1

Rapport Organic farming in the Philippines- Rice growers and researchers learning from each other in a unique plant breeding project to increase biological diversity and decrease vulnerability

2

1. Introduction 7

2. Shortcuts? 10

3. Rice cultivation based on diversity and ecosystem services in a rapidly changing climate

13

4. Researchers and farmers learn from each other 20

5. Conclusions 21

6. Recommendations 25

7. Sources and recommended reading 24

Text: Jakob Lundberg and Fredrik Moberg, AlbaecoProduction: AlbaecoGraphic design: Christine Clifstock, Clifstock FormProject director: Karin Höök, Swedish Society for Nature ConservationCover and photo work: Christine ClifstockCover picture: Achim Pohl (Shows the male parts being removed from the rice flower. Pollen from the variety to be crossed in is then applied by hand).

ISBN: 91 558 1671 1Item number: 9362

Produced with financial support from Sida. Sida did not participate in production of this report and takes no official position on the views presented.

Printing: Åtta.45, Solna 2011

1. Introduction

2. Shortcuts? 11

3. Rice farming based on diversity and ecosystem services in a

1

4. Researchers and farmers learn from each other 22

5. Conclusions 24

6. Recommendations 25

7. Sources and recommended reading 2

Contents

6

7

5n increasingly warm climate

4

5

Preface

A paradigm shift is needed in order for agriculture to deal with climate change and cope with the increasing demand for food production without generating serious environmental side-effects. The activities of the organisation MASIPAG in the Philippines is one of a number of good exam-ples indicating that such developments are possible. By increasing the focus on ecosystem services and creating a unique partnership through which farmers and researchers collect, improve and grow different varieties of rice, it has been possible to improve profitability, secure livelihoods, increase stakeholder participation and decrease vulnerability to climate change. The social stand-ing, diet and health of local people have also been improved.

This is the third report in a series presenting positive examples of ways to develop agriculture based more on local resources, biological diversity and ecosystem services. Together, these ex-amples show that it is possible to decrease the need for chemicals and fossil fuels while rendering agriculture less vulnerable to climate change. The present report highlights the work being done by the network organisation MASIPAG to develop more sustainable agriculture in the Philip-pines. The MASIPAG model for sustainable rural development integrates ecological and socio-economic aspects and is fully in line with the rapid transition prescribed by a growing number of relevant international expert studies; a paradigm shift in favour of sustainable cultivation methods that really benefit the world’s approx. 500 million small farmers and contribute to secure access to food for the world’s poorest people.

The report concludes with a number of recommendations that we hope will inspire prac-titioners and decision-makers to take more sustainable decisions, both nationally and in the international arena. For example, we conclude that there is a need for increased work on diversity-based farming that promotes local rice varieties with traits such as tolerance to flooding and salinisation. We also draw the conclusion that support for the agricultural sector in the South should focus more on spreading risk and improving adaptive capacity than it does at present. This can take the form of protecting the rights to general use of genetic resources and the freedom of the world’s smallholders to breed, save and exchange seed.

The report was produced by Albaeco on behalf of the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation. The work on the report was carried out within the framework of the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation’s international environmental policy programme in collaboration with Albaeco and researchers from Stockholm University and the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. This report would not have been possible without the valuable help we received from MASIPAG and its personnel and from the 35 000 local farmers involved in its network. The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation expresses its warmest thanks to all those concerned.

Mikael Karlsson Chairman, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation

6

MASIPAG is a network organization for NGOs, researchers and small farmers who are working together to develop sus-tainable agriculture in the Philippines. In total, the organization reaches about 35 000 farmers in the three main regions of Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.

7

Many believe that a comprehensive change of course is needed if agriculture is to cope with climate change and meet the growing demand for food. The activities of the organisation MASIPAG in the Philippines show that such change is possible. Its focus is on local resources and ecosystem services, combined with deliberate action to maintain and increase biological diversity. With the help of e.g. advisory work, farmer-led local plant breeding and pest control without chemicals, this approach has resulted in increased yields, secured livelihoods and decreased vulnerability to climate change. In other words, the MASIPAG model for sustainable rural development integrates ecological, social and economic aspects. This is fully in line with the rapid transition prescribed by an increasing number of international studies by experts in the area.

1. Introduction

The green revolution in agriculture in the 1960s and 1970s was in many ways very successful. When irriga-tion, high yielding seeds, chemical pesticides and arti-ficial fertilisers were combined, crop yields doubled in many areas of the world. The price of the staple crops that feed the majority of the world’s population de-creased, allowing more people access to food. However, there were a range of problems. Not everyone could af-ford the external inputs required to increase yields and over time it transpired that modern farming methods often had very environmentally damaging effects. Soil salinisation, poisoned wells, decreased biological diver-sity, lowered groundwater levels, eutrophied lakes and debt-encumbered small farmers were some of the nega-tive side-effects. Now, when there is an increasing call for a further intensification of agriculture to meet the increasing demand, it is questionable whether a further scaling up of the green revolution’s industrial produc-

tion methods is the solution to the global food crisis. According to FAO (2009), enough food is being

produced at present to feed the entire global popula-tion. Despite this, over a billion people world-wide are suffering from hunger and chronic malnutrition. The question is what has gone wrong. To investigate this, agencies such as the World Bank, UNEP, FAO and WHO initiated a several-year project, the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). The aim was to gather poli-ticians, researchers, producers, consumers and non-government organisations together to find out how we could best reduce hunger, malnutrition and poverty in the world. In its final report, IAASTD concluded that the increases in production achieved in the past 30 years with the help of technology and science have reached the world’s poor to a very limited extent. The six-year long study included around 400 experts from

Box 1: The green revolution

The green revolution that began during the 1960s involved using plant breeding and new agricultural met-hods (irrigation, pesticides and artificial fertiliser) to help deprived, developing countries. This brought about a doubling in global food production, but also environmental degradation (e.g. water eutrophication, species eradication and poisoned groundwater) and it tended to favour rich farmers and food companies.

