securing the food needs of the rural poor-angoc2011 repaired)

8/3/2019 Securing the Food Needs of the Rural Poor-ANGOC2011 Repaired)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/securing-the-food-needs-of-the-rural-poor-angoc2011-repaired 1/15

FINAL

Food Security, Livelihoods and the Rural Poor/ ANGOC

IN SEARCH FOR A SUSTAINABLE FRAMEWORK FOR FOOD SECURITY

AND LIVELIHOODS OF THE RURAL POORi

Presented by Fr. Francis Lucas, ANGOC Chairperson

at the International Conference on Agriculture and Food Security (ICAFS), Singapore, August 10-12, 2011

After the food crisis of 2008, governments and intergovernmental organizations have

prioritized food security as a development agenda. And as may be expected, food investments

have increased, foreign direct investments in agriculture and trade agreements intensified and

development assistance is shifting back to agriculture. But how are these truly affecting and

improving food security and livelihoods for the rural poor in Asia?

To support developments, community perspectives need to be articulated to ensure that

policies and programs benefit those who are most food insecure. Some programs, while

having the best intentions, may end up transferring the problem to those who are less

fortunate. Foreign direct investments in agriculture by food importing countries, for example,

while encouraged by governments of many developing countries have been reported to

displace local farmers creating social unrest and increasing the poor and hungry population.

This paper intends to provide a perspective on how food security and livelihoods of the

rural poor in Asia can be strengthened and sustained through enhancing Agroecology and

maximizing the Value Chain. It generally outlines successful community initiatives to

increase food security and reduce poverty following the framework of sustainable agriculture

and people-centered value chain approach. It also puts forward recommendations at the

international and country levels to fill gaps and inadequacies in addressing food security and

poverty especially among the rural poor.

The paper used data published by government agencies and intergovernmental

organizations including the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD),food

agencies of the UN system and the World Bank. In reflecting the views of the local

communities, the authors referred to various documents and experiences of farmer

organizations, cooperatives, NGO advocates in practicing sustainable agriculture and using

the value chain approach for market integration.

The paper ado pts FAO‟s definition of food security, that is: “food security exists when all

people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and

nutritious food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthylife.” When applied, this targets food security from macro level down to the household level,

with individual family members as the main concern. ii

A concept paper on sustainable livelihoods by the Institute of Development Studies (IDS)

in 1991 emphasized Capabilities of communities and individuals, Equity over resources and

Sustainability as key ingredients for achieving Sustainable Livelihoods. It explains the

integration as follows:

Capabilities, equity, and sustainability combine in the concept of sustainable

livelihoods…. Capabilities are both an end and means of livelihood: a livelihood

provides the support for the enhancement and exercise of capabilities (an end); and

capabilities (a means) enable a livelihood to be gained. Equity is both an end and a



FINAL


means: any minimum definition of equity must include adequate and decent

livelihoods for all (an end); and equity in assets and access are preconditions (means)

for gaining adequate and decent livelihoods. Sustainability, too, is both end and

means: sustainable stewardship of resources is a value (or end) in itself; and it provides conditions (a means) for livelihoods to be sustained for future generations.

iii

FAO has noted that the battle to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),

especially Goal 1 on poverty and hunger reduction, would be won or lost in the rural areas of

developing countries. FAO argues 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. iv

Context and Barriers to Food Security and Sustainable Livelihoods for the Rural Poor

Asia is rich with 34% of the world‟s agricultural area and 15% of the world‟s remaining

forests. Three-fourths of the world‟s farming households live here, 80% of whom are small-

scale farmers and producers (World Bank, 2008). But majority of these small food producers

live on less than $1.25 per day. In fact, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reports

that of the 925 million hungry in 2010, 578 million are found in Asia.

The IFAD attests that 70% of the world‟s very poor people are rural. They are chronically

poor due to lack of assets, limited economic opportunities, poor education and skills, and

socio-political inequities (by gender, age or indigenous roots).

Livelihoods in rural areas are mostly derived from smallholder farming, including

agricultural labor, livestock production, artisanal fisheries. It is usually the pooresthouseholds who depend on farming and agricultural labor. Many farming households tend to

diversify their livelihoods since income is seasonal from one type of crop alone. Usually, this

involves a mixture of on-farm and off-farm activities by various family members. Thus, there

is higher pressure to make a dynamic agriculture sector which can play a major role in

reducing poverty and hunger.

