MANAGING LOCAL AGROBIODIVERSITY UNDER CHANGING PHILIPPINE MARKET AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION SYSTEMS:

SEARICE Experiences

Wilhelmina R. Pelegrina,

South East Asia Regional Institute for Community Education (SEARICE) 1

THE CONTEXT:

Philippine market and agricultural production system

The Philippine market and agricultural production is a complex system. Production system has gone a long way from the encomiendas of the Spanish era (late 1500s to late 1800s). Apart from land, labor and capital, information is now a factor of production. Information based technologies has improved the way we travel, communicate and even farm. Production and market relationships also changed. More and more, production is geared towards market consumption. To put this changing system in context, the succeeding section will look at land, market and technology.

Land

Access to agricultural lands remains the foremost issue in agricultural production in the Philippines. This issue dates back to the Spanish era (1500s to 1800s) where large land holdings were concentrated to the church and influential families. Through the years, the influential families with land as economic base also sealed political authority and the cyclic protection of political and economic power remained in the hands of the few.

The country has around 30M hectares of land. Of which, 11-12M is classified as agricultural. Over the period of ten years, different sources estimate around 120,000 to 0.5 M hectares of prime agricultural land were converted to other uses (Quizon, 2000) primarily to evade agrarian reform.

In this day and age of the internet and the global village, the Philippines is still saddled in a feudal system. The Department of Agrarian Reform in 1988 found 0.7% of all landowners (8,225 individuals) own 46% (2.2 million hectares) of all private lands (Business World On Line Edition, 19 January 1996). Furthermore, 31% of private lands were distributed among 98% of all landlords leaving the rest of private lands in the hands of some measly 2% landowners or roughly 2,000 individuals. In addition, the 1991 Census for Agriculture and Fisheries found that tenancy relations still existed in more than 30% of all farms (Business World On Line Edition, 19 January 1996). After years of instituting the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, only 19% of private agricultural lands were distributed to the peasant tillers (Business World On Line Edition, 19 January 1996). Officially, the Department of Agrarian Reform and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources have only distributed 54% of their targets (Quizon, 2000). There is still no progress in provinces where land distribution is most unequal. Estimates of around 65% of the 75M Filipinos are in the rural areas, of which 75% are tenants. Landowners wanting to retain their economic base converted their lands to fishponds, prawn farms, livestock and poultry farms or residential subdivisions and industrial estates to exempt themselves from the coverage of agrarian reform. A classic example is the former President Corazon Aquino’s family estate. Instead of distributing the lands to the tillers, they made the farmers share holders of their family corporation. The more than 10,000 hectares of land, the source of both economic and political power of the clan was kept intact.

In the project site of SEARICE-CONSERVE in North Cotabato, 60% of the target population are tenants. In Bohol project site, around 80% are tenants. Land tenancy remains a major stumbling block in agricultural production. Major decisions, inputs and harvests are still in the control of a few landlords.

Market

At the same time, Philippine agriculture is also industrialising. Agricultural processing and the much touted forward-backward industrial-agricultural linkages, the presence of large agricultural corporations, whose power base is no longer land, are manifestations of industrialising agricultural sector.

Market economy drives a significant portion of agricultural sector. Resource poor farmers tend to focus on crops with market value. The objective is no longer to produce crops for self-sufficiency but to produce marketable crops and products which can readily be sold.Under subsistence farming, 80% of production is for home consumption and the surplus, of some 20% is for the market. Now, driven  by market economy, 20% is allocated for home consumption while 80% is intended for the market (Salazar, 2000). The farmer also turned into a market himself as he becomes integrated with the broader needs of life and changing lifestyle. He is the market for pesticides, fertilisers, cigarettes and all other consumer goods.

A typical rice farmer cultivates rice in a land which is owned by a landlord under a shared cropping system. A certain percentage of his harvest goes to the landlord as a form of payment for land as an input of production. Often, his share is not enough to feed his family, let alone have a comfortable lifestyle. With crop failure, a farmer usually resorts to borrowing money to meet his needs, which include inputs to his farm. In some cases, the landlords or the traders provide loans in the form of cash or agricultural input. Come harvest time, the trader or landlord will subtract the cost of the input plus some interest from the harvest, leaving the poor farmer with lesser product. The situation does not end with inputs. Threshing and milling usually accounts for 20% of the cost of production. This is the where the surplus of production goes. Traders are also threshers and millers. The surplus of productions therfore goes to the traders.

In effect, farmers face up to a trader (who can be a landlord too) for his inputs, loans, threshing milling and rice marketing. On top of this, traders can dictate the market price by playing with the law of supply and demand. They can create artificial shortage by holding the sale of rice and keeping the supply in their warehouse until such time that the demand will increase and price goes up. Alternatively, they can flood the market with products to reduce the price. They control the price of rice not the farmers. Price control and control of inputs and processing is in the hands of the traders turning farmers into mere market tenants.

Technology

Rice is the staple crop of the Philippines. In the 1920’s average national yield was 1 ton per hectare. In the 1960’s the national average yield was 1.2 tons/ ha (FAO 1971). This increase in rice production relative to the 1920's was due to area expansion from 1.5 to 3.5 million hectares and not because of increased productivity (FAO 1971).

