Media coverage is invaluable to this pro-cess.

7. Sec. Lorenzo ended his presentation by quot-ing Steve Farrar, who said that what matters is not howone starts the journey but how she/he finishes. To fin-ish strong, however, one needs to have “a clear visionof what is important”. It cannot be done by simplytaking life as it comes. Sec. Lorenzo said he was opti-mistic that given the optimism of the participants, thepartnership built around SARD “would be buoyed bythe situation in Asia towards a strong finish”.

For the text of Sec. Lorenzo’s Prepared KeynoteAddress, please see Annex C.

OPEN FORUMOPEN FORUMOPEN FORUMOPEN FORUMOPEN FORUM8. Sec. Lorenzo’s keynote address was followed

by a short open forum, where the following main pointswere tackled:

Urban bias among national development plan-Urban bias among national development plan-Urban bias among national development plan-Urban bias among national development plan-Urban bias among national development plan-ners.ners.ners.ners.ners. Sec. Lorenzo said that there will always be amigration from the rural to urban sector because ofthe rush by Asian leaders to adopt the Western modelwithout going through a process. As DA Secretary, hehad tried to encourage people to stay and be produc-tive in the rural areas, but that converting the millionsof people who work on the land has not happenedquickly enough. The future, he added, is in the localgovernment units (LGUs), especially the progressiveones, which can be used as models for future devel-opment.

Building leadership with a value orientation.Building leadership with a value orientation.Building leadership with a value orientation.Building leadership with a value orientation.Building leadership with a value orientation.Given Sec. Lorenzo’s emphasis on building leaderswith a value orientation, a participant wanted to know

how such leaders can be developed. Sec. Lorenzo saidthat there are many potential leaders on the groundbut that these need to be inspired to take up a leader-ship role. Continuity is likewise invaluable in devel-oping such leaders because it takes time to change ormold people’s mindset to an appropriate level.

Mainstreaming SARD.Mainstreaming SARD.Mainstreaming SARD.Mainstreaming SARD.Mainstreaming SARD. Sec. Lorenzo acknowl-edged that the government has done little to main-stream SARD other than talk about it, and that it is upto NGOs and the private sector to inculcate the valueof SARD among a wider constituency. When askedabout how long it would take to mainstream SARD,Sec. Lorenzo said that the answer would depend onhow quickly a society adopts SARD into its way oflife. In any case, he said, “[mainstreaming SARD] is acontinuing commitment from now to forever”.

Factors in the successful implementation ofFactors in the successful implementation ofFactors in the successful implementation ofFactors in the successful implementation ofFactors in the successful implementation ofSARD.SARD.SARD.SARD.SARD. Asked to name three key factors to successfulSARD implementation, Sec. Lorenzo named the fol-lowing: (1) a clear vision; (2) focus; and (3) action andimplementation.

SARD-FSE PROJECT OVERVIEW9. Dr. Marcelino Avila, FAO Project Coordina-

tor, provided an overview of the SARD-FSE Project.He cited a number of global events and factors whichhad led to the thinking behind the SARD-FSE Project.He then explained the objectives of the Project whichare to enhance the capacity of governmental and non-governmental institutions to plan, implement and evalu-ate SARD policies and strategies, and to develop theessential capacities to actively participate in the pro-cesses of decision-making. Furthermore, the projectaims to promote a favorable environment for open


policy dialogue among all stakeholders and to ensurethat the necessary conditions are in place to fostersuch dynamic processes.

10. The expected outputs of the Project include:the case study analysis to understand their driving forcesand the various social, environmental, economic andinstitutional constraints and obstacles for achievingSARD; relevant and flexible policy guidelines and in-stitutional strategies for SARD based on the real-lifeexperiences, lessons learned and future expectationsof stakeholders; and user-friendly and cost-effectivedecision-support tools for promoting and working to-wards SARD, adapted to the specific needs of eachstakeholder and decision-maker’s category.

11. The stakeholders involved in the differentphases of the Project include government agencies (e.g.ministries of agriculture, rural development, environ-ment, planning), NGOs/ CBOs (e.g. community basedorganizations, peasant community and farmer organi-zations), private sector enterprise (e.g. input supply,processing, product marketing), agricultural educa-tion and extension institutions, agricultural researchcenters, and external cooperation and donor agencies.

12. Dr. Avila also explained the project manage-ment structure, criteria for selecting farming systemsand countries (i.e. Philippines, Honduras and Mali),the conceptual framework and methodological steps,an analysis of past trends and future scenarios, a ma-trix for analyzing recommendations coming out of theProject’s implementation, and an analysis of the pre-liminary lessons learned.

For the text of Dr. Avila’s presentation, please seeAnnex D.

Methodology and Content13. Dr. Danilo S. Vargas, Research Team Leader

for the SARD-FSE Project, gave a presentation on themethodology and content behind the SARD-FSEProject undertaken in Guimba and Talugtug munici-palities in Nueva Ecija, Philippines, from January toApril 2004. The Project involved field secondary datagathering, Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), and FocusGroup Discussions (FGDs), including local consulta-tions.

14. Dr. Vargas initially described the Project man-agement structure and the rationale for the researchstudy. The research problem or the main question withwhich the research was concerned was, “Is rainfed low-land rice-based farming sustainable?”

15. This particular farming system was selectedas the focus of the study because the majority of thePhilippines’ rice areas are rainfed and because pov-erty is highest in this farming system. Meanwhile, theprovince of Nueva Ecija was considered as ideal be-cause it is the largest rice producer in the country,accounting for 20% of the Philippines’ rice produc-tion. Forty percent of its agricultural land is planted torainfed rice, and it has been a recipient of many gov-ernment rice programs, as well as being host to strongresearch and development (R&D) institutions andNGOs. On the other hand, the municipalities of Guimbaand Talugtug were chosen because rice is their pri-mary crop—particularly rainfed, lowland rice.

16. The study was undertaken from April 2003 toMay 2004 and involved field secondary data gather-ing, Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), and Focus GroupDiscussions (FGDs), including local consultations.

17. Dr. Vargas’ presentation also included a de-scription of the rainfed rice-based farming system inNueva Ecija based on current trends. Among others,the study showed a steady deterioration of soil condi-tion, loss of field organisms, dropping groundwaterlevels, and increased land conversion, especially theillegal kind. Land is being fragmented due to popula-tion pressure, thus causing a decline in farm sizes andultimately putting into doubt the economic viability offarming as an enterprise. The mechanization offarmwork has caused the virtual disappearance of thecarabao on the farm, reduced labor demand, and in-creased the costs of land preparation, among others.High-yielding rice varieties predominate, fertilizers

used are almost invariably synthetic, and weed con-trol is dependent on chemicals. Farmers have also ex-pressed a number of concerns about the delivery oftechnology based services. Among these are the highfinancial requirements of using hybrid and high valuecrops; limited training programs in the use of technol-ogy; delays in the delivery of inputs; and limited irri-gation coverage, among others. Rural to urban migra-tion, another notable trend in this farming system, hashad a number of social and cultural impacts, like theaging of farmers, as more and more of the rural youthabandon farming to work in the cities; and familialstrain as women, who are the traditional caretakers ofthe family, are forced to leave the home to work else-where. Meanwhile, institutional trends include the de-cline in the number of cooperatives; and the insuffi-cient budget of local government units (LGUs) to imple-ment agricultural development programs.

