SEAMEO INNOTECH Center, Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City, Philippines
Hosted by PAKISAMA and PhilDHRRA in cooperation with AFA and AsiaDHRRA
June 12-15, 2007
Day One: June 12, 2007
1. PRELIMINARIES/OPENING CEREMONY, OBJECTIVE SETTING AND FLOW OF PROGRAM
Ms. Esther Penunia, secretary general of AFA, opened the morning session by acknowledging the presence of AFA members from Taiwan (chopstick group), Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia (Mekong sub-region), Indonesia and the Philippines (island group). This was followed by multicultural and multilingual prayers led by Ka Crispin Aguelo of PAKISAMA (Philippines) and Mrs. Zaenab of API (Indonesia). June 12 marked the 109th anniversary of Philippine independence from the Spaniards. To commemorate this, the participants were led by Esther and Ka Rene Peñas, who waved the Philippine flag, in singing the national anthem, Lupang Hinirang.
Ka Rene Peñas, national council chairperson of PAKISAMA, then, formally welcomed the participants to the regional consultation-workshop. Sudaporn (Khun Paew) Sittisathapornkul, vice chairperson of AFA, gave an opening remark on behalf of the AFA Chairperson Seo who could not arrive on time. (Mr. Seo’s organization, KAFF and other Korean groups were beset with problems posed by the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement, which was about to be deliberated in their assembly or parliament at that time. KAFF organized a big mobilization to urge the assembly not to sign the agreement which is detrimental to the lives and livelihood of Korean farmers.) Khun Paew’s remarks highlighted the need to not only confront the problems and difficulties faced by Asian farmers but also to share these problems with one another. She stressed that through mutual understanding, real solidarity can be forged and consequently, allow the members to help each other and make AFA more relevant to its members. As an example, Khun Paew mentioned that landlessness is a major difficulty faced by the Filipino farmers. For her, agrarian reform is a strategic response to this but the Philippine Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) is beset with many problems and will end next year 2008. She encouraged everyone to join the rally organized by the Filipino farmers and agrarian reform advocates in front of the Department of Agrarian Reform, and give solidarity to her fellow farmers in the country. She then provided a brief run-down of what was in store for the participants—a visit to a farming community which is a member of PAKISAMA; the 19th Execom meeting where important matters as a regional organization will be discussed. She ended her opening remarks by reiterating the need to have ‘one mind, one heart’ for the prosperity of all Asian farmers and AFA.
This was then followed by a round of introductions from the participants, the secretariat of AFA, and support organizations (See Annex 1: List of Participants).
After the round of introductions, Esther provided the background/rationale of the regional consultation and the flow of the program for the next four days. She mentioned that during the last AFA ExeCom meeting that was held in Jakarta last March 2007, major decisions were reached. First, it was decided that for the next meeting (June 12-15), each AFA member need to prepare a report on two major difficulties/concerns faced by farmers in their country. These will be then shared among the members, who will discuss how AFA can help through programs and activities responsive to its members. Second, AFA will adopt the framework for AFA autonomy as its guide to achieving a stronger regional organization. Further, that AFA will move to stage 3 in the autonomy process, within the time frame of one year. Third, AFA will discuss some operations planning, in particular the Agriterra project which was approved last April 3. And finally, the dates of the meeting were set for June 12-15, 2007.
She, then, laid out the four-fold objectives of the consultation. First is to share and develop a deeper and mutual understanding of the major difficulties faced by the farmers in the region. Second is to develop very concrete on-the-ground action plans that will respond to the difficulties shared by the Asian farmers. Third is to discuss the updates on international agri-trade issues (EU-ASEAN FTA, WTO, ASEAN Charter) and to act accordingly to the challenges and problems brought about by these agreements. Finally, tackle and decide on important organizational matters such as the AFA Operations Plan 2007-2008, AFA HRD Systems-Preparation Stage 2, and AFA Resource Sustainability Schemes.
Finally, Esther gave a run-down of the program from June 12 to 15 as well as taskings and assignments.
June 12-13 am
? sharing of difficulties
? strategizing our responses
? solidarity with Filipino farmers on Agrarian reform issues
June 13 pm
? forum on the WTO, ASEAN charter and the EU-ASEAN FTA
? solidarity night (with 20 organizations)
June 14
? field visit (Antipolo)
? shopping June 15
Execom meeting
? AFA Vice Chair
? Operations plan
? Member expansion
? AFA HRD
? Resource sustainability
? Leadership program
? ASEAN Farmers’ day?
Host Teams
? time keepers
? alertness keeper
? memory keepers
? order keepers Assignments-host teams
? June 12: Thailand, Vietnam
? June 13: TWADA, TDFA, API
? June 14: PAKISAMA
? June 15: KAFF
2. SOLIDARITY WITH THE FILIPINO FARMERS AND AGRARIAN REFORM ADVOCATES
Esther provided a brief orientation on the CARP Anniversary. Like what Khun Paew mentioned in her opening remarks, she reiterated that Filipino farmers’ main problem is landlessness. In response to this and after years of struggle for land, on June 10, 1988, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) was signed. According to Esther, these times are crucial because 2008 is the last year of program but more than 1 million of prime agricultural lands have yet to be distributed. On June 12, Filipino farmers, agrarian reform advocates and support groups staged a mobilization in front of the Department of Agrarian Reform not only to commemorate the 19th year of implementation but to demand for the extension of the program.
In solidarity with their Filipino counterparts and in support of agrarian reform, the participants of the regional consultation with some 150 farmers, fishers and rural women members of PAKISAMA and support groups such as AR Now! , AsiaDHRRA, PhilDHRRA, and ICSI marched from Innotech to the Department of Agrarian Reform to join their comrades who were already waiting in front of the barricaded office. Armed with colorful flags and banners (CARP Extension with Major Reforms!, Agrarian Reform Now!), AFA members partook in a peaceful march around the Quezon Memorial Circle and later on, provided a solidarity message. AFA Vice-Chair Sudaporn Sittisathapornkul expressed solidarity to their fellow farmers’ demand to continue the implementation of the social justice program (SeeAnnex 2: Solidarity Message). She shared the experiences of AFA members from Taiwan, Korea, Japan and Vietnam where successful land reform/redistribution was pivotal to the development of the farmers and their nations as well. Finally, API Chairperson Sambito denounced the spate of killings of farmer leaders and NGO workers who are at the forefront of the struggle for agrarian reform. He urged the Philippine government to protect the farmers’ rights and to provide them with all the resources needed for them to fully benefit from CARP.
After the program, the AFA-PAKISAMA contingent went back to Innotech for lunch.
3. SESSION 1. COUNTRY SHARING: DIFFICULTIES OF FARMERS IN ASIA
The afternoon session was opened with an ice breaker/energizer from the Mekong region. This was followed by Esther’s explanation of the mechanics or guidelines for the presentations: per cluster (Mekong region, Islands group and Chopstick group), each country will be given 15 minutes for presentation with 45 minutes allotted for exchanges or open forum. At the end of the session, it was expected that the participants would come into grips and better understand the major difficulties faced by the Asian farmers and for the next day, to address how to respond to these problems.
She then handed the floor to Soc Banzuela, National Coordinator of PAKISAMA, who facilitated the regional consultation workshop. Soc mentioned that through the mobilization, the participants had a taste of the problems of farmers in the Philippines. He proceeded with explaining that the design of the workshop was to dwell first on the key problems that the farmers face, their causes, and the difficulties the organizations/federations face in the implementation of their programs and projects. And the following day will deal more with the responses and tackle how AFA can be meaningful and relevant to its member organizations as effective agents of change and real catalyst of transformation.
