Antonio Contreras, Ph.D.

August 2006

UPLAND AGRICULTURE IN THE PHILIPPINES: ISSUES AND DIRECTIONS

TOWARDS POVERTY ALLEVIATION, AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY AND

GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS

DISCLAIMER

“The views expressed in this report are strictly those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Ateneo de Manila University”.

Abstract This study inquires into the different issues that confront the upland agriculture sector in the Philippines. It analyzes the impacts of State policies and programs in agriculture and natural resources on the sector, and evaluates these in the light of how they enable or retard poverty alleviation, agricultural sustainability and global competitiveness. The study finds that necessary interventions for the attainment of these objectives are concretely defining and characterizing the economic and institutional dimensions of the uplands as a complex agro-ecological zone, including the appropriate valuation of its resources and contribution to national economy; reorienting institutional mechanisms by which bureaucracies operate in the uplands; and institutionalizing partnerships in support of the convergence agenda. On the other hand, sufficient conditions for realizing the desired goals are promoting industrialization in the uplands with a strong support system for marginalized communities, providing stronger usufruct rights not limited to the issuance of titles, adopting the principle of environmental payments through the charging of user fees on environmental services, providing adequate support services and safety nets to upland farmers and enabling them to become active players in developing upland agroforestry based industries.

UPLAND AGRICULTURE IN THE PHILIPPINES: Issues and Directions towards Poverty Alleviation,

Agricultural Sustainability and Global Competitiveness

Antonio P. Contreras, Ph.D. De La Salle University

Manila

Introduction: The State of Upland Agriculture in the Philippines From only 51 million in 1980, the population of the Philippines has grown to 81 million in 2000 after only 20 years, and is expected to rise to 113 million in 2020. In 2000, 5.2 million families were considered to be poor, accounting to about 34.2% of all families. At 47.4%, the incidence of poverty was higher for rural families compared to their urban counterpart, which amounted to 20.4% (NSCB, 2004). About 40% of the total population belongs to households which are dependent on agriculture. These same households constitute about two-thirds of the poor (World Bank, 2001). In 1988, it was estimated that 17.8 million live in the rural uplands, majority of which are poor (Cruz et al, 1988). At the time, this was about 30 percent of the total population of the country. Though dependence on agricultural cultivation has since been complemented by off-farm sources of income in many areas, a significant majority of upland households derive their main sources of livelihoods from land-based activities. Majority of these lands, which by law are considered as public lands under the jurisdiction of the State, are of marginal productivity. Recent estimates show that these lands considered as arable yet are in the public domain constitute about 3.2 million hectares, which is about one-fifth of the total 15.8 million hectares considered as forest lands. Earlier estimates using slope as reference placed the figure of lands suitable for agriculture1 within the public domain at 57 percent of the total forest lands (Cruz et al, 1988), which at current figures would be close to 9 million hectares. This is almost equal to the total area of agricultural lands which are not considered as forest lands, which stands at around 10 million hectares as of 2000 (See Table 1), and is about a third of the total land area of the Philippines. Thus, we have a significant number of Filipinos living on a large portion of our territory living below the poverty threshold and eking out a living from a resource that is both marginal in productivity and of which they may have access but have no control. This is the picture that confronts us as we inquire into the future of upland agriculture in the Philippines. This is juxtaposed with a vision provided by RA 8435, otherwise known as the “The Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997,” (AFMA) which mandates a policy regime that would bring Philippine agriculture to a state where poverty

1 This is determined using simple slope classification, wherein arable lands are computed as lands with slopes not to exceed 30 percent.

2

has been alleviated and agricultural production has become sustainable and globally competitive. Table 1. Physical area of agricultural land by utilization, 1996-2000 (in ‘000 ha)

Type of Farm

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Arable Under Temporary Crops

5540 5573 5605 5635 5663

Temporary Fallow 31 26 22 19 16Under Permanent Crops

4293 4310 4326 4341 4355

Temporary Meadows and Pastures

37 31 26 22 19

Permanent Meadows and Pastures

66 57 50 43 38

Woodlands and Forest 33 28 24 20 18Homelot 50 48 46 44 42Others 41 39 37 36 34Total 10091 10114 10137 10161 10184Source: NSCB, State of the Philippine Land and Soil Resources, 2003 This paper inquires into the different issues that confront the upland agriculture sector in the Philippines. It analyzes the impacts of State policies and programs in agriculture and in natural resources vis-à-vis this sector, and evaluates these in the light of how they enable or retard the attainment of the policy vision of poverty alleviation, agricultural sustainability, and global competitiveness. It also proposes policy options and directions which need to be explored or taken to enhance the attainment of such vision. Programs and Policies of the State vis-à-vis Upland Agriculture: Impacts and Issues Impacts and Issues vis-à-vis Governance of the Uplands. The uplands, as a geographical space, has been defined by the government as referring to marginal lands with at least 18 percent slope, lands that fall within mountain zones including plateaus lying in high elevations, and lands with hilly and mountainous terrains (BFD, 1982). However, the technical definition of what constitutes the uplands has been the object of academic debate. There are attempts to differentiate the uplands from hilly lands and highlands, with uplands being only those with 18 percent in slope, while highlands are those that fall in high elevations, regardless of whether they have slopes 18 percent or higher. On the other hand, Raymundo (1984) offers a definition of hilly land as:

3

“…an area at least one sq. kilometer (100 hectares) of which 70 percent of the land forms have more than 15 % slope gradient; or a maximum 30 percent of the land forms have less than 15 % slope gradient and with no contiguous level (≤ 15% slope gradient) area of more than 10 hectares.”

