SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

FOR POVERTY REDUCTION

Roel Ravanera

December 2006
 DISCLAIMER

“The views expressed in this report are strictly those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of
the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Ateneo de Manila University”.
 Abstract
In a country where 70% of the poor live in rural areas, one tool for poverty reduction that
shows great potential is sustainable agriculture, a holistic systems approach to agriculture
that adopts indigenous knowledge systems and demonstrates cultural sensitivity. This
paper recounts evidence that sustainable agriculture has a positive effect on farm yields
and income, accompanied by an initial increase in production costs which tapers
significantly over time. The author gives policy recommendations to mainstream
sustainable agriculture and lays guidelines for the establishment of a Department of
Agriculture program on sustainable agriculture for poverty reduction.
 SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE FOR POVERTY REDUCTION1

Republic Act No. 8435 also known as the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of
1997 outlined seven principles in the development and sustainability of the agriculture
and fisheries sectors, namely: poverty alleviation and social equity, food security, rational
use of resources, global competitiveness, sustainable development, people empowerment
and protection from unfair competition.

In pursuing these development goals, particularly on poverty reduction and social equity,
NGOs and farmer organizations have proposed the widespread adoption of sustainable
agriculture.

They have argued that by adopting sustainable agriculture, the State can “ensure that the
poorer sectors of society have equitable access to resources, income opportunities, basic
and support services and infrastructure especially in areas where productivity is low as a
means of improving their quality of life compared with other sectors of society (RA
8435).

POLICY CONTEXT: AGRICULTURE AND RURAL POVERTY

Prevalence of poverty in rural areas. Of the total number of poor people in the
Philippines, around 70% live in rural areas. This explains why poverty in the country
continues to be a rural phenomenon despite rapid urbanization. (World Bank, 2005)

Elsewhere in the world, poverty is just as widespread in the rural areas. Of the world’s
1.1 billion extremely poor people, 75% live in rural areas and depend on agriculture,
forestry, fisheries and related activities for survival. (IFAD, 2001)

Progress on national efforts to reduce poverty. Official estimates indicate a slight

decline in the incidence of poverty between 2000 and 2003, after a period of no reduction
during 1997-2000. Based on annual per capita income the
number of poor declined from 25.4 million in 2000 to 23.5 million in 2003, or from 33%
to 30.4% of the population. (World Bank, 2005)

Both rural and urban poverty were reported to have declined over this period (excluding
certain provinces): rural from 18.6 million (47.7%) to 17 million (43.6%); urban from 6.8
million (17.8%) to 6.2 million (16.5%). (World Bank, 2005)

1
Prepared by Roel R. Ravanera, Dean of the College of Agriculture, Xavier University, Cagayan
de Oro, Philippines based on consultations with farmer practitioners, NGO advocates, academic
institutions and research agencies. Five consultations were conducted in Davao City, May 30,
2005; Cebu City; Manila June 20, 2006; Cagayan de Oro, June 23, 2006; Davao City, July 10,
2006; and Cebu City, July 12, 2006.
The minimal reduction in poverty incidence is partly explained by the stagnant and slow
growth in agricultural productivity. From 1995 to 2000, the Philippine agriculture
registered a low average growth rate of 1.38% and an unstable increase of 0.18% from
2000 (3.59%) to 2003 (3.77%). The slight increase is attributed to fisheries while annual
growth rates for crops, poultry and livestock generally declined for the last four years
(AJPN, 2005).

Search for alternative approaches to poverty reduction. National government

agencies, local government units and civil society organizations are actively exploring
ways to mitigate the persistent problem of rural poverty in the country.

As majority of the poor are engaged in subsistence farming and fishing, the government
has put together a plan to raise agricultural productivity and rural household income by
implementing the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act and also the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Act.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has noted that the battle to achieve the
MDGs, in particular the goal of poverty and hunger reduction, would be lost or won in
the rural areas of developing countries. FAO has argued that promoting sustainable rural
development creates more rural based employment, reduces regional income disparities,
prevents rural-urban migration, and ultimately reduces poverty at its very source.

DEFINING SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

Sustainable agriculture presupposes a holistic, systems approach to agriculture and adopts

indigenous knowledge systems that store enormous information of biological cycles and
demonstrate cultural sensitivity. It is not limited to alternative regenerative agricultural
techniques, but is equally concerned with social justice, and recognizes the need for
economic and political restructuring. SA relies on local, site-specific research and on
trained farmers who are able to tailor the appropriate SA techniques to particular farm
conditions and to propagate the practice to other farmers (ANGOC, 2005).