3.1. Mekong Region
3.1.1. Sor Kor Por (Thailand)
Mr. Tuk, with Chiawat/Jeep as translator (he later on presented on behalf of Mr. Tuk to save time), presented the important problems faced by farmers in Thailand. Based on a brainstorming session, SorKorPor‘s farmers indicated that there are 13 major problems confronting them, namely: indebtedness, inequity of state policy, lack of knowledge in farm management, weakness of farmer’s organizations, shortage of land and potential in land use, high value/cost of factors of production and production cost, low/decreasing selling price of produce, agro-business monopoly/threat to small farmers, degraded and depleted natural resources and environment, widespread use of chemical and poisonous materials in agricultural inputs, natural disaster, migration and abandonment of farms in favor of other opportunities, and too much consumerism and reliance on advertisement. Among these, Mr. Tuk stated that indebtedness and inequity of the state policy against small farmers were the two main difficulties they face.
Indebtedness of farmers. According to Mr. Tuk, at present the amount of farmers’ debt has increased from 80,000 Baht or more than USD 2,300 per household (in 2001) to 130,000 Baht or more than USD 3,800 per household (in 2007). These debts are either debt to financial institutions or ‘debt out of the financial system’, i.e. debt from businessmen or others. He further detailed that the debts are in different status:
• debts of 208,607 farmers are in structural adjustment;
• debts of 74,000 farmers are non-profit loan;
• debts of 8,000 farmers are due to legal fees of complaints/cases filed against them or by them in court;
• debts of 66,000 farmers are due to legal fees of pending cases/‘waiting list’ to complaining in court.
Mr. Tuk explained that farmers respond to this problem through various approaches and means. One is through campaigns and protests against state policies on farmers’ debts. Two is coordination with independent government agencies that address farmers’ debt such as the Rehabilitation and Development Fund for Farmers and the Revolving Fund for Farmers and Poor People. And the third approach (coping mechanism) is the creation of more income generating activities, decreasing their expenditure, and selling their land and property for more money to pay back their debt.
Inequity of state policy to small farmers. Chiawat/Jeep described that inequity of state policy is a basic problem that brought about debt and poverty to small farmers. However, there are farmers who still believe that their problems are caused by fate and ‘holy’/divine powers. According to Jeep, this belief system is now changing as farmers and farmers’ organizations have better understanding of how the state policies influence their lives and livelihood. They are organizing themselves and learning how to negotiate with government. In response to the inequity of state policies, Thai farmers are proposing the establishment of the National Farmer Council in the new constitution being deliberated in the parliament. This will increase their power and organization’s voice in the halls of power. At the same time, Jeep mentioned that farmers are proactively seeking more opportunity for them to participate in decision-making processes. This includes forming a task force that will look into the laws and regulations related to farmers’ plight. Another response, which according to Jeep is very important, is to strengthen farmer organizations and their networks.
Responses and Strategies of SorKorPor. In response to the problems, SorKorPor employs a two-pronged strategy (mainly on education and information): coordination with NGOs, civil society organizations, and government officers to conduct seminar and trainings on different topics/farmers issues such as agri-trade issues and international agreements (e.g. WTO, free trade agreements, ASEAN, etc.); coordination with international organizations such as ZLTO to conduct trainings on the economy and marketing. The course is expected to be a step to develop farmer’s skill on income generating activities.
Jeep described that SorKorPor still face many problems and challenges. The organization has many limitations in terms of capacity, budget/fundings, potentialities, ability to work/influence government policy. Then, there is the problem of liberal capitalism that promotes free trade and market-driven economy. There is a bias for industries, commerce, financial and service sectors, at the expense of farmers and the agriculture sector. In terms of alliance building, SorKorPor is widely accepted by different groups including civil society organizations, farmer organizations, and business organizations but the coordination is not yet strong enough to achieve the expected goal.
AFA/AsiaDHRRA Assistance. SorKorPor needed capacity building to enhance the knowledge and skills of their farmer in the region on the WTO, FTA and ASEAN charter, and their impact to farmers; strategies on negotiation with government; market development linkages and farmers’ exchanges and visits. Secondly, AFA/AsiaDHRRA can encourage ASEAN governments to support and protect farmers’ interests. Finally, AFA can provide opportunities for its country members to participate in seminars related to the above themes.
3.1.2 Vietnam (VNFU)
Mrs. Tuyet, director of the Propaganda Department of VNFU, gave a short overview of the process they went through in coming up with the difficulties and solutions. Like SorKorPor, VNFU organized different workshops with its members and other people from government and NGOs to collectively discuss the difficulties faced by farmers, the solutions to address these problems and the questions/challenges posed to their government, colleagues, and to AFA. She then handed the floor to Yvoan.
General situation. Yvoan presented a general situation of Vietnam’s involvement in multilateral organizations and Vietnam’s agriculture sector. In 1995, Vietnam became an ASEAN member. VNFU views that the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) brings benefit to its country members and its economic partners such as China and Korea. In 2006, Vietnam acceded to the WTO, which brought wider economic integration and opened markets and new opportunities to trade with WTO member countries. In terms of the agriculture sector, Vietnam has about 82 million people, 74 percent (about 13 million households) of which lives in the countryside. The agriculture sector employs 70 percent of the total labor force. In terms of the agriculture sub-sector activities, about 76.3 percent are engaged in farming/cultivation, 21.6 percent in animal husbandry and the remaining 2.1 percent is services. According to Yvoan, Vietnam produces a multitude of staple, cash crops and forestry products: rice, maize, sweet potato, cassava, coffee, tea, rubber, pepper, coconut, peanut, sugar-cane, soya-bean, tobacco, cotton, tropical fruits like orange, banana, mango, dragon fruit, and vegetables. Farmers in Vietnam also raise buffalo, cattle, pigs, horse, goat, sheep, chicken, goose, ducks, fisheries, and shrimp. Of these, Vietnam is exporting rice, coffee, tea, rubber, pepper, fish and shrimp, forestry products and wood. In 2006, exports of agriculture products reached USD 8.1 billion.
Important Economic problems faced by farmers. After the general situation, Yvoan mentioned that the two main difficulties faced by Vietnamese farmers are (a) lack of appropriate conditions or factors of production that will allow them to produce quality and competitive goods and (b) access to market. For the former, Yvoan talked about the problem of small and scattered land, lack of knowledge on advanced technique in farming and bio-technology on agricultural production, lack of access to capital/loans, weak post-harvest technology and processing, poor rural infrastructure such as roads, irrigation, and electricity. For the latter, she tackled the problem of low competitiveness, small and unstable flow/volume of products, weak packaging and trademark/labelling, lack of knowledge and skill in marketing, and lack or weak linkages and association among farmers and between farmers and enterprises.
VNFU’s responses and strategies. To respond to the twin problems of lack of appropriate factors of production and access to market, VNFU has a variety of strategies including (a) capacity building and direct assistance (provision of trainings, technology transfer, and loans/credit to its farmers; setting up study demonstrations; organization and guidance on how to engage with businesses and enterprises; trainings on marketing skills and enterprise development; organization of agro-rural fairs for trade promotion; building up of local market systems; and conducting studies and farmer exchanges with other farmers abroad such as the recent Taiwan study trip); (b) advocacy, collaboration and partnerships with government, civil society and business sector (joint agreements with relevant ministries such as Mard, MoT, MoF, social policy bank; facilitation of contract growing arrangements with enterprises, and companies for inputs in exchange for farmers’ produce; collaboration with other partners, NGOs, donors to carry out some projects to support farmers; and recommendation of policies to government or ministries on issues related to production and livelihood of farmers such as increasing the loans extended to farmers to USD 700); and (c) alliance and network building. Still VNFU faces difficulties in effectively and efficiently implementing its projects and work due to lack of capable staff to carry out its activities, lack of funds or financial resources and lack of knowledge and skills on market development for farmers.