While this attempt to have finer distinctions may sound academic, it has bureaucratic implications. Clearly, in this differentiation, some types of uplands are now limited to lands above 18 percent in slope. This definition coincides with the legal definition of public lands, as specified in PD 705, or the Forestry Reform Code of 1975. As such, these lands are considered in the public domain, and are now placed under the administrative jurisdiction of the then Bureau of Forest Development (BFD), and has since been renamed as the Forest Management Bureau (FMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Public lands, which include both forest lands and areas that are suitable for agriculture, constitute about 53 percent of the total land area of the country. Lands falling in this category could not be declared alienable and disposable (A and D), and those that have been declared as A and D will have to be reverted back to forest lands. On the other hand, a significant portion of hilly lands and highlands, particularly those which fall below 18 percent in slope, are now considered as A and D, the administrative jurisdiction of which now belongs to the Department of Agriculture (DA), the Local Government Units (LGUs) and the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). A and D lands constitute roughly 47 percent of the total land area (See Table 2). Also included in this category would be lands with slopes above 18 percent in slope but have been already titled prior to the passage of PD 705. However, these lands are subject to pertinent provisions of PD 705, specifically Section 15, which states:

Lands eighteen percent (18%) in slope or over which have already been declared as alienable and disposable shall be reverted to the classification of forest lands by the Department Head, to form part of the forest reserves, unless they are already covered by existing titles, approved public land application, or actually occupied openly, continuously, adversely and publicly for a period of not less than thirty (30) years as of the effectivity of this Code, where the occupant is qualified for a free patent under the Public Land Act. Provided, that said lands, which are not yet part of a well-established communities, shall be kept in a vegetative condition sufficient to prevent erosion and adverse effects on the lowlands and streams. Provided, further, that when public interest so requires, steps shall be taken to expropriate, cancel defective titles, reject public land application, or eject occupants thereof.

Thus, the territory called “uplands” assumes a bureaucratic identity that straddles several government agencies. While a portion of the uplands under the jurisdiction of DENR are suitable for agriculture, such are managed in the context of PD 705 and its attendant and succeeding related policy issuances and directives. This policy climate puts emphasis on conservation, and while there may be references on upland farming, these are seen as secondary activities compared to the primary function of watershed protection and rehabilitation through appropriate land uses. A perusal of most DENR policy pronouncements on the uplands vis-à-vis its farming systems focus on incentive systems, such as provision of tenurial security in the form of usufruct rights given usually to

4

collective entities, to engage in agroforestry activities in support of forest protection and resource rehabilitation. Table 2. Status of Land Classification by Region (in hectares)

Region

Total Land Area

Alienable and

Disposable Land

Total Forest Land

Philippines 30,000,000 14,145,078 15,854,922 National Capital Region 63,600 48,232 15,368 CAR 1,829,368 350,099 1,479,269 Ilocos 1,284,019 810,922 473,097 Cagayan Valley 2,683,758 965,965 1,717,793 Central Luzon 1,823,082 1,051,908 771,174 Southern Tagalog 4,692,416 2,172,866 2,519,550 Bicol 1,763,249 1,222,060 541,189 Western Visayas 2,022,311 1,408,782 613,529 Central Visayas 1,495,142 959,223 535,919 Eastern Visayas 2,143,169 1,023,715 1,119,454 Western Mindanao 1,599,734 762,280 837,454 Northern Mindanao 1,403,293 657,100 746,193 Southern Mindanao 2,714,059 1,079,824 1,634,235 Central Mindanao 1,437,274 546,828 890,446 Caraga 1,884,697 542,447 1,342,250 ARMM 1,160,829 542,827 618,002 Source: NAMRIA A closer examination of the discourse of the State vis-à-vis upland agriculture reveals a punitive origin, wherein upland cultivation was seen as mainly destructive in character, and has to be punished, prohibited and controlled. This view was premised on the legal principle that all forest lands, including those that are suited for agriculture and/or being cultivated, are public lands owned by the State, as well as on the argument that upland cultivation was destructive, as symbolized by “slash and burn” agriculture. Later policies and programs have gradually accommodated upland cultivation, but subject to much State regulation and control. In 1975, the Forest Occupancy Management (FOM) program awarded occupancy permits to upland farmers on the condition that they would not expand their cultivated areas and they would conduct forest protection activities prescribed by government. Two succeeding programs, the Communal Tree Farming (CTF) Program in 1978 and the Family Approach to Reforestation (FAR) Program in 1979, provided mechanisms for upland farmers to establish tree plantations. In 1982, Letter of Instruction (LOI) 1260 issued by President Ferdinand Marcos established the Integrated Social Forestry Program (ISFP), wherein tenurial rights good for 25 years and renewable for 25 years were awarded to communities and individuals provided that they engage in forest protection activities and adopt soil conserving techniques in upland agriculture. Succeeding community-based programs, such as those initiated under