Low productivity and land tenancy led to peasant unrest in the 1950’s and 1960’s. To quell the unrest, two strategic options were put forward by the Philippine government namely, (1) redistribution of property and appropriate productivity programs, and (2) programs to raise agricultural productivity plus an effective counter-insurgency warfare (Putzel 1988). As a response, the United States through the US Mutual Security Agency (now known as US Agency for International Development) sent Robert S. Hardie to study and recommend reforms regarding the land tenure system  (Putzel 1988). Hardie recommended  a genuine and rapid land redistribution to landless tenants. Unfortunately at that time, a successful counter-insurgency program was taking place. At the helm was the then Defense Minister Ramon Magsaysay (who later became the president with US backing) with assistance from Col. Lansdale of US. The success of the counter-insurgency program strengthened the Philippine Congress (dominated by landed elites) to brand Hardie's report as communist inspired (Putzel 1988). Consequently, the US backed away from redistributive agrarian reform and focused instead on productivity programs (Putzel 1988).  Thus, in 1962 the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) was born with support from Rockefeller, Ford Foundation, USAID and transnational agribusiness corporations. IRRI is mandated to increase productivity, develop new seed varieties and new farming methods (Putzel 1988). Basically, the aim was to solve the problems of rural poverty and peasant unrest through technological solutions without challenging property rights (Putzel 1988).

The use of technology as a means to solve rural poverty proved its merit with the introduction of Green Revolution technologies and credit program which increased agricultural production. In less than three years, after the introduction of the National Rice Production Program in February 1967, the Philippines, which traditionally imports 10% of  rice it consumes annually, became a net exporter (Johnson 1972; Feder 1983). This is attributed to the extensive use of  high yielding varieties (HYVs). If properly cultivated, HYVs can yield more than 6 tons/ha in contrast to traditional rice varieties which yield only 1.7 tons/ha (FAO 1971). Higher yield translates to higher income for farmers. As Umehara (1983) articulated, Green Revolution's objective was to improve the livelihood of peasants by increasing their income from higher rice yields through the diffusion of HYVs.

However, through the years, the technological solution proved unable to solve the rural problem. In fact, it has exacerbated the plight of the Filipino peasants. Studies about the ill effects of green revolution like the use of chemical inputs, monoculture, environmental degradation, collapse of functional social system and feminisation of poverty are plenty. Under a skewed social and political system (the oligopoly of fertilizer, pesticide and seed industry coupled with the concentration of land to a few), technologies, no matter how well intended, will not be able to address rural poverty. Technology can even contribute to rural poverty as it turns farmers into mere consumers of technology. Farmers were deprived of the innovative skills.

Take the case of development of new varieties which has become the realm of the educated plant breeeders. Farmers used to be the creators of diversity. Now, this role has been relegated to the formal sector. Farmers await the release of new varieties to be tried and tested in their own fields. Their skills and knowledge in creating diversity and improving their system was forgotten. Farmers therefore were turned into end users of a finished product. In essence, they’ve become tenants of technology.

This technological tenancy is more pronounced with the coming of age of biotechnology and nanotechnology - two new technologies very much under corporate control. There are now Vitamin A and Iron enriched rice to address not just income but nutritional problems of farmers too. Even the decision for nutritional intake has been subverted to the hands of the educated.

Before, Philippine farmers are only faced with land tenancy. Now, under this comples agricultural production system, farmers have become tenants of market, technology and land. Is this the price for improved agricultural production?

SEARICE AND ITS PROJECT SITES

The context is made more complex by the increasing corporate control over resources and technologies including public research. We now have public researches being funded by industries with questionable intent and processes. The field testing of Monsanto’s Bt corn in the Philippines through the Institute of Plant Breeding is a case in point. The research is not something developed by Filipino scientists. Despite the public outcry about the efficacy research, the public research institutions continue with the trial which put these insitutions in a negative light. Are public research institutions accountable to the public, its end-client and whose taxes support their institution? Or are public research institution accountable to industries which provide funds for the field trial, with an end interest of commercialising the product?

In this day and age too, information has become a factor of production. For example, knowledge about the genes and the atoms are essential for biotechnology and nanotechnology to succeed. Softwares are developed from an assemblage of information. Resource poor farmers are deprived of this mainstream science knowledge and their local knowledge is at the same time being eroded by the media and their changing lifestyles.

The situation is much more complex now that it was before. At the same time, we can no longer go back to the old production system because there are also merits in the current system. We must therefore find ways to cope with the ever changing system while reducing risks and addressing the disparity of access to land, market and technology.

About  SEARICE

SEARICE  or the Southeast Asia Regional Institute for Community Education was founded in the 1970s as a social justice network of individuals and institutions in the region. In the 1990s it was insitutionalised and work focused on community plant genetic resources conservation and development primarily to address the issue of technological tenancy. If technology was used by the formal sector to arrest rural poverty, can a social justice group also use technology as an entry point for subsequent community organising and development work aimed at addressing the skewed social, economic and political structure?

The work of SEARICE against technological tenancy is being addressed at two fronts - through concrete community work and through policy advocacy and policy reforms. Insitutionally this is reflected by having two units, the Policy and Information Unit (PIU) and the Technical Assistance Unit (TAU). PIU co-ordinates a regional program on Agrobiodiversity Policy, runs an anti-GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) campaign and provides policy briefing at the national level on topics like the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (IUPGRFA), Plant Variety Protection among others. The PIU is also active in the region in documenting biopiracy cases and supporting action against biopirates through the use of legal and media advocacy in tandem with community based advocacy. SEARICE, through the PIU is also involve in regional discussions on access benefit sharing mechanisms and framework drafting for ASEAN member states. SEARICE also partcipates in International lobby work for the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) and IUPGRFA to name a few.