AFA/AsiaDHRRA Assistance. Finally, Yvoan suggested that AFA can help in the areas of capacity building, i.e. to provide and continuously share information on issues related to farmers and organize training courses on marketing and trade promotion for key staff of AFA member organizations, training on farmers organization’s management, and in the area of networking and alliance building, i.e. to organize exchange visits and sharing of experiences on advanced techniques in farming/production, and organize trade promotion activities such as fair trades among AFA member, first and later on reach out to others.
3.1.3. Cambodia (FNN)
Mr. Tith gave some opening remarks on the similarities faced by Cambodian, Thai and Vietnamese farmers. He then passed on the responsibility of presenting to Sokchhoin, staff of FNN.
About FNN. According to Sokchhoin, in 1998 Cambodian farmers have started to organize themselves into Village-based Farmer Association (VFA) with support from an NGO called CEDAC. Their typical activities include agricultural extension, capacity building to other groups, influencing local authority to be more responsible for local development and natural resource management. In December 2003, VFAs coalesced together into an independent confederation called Farmer and Nature Net. Two years after that, FNN was able to establish its own account and office. And in March 2006, FNN was officially registered with the Ministry of Interior.
Sokchhoin mentioned that farmers lack access to capital and appropriate agriculture technique. There is weak cooperation among farmers and access to market for their produce is a big problem. This situation led to the establishment of FNN that aims to improve livelihood of small farmers through ecological agriculture, self-help group, business cooperative, etc.; facilitate strong cooperation, mutual help and a culture of working together; and promote the rights and interests of farmers.
Difficulties faced by Cambodian farmers. She discussed the five main concerns or difficulties faced by farmers, namely low productivity of agriculture, marketing, credit and loan, chemical use, land-related issues. Cambodia has around 14 million people and 85 percent of which lives in the rural areas. Rice is the primary crop planted to 2.2 million hectares, which is equivalent to 80 percent of total cultivated land. But as Sokchhoin said, rice yield is low- only 1-2 tons per hectare. This has to do with the size of landholding per family (i.e. small), shortage of irrigation, draught, lack of suitable farming technique and technology, depletion of soil fertility and problems in mono-cropping.
In terms of marketing problems, the price of farmers’ produce at farm gate remains very low and middlemen or traders control the prices. Another problem related to pricing is that farmers are powerless in negotiating for a fair price because the normal practice is individual selling. Cheap imported products that compete directly with local products further compound the problem of fair prices for local farmers’ produce and access to market.
In terms of access to credit and loan, farmers face high interest rate ranging from 5 percent for micro-financial institutions to 10 percent for individual moneylenders and loan sharks. The average loan per village is 100 million riel or USD 25,000. The average interest, on the other hand, in a village per month is around USD 750. Collateral is also a problem for farmers as banks require this in the form of land titles, house titles, properties, etc. which many of them do not possess. Sokchhoin further tackled the problem of repayment of loans/debts—when borrowers fail to repay the loan or interest loan, the banks or financial institutions fine them three times the original interest. This leads to loss of properties and increasing debt of farmers. Lack of skill and knowledge on how to use the loan also pose a serious challenge for them. And in instances when they use the loan for agricultural production, unexpected external conditions such as natural disasters, draught, pestilence and diseases destroy their crops and their investments.
The trend of pesticide and chemical use is increasing despite interventions from government and NGOs. Most of the pesticides are illegally imported and farmers have spent USD 21 million in 2001. Sokchhoin highlighted the hazardous impact of pesticide use not only to human health but also to the environment and soil fertility. Based on the data, 90 percent of pesticide users suffer from various health problems and 10 percent experience chronic poisoning, particularly in their internal organs such as kidney, liver, etc. Fish kill also happened in the Tonle Sap Lake and Mekong River due to high toxicity in the water (108 tons of fish died). In addition, soil fertility is fast depleting. This is despite the presence of pesticide management in Cambodia such as the 1998 royal decree on article 69 which lists banned and restricted pesticides and prohibits their trading. But only 4 companies are legally registered in MAFF in 1996. And according to a survey done by Australia Aid, 80 percent of pesticide is illegally imported.
On land-related issues, Cambodia had many wars and regime changes that land use and management is in disarray. Land disputes were caused by unclear land titling systems, lack of knowledge on the land laws and their inconsistencies with each other, and the pressure/threat of other land-related development plans such as tourism and irrigation. Landlessness is increasing; from 13 percent in 1997 to 20 percent in 2004. Diseases, increasing debts, natural disasters also have pressures on land tenure in Cambodia. The government, on the other hand, is implementing a pilot project of land distribution of maximum 5 hectares to landless families in two provinces. It plans to provide land to at least 10,000 landless families by 2015.
CEDAC-FNN ‘s role. It is playing an active role in addressing the problem of farmers in Cambodia through savings and credit programs, small business cooperatives, marketing opportunities to absorb the products of the farmers, particularly organic products such as rice and vegetables (selling and buying). There is also the Vision for 2015 to create 5,000 village-based farmer associations.
Sokchhoin summed up her presentation by stating that Cambodian farmers are facing many problems; some are being addressed by civil society organizations at the local level but some problems need to be addressed at the national level by the government. And the most important is that farmers educate themselves on the problems they face, what can be done about it and who can be their allies.
3.1.4. Open Forum
On VNFU’s report
• TWADA/TDFA asked about some clarification on the agriculture sub-sector of animal husbandry and why there are no percentages for fisheries.
VNFU said that the Ministry of Agriculture’s mandate covers crops and animal husbandry. There is a separate Ministry of Fisheries that covers the sector, meaning that fisheries is not part of the agricultural development plan of the Ministry of Agriculture.
• API inquired about the countries where Vietnam has exported its products to and which products (e.g. Indonesia importing rice from Vietnam).
VNFU mentioned that they export rice to ASEAN countries (to Philippines, Indonesia, etc.), and outside ASEAN (EU, US). But despite being a net exporter of rice, Vietnam imports other products from the EU, Thailand, China, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brazil (e.g. fruits, food and industrial agro-products).
• FNN (Mr. Tith) asked about the farmers who have come into contract agreement with business companies to get loans for inputs.
The response from VNFU was that they have contract with fertilizer companies who provide the inputs (at the harvest, the farmers pay back in cash and VNFU collects money from their members).
• FNN had a follow up question on the problems related to chemical fertilizers, whether VNFU encounters problems like they do in Cambodia.
VNFU helps their farmers who cannot pay back due to diseases or calamities and requests the government to repudiate the loan. The practice in Vietnam is that farmers can get a loan in one cropping season and pay in the next cropping season; the VNFU serves as a guarantor to the fertilizer company.
• AsiaDHRRA (Marlene) commented that access to market is the top priority of two groups. But she delved more on the presentation of VNFU that they still lack the agro-industrial linkages and linkage of organized farmers to businesses and the market for their produce. This is despite VNFU being a highly organized federation from the village level up to the national. She expressed her delight over the point that AFA members will do something proactive on this issue because they know that marketing arrangements will increase the economic condition of farmers.