Photo: Achim Pohl

8

throughout the world and recommended a paradigm shift within agriculture in favour of ecologically sus-tainable crop production methods that do not simply benefit industrial farming but also the world’s several hundred million subsistence farmers. Similar conclu-sions were reached by the UN’s Millennium Ecosys-tem Assessment in 2005, which recommended that the range of subsidies available for agriculture must be fundamentally changed so that they promote sustaina-ble, less chemical-intensive agriculture.

In addition, there are a number of climate-related reasons for transforming agriculture, as mentioned e.g. by the UN’s Environmental Programme in the report ‘The Natural Fix? The Role of Ecosystems in Climate Mitigation’ (2009). This concluded that the agricultural

A large and important part of MASIPAG’s activities is the unique collaboration between researchers and farmers to collect, refine and test different varieties of rice.

Table 1. Comparisons of rice yields (mean values) show no differences between conventional production and MASIPAG organic production in 2007 (Bachmann et al., 2009)

Rice production 2007 (kg/ha)

Region MASIPAG (organic rice growing) Conventional rice production

Luzon 3743 (ns) 3851 (ns)

Visayas 2683 (ns) 2626 (ns)

Mindanao 3767 (ns) 4131 (ns)

(Maximum) (8710) (8070)

ns= no significant difference

sector would be predominantly carbon-dioxide neutral by 2030 if sustainable farming methods were applied on a large scale, for example by replacing energy-demand-ing artificial fertiliser with local recycling systems that include composting and the use of farmyard manure and green manure. Another way is to actively enhance the capacity of agricultural soils to bind carbon, for ex-ample through ‘ploughless’ tillage. This is regarded as particularly important in the tropics, where ploughing exposes the susceptible soils to strong sunlight and rain, which rapidly deplete the organic matter content of the soil and thus its carbon-binding capacity. Agroforest-ry where trees and bushes are combined with various crops – has particularly high potential as a carbon sink in tropical areas, according to IAASTD (2008).

9

obtained. An equally important aspect is that based on the farmer-driven plant breeding, the organisation together with researchers and voluntary groups is driving development and strengthening the local and economic situation of the rural population.

The diversity of indigenous rice varieties is thus an important foundation for the sustainable farming methods that MASIPAG develops, since it means that farmers are less dependent on loans and expensive production inputs such as seed and chemical fertili-sers. Researchers and farmers are together improving organic production methods by combining research results with practical experience. Some other key components of MASIPAG are:

Continual exchanges of knowledge between farmers •in order to spread experiences and information.A decentralised decision-making process where the •focus is on farmers’ rights.Collaboration between different farms in the vil-•lage – a system that is good in organic farming since such systems can be very labour-intensive in some periods.Diversification of production, i.e. instead of farmers •just growing rice that they sell at the market, they also grow e.g. fruit and vegetables for household use and sell the surplus. This increases food security and decrease vulnerability to fluctuations in price and demand. Composting – particularly important in the low-•land with its poor soils and long history of mono-culture, e.g. of sugarcane.Improvement of local animal breeds, e.g. poultry •and pigs.Resistance to the introduction of genetically modi-•fied crops that lead to problems with incorporation of new GM genes in indigenous varieties, decreases diversification, greater vulnerability, poorer local control and increased dependence on borrowing.

MASIPAG – unique partnership for deve-lopment between farmers and researchers

The organisation MASIPAG in the Philippines has been working since 1987 for justice and better conditions for the country’s small farmers. Today the organisation is managing no less than 35 000 organic farmers. Its successes are based on a unique partnership between small farmers and researchers, which has led to in-creasing numbers of farmers opting to grow organi-cally and thus avoid getting into debt to buy expensive production inputs such as chemical pesticides, artifi-cial fertilisers and seed. Interestingly, yields in organic rice production are generally equivalent (no statistical difference) to those in conventional production, with a slight trend over time for organic yields to increase and conventional yields to decrease somewhat. How-ever, net income per hectare cultivated is significantly higher for the organic farmers than for the conven-tional, who have higher input costs (see Tables 1 and 2; Bachmann et al., 2009). Similar trends have been re-ported in many other field trials around the world (see Badgley et al., 2007; UNEP-UNCTAD, 2008).

The MASIPAG organisation was created by a group of farmers and researchers during the green revolu-tion as a reaction to rice production in the Philippines being intensified with the aid of chemical pesticides, commercial fertilisers and high yielding varieties of rice. The farmers claimed that this had given rise to growing health problems due to pesticides, soil deple-tion and the loss of important species that had thrived in the former diversity-based cropping systems. The core of the organisation’s activities is farmer-driven plant breeding based on local breeds and varieties. By collecting and breeding different local varieties of rice in order to better adapt rice cropping to varying environmental conditions, more reliable yields are

Table 2. Comparisons of net agricultural income in conventional production and MASIPAG organic rice production in 2007 show that the latter was more profitable. (Bachmann et al., 2009)

Net income from rice farming per hectare in 2007 (pesos)Region MASIPAG (organic rice growing) Conventional rice production

Luzon 24 412** 13 403**

Visayas 22 868** 13 728**

Mindanao 23 715 (ns) 19 588 (ns)

National income average 23 599*** 15 643***

*** = very highly significant differences (p<0.0001) ** = highly significant differences (p<0.05) ns = no significant difference

s

10

Box 2: MASIPAG

MASIPAG is an abbreviation of the name ‘Partnership for Development between Farmers and Researchers’ in Fili-pino. It is a network organisation for voluntary organisations, researchers and small farmers who are interested in sustainable farming.

The organisation was founded at a farmers’ meeting in 1985 as a reaction to a number of problems that had arisen due to the country’s agriculture policy and the green revolution. A group of agricultural researchers also took part in the meeting and reported on studies showing a range of negative side-effects of the new agricultural methods and that the new hybrid varieties did not always give rise to higher yields. Together, farmers and researchers saw an opportunity to establish a partnership concerning rice growing and a project was established in which traditional varieties were do-cumented. Over the years, this project has become very successful and has collected over 1000 local rice varieties and also developed over 1000 rice varieties through breeding. Today, around 35 000 farmers are involved in the work MASIPAG. The organisation carries out research in collaboration with various universities, trains small farmers in sustainable cultivation methods and is working to develop local organic markets.