The food and price crises brought back global attention to agriculture and the serious

effects of its decline especially on hunger and poverty in the region. These problems also

unmasked the uncertainty of our food supply and the volatility of food prices globally. Three

years after, food prices have come down but are still higher than pre-2008 levels. Several keyfactors emerged that heavily influence food security and poverty reduction particularly for the

rural poor and impede on achieving the three features of sustainable livelihoods, which are

capabilities, equity, and sustainability:

High vulnerability of the rural poor. FAO‟s State of Food Insecurity 2010 noted the

insufficient resilience to economic shocks of poor countries and vulnerable households. Such

shocks could be death or illness in the family, calamities or even price increase of basic

goods or inputs. To cope with crisis, rural households tend to sell assets that are difficult to

recover (such as land and livestock), reduce food intake in quantity or quality, or cut down on

health and education expenses. As a result, they suffer long-term negative effects on the

quality of life and livelihoods making them fall deeper into poverty. These risks need to be

managed or minimized for poor rural households.



FINAL


The rural poor, across regions in the world, generally have “insufficient access to or

ownership of assets and resources, especially land and water, lacking access to financial

services, education opportunities, advisory services, infrastructure, and well-functioning

markets” (IFAD, 2010). They are in shortage of such possessions, limited of economicopportunities and quality education and skills, and other benefits social and political

disparities fail to bring them.

Unsustainable food production systems. Many of the world‟s food production systems

today are costly, degrade the environment, destroy biodiversity and compromise future yield

with the dependence on chemical techno-fixes propagated by the Green Revolution.

Unsustainable methods of agriculture have caused soil erosion, loss of soil fertility,

excessive water extraction from irrigation, to name a few.v Around 75% of biodiversity in

agriculture was lost in the last 50 years.vi Up to 90% of crop varieties have disappeared from

farmers‟ fields.vii Half of the breeds of domestic animals are lost; fishing grounds, overfished.

Although the practice of sustainable agriculture persists through the valiant efforts of

smallholder farmers, critical mass and a supportive policy and technical environment is still

urgently needed to reverse or mitigate the effects of climate change and to sufficiently feed

the burgeoning global population.

Limited resources, Limitless demand. Land, water, energy --- these are but the most

critical elements for life on this planet to survive and yet, are becoming scarcer with the

growing population and their competing use. Urbanization and commercial agriculture are

eating away farmlands. Deforestation and mining are destroying watersheds, biodiversity and

indigenous cultures.

Among the vulnerable sectors, the rural poor face daunting challenges with current globaldevelopments. The stability in their food production and consumption is being threatened by

the increasing competition for land due to agricultural investments and urbanization. As

modern and plantation agriculture expands, they are losing access to these lands. IFAD

estimates that around 15-20 million hectares of land are under negotiation for acquisition or

leasing by foreign investors (IFAD Rural Poverty Report, 2011). While the government may

have the right intention of encouraging agricultural investments, it should include in their

economic equation, the food security of the rural poor.

On the other hand, demand for water used for agriculture could rise by over 30% by 2030.

Agriculture currently consumes 70% of water withdrawals from rivers and aquifers(Foresight, 2011).

Climate Change. The changing climate pattern will also have tremendous impact on the

rural poor‟s food security. Desertification, salinization and sea level rise will further diminish

arable land. As agriculture is very specific to location and sensitive to weather, the types of

crops and their productivity will be greatly affected. In turn, this will affect food intake as

there will be changes in taste, nutrient content and social acceptability. Biofuel requirements

for climate change mitigation will also reduce lands for growing food crops.

Rural undernourishment. In the Philippines, the study of Pedro et al by the Xavier

University College of Agriculture (XUCA) shows that, in general, the rural population is

eating less than those living in the urban areas. Within the food groups, however, people in



FINAL


the rural areas eat more cereals, starchy tubers and vegetables. What needs to be augmented

are milk and milk products, poultry and eggs, fish and meat, and surprisingly, fruits.

The bigger percentage intake of carbohydrates and starchy foods is related to the

availability and affordability of these food products in the rural areas. With access to land,availability of labor and traditional technologies, a big percentage of their food needs are met.

The low consumption of fruits may be linked to land tenure. As they do not have effective

control on the land over a long period of time, they do not invest in planting fruit crops that

mature after a number of years.

The greater challenge, however, is in meeting their requirements in the other food groups.

