Preview: Tiongco-Espaldon-Guzman - Green Agriculture in the Philippines, An Old Wine in a New Bottle

Attention! This is a preview.
Please click here if you would like to read this in our document viewer!


Green Agriculture in the Philippines: An old wine in a new bottle? Marites M. Tiongco Ma. Victoria O. Espaldon Lucille Elna de P. Guzman Rico C. Ancog Andre E. Quiray Steven Jaffee Jaime Frias March 2015 1 2 ABSTRACT This paper aims to provide an assessment of the green agriculture policies and strategies in the Philippines. It looks at the challenges and opportunities in implementing green agriculture aspirations, the approaches being taken, and identify gaps between green agriculture aspirations and institutional capacity to apply or transfer green agriculture technologies. The paper also reviews the instruments for managing/mitigating environmental risks from agriculture and the capacity of public and private institutions in addressing key environmental challenges faced in commercial agriculture. It highlights the interplay of policies and strategies on environment and agricultural productivity. The methodology of the paper involves an extensive review and analysis of

published studies collected from government and private institutions, and using several search engines. This was also complemented with an analysis and synthesis of pertinent laws, regulations, strategies, plans, programs, and initiatives of primarily the government as well as the private sector. Among the sources of data and information are official reports and related studies. A series of interviews and focused group discussions with key stakeholders and experts in government, the private sector, academia, civil society organizations, and other agencies was also conducted to fill gaps and validate findings and interpretations. One of the major findings is that political motivation will remain a driver for farms to comply with agricultural or environmental policies. Otherwise, there are no incentives gained by the private sector from the government in complying with standards. Regulatory standards such as the use of chemical inputs and other agricultural practices in the commercial

agricultural sector continue to be set by importing countries and this has a direct influence on the environmental performance of the exporting agricultural sector in the Philippines, making it compliant with international standards. Key challenges that were identified are issues in land use planning, environmental standards, governance, incentive mechanisms for better adoption of environmentally friendly agricultural practices, technology and information, and advocacy. Keywords: green agriculture, environmental impacts, capacity, institutions, Philippines JEL: 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW OF PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE OVERVIEW OF EXPORT COMMODITIES GREEN AGRICULTURE OVERALL CHALLENGES Deforestation Soil Erosion and Degradation Greenhouse Gas Emissions Biodiversity Loss Mangrove Ecosystem Degradation Water and Air Pollution Summary of Green Agriculture Challenges PHILIPPINE GREEN AGRICULTURE ASPIRATIONS AND APPLICATIONS Direct Regulation The Philippine

Environmental Policy (Presidential Decree 1151) and Philippine Environment Code The Philippine Agenda The Agricultural Fisheries and Modernization Act (AFMA) (Republic Act No. 8345) and Agricultural Fisheries and Modernization Plan The Philippine Development Plan (PDP) The National Climate Change Action Plan (2011‐2028) Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999 (Republic Act No. 8749) Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (Republic Act No. 9003) Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004 (Republic Act No. 9275) Organic Agriculture Act of 2010 (Republic Act 10068) Restrictions on the use of permitted substances Pollution Control Law (Presidential Decree 984) Land use planning and zoning National Land Use Act (Senate Bill No. 3091) and National Land Use and Management Act (House Bill No. 6545) Soil Survey and Conservation Program (Republic Act No. 3082) Restrictions on the use of permitted substances Pollution Control Law (Presidential Decree 984) Requirements for environmental impact assessment on

significant agricultural investments Improving the Environmental Impact Statement System (Executive Order No. 291) and further strengthening the implementation of the Environmental Impact Statement System (DAO 96‐37) Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) for the Philippine EIS (DAO 2003‐30) Instruments that Correct or Create Markets Incentives for adoption of green technologies Philippine Good Agricultural Practices (PhilGAP) Payment for environmental services Environmental User Fee System (EUFS) 1 2 3 5 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 13 14 15 16 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 22 22 22 23 4 Payment for watershed protection and conservation Information, Advocacy, and Voluntary Approaches Certification and voluntary standards/industry codes of practice Philippine National Standards for Organic Agriculture (PNSOA) Information on environmental accounting Advocacy for adopting green technology Advocacy on Promotion and Development of Organic Agriculture in the

Attention! This is a preview.
Please click here if you would like to read this in our document viewer!