Portrait 1: ‘Jojo’ Elpidio Paglumotan, one of MASIPAG’s 35 000 farmers

Jojo used to be a plantation worker without any land of his own. At the sugar plantation he earned around roughly 3 US$ per day for approximately eight months per year and for the rest of the time the family had no income. After a long-running conflict with the autho-rities, the members of his farmers’ association on the island of Negros obtained the right to own their own land. A number of the farmers ended up in prison before they finally won their rights from the govern-ment. Today Jojo owns half a hectare of land, half of which is used for rice cultivation and the other half for

vegetables. In addition to this he has 8 goats, 16 hens, 2 water buffaloes, 3 turkeys and 8 ducks. Jojo is one of MASIPAG’s 65 ‘farmer-researchers’ who are breeding new varieties of rice for the organisation. He is able to choose the varieties he wants to develop. He uses simp-le but effective methods to keep pests in check without having to spray his plots. One of the main problems for rice growers in the Philippines is apple snail (Po-macea canaliculata), but Jojo has had no major pro-blems since MASIPAG recommended that he allow his ducks to wander around in the rice fields. They eat the snails and also restrict the amount of weeds. Jojo’s rice fields also have numerous red dragonflies (see photo above). They are the natural enemy of a number of pest insects and are an example of a beneficial insect that is strikingly absent from crops treated with chemical pesticides.

Jojo is one of MASIPAG’s 35 000 farmers. He is a ‘farmer-researcher’ who is testing his way through different rice varieti-es. He also applies biological pest control, for example by promoting dragonflies that keep pest insects in check (above right). Photo Jakob Lundberg.

of

11

2. Short-cuts?

There are different ways to improve the rice genes and enhance various properties. Genetic engineering is one way and the tradi-tional plant breeding that MASIPAG conducts another. Photo: Achim Pohl (Flowering rice).

In order to meet the increasing demand for food in the world and to cope with climate change, many are placing their trust in genetically modified crops. However, the work of MASIPAG has shown that it is possible to obtain equally good and reliable yields through preserving cultivated and wild biological diversity. Correctly used, the local traditional varieties can also decrease the susceptibility to climate change and strengthen the position of the rural population by decreasing the need for loans and securing livelihoods.

Every day, this planet gains around 200 000 new mouths to feed. In addition, urbanisation and increas-ing standard of living in many parts of the world are tending to result in more resource-demanding food choices. If these trends continue, global agricultural production must increase sharply by 2050 (FAO, 2009). At the same time, climate-related yield decreas-es are affecting many of the poorest smallholders in a number of regions. Some experts claim that the salva-tion for future food production lies in creating new crops with the help of gene technology that give bet-ter nitrogen use efficiency, higher yields and greater resistance to pests, drought and heat. Others believe that the new technology can have an important role to play in future food production but that as long as gene technology is so strongly linked to industrial ag-riculture, which requires the use of expensive chemi-cals and other fossil fuel-based inputs, it is doubtful whether it can help poor smallholders.

The debate on genetically modified organisms also deals to a great extent with who actually owns the rights to local biological diversity. Over millen-nia, farmers have bred an enormous diversity of local varieties of rice, barley, wheat, soyabean, maize and other crops. When gene technology companies have used these local varieties without paying for them to create patented varieties that cannot, or may not, be saved, bred from or exchanged with other growers, the criticism has intensified. The companies thereby gain free access to an enormous variation of genes, while using patents to limit the right of farmers to save seed and extend this variation.

“They call a variety of rice their own simply becau-se they have put one or two genes into a plant that has ten thousand genes. This means denying us our rights, our cultural heritage and taking something invaluable from us”, said one of the farmers in MASIPAG.

Often, farmers are encouraged to abandon their tra-

12

bred, but maize is also included to a small extent. The farmers within MASIPAG are organised in dif-

ferent cooperatives, often comprising 12-60 farmers. Each cooperative has to have an experimental farm, where at least 50 different local varieties are grown. The experimental activities can be managed by the cooperative or rotate between different farms. The other farms in the cooperative have to grow at least three of the varieties from the experimental farm. The cooperative then selects the 10 best varieties, which become MASIPAG seed. This seed is offered free of charge to farmers. The only condition is that the re-cipient in turn must offer the variety material to any others interested within the network. This gives rise to an enormous spread and a huge range of different varieties. It is also a source of pride for farmers if their ‘own’ varieties become widely distributed. In 2008, the MASIPAG gene bank consisted of 1090 varieties of rice bred through MASIPAG activities and 75 tra-ditional varieties of maize.

In addition to better finances, security and health, many farmers in the network emphasise that one of the major advantages with MASIPAG is their new pride and the culture of sharing with others that has developed. Thus MASIPAG’s activities are as much about social development and participation as about organic farming methods. Today the entire network that has been built up around traditional rice breeding is also an important platform for democracy, partici-pation and shared decision-making.

Box 3: Genetically modified crops – what are they?

When crops are genetically modified their inherited genes are altered with the help of laboratory techniques, in a way that often cannot occur in nature or through conventional plant breeding. It is also possible to move genes between plants and animals. Soyabean, maize, rape and cotton are the most common genetically modified crops today, but rice and potato are becoming more common. The most common trait is increased tolerance to chemical pesticides.

ditional varieties with the help of strongly subsidised seed and promises of high yields, without being in-formed about the disadvantages. MASIPAG does not base its opposition primarily on the possible health risks associated with eating genetically modified crops, but rather on its belief that gene technology concen-trates far too much on industrial agriculture that is not sustainable in the long run and far too little on poor small farmers.

Others point out that at the present time, we actual-ly know too little about the environmental and health risks that can arise in the long term when genetically modified organisms spread into natural ecosystems. A long-term study in the UK showed for example that there was considerably less diversity of insects in the proximity of fields of genetically modified crops com-pared with other crops. That in turn had a negative ef-fect on birdlife (Stokstad and Vogel, 2003). Overall, it can be concluded that there is lack of knowledge about the risks and therefore that much greater caution is needed if genetically modified crops are to seriously help decrease hunger and cope with future food pro-duction in a way that is sustainable in the long term.