18. Dr. Vargas then presented two scenarios: ananticipatory one, based on current trends, and an ex-ploratory, or improved scenario. The anticipatory sce-nario projects a continued increase in farm inputs;reconsolidation of lands by the rich; receding waterlevels; and deforestation. The exploratory scenario,which forecasts reduced production costs, a halt to orreversal of rural outmigration, better extension ser-vices, and improved market integration for farmers,among others, is contingent, however, on the restora-tion of watershed systems; the implementation of acomprehensive organic farming program; adequateprovision of technology, irrigation services, and pre-and post-harvest facilities; a moratorium on land con-version; an enhanced role for women in farm produc-tion; and better services from government agencies.

19. Finally, Dr. Vargas gave five recommenda-tions—in order of importance—to achieve implementSARD:

(1) Increase agricultural productivity by means ofcontinuous discovery of high yielding varieties, exploreother sources of irrigation water, generate more tech-nology on water management and alternative culturalpractices to improve soil fertility; strictly implementland conversion laws; and implement an alternativelivelihood system for farmers and diversify the farm-ing systems in rainfed areas.

(2) Increase investment in agriculture in order toenhance the development of infrastructure for agri-

culture such as irrigation, farm-to-market roads, post-harvest facilities as well as information and communi-cation technology, and adopt a sustainable market-oriented approach to research, development and ex-tension.

(3) For the government to review policies on tradeand market linkages, specifically product standardsand rationalization of transport policies, includingpolicy that will provide credit support for organic riceand vegetable cultivation, and the improvement of ac-cess to price information.

(4) Strengthen people’s organizations’ capabilityand capacity to undertake their own development andto serve as conduits of government programs andprojects by improving local governance through en-hanced program planning, monitoring and evaluationof agricultural/development programs/projects; buildthe capacity of extension agents in tandem with farmervolunteers/leaders and other instrumentalities as wellas promote integration and complementation of gov-ernment agricultural programs at the local level.

(5) Implement a farmer extension/education pro-gram by developing the capability of farmer volun-teers or farmer scientists as extension/change agentsfor effective technology dissemination; conduct farm-ers training through the Participatory Technology De-velopment process; develop suitable extension mate-rials for farmers; and establish community/farmers in-formation and technology services.

For the text of Dr. Vargas’ presentation, pleasesee Annex E.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on theStudy

20. Dr. Miguel L. Aragon, director of theAgribusiness Program of the Central Luzon State Uni-versity (CLSU), provided the stakeholders’ perspec-tive on the study by giving comments on the latter’sorganizational and management structure; the study’simportance; its sections on characterization, diagno-sis, and factors influencing evolution; and its recom-mendations.

21. Organizational and management structure.Organizational and management structure.Organizational and management structure.Organizational and management structure.Organizational and management structure.Dr. Aragon thought that the composition of the teamand the inclusion of all stakeholders in the rainfed-lowland rice-based farming system met the require-ment of a supra-disciplinary approach. He added that

the way the project was managed reinforced the par-ticipatory method and thus virtually guarantees its suc-cess.

22. The importance of the studyThe importance of the studyThe importance of the studyThe importance of the studyThe importance of the study..... The study’sobjectives coincide with the Millennium DevelopmentGoals, making the study worthwhile and timely.

23. Characterization and diagnosis.Characterization and diagnosis.Characterization and diagnosis.Characterization and diagnosis.Characterization and diagnosis. Dr. Aragoncommended the “characterization” for establishing acomprehensive data bank which can be used for com-plete analysis and diagnosis of the stakeholders, par-ticularly the target beneficiaries. The “diagnosis” wasconsidered complete and fully elucidated.

24. FFFFFactors influencing evactors influencing evactors influencing evactors influencing evactors influencing evolution.olution.olution.olution.olution. Dr. Aragonthought that the “driving forces” were fully accountedfor but that further analysis and a more complete inte-gration of the recommendations are necessary so thatthe ultimate objective of SARD could be accom-plished. He likewise proposed that the study shifts itsfocus from equitability—which Dr. Aragon said is “dif-ficult to meet”—towards equilibrium of the farmingsystem—which would provide for present needs ofthe family without damaging the resource base.

25. Recommendations.Recommendations.Recommendations.Recommendations.Recommendations. Dr. Aragon regarded therecommendations set out in the study as valid and at-tainable, except for the widespread adoption of or-ganic farming practices, which he thought might com-promise the goals of achieving food security and in-creasing yield.

For the text of Dr. Aragon’s presentation, pleasesee Annex F.

OPEN FORUMOPEN FORUMOPEN FORUMOPEN FORUMOPEN FORUM26. The following major issues were tackled at

the Open Forum following Dr. Aragon’s presentation:

27. Use of the term “territory”.Use of the term “territory”.Use of the term “territory”.Use of the term “territory”.Use of the term “territory”. Participants tookissue with the use of the word “territory” to refer togeographic regions where the selected countries forSARD-FSE implementation are found. Dr. William Darsuggested that a neutral, more sensitive term be usedin its stead because the word “territory” has connota-tions which are incongruous with the participatory na-ture of the project, besides being anachronistic topresent-day realities. Dr. Avila replied that the word“territory” is used in the same context as the Europe-ans use it, that is, to mean an geographical or admin-istrative unit. Nonetheless, he agreed that a more po-litically correct term can be found to replace it.

28. Unaccounted for elements/components ofUnaccounted for elements/components ofUnaccounted for elements/components ofUnaccounted for elements/components ofUnaccounted for elements/components ofthe selected farming system.the selected farming system.the selected farming system.the selected farming system.the selected farming system. Dr. Dar wanted to knowif the study took account of other income sources, forexample, from crop diversification, etc. Dr. ArnulfoGarcia, member of the research team, replied that theiranalysis was focused on rice but that they also lookedinto the presence of livestock and other crops andfound that there were no other crops apart from low-land rice that were suitable in that farming system.There were also few carabaos—a result of increasingfarm mechanization—but the number of cattle was ris-ing. He added that the presence of other componentscan be assumed because in rainfed areas most of thefamily’s income derives from nonfarm sources.

29. Synthesizing the outputs and recommen-Synthesizing the outputs and recommen-Synthesizing the outputs and recommen-Synthesizing the outputs and recommen-Synthesizing the outputs and recommen-dations frdations frdations frdations frdations from all the case studies.om all the case studies.om all the case studies.om all the case studies.om all the case studies. Dr. Julian Gonsalveswanted to know how the “Integrated Synthesis” men-tioned in Dr. Avila’s presentation and which is expectedto happen towards the end of the SARD-FSE Project,would actually be conducted. Dr. Gonsalves expressedhis reservation that if the synthesis focused only on


recommendations arising from the case studies, thenit would be little more than an inventory. Dr. Avilasaid that the synthesis can take the form of a “plan ofaction” and that the recommendations could be usedto organize the plan according to medium- and long-term goals. The synthesis may consist of guidelines,steps or indicators for evaluating SARD, or it couldbe done by region, by farming system, or in responseto the requirements of particular stakeholders.

30. OutmigOutmigOutmigOutmigOutmigration of the rural youth. ration of the rural youth. ration of the rural youth. ration of the rural youth. ration of the rural youth. Mr. JoseOsaba, consultant for the World Rural Forum, inquiredabout how the rural youth were faring in the Philippineproject site. Dr. Vargas said that a few sons and daugh-ters could still be found helping out in the farm, butthat in general, the youth are leaving the farms. Hence,one of his team’s recommendations is to set up ruralenterprises designed to benefit the rural youth andwomen.

Issues and ChallengesConfronting SARD in Asia

The Future of SARD in Asia31. Dr. William D. Dar, Director-General of the

International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), spoke on behalf of the Con-sultative Group on International Agricultural Research(CGIAR) and its perspective of SARD. CGIAR puts alot of emphasis on rainfed agriculture because, whileyields from the latter are low, it still accounts for asmuch as 65% of cultivated land in Asia and contrib-utes 60% to 70% of the world’s grain supply. Hence,CGIAR considers it as imperative to develop sustain-able rainfed farming systems through integrated natu-ral resource management (INRM).