Normally, these foods are not available in the area as they live in remote areas far away from

the market. In cases where these foods are available, they are beyond their financial

capability. They have very limited cash income and have other priorities.

Can the rural poor achieve food security and sustainable livelihoods from agriculture?

The answer is YES, they can, with a more holistic framework to guide programs and

interventions. Sustainability should not only target better food security and livelihoods for

increased incomes but the sustainability of resources and the quality of life. The lives of

future generations depend on a sustainable framework now.

In 1996, ANGOC organized a Forum on “Food and Freedom, Jobs and Justice, Land and

Labor, Peace and Prosperity” among Asian NGOs and People‟s Movements.

The participants put forward an Alternative People-Centered Sustainable Development

paradigm that restores the environment and the rights of communities to their resources and

livelihood, enhances the capacities, participation in governance of the rural poor, and enablesthem to be self-sufficient in their basic needs.

Five elements of this framework for sustainable development articulated in the meeting

were: 1) Stewardship through community-based natural resource management; 2) Ecological

and Food Security through the promotion of sustainable agriculture; 3) Equity through the

promotion of community social enterprises; 4) Spirituality as the basis of the Asian

community; and, 5) Decentralization and Democratization as the guiding principles towards

redefining political accountability and security.

Ten years later, ANGOCviii and its partners in the advocacy for people-centered,

sustainable rural development fortified a framework illustrating the necessary steps that ruralcommunities should undergo to achieve sustainability with respect to food security,

agricultural productivity up to industry enterprises.



FINAL


Figure 1: Stages of Development for Rural Communities

SURVIVAL PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH

INDUSTRY-

ORIENTED

ENTERPRISE

MICRO-

ENTERPRISE

DEVELOPMENT

SUSTAINABLE

AGRICULTURE

AND CROP

DIVERSIFICATION

AGRICULTURAL

PRODUCTIVITY

LAND TENURE

IMPROVEMENT

AR ADVOCACY

& MOBILIZATION

Emphasized for this discussion are the elements of ecological and food Security through

SA/Agroecology, equity of resources and building capacities of the rural poor for sustainable

livelihoods.

A. Agroecology for Food Security and Sustainable Livelihoods. Agroecology allows

us to study systems in a holistic way – that is, trying to understand agriculture as the result of

the interaction between humans and nature and also to design sustainable systems that are

socially just, economically viable, environmentally safe, and culturally diverse. ix

An agroecological system basically provides food security and emphasizes biodiversity.

It will conserve the natural resource base made up of water, soils and biodiversity, and at the

same time would entail economically-viable activity because of the diversity of animals,

plants and microorganisms and crops involved – much different from the conventional

agricultural systems of today. Thirdly, we emphasize small-scale and medium-sized farms

instead of large-scale farms. Community-based and family-based agricultural systems will be

more prominent and a closer link between rural and urban populations is envisioned – that is,

consumers and producers are much more linked.

Within this framework, and based on grassroots, small farm holders‟ experience,

sustainable agriculture avoids utilization of external inputs not produced locally or within the

SITE FOCUSED APPROACH

INDUSTRY

FOCUSED



FINAL


reach of the farming community in the long run. Self sufficiency within the existing

community and biodiversity is a primary consideration.

The vision above fundamentally means that the mainstream globalized model of

development has to be reversed into a more local system where the production andconsumption cycles are local and closed, and where we emphasize much more an eco-

regional approach of development, linking producers directly to consumers. Above all,

people, especially people in the North, need to have a total shift in our way of living. For

example, the United States of America has only 8% of the world‟s population and consumes

40% of the world‟s resources.

Sustainable Agriculture as basis for agricultural systems. Organic and

agroecological agriculture is part of the larger approach of sustainable agriculture (SA), the

more fundamental framework which is essentially principle- and value-laden. Today it is

inaccurately branded as an alternative agricultural method perhaps only to differentiate it

from the “conventional”, high-yielding agricultural practices propagated by the Green

Revolution. Yet, it has been embedded in Asia‟s long tradition of food self -sufficiency and

community survival. Sustainable Agriculture is one of the most effective programs for Food

Security especially for the underdeveloped rural and agricultural countries.

Because of the negative effects of the Green Revolution, despite the unsustainable

increase in food production in the „70s, a movement to revive the traditional methods and

forms of agriculture to what is more rooted to its cultural and spiritual origin in the region has

emerged. Sustainable agriculture practices of farmer technicians, methods on Integrated Pest

Management (IPM) and Ecological Pest Management (EPM) and diversified and integrated

farming systems have been documented. Tribal communities are promoting their IndigenousKnowledge Systems (IKS) as well.