Network-based plant breeding within MASIPAG

MASIPAG’s activities in the Philippines are a shining example that it is possible to increase yields using local plant breeding and modern organic production. With-in the MASIPAG programme it is mainly rice that is

13

Portrait 2: Jaime Gibe, manager of

MASIPAG’s national research farm and gene bank

Jaime is the manager of the experimental farm that maintains the over one thousand rice varieties produced by the MASIPAG network and 800 tra-ditional varieties that they continually grow on the farm. In the picture (above) Jaime is standing on front

Box 4: Patents on genes

There are several strongly criticised examples of companies in industrialised countries taking out patents on species, varieties and genetic material in developing countries. In practice, these companies are thereby annexing plant genes which inhabitants of those countries have used for generations. This is generally referred to as biological theft or biocolonialism (biopiracy) and exemplifies the question of who actually owns the rights to genetic resources. An example is the conflict that arose in 1994 when an American company was awarded a patent (U.S. Patent No. 5.663.484) on the use of traditional basmati rice.

of shelves containing 744 different MASIPAG rice varieties and 744 traditional varieties. The different varieties all have different characteristics. Some of the selection criteria are taste, consistency, smell, ear length, cooking properties, straw length and yield. One of the points of MASIPAG encouraging its mem-bers to grow as many as 50 different varieties per group of farms is that it creates the conditions of grea-ter resilience (see Box 9) to climate variations, pests and diseases, for example, long ears are considered to be good in dry seasons and short better in wet conditions. MASIPAG has three experimental farms: the national farm at Luzon, one at Visayas and one at Mindanao.

14

Box 5: Golden rice: Unnecessary or the salvation for poor people with vitamin A deficiency?

‘Golden’ rice is genetically modified with the help of genes from other plants, mainly daffodil and maize. These genes give the rice a yellow or golden hue and cause it to produce ß-carotene, which is then converted to vitamin A in the body. The aim behind introducing this gene into local rice varieties is to help combat vitamin A deficiency and protect the sight of all those children in poor countries who become blind every year due to vitamin A deficiency.

However, some claim that this golden rice is simply a way for giant multinational agribusinesses to smuggle genetically modified crops to the world’s poor. Many researchers have pointed out that the first versions of golden rice had much too low a ß-carotene content to produce sufficient quantities of vitamin A. Nutrition experts also reported that undernourished women and children have difficulty utilising the ß-carotene unless the rest of their diet is improved. However, the researchers behind golden rice claim that later versions of the rice produce much higher concentrations of ß-carotene and should be regarded as a dietary supplement rather than as a replacement for a varied diet.

Many believe that poverty is the main problem and that it is therefore more important to improve the opportunities for poor people to grow or buy vitamin A-rich fruits, vegetables and other foods. In Bangla-desh, for example, blindness in children has been almost eliminated by promoting vegetable growing and by handing out vitamin A capsules. In a similar way, research has shown that MASIPAG’s diversity-based far-ming system has led to improvements in the nutrition of the local population. With the right knowledge, it is also easy to obtain sufficient vitamin A with the help of wild leafy plants. Golden rice may make a positive contribution that can be of benefit to poor countries. However, it is important to note that this is just a small contribution to the problem of malnutrition that prevails in many poor countries and that other strategies –focusing on diversity in farming, with production of a range of crops with a broad nutritional base – can be far more important. Furthermore, more field trials and assessments are needed before we have sufficient knowledge about the health or environmental risks of the genetically modified rice.

Box 6: GM crops decrease diversity

Developing and patenting new crops is a time-consuming and very expensive process. Therefore most of the genetically modified crops that exist today are developed and owned by a few multinational com-panies whose products are protected by international patent regulations. This generally limits the scope of small farmers to save seed and develop locally adapted varieties. However, golden rice (see Box 5) is an exception that is planned to be offered to small farmers in the South at no patent cost and with the rights to save seed.

To date, gene technology is so expensive that it is not financially viable to produce many genetically different varieties. The few varieties that are developed therefore risk being adapted to completely different environmental conditions than those of the intended growing site. The limited genetic variation also limits the ability of the plants to adapt to the types of rapid changes in local conditions that are predicted to occur with global warming. However, with a great range of local varieties the adaptive capacity is higher and there is thus a greater chance of good yields in the changing conditions.

Some claim that aggressive marketing of genetically modified seed, artificial fertilisers and pesticides has caused many local varieties to be overlooked. Farmers who had previously saved seed year after year no longer save the seeds of their own local rice, maize and soyabean varieties once they change to genetically modified seed. Therefore, the development of genetically modified crops and existing patent regulations risk leading to decreased diversity of food crops in the world. Overall, this can pose a great risk to diversity farming and the possibilities for poor smallholders to adapt to future climate and environmental changes.

15

In the Philippines, climate change involves more severe rainfall events and flooding. Studies carried out within the MASIPAG network show that the farmers who have converted to organic diversity farming are better prepared to cope with climate change. Photo: Achim Pohl.

3. Rice farming based on diversity and ecosystem services in an

increasingly warm climate

During the green revolution, rice growing in the Philippines underwent fundamental changes. Where hundreds or thousands of different varieties had previously been grown, in the 1960s most rice farmers went over to growing a few commercial varieties

on large areas. However, the decline in the old rice varieties and the more chemical-intensive agriculture led to a range of problems. Now MASIPAG are searching high and low for the old varieties in order to re-introduce them and render rice cropping less dependent on pesticides and more tolerant of climate change.

dominate the country’s rice growing. Similar develop-ments have taken place around the world and together these have caused a rapid decline in the global biolo-gical diversity to be found in agriculture, forestry and aquaculture. For example, four species – rice, maize, wheat and potato – currently represent around half the plant-based energy intake of humanity. Similarly, almost half the global production of meat comes from only a few breeds of pigs, chicken and cattle.