5

Department Administrative Order (DAO) No. 39 issued in 1988 establishing a nationwide reforestation program, and DAO No. 123 issued in 1989 creating the Community Forestry Program (CFP) have even placed more emphasis on resource conservation, even as they also provided some mechanisms for allowing some forms of upland agriculture, now in the form of agroforestry. Executive Order (EO) 263, which took effect in 1995, institutionalized community-based forest management (CBFM) as state policy. As shown in Table 3, there is a substantial shift in the management system of public lands away from corporate timber production through Timber Licensee Agreements (TLA) to people-oriented forestry programs (POFP) through CBFM, the Integrated Social Forestry Program (ISFP) and forest land management agreements (FLMA). In 1990, TLA areas accounted for 3.7 million hectares while only half a million hectares were devoted to CBFM and other people-oriented forestland management systems. Ten years after, and after EO 263 took effect, the area devoted to TLA was reduced to only about 0.9 million hectares, while there was a significant increase in the area devoted to POFP, which stood at 5.7 million hectares. Table 3. Forest area under different management systems (in ‘000 ha).

Y E A R National Forest Programs/Access Systems 1990 2000

TLA 3,762.0 910.0 CBFM/ISFP/FLMA (POFP) 596.3 5,708.4 IFMA/ITPLA/JV/CP/PS 304.0 548.0 Pasture leases/permits 413.6 122.0 SIFMA - 22.4 TFL 13.0 19.0 AFL 110.0 91.0 Forest Reserve/Reservations 3,644.7 3,644.7 National Parks/Protected Areas 1,341.0 893.2 Fishpond 75.5 75.5 Areas under formal mgt 10,260.1 12,034.2 Open Access 5,622.2 3,820.7 Total Forest lands 15,882.3 15,854.9

Source: FMB The implementation of these community-oriented policies in forest management, while effective in turning around the punitive discourse against upland farming into a more participative and development-oriented mode, has nevertheless failed to engage upland agriculture as a viable sector in the environment and natural resource policy arena. The number of beneficiaries from the program, in terms of households and people’s organizations is indeed significant, as shown in Table 4. CBFM projects involved about 496,000 households organized into 2,182 people’s organizations. However, evidences from field studies conducted indicate a mixed picture, wherein community forestry was

6

able to build forest community institutions and organizations for forest protection in some areas even as it failed in others, while at the same time not being able to provide communities with sustainable livelihood systems drawn from both forest utilization and agricultural cultivation (Contreras, 2003). The bureaucratic culture of DENR is unable to engage the uplands as an agricultural land base. This is expected since its main mandate is resource conservation and not food production. DENR focuses on conservation, but has yet to implement a comprehensive approach to enhancing upland agricultural productivity through crops cultivation and livestock production. Table 4. CBFM Projects (as of December, 2002)

Region

No. of Sites Project Area in ‘000 Ha

Tenured Area

In ‘000 Ha

No. of HH In ‘000

No. of POs

CAR 424 700.5 677.6 13.6 39 1 278 95.9 83.1 22.3 241 2 136 799.6 630.2 63.9 97 3 249 239.0 203.4 38.5 229

4A 70 42.4 22.3 3.6 57 4B 113 805.9 518.9 26.6 84 5 262 187.9 169.9 24.1 132 6 322 156.2 47.9 73.2 206 7 314 69.1 49.2 45.5 259 8 215 239.3 94.2 14.1 93 9 673 426.1 200.8 31.2 293 10 431 470.8 369.3 36.4 172 11 603 516.5 508.5 63.6 160 12 334 388.3 349.7 23.6 41 13 483 553.5 456.0 14.4 72

ARMM 49 17.4 14.5 1.4 7 TOTAL 4,956 5,708.4 4,395.5 496.0 2,182 Source: FMB The agency which is supposed to address this issue is DA. Unfortunately, while upland agriculture is widespread in hilly lands and highland areas not declared as part of the public domain, the DA has yet to fully articulate a well-defined upland agenda. This is because its policy discourse is driven by the language of “commodities” wherein the dominant units of planning and policy imaging are crops and not land spaces. It is telling that in the 120 sections of AFMA, there is no single reference to upland agriculture. In Section 17 of AFMA, in which areas of concerns for the preparation of the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Plan (AFMP) were listed, upland farmers were not included, while senior citizens, handicapped persons, rural youth and indigenous peoples, among others, were included. While one can argue that upland farmers can be a crosscutting category, its marked absence in the list of identified sectors and areas, and the apparent silence of AFMA on the case of upland agriculture, are too pronounced not to be noticed.