The other unit of SEARICE, TAU co-ordinates three programs with community organising work for plant genetic resources conservation and development. One program is called CBDC (Community Biodiversity Development and Conservation Program) which is a global program implemented in Latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia. SEARICE serves as the regional co-ordinator of the Southeast Asia Program at the same time implementer of the Philippine component of the regional program. Aside from the Philippines, CBDC Southeast Asia is implemented in Nan, Thailand and Mekong Provinces in Vietnam. Another regional program co-ordinated by SEARICE under TAU is the Biodiversity Use and Conservation in Asia Program (BUCAP) which is implemented in Laos, Bhutan and North to Central Vietnam. The Seeds of Survival Program (SOS) is the third program co-ordinated by TAU and is implemented in Sultan Kudarat and North Cotabato, Philippines. The North Cotabato project is implemented in partnership with CONSERVE. This paper specifically looks at the experiences of SEARICE in the provinces of Bohol, Sultan Kudarat and North Cotabato in the Philippines from 1992 up to the present.

The different project areas of SEARICE in the Philippines are representatives of  three types of Philippine market system - small island economy, ‘valley economy’ (i.e. self contained but integrated to a wider provincial market) and market driven economy characteristic of Green Revolution areas. The ecosystems where SEARICE work range from prime irrigated ricelands to marginal upland areas including indigenous communities and villages with dry, saline and rocky ecosystems. Majority of the sites are in peripheries of conflict areas between government forces and revolutionary groups (Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the New People’s Army and other splinter groups). Can technology be used as handle too in organising communities in conflict areas?

Bohol

The CBDC project in Bohol is a research and development experiment to understand, describe, and strengthen farmers’ systems of agricultural biodiversity conservation and innovation in order to improve community food security and ecosystem stability.  It is also a partnership between formal and informal systems towards strengthening community plant genetic resources conservation and development.

CBDC-Bohol operates in the municipalities of Bilar, Carmen, Dagohoy and Batuan and in the islands of Panglao and Sandingan. The work focus on rice, corn and rootcrops plant genetic resources conservation and development under organic farming practices. The project is also engage in facilitating organic product marketing, organic fertiliser production, sustainable agriculture curriculum development with a state college and policy advocacy at the provincial level.

Bohol was chosen as the area for SEARICE community work because it exemplifies a small island economy, which is a typical economic system in the Philippine archipelago. It is self contained yet dependent on the big island economy of Cebu, a major development area in the Central part of the country. Ecosystem wise, Bohol exemplifies a marginal ecosystem with very dry, saline and rocky system.

North Cotabato

The project in North Cotabato is implemented by CONSERVE with assistance from SEARICE. CONSERVE was established in 1992 as a project of SEARICE. In 1993, it became an independent non-government organisation. CONSERVE envisions an empowered farmers’ sector utilising sustainable agriculture for food security, peace and prosperity. It is committed to work in partnership with farmers in the collection, conservation, research, development and utilisation of plant genetic resources for sustainable agriculture development.

The municipalities of Kabakan, President Roxas, Arakan, Matalam, Antipas and Magpet in North Cotabato are the project sites (Table 1). Except for Kabakan, the municipalities are part of the Arakan Valley Complex. Economically, the system is fairly self contained but integrated to the main market in the city of Kidapawan about an hour away by car from the nearest municipality in the Valley Complex. Kabakan exemplifies an economy that is highly integrated to the market. 

In terms of ecosystem, the work of CONSERVE is in different ecosystems. There are  prime irrigated areas, small landholding but lowland irrigated areas, marginal upland areas and with indigenous Manobo communities. Rice and corn are the main crops of interest.

Table 1.  Municipalities, villages and main areas of intervention of CONSERVE in North Cotabato, Philippines as of June 2001.

Source: SEARICE 2001. SEARICE External Evaluation Report.

Sultan Kudarat

The Sultan Kudarat project of SEARICE aims to address the effects of agricultural modernisation through a community plant genetic resources conservation and development program focusing on rice and corn. The project has three components: technical, alternative support system and policy advocacy.

The project started in the last quarter of 1999 and selected Lambayong municipality as the pilot municipality for implementation. Lambayong has 13,000 hectares of rice land and is considered  the prime irrigated riceland of Sultan Kudarat. More than one-half of the municipality is owned by four families and the rest are individually owned by migrants from Northern and Central Philippines. The native Maguindanaons, the indigenous people who used to populate the town, are now relegated as seasonal farm workers. The municipality exemplifies a typical Mindanao community with migrants and Maguindanaons populating the area.

Lambayong exemplifies a typical Green Revolution area in the Philippines, apart from the large expanse of prime irrigated rice land, production is geared for the market with pronounced presence of seed growers, big rice traders, big landlords and big millers (the second largest rice mill in Southeast Asia is in Sultan Kudarat).

THE INTERVENTIONS

Community Plant Genetic Resources Conservation, Development and Use

Community plant genetic resources conservation, development and use (CPGR CDU) is the main focus of SEARICE’s intervention. In general, the objectives of SEARICE’s intervention can be grouped into biological and socio-political-economic objectives. Biological objectives include increased agrobiodiversity in the areas of intervention and increased systems integration for sustainable agricultural production towards food security. Social-political and economic  objectives include a) strengthening farmers’ capacities, role and management system of their local agrobiodiversity, b) building the capacities of local insitutions to further support and strengthen farmers’ management of local agrobiodiversity, c) develop groups of farmers capable of analysing their own situation and acting on their problems, and d) insitutionalise farmers efforts through policy reforms and actions.

Figure 1. Diagram of SEARICE’s main programs of  intervention in a community.

Some of the activities in strengthening CPGR CDU are community seed banking, varietal selection, plant breeding, seed rehabilitation, selection from segregating population and off-type selection (Fig.1). Apart from CPGR CDU, SEARICE and CONSERVE likewise address production issues like pest management, soil management diversification, conversion to sustainable agriculture practices and research on farm implements. Marketing (facilitative role), networking and policy advocacy work at the municipal and provincial level are some of the support programs. The core program contributes or results to the development of support programs. In turn the support programs strengthen the core program. Sustainable Agriculture is the over-all context for project implementation.