The high yielding rice varieties that took over in the Philippines during the green revolution are often

Before the green revolution, large numbers of diffe-rent rice varieties were grown throughout Asia. These were adapted to the specific soil texture, temperature, rainfall, wind conditions, nutrients, insects, etc. at the growing site. In the beginning of the 1900s, the-re were more than 100 000 different varieties of rice in Asia, ranging from rice that could grow on harsh mountain slopes to varieties that could grow under several weeks of flooding. In the Philippines, more than 4000 varieties of rice were used in the 1950s – today after the green revolution, only eight varieties

16

Euni (see portrait below) runs a diversity farm that includes forest, rice, maize, sorghum and bananas, as well as vegetables such as haricot beans, aubergines and tomatoes. He has a well planned schedule for how the farm should be managed so that nutrients can be recycled in the best possible way. Photo: Achim Pohl.

grown in monocultures with lower resilience (see Box 9) to diseases, pests and climate change. To keep prof-its and yields high, there is often a need for a range of fossil fuel-consuming and environmentally damaging external inputs such as large-scale irrigation, pesti-cides and artificial fertilisers – something that poor farmers can seldom afford. The rice farmers within MASIPAG are trying to avoid this non-sustainable technological phase and instead increase productivity through farming based on local knowledge and diver-sity plus new knowledge about ecosystem services (see summary in table on following page). Research has also shown that local varieties can give as high yields as hybrid varieties (Bachmann et al., 2009).

In the Philippines, climate change involves e.g. rising sea levels, more severe rain events and flood-ing and salt water intrusion deteriorating groundwa-ter quality. Studies carried out within the MASIPAG network show that those farmers who have converted fully to organic, diversity farming are better prepared to cope with climate change (Bachmann et al., 2009). Some of the strategies that the organic farmers within MASIPAG use to enhance resilience and adapt their crops to climate change are summarised in Table 3.

Portrait 3: ‘Euni’ Eugenio Geraldo, diversity farmer from Mindanao

After losing his wife in childbirth, Euni is single-handedly raising his six children on five hectares of

land. Up until 1999 he sprayed his rice and vegetable crops with chemical pesticides to protect them against insects and diseases. However, after going on a course organised by MASIPAG he began to grow organi-cally. One of the main reasons was that his eyes had been damaged by pesticides and he had lost some of his sight. However, he also wanted to preserve bio-logical diversity. According to Euni, the pesticides af-fected the natural pest control system and resulted in the disappearance of beneficial insects and birds. In addition, he wanted his children to have more nutri-tious food. Today he is a MASIPAG farmer, which means e.g. that the organisation trains him in the use of new cultivation techniques and rice breeding, which he then transfers to other farmers. Today Euni has great ecological knowledge and a well planned schedule for how the farm should be managed so that nutrients can be recycled in the best possible way. His diversity farm includes rice, maize, sorghum and ba-nanas, as well as vegetables such as haricot beans, au-bergines and tomatoes. He also has half a hectare of forest. “The forest is a source of water for my crops, while also promoting the natural enemies of pests. From it I also get coconuts that we can eat or sell in the market”.

On the hills around the rice fields he grows the tree Madre de cacao (mother of cocoa), which is so named because cocoa and coffee grow very well in its shade. In addition, the roots of this tree fix nitrogen and extract nutrients from deeper soil layers than other crops. The leaves can also be used as fodder and the branches for firewood, according to Euni. His cropping system also includes ducks, which he rears on crop trash, and fish ponds where he keeps tilapia and sells some at the market in the neighbouring village.

17

Box 7: Ecosystem services

Ecosystem services are all the benefits provided by ecosystems. Human welfare and development are completely dependent on these services, for example air and water purification, climate stabilisation, erosion control, pollination of crops, natural pest control, the capacity of the sea to produce fish and the capacity of ecosystems to mitigate the effects of natural disasters.

Table 3. Different strategies for enhancing resilience and increasing the ability to adapt to climate change Source: Bachmann et al. 2009

Climate effect Strategy

Uncertain rainfall

Planting specialist grass varieties that prevent soil erosion, plant breeding aimed at producing varieties that can cope with long periods of rain, crop rotation, establishment of agroforestry and types of integrated cropping systems (several different varieties of crops in the same field)

Temperature change Diversification of crops and sources of income

Increased risk of landslidesPlanting more trees, support for the creation of social structures that allow cooperation so that affected farmers can get help from others.

Strong windsPlanting vegetation that gives protection from the wind (e.g. bamboo, cocoa palm, mahogany)

Saltwater intrusion, sea level rise

Use of MASIPAG varieties that are specially bred to cope with salinised soil, restoration of coastal mangrove forests, which protect the coast against erosion and flooding.

In the MASIPAG network of farmers, diversity, collaboration and learning are key components that create good conditions for adapting agriculture to climate and environmental change. Photo: Achim Pohl.

( )

Table 4. Matrix showing examples of important culti-vation methods in MASIPAG farming and the different ecosystem services promoted by the respective methods.

The number of + signs indicates the magnitude of the effect on the ecosystem service:

Ecos

yste

m se

rvic

es p

rom

oted

by

the

resp

ectiv

e ag

ricu

ltura

l met

hods

use

d by

MA

SIPA

G

Ecos

yste

m se

rvic

es

(sub

divi

ded

acco

rdin

g to

Mill

enni

um E

cosy

stem

Ass

essm

ent

(200

5), e

xclu

ding

‘Cul

tura

l ser

vice

s’)

Del

iber

ate

impr

ovem

ent o

fSo

il fe

rtili

ty th

roug

h ad

ding

or

gani

c mat

eria

l,e.g

. an

imal

man

ure

and

com

post

Farm

er-le

d br

eedi

ngba

sed

on lo

cal v

arie

ties

and

bree

ds

Cro

p ro

tatio

ns w

ithin

tegr

ated

N-fi

xing

legu

mes

and

bact

eria

Use

of p

lant

and

hous

ehol

d w

aste

s for

prod

uctio

n of

ani

mal

feed

Biol

ogic

al c

ontr

ol o

f wee

dsan

d pe

sts

Plan

ting

ofm

ultif

unct

iona

l tre

esan

d ot

her p

lant

sat

fiel

d ed

ges

Terr

acin

g

Pro

visio

ning

eco

syst

em se

rvic

es (g

oods

)

Food

++

+ +

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

++

Fibr

e an

d en

ergy

+ +

++

Orn

amen

tal p

lant

s +

++

++

++

Bioc

hem

ical

s, na

tura

l med

icin

es e

tc.