B. Tenure Security – critical for Sustainable Agriculture, Food Security and Poverty

Reduction. The ability of small farmers to make their land productive has been noticed by no

less than the World Bank, which declared in its 2008 World Development Report that “The

record on the superiority of smallholder farming as a form of organization is striking.” The

Report further noted that small farmers “use their resources more efficiently than larger

farmers.” The FAO report on the State of Food Insecurity in 2002 also emphasized that

farmers who owned their lands tend to invest more on making them productive than thosewho still leased land or work as farm labourers. Furthermore, small farm owners have more

freedom to decide how to diversify their farm activities according to their needs, which helps

achieve household food security. Farmers who practice sustainable agriculture are usually

those who have no tenure issues and can choose their preferred farming approach freely.

C. Finding more proactive alternatives for food security and poverty reduction.

Communities of small food producers have partnered with civil society organizations (CSOs)

for half a century to defend and promote the practice of sustainable agriculture that conserve

and improve the environment. SA protects the seeds, the genetic resources that could feed the

planet, in a sustainable, equitable, ecological and healthy manner. The UN official statistics



FINAL


estimate around 1.5 billion smallholder families that practice traditional and ecological forms

of agriculture, pastoralism and fisheries for a living.x

Studies attest that growth in agriculture can still generate the best improvements for the

poorest people (IFAD Rural Development Report, 2011), especially through sustainableagriculture. SA promotes diversified livelihoods, like crop and farm diversification, to

address seasonal harvests, nutritional deficiencies and environmental conservation. SA is

labor intensive, which promotes agricultural employment or family/community integration.

There is also a need to balance on- and off-farm activities to reduce risks of rural households

that can keep them in the cycle of poverty.

Linking SA to the Market through the Value Chain. For the past decade, ANGOC

has been involved with two programs that worked on strengthening the link of sustainable

agriculture practitioners with the market due to growing opportunities for better income and

to promote healthier, more nutritious food to a wider public. The two programs applied a

framework that followed the processes in the Value Chain for agriculture.

1. Enhancing Capacities for Sustainable Agriculture Towards Poverty Reduction xi

This partnership project of ANGOC with UNDP and other NGOs and People‟s Groups

aimed to contribute to the goal of poverty reduction in Asia by enabling rural communities in

India, Indonesia, and the Philippines to use sustainable farming technologies. ANGOC‟s

members have been actively promoting sustainable agriculture among Asian rural

communities in the past 10 to 15 years. The project sites decided on which stage in the

commodity chain to focus on based on resource assessments, vulnerability factors and

strategies to achieve their objectives.India tried to improve diversification through crop and livestock production with training,

exposure programs, and the establishment of demo farms for pigeon pea, tomato, rice and

wheat. While access to land was not a problem in the Indian sites, these were constrained by

the low supply of irrigation water, high input costs and the farmers‟ lack of skills.

In Indonesia, most of the farmers had lands albeit very small. Thus, they also needed to

diversify their income sources and find value-added to their agricultural products (i.e., rice,

corn, lima beans, cassava, zallaca fruit). Food processing and cottage industry development

were selected strategies to augment their income.

In the Philippines, interventions focused on marketing and industry development toenhance the producer groups‟ competitiveness in the market for organic rice and muscovado

sugar. Interventions were related to product consolidation, quality control, standards

development, and market linkaging.

The project demonstrated the potential of SA for raising farm productivity while keeping

inputs to a minimum. Although labor costs increased due to the labor intensiveness of an

organic farm, jobs were created for unemployed rural workers. With premium prices

commanded from natural or organic products, this significantly improved the farmers‟

incomes. The corn farmers of Jogjakarta, Indonesia saw a 32% increase in corn production.

The pigeon pea and tomato harvests of Khamkalan farmers from India shot up to 58% and

35% more, respectively. The muscovado sugar farmers from the Philippines yielded a net



FINAL


return on investment of 15.41% after they upgraded product quality and established better

market linkages.

But the best capability perhaps instilled in the food producers was that they were able to

make their own decisions on how to manage their farm. While conventional agriculture mayhave raised their yield to impressive levels, but it would have prescribed which varieties to

grow, what fertilizers and pesticides to use, ultimately stripping them of their right to choose.