32. Meanwhile NRM research at ICRISAT has beenbroadened into integrated genetic and natural resourcemanagement (IGNRM), whose goal is to enhance thelivelihood of the poor in semi-arid farming systems.More specifically, ICRISAT is working to: (1) developdiversified income-generating options for managingsoil, water and agro-biodiversity in the dry tropics;(2) seek input-efficient, practical, integrated geneticand natural resource management solutions, which in-clude (a) drought tolerance, water and nutrient use

efficiency, including targeting of fertilizer, manure and/or residue; (b) integrated pest management; (c) low-cost water catchments and conservation systems; (d)managing agro-biodiversity for ecosystemsustainability; and (e) institutional and policy reformsfor water usage.

33. Dr. Dar then cited examples of ICRISAT’s workin community-scale watershed management, legumediversification, integrated pest management, buildingdrought tolerance, and integrated nutrient management.Dr. Dar ended his presentation by reiterating the guid-ing principle for ICRISAT’s work: “Science with a Hu-man Face,” or harnessing science as a means to servethe poor, and not as an end in itself.

For the text of Dr. Dar’s presentation, please seeAnnex G.

FAO’s Regional Programme andInitiative on SARD

34. Mr. Wim Polman, Rural Development Officerof the FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific(FAO-RAP), described FAO’s rural development strat-egy to meet the challenges involved in working towardsthe Millennium Development Goals. This strategy com-prises two strategic approaches: (1) Empowerment ofthe rural poor through rural small and medium enter-prises (SMEs); and (2) Capacity-building for pro-poorand responsive local governance.

35. As far as empowering the rural poor throughSME development, RAP’s interventions have covereda wide variation of village, family and group/commu-nity level enterprises, but with a particular focus onagricultural cooperative enterprise development(ACED). This strategic approach has three priority


areas: (1) development of awareness among nationalpolicy-makers regarding the importance of rural SMEsin the effective eradication of hunger and poverty; (2)development of innovative approaches and capacitybuilding programs, including training materials on thepromotion of rural SMEs; and (3) regional networkingand coalition-building at local and national levels insupport of rural SMEs.

36. The second strategic approach, or capacity-building for pro-poor, responsive local governance,entails regional networking by RAPS with national andregional development agencies in order to enhancethe capacities of local government officials in pro-poor participatory planning for the sustainable use oflocal financial and natural resources. This strategicapproach is also designed to support gender sensitiveParticipatory, Equitable Local Development (PELD),and Mr. Polman cited a number of RAP initiatives inthis regard. Mr. Polman ended his presentation by men-tioning the main strategic regional partners of RAPS.

For the text of Mr. Polman’s presentation, pleasesee Annex H.

NGO/CSO Perspective of SARD atRegional Level

37. Mr. Roel R. Ravanera, project coordinator ofthe Asia-Japan Partnership Network (AJPN), definedSA from the NGO/CSO perspective. In particular,NGOs/CSOs view SA using ecology and equity crite-ria. For instance, SA is considered to have beenachieved, from the ecological point of view, wherepesticide use has been reduced; water and soils arebeing sustainably managed; and biodiversity has in-creased. In the meantime, SA must respond to equity

concerns, like reducing rural poverty, equalizing agri-cultural trade in favor of poor countries, and address-ing issues emerging from the privatization of agricul-ture. Mr. Ravanera cited AJPN’s main program inter-ventions on SA, namely: (1) campaigning for food sov-ereignty and farmers’ rights; (2) institutionalizing SA;and (3) engaging the market.

For the text of Mr. Ravanera’s presentation, pleasesee Annex I.

NGO/CSO Perspective of SARD atCommunity Level

38. Dr. Justo Canare Jr., assistant professor atCLSU, identified the current issues and challenges toSARD as seen by NGOs/CSOs at the community level.Productive resources like land, capital and credit, andwater are scarcer than ever. Support services are ei-ther inadequate or inappropriate. The market is nei-ther free nor fair, and government policy is biased infavor of intensive chemically dependent monocultureand large private agribusiness. Educational institutionshave few programs on sustainable agriculture. Localpolitics are inhospitable to development activities.NGOs can cover only a few communities, and thusleaves out both the very rich and the very poor farm-ers. They are also hampered by their lack of expertisein marketing and by their weak linkages with local gov-ernment units and other government institutions. Theinadequate interaction among NGOs and POs posesan obstacle to the fruitful sharing of knowledge, skills,experiences and manpower.

For the text of Dr. Canare’s presentation, pleasesee Annex J.

OPEN FORUMOPEN FORUMOPEN FORUMOPEN FORUMOPEN FORUM39. The following major points were covered in

the Open Forum:40. Weak NGO-GO linkages.Weak NGO-GO linkages.Weak NGO-GO linkages.Weak NGO-GO linkages.Weak NGO-GO linkages. Some participants

wanted to clarify the assertion in Dr. Canare’s presen-tation that NGOs’ weaklinkages with govern-ment have been a stum-bling block to SARD inthe Philippines sincePhilippine NGOs areknown to be well in ad-vance of their counter-


parts in other countries in this department. Dr. Canaresaid that local government officials seldom take theinitiative to work with NGOs, and hence, the latterhave taken on this responsibility. Mr. Cezar Belangel,PhilDHRRA National Coordinator, added that whilethere are collaborative initiatives between governmentand NGOs, these are not yet the norm. Local govern-ment officials still need to be trained to relate withNGOs, for one thing. Frequent changes in local gov-ernment leadership also derail the process of build-ing the relationship. However, where such collabora-tion has been institutionalized, the partnership betweengovernment and NGOs with regard to SARD can beexpected to be sustained. Fr. Lucas offered a differentperspective on the relationship between NGOs andgovernment. He said that NGOs that relate with thegovernment for what they can get out of it would notbe respected by government. Nor will NGOs that can-not offer a viable alternative to what the government isdoing. NGOs that refuse to work with government havethe option to support candidates for office, but in doingso risk losing their “spirit”. Corruption is not a mo-nopoly of government, said Fr. Lucas. NGOs are notimmune, and so have networks to keep their activitiesand motives in check.

41. FFFFFocus on internal vs. external aspects.ocus on internal vs. external aspects.ocus on internal vs. external aspects.ocus on internal vs. external aspects.ocus on internal vs. external aspects. Mr.Elmo Angeles, representing OISCA, said that the fore-going discussion had focused on externals and non-personal issues/concerns, and that not enough atten-tion had been given to the valuing of the self or valuingof the land. Mr. Polman replied that such concerns,particularly the valuing of the self, were implicit in thediscussion. Fr. Lucas said that there is a personal di-mension to SA, where it is concerned with the sacred-

ness of food: which goes beyond logic and material-ism and which penetrates the heart and the being.

Inputs on the InternationalYear of the Rice and OtherInitiatives on Rice

42. On December 16, 2002 the United NationsGeneral Assembly (UNGA) declared 2004 the Inter-national Year of Rice (IYR). This declaration aimed tofocus the world’s attention on the role that rice canplay in providing food security and alleviating pov-erty. The IYR implementation strategy is to engage theentire community in initiating combined and mutuallybeneficial actions to face the challenges associatedwith a sustainable increase in rice production.

Presentation from IRRI43. Ms. Charina Ocampo, community relations

manager at the International Rice Research Institute(IRRI), ran through the mission statement, theme, ob-jectives, guiding principles, and platform for the in-ternational celebration of the International Year of theRice (IYR), including slated activities for its obser-vance worldwide.