EVOLUTION OF APPROACHES AND METHODOLOGIES

This section discusses the chronology of approaches and methodologies used by SEARICE to define a new approach to community organising using CPGR CDU as entry point. Traditional community organising is classified as sectoral (organisations are formed according to the sector like farmers, youth, women, fisherfolks, indigenous people etc.) or issue based (there is an urgent and visible issue which the group has to resolve). Technological dependency issue, the focus of SEARICE’s work, is not a pronounced issue which poses graphic and immediate threat to farming communities. The challenges of organising and motivating communities to address this issue are many and calls for innovative methods and approaches. SEARICE had to define these methods and approaches on its own (since there is still no organisation who has put forward a community organising approach to address technology dependency issue) and it has committed several mistakes, generating numerous lessons before succesfully having a good grasp of the processes and the technical requirements of work.

SEARICE started to focus its work on community plant genetic resources conservation, development and use (CPGR CDU) in 1989. First, feeling its way to the state of CPGR CDU in the country through series of national consultations and workshops with various stakeholders. In these national activities was defined the state of CPGR CDU in the country as well as the needs and possible areas of work. In 1992, SEARICE put up a program called the Seeds of Survival Program, a regional program where CONSERVE had its roots. In 1993, CONSERVE became an independent NGO, still maintaining CPGR CDU as its main program.

One of the objectives in the early days of CONSERVE and SEARICE’s work in the community is to bring back the use of traditional rice varieties in the farmers’ fields. A large number of traditional varieties were no longer used with the introduction of improved seeds through the Green Revolution technological and credit package. As a social justice organisation, CONSERVE and SEARICE believed that bringing the use of traditional varieties is a strong political stand against the onslaught of improved varieties/ technologies which reduced farmers access and control over their resources and knowledge systems. From the seed angle, to bring about an egalitarian society with farmers taking control over their resources, SEARICE and CONSERVE thought of collecting and distributing the traditional rice varieties to interested farmers. Farmers were made custodians or curators of traditional seeds (Fig. 2).

The curatorship approach led to re-introduction of  use of some traditional rice varieties. Some of the curators were happy to get the varieties which they used to eat when they were young. Some farmer curators acted as real seed custodians keeping and continually planting the traditional varieties for conservation purposes. However, most of the curators, especially those in the lowlands and peripheral communities kept only one or two traditional varieties. Not all farmers

Figure 2.  Timeline of SEARICE and CONSERVE’s changing approaches and methodologies

can be curators or seed custodians. We observed that curators in the marginal uplands tend to be effective seed custodians, keeping and adding (of course there are also cases of losing) traditional varieties to their collection and production. This is so because for one, there were no developed improved varieties in the marginal uplands. Green revolution technologies and inputs were limited to the lowlands. Second, production in the uplands is mostly for home consumption. Farmers plant the varieties they like to eat. We found that market is a key consideration for farmers to decide whether to continually use the traditional seeds or not. In the lowlands, improved varieties gave more yield and were more adapted to the intensive agricultural practices geared for market than traditional varieties. Thus, famers prefer improved varieties and discard the traditional rice varieties distributed to them.

To address this, SEARICE embarked on active conversion of farmer’s practices from intensive agricultural production to a more sustainable production system. Distribution of traditional varieties should be accompanied by changes in production system. There was a degree of success in this approach but the number of farmers using traditional varieties is still growing at a slow rate because the conversion process is also slow. Extension process is also slow with one on one (or per household) extension.

Around this time, SEARICE got introduced to the Farmers’ Fields School Approach. Using the Integrated Pest Management-FFS, SEARICE and CONSERVE along with other partners in Central Mindano adapted the IPM-FFS and developed Ecological Pest Management-FFS, where crop conservation and improvement are special topics. From 1995 to 1997, CONSERVE embarked on EPM-FFS training in the communities. This has greatly improved the number of farmers working on crop conservation and improvement under sustainable farming practices.

Around 1994, CONSERVE staff had a training on rice breeding and they started to make some crosses which was labelled as ‘CONSERVE Crosses’ or CC as a reference name. CONSERVE staff, excited with the new found knowledge and skills crossed any variety that they came across  which were flowering at the same time. The breeding objectives and the parent materials were not properly evaluated. This is one of the lessons SEARICE and CONSERVE learned by commiting a mistake.

CONSERVE crosses were distributed to some farmer participants of the FFS for further selection along with some traditional varieties. Farmers were also taught how to make crosses. Some of CONSERVE crosses were selected and adapted under farmers’ field conditions. Some were not, primarily because the parents were selected based on flowering rather than characteristics. Farmers rejected some of the characters. Succeeding crosses at CONSERVE  took this into account (importance of agro-morphological characterisitc of parents and clear breeding objectivessss) and the lesson shared to farmers interested to make crosses.

Around 1995, SEARICE started the exploration stages for another project. Bohol was selected as a site for a CPGR CDU program because of its diversity of rootcrops especially yam. Bohol is home to a famous yam variety (‘Kinampay’) known for its aroma. In 1996, SEARICE started work in Bohol for rice, corn and rootcrops conservation.

For rootcrops, SEARICE used the curatorship approach and distributed several varieties for adaptation trials to selected farmers. For rice, SEARICE used the FFS approach followed by distribution of varieties to farmer participants for evaluation and varietal selection. Farmers were also taught how to make crosses and continue with their selection practices.