VNFU stressed that they still lack linkages. Though they have contacts with enterprises and companies on input-arrangement, the output arrangement with some companies is still weak (e.g. tea and sugarcane are only in some areas). This is not so true for coffee. This is why a lot of farmers cannot sell their produce from harvesting. This is why they think it is important to build capacity not only in some areas but all the villages with VNFU members. They are still trying to develop these skills.
• Soc made a follow up question about who owns the companies that buy VNFU farmers’ products: Is it owned by the government or an MNC (whether they exist in a socialist country like Vietnam), which in the Philippines is almost always equivalent to foreign-owned and agribusiness corporation.
VNFU disclosed that Vietnam is a socialist country but they have market mechanisms. They have private enterprises/companies with different ownership arrangements— the size of the enterprises varies. VNFU cooperates with them as long as they collaborate with the farmers and pay taxes to the government, regardless if they are private or government-owned.
On farmers’ debt problems in Thailand and Vietnam
• PAKISAMA raised a question on the problem of Thai and Cambodian farmers that debt is becoming a big problem (80,000 baht for Thai farmers and with Cambodia, loans are being extended to pay for another loan). What is the real problem why the farmers cannot pay for their loans? In the Philippines, there is no credit facility for the farmers, of the kind in Thailand and Cambodia, because government does not have money.
FNN’s response was that micro-financial institution (MFI) and other moneylenders provide credit to the farmers. Many farmers cannot pay because of various externalities (e.g. natural disaster, pests, etc.) and non-investment of loans in agricultural production or no specific plans for the use of loans.
SorKorPor said that Thai farmers have many debts and referred to pages 15-16 of the handouts to show the causes of farmers’ debts. Also, debts are not only exclusive to farmers but teachers have debts of about Baht 400,000 or more than USD 11,000. Part of the problem has to do with loans and credit not used for on-farm production but for consumerist purposes, and the interest rates are quite high ranging from 5 to 8 percent.
On fertilizer use and land use in Cambodia
• PAKISAMA: How does the government of Cambodia address the fertilizer problem, which has caused the fish kill in the Mekong River and Tonle Sap River? This is very alarming. How do the farmers and fisher folks respond? This is still happening despite the Cambodian government issuing a royal decree of banning certain fertilizers in 1998.
FNN: NGOs and government disseminate information and provide awareness on the harmful effects of pesticide use. The Ministry of Agriculture reported that the insecticide use has increased but the use of fertilizers has decreased. On the chemical residue in the Tonle Sap Lake, the government promised to do something about it but no action has been taken yet in banning chemical use. As farmers live along the riverbanks, they use the fertilizers, which seep in the soil and the lake. Farmers need to be more informed on how to use safe pesticides only
• PAKISAMA/Ka Cris made a follow up question on whether there is any initiative from FNN to use organic fertilizers and pesticides instead of chemical ones.
FNN said that they are trying to promote organic farming, but the current situation disallows them from doing so. This is still in transition but some have already converted to organic farming.
• PAKISAMA/Ka Elmer asked whether the Cambodian government is implementing a policy on providing land to its farmers, and whether FNN has something to do with this policy (advocated or campaigned for this policy).
FNN mentioned that they are not involved in this policy directly on land redistribution but indirectly (i.e. through their activities such as promotion of organic agriculture to increase the income and productivity so that the farmers would not migrate and ignite a mass selling of lands due to indebtedness).
Soc ended the discussion by acknowledging the presence and participation of Task Force Mapalad farmers, Rodito Angeles and Edna Sobrecaray, who have been recently harassed and shot by the blue guards of the Hacienda Malaga owners in Negros Oriental, in the Visayas region.
3.2 Island and Chopstick Groups
3.2.1 Indonesia (API)
Overview of Rural Poverty in Indonesia. Sambito began his presentation (See Annex 3 for API’s Presentation) by showing the reality that Indonesian farmers face, i.e. rural poverty. According to him, they are poor because of low levels of education, unemployment, lack of access to land or productive asset (farmers just work on the farms owned by agribusiness companies or landlords), and high birth rates (in the rural areas, girls marry at an early age). He called this as the “four vicious cycles of poverty”, which are intricately linked with each other. With low income per capita, farmers have low purchasing power, which limits the growth of the local rural economy; there is high incidence of unemployment and limited savings for a farming family. The second cycle has to do with low productivity of farmers. The new generation and other farmers abandon farming because of low productivity, low income, lack of opportunities, and lack of basic social services for the rural areas such as health, medicine, and education. These then lead to insufficient investment and capital to spur the local economy, lack of modern input and quality food. These conditions lead to insufficient nutrition, hunger and poverty. The third cycle has something to do with lack of access to social services or provision from the government such as housing, health services, etc., further exacerbating the condition that the rural poor are in. The last cycle has to do with high birth rates, which has a huge impact on the local economy and its capacity to absorb surplus labor.
He also showed several slides showing the level/rate of poverty before and during the Soeharto period (i.e. the poverty incidence skyrocketed during Soeharto) and compared the poverty incidence between the urban and rural areas, the latter with more incidence of poverty.
The Constraints/Difficulties faced by API and other Indonesian farmers. Sambito mentioned three major constraints, which are external factors. One is the current international financial architecture and G8 agreement, which do not support the basic sectors in the underdeveloped countries. Second is the control of transnational and multinational corporations of the global agricultural system (from production to distribution and consumption), i.e. monopoly and monopsony. This undermines small farmers’ production. Third, is the fact that in rural Indonesia, farmers are abandoning farming because it is not very productive and has a low social recognition.
API’s responses and activities. At the national level, API’s strategy and advocacy involves resource mobilization for its members, campaign for access to land, seed and livestock.
Their policy advocacy is based on the principles of promoting farmers’ rights and pro-poor budget.
AFA’s assistance. Sambito suggested that AFA should establish global alliances on the issues of genuine agrarian reform, food sovereignty, and right to food. Secondly, forge solidarity among Asian farmers through technology transformation/transfer and resource sharing such as farmers’ exchanges.
3.2.2. Taiwan
Taiwan Waxed Apple Development Association (TWADA)
Problems faced by Taiwanese (fruit) farmers. Mr. Ho presented the problems faced by Taiwanese farmers. One is marketing-related/post-harvest problems such as grading and packaging, and oversupply of various fruits in the market depressing their prices. He explained that there is a need to standardize the different grading and packaging measures. Only a small number of farmer groups use a united/standardized measure and the rest do not. On the over-supply or over-production of various fruits, he stated that the domestic market is too small which dampens the prices of fruits, i.e. there is more supply than demand. This is worsened by the entry of imported fruits because of WTO agreements. The second problem has to do with the development or lack of human resources. The younger generation refuses to engage in farming and this is a major problem for an ageing farming population. There is a ‘bleaching bird’s plan’ of the Council of Agriculture, which was adopted from Germany. This plan aims to attract new young peasants to engage in agricultural production. However, according to Mr. Ho, there might be clash of generation as the younger peasants are deemed more efficient and competitive, putting more pressure on the existing older generation.
Strategies and solutions. The strategy that he proposed was to conduct more internal education, training and treatment on the issue of grading/labeling and packaging. To counter the oversupply and overproduction of fruits in their domestic market, he proposed to set up an early warning mechanism and an exact investigation of fruit production per acre of land. Regulation should be done by the government. The problem with this is that Taiwanese farmers, being market-oriented and efficient, change their products so often which make it difficult for them to monitor and regulate. Another strategy was to export tropical fruits to Europe but transportation and storage problems have to be dealt with. On the lack of human resources, Mr. Ho suggested to encourage more peasants to receive trainings and actively participate in agricultural extension studies (e.g. deep ploughing/plowing plan). He made a caveat that for TWADA it was not easy to address the problem of lack of human resources.