Among NGOs and sustainable agriculture practitioners, SA is taken as an overall goal of

improving the quality of life of rural communities. In measuring technologies, programs
and processes, it uses the criteria of economic viability, ecological soundness, socially
just and equitable, culturally appropriate and based on holistic science. These criteria are
sometimes referred to as the different dimensions of sustainable agriculture.

SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
AS A TOOL FOR POVERTY REDUCTION

Rural poor surviving in marginal areas. Small farmers, tenants, agricultural workers,
indigenous peoples and others who depend on agriculture for a living constitute the
majority of the rural poor. Many of them do not have access to productive resources and
they lack basic services such as health, electricity and potable water. They are very
vulnerable to external shocks, both natural and man-made.

Enhancing agricultural productivity of the rural poor therefore would require targeted
programs that would take into consideration the physical limitations and the development
constraints that they grapple with. More often, it is not only productivity that is important
but also stability of their production system and sustainability of their resources.

Potential of sustainable agriculture in marginal areas. Sustainable agriculture

technologies have been touted to raise farm productivity while keeping inputs to a
minimum and, to the extent possible, sourcing them locally. Moreover, the technologies
have been shown to be ecologically sound, culturally appropriate and cost effective.

But while sustainable agriculture requires less external input, it requires time to enhance
farmers’ capacities. It is knowledge intensive. Investments would have to be made in
training extension workers, in incorporating sustainable agriculture in academic curricula
and in allocating budget for researches.

Growth in the worldwide market of organic2 and natural products. Interest in non-
chemical farming has grown in recent years, helped along by the rising cost of chemical
inputs as well as by robust growth in the market for non-chemically grown products. The
premium prices that consumers worldwide are prepared to pay for such products suggest
for many policymakers that sustainable agriculture is potentially—if not already—
financially lucrative for farmers and could thus be the latter’s ticket out of chronic
poverty.

Limitations to the adoption of Sustainable Agriculture as a policy option. Some

policy makers, however, dispute the ability of sustainable agriculture to supply the food
needs of the world’s growing population. Yields from sustainable agriculture are low,
they claim, and the technology underlying it, backward. Its high labor demands are also
frequently cited against it.

2
Organic products are those produced using organic agriculture. Organic agriculture is defined
as “all agricultural systems that promote the environmentally, socially and economically sound
production of food and fibers. These systems take local soil fertility as a key to successful
production. By respecting the natural capacity of plants, animals and the landscape it aims to
optimize quality in all aspects of agriculture and the environment. Organic agriculture
dramatically reduces external inputs by refraining from the use of chemosynthetic fertilizers,
pesticides and pharmaceuticals. Instead it allows the powerful laws of nature to increase both
agricultural yields and disease resistance” (International Federation of Organic Agriculture
Movements).
WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS ABOUT
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE3

Experiences of farmer organizations and NGOs have shown that sustainable agriculture
has a potentially positive effect on farm income.

With sustainable agriculture, yield increases over time. The shift to sustainable
agriculture can increase yields. Moreover, yields are expected to further improve as soil
fertility is progressively enhanced through the application of organic fertilizers.

The shift to sustainable agriculture is usually followed by an increase in production

cost, which tapers over time. The initial increase in production cost is particularly
attributed to the use of organic fertilizers and to the labor-intensive nature of non-
chemical farming practices. However, a gradual decrease in costs is expected as the soil
regains its fertility and thereafter requires less organic fertilizer. In farms where farmers
practiced sustainable agriculture for some time (i.e., over three years), a significant
decrease in production cost is discernible.

Farmers that had started to market their produce as organic products in a

systematic manner saw their incomes improve. Farmers that had made a conscious
attempt to upgrade the quality of their products and to establish more efficient market
linkages reported a positive effect of such efforts on the price of their products.

ROADBLOCKS TO MAINSTREAMING
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

Lack of needed financing for the rural poor. Much of the currently available financing
for agriculture is earmarked for production in irrigated and resource-rich agricultural
lands. In marginal lands, where most of the rural poor eke out a living, financial
assistance is almost non-existent.

Moreover, as producer/farmers groups get ready to market their products, they will need
not only credit for production-related activities but for marketing as well. Farmers
looking to market their products would be focusing on product processing and promotion.