Around 1997, with experiences from CONSERVE and Bohol, SEARICE shifted its gear from mere conservation work to development work. Varietal selection studies by farmers were linked with crop improvement work. Also, the fixation with bringing back traditional varieties to be used in the field was re-evaluated based on adaptation rate and production-market demands. SEARICE realised that indeed, production and market systems changed. Not all traditional varieties can outperform improved varieties under this condition. To be able to improve the performance of landraces there is a need to improve them. From conservation of varieties per se, SEARICE now looked into conservation of genes through improvement especially for lowland irrigated areas.

SEARICE also pushed more unfinished varieties for evaluation under farmers’ field under a participatory plant breeding (PPB) scheme. Unlike most PPB, the materials did not come from the formal research sector but from the NGO like CONSERVE and other farmer breeders who shared their segregating lines and populations for other farmers to select and evaluate.

Around 1999, SEARICE likewise reviewed its community organising activities. It was this time that a more defined community organising approach and methods to address technology dependency were initially drawn and discussed. As a result of this discussion, staff immersed more in communities and focused the work in strengthening farmers’ management and capacity building.

Also in 1999, SEARICE through its regional program called BUCAP embarked on a national level and multistakeholder approach to CPGR CDU using FFS. By the end of year 2000, an FFS module specifically for CPGR CDU was drafted from the field experiences of Vietnamese and Laotian IPM trainers, researchers, NGO workers, farmers and SEARICE. The FFS for CPGR CDU was adapted in the Philippines initially in the second cropping of year 2000 in Sultan Kudarat and the following cropping in Bohol and North Cotabato.

In the IPM- FFS approach, community based study groups are formed composed of 20-30 farmers. Extension workers provide technical inputs and facilitation. A group field is set-up as a common learning area from which hands on exercises on ecological aspects of rice production are studied. The ‘learning field’ provides the main learning material, and the field exercises and special topics are rooted in the fields i.e, before starting any discussion or activity, the study group must first observe the field. FFS is more of an education tool than a high level research and in most IPM-FFS studies (eg. defoliation studies) the outcome is known. The important aspect is the process of learning, where farmers discover on their own through a simple field experiment the results (discovery based learning). SEARICE (along with the National IPM Program in Vietnam, FAO-IPM in Vietnam, Mekong Delat Farming Systems Research Institute, Lao PDR National IPM Program, National Agriculture Research Centre, Oxfam-Belgium in Lao PDR, CIDSE Laos and other research institutions) adapted this educational process and extended it further by engaging in research whose outcome is not pre-determined (crop improvement and conservation). In the process generating new information which are not known by facilitators nor by research institutions. At the same time developing the capacity of farmers to conduct crop improvement researches for improved production. Field exercises, field lay-out, special topics, agroecosystems analysis, monitoring forms and the FFS diary were redesigned for CPGR CDU. Philippine adaptation of this curriculum under different market and production systems was evaluated last July 2001.

To enable an effective policy advocacy work, mainstreaming and networking are important tasks. The project in Bohol linked up with the Provincial Environment Council, an arena where environmental concerns such as agrobiodiversity management and conservation can be championed. Through the PEC, Bohol was declared a GMO-free province on the pretext that GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) threaten local agrobiodiversity conservation and management efforts of farmers. Linkages with the Provincial Agricultural Office (PAO) and the Central Visayas State College for Agriculture and Forest Technology  (CVCAFT) enabled the implementation of a training of trainers for government extension agents and other NGO workers on CPGR CDU. Along with this ToT is the implementation of a pilot FFS for CPGR CDU involving the different provincial actors. With endorsement from the PAO, the Municipal Agricultural Office (MAO) joined famers in their FFS sessions. CVSCAFT participated by fielding some of its students and interns to assist in running the sessions.

In other developments, CVSCAFT and SEARICE conducted evaluation and adaptation trials of traditional rice varieties in CVSCAFT with the aim of conserving these varieties and using them for improvement  work to be undertaken by the agricultural college alongside farmers’ efforts. SEARICE was partly able to influence the research direction of the state college and link it more to farmers. 

In North Cotabato, CONSERVE was officially recognised and now sits in the Municipal Development Council contributing to discussions on Municipal Development plans and issues. Linkages with the formal sector enabled some policy changes to take place. A municipal ordinance against rice straw burning was put forward with active lobby work of CONSERVE and its farmer partners.

SEARICE now has a clearer set of tools, methodologies and approaches for community organising for CPGR CDU to address technology dependency. It now has a better grasp of the approaches to use under different market and ecosystem. However, the search for  new methodologies, tools and approaches continue. Specifically, the challenge is to define the interphase of the work on the ground with policy advocacy work through mainstreaming and lobby for policy reforms. There are still a lot of room for improvement as  SEARICE further defines this link under changing Philippine market and agricultural production system.

BIOLOGICAL, SOCIO-POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC GAINS

Apart from methods, approaches and tools that were developed, there are also biological, socio-political and economic gains from the years of work of SEARICE on CPGR CDU. This section discusses these gains.

Biological Gains

As mentioned earlier, one of the objectives of SEARICE’s community intervention is to increase agrobiodiversity, specifically increase the number of crops and varieties developed by farmers and planted in their fields. In 1992, 45% of the farms of 192 farmer respondents (from President Roxas North Cotabato) use farmers’ selection of rice varieties while 55% use improved varieties. In 1998, 80% of the farms are using farmers’ selections and only 20% are using modern varieties (CONSERVE 2001c). The increase in the use of farmers’ selections was attributed to the training provided by CONSERVE and the materials distributed for selection.