On the other hand, since sustainable agriculture is knowledge intensive, investments are

required to train extension workers, incorporate SA in academic curricula and allocating

budget for SA researches.

The Project was also able to strengthen local development planning through the

formulation of Master Plans for organic products that have significant potential in local and

export markets. Under these plans, the LGU could facilitate the consolidation of organic

products from small farmers by setting up a common framework and program for

participation of various stakeholders in the area. Business plans could also be developed from

these Master Plans.

2. Promoting Rural Industries and Market Enhancement (PRIME)xii

In 2005, the Philippine Development Assistance Programme, Inc. (PDAP) xiii, a

consortium of rural development NGOs based in the Philippines with the Canadian

International Development Agency (CIDA) embarked on a six-year program called PRIME

with financial contribution of CDN$ 4.8 million. ANGOC is a founding member of PDAP .

PRIME has four major components/target outcomes, namely micro-enterprise

development, enhancing participation in the market, program and policy analyses in supportto rural micro-enterprises/industries, and strengthened institutional capacity of PDAP. These

four components were envisioned to achieve the three interrelated program goals of enhanced

food security, increased income, and jobs creation towards poverty reduction. Result specific

for food security is expected to be addressed by one major target outcome, that is, increased

household income.

Of the 42 MEs under PRIME, 26 MEs are devoted to organic rice, 13 to muscovado, and

3 to seaweeds. PRIME areas are national in scope. The geographical concentration is in

Mindanao with 29 MEs; there are 9 in Visayas and 4 in Luzon.



FINAL


Figure 2. PRIME Value Chain Framework

RECs

LMCs

DISTRIBUTORS

BDS (NGOs) Capacity bldg fortechnology,organizational &enterprise devt

FIs/CPs Financing fortrading, equipment,

working capital

CONSUMERS

NGAs, LGUs, Academe,

NGOs, Donors, Private Sector Policy support; Information;Technology; Communication

Value Chain=Operational Framework

Farmers

Industry Association

Trades

Trades

Trades

Sells

To enhance farmer participation in the market, PRIME adopted the rural industry

development (RID) approach as its core strategy to support MEs in poor rural communities

that are engaged in organic and natural commodities. RID looked into the entire chain of the

three (3) commodities from production, processing and distribution. It facilitates the effective

participation of farmers and rural producers in the market through organizational capacity

building of rural enterprising communities (RECs).The RECs are communities who have gone up from survival and productivity stage to

communities that have exhibited growth through micro enterprise development and industry-

oriented enterprise. RECs have secured their production assets and increased productivity

with some surplus, and have organized themselves into small microenterprises. Furthermore,

they now have substantial production volume, were linked to the value chain and

demonstrated a certain level of expertise in technical and marketing aspects. RECs, while still

in incipient and formative stages, have some capacities to engage the market. However, these

RECs or their respective MEs have limited growth prospects due to financing constraints

which PRIME also sought to address.The value chain approach in Figure 2 aptly reflected the interventions of PRIME along

the value chain of the priority industries. At one end of the value chain were individual

farmers belonging to RECs who produced the commodity and did primary value-adding

activities, such as milling and processing. The produce were then aggregated at the Local

Market Consolidation (LMC) level for common marketing, and added leverage in dealing

with the distributors at the other end of the chain. The distributors took care of product

availability to the institutional markets and the ultimate consumers.

In partnership with important players (e.g., financing institutions, NGOs, business

development service providers, marketing groups, private businesses), PDAP played a vital

role in developing three organic and natural commodities. PRIME provided RECs with the

necessary financing, technology, entrepreneurial capability and other capacity development



FINAL


interventions so that they can actively participate in the dynamic and fast-growing organic

and natural products market.

PRIME also worked with national government agencies and local government units

including the academe, NGOs, multilateral and bilateral agencies and the private sector toimprove public policy and influence the development of programs and allocation of resources

that support rural industry development towards poverty reduction. The PRIME itself led to

the creation of local clusters, value chains and industry associations on organic rice and

muscovado and the incorporation of the Global Organic and Wellness Corporation

(GlowCorp), a business corporation composed of PRIME MEs and LMCs geared towards

institutional and export markets.

Main Results of PRIME

Sustained jobs, households served. PRIME interventions resulted in additional and or/

sustained jobs. In 2009, the Sultan Kudarat cooperative generated jobs with 5 permanent

office employees, 30 warehouse employees, 900 mill and farm workers (including 100

migrants). As of September 2010, PRIME microenterprises now serve 5,138 rural households

or 30,828 Filipinos. As members of MEs, farmers also benefited from the ME‟s profitability

by way of interest on capital and patronage refunds and dividends.