For the text of Ms. Ocampo’s presentation, pleasesee Annex K.

Presentation from PhilRice44. Dr. Madonna C. Casimero, chief science re-

search specialist at the Philippine Rice Research In-stitute (PhilRice), gave details of the Philippine IYRcelebration, starting with the enabling law (i.e., Presi-dential Proclamation 524), which also made Novem-ber of every year National Rice Awareness Month.Besides affirming the importance of rice to the Filipi-nos, the Philip-pine IYR cel-ebration aims toengage the en-tire communityof stakeholders,from farmers toscientific insti-tutions, in dis-


cussions and efforts to increase rice production forself-sufficiency. The Department of Agriculture is thelead agency in the Philippine observance of IYR.PhilRice is the national IYR Secretariat. Dr. Casimerothen ran through the yearlong calendar of activities forthe IYR celebration in the country.

For the text of Dr. Casimero’s presentation, pleasesee Annex L.

Presentation from VASI45. Mr. Ha Dinh Tuan, agricultural scientist rep-

resenting the Vietnam Agricultural Science Institute(VASI), traced the traditional/historical importanceaccorded to the rice crop in Vietnam, including re-cent government policies designed to boost rice pro-duction in the country. Coinciding with the observanceof the IYR, the government of Vietnam has institutedProgram 135 to support rice farmers in the river del-tas, especially the Mekong Delta, as well as farmersin the midlands and highlands. Such support has in-cluded infrastructure improvements; technical assis-tance, specifically the provision of new high-yielding,and pest- and disease-resistant rice varieties; conver-sion of less-productive rice lands for aquaculture pro-duction; and price support for rice. The Vietnamesegovernment is likewise spearheading initiatives to ex-plore, collect and conserve rice genetic resources.

For the text of Mr. Ha Dinh Tuan’s presentation,please see Annex M.

Presentation from SEARICE46. Ms. Wilhelmina Pelegrina, executive director

of the Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Commu-

nity Empowerment (SEARICE), gave the civil societyresponse to the IYR celebration. She began by recall-ing the first IYR celebration in 1966, which ushered inthe Green Revolutionand all its attendanteffects, such as ge-netic uniformity inrice, heavy depen-dence on chemicalinputs, soil degrada-tion and water con-tamination, amongothers. Ms. Pelegrina then expressed civil society res-ervations that, given present trends (e.g., 56% of pat-ents on rice genes are owned by private entities indeveloped countries), the current IYR might give riseto a second Green Revolution. In response to suchapprehensions, civil society groups have formed anEast Asia Rice Working Group (EARWG), with theirown alternative calendar of activities to mark the IYRworldwide. Ms. Pelegrina ended her presentation byreminding the participants that the IYR is about farm-ers and their lives, and hence should be marked bydebates and exchanges designed to find ways to movetowards SARD.

For the text of Ms. Pelegrina’s presentation, pleasesee Annex N.

Presentation from the TWG on Rice47. Mr. Cezar Belangel, representing the Techni-

cal Working Group on Rice (TWG on Rice), tracedthe development of organic rice farming in the Philip-pines to the work of MASIPAG, an NGO. More re-cently, the Philippine Development AssistanceProgramme (PDAP), in partnership with the CanadianInternational Development Agency (CIDA), started aproject called Promoting Participation through Sus-tainable Enterprise (PPSE), which aimed, among oth-ers, to market organic rice on a large scale. Whilethere is an acknowledged market for organic rice, anumber of challenges remain, among them (1) lack ofa certification process and farmers’ capacity to com-ply with it; (2) affordability of organic rice, and hence,its accessibility not just to a limited market but alsoamong poor farmers; (3) marketing concerns, likecommon product brand and packaging, advertisingand product promotion, eco-labelling, and consumer


education. Mr. Belangel said that government must bepersuaded to create a credit window in support oforganic farmers; design and implement a national pro-gram that promotes organic production; and providepre- to post-harvest facilities to maintain product qual-ity and to meet certification standards.

For the text of Mr. Belangel’s presentation, pleasesee Annex O.

OPEN FORUMOPEN FORUMOPEN FORUMOPEN FORUMOPEN FORUM48. The following major points were tackled at

the Open Forum:

49. Need for more private sector-led initiativesNeed for more private sector-led initiativesNeed for more private sector-led initiativesNeed for more private sector-led initiativesNeed for more private sector-led initiativesto prto prto prto prto promote oromote oromote oromote oromote orggggganic farming.anic farming.anic farming.anic farming.anic farming. Mr. Wim Polman ob-served that NGOs tend to depend too much on gov-ernment when private sector-led initiatives (e.g., a col-laboration among NGOs, cooperatives and universi-ties) would be more effective in promoting, say, or-ganic farm production. He also commented that NGOsprefer to do things in one go when a step-by-step ap-proach would be more appropriate. Mr. Belangel clari-fied that the TWG on Rice, for instance, is selective inwhat it is asking government to do. The certificationprocess, for example, is private-sector led. Marketingis another component that is best handled by the pri-vate sector, particularly business. However, Mr.Belangel insisted that the government should at leastincorporate organic production in its rice master planto achieve self-sufficiency in this food crop.

50. Responsiveness of research institutions.Responsiveness of research institutions.Responsiveness of research institutions.Responsiveness of research institutions.Responsiveness of research institutions. Ms.Pelegrina expressed her frustration that CSO/NGO dia-logues with research institutions like IRRI are not what

they used to be, and that just getting people to sit andtalk has become very difficult. Dr. Julian Gonsalves,however, was more optimistic, saying that research in-stitutions have transformed themselves in the same waythat the business sector has. In any case, said Dr.Gonsalves, achieving record yields, like 5 tons perhectare, is no longer in dispute. The techniques arestraightforward and can be taught quite easily. What isneeded, he said, is a campaign directed at the poorand controlled by them. Dr. Casimero added that thegovernment strongly supports PhilRice’s Integrated PestManagement (IPM) and that this has made all the dif-ference. She cited the strong political will shown byIndonesia’s leadership in banning the use of organo-phosphates in the country as a similar example of howsuch initiatives can succeed.

51. In closing the First Day of the Workshop, Dr.Avila outlined four tentative points to focus on on theSecond Day, as follows:

1 The methodology in analyzing potential poli-cies and institutional priorities;

1 Policy recommendations that can be broughtto bear on SARD (e.g., how to increase pro-ductivity of rice);

1 Diversification to strengthen productivity; and1 Strategies, approaches and mechanisms to

disseminate, advocate and increase dialogueamong stakeholders.

Panel Presentation onCountry Policy Issues andInstitutional Strategies forSARD

Indonesia52. Mr. A. Ghaffar Rahman, representing Bina

Desa, gave a background of his organization, includ-ing its network affiliations. He added that his NGO isnot so optimistic about SARD, particularly in the up-lands, because these have been taken over for otherpurposes. Their experience in relation to SARD in-cludes programs such as leadership training, policyadvocacy, a rural information center, sustainable de-velopment, and decentralization. He emphasized that


other crops (now rural households eat rice only) shouldbe increased for nutrition objectives, that agriculturalland was being rapidly converted to non-agriculturalland, and that development of uplands should be apriority.