In a study of 107 famer curators for upland rice varieties, 61% of the varieties (175 varieties of the 288 varieties distributed) are still used and maintained. In the lowlands, only 19% (16 varieties of the 86 varieties distributed) are maintained. One factor that contributed to the high rate of utilisation in the uplands is the minimal introduction of formally released varieties in the uplands. Also, 80% of the upland farmers kept the seeds for medicinal, culinary, socio-cultural and religious uses (CONSERVE 2001a). Only 20% of farmers maintained the traditional rice varieties because of adaptability and high yield.

In contrast, for lowland rice farmers, they discard varieties that are susceptible to pests and diseases and with poor adaptability and yield performance under lowland irrigated conditions (CONSERVE 2001b). Agro-morphological characteristics and yield performance are the main criteria for selection in the lowlands unlike in the uplands where cultural preferences are the criteria. This is because lowland rice areas are more for market production while upland areas are more for home consumption thus household use and preference prevails.

To increase variability in population, CONSERVE also embarked on rice breeding. From 1995-2000, the centre made 60 single crosses (Table 2) which were distributed to 87 farmers usually at F6 or earlier generation. In total there are about 115 selections which farmers developed from the crosses made by CONSERVE and from stable traditional varieties, off-types and from farmer crosses. To date, there are 25 active  rice breeders from the different peoples’ organisation formed (or linked) by CONSERVE, who made actual crosses and/or selected from segregating and stable materials. Other farmers who were trained by CONSERVE but who opted not to be a member of any people’s organisation also select lines from their own crosses and other materials. Tay Gipo is one of them. He made more than 10 crosses and is maintaining around 15 lines from a cross he made between Bordagol (the province of Cotabato acknowledged him as the selector of Bordagol, a widely used farmer selection in the country) and Basmati. He continually collect materials for parental evaluation.

Table 2.  Number of varieties distributed and selected, number of crosses made, number of rice and corn breeders and other indicators for increased agrobiodiversity with SEARICE and CONSERVE intervention.

Perhaps the best indicator of biological gains from CONSERVE’s activities was during the 1998 El Nino dry spell. An indigenous community of Manobos was greatly affected by the dry spell. The Manobos were scavenging for food in the forest and even resorted to eating poisonous yams to survive. We visited their community (about 4 hours by motorcycle from President Roxas) at the height of the dry spell and noticed that even though it is lunch time, there were no smoke coming out of the houses, an indication that no one was cooking. Some members of the community are already planning to move further up the mountains to survive. When we checked their community seed bank (they keep a communal storage area for their seeds) we found all the 74 varieties distributed to them were intact. Despite the hunger around the community, no one dared cook the rice seeds. Some of the seeds amounted to about 25kg, a significant food intake for a starving community. They said that if they eat the seeds what will they plant after the famine? Seeds are gifts from God and should be treasured,  according to them.

In Christian communities, El Nino (which was accompanied by rat infestation as rats moved out of the forest to look for food) led to loss of distributed rice varieties. At one time, Nong Rudy a farmer from the upland of Marikurat was planting  60 traditional rice varieties in his farm. After El Nino he was only able to retain some 14 varieties. The varieties were not totally lost as the centre keeps the 466 accessions of rice in cold storage viable for 4 years. CONSERVE also keeps a back-up collection at PhilRICE under a black box agreement.

Another indicator of biological gains from SEARICE and CONSERVE’s work are the re-introduction and use of traditional rice varieties. With distribution, some traditional rice varieties which were no longer planted are now being used by farmers in the lowlands. In Del Carmen, one farmer continually plants and use Makaginga an upland rice variety that the farmers adapted to lowland conditions. He plants the variety mainly for his consumption. In Mabuhay, San Pablo is one of the widely used variety (of the 6 varieties commonly used) by farmer partners of CONSERVE. San Pablo is a traditional lowland rice variety collected by CONSERVE from Agusan and distributed to some farmers in the lowlands for adaptation tests. In Kabakan, prime irrigated ricelands devoted to high yielding varieties now has 10 hectares of riceland planted to San Pablo, 0.5 hectares to Pungko and 0.25 hectares to Sampaguita. All three are traditional rice varieties.

Apart from use of  diverse varieties (as a result of distribution of varieties or variations through breeding), farmers in North Cotabato also diversifed their farms. Of the 192 training graduates of CONSERVE, 70% diversified their farms. At the same time as increasing agrobiodiversity, CONSERVE and SEARICE also worked at developing sustainable farms through organic farming. To date, there are about 110 hectares of 100% organic farms or about 1.5% of the total irrigated rice area in the communities where CONSERVE works. Conversion rate is slow. One factor is the land tenancy situation. As mentioned, about 60% of the farmer partners of CONSERVE are tenants. Also, most of the farms are in varying stages of conversion. The Multipurpose Co-operative selling pesticides in President Roxas admitted to a reduction in their sales of pesticides by 30%. The manager also admitted that pesticide corporations have lost interest in President Roxas because of the difficulty to convince farmers to use pesticides in their farms. To pesticides companies, President Roxas is not worth the investment. This is a significant impact which can partly be attributed to the work of CONSERVE on organic farming in the areas.

In Bohol, we now have 5 farmers who made single crosses and selected from stable populations. One farmer (Nong Radix) now has 6 stable lines from his cross. Some of the progeny (early generation and late generation) of his crosses were distributed to other farmers for their own evaluation. Bohol farmers prefer red rices and through the years they have maintained their skills in selecting for red rices. Green revolution rice varieties are all white, yet the Boholanos have their own red rice selections from these white rices. Morphoagronomic, isozyme and molecular studies of some of the red rices of Bohol (CBDC Bohol 2000a, Bertuso 1999) indicate the close relationship of the red rices from the white rices indicating that the red rices were most probably mutation of the white rices. Farmers selected the mutant, planted it and soon its use spread around Bohol.