Philippines (Executive Order 481) Advocacy on Guidelines on the Certification of Good Agricultural Practices for Fruits and Vegetable Farming (GAP‐FV) of 2005 (Department of Agriculture Administrative Order No. 25) Other voluntary approaches GREEN AGRICULTURE CAPACITY AND INSTITUTIONAL GAPS Fiscal Allocation Government Structure and Human Resources Research and Development Institutions and Implementing Agencies The Role of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and Nongovernment Organizations (NGOs) Capacity to Implement EIA Local Capacities to Monitor and Reduce the Environmental Footprint of Agriculture SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES List of Tables Table 1. Average growth rates (%) of gross value added in agriculture by commodity Table 2. Philippines’ market share of world trade for major commodities, 1995−2009 (%) Table 3. Major production areas (ha) and volume (tons) of coconut, pineapple, and banana production by region (2012) Table 4. Philippine GHG emissions in 1994 Table

5. Gap analysis of green agriculture instruments List of Figures Figure 1. Annual growth of output, 1990−2012 Figure 2. Top five agricultural exports, 2007−2013, FOB value in US$ million Figure 3. Change in forest and agricultural lands in the Philippines (1970−2000) Figure 4. Timeline of policies and regulations aiming at reducing environmental risks and impacts from agriculture 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 26 27 28 28 29 31 31 32 2 3 4 8 11 30 3 5 6 13 5 Green Agriculture in the Philippines: An old wine in a new bottle? INTRODUCTION The agricultural sector in the Philippines remains an important sector in the economy but growth continues to lag behind. Government support has been increasing over time to improve productivity, improve livelihoods and income, promote food security, and achieve self‐sufficiency. An increase in government expenditures somehow improved productivity growth but this was not enough to reverse the sluggish growth. The sector still requires

substantial and equitable financial support for capital inputs, a reduction in production losses, access to research and development (R&D) results and innovations, value‐addition opportunities, and in managing risks related to markets, weather extremes, resource degradation, and climate change‐related impacts. With the rapid increase in population in the Philippines and the corresponding increasing demand for food and other agricultural products and commodities, the increase in agricultural activities was expected in the last two decades. Agricultural areas have expanded while productivity per unit area has also increased. However, the growth of agriculture has taken its toll on the quality of the ecosystems and ecosystem services they provide (Coxhead and Jayasuriya 2002). Agricultural areas have expanded to the upland and watershed areas of the country, and aquaculture has expanded in critical ecosystems such as the mangrove forests along the coastal areas. Intensive

commercial agriculture has also resulted in increased use of chemical inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides, which can potentially end up in waterways and water bodies, and in groundwater (Conway and Pretty 1991). Overall, available studies clearly suggest the likely cumulative impacts of agriculture that need to be halted and regulated so that the upside benefits of agriculture could be maximized and its downside costs reduced or mitigated. The continuing intensification of agriculture to meet the numerous pressures of food security, sustainable income‐generating livelihood, and global competitiveness adds to the already adverse state of the environment. Technology advancement led to increased agricultural production but corollary to that was a detrimental cost to society and the environment. In fact, most farmers and fisher folk are still attached to their exploitive agricultural practices, such as intensified pesticide use and overfishing to augment their average yield and

their income. The banana industry, one of the Philippines’ top agricultural exports, has put a toll on land productivity because of the high rate of use of fertilizer and pesticides, especially on plantations. Agriculture affected the environment in more ways than one. This paper aims to give an overview of these impacts and how they are depicted in the Philippine setting and present windows of opportunity for “greening” agriculture in the country. With the twin goal of increasing the productivity of Philippine agriculture while ensuring its natural resource base and the environment, the current move is toward the achievement of a green agricultural sector in the country. For the purpose of this paper, green agriculture is defined “as a way to promote agricultural growth and development, while preventing environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, and inefficient natural resource use and, where possible, contributing to ecosystem service benefits” (derived from OECD’s

Attention! This is a preview.
Please click here if you would like to read this in our document viewer!


“green growth” concept). This implies that the centrality of green agriculture is the long‐term reduction of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions and other negative externalities, thus rebuilding ecological resources such as soil, water, air, and biodiversity by reducing pollution and using resources more efficiently (FAO 2008). 6 This paper aims is to provide a review of the Philippines’ green agriculture policies and strategies, instruments for managing/mitigating environmental risks from agriculture and the capacity of public and private institutions in addressing key environmental challenges, and the situation on the ground. It highlights some key interfaces between national agricultural and environmental policies and their application. In the Philippines, the concept of sustainable agriculture is well established, yet the term “green agriculture” is not well known. The policies and strategies used to promote green agriculture are thus embodied in the support for

organic agriculture, and for climate change adaptation and mitigation. This paper gives particular attention to the environmental effects associated with the production of selected major export crops, namely, coconut, banana, and pineapple. The methodology in this paper involved compiling, synthesizing, and interpreting the available data, experiences, and ongoing challenges related to national and subnational strategies and policies to prevent or mitigate adverse environmental impacts from agriculture, and gap analysis between green agriculture “aspirations” and actual “applications.” This was also complemented with an analysis and synthesis of pertinent laws, regulations, strategies, plans, programs, and initiatives of primarily the government as well as the private sector. Among the sources of data and information are official reports of government institutions and related studies. A series of interviews and meetings with key stakeholders and experts in government, the