Taiwan Dairy Farmers’ Association
Problems faced by dairy farmers. Mr. Huang, like Mr. Ho, cited that they face a shortage of rural workers in the dairy industry that was developed 30 years ago. Young people are going to New Zealand, US, and Australia for non-agricultural industries. The present farmers are second and third generation who are now in their 40s and up. The dairy industry needs the help of young people to introduce new knowledge, technology and skills in developing the industry.
Solutions and proposals. Mr. Huang explained that more than thirty years ago, the Taiwanese government selected young peasants to learn the grips of cow-raising and processing technology from advanced countries. Then, the government subsidized the equipment and provided loans and grants to facilitate the development of the dairy industry. He stressed that they have the experience and technology, which they could offer to other farmers. (The production level is 6,000 kg of milk per year/cow.) He further went on and stated that there is an opportunity for SEA farmers and the youth to study and farm in Taiwan and they can offer USD 300 as wage for each person every month. Secondly, as the development of animal husbandry in the subtropical and tropical zone is relatively slow, Taiwan has well-developed technological and environmental conditions (for example, spraying water, ventilate movements, lowering the temperature to suit the animal’s needs, etc.). They have the expertise which they can lend to other SEA farmers such as transfer of technology, in particular the technology and know-how of reducing the stress of animals. A third proposition that he mentioned was developing “heat resistance animal assortment”. The Livestock Research Institute and Council of Agriculture are in partnership with the U.S. and Canada in the development of this technology. This on-going project can raise the yield and quality of milk for Taiwan and Southeast Asia.
3.2.3. Philippines
PAKISAMA
Problems faced by Filipino farmers. Ka Rene, national president of PAKISAMA, presented the problems faced by Filipino farmers. There are two main problems of farmers—landlessness and productivity. He provided a brief history of the landlessness situation in the country: from pre-colonization period when lands were owned by local datus or tribal leaders; Spanish colonization (1565-1898) when landholdings were concentrated to local and national elite and Spaniards; American colonization (1898-1946) when big corporations owned vast tracts of land; to the contemporary period of independence when there was limited agrarian reform (1946-1988), the birth of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law in 1998 which covered 10 million hectares out of the 30 million hectares of available Philippine land (1988-present). He particularly highlighted that despite the existence of the agrarian reform law, lands are not yet fully distributed to the landless, small farmers and farmworkers because of stiff landlord resistance, lack of political will by the government and implementation problems. More than 1.9 million hectares have yet to be distributed and majority of this about 1.7 million hectares are lands owned by 143,452 landowners with more than 5 hectares of landholdings. Other lands that have yet to be distributed are owned by government financial institutions (29,491 hectares), private banks (24,296 hectares), government-owned land, settlements and landed estates (89,718 hectares).
He then mentioned that the second problem is productivity. According to him, only one out of twenty farmers received production loan from the government. And only 142,218 agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) in agrarian reform communities (ARCs) or just 16 percent of the total ARBs in ARCs have received credit assistance from the program. This number becomes smaller, i.e. 4.7 percent if leaseholders and other ARBs not in the agrarian reform communities are included. In monetary terms, an agrarian reform beneficiary received a measly PhP 14,727 or a little over USD 300 from the different credit programs of the Department of Agrarian Reform. Apart from credit support, productivity of the land had also decreased because of use of chemicals, fertilizers and pesticides, which is the practice since the Green Revolution in the 1970s.
But the immediate concern faced by farmers and agrarian reform advocates is that the law extending the funding of CARP will end by June 2008, consequently, stalling the implementation of the program. He reiterated that there are still more than 1 million of prime agricultural land to be distributed.
PAKISAMA Initiatives. Ka Rene mentioned that PAKISAMA is involved in three major initiatives: land policy campaigns and advocacy (e.g. the Mapalad campaigns 1 and 2 from 2008-2015); actual implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) through community organizing and mobilization (e.g. TriPARRD, fast lease, and paralegal development); and sustainable agriculture program (e.g. training of farmers, etc.)
Difficulties faced by PAKISAMA. According to Ka Rene, there are three important difficulties that they face. The first is finance/raising resources for organizing and mobilizations. PAKISAMA as of the moment is dependent on grants and there are not many funders financing organizing work. Second is on human resources, i.e. getting a good number of workers/staff doing organizing and campaign work. And the last one is the problem of organizing. PAKISAMA only has 16,000 farmer-members out of the 7 million farmers in the Philippines.
AFA Assistance. He finished the presentation by concretely proposing what AFA can do. One is brokering—linking its members with donors, academe and ASEAN governments. Two is information and technology—linking producers and consumers (e.g. the teikei formula), and confederation management. The last is international community pressure on issues related to agrarian reform (e.g. extension of the law in the Philippines), trade, and agrarian-related killings and violence.
Task Force Mapalad (TFM)
Edna Sobrecaray gave a brief introduction of the struggles they face, mainly in Negros Oriental, which is the bastion of landlordism in the Philippines. She stressed that they still do not have land to till in Negros because of landlord resistance. Despite possessing Certificate Land of Ownership (CLOA), the former landowner Roberto Cuenca still deployed his blue guards or goons to harass the farmers.
She then explained the video of Hacienda Velez Malaga shooting last January 24, 2007: the farmers/CLOA holders physically occupied the land given to them and started to prepare their land for cultivation. However, the blue guards of the landowner closed in on the Task Force Mapalad members and shot at them to force them out of the land, which they had occupied.
The helpless farmers fled for their lives and retreated in the nearby forest and riverbank. This was the time when Pepito Santillan, a 70-year old farmer leader of TFM, was killed. TFM farmers are also criminalized, i.e. they face criminal charges filed by the former landowner.
Soc further cited the 30-day strike staged by the TFM farmers from Feb. 24 to March 23. He explained that this campaign received tremendous media attention and support from the agrarian reform community. The DAR Secretary with a battalion of police was forced to install them on the land. But last June 4, the farmers who started to cultivate the land were shot by goons and two of them were killed.
According to Soc, the government is controlled by landowners with no less than the president, whose husband’s family own vast tracts of land. A problem faced by Filipino farmers is that landowners have reconsolidated themselves in the executive, legislature, and judiciary. He then concluded by highlighting the main challenge facing the agrarian reform movement— how to do a concerted effort in pushing for the implementation of the law and in installing farmers in the lands awarded to them.
3.2.4. Open Forum
On the problem of younger generation abandoning farming for other lucrative endeavor
Indonesia
• PAKISAMA/Crispin asked API how they deal with food security and address the problem of the youth abandoning farming for other industries and jobs.
API/Sambito stated that they coordinate with other farmers and learn about their farming practices. They also do advocacies at the village level related to access to land, production and promotion/reclaiming the rights of farmers and establishing the value system for farming. According to Sambito, if farmers increase their production, consequently, their income would also increase.
Taiwan
• Esther/AFA asked for a clarification of the meaning of “bleaching bird’s plan” of Taiwan’s Council of Agriculture.
TWADA clarified that ‘bleaching of bird’ is a figurative phrase, which promotes the intensification of land use to attract young farmers. Most of the farmers in Taiwan are elderly and the young ones are not interested anymore in agricultural production. This is one project; the other is that retired people are also being encouraged by government to go back into farming.