Cambodia53. Mr. Hok Bun Thoeun, executive director of the

Cambodian NGO Alliance for Cooperation (CNAC),identified four government policies in aid of SARD:(1) cultivation of marketable crops, particularly thosethat can be processed; (2) use of green manure andtraditional pesticides in place of chemicals; (3) de-velopment of agricultural cooperatives, especially therevolving fund for members; and (4) encouragementof private sector investments in agriculture. He alsolisted a number of priority projects for the govern-ment in relation to SARD. These are: (1) institutionalstrengthening and human resource development; (2)infrastructure building; (3) provision of clean drinkingwater and environmental sanitation; and (4) expan-sion of small-scale irrigation systems. Meanwhile, hecited a number of roles that NGOs can play to pro-mote SARD, among them, the provision of appropri-ate agricultural technologies to farmers; establishmentof rice banks and farmers unions or associations incommunities; propagation of the use of alternatives toagricultural chemicals; and assistance to Village De-velopment Councils in starting sustainable develop-ment projects. (For the full report, see Annex P.)

Thailand54. Mr. Somporn Isaranurak, senior expert in crop-

ping systems at the Department of Agriculture (DOA)in Thailand, reported that the government, through theDOA, actively promotes and implements SA. TheDOA’s eight regional Offices of Agricultural Research

and Devel-opment areresponsiblefor variousSA-relatedprograms,a m o n gthem: on-farm soiland water

conservation andmanagement; pestmanagement; plantdisease management;recycling of plantresidue, and humanresource develop-ment, including train-ing in SA. The DOAis also involved in SA initiatives of the Ministry of Ag-riculture and Cooperatives (MOAC). The MOAC fa-cilitated, for instance, the formulation of a Sustain-able Agriculture Development Action Program, whichis designed to involve both government and NGOs ina cooperative effort to promote and provide opportu-nities for SA development. This program subsumessix main activities: (1) research and development onSA; (2) training of farmers and government personnel;(3) infrastructure development; (4) encouraging farmdevelopment plans and adoption of natural farming,organic farming, integrated farming, and agroforestry-oriented production methods; (5) activities to developmethods for processing, packaging, and the adoptionof standards for SA products; and (6) assistance inthe marketing of SA produce.

Laos55. Mr. Vandy Phetpaseuth, head of the rice seed

multiplication unit of the Department of Agricultureof Laos, focused on two government policies promot-ing SARD. The first is related to food production whichaims to improve the quantity, quality and availabilityof food through the intensification of production andexpansion of cultivable areas, integrated pest man-agement, and extension, among others. The currentgovernment projects in this regard are in the areas ofrice production, biodiversity protection, integratedpest management, and decentralized, participatory ag-ricultural extension system that benefits men andwomen equally. In the future, improvement of rice seedvarieties, especially high-yielding and disease-resis-tant ones, would be prioritized. Meanwhile, NGOs areexpected to disseminate new technologies to farmers,especially those that promote high yields. The secondgovernment policy is concerned with stabilizing therice processing environment, specifically by reducingslash-and-burn cultivation. About 100,000 families


would be encouraged to take up alternative on- andoff-farm activities such as agroforestry, animal hus-bandry, cash crop cultivation in the mountain plains,etc. Presently, the government has projects/programspromoting agroecology, stabilization in the uplands,and technologies, approaches and methods to improveupland livelihoods. Monitoring land use in each vil-lage is a concern for the future. NGOs for their partare expected to support sustainable land use in theuplands and organize training in soil conservation,especially against erosion. (For the full report, seeAnnex Q.)

Vietnam56. Mr. Ha Dinh Tuan, agricultural scientist at

VASI, reported that with regard to agriculture, the Viet-namese government is primarily concerned with en-suring food security, diversifying agricultural produc-tion, and market research and development. It hasadopted policies directed towards the sustainable de-velopment of farming systems, as follows: (1) devel-opment of the farm household economy; (2) land al-location for long-term use; (3) land use tax reductionand exemption; (4) credit for farm households; (5)scientific research, technology development and agri-cultural extension; (6) improvements in the distribu-tion and marketing of agro-products; (7) improvementof agro-product quality; (8) promotion of mountainagriculture and rural development in more sustainableways; (9) promotion of ecologically oriented produc-tion approaches; (10) poverty alleviation and hungereradication. (For the full report, see Annex R.)

India57. Dr. Bisheshwar Mishra, general secretary of

the Association for Voluntary Agencies for Rural De-velopment (AVARD), cited SARD related priority ar-eas in the Indian Government’s Tenth Plan (2002-07),as follows: (1) utilization of wastelands; (2) reclama-tion/development of problem soils; (3) rainwater har-vesting and conservation for the development of mi-nor irrigation; (4) conservation and utilization of bio-logical resources; (5) diversification with high valuecrops; (6) increasing cropping intensity; (7) promo-tion of a Farming Systems Approach; (8) promotionof organic farming and utilization of organic waste;(9) stabilization of fertilizer prices; (10) promotion of

integrated pest management; etc. The CommonProgramme of the United Progressive Alliance Gov-ernment also has pertinent provisions: (a) increasedallocation for agricultural research and extension, ru-ral infrastructure and irrigation; (b) a special programfor dryland farming in arid and semiarid regions; (c)watershed and wasteland development; (d) full imple-mentation of minimum wage laws for farm labor; (e)safety nets for farmers against cheap imports; and (f)fair prices for agricultural produce. NGOs are ex-pected to take a lead role in programs that promoteorganic farming; implement watershed conservationand development programs; diversify agricultural pro-duction; strengthen local governance; and alleviatepoverty, among others. (For the full report, see AnnexS.)

China58. Mr. Haoming Huang, executive director of

China Association for NGO Cooperation (CANGO),identified five government policies promoting SARDin China. The first—comprehensive management forsustainable development—is concerned with address-ing the problem of decreasing per capita availabilityof land. NGOs’ role in this area is focused on advo-cacy. The second government policy is enhancing foodsecurity and building early warning systems, and in-volves the pilot testing of systems to save water or useit more efficiently, especially in agriculture. NGOs con-tribute by sharing best practice. The third, adjustingthe structure of agriculture and optimizing the combi-nation of resources and production factors, is targetedat increasing agricultural productivity and requires themainstreaming of eco-friendly agriculture. NGOs pro-


vide the model for SARD. The fourth policy aims toimprove comprehensive productivity, and develop thescientific basis for SA. NGOs complement this effortby educating the general public. Lastly, the policy pro-moting the sustainable use of agricultural resourcesand environmental protection seeks to address theincreasing pollution of the agricultural environment.NGOs play a part in information sharing. (For the fullreport, see Annex T.)

Philippines59. Mr. Cezar Belangel, PhilDHRRA national co-

ordinator, focused on four government policies sup-portive of SARD. Achieving self-sufficiency in rice by2010 is a major policy currently being pursued by thepromotion of hybrid rice technology, expansion of ir-rigated lands, allowing farmers to import rice, pro-viding credit support, and the eventual lifting of quan-titative restrictions on rice imports. Future effortsshould focus on building the case for organic rice farm-ing through model implementation and research. Thesecond policy is concerned with increasing the roleof local governments, with the participation of civilsociety groups, in planning, implementing and evalu-ation of development initiatives required by commu-nities. This currently requires enhancing the capabil-ity of local governments to engage with civil society,among others, and in future will call for a greater fa-cilitating role for NGOs, localized agricultural plan-ning, and strengthened capacity among local govern-ments for agri-extension work. The development ofrural small and medium enterprises (SMEs), as wellas linking the major agri-products to processing andmarketing channels, is the third government policy

cited. While this is already a major thrust of the De-partment of Agriculture and some support is beinggiven to small and medium-scale enterprises, there isa need to build linkages with the business sector andto organize small producers to play a major role inproduction, processing and marketing of agri-prod-ucts; this is where NGOs can play a part. (For the fullreport, see Annex U.)