7

This is also evident in the marked absence of data on the actual contribution of upland agriculture to national agricultural productivity, and to GDP and GNP. It is also seen in the weak institutional linkages between DA and the upland communities and the civil society organizations that attend to their interests. A close perusal of the projects of the DA targeting the uplands, most of which are foreign assisted, is characterized by a minimal presence, if not pronounced absence, of mechanisms to foster partnerships with civil society organizations. Other agencies which provide support services to some areas in the uplands include DAR and the LGUs. DAR is tasked to lead the effective implementation and management of land reform in the county, through the provision of support services for the integrated development of landless farmers, farm workers, and small landowner-cultivators, which include farmers in upland areas. The agency is also responsible for the issuance of titles to, the recognition and development of ancestral domains of, and the facilitation of culture based-development of indigenous communities and people, majority of which reside in the uplands. Both DAR and the LGUs, together with other government agencies, are identified in AFMA as major partners in the development and operation of Strategic Agricultural and Fisheries Development Zones (SAFDZs), which include Agrarian Reform Communities (ARCs). The multiplicity of institutional actors and of definitions makes the uplands a territory the needs of which are very problematic for state power to fully address in its current bureaucratic set up. This compounds the problem of fit between the current bureaucratic system with the ecological and productive aspects of the uplands. By virtue of the topography and the existing resource base and configuration, the uplands demand appropriate conservation measures to combat soil erosion, protect the watersheds and promote biodiversity. This is fully addressed by the environmental protection agenda espoused by DENR in areas within the public domain that are currently cultivated. However, the marginal economic conditions of the communities demand that their livelihood activities be sustainable and viable and that their community institutions are organized. Here, DENR is able to mobilize social capital of civil society groups, as well as build it internally within the upland communities themselves, through the various POFP activities. However, it is finding difficulty to translate this into sustainable livelihoods and viable agricultural systems. The DA is ideally in the best position to address the technical needs of upland agriculture, as it is the government agency mandated to provide technical support for agricultural activities. However, most of the uplands are not within its jurisdiction. Furthermore, and even in those types of uplands within its area of responsibility, such as hilly lands and highlands, it is unable to provide a systematic and comprehensive upland support program due to its focus on crops, and its commodity-centered planning horizon that limits its capacity to fully capture the complexity and dynamism of upland agricultural systems. A focus on commodities also naturally leads to a bias in favor of single-crop regimes that can have some adverse impacts to biodiversity, ecosystem health and soil and water quality. The interventions and mediations of DAR and the LGUs have also

8

this limitation, considering that the policy instrument within which they operate, which is the AFMA, is crafted using the commodity framework. Thus, to fully harness the potential of the uplands as an agricultural sector, the reorientation, synchronization and convergence of the bureaucratic systems, policies and program perspectives of DENR, DA, DAR and the LGUs become an imperative. Impacts and Issues vis-à-vis The Uplands as a Domain of Economic Activity. AFMA’s potency rests on its three objectives of poverty alleviation, sustainable agriculture, and global competitiveness. It is against these three goals that one should examine current efforts in upland agriculture. In order to do this, one has to inquire into the viability of the upland economy. As earlier pointed out, there is no data on the percent contribution of the upland economy to the national income accounts. Income analysis are at best provided by field studies, but are not translated to aggregate national figures. Nevertheless, there is a preponderance of documented evidence to show that the upland economy is characterized by relatively high incidence of poverty in which a big majority of households live on subsistence income. This is due to the marginal productivity of lands, which are prone to erosion. Since majority of upland areas fall within public lands, such are held by farmers mostly by virtue of usufruct rights granted by government through the various incarnations of POFP, such as CBFM. Data gathered in a study conducted in Bukidnon validates the fact that upland farmers are generally price takers, and changes in supply at the site have no significant effect on commodity prices, thereby rendering them hostage to national markets and to middlepersons (Coxhead et al, 2005). Upland poverty is a well perceived phenomenon. Numerous field studies have been conducted documenting its prevalence. In Mindoro, for example, the per capita income in 1997 among upland families is 8,709 which is below the poverty threshold for the region at 12,492. However, the preponderance of local case studies is not translated into an aggregate figure that would account for the relative existence of upland poverty vis-à-vis other sectors. Most of the existing figures are at best extrapolations from reference variables, and not as actual direct measures. This largely stems from the absence of an effort to distinguish upland economic activity from other sectors of the economy in general, and of agriculture in particular, in statistical data bases. The best effort so far in statistical reporting is the attempt to segregate the area and value of palay production in rainfed areas from irrigated areas (See Table 5). However, this is not a valid measure since while a big majority of upland areas are rainfed, it is not safe to conclude that all rainfed areas are upland areas.2 This is unfortunate considering that upland agriculture may in fact account for a significant number of the perceived recipients of interventions as mandated by AFMA.

2 The data for palay production until 1999 published in the website of the Philippine Institute of Development Studies (PIDS) which was taken from the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (BAS) indicates a further desegregation of upland areas from rainfed areas. It was the data in the BAS database starting 2000 wherein production and area devoted to upland palay was apparently integrated with the figures for rainfed areas. In 1999, the area planted to upland palay is only 54,081 hectares while the rainfed area planted to palay is 1,281,129.