• Esther made a follow question: what does it mean by land intensification and how would this encourage young farmers?
VNFU/Yvoan made an intervention that they do not have a problem of encouraging young people to engage in farming because the population in the rural area is still big, about 74 million.
In-Woo answered Esther’s question and further explained Taiwan’s agricultural movement. There are small schemes implemented in the local areas. Bleaching bird’s plan is just one example—“an improved method of farming to dig deeply into the soil because it is too acidic due to fertilizer use. He then explained that in Taiwan, they are developing a new growth engine for agriculture. After WWII, most of the countries are depending on the modernization theory that promotes capital-intensive agriculture. Farmers have become large debtors and that large-scale farmers have not changed their monoculture agriculture despite changes in the market. Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea are developing new growth engine in terms of land use—10 percent are for organic farming, 80 percent for food production— 10 percent for sustainable use of resources. There are new concepts of increasing/optimizing natural resources.
In-Woo reiterated that Taiwan has a serious human resources problem. And as agriculture has been largely mechanized, there are no new agricultural activities for the ageing agricultural sector. But the Taiwanese government wanted to provide “fresh blood” to agriculture/rural areas and the response was that small-scale agricultural schemes such as the bleaching bird’s plan are implemented at the local areas.
On the issue of oversupply of fruits in the local/domestic market and early warning systems in Taiwan
• Esther/AFA asked about the causes of oversupply of fruits, whether because of imports or overproduction.
TWADA explained that the reasons for oversupply are overproduction of fruits plus flooding of cheap imports because of the WTO and free trade agreements.
• Soc concurred that in the Philippines when one finds out that one farmer earns more in planting a certain type of crop, everyone will shift to that crop and this would then deflate the prices. He then asked about the pricing and early warning system in Taiwan and how it works.
In-Woo stated that the Taiwanese government had developed a good estimation system for prices/pricing. But one major problem/variable is typhoon or climate. In Taiwan, there are more than ten typhoons that hit the country per year. This prevents the government from estimating the prices. This is why they need the import volume to make sure that there will be no shortage. There is no early warning system for typhoon.
Soc mentioned that in the Samar and Bicol regions farmers are experiencing the onslaught of typhoons.
However, In-Woo pointed out that the food system has not yet changed in the Philippines as in Taiwan, i.e. there is a drastic increase in vegetable intake but decrease in rice intake. To mitigate risks, the government ensures that insurance are in place (e.g. there is pension and insurance system, estimation system and disaster compensation).
On the issue of standardization for exports
• VNFU/Yvoan asked TWADA to expound more on the difficulties they face in marketing, in particular standardization (e.g. EU standards). And what kind of standards/set of standards that TWADA implements for exports and the problems they encounter (e.g. differences on standards between national and EU?)
TWADA/George mentioned that their standardization measures are based on domestic policies. TWADA has a set of standards for papaya exports to Europe. And they have sent these information/standards to the EU for approval.
• Soc asked a follow up question on whether the EU had accepted (or not) the set of standards TWADA developed.
TWADA cited that in the case of papaya, which the EU does not produce, they set the standards. The organization collaborated with an international company that knows the process of standard setting. George offered to provide a sample to VNFU.
VNFU/Yvoan agreed with George that in Europe, some products have standards of their own, but for some, the exporting countries will provide their own standards.
In-Woo clarified that there are three trends of developing standards for imported and exported products. One is the European style which lists the components of the product must or must not contain (positive and negative items that they accept). Second is the US standard which competes with the EU. And the third is the national standard of Japan (as large exporter)/FAO. He also gave an example that the EU has not accepted the standards of Australia who have developed their own standards (e.g. kiwi to be exported to every country). He further explained that even if small-scale farmers want to follow the standards, personally he wants them to stop. For him, there is no need to follow these standards under a globalized framework (power relations). In countries like the Philippines, the first problem is landlessness.
VNFU/Yvoan agreed that developing countries cannot compete with these standards and there are underpinning power relations that must be understood.
TWADA/George, then, explained that international companies did not explain to them the different standards. The international company only explained what they need to do as exporters to persuade the EU to accept their products
Soc closed the discussion by stating that this topic is an issue for future discussion for AFA
4. CLOSING FOR THE DAY
Esther rounded up the first day by thanking everyone for their participation in the discussions, for being on time, for joining the rallies, and for making brief but clear presentations. With that our first day is rounded and successful. She then announced that the next day will start at 8 am until 12 noon and in the afternoon, Filipino groups and government officials will join them for a forum. She reminded everyone of the host team assignments. And finally gave some instructions for reimbursements and logistics.
Day 2: June 13, 2007
1. PRELIMINARIES
The day started with a series of exercises and energizers from API and TWADA.
Esther gave a recap of what had transpired yesterday and what was in store for the second day. The first day tackled the difficulties faced by farmers in the region. The second day zeroed in on ways forward and action points on how to respond to the problems. In the afternoon, there was a forum-dialogue with government officials and civil society groups on agriculture-trade issues, particularly on the WTO (international global trade), ASEAN, and EU-ASEAN-FTA. Esther mentioned that AFA had an active campaign on the 2005 WTO Sixth Ministerial Meeting in Hong Kong where they participated in various mobilizations and activities. She then explained that the Doha Development Round of negotiations is being revived despite the setback in 2005. Last March, AFA had a dialogue with the ASEAN secretariat and the dialogue focused on the ASEAN Charter and the EU-ASEAN FTA. In the evening there was a solidarity night, which was joined by other Filipino groups.
Soc then gave a synthesis of the first day’s discussion and the guidelines for the workshop on ways forward. (See Annex 4 for the Synthesis Table).
2. SYNTHESIS OF MAJOR DIFFICULTIES FACED BY FARMERS
Soc then explained the table/synthesis of the major difficulties faced by farmers in the region and he came up with six major difficulties/categories:
The first is landlessness and access to land, which is being confronted by four countries, namely Thailand, Indonesia (with 180 million farming population), Cambodia, and the Philippines. Soc then pointed out that Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, which are the most developed among the AFA member countries had agrarian reform programs 50 to 60 years ago that formed the basis of their development. Vietnam is reaping the fruits of agrarian reform.
Aside from the issue of land, the next common issue is productivity (in terms of techniques, access to capital and credit, inputs, etc.). Soc gave the example of Cambodia where they have problems of low yield, indebtedness, problems brought about by chemical fertilizer use, lack of knowledge in advanced production technique, lack of access to production credit, etc. While in Taiwan, the problem is high productivity that deflates the prices of products in the domestic market, compounded by the flooding of cheap imports.
The third issue faced by the Asian farmers is marketing and trading: issue of pricing, marketing information, post-harvest technology and processing, low competitiveness, marketing skills, packaging and trademarks. This is an issue of farmers who are already in the advanced stages of production/farming. Soc explained that for those who have yet to receive their land, marketing is a secondary issue.
Basic support services is the fourth common issue—lack of rural infrastructure, post-harvest facilities, etc.
The fifth issue is governance (inadequate pro-poor budget, participation of farmers in decision-making processes and control of agriculture by MNCs and big agribusiness corporations), especially for soft states like the Philippines and Indonesia. In Vietnam, the farmers’ associations have a strong voice in their government. In Taiwan, the problem of governance, though not mentioned in the presentation, is also an issue in the country—policies, budget, etc. In Indonesia, the issue of military and agribusiness control of their agriculture sector have a bearing on productivity and farmers’ control and access to land.