Nepal60. Mr. Shanta Lall Mulmi, general secretary of

the NGO Federation of Nepal (NFN), explained thegovernment’s SARD policies as directed towards: (1)enhancing food security; (2) enhancing the productiv-ity of agricultural and rural enterprises; (3) increasingrural employment through the development of agro-based rural enterprises; (4) diversifying agriculturaland rural enterprises and thus increasing householdincome; and (5) promoting environment friendly agri-culture. The Government’s Agriculture Perspective Plan(APP) provides for programs in the categories of pri-oritized production and service (e.g., crop intensifi-cation and productivity enhancement, production anddevelopment of high value agriculture, livestock andpoultry production, agri-business promotion, etc.);priority production input mobilization; other sectoralprograms (e.g., seed multiplication, plant protection,land productivity enhancement, etc.); capacity build-ing; research and technology development; etc. (Forthe full report, see Annex V.)

Sri Lanka61. Mr. Cyril Ekanayake, vice president of

SARVODAYA, listed the government’s interventions insupport of the development of agriculture as a meansof providing sustainable livelihoods to the majority ofthe population. They are as follows: (1) provision ofirrigation facilities; (2) establishment of colonies innewly irrigated areas; (3) restoration and maintenanceof small tanks and irrigation channels; (4) transfer ofland ownership to the colonists; (5) supply of fertiliz-ers at subsidized rates; (6) guaranteed price for paddy;(7) easy-term loans for farmers; (8) reduction ofduties on farm machinery. All these programs and in-terventions are designed to work towards self-suffi-ciency in food, making agriculture a viable economicpursuit, and preventing rural outmigration. The insti-


tutions involved, however, are mostly government agen-cies. (For the full report, see Annex W.)

Pakistan62. Mr. Khurram Riaz, executive director of Rural

Development Foundation of Pakistan (RDF), identi-fied the following future government interventions: (1)timely sowing with proper technique; (2) use of qual-ity seeds and optimal plan for pipeline levels; (3) ju-dicious and efficient use of inputs; (4) effective pestmanagement; (5) market incentives and favorableprices; (6) larger space for the private sector; (7) shareof bank credit to be increased from 65-100 billionrupees; (8) mega project of 86000 water courses, lin-ing and revamping. Meanwhile, NGOs are particularlyhelpful in providing micro-credit in support of SARD,community mobilizing, facilitating the introduction ofnew crops, and strengthening communities to managelocal resources in lieu of the private sector.

WORKSHOP SESSION 1:Strengthening the Method-ology, Recommendationsand Strategies of the SARD-FSE Project

Process63. By asking the participants to count off from

one to four, four workshop groups were formed totackle the following major topics:

1 Review of SARD-FSE methodological proce-dures/elements;

1 Review of pro-SARD recommendations andinterventions;

1 Strategic objectives and interventions for di-versifying rainfed rice based farming systemtoward SARD;

1 Strategy for communicating with relevant keystakeholders for SARD advocacy and collabo-ration.

Plenary DiscussionWorkshop Group IWorkshop Group IWorkshop Group IWorkshop Group IWorkshop Group I

64. Workshop Group I focused on four specific

methodological procedures or elements of SARD-FSE,namely: (1) participation of different institutional stake-holders, (2) participation of local stakeholders in ana-lyzing future scenarios and policy recommendations;(3) the production /farming system; and (4) the mean-ing of SARD. While the group commended the man-ner in which the project was carried out, they pro-posed that a more flexible approach be adopted totake into account the peculiarities of Philippine cul-ture; that bottom-up assessments be worked into theinitial stages of the Project, that rice research institu-tions be more actively involved; and that the role ofwomen and the youth be highlighted, among others.They then provided corresponding comments on howeach was done right and how it can be improved.

For the full report of Group 1, please see AnnexAA.

Workshop Group IIWorkshop Group IIWorkshop Group IIWorkshop Group IIWorkshop Group II65. Workshop Group II tackled five pro-SARD

recommendations, as follows: (1) increasing agricul-tural productivity; (2) increasing investment in agri-culture; (3) trade and market linkages; (4) institutionalstrengthening of people’s organizations; and (5) farmerextension/education. The group argued that agricul-tural productivity would be improved by adoptingmixed cropping and organic farming methods, boost-ing crop improvement efforts, developing seeds atcommunity level, setting up irrigation facilities and find-ing alternative water sources, among others. The groupemphasized the need to increase investments in agri-culture, develop efficient market linkages, set up lo-cal enterprises, strengthen people’s organizations, aswell as link farmer extension with local government


plans and programs. The group then gave suggestionson how these recommendations can be improved onas well as identified opportunities for their implemen-tation.

For the full report of Group II, please see AnnexAB.

Workshop Group IIIWorkshop Group IIIWorkshop Group IIIWorkshop Group IIIWorkshop Group III66. Workshop Group III worked on three strate-

gic objectives and interventions for diversifying therainfed rice-based farming system towards SARD,namely, (1) add value to rice products for the benefitof small farmers; (2) improve integrated natural re-source management of the system; and (3) reduce thevulnerability of the system to climatic factors. Thegroup proposed to add value to rice products by pro-viding/improving storage and processing facilities, andgiving credit support for organic farming. INRM shouldfocus on the management of rainwater and communitybased watershed systems, and addressing problemsof soil depletion and crop infestation. Meanwhile, thefarming system can be protected from untimely eventsby growing drought tolerant crop varieties, legumes,fruit trees, etc.

For the full report of Group III, please see AnnexAC.

Workshop Group IVWorkshop Group IVWorkshop Group IVWorkshop Group IVWorkshop Group IV67. Workshop Group IV considered five key stake-

holder groups (i.e., policy makers; local governmentunits; women and youth farmers or producers; aca-demic and research institutions; and training centers),and determined the priorities for mobilizing each groupand how best to get their attention. Policymakers arebest approached through dialogue, SARD workshops,farmer-led lobbies, and global advocacy networks. Lo-cal government units respond well to demonstrationsof how SARD benefits local farmers. Women and youthfarmers require capacity-building interventions in or-der to strengthen their organizations, bargaining andnegotiating skills, and capacity to run micro-enter-prises.

For the full the report of the plenary discussion ofWorkshop Session 1 Group 4, please see Annex AD.

WORKSHOP SESSION 2:Priority Action/Next Steps

Process68. Workshop Session 2 focused on themes/top-

ics for regional collaboration for SARD. Pieces ofpaper were passed around on which each participantwas asked to write one important/strategic theme/topicon which to base regional collaboration in the follow-up for SARD. Similar or related suggestions weregrouped together, and four major themes/topicsemerged.

