FINAL

IN SEARCH FOR A SUSTAINABLE FRAMEWORK FOR FOOD SECURITY AND LIVELIHOODS OF THE RURAL POOR i
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 adopts FAOs 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 healthy life. 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
Food Security, Livelihoods and the Rural Poor/ ANGOC Page 1

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 worlds agricultural area and 15% of the worlds remaining forests. Three-fourths of the worlds farming households live here, 80% of whom are smallscale 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 worlds 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 poorest households 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 key factors 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. FAOs 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.
Food Security, Livelihoods and the Rural Poor/ ANGOC Page 2

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 economic opportunities and quality education and skills, and other benefits social and political disparities fail to bring them. Unsustainable food production systems. Many of the worlds 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 global developments. 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 poors 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
Food Security, Livelihoods and the Rural Poor/ ANGOC Page 3

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 Peoples 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 enables them 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 rural communities should undergo to achieve sustainability with respect to food security, agricultural productivity up to industry enterprises.

Food Security, Livelihoods and the Rural Poor/ ANGOC

Page 4

FINAL

Figure 1: Stages of Development for Rural Communities

SURVIVAL

PRODUCTIVITY

GROWTH

INDUSTRYORIENTED ENTERPRISE

MICROENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND CROP DIVERSIFICATION AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY LAND TENURE IMPROVEMENT AR ADVOCACY & MOBILIZATION

INDUSTRY FOCUSED APPROACH

SITE FOCUSED APPROACH

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
Food Security, Livelihoods and the Rural Poor/ ANGOC Page 5

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 and consumption cycles are local and closed, and where we emphasize much more an ecoregional 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 worlds population and consumes 40% of the worlds 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 Asias 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 Indigenous Knowledge 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 those who 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
Food Security, Livelihoods and the Rural Poor/ ANGOC Page 6

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 sustainable agriculture. 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 Peoples 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. ANGOCs 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 to enhance 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
Food Security, Livelihoods and the Rural Poor/ ANGOC Page 7

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 may have 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 support to 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.

Food Security, Livelihoods and the Rural Poor/ ANGOC

Page 8

FINAL

Figure 2. PRIME Value Chain Framework

Value Chain=Operational Framework

NGAs, LGUs, Academe, NGOs, Donors, Private Sector
Policy support; Information; Technology; Communication

Industry Association

Sells

CONSUMERS

FIs/CPs
Financing for trading, equipment, working capital Trades

DISTRIBUTORS

BDS (NGOs)
Capacity bldg for technology, organizational & enterprise devt

LMCs
Trades

RECs
Trades

Farmers

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 industryoriented 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
Food Security, Livelihoods and the Rural Poor/ ANGOC Page 9

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 to improve 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 MEs 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 PRIMEs 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 womens 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/swine fattening, 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 PRIMEs 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
Food Security, Livelihoods and the Rural Poor/ ANGOC Page 10

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 and Regulations (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
Food Security, Livelihoods and the Rural Poor/ ANGOC Page 11

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 export excess 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. Another example 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 What can I sell? How much can I make? How to produce it cheaply? Market development promoting Community-Centered What do people need? How much will people benefit? How can production involve the community and sustain the habitat? Community Development:
Page 12

Food Security, Livelihoods and the Rural Poor/ ANGOC

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 some excess 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 communitys 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 and storage 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
Food Security, Livelihoods and the Rural Poor/ ANGOC Page 13

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 poors 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 the commercialization 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 and CSOs 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: angoc@angoc.org; URL: www.angoc.org

Food Security, Livelihoods and the Rural Poor/ ANGOC

Page 14

FINAL

ENDNOTES
i

Written by Fr. Francis Lucas, Dean Roel R. Ravanera, Casandra Hilary B. Emata and Maricel AlmojuelaTolentino for the Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Development (ANGOC), 2011. Fr. Lucas is the outgoing 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.
ii

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2002.

iii

IDS 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.
vi

ETCGroup, GRAIN, ITDG, 2002. FAO

vii

viii

ANGOC Board member and former executive director Antonio Quizon drafted the PPSE framework to illustrate the necessary stages for development of rural communities.
ix

Prof. Miguel Altieri of the Department of Agroecology at the University of California, Berkeley. ETC Group, Who will feed us?

xi

Sustainable 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.
xii

PDAP Paper for the Roundtable Discussion: Imperatives on Agriculture and Food Security for the New Administration, 4 July 2011, Quezon City, Philippines
xiii

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

xiv

Fr. Francis is a former Technical Working Group member in the formulation of the law and currently the CoChair of the Committee in charge of developing the Road Map of the new Organic Act of the Philippines.

Food Security, Livelihoods and the Rural Poor/ ANGOC

Page 15