Work in Bohol is not limited to rice. For rootcrops, the intervention is through distribution of materials to interested farmers and would be curators. To date, some farmers are still maintaining the distributed materials. Market was tapped to increase diversity. In one island, the diversity of their planted rootcrops depended on the diversity of the supply of planting materials. Thus, instead of directly influencing the farmers in the marginalised island, SEARICE distributed different sweet potato varieties to the market supplier for them to evaluate and sell to the farmers (CBDC Bohol 2000b). Often, market is seen to limit diveristy but there are also instances like this one where market drives diversity.

For rootcrops, work is more on conservation rather than improvement because Bohol still has a rich diversity of rootcrops. To increase diversity, SEARICE only distributed diverse materials for farmers to use in their fields.

Sultan Kudarat is the newest project site of SEARICE. Farmer trials started only last cropping season. To date they are evaluating 15 varieties in different barangays. Part of improvement and conservation work is seed rahbilitation where selection is applied to come up with the stable and more or less original form of the variety.

Socio-political gains

CONSERVE organised 8 farmer groups (ICOFA, MOFA, DCOFC, SIEFO, LOPA, OFAD, MASAFO, KLPC) and linked with one existing farmer group (FAKANEMA). Although the farmer groups are at different stages of organisational stability, these groups provide some level of social and political base for CONSERVE’s work on CPGR CDU. Similarly SEARICE in Bohol organised 6 farmer groups also at varying organisational capacity. The Sultan Kudarat project is still in the initial stages of community organising.

CONSERVE and SEARICE as mentioned earlier, sits in the Municipal Development Council, in the Provincial Environmental Council and other Provincial Task Force Committees. The clout of farmers who are into the management of local agrobiodiversity enabled the participation of CONSERVE and SEARICE in these bodies.

Some of the farmer partners of CONSERVE put up a community seed bank complete with seed policies to enable farmer seed exchanges and continuous work on conservation and improvement of their materials. The network of farmer groups also serves as an informal network for seed exchange. 

SEARICE in Bohol, as discussed earlier,  was able to influence the research direction of one agricultural college by directly engaging them in CPGR CDU work with farmers and by helping the institution come up with a sustainable agriculture curriculum.  CONSERVE is also slowly infuencing the University of Southern Mindanao by linking with some professors to field their students in CONSERVE areas and undertake researches on sustainable agriculture.

A good example of socio-political gains is the case of the Upper Paatan Multipurpose Co-operative in Kabakan. CONSERVE distributed some of the farmers’ selections to its members in 2000. After one season, the co-operative asked the local agriculturist and local personnel of the Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation to include farmers’ selections under crop insurance. Traditionally, only registered seeds are eligible for crop insurance. Farmer developed and selected varieties, including traditional varieties are not convered by crop insurance. This is a test case as nationally, farmers’ selections are still not covered by crop insurance. Apparently, the members and officers of the co-operative argued that the farmers’ selections performed better than the registered seeds distributed to them which led to crop losses. Therefore, to lessen the impact of farmers claining insurance for crop losses, PCIC should also recognise farmers’ selections. What was encouraging about the whole case is that the lobbying work was done by the farmers themselves with no intervention (save for the seeds given to them) from both CONSERVE and SEARICE.

In North Cotabato, Bohol and Sultan Kudarat there are now good farmer trainers who can train other farmers in rice conservation and improvement work. Last September 2001, a Farmers’ Technical Conference on Rice Conservation and Improvement was held where farmers presented their experiences to other farmers, academicians, local government officials and researchers. The genebank curator of PhilRICE (Dr.Gabby Romero) admitted to being surprised that there are now farmers who are able to make crosses and selections on their own. Before the conference, he still thinks that the farmers are still mere recipients of progenies of crosses and stable materials. As a response to the farmers issue of increased access to diverse materials, PhilRICE will soon decentralise its active rice collection. They will keep active collections in Mindanao for farmers to have easier access to PhilRICE collection.

These are some of the direct and indirect socio-political impacts of the work of SEARICE on CPGR CDU on the ground. One of the challenges faced by SEARICE is bringing some of the experiences on the ground to national discussions and input to national legislation as well as to share with other interested groups. So far, the work of SEARICE on the ground has not been well projected and known.

Economic gains

The work of SEARICE on the management of agrobiodiversity under the context of Sustainable Agriculture resulted to some economic gains for farmers. Indication of these economic gains (partly to address economic tenancy issue) are the direct links of farmers to consumers for the marketing of their produce. In Bohol, the farmers (formed into a farmer group) linked up with a women consumer group through SEARICE. In North Cotabato, a group of farmers, consumers and development workers meet to set the price of organic products and the NGO facilitates the procurement and distribution of the materials.

Needless to say, diversification increased farm income. In a study by CONSERVE (unpublished 2000a) farmers who diversified their fields earned more than before and some are earning above the legislated minimum wage requirement for agricultural non-plantation workers. But if the income is computed against the daily cost of living for a family of six, the farmers earn less because of large family size. All farmers acknowledged though that despite the fact that they are still poor, they have more earning with diversified farm than before.

PROBLEMS AND LESSONS

Small island economy, marginal ecosystem

Small islands like Bohol is a pocket for conservation. The self contained environment (in terms of agricultural production and market) created the diversity of rootcrops and red rices. Cultural preference for red rices kept the production and selection skills of farmers for red rices. The marginal ecosystem allowed for rootcrops to thrive. There are no vast prime irrigated rice lands in Bohol and the rocky, saline soil is conducive for the production of rootcrops. Introduction of new rice varieties is limited and dependent on the neighbouring island, thus genetic base for rice, in general, is narrow.