9

Table 5. Palay Production in terms of area and value, by type of water source

Irrigated Rainfed Year Area (hectares) Production

(metric tons) Area (hectares) Production

(metric tons) 2005 2,791,721 11,233,793 1,278,700 3,269,2122004 2,792,196 10,941,836 1,334,449 3,594,9482003 2,718,538 10,250,223 1,287,883 3,249,6612002 2,706,298 9,949,173 1,340,020 3,321,4802001 2,726,876 9,790,260 1,338,565 3,164,6102000 2,703,354 9,412,676 1,334,731 2,976,736

Source: Bureau of Agricultural Statistics The framers of Philippine Agriculture (PA) 2020, a document in its final drafting stage commissioned by the National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST), identify key policy principles that would support the implementation of AFMA and would address directly the issue of upland poverty. One of these is the push to organize and manage agriculture as a business. This would entail the transformation of subsistence farmers into entrepreneurs, and of products and markets for higher value. Improving the efficiency of the supply chain and clustering of agriculture-based industries in such a way that linkages between primary production, input suppliers and processors will be strengthened are also key strategies being suggested to achieve this. A policy principle being forwarded to alleviate poverty specifically in the uplands is through asset reform. This can be done by awarding private titles to production forests and CBFM areas. Privatization of upland farms is premised on the argument that if farmers own the land they cultivate, that they would have incentives to minimize environmental damage. There is a belief that the current practice wherein only usufruct rights are given, and mostly to collectives such as community organizations, fails to provide a sense of security to the farmer enough to enable him to adopt more aggressively sustainable land conservation practices. Indeed, field studies show that farmers with more secure tenure tend to adopt conservation practices more. However, the same studies also show that while providing tenurial security is a necessary condition for environmentally sound farming practices, it is not a sufficient condition. In Bukidnon, it has been observed that low profitability of upland farming has motivated tenured farm owners to lease their lands to third parties who are engaged in the more profitable but more environmentally unsound activity of commercial crop production. Aside from low profitability, other factors that were found to influence decision to lease lands to short-term cropping are age and availability of non-farm income (Dumayas et al, 2003). The decision of tenured upland farmers to lease lands to third parties is undoubtedly driven by higher income opportunities. In fact, in areas where there are no available third parties, upland farmers are drawn to off-farm income sources in lieu of upland cultivation. In a study conducted in Davao Oriental, 55 percent of the income of the community came from off-farm sources while only 35 percent came from agricultural

10

harvest (Morales et al, 2003). In Mindoro, income from forest and agricultural activity accounted for only 31 percent while income from private employment constitutes 48 percent (Paunlagui et al, 2003a). In these cases, the availability of off-farm employment may lead to a reduction in agricultural activity even as it increases household income. In situations wherein the crops foregone are environmentally degrading, such as corn and vegetables, the presence of off-farm employment may also provide the needed push for conservation practices. Rola et al (2002) suggests that an increase in the opportunity cost of farm labor (as brought upon by higher off-farm labor opportunities) may lead to a reduction in labor-intensive cultivation methods. However, this may also lead to a reduction in labor-intensive soil conservation practices, which may jeopardize conservation activities. Findings from field studies in Bukidnon indicate that off-farm employment may indeed enable environmental improvements. However, this is still contingent on the appropriate agricultural and environmental policies. The ideal situation is to tap the profit-seeking behavior of upland farmers and translate this into a motivation to adopt sustainable farming practices that are also profitable and may even make them globally competitive. One possible policy alternative that has been forwarded is to use market-based mechanisms to induce farmers to shift from labor-intensive and environment-degrading farming practices and adopt more sustainable and efficient technologies. This would also constrain them to expand into ecologically fragile areas, and motivate them to move to more productive areas. This could take the form of economic liberalization. However, adoption of market-based policy instruments, such as trade liberalization, to induce farmers to shift to ecologically sound upland farming practices, while at the same time promoting their transformation into business entrepreneurs, will likely have some short-term adverse impacts on livelihoods, and may in fact aggravate upland poverty. To alleviate poverty, one also has to ensure sustainability of the agricultural production system. Studies show that upland conservation rests on arresting soil erosion and protecting the watershed. However, this would entail controlling for production systems that are yielding higher incomes for farmers. For example, corn and vegetable farming in Bukidnon, the key crops of upland farmers, are highly erosive and are therefore unsustainable. Trade liberalization policies may in fact have environmentally beneficial impacts, as it may drive down the price of corn and vegetables, and will cause a reduction in the area devoted to these crops (Coxhead et al, 2005). However, this may also compromise the income of households. Shiveley and Zelek (2001) point out that policies that promote ecological sustainability (marked by reduction in soil erosion and in the use of chemicals) tend to reduce household income, or are costly for local governments. It is therefore apparent that the attainment of the goals of AFMA is constrained by the economic complexity of the uplands, wherein no single policy intervention can bring about the desired results. Policies to alleviate poverty, promote agricultural sustainability and enable upland farmers to be globally competitive require structural transformations in the modes of production and exchange. Short-term adverse impacts on income levels, while expected effects of radical restructuring, such as the removal of tariff barriers on