Absence of technicians knowledgeable on sustainable agriculture. With the

devolution of agriculture extension function to local government units, trainings among
technicians have been inadequate particularly on sustainable agriculture where
technology advancement has been with non-government organizations. Given that
sustainable agriculture is knowledge intensive, the dissemination has been very slow.

3
Conclusions were based on the findings of the two-year SA Program of the Asia-Japan
Partnership Network for Poverty Reduction (AJPN) entitled “Enhancing Capacities on
Sustainable Agriculture for Poverty Reduction” piloted in six project sites in India, Indonesia and
the Philippines.
Lack of clear research agenda on sustainable agriculture. In general, budget
allocation for agriculture research has been inadequate for so many years. Moreover, the
meager resources are allocated for priority programs of the government or those
demanded by the industries. Only NGOs or in some instances universities conduct
researches on sustainable agriculture.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
TO MAINSTREAM SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

To contribute to the reduction of poverty in rural areas, it is recommended that the

Department of Agriculture institute policies in support of scaling up sustainable
agriculture in marginal areas. These policies should include the following:

Integration of SA in school curriculum. Sustainable agriculture provides a viable

alternative to marginal farmers in increasing their income towards alleviating poverty.
Investments, however, would have to be made in enhancing capacities of farmers, as
sustainable agriculture is knowledge intensive.

It is proposed that the Department of Agriculture promotes the incorporation of SA

principles and practices in school curriculum. This will ensure the development of human
resources capacitated to implement SA programs. It should work closely with the
associations of agricultural colleges and universities in making recommendations to the
Department of Education and the CHED.

Institution of organic standards, certification process and related marketing

support. The current high demand for healthy and natural products can hasten the
adoption of sustainable agriculture. While there have been notable attempts by
Governments to establish formal certification standards and systems, these have not been
implemented quickly or broadly enough. The proliferation of products falsely labeled as
“organic” tends to crowd out new, legitimate entrants into the organic food business.

Research on SA: DA should link up with agriculture research institutions, particularly

the Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and
Development (PCARRD) and the Bureau of Agriculture Research of the Department of
Agriculture (BAR-DA). It will make representations to ensure that the research agenda of
these institutions prioritize SA as mandated in AFMA and that these priorities be
reflected in their budget allocations.

ESTABLISHMENT OF A DA PROGRAM ON
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE FOR POVERTY REDUCTION

While the Department of Agriculture has adopted sustainable agriculture in its general
policies as enshrined in AFMA, program implementation has been slow. It is therefore
proposed that a special program be instituted to ensure that the DA programs are in
consonance with the law and avowed policies.

This proposal supports the plan of DA to establish a Philippine Institute on Sustainable

Agriculture. The following program proposal is forwarded as guidelines in crafting the
mandate of the proposed institute.

Goal

The goal of the program is to enhance food security and increase income of small farmers
in non-favorable agriculture areas while conserving its fragile resource base using the
sustainable agriculture framework and approaches.

Components

The program will have the following components but not limited to:

Capacity building: The program will support and undertake training programs
that will enhance capacities of farmers on sustainable agriculture such as but not
limited to farmer field schools, exposure trips for farmers, farmer-to-farmer
exchanges, SA fairs and information exchanges.

It will also provide additional training and exposure to agriculture personnel of

local government units on sustainable agriculture and related topics.

Farmer technicians: Given the broad coverage of provincial and municipal

agriculturists and the inaccessibility of many of these marginal areas, the Program
will support the training and formation of farmer technicians. Farmers, given the
appropriate training have been proven to be effective in extending new
approaches to co-farmers. The local government units will be encouraged to allot
funds for the honorarium and transportation expenses of these farmer technicians.

Support for organic fertilizer producers. The Program will provide technical
assistance to farmers to produce their own organic fertilizers. For communities
and farmer organizations that decide for group or community production, the
Program will facilitate their registration and licensing with the Fertilizer and
Pesticide Authority.

Marketing support. Engaging the market imposes strict requirements on producers,

specifically in regard to volume, regularity of supply, consistency in product quality, and
packaging. This presents a major challenge to small and marginal farmers who cultivate
small parcels and produce little surplus. The program should support the farmers to
consolidate their products and reduce transaction costs to be able to compete in the
market.

Implementation
The implementation of the Program will be done on a competitive basis where qualified
LGUs and accredited NGOs will be invited to submit proposals to implement the
program in their localities. The proposals will be screened given a set of criteria
consistent with the objectives of the program.