++

++

++

+

Mai

nten

ance

and

pro

lifer

atio

n of

bi

olog

ical

info

rmat

ion

++

+ +

++

Mai

nten

ance

and

pro

lifer

atio

n of

gen

etic

in

form

atio

n +

++

++

Fres

hwat

er su

pply

+ +

+ +

+ +

+

S

uppo

rtin

g ec

osys

tem

serv

ices

Phot

osyn

thes

is/p

rodu

ctio

n of

bio

mas

s+

++

++

+ +

++

+

++

+ +

++

Soil

prod

uctio

n+

++

++

++

+

++

Impr

ovem

ent o

f wat

er-h

oldi

ng c

apac

ity+

++

++

++

+

++

+

Impr

ovem

ent o

f soi

l str

uctu

re+

++

+

++

+ +

Nut

rien

t rec

yclin

g+

++

++

++

++

+

Biol

ogic

al N

fixa

tion

++

++

++

Abi

lity

to c

aptu

re w

ater

+

++

++

+

R

egul

atin

g ec

osys

tem

serv

ices

Polli

natio

n+

++

+

Con

trol

of w

eeds

and

pes

ts +

++

++

++

+ +

+

Eros

ion

prot

ectio

n +

++

+

++

++

Miti

gatio

n of

nat

ural

dis

aste

rs +

++

++

+ +

+ +

+ +

++

Miti

gatio

n of

floo

ding

+

+ +

++

+ +

++

Miti

gatio

n of

dro

ught

++

++

++

+ +

+

Pres

erva

tion

of fa

vour

able

loca

l clim

ate

+ +

++

++

++

+

Car

bon

bind

ing

++

+ +

++

+

Farm

ers’

pers

pect

ive

on e

ffect

of

met

hod

on li

ving

con

ditio

nsSt

able

and

rela

tivel

y lo

w

prod

uctio

n in

all

year

sC

ontr

ol o

f pro

duct

ion,

le

ss d

ebt,

decr

ease

d

vuln

erab

ility

Dec

reas

ed v

ulne

rabi

lity

in fa

rmin

g, m

ore

va

ried

die

t

Incr

ease

d pr

oduc

tion

Bett

er h

ealth

, inc

reas

ed

biog

ical

div

ersit

yD

ecre

ased

vul

nera

bilit

y, va

ried

die

t, et

c.Es

sent

ial f

or lo

ng-t

erm

cr

oppi

ng in

the

Hig

hlan

ds

20

A holistic approach to pest control

The most serious pests for most of the farmers in MASIPAG are rats and birds. They often chase these off with scarecrows or various noise-making devices in the field (see also box 10). Another major problem is the Latin American freshwater snail Pomacea canali-culata, which was introduced in the 1980s for cultiva-tion as a food source for the poor rural population and also as a potential export. The venture failed, but the snail spread rapidly throughout the entire region and is today one of the worst pests for the country’s rice growers. Chemical pesticides unfortunately kill de-sirable species such as fish and are also often toxic to humans. Many of the farmers in MASIPAG have be-gun to control the snails mechanically by collecting them by hand and using them as chicken feed. The farmers say that they have fewer problems with pests now since they have learned about the benefits of or-

ganic farming, where different beneficial species are promoted. Beneficial species found in organic rice fields include ducks, frogs and crabs (which are also used as food), spiders and a nitrogen-fixing algae. These beneficial organisms are practically non-exis-tent in conventional cropping, where various chemi-cal pesticides are used.

In addition to promoting beneficial species as an alternative way of contributing to natural pest control, the organic farmers in MASIPAG take care to design their entire cropping system so that it does not pro-mote the spread of pests in the way that monocultures tend to do. A varied crop rotation, a diversity of dif-ferent crops and locally bred varieties decrease the general susceptibility to pests. Focusing on recycling and diversity instead of fossil fuel-based-technology creates more complex and varied habitats where a di-versity of birds, insects and other plants and animals thrive. By being more multifunctional, such agricul-ture also contributes benefits in addition to food and can therefore provide a more secure livelihood while also promoting ecosystem services, including biologi-

Box 8: Biological diversity – increasingly important in a changing climate

Biological diversity is the richness of variation within species, between species and in ecosystems in the landscape. This diversity provides us with everything from food and clothing to medicines and housing. In addition, there is a direct link between biological diversity and the long-term capacity of ecosystems to deliver ecosystem services such as air and water purification, pollination of crops and prevention of erosion.

Diversity is also the foundation for plant and animal breeding and an insurance for the future. We know that the climate and the environment will probably change at an increasing rate and that it is therefore important to preserve a diversity of plants and animals with different environmental requirements so that there are always species remaining that can perform vital functions in the ecosystem even under the new conditions, in which many species risk extermination.

Between 20 and 30 per cent of all plant and animal species are threatened with extinction if the mean global temperature increases by 1.5 to 2.5 degrees, according to the UN panel on climate change, IPCC. This means that ecosystems will become more susceptible and that their long-term ability to cope with changes in the climate and the environment (their resilience) risks being decreased.

21

Box 9: Resilience – the ability of a system to cope with change

Resilience is the long-term ability of a system to cope with change and to continue to develop. For an ecosystem such as a forest, this may involve coping with e.g. storms, fires and pollution, while for a society it means the ability to deal with political unrest and natural disasters in a sustainable way. For a rice grower and his/her field, resilience means the ability to cope with everything from climate change and pest attacks to changes in agricultural policy. Therefore, resilience encompasses the ability of the system to resist stress or change and to re-establish vital functions afterwards. In the long run, this requires an ability to adapt and self-renew. Increased knowledge of how we can strengthen resilience in society and nature will be increasingly important in coping with the stresses brought about by climate change and other environmental impacts.