11

crops such as corn and vegetables, will have to be socially addressed by a combination of programs and policies that would provide safety nets to already marginal communities. Recommendations to Reform Policy and Practice The present policy climate of DENR, through POFP, while promoting conservation and institution building, is not sufficient to address the issue of poverty and agricultural productivity. On the other hand, the policy thrusts of DA (and by extension, DAR and the LGUs) which is the prime mover for AFMA, falls short of the ecological requirements of the uplands, and espouses a “commodity” framework that does not position the uplands for a coherent policy treatment. It is in this context that there is a need for policy reform. The fundamental step is to redefine more precisely what constitutes the uplands, and to redesign the bureaucratic mechanisms by which such are governed. There is a need to recognize the multiplicity of upland farming systems in terms of social structure and political-ecological dynamics. Clearly, there are two types of uplands vis-à-vis jurisdictional responsibility: those that are within public lands and are therefore under the control of DENR; and hilly lands, highlands and areas above 18 percent in slope but are not declared public lands which are under the area of manageable interest of DA, and by extension, of DAR and the relevant Local Government Units (LGUs). In terms of production systems, the uplands consist of areas that are planted to single crops (either annuals or to more permanent crops), or are devoted to multiple-cropping as agroforestry farms. There are also upland areas wherein farming is still the dominant mode of production, and areas in which it is now secondary to non-farm and off-farm income sources. An effort to map out these areas, and to characterize their economic and institutional dimensions is an imperative prerequisite for any meaningful policy intervention to be crafted. Efforts must be exerted to quantify the contribution of the uplands to the national economy, and to desegregate upland socio-economic data from the aggregate data, using appropriate valuation techniques to truly reflect their scarcity. Institutionally, the “undocumented” status of the uplands is aggravated by the artificial jurisdictional divisions that seriously undermine an integrated and comprehensive policy formulation and implementation. As discussed earlier, DENR and DA approach the upland problem from two different and opposite perspectives. DENR considers the uplands more as a resource to be conserved, and is unable to bring about a coherent agenda for upland agriculture. On the other hand, DA, while seemingly aware of the existence of a kind of agriculture that is labeled as “upland,” is unable to translate this into a spatial concept in policy terms. It is constrained by its traditional focus on crops and commodities. There is a need now to integrate the systems and approaches that address the uplands, and to look at the uplands as an ecological zone for policy formation and articulation outside the bureaucratic boundaries drawn by State institutions. One of the key recommendations by the drafters of PA 2020 is to translate into policy the principle of agriculture as a cultural construct and a way of life. One of the better ways

12

to operationalize this is by recognizing the vitality and dynamism of the uplands as a distinct agro-ecological zone. The greater challenge is for the agricultural development cluster, which include DA, DAR and the agricultural units of the LGUs, to go beyond their “commodity orientation” and to begin to seriously operationalize a farming systems approach to the uplands. They have to re-engineer their activities away from their traditional boundaries, and make agroforestry a distinct area of concern that cuts across commodities. To enable further convergence, there is a need to institutionalize the integration of DA, DENR, DAR and the LGUs vis-à-vis upland agriculture and community based forest management. There is a need to harmonize the policy instruments, program directions and practices. These can be achieved initially through multi-agency partnerships, as what is now being initiated among DENR, DA, and DAR when they jointly issued Joint Memorandum Circular No. 1 on 26 January 1999 creating an inter-departmental steering committee and technical working group for the application and monitoring of a common sustainable rural development framework. Such effort has been reactivated through Joint Memorandum Circular No. 1, dated 18 October 2004, which set the guidelines for the operationalization of the convergence. Available documents relevant to the convergence efforts indicate the key result areas to include poverty alleviation and sustainable agriculture and fisheries with the goal of attaining food security, increase the food supply, generate employment and increase the gross value of the sectors concerned. The strategies include sourcing and developing appropriate technologies, accessing markets and establishing processing facilities, mobilizing massive financial resources, upgrading people capabilities and re-aligning government and private institutional commitments. A more detailed implementing instrument spelling out the strategies has yet to be issued, but pilot sites have already been identified. Beyond convergence, the more radical proposal which this paper proposes is to elevate CBFM as a cross-cutting program that could either be jointly managed by DENR and DA, or be an independent council with its own corporate and legal personality, like a National Council for Upland Development. This would require an enabling law, and would entail a restructuring of the current activities and organizational set-up of DA and DENR. Though radical, this is justified by the fact that the uplands is a vast territory that is home to the most economically and politically marginalized sectors, even as it also provides an enormous potential for employment and value creation. Its complexity requires a multidisciplinary and novel approach. Aside from DENR, DA, and DAR, other agencies of government such as LGUs and the DOH, DPWH, DOST and DepED, among others, have to be brought in. Past efforts to address multi-faceted issues using a Departmental anchor have proven to be still held captive by bureaucratic limitations and traditional biases. Going beyond departmental boundaries, and housing the issues in an independent council or commission with its own legal and bureaucratic personality and mandate, have achieved greater results. Examples of these are the National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women (NCRFW) and the National Commission of Indigenous Peoples (NCIP).

13

Beyond structures, however, there is also the equally crucial need for appropriate economic and land-use policies to promote upland productivity without jeopardizing the environment. There is a need to provide farmers with incentives to move to crops that are not erosive, even as safety nets for farmers, such as credit availability, adequate infrastructure, and enabling support institutions are provided. Studies indicate that the more appropriate farming system in the uplands is agroforestry in tandem with the adoption of sloping agricultural land techniques that take into account soil and water conservation measures. Agroforestry generally refers to the management of forestlands which increases their productivity by combining forest trees and agricultural crops (annual, biennial and perennial crops) including livestock simultaneously or sequentially over time through the application of appropriate management practices. DENR has issued an order in 2005, DAO 25, which seeks to provide guidelines for the implementation of an upland agroforestry program in the Philippines. Specifically, the program aims:

• To reduce rural poverty by increasing productivity and employment in the uplands through the development of upland agroforestry farms and plantations nationwide;

• To enhance forest cover of forest lands by planting economically beneficial crops in addition to timber species;

• To ensure sufficient supply of agricultural and fruit tree crops through private-public participation and by encouraging all sectors to engage in the development of agroforestry farms and plantations; and

• To improve the economic well-being of upland people and communities dependent on forest lands and forest resources by ensuring equitable opportunities and access to forestlands and forest resources.