Increased income, diversified sources, enhanced food security. Increased income can be

attributed to PRIME‟s choice of commodity that had the potential to increase yield and

generate profit. Organic and natural products command premium price in the market. PRIME

package of services from production to marketing ensured that small farmers and rural

enterprises also benefit together with other players along the value chain. Diversified income sources through livelihoods from the MEs enabled farmer members to

augment their primary incomes. It came through the form of indirect support or provision of

start-up capital for selected enterprises as part of a training package. PRIME support

particularly for women‟s enterprises covered production of mushrooms, rice cookies and

sugarcane-based processed products in Luzon; processing of sugarcane-based products in the

Visayas as well as of the by-products of the three priority commodities in Mindanao.

The program delivers resources to the ME members and their households using the

organization as conduit. The program is designed to extend agricultural production loans to

the member of the partner organization. Examples of livelihoods are hog raising/swinefattening, goat and poultry raising, rice duck production, mushroom production, sari sari

store, carinderia, meat shop, vegetable and fish vending, bandi (confectionnaires) processing,

milk processing, and rice and sugar retailing.

Facilitation of market linkages. Through PRIME‟s Local Market Consolidators (LMCs)

scheme that facilitated market linkages, pricing of the products of the partner MEs became

more competitive (i.e. favourable to the farmer members, the MEs, LMCs and distributors).

LMCs and distributors were able to expand market outlets from local (within the community,

province) to inter/regional and national markets. PRIME also facilitated their participation in

trade fairs.

Policy support and advocacy. A landmark outcome of PRIME was the enactment in 2010

of the Organic Agriculture Act or Republic Act 10068. PDAP was the leading NGO advocate



FINAL


that represented its partners and beneficiaries in the deliberation of the bill in both Houses of

Congress. PDAP sat as the NGO representative in the National Organic Agriculture Board

(NOAB).xiv PDAP and another PRIME partner, the Organic Certification Center of the

Philippines, were again at the forefront in the formulation of the Implementing Rules andRegulations (IRR) of the Organic Agriculture Act. The law provided the institutional

framework for the growth of organic agriculture in the Philippines.

Other PRIME achievements in policy advocacy include the development of quality

standards for organic products; implementation of local programs as a result of the

development of industry profiles and commodity master plans; promotion of one town, one

product (OTOP), formation of clusters, value chains, and industry associations; and

leveraging technical and financial support from other stakeholders.

The PRIME model using the value chain approach can be part of the solution to enhance

food security and can be replicated in other development programs. It can aptly complement

approaches used in other development projects being implemented through the partnership of

government and the private sector. A multi-stakeholder approach composed of government,

non-government organizations and civil society organizations, private sector, and donors is

therefore necessary to reach target populations and to address not just food access but other

dimensions of food security such as availability, utilization and stability.

Insights from the Projects

The path out of poverty in the rural areas is by no means easy or brief. There are still

challenges to be overcome to sustain the target of an average 15% increase in income. Some

of these key challenges are posed by conditions in the larger economic and political setting,chief of which are the price movements in the world market of the three commodities and rice

importations.

1. Land Tenure Security: An important first step to food self-sufficiency. It is critical

to note that the successful community efforts presented above confirmed the need to secure

their access and control of their resources first before attaining the higher goals of household

food security, excess production and industry focus. The two projects purposively selected

food producers who have tenurial security over their land. With this critical stage already

resolved, the farmers were more focused on food security and productivity issues. They were

also free to decide on the use and management of their resources.2. Exercising greater control on food. The underlying assumption here is that food is

more secure when produced in the backyard or the community. There is less risk of going

hungry even if shocks (i.e., natural, health, etc.) move the rural households in and out of

poverty. Moreover, locally produced food is of better quality and priced cheaper. Food

nutrients are conserved and no preservatives are added. Handling costs are also minimal.

Though there are a number of countries who have relied on the market to augment their

food supply, most of them depend mainly on domestic production. The volume of rice traded

in the world market, for example, is less than 5% of the total production.

In the Philippines, the inadequacy of rice supply has been addressed in the last three

decades by rice importation. On the average, rice imports are usually less than 1 million



FINAL


metric tons. However, it broke the record in 1998 when it imported 2.1 million metric tons

valued at US$ 585.84 million.