Box 10: Examples of pest control in rice without the use of chemicals

Varied crop rotation and diversity of different crops and varieties decreases general •susceptibility to pests.

Free-range ducks eat the apple snail Pomacea canaliculata, a pest of rice. •

Birds and ants, which thrive in the organic fields, eat the eggs of apple snails. •

Dragonflies that live wild in the organic crops eat aphids.•

Dead frogs placed on canes in rice fields attract beneficial insects.•

Special herbs mixed with coconut juice deter rats (the mixture is spread round the fields and •cause itching on contact)

Lemongrass is grown around the fields to keep rats out. •

All photos: Achim Pohl.

22

Dolores Ayen, one of MASIPAG’s rice breeding farmers, demonstrates how to cross various rice plants. Through collaborating with researchers and activities on the experimental farms, the farmers learn from each other and become ‘farmer-researchers’. The new rice varieties are evaluated within the local cooperative and then by other members of MASIPAG. Photo: Achim Pohl.

4. Researchers and farmers learn from each other

MASIPAG is a partnership for development between farmers and researchers. It is a clear example of how researchers and practitioners can work together to find new methods of sustainable development that integrate ecological, social and economic

aspects. Overall, this unique partnership has resulted in crops that are less dependent on che-mical pesticides and more tolerant to climate change.

around their crops – the downside of the green re-volution. Many farmers had also become burdened with debt due to their increasing dependence on a few commercial, high yielding varieties, which requi-red expensive inputs such as artificial fertilisers and health-impairing chemical pesticides in order to pro-duce high yields.

Through their partnership with researchers and their activities on the experimental farms, the far-mers themselves have become a form of researcher. They work together with MASIPAG’s experts to cross varieties they themselves have selected. These are then tested and evaluated, first within the cooperative of origin and then by other members of MASIPAG. The actual plant breeding work is extremely timeconsu-ming and requires a great deal of patience and it must

For MASIPAG, the partnership between researchers and farmers centres greatly on rice breeding and the de-velopment of locally adapted crops. Since its establish-ment in 1987, its members have collected around 1090 local varieties of rice in a national gene bank. MASI-PAG is currently organising no less than 35 000 farm-ers – more than the total number of full-time farmers in Sweden. The role of the researchers in the partner-ship is to provide training and advice to strengthen the farmers’ own capacity to develop sustainable cultiva-tion methods and local markets. However, all critical decisions are made by the farmers themselves, based on criteria that they have established.

The partnership with researchers was initiated after farmers experienced growing problems with depleted soils and loss of biological diversity in and

23

be done at exactly the right time. First the male organs are removed from each flower and then the farmer manually applies pollen from the variety he wants to cross in. Before work has come to this stage, there have generally been several years of growing local varieties to identify those suitable for crossing in. Without the support of MASIPAG, the farmers could not afford to experiment with different varieties, with the associa-ted risk of having a reduction in yields.

Portrait 4: Chito Medina researcher and national coordinator of MASIPAG

Chito is national coordinator of MASIPAG and divi-des his time between his work there and a post at the university. He has a doctorate from Canada and is co-

Box 11: Advantages of locally bred rice varieties according to farmers themselves

Taste better than the varieties sold by major companies•Less dependent on expensive inputs (commercial seed, artificial fertiliser and pesticides).•Better adapted to the local soils and to changes in the climate.•Higher resistance to disease.•More profitable.•The different rice varieties have a cultural significance.•

Rice breeding is an extremely time-consuming and laborious task that must be carried out at exactly the right time. First the male organs are removed from each flower and then pollen from the crossing in variety is applied by hand. Without the help of resear-chers such as Chito Medina (see picture on right and portrait below) and the support of MASIPAG, farmers could not be able to experiment with different rice varieties. Photos: Achim Pohl.

author of the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). He believes that in order to lift themselves out of po-verty and the hunger trap, it is essential for farmers to actively participate and not be reduced to the role of passive recipients. His parents were small and sub-sistence farmers, but he was able to study agriculture and biology in a university. He knew early on that he wanted to help farmers find a way out of poverty and therefore he began to get involved in MASIPAGM sin-ce the organization was formed. He views his role as a link that can facilitate things being done and infor-mation being spread within the MASIPAG network. With his background, he is living proof of the unique partnership for development between farmers and re-searchers embodied in the actual name of MASIPAG in Filipino.

24

5. Conclusions

The activities of the organisation MASIPAG in the Philippines are a shining example that there are alternatives to •chemical-intensive farming. The organisation’s work demonstrates that it is possible to increase yields and decrease vulnerability to climate change through farmer-led plant breeding, modern organic production and pest control without chemicals.

Through the work of MASIPAG, thousands of farming families have created sustainable farms with increased biolo-•gical diversity, improved profitability and decreased vulnerability. Studies have shown that the net income from the MASIPAG organic farms using locally bred varieties are considerably higher than those in conventional cropping.

The diversity of indigenous rice varieties is an important basis for the sustainable farming that MASIPAG is develo-•ping and spreading in order to make small farmers less dependent on loans and chemicals.

Many of the farmers who are members of MASIPAG have had markedly fewer problems with pests since they con-•verted to cropping based on ecosystem services and diversity. This is due to factors such as the promotion of benefi-cial organisms and to the many different local varieties providing increased resistance to pests and diseases.

The activities of MASIPAG are a clear example of how researchers and practitioners can work together to find new •paths towards sustainable rural development.

There is a need for a comprehensive change of course within agriculture so that the targets on controlling poverty •and decreasing hunger are achieved in a sustainable way. Farming of the future must be based more on local resour-ces, biological diversity and ecosystem services than on fossil fuel.

The current system of commercial plant breeding – including the development of genetically modified crops – and •existing patent regulations risk leading to decreased diversity in food crops in the world. This can mean fewer alter-native crops and decreased variety diversity, limiting the capacity to adapt to global warming and other environme-ntal changes.