69. The participants were then asked to sign upfor each group according to their interest or inclina-tion, whereupon the following workshop groups wereformed:

Group I: Rural Enterprises and MarketsGroup I: Rural Enterprises and MarketsGroup I: Rural Enterprises and MarketsGroup I: Rural Enterprises and MarketsGroup I: Rural Enterprises and MarketsFacilitator: Antonio QuizonMembers:

2 Jerry Pacturan2 Cyril Ekanayake2 Hok Bun Thoeun2 Danilo Vargas2 Marcelino Avila2 Wim Polman

Topics identified during plenary:4 Developing village level/community based

enterprises that will help the development ofagriculture

4 (Communities) linking/engaging with the mar-ket

4 Farmers’ bargaining position relative to themarket (trader)

4 Opening “SARD-product markets” in supportof local producers

4 Incentive system to promote equitability.

Group II: Solidarity Network/Information ExchangeGroup II: Solidarity Network/Information ExchangeGroup II: Solidarity Network/Information ExchangeGroup II: Solidarity Network/Information ExchangeGroup II: Solidarity Network/Information ExchangeFacilitator: Haoming HuangMembers:

2 Michio Ito2 Nhek Sarin2 Srun Sokhom2 Jose Osaba


2 Saman Amarasinghe2 Maria Teresa Agarrado2 Somporn Isaranurak2 Vandy Phetpaseuth

Topics identified during plenary:4 Set up a mechanism on regional network move-

ment and exchange information on SARD4 Share experiences and exchange information

on a regular basis4 SARD Regional Monitoring Committee4 Regional collaboration in watershed-SARD

management in Mekong River and local insti-tutions

4 Sharing data about crucial issues related toSARD

4 Communication and exchange among researchinstitutions on results (e.g. new varieties ofcertain crops) at regional level

4 Make understanding and promotion of SARDfor all concerned parties

4 Develop information sharing network in theregion

4 Exchange of success stories among networksin countries

4 Farmer to farmer knowledge sharing

Group III: Resource Rights/Land ReformGroup III: Resource Rights/Land ReformGroup III: Resource Rights/Land ReformGroup III: Resource Rights/Land ReformGroup III: Resource Rights/Land ReformFacilitator: P.V. RajagopalMembers:

2 Murli Manohar Mathur2 Shanta Lall Mulmi2 Elmo Angeles2 A. Ghaffar Rahman2 Yosef Arihadi

Topics identified during plenary:4 Enhancing access to land, common property

resources and related services4 Land reform for SARD4 Agrarian reform

Group IV: Capacity Building/Good AgriculturalGroup IV: Capacity Building/Good AgriculturalGroup IV: Capacity Building/Good AgriculturalGroup IV: Capacity Building/Good AgriculturalGroup IV: Capacity Building/Good AgriculturalPracticesPracticesPracticesPracticesPracticesFacilitator: Rohini ReddyMembers:

2 Sandhya Kumar2 Suhas P. Wani2 Arnulfo Garcia2 Vu Thi Quynh Hoa2 Khurram Riaz2 Justo Canare2 Bisheshwar Mishra

Topics identified during plenary:4 Capacity Building of rural grassroots (farm-

ers) organizations4 Sensitization and training about participatory

watershed management4 The Sustainable Agriculture “Farmer” (as a per-

son)4 Capacity building for the academe (it does

instruction, research, extension and produc-tion)

4 Methodology on Policy Intervention4 Methodology for Decision Support Systems4 Development through grassroots for

sustainability4 Curriculum development and training on

SARD for trainers and farmers4 Building Capacity on SARD Strategies4 Diversification of Rice systems using INRM

model4 Effective Management of Natural Resources4 Local food systems4 Guidebook on “SARD implementation and its

indicators.

Each workshop group was asked to identify at leastthree (3) objectives from their assigned theme/topicand to come up with corresponding expected outputs,strategic objectives, and responsible/interested stake-holders. The groups were given until 10 in the morning


of the following day to work on their respective re-ports.

Synthesis of Day 1 and Day2: Inputs to the Plenary Dis-cussion

Synthesis of Day 170. Day 1’s presentations were summarized by Dr.

Julian Gonsalves, as follows: The global developmentcommunity and increasingly the research communityare now acutely aware that they have missed out ontheir commitments to the poor. Poor and less favoredareas are now therefore being targeted. A preferentialoption for the poor is being expressed.

71. “Dynamic complexity” and “crisis” in manyrural areas and rural communities: Even vibrant andthriving agricultural areas can degrade and decline(and eventually stagnate).

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)seem to offer the potential to galvanize communitiesof SARD practitioners in an effort to renew their com-mitment to SARD approaches.

What does being pro-poor imply? Being pro-poorrequires that we address livelihoods in its broadestforms, including the need to reduce the vulnerabilityof the poor. It implies the need to address issues ofresource-rights and tenure. It requires new modalitiesof work. It requires stronger local organizations wherethe poor have a voice. Technologies are of strategicimportance but within a broader livelihoods enhance-ment and protection framework.

72. SARD: What does it constitute in today’s world?Is it SA? Is it RD? Or is it SA in RD? Is it Ecology? Isit Equity? Is it Science with a human face? Is it farmers’rights?

This is often determined by the proponent. Whatis important though is that a set of commonly acceptedprinciples are in place and widely understood. Theseare subject to revision to meet changing global needs.

There is little room for faddism or fundamental-ism if approaches are to be scaled up. But the goal ofSARD remains that of healthy families which resultfrom food and nutrition security, eco-friendly agricul-ture, equitable access to and sustainable management

of land, fisheries and other natural resources and effi-cient and effective services for SARD.

73. The value of rights-based approaches: To suc-ceed in SARD, one has to understand and factor inproperty rights and tenure security. Land access andtenure remain MAJOR issues even in 2003/04 (land-lessness, insecure tenure, land reconsolidation, landconversion, fragmentation).

There are structural inequalities that preventwomen from accessing resources, services and ben-efits.

What can be done to safeguard rights, livelihoodsand environments of local resource users affected byrapid and uncertain global changes over which theyhave little control?

Free trade is possible but only on a fair and levelplaying ground. There is today an unprecedented con-centration of corporate power in the seed, seed-re-lated and the pesticide industry, both at the produc-tion and retailing ends.

Farmers and the agroecosystems that they manageare embedded in wider food systems.

74. SARD: Towards a new understanding of itsbiophysical and ecological dimensions:

The challenges to SARD proponents remain evenas technological solutions are being generated.

The pro-poor orientation of SARD has drawn at-tention to the INRM sector. INRM today is more live-lihood oriented (e.g., CBNRM) and is being targetedto less favored areas (uplands, mountains, semi-arid,degrading lowlands); building ecosystem resilience toaddress vulnerability to natural hazards; and address-ing the massive degradation of water and land anddeforestration.


Integration, however, is needed not just at the farmlevel but also at the landscape and watershed levels.

75. Some ways in which SARD expresses itselfinclude: value addition through agroprocessing, in-creased attention to post-harvest dimensions, water-shed conservation, medicinal plants, agroforestry, smallholder livestock production. Enterprises can be agri-culture-related. Capacities need to be built for entre-preneurship. A special concern is being voiced onenhancing the role of women and educated farm youthin SARD.

76. Policy for SARD:Do we have enabling macroeconomic policies in

most SARD areas and is it really an issue of poorimplementation and regulation, not a lack of appro-priate policy?

77. SARD proponents are on the lookout for newforms of learning, negotiation and effective collectiveaction; farmer-to-farmer approaches, farmer-centeredresearch and extension, farmer field schools, and so-cial learning approaches.

Negotiation and conflict resolution assume newimportance. These have implications for capacity de-velopment, especially among the poor.

Effective documentation and synthesis of bestpractice for wider sharing of learning, (i.e., dealingwith principles drawn from practice that helps us over-come the local specificity of some SARD work.)

How does one promote the much needed dialogueand exchange on SARD in a donor community that isweary of conferences and workshops and other megaevents?

78. Comparative advantages of NGOs as key play-ers of SARD:

NGOs play a critical role in serving remote andmarginalized communities or areas (e.g., indigenouspeople), mobilizing and motivating community basedinitiatives, helping deliver credit to the poor (microcredit, self help groups), developing linkages betweenfarmers and industry and helping promote and advo-

cate for good SARDpractices at all levels.

These require thatNGOs learn to develophealthy and construc-tive relationships withgovernments in order

to enhance their advocacy efforts, partnership build-ing and pressure exerting roles.