General Criteria

The criteria for selection of projects will include but not limited to the following criteria:

The project proposal is developed in consonance with their agricultural

development plan, and with the participation of local stakeholders especially
farmers or fishers groups, NGOs and private sectors.

Mechanism for participatory implementation of the project is installed such as the

establishment of a functional agricultural council or similar formation.

The project proposal contains a clear mechanism for participatory monitoring and
evaluation of specific measurable outputs and outcome.

Management of the Program

The Department of Agriculture Central Office will manage the program in coordination
with its Regional Field Units. It will take on the following responsibilities:

Screening and approval of proposals submitted by LGUs, facilitating the transfer

of funds, creating necessary committees and working groups, defining the roles
and functions of regional office and implementing groups, monitoring the
progress of funded projects and evaluating the outcomes of the program;

Strengthening the capacity of DA regional field units, the provincial and

municipal offices in performing their assigned roles and functions;

Providing effective link and coordination between the LGUs and agriculture
research institutions;

Providing venues and mechanisms for sharing experiences by project proponents

and beneficiaries. DA shall establish a data base system for knowledge
accumulation and dissemination.

An Advisory Committee will assist DA in managing the program. They will take
responsibility in finalizing the criteria for selecting proposals and program implementers.
The Committee will have equal representation from DA, LGU, farmer groups and civil
society organizations. DA shall initiate the formation of the Advisory Committee but will
operate independently of DA.
Implementing Institutions

Local Government Units: The LGUs are the implementing institutions of the Program.
While LGUs shall have the option to implement it directly, more weight will be accorded
to peojects that are implemented in partnership with local NGOs and people’s
organizations. LGUs are encouraged to establish partnership NGOs and institutions with
tract record of implementing sustainable agriculture projects. The final accountability,
however, rest on LGUs.

Third to fifth class municipalities will be the main targets of the program. First and
second-class municipalities may be considered as they satisfy the program criteria and
subject to availability of funds.

NGOs and farmer organizations: The Program will also accredit NGOs and farmer
organizations to implement the program. A set of criteria for accreditation will be drafted
by DA and finalized by the Advisory Committee.

Monitoring and Evaluation

DA will conduct regular monitoring of program implementation in coordination with the

Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee will regularly hold consultations with
local communities and project beneficiaries to provide feedback and recommendations to
DA.

DA shall establish mechanism for transparent reporting of the performance of the project
including the utilization of the funds. It will also formulate a manual of operations for a
systematic implementation of the program.
 References

1. Asia-Japan Partnership Network for Sustainable Agriculture (2005). Regional

Resources Development Plan: Enhancing Capacities for Sustainable Agriculture
towards Poverty Reduction.
2. AJPN (2005). Narrative reports: Enhancing Capacities for Sustainable
Agriculture Towards Poverty Reduction. April 2004- March 2005; July 1-
Sept.30, 2005; Oct. 1-Dec.31, 2005.
3. AJPN SA Grassroots Action Issue No. 19, August 22, 2005.
4. ANGOC (2005). Policy Paper on Sustainable Agriculture. Unpublished report.
5. Lucas, F. and Teresa Debuque (2005). Philippine National Agriculture
Situationer. AJPN unpublished material.
6. “Ends without means”, The Economist, September 9, 2004.
7. FAO, IFAD, WFP (2005).High-level Dialogue on Financing for Development:
Meeting the Millennium Development Goals. New York.
8. Human Development Report 2005. International cooperation at a crossroads: Aid,
trade and security in an unequal world. UNDP 2005.
9. IFAD, 2001. Rural Poverty Report 2001: The Challenge of Ending Rural Poverty.
IFAD: Rome, Italy.
10. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (2006). Definition of
Organic Agriculture. URL:
http://www.ifoam.org/about_ifoam/principles/index.html.
11. Republic Act No. 8435 - Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997.
URL: http://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/legislation/AFMA/AFMA.pdf.
12. Statement from 59th Session High-Level Dialogue on Financing for Development:
Financing for Food Security, Agriculture and Rural Development by FAO, IFAD
and WFP; New York, June 2005
13. “Sustainable Farm Practices Improve Third World Food Production,” posted on
January 24, 2006; URL:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060123163315.htm
14. UN Millennium Declaration.
15. World Bank (2005). Philippine Country Brief; URL:
http://www.worldbank.org.ph/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIA
PACIFICEXT/PHILIPPINESEXTN/0,,contentMDK:20203978~pagePK:1497618
~piPK:217854~theSitePK:332982,00.html