Conservation of rootcrops is applicable under such context. For rice, SEARICE learned that conservation work should be accompanied by improvement to some extent. This is to create more diversity for red rices which usually are selections from improved white rices. Although in general, various microniches, created by the harsh ecosystem ensures a certain degree of diversity of materials. There are variants of the same variety which are adapted to alkaline soil, which has drought resistance or with red pericarp.

Indigenous communities

Conservation of varieties per se works with indigenous communities because of the presence of intact and functional social and cultural system. Biodiversity is also very much engrained in the Manobos’ culture. Thus, there is no need to introduce the concept of agrobiodiversity and the need to conserve diversity.

Also, the Manobos look up to seeds as gifts of god and should therefore be conserved and treasured. Each variety has an associated social or religious value and diversity therefore is a valuable wealth. The sense of community and communal ownership is strong among the  Manobos providing equal access and sharing of diverse material.

Access to diversity remains a problem for most indigenous communities. Prior to CONSERVE’s distribution of 74 varieties in one community, they are only maintaining 10 varieties for their use. If you increase their access through distribution, you can create a genebank and a community of seed and knowledge keepers.

Upland communities

In general, upland communities have diverse system and diverse rice varieties which are adaptable to marginal systems. Conservation of specific varieties work under this context because market and production pressures are not intense. Rice are planted mainly for home consumption.

Unlike indigenous communities, there is a need to bring a group of farmers to work on agrobiodiversity conservation. Although relative to the lowland communities,  the concept of diversity is better understood and implemented in the uplands probably because of the sorry environmental state of upland areas.

Prime irrigated riceland

Under prime irrigated riceland, market pressure is intense. For conservation to work it has to be accompanied by development for high productivity while maintaining diversity. Most traditional rice varieties are not suitable to the needs and criteria of farmers under this system. Farmers conserve what is useful. Thus, there is a need to improve the landraces to suit farmers criteria and selection pressure. This is where breeding (to create diversity) comes in.

In prime irrigated areas, farmer’s culture is also changing. The challenge of communal development and conservation effort, including collective decision makin is more pronounced. For sustainability and impact, mainstreaming, networking and linking with formal system is necessary.

In general, SEARICE learned that addressing technological tenancy requires a different style of community organising apart form the direct confrontation, issue based organising. Technological intervention by training farmers to conserve and develop their own diversity can be used as a handle for community organising. The approach also works in conflict areas, where technology is seen as less political and the method less confrontational (thus, less threatening) in nature. The entire work though is highly political because in the process, you build a community of farmers capable of looking at their situation and addressing them using their knowledge and skills and through linking with organisations and bodies with the capacity to address them. In the end, the sustainability of farmers’ efforts is determined by the strength of the farmer’s organisation and the support of local government and other stakeholders. SEARICE’s experience clearly shows that it is possible to increase production and increase agrobiodiversity at the same time under changing market and agricultural production system.

REFERENCES

Bertuso

CBDC Bohol 2001  (Hydee)

CBDC Bohol 2001  (Cantaongon)

CONSERVE unpublished 2000a, Case studies of diversified farming in the uplands and lowlands of Arakan Valley, CONSERVE.

CONSERVE 2001a (in press) , Assessment of upland rice varieties distributed by CONSERVE in Arakan Valley Complex, Cotabato Philippines, CONSERVE Technical Report No. 1, CONSERVE.

CONSERVE 2001b (in press), Assessement of lowland rice varietied by CONSERVE in Arakan Valley Complex, Cotabato Philippines, CONSERVE.

CONSERVE 2001c. Impact of Ecological Pest Management-Farmers’ Field School (EPM-FFS) Training in the Three Municipalities of Arakan Valley, Complex, Cotabato, Philippines. CONSERVE Technical Report No.3. CONSERVE.

CONSERVE 2001d. On-farm Varietal Evaluation of Farmers’Selections of Rice (Oryza sativa) in Arakan Valley Complex, Cotabato, Philippines. CONSERVE Technical Report No.7. CONSERVE.

Feder E. 1983, Perverse development, Foundation for Nationalist Studies, Quezon City Philippines

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1971, Introduction and effects of high yielding varieties of rice in the Philippines, Rome.

Johnson, S. 1972, The green revolution, Hamish Hamilton, London

Putzel, J. 1988, Prospects for agrarian reform under the Aquino government, In Land, Poverty and Politics in the Philippines, M. Canlas, M. Miranda, Jr. and J. Putzel (eds). Catholic Institute for International Relations, 92 pp

Quizon T. 2000. Philippine and Global Agriculture Situation, Special Lecture Discussion for SEARICE Staff, 3 January 2000.

Salazar R. 2000. SEARICE Critique, Internal Discussion with SEARICE staff, 17 August 2000.

SEARICE 2001. SEARICE Internal Evaluation Report. SEARICE

Umehara H., 1983, Green revolution for whom? (an inquiry into its beneficiaries in a Central Luzon village, Philippines, In  Second view from the paddy, Ledesma, A.J., Makil, P.Q. and Miralao, V.A. (eds),  Institute of Philippine Culture, Ateneo de Manila University 150 p.

'Of farmers and gentlemen' 1996, Business World On Line Edition, Opinion: Future Tense, 19 January

1 Unit 311 Eagle Court Condominium 26 Matalino St. Diliman Quezon City, Philippines

Tel. No. (632)-4337182/4332067, Fax No. (632} 9226710,  email: searice@searice.org.ph