79. Reinvigorating local organizations:Local organizations are needed to help devolve

responsibilities, to monitor, and to transfer control ofnatural resources to local communities. Local organi-zations are needed for collective action, to bring in aculture of accountability and to monitor performance.Local organizations are social assets.

What kinds of organizations do we need (now thatmore than 60% of cooperatives have stopped operat-ing)? Are we putting too much emphasis on form andstructure? Are informal groups (e.g., the fast growingSelf Help Group movement in South Asia) inadequate?What kind of community organizing do farmers needin this new age; why are we still using the methodsgenerated for a different period of our history, insteadof focusing on current needs and realities (negotia-tion and conflict resolution skills, nurturing market“wise” communities)?

80. SARD can nurture social capital:Social capital does not necessarily exist in local

communities. It could already have degraded.Social capital can be nurtured via SARD (e.g.,

successful collaboration or successful collective ac-tion).

However, effective local organizations are impor-tant in the nurturing process.

81. Governance issues:Some key constraints to SARD that were identi-

fied include instability of government administrations(frequent change of political leaders together with theirsenior technical managers), rapid decentralization anddevolution processes (i.e., disconnect of authority andresponsibilities with institutional capacity and resourceallocation at the decentralized levels), landlessnessand marginalization of large segments of the ruralpopulation, vulnerability to natural hazards, and ex-cessive dependence on external donors.

Synthesis of sessions on Day 282. Dr. Marcelino Avila provided a synthesis of

the sessions on Day 2, as follows:83. The analysis of the SARD-FSE case study in

the Philippines was enriched by the contributions ofthe national programs and priorities related to SARD.The synthesis of these findings and lessons learned


are summarized under four main topics. Each topicwas analyzed in a small working group and subse-quently reviewed and improved by the plenary.

84. SARD methodological procedures: Amongthe particular strengths of the SARD methodology, theworkshop noted the appropriate range ofmultidisciplinary capabilities employed in the PSC andin the research team (also a satisfactory gender bal-ance in the latter), the good response from local stake-holders (i.e., municipal and farmer leaders, key infor-mants and the farmers themselves) in the diagnosticand future scenarios analyses, the very good docu-mentation of the production/farming system with com-prehensive information dating back several decades,including a good description of gender and youth roles,the management of water and fertilizer resources, andlast but not least, the emphasis placed on culture andthe common features associated with the meaning ofSARD. Some specific recommendations offered tostrengthen the methodology are the need to have amore flexible approach to ensure a better fit of themethodology with the local Philippine culture and withbottom-up assessments from the start of the project.Also that there should be more participation of therice research institute, more holistic descriptions ofthe farming system/community interactions, a clearfocus on enhancing the role of women and in particu-lar how to motivate the youth to return to agriculture.The point was made that SARD goes beyond agricul-ture and should be defined within the total context ofrural development.

85. Pro-SARD recommendations and interven-tions: The workshop indicated that to increase agri-cultural productivity, it is deemed necessary to focus

on mixed cropping, organic farming, policy gaps, pastefforts on crop improvement, community developedseeds, appropriate irrigation facilities and alternativesources of water, and farmers’ access to agriculturalresources and services (e.g. seeds, land and water).The workshop also suggested to explore ways of in-creasing investment for small farmers and sustainableagriculture, the development of operational and vi-able marketing systems, village level processing en-terprises, professionalization of government in exter-nal relations for building effective trade-marketing link-ages, strong financial support to local people’s orga-nizations, enterprise development and horizontal link-ages, as well as linking farmer extension/education withlocal government planning and programs (e.g., FarmScience Center of India), and with gender-sensitive ap-proaches to encourage and expand livelihood oppor-tunities for women.

86. Diversification of the rainfed rice-based farm-ing system: The workshop recommended that to addvalue to rice and other products from the system forsmall farmers and families, it is necessary to focus onstorage, processing facilities, credit for organic farm-ing, and in this respect, sharing experiences in the re-gion would be ex-tremely valuable.Also it was sug-gested to improvethe integrated natu-ral resource man-agement (INRM) ofthe system, particu-larly in terms of themanagement of rainwater, soil fertility and pests, andcommunity based watershed. To reduce the vulnerabil-ity of the farming system, the workshop highlightedthe lack of high-yielding/drought-tolerant varieties, theuse of legumes, fruit trees, vegetables, livestock (poultryand ducks) and others, and intensified backyard culti-vation of vegetables. In all these options, a key objec-tive is the improvement of the nutritional quality offood for the rural family.

87. Communication strategy for targeting key stake-holders for SARD advocacy and collaboration: Theworkshop recommended that for policy makers, in-cluding government parliamentarians, it was neces-sary to focus on the awareness of the important value


of SARD, its tangible benefits for poverty reductionand rural development, concrete proposals for bud-get allocations. And for policy makers, that the bestmeans for effective communication would be directdialogue, support of international consultants, infor-mation kits, their participation in SARD workshops,farmers working as pressure groups, and global advo-cacy networks. For the local government units, the keypriorities are the ability of LGUs to mobilize and man-age resources, enhancing devolution and decentrali-zation with real capacity and authority, and network-ing. For LGUs, the best means to make them proac-tive is to demonstrate how SARD can benefit localfarmers and for them to witness good SARD practiceson the ground. For women and youth farmers, the work-shop recommended capacity building and empower-ment, focus on farmer’s rights, and strengthening themin terms of their organization, bargaining power andmicro-business and enterprise skills.

88. Recommendations for academic and researchstaff include an awareness of SARD, funding for SARDfarmer-centered and participatory approaches, theirpromotion and sustainability issues, for which semi-nars, training workshops and experience sharingthrough international or regional cooperation, all ofthese would be effective means of enlisting their in-volvement. The workshop indicated that it is impor-tant to build SARD awareness in local training cen-ters by including SARD in their curricula, privatizationand having more liberty to teach SARD and exposingtrainers to more SARD practices.

89. To implement these relevant pro-SARD meth-ods, recommendations and strategies, the workshoprecommended that it is essential to develop real part-nerships, results-oriented alliances and networking thatinvolves local farmer organizations, local governmentunits, government departments, NGOs, research in-stitutes and the private business sector. Such mecha-nisms should be driven by the priority objectives andpotentials of the small producers and the rural poorand by the basic principles and desirable outcomesof SARD.

Plenary Discussion ofWorkshop Session 2Rural Enterprises and MarketsRural Enterprises and MarketsRural Enterprises and MarketsRural Enterprises and MarketsRural Enterprises and Markets

90. Group I put together five recommendations:

The first one, “Promoting better understanding of mar-ket opportunities and requirements”, calls for build-ing practical skills in dealing with the market, andknowledge of market conditions, requirements andcosts; development of marketing networks and viablemarket linkages for small farmer producers; and lob-bying for market policies that favor small farmers. Spe-cifically, meeting this objective would require identi-fying by-products and services which could be pro-duced from RBFS (fresh, processed and organic); pri-oritizing products and services that can be marketed;determining market prices, conditionalities and costs;identifying marketing needs and strategy; and capac-ity-building for small producers.

91. Objective 2, “Establishing links with the mar-ket and building the negotiating capacity of small farm-ers”, requires mechanisms at local level to maximizemarkets; capable institutions that effectively reach-outto small pro-ducers andprovide ser-vices thats t r e ng t h entheir linkagesto markets;and strong re-gional alli-ances of smallp r o d u c e r sand their organizations, engaging in trade. The spe-cific activities this would entail are development ofagricultural development investment plans by localgovernment and producers’ organizations; helping or-ganizations produce “winning commodities or prod-ucts”; improving mechanisms and capacities

policy and institutional priorities for sustainable agriculture ......for diversifying rainfed rice...

Documents