The program seeks to cover a minimum of 4 million hectares of open and unproductive lands within the public domain, which include cultivated areas, shrub lands, wooded grasslands and grasslands. This also includes the 1.9 million hectares currently covered by CBFM agreements and is earmarked for agroforestry development, as well as forestlands used for other purposes such as grazing lands. A close perusal of the provision of DAO 25 reveals that the program prefers corporate groups (corporations, NGOs, associations, cooperatives, organizations and LGUs) with established track records in forest development, agroforestry, agribusiness and other related business activities, and which are financially capable to undertake agroforestry development. While individuals may also qualify, they have to be members of recognized corporate groups and must show evidence of financial and technical capacity to undertake agroforestry development. The development of agroforestry farms and plantations may promote the creation of employment opportunities and increase the value added of the uplands, even as it fosters resource conservation. However, it can also lead to the further marginalization of the poor and unorganized upland farmer. While corporate agroforestry is a welcome

14

development, measures should be installed to level the field in favor or disadvantaged and unorganized farmers. Adequate safety nets should be in place to ensure competitive wages for farmer-laborers. Furthermore, a more liberal window for loans should be made available to people’s organizations and other community-based groups who would like to avail of the program. In addition to DENR and the LGUs, which are tasked to provide technical assistance as stipulated in DAO 25, the DA should be actively involved, particularly on matters pertinent to agricultural production. DAO 25 should be revised to accommodate the involvement of DA, which is a party in interest but has not been recruited to become a partner in the endeavor. It is in activities like these that adequate and appropriate inter-agency linkages and partnerships concerned agencies become imperative. The issue of land tenure has been identified as a crucial concern. In fact, the drafters of PA 2020 boldly propose the titling of upland production areas. As pointed out by many studies, and as discussed above, security of tenure is a necessary but not a sufficient factor. Evidence from the field suggests that what matters most are the institutional support mechanisms that would enable the holder of tenurial rights to optimize the use of the resource of which such rights are held. Granting tenurial rights, such as private titles, to lands which are marginally productive may in fact pressure the holder to abandon such land in favor of non-farm activities. In situations where this would lead to a fallow period, and where the opportunity cost of tilling the land vis-à-vis off-farm employment is high, such move may in fact have positive environmental and economic benefits. However, the socio-economic reality of upland communities indicates that not all farmers will be competitive in the off-farm labor markets. This may engender a relocation of the poverty problem away from the uplands into lowland and urban areas, where they may exacerbate the already crowded labor markets. Thus, the provision of institutional mechanisms to provide employment opportunities to upland farmers becomes an imperative. Industrializing the uplands, through the establishment of agroforestry farms and plantations such as those enabled by the Upland Agroforestry Program mandated by DAO 25, Series of 2005 may indeed provide this opportunity. Nevertheless, releasing upland production areas for titling remain a problematic solution, as it may lead to the privatization of the burdens that come with ecologically marginal lands to already marginalized individuals. Giving tenure beyond usufruct rights to upland areas with marginal resource productivity may be counterproductive, as it may only result in further degradation and/or continued subsistence. Should this be a policy, it is recommended that the implementation be limited to lands that will be deemed productive. Marginally productive lands can then become areas devoted to aggressive reforestation and land rehabilitation activities, implemented through CBFM and other POFP interventions, or through contracted partners from the private sector that may have interest in and the capability for long-term investments, provided that they retain utilization rights. To address the problem of financial burden on the part of government and the LGUs, the State may consider using a market-based mechanism, such as charging downstream consumers a user fee on water and other environmental services, to generate the needed funds to finance these land rehabilitation activities (Francisco, 2004). The LGUs, in cooperation with water service providers as well as water use regulatory

15

agencies, may explore within the scope of the Local Government Code the possibility of establishing local mechanisms to implement a more equitable system of water user fees, and to ensure that the fees collected are used to rehabilitate degraded upland areas. The use of other market-based instruments, such as trade liberalization and the lifting of tariff barriers on agricultural crops that are environmentally degrading may become a driver for farmers to shift to non-destructive production technologies. This, likewise, would require the provision of adequate support mechanisms that would insulate the farmers from the shock of reduced incomes in the short run, and provide them opportunities for alternative on-site and off-site employment. One of the most visible outcomes of community-based interventions in the uplands enabled by CBFM is the development of forest-based institutions such as people’s organizations, as well as the strengthening of social capital within and among various groups. Evidence from field studies reveals that strong social capital, in combination with other variables such as dependence on the resource and the presence of strong organizations, enables resource conservation (Contreras, 2003). Paunlagui et al (2003b) found out that social capital has a positive relationship with eco-governance, and is higher in areas where soil productivity is perceived to be higher. It is in this context that there is value in adopting partnerships with people-based organizations and third party civil society mediators not only in the delivery of support services and safety nets, but also in the building of capacity of marginal farmers to be able to compete with more organized groups in taking advantage of the new opportunities opened for investments and for upland industrialization. Conclusion: Summary of Policy Recommendations The sector of upland agriculture is indeed complex, and the issues that arise from it require creative and innovative solutions, some of which have already been articulated through existing policies. This paper proposes the following key policy interventions that would enable the uplands to become a template upon which the agenda of poverty alleviation, sustainable agriculture, and global competitiveness can be realized. The first three recommendations are considered to be necessary in bringing about such desired outcome, and should be addressed immediately.