Farmer-led research and participation are important measures in improving the adaptive capacity of farmers and •increasing the resilience of farming.

Within MASIPAG, participation, ecosystem services and biological diversity are important measures to improve the adaptive capacity of farmers and decrease the vulnerability of farming to climate and environmental change. In addition, the work of the organisation has improved the social standing, diet and health of the local people. Photo: Achim Pohl.

25

6. Recommendations

Support within the agricultural sector should be directed more to spreading the risks and improving adaptive •capacity. This can be achieved by promoting diversity-based agriculture that benefits from e.g. local rice varieties with traits such as tolerance to flooding, salinisation and heat, and by encouraging a diversity of crops and cropping systems.

The common rights of ownership to genetic resources must be protected, e.g. by defending the freedom of the •world’s small farmers to breed, save and exchange seed.

International aid and research must prioritise the agricultural sector as an important development issue and •investment in sustainable rural development should be increased in order to reduce poverty.

National strategies for agricultural development and poverty alleviation must focus on providing more support •and financial incentives for small farmers wishing to convert to ecosystem services-based farming that uses less fossil fuel and fewer chemical inputs in the form of artificial fertilisers and pesticides.

Different systems for compensating farmers for the production of ecosystem services should be more closely •investigated and developed so that they better help small farmers in the South.

Support for partnerships between researchers and farmers should be increased so that the distance between •research and development is shorter and the research can more often be carried out in the situation where it will be applied. This can occur for example through local networks, development projects and demonstration activi-ties on farms, and through participatory research on sustainable production and local plant breeding.

There is a need for a comprehensive change of course within agriculture throughout the world. Research, aid •and national strategies to combat poverty should focus on sustainable organic intensification that does not simply benefit agribusiness, but also all the world’s small farmers.

A number of relevant international research reports claim that there is a need for a comprehensive change of course within agricul-ture. In their opinion, research, aid and national strategies to combat poverty should focus on sustainable organic intensification that does not simply benefit agribusiness, but also all the world’s small farmers. Photo: Achim Pohl.

26

7. Sources and recommended reading

Bachmann, L., Cruzada, E. and Wright, S. 2009. Food Security and Farmer Empowerment – a study of the impacts of farmer-led sustainable agriculture in the Philippines. Misereor/MASIPAG. www.masipag.org

Badgley, C., et al. 2007. Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renewable Agriculture & Food Syst 22: 86-108

FAO. 2009. How to feed the world in 2050? Issues paper from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization: www.fao.org/wsfs/forum2050/wsfs-background-documents/issues-briefs/en/

Henrysson, J. and Höök, K. 2007. Food, Climate and Development. Report by Swedish Society for Nature Conser-vation: www.naturskyddsforeningen.se/upload/Foreningsdokument/Rapporter/rapport-klimat-food-climate- de-velopment.pdf

IAASTD 2008. Synthesis Report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Tech-nology for Development (IAASTD): www.agassessment.org

Lundberg, J and Moberg, F. 2008. Ecological in Ethiopia – Farming with nature increases profitability and reduces vulnerability. Swedish Society for Nature Conservation. 28 p. www.naturskyddsforeningen.se/upload/ Foreningsdokument/Rapporter/engelska/Report_international_Ethiopia.pdf Lundberg, J and Moberg, F. 2009. Organic Farming in Brazil – Participatory certification and local markets for sustainable agricultural development. Swedish Society for Nature Conservation. 24 p. www.naturskydds-foreningen.se/upload/Foreningsdokument/Rapporter/engelska/organic-farming-in-brazil.pdf

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005:

Stokstad, E. and Vogel G. 2003. Mixed message could prove costly for GM crops. Science 302: 542-543

Trumper, K. et al. 2009. The Natural Fix? The role of ecosystems in climate mitigation. A UNEP rapid response assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.

UNEP-UNCTAD 2008. Organic agriculture and food security in Africa. UNEP-UNCTAD Capacity-building

Box 12: Seven reasons why MASIPAG has been so successful

MASIPAG focuses on collaboration to strengthen poor small farmers.1. Its model for sustainable rural development provides the potential for better food security for 2. the family and better health.There are fewer problems with pests on farms with a diversity of crops, because there are more 3. natural enemies and risks are spread more widely. The unique partnership with researchers and the support of MASIPAG means that farmers 4. have the economic resources and knowledge required to experiment with different rice varie-ties without risking loss of income if yields decline.MASIPAG protects and actively maintains the ecosystem services on which agriculture 5. depends.Farmers are no longer dependent on loans to buy expensive inputs.6. Empowerment of farmers increases self-reliance locally and individually.7.

www.MAweb.org

27

This report deals with the unique work being done by the network organisation MASIPAG to develop more sustainable agriculture in the Philippines. The focus here is on ecosys-

tem services and concentrated efforts to preserve and increase biological diversity with the help of measures such as farmer-led local plant breeding. Increased profitability, more secure livelihoods and decreased vulnerability to climate change are some of the results.

The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation and MASIPAG have been working together since 1999, for example on the development of sustainable cultivation methods, documen-

ting traditional cropping systems and strengthening the rights of farmers to their own seed.

The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation is also involved with many other farming organisations in the South and with organisations working on issues concerning forests,

coasts and seas, climate, environmental toxins and secure access to food. In total, the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation is working with around 60 organisations in over 20 different countries. The work is mainly funded by Sida.

Naturskyddsföreningen. Box 4625, 116 91 Stockholm, Sweden

Phone + 46 8 702 65 00. info@naturskyddsforeningen.se

The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation is an environmental organisation with power to bring about change. We spread know-ledge, map environmental threats, create solutions, and influence politicians and public authorities, at both national and international levels. Moreover, we are behind one of the world’s most challenging ecolabellings,“Bra Miljöval”(Good Environmental Choice).

Climate, the oceans, forests, environmental toxins, and agriculture are our main areas of involvement.

www.naturskyddsforeningen.se