The current Department of Agriculture, however, has crafted a rice self-sufficiency plan

in three years. They have committed to satisfy the local demand for rice and even exportexcess supply. Though others may take this with a grain of salt considering that we have been

importing rice in the last three, this objective is worthwhile supporting as this is consistent

with the agenda of having greater control over our food.

3. Facilitate access of the rural poor to the market. Filipino farmers of muscovado

sugar showed that upgrading product quality and establishing better market linkages have a

positive effect on price, which later yielded a net return of 15.41%.

It is also necessary to invest in enhancing the farmers‟ capacities for product

processing and promotion or at least the organizational mechanisms that are tasked to assist

them. Finding the value-added of specific products is not easy and requires appropriate

marketing linkages and strategies.

Furthermore, organizing the suppliers (millers/traders/farmers) and linking them with

reliable buyers/consolidators of SA-grown products can stimulate demand for the product, as

in the case of muscovado sugar.

4. Securing the food and nutrition needs of the rural poor through diversification. In

enhancing the food security of the rural poor, a big bulk of the challenge is assisting rural

communities meet these requirements by producing them locally. This can be done by

producing substitute products, fortifying existing foods or introducing new commodities. An

example of this initiative is the promotion of native chicken through stock development,

improved cultural management, feed formulation and postharvest management. Anotherexample is the introduction of a legume that has high in protein content. It may not totally

substitute meat and meat products but at least reduced the level of protein deficiency. The

introduction of a new commodity or new variety may, however, require training and technical

assistance.

5. Lack of a marketing system tailored to support SA products.Both projects had to

deal with a marketing system that still caters to the needs of conventionally-grown

agricultural products. A new system which considers the unique processing, storage and even

packaging needs of organic producers must be established.

Finally, we need to shift our focus once again to making the community the center of

attention and development. The following table shows us a comparison of what to assess in

making decisions for community-enterprise development:

Capital Centered Community-Centered

What can I sell?

How much can I make?

How to produce it cheaply?

Market development – promoting

What do people need?

How much will people benefit?

How can production involve the

community and sustain the habitat?

Community Development:



FINAL


consumer cultures

Individualism

Profit and wealth accumulation

responsibility of stewardship

Community well-being

Resource sharing quality of life

Recommendations

Given the fragile food sub-system of the rural poor, it is recommended that their control

over productive resources to produce their own food be strengthened, their local food

production be enhanced and their link to the market be facilitated, prioritizing the local

market easily accessible and familiar to the small food producers.

1. Strengthening access to land of small food producers. The rural poor should be given full

control (i.e., tenure, use and management) of a parcel of land enough for them to produce

their own food. It could be in their individual backyards or in communal lands allotted for

these purposes. This will allow them greater control of their food supply producing someexcess to exchange with their other food needs. If possible, tenure should be extended over a

long period of time for them to invest in perennial crops such as fruits. Further conversion of

prime agricultural land to non-agricultural land should be stopped. By doing this, the food

security of the rural poor will be greatly stabilized without too much external interventions.

This will not allow them to meet all their food requirements but will certainly prevent

massive hunger.

2. Reducing risks from unexpected shocks. Illness, death, education, natural disasters ---

these are among the most common risks of a rural poor household that can keep them

destitute. We need to pay greater attention to these and to territorial characteristics that can

either keep or deliver rural families from poverty.

3. Enhancing local food industries. At the community level, local institutions led by local

governments can provide support facilities like seed banks, processing plants and distribution

channels. This will increase their productivity and participation in the local market.

Linking local food production directly to the local market through a value chain will

generate local employment thereby maximizing labor. Hopefully, it will boost the local

economy as well as improve the local community‟s health and food security particularly

those of the rural poor.

Key interventions in the establishment of these food chains are the organization of the

rural poor into commodity clusters to attain marketable volume, provision of postharvest andstorage facilities and enhancement of their entrepreneurial capacities.

4. Facing global challenges. The increasing competition for agricultural land and climate

change are the two most daunting global developments that may have serious impacts on the

food security of the rural poor. While investments in agriculture are certainly welcome and

the gradual urbanization of rural areas will surely occur, food security and equity of the rural

poor should be factored in the economic equation.