Sixth is the lack of human resources (but in Indonesia and the Philippines, there are abundant human resources). It was mentioned that young people are more and more migrating to the urban areas and outside their country. The main problem for all the AFA member countries is that the farmers are ageing. Soc gave the example of the Philippines where 57 is the average age of a farmer. This is getting more pronounced in Japan and Taiwan.
In closing, he gave a picture of what AFA need to confront in the region: most farmers are mired in poverty and landlessness; farmer have problems in productivity including second generation problems of farm labor supply, standards, etc.; and farmers face concerns related to marketing technologies (except Taiwan).
He then summarized how AFA can help:
• capacity building
o regional issues such as the ASEAN, WTO
o advocacy and campaign management
o marketing and business skills
o production technologies to increase yield
o organizational and confederation management
• advocacy at the regional level
o trade
o pressure international community re: land issues/killings
• agro trade fairs for product development, and how to capture and expand market
• exchange labor and technology transfer
3. SESSION 2: IDENTIFYING RESPONSES, PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
The synthesis report was followed by break-out sessions/workshops. Instead of sub-regional groupings, it was suggested to break out based on common issues—land/access, production and marketing. Soc provided the guide questions for the working groups: how can AFA be relevant on these issues (with a time-frame of 2-3 years or 3-5 years); and what programs and projects can be developed by AFA given these particular suggestions.
Detailed questions:
On land
• how can AFA be relevant to its farmers who are still struggling for their land, to have access to and control of the land?
• what programs and projects can be developed by AFA given these particular suggestions?
On production
• how to increase productivity—technology sharing, farmers exchange, access to credit and basic services, labor/human resources?
• what programs and projects can be developed by AFA given these particular suggestions?
On marketing
• how to obtain standards, capture and expand markets, and understand the implications of trade policies (e.g. the WTO, ASEAN, FTAs) and its links to marketing
• what programs and projects can be developed by AFA given these particular suggestions?
Soc proceeded with explaining the composition of the group, i.e. the participants organized along their interests. He stressed that the workshop was about project development.
Lany proposed to bring down the suggestions/responses to the level of specifics rather than generalities. (e.g. landlessness – how many farmers are landless, which areas; marketing- which products, crops and marketing interventions).
The workshop ran for 35 minutes and the group went back to plenary for report backs and responses from AFA partners (i.e. FFTC and AsiaDHRRA).
3.1. Plenary Presentations of Workshop Results
3.1.1. Workshop on Landlessness
Ka Rene was the rapporteur of the group. Their recommendations are as follo:
RECOMMENDATION
• Developing community organizers among the farmers
• Farmers’ exchange – living in the community for extensive period of time
• AFA should help/fund member organizations to expand their base to become strong in their advocacy for land reform
• AFA should set up an Asian fund for agrarian reform (100 million USD in 10 years); funds will come from countries where agrarian reform is already finished (solidarity fund), e.g. Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam with 8.8 million farmer members; funds can be used by members still struggling for agrarian reform – for organizing, strategizing, mobilization to implement agrarian reform.
Soc mentioned that the farmers who have their land already can allocate some amount per harvest for the solidarity fund. He gave the example of the PARFUND and that PAKISAMA farmers will set up a similar fund starting this September. Sumilao farmers like Ka Rene have committed PhP 7,000 from their 700 farmer members. A portion of it will be donated to the Asian solidarity fund. He further reiterated that this is a serious endeavor.
3.1.2. Workshop on Production
Esther explained the process of their workshop – each country shared a specific production-technology problem. Cambodia has low rice yield, mainly because of unsuitable seeds (to soil and climate) and lack of water supply. In the Philippines, there is an oversupply of fruits during harvest season causing a big drop in prices. And in Thailand, low price of palm oil/fruit because of poor quality and control of middlepersons. Below is the summary of the group’s recommendations on how AFA can help:
RECOMMENDATION
• Collect appropriate technologies for specific production-technology problems (e.g. rice farming in non-irrigated areas such as the one village, one pond in Thailand, and diversified farming
• Establish demonstration farms that showcase these appropriate technologies
• Promote success stories of these appropriate technologies and replicate/copy these success stories
• Marketing-related production concerns
– Make feasibility studies for planned post harvest technologies (e.g. cooling facility for lanzones and rambutan)
– Technologies for direct farmer-consumer marketing (e.g. Go Sam Agri Coop in Korea)
– Establish information on cropping and planting systems
– Establish information on prices per crop (e.g. rubber, palm oil)
3.1.3 Workshop on Marketing
YVoan presented the results of their workshop. They identified six marketing-related problems. Below is the summary of her presentation:
MARKETING PROBLEMS RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Lack of Market information needed for marketing negotiation • Each member group of AFA will make a database of their members and the products that they are producing (volume, etc.)
• AFA to conduct market research focusing on key crop/ commodity based on the consolidated database (example of possible market research: dairy production and market situation; and tropical fruits such as lychee, papaya, etc.; and organic, GAP, IPM products)
2. Lack of training and research on processing, post- harvest technology • Training on processing and post-harvest technology focusing on key crops / commodity
3. Lack of training and international seminar on marketing • Conduct training on marketing, standards and certification
(e.g. ISO, EUROGAP, food safety)
• Invite speakers knowledgeable about specific market (EU, US, Australia, Japan)
• Exchange visit focusing on particular crop (e.g. pilot exchange visit between Vietnam and Taiwan)
• Training on packaging
• Training on negotiation
4. Absence of marketing committee or mechanism within AFA and local members that will focus in marketing and building market linkages • Create a committee within AFA and in local member organization
• Conduct trust building between producer, consumer, buyers, traders
5. Lack of resources on marketing activities • Develop proposal and look for donor partner
6. Lack of Advocacy on organic production and marketing • Conduct campaign on organic product and GAP product
3.2 AFA Partners’ Responses
3.2.1 AsiaDHRRA
Marlene stated that AsiaDHRAA has always been a partner of AFA. She came up with some proposals for areas of support in response to the points raised during the first day.
AFA Members’ Issues/Area for Support AsiaDHRRA Response
1. Market Access
• Two (2) proposals in the pipeline submitted to ASEAN Foundation and World Rural Forum (i.e. “Linking Small Farmers to the Market”)
o Regional Scope
o In-country Piloting (at least five, if both gets funded)
o Capacity Building (entrepreneurial and technical skills)
o Setting up of marketing and intermediation mechanism
o Mapping and Information Technology (IT) Use
o AFA and DHRRA members as main participants
o With special concern for young farmers and women
The target dates for the ASEAN Foundation is 2007 and for the World Rural Forum is 2008.
2. Continuing Learning Exchanges (technology oriented and development exposure) • People-People Exchange is a core strategy of AsiaDHRRA
o For technology oriented exposure: all DHRRA members are committed and capable of hosting
o For 2006-2007, VNFU will have an exchange with Taiwan and Korea; and VietDHRRA with Taiwan and Japan
3. On-the-Job Training (OJT) in East Asian Countries (Taiwan, Korea)
• AsiaDHRRA ExeCom gave mandate to Secretariat to develop an acceptable framework that will guide OJT of South farmers to Taiwan or Korea:
o OJT must be in the context of Human Resource Development
o Target is for 2007 to guide KoDHRRA/KAFF in policy lobby; and TaiwanDHRRA is facilitating cooperation (e.g. the dairy industry and northern Taiwan climate—tropical situation fit to the Philippines and applicable with some modification)
o To reconcile the proposals of the Koreans and Taiwanese of USD 400 USD and USD 300, respectively.