• Concretely define and characterize the economic and institutional dimensions of the uplands as a complex agro-ecological zone, and valuate its resources and its contribution to the national economy using appropriate valuation techniques

• Reorient the institutional mechanisms by which bureaucracies operate in the context of the uplands. Agencies pursuing the agricultural development agenda, such as DA, DAR and the LGUs should go beyond their “commodity” orientation and recognize the uplands as a distinct space for policy and program development. DENR should continue and strengthen its resource conservation agenda through community-based mechanisms, even as it strengthens the

16

production aspects of its agroforestry-based interventions towards sustainable livelihoods

• Institutionalize partnerships in support of the convergence agenda, by involving relevant government agencies, civil society organizations and people’s organizations, even to a point of establishing an independent National Council for Upland Development

On the other hand, the following recommendations are needed as sufficient conditions to fully realize the desired goals.

• Promote industrialization in the uplands through the establishment of agroforestry-based industries, with a strong social support system for marginalized communities

• Provide stronger usufruct rights, including but not limited to the issuance of titles, to productive upland production areas even as marginally productive lands are kept public and are subject to land rehabilitation activities to be undertaken within existing POFP arrangements, or in partnerships with the private sector

• Adopt the principle of environmental payments, through the charging of user fees on environmental services as a way of raising funds for upland rehabilitation

• Provide adequate support services and safety nets, and enable the capacity of upland farmers to become active players in the development of upland agroforestry based industries

References Bureau of Forest Development. 1982. Annual Report. Bureau of Forest Development,

Republic of the Philippines. Contreras, Antonio. 2003. “Creating Space for Local Forest Management in the

Philippines,” in David Edmunds and Eva Wollenberg, Eds. Local Forest Management: The Impacts of Devolution Policies. London: Earthscan.

Coxhead, Ian, Agnes Rola and K. Kim. 2005. “How do national markets and price policies affect land use at the forest margin?,” in I. Coxhead and G. Shively, Eds. Land Use Change in Tropical Watersheds: Evidence, Causes and Remedies. CAB International.

Cruz, Ma. Concepcion J., Cristela Goce-Dakila and Imelda Zosa-Feranil. 1988. “Population pressure and migration: implications for upland development in the Philippines.” Journal of Philippine Development. Vol. XV No. 1-b.

Dumayas, Elvira, Agnes Rola, Erica T. Villavelez and Adrian L. Albano. 1993. “Agricultural sustainability in the industrializing uplands: will security of tenure still matter?” ISPPS Working Paper No. 03-09.

Francisco, Herminia A. 2004. “Water allocation mechanisms and environmental service payments,” in Agnes C. Rola, Herminia A. Francisco and Jennifer P.T. Liguton, Eds. Winning the Water War: Watersheds, Water Policies and Water Institutions. Makati City, Philippines: PIDS and PCARRD.

17

Morales, Beethoven C., Merlyne M. Paunlagui and Lilia Paglinawan. 2003. “Creating space in Maputi, San Isidro, Davao Oriental,” in Antonio P. Contreras, ed. Creating Space for Local Forest Management in the Philippines. Manila: La Salle Institute of Governance.

Paunlagui, Merlyne M., Nelson J.V.B. Querijero and Ila Virginia C. Ongkiko. 2003a. “Creating space in Paitan, Naujan, Oriental Mindoro,” in Antonio P. Contreras, ed. Creating Space for Local Forest Management in the Philippines. Manila: La Salle Institute of Governance.

Paunlagui, Merlyne M., Agnes C. Rola and Miriam R. Nguyen. 2003b. “Social Capital, eco-governance and natural resources management: a case study in Bukidnon, Philippines.” ISPPS Working Paper No. 03-04.

Raymundo, M.E. 1984. “A proposal for delimitation and classification of highlands and hilly lands for farming system.” Paper presented during the Farming Systems Forum at the HARC, MSAC, La Trinidad, Benguet.

Rola, Agnes C. and Ian Coxhead. 2002. “Does nonfarm job growth encourage or retard soil conservation in Philippine uplands?” Journal of Philippine Development, Volume XXIX, No. 1-c.

Shiveley, Gerald and Chuck Zelek. 2001. “Assessing local and national policy options to promote sustainable upland farming in Southeast Asia: insights from an economy-environment model of the Manupali watershed in the Philippines.” A paper presented at the PIDS-SANREM Conference in Sustaining Upland Development in Southeast Asia: Issues, Tools and Institutions for Local Forest Management, 27-30 May 2001.