In the expansion of agricultural production particularly large-scale plantations,

displacement of the rural poor has become a common phenomenon. Given the uncertainty of

the world market after the recent food and financial crises, some food importing countries are

reviewing their food policies. A number of Middle East countries that rely heavily on the



FINAL


market for their food supply having inadequate agricultural lands have started producing their

own albeit in other nearby countries. More innovative social and institutional arrangements

that will be beneficial to all are needed. The articulation of the status and needs of the rural

poor, therefore, is essential.The impact of climate change may be more difficult to anticipate and adapt. Review

and formulation of updated comprehensive land use plan is therefore important. Community

preparedness is also necessary. In predisposed areas, community food stock may also be

established.

Looking forward

Given the volatility of the rural poor‟s food security and the seriousness of the global threats,

it is also recommended that pilot areas in the regions with high incidences of food insecurity

be implemented.

With the food crisis, the issue of food security is again on top of international and

national agenda. Several international platforms are opening up discussions to avert another

crisis from happening and for a more sustainable solution to the perennial problem of hunger

and poverty.

The Committee on World Food Security is undergoing a reform process wherein a

parallel Civil Society mechanism is also being set up. A Global Strategic Framework for

Food Security is being developed to be subjected to consultations with governments, civil

society and social movements. This Framework can only be effective if it will be a BINDING

agreement signed by governments for implementation at the national level. It is hoped that

governments will support and defend the Global Strategic Framework, and more importantly,

that they enforce sustainable practices for food production and not further thecommercialization of agriculture. However, aside from the CFS reform, it is also vital that

reform happens within the UN system for food and agriculture.

We at ANGOC are one with many CSOs in calling for tighter coherence of the activities

for food and agriculture of the UN and other international institutions such as the FAO, WFP,

IFAD, GFAR and the CGIAR. More importantly, reforms and actions should cascade to the

regional and national level. In this context, that the ANGOC network will continue to engage

APAARI in constructive policy dialogues as well as explore other modalities of working

together. We also call on national governments to coordinate and harmonize activities for

achieving food security and recognize and support the efforts of small food producers andCSOs in sustainable agriculture for the sake of generations to come.

The Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ANGOC) is a regional NGO association of 16 national

and regional NGO networks from 12 Asian countries actively engaged in food security, agrarian reform, sustainable

agriculture and rural development activities. ANGOC was founded in Bangkok in February 1979, leading to the World

Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (WCARRD, Rome, 1979). ANGOC is one of the earliest and

staunchest advocates of a more environmentally sustainable agriculture system.

73-K Dr. Lazcano St. Barangay Laging Handa, Quezon City 1101, Philippines

Tel. (63-2)3510581, 3510011 (telefax); Email: [email protected]; URL: www.angoc.org

mailto:[email protected]






FINAL


ENDNOTES

iWritten by Fr. Francis Lucas, Dean Roel R. Ravanera, Casandra Hilary B. Emata and Maricel Almojuela-

Tolentino for the Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Development (ANGOC), 2011. Fr. Lucas is theoutgoing Chairperson of ANGOC and an SA practitioner and advocate. Dean Ravanera and Ms. Emata are the

Dean of College of Agriculture, Xavier University and Research Assistant of Xavier Science Foundation,

respectively. Ms. Tolentino is a Senior Program Officer of ANGOC for Access to Resources.

iiFood and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2002.

iiiIDS Discussion Paper 296, Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century, Robert

Chambers and Gordon R. Conway, December 1991.iv

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.

v Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming (2011) Executive Summary, The Government Office for Science,

London.

viETCGroup, GRAIN, ITDG, 2002.

viiFAO

viiiANGOC Board member and former executive director Antonio Quizon drafted the PPSE framework to

illustrate the necessary stages for development of rural communities.

ixProf. Miguel Altieri of the Department of Agroecology at the University of California, Berkeley.

x ETC Group, Who will feed us?

xiSustainable Agriculture as Strategy for Poverty Reduction in Asia: The AJPN Experience, Teresa L. Debuque

(ed), Asia-Japan Partnership Network for Poverty Reduction (AJPN)-ANGOC, 2005.

xiiPDAP Paper for the Roundtable Discussion: Imperatives on Agriculture and Food Security for the New

Administration, 4 July 2011, Quezon City, Philippines

xiiiEstablished in 1984, ANGOC is a founding member of PDAP.

xivFr. Francis is a former Technical Working Group member in the formulation of the law and currently the Co-

Chair of the Committee in charge of developing the Road Map of the new Organic Act of the Philippines.

securing the food needs of the rural poor-angoc2011 repaired)

Documents