4. ASEAN Advocacy especially on Agrarian Reform issues • Together with AFA, an initial paper was written and presented to the ASEAN Secretariat: AR/Sustainable Agriculture advocacy in ASEAN. But the comment from ASEC was that the issues are valid but too political. Marlene stressed that the issue should be approached on concrete grounds. She proposed the following:
o To pursue policy campaigns through broader front (e.g. SAPA; sectoral campaigns – IP/fisheries issues)
o Through program cooperation (e.g. AR exchange program such as GO-NGO-PO-ASEAN; shared understanding; dialogue leading to confidence building; collective advocacy position for ASEAN consideration)
o AsiaDHRRA (and AFA) will develop an AREV program and submit through the SOMRDPE
• Help link up AFA with other groups working on AR issues
5. Solidarity Fund for Agrarian Reform • AsiaDHRRA to look into this and support AFA through its own FR plan (anchored on member DHRRAs)
• AsiaDHRRA will guide AFA in its long-term FR strategic planning (2008)
6. Continuing need for Capacity Building • AsiaDHRRA is into pro-active network building with resource groups with clear value-added to AFA (e.g FFTC, universities such as NPUST-Wenchi, NCYU – George, think-tanks, etc.)
• Learning Institutes (Learning Circles) which can be a space for consolidating the lessons learned for the last 30 years which could mean learning the stories and expertise of countries (knowledge management, documentation of good management, and efficient transfer of technology); and bring people together to problematize and propose solutions and ways forward
George added NCYU, where he is teaching, as a potential partner of AFA (add to 6.1)
3.2.2. Food and Fertilizer Technology Center for the Asian and Pacific Region (FTTC)
In-Woo Lee, an agricultural economist with FFTC, shared his organization’s mission, vision, activities and plans. He started his presentation by stressing the role of agricultural information and technology in “enabling small-scale farmers to achieve improved agricultural productivity, make effective use of natural resources, raise their income, and produce food that is accessible, available and affordable to all.” He then provided an overview of his organization.
Profile of FFTC. Established in the 1970s, FFTC came to being as a response to severe periodic shortages of both food and fertilizer in the Asia Pacific region and the lack of technical know-how among the Asian farmers. According to In-Woo, practical information becomes even more critical after 37 years to attain sustainable agriculture and share the benefits of the new global economy.
FFTC is funded by annual contribution from its 5 member countries. Other countries support through co-sponsorships and special projects and activities (e.g. Cambodia on citrus, Vietnam, seed for fruits and vegetables). Some programs are co-founded by other international organizations and non-political foundations in the region. (e.g. FAPO in Japan). FFTC has member organizations in Taiwan, Japan, Korea, China, Vietnam and Philippines. In-Woo also showed the organigram (organizational gram), which illustrated FFTC’s sections/departments from the Executive Director to the Technical Section, which In-Woo is a part of.
FFTC’s mission is to “collect and disseminate technical information on agricultural production, in order to achieve increased output and higher incomes for farmers in the Asian and Pacific region.” To achieve this, In-Woo presented their mechanism for technology transfer, which begins with identification of problems and issues that entails regional field surveys and discussions in seminars and workshops. It proceeds with collection, sharing, and exchange of information on the relevant technologies they have presented, discussed and identified at seminars and workshops. FFTC then disseminates the information and conduct technology transfer through its publications, website, and database, training courses, and field demonstration . The ultimate goal of technology transfer is sustainable agricultural development (improved productivity, sustainable use of natural resources and increased income and improved livelihood of small- scale farmers).
In-Woo proudly said that for almost four decades, more than 20,000 farmer leaders, extension workers, policy makers, researchers, scientists and students have actively participated in FFTC activities.
FFTC Programs, Services and Activities. According to In-Woo, FFTC has provided close to 300 seminars/workshops, training courses, regional surveys and field demonstrations since the 1970s (10 field demonstrations, 47 training courses, 192 seminars and workshops, 21 regional surveys, and 12 special projects). FFTC’s programs are divided according to area or discipline: livestock (16 percent of their work), agricultural development extension (18 percent), plant protection (15 percent), soils and fertilizers (18 percent), post-harvest technology (4 percent), horticultural crops (5 percent), rice and other food crops (19 percent), and agriculture and environment resources (5 percent). In terms of publications, FFTC has produced 154 newsletters, 172 technical bulletins, 579 extension bulletins, 67 books, 35 annual reports, 163 leaflets on practical technologies, and 40 leaflets on research highlights from 1970 t0 2006. Over one million copies have been distributed free to about 2,000 libraries of agricultural institutions, universities, public libraries and individuals in 52 countries. In terms of circulation in Asia, 27 percent of these publications went to the Philippines. 12 percent each to Japan and Korea, and 8 percent to Taiwan. In-Woo also mentioned that FFTC aims for an enhanced information service. In 2006, their website received 3.12 million requests. They likewise released an FFTC database on Asian agriculture in CD form.
FFTC put stress on strengthened regional network through close cooperation with agricultural centers within the region. In-Woo gave an example that they are in close cooperation with 15 international organizations and 72 national organizations. Through this, the Center identifies priority concerns and formulates annual work programs. Other mechanisms for networking in the region are activity/program co-sponsorships and collaboration with the FFTC alumni association and international NGOs.
Challenges, Opportunities and Directions. In-Woo expressed that ‘with agriculture playing a remarkably important role in the global economy today, the Center’s mandate as a clearinghouse for regional agricultural information becomes even more daunting’.
He also said that the first important problem confronting them as an organization is language and the second one, is technology, i.e. if it is valuable, it is privatized/licensed and they cannot share it. But they are developing schemes to share these technologies to small-scale farmers. For instance, they are testing whether it is possible to make linkages and work with NGOs, international research groups, etc. He also presented the strategic plan/focus of FTTC for the next 5 years: (a) effort to increase farmers’ income; (b) food safety; (c) enhance the environment-friendly technology; and (d) sustainable use of natural resources. This serves as the FFTC’s blueprint in identifying its annual work programs for the next five years, as well as in crafting policy and institutional strategies toward strengthening its international collaboration and partnerships within the Asia Pacific region.
He likewise shared his center’s 10 work programs. One of them is a seminar focusing on enhancing the role of rural women. They have already invited an AsiaDHRRA representative and TaiwanDHRRA, and they are expecting 14 participants in each country including mainland China, etc.
In conclusion, In-Woo cited that for four decades their center has contributed to the overall attainment of sustained agricultural development and for the benefit of the small-scale farmers in the region and not for large-scale farmers. FFTC’s mission is continuously evolving. The proposed Strategic Plan for 2007-2011 is a renewal of the FFTC’s commitment to respond to the technological needs of small-scale farmers amid the changing global environment. It gives full credit to all the people involved in its operations for the past 37 years, for their keen foresight, dedicated service and willingness to help, learn and respect ideas from others with only one thing in mind, i.e. “to improve Asian agriculture and their people.”
In-Woo stated that they have more than 100,000 agriculture experts in Asia-Pacific countries but could not connect their expertise to the needs of the farmers. He expressed that they are very much willing to lend their expertise and technology to AFA and AsiaDHRRA, to finally link with the small-scale farmers they intend to serve.
3.3. Open Forum/Closing
Esther summed up the discussions of the morning and highlighted concrete action points/projects for AFA (See Annex 5: Synthesis of Major Areas of Difficulties, Responses, and Proposals). This will be presented in the ExeCom meeting on Friday, June 15.
Soc ended the day by congratulating everyone for a productive morning and challenged them to work together in implementing/realizing the plans.
Comments are closed