private sector, academia, civil society organizations, and other agencies was also conducted to fill gaps and validate findings and interpretations. OVERVIEW OF PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE Agriculture has a critical role in achieving inclusive growth and in attaining food security and poverty reduction targets. However, the Philippines has experienced sluggish growth in agriculture through the years, from an annual average of 4 percent in the 1970s to about 3 percent in the 2000s (Table 1). This slow growth is likely due to the decline in the average gross value added (GVA) growth rate of crops, from 6.8 percent in the 1970s to about 3 percent in the early 2000s (Table 1). After the food crisis in 2008, growth in agriculture gradually increased (Figure 1). However, the share of agriculture in the economy has been stagnant at 11−12 percent compared with that of the service and manufacturing sectors (Figure 1). Table 1. Average growth rates (%) of gross value added in agriculture

by commodity Commodity 1960−1970 1970−1980 1980−1990 1990−2000 2000−2010 2011−2012 Crops 3.9 6.8 0.6 1.2 2.6 4.6 Livestock and 3.2 3.0 4.7 4.9 2.0 3.0 poultry Fishery 6.9 4.5 2.4 1.6 6.0 −2.3 Forestry 5.1 −4.4 −7.0 −15.7 1.5 Total 4.2 3.9 1.0 1.6 3.2 2.7 Sources: Compiled by Tiongco (2013) from the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (BAS), National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB), and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). The Philippines was a net exporter of food until the mid‐1980s, yet, after that, the rate of growth of food imports has exceeded that of exports. Although the country continues to produce its own food for domestic consumption, there has been an increase in reliance on imports as an alternative food source (although recent world price spikes have troubling implications for food security), partly caused by 7 population growth and structural changes in agriculture. The countrys burgeoning population requires greater food

supplies and land scarcity is a constraint to continued agricultural growth. Figure 1. Annual growth of output, 1990−2012 Annual Change, Percent 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 ‐5.00 ‐10.00 GDP Agriculture Industry Services Sources: Adapted from Tiongco (2013); NSCB; Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2012, country table for Philippines. The share of agricultural exports in total exports declined between the mid‐1990s and mid‐2000s, but has shown a slight increasing trend since then. Nevertheless, the Philippines’ share of world trade for most of its leading export commodities has declined over time (Table 2). Table 2. Philippines’ market share of world trade for major commodities, 1995−2009 (%) Year Banana Coconut oil Pineapple Mangoes juice 1995 5.0 73.0 14.8 14.8 2000 6.9 46.7 10.3 10.3 2005 6.5 44.5 5.3 5.3 2009 4.5 42.0 2.5 2.5 Source: FAOSTAT. Sugar 1.0 1.2 1.1 0.9 OVERVIEW OF EXPORT COMMODITIES Coconut oil (crude and refined), fresh banana, tuna, pineapple and

Attention! This is a preview.
Please click here if you would like to read this in our document viewer!


pineapple products, desiccated coconut, and milk and cream products are the top exported products of the Philippines (Senate Economic Planning Office 2012). Coconut oil, fresh banana, and pineapple and pineapple products comprised 20 percent, 13 percent, and 8 percent, respectively, of total agricultural exports. The major production areas for coconut, banana, and pineapple in the Philippines are located in the Northern Mindanao, Davao, and Soccsksargen regions, all of which are located in Mindanao, the second largest and southernmost major island of the country (Table 3). The Cagayan Valley and Western Visayas are also large producers of banana, although production there is not intended for the export market. Outside of Mindanao, major locations of pineapple and coconut production are the Bicol and Calabarzon 8 regions on the island of Luzon. Before the destruction brought about by Typhoon Haiyan, Eastern Visayas was the second biggest supplier of coconut in the country. Table 3.

Major production areas (ha) and volume (tons) of coconut, pineapple, and banana production by region (2012) Region Coconut Pineapple Banana Total Calabarzon Bicol Western Visayas Northern Mindanao Davao Soccsksargen Other regions Area 438,733 453,501 Quantity 1,417,439 1,240,459 Area 3,837 3,093 Quantity 86,389 121,735 Area 29,925 18,816 Quantity 116,469 81,414 Area 472,495 475,410 Quantity 1,620,297 1,443,608 121,153 477,953 839 16,308 34,900 353,138 156,892 847,399 301,660 1,816,501 21,593 1,294,584 51,433 1,718,787 374,686 4,829,872 375,622 176,752 1,827,538 2,720,233 985,175 7,682,579 2,033 23,485 4,401 28,162 800,055 66,705 88,320 29,952 235,733 3,785,422 1,155,348 2,368,560 465,975 230,189 2,067,672 6,533,817 2,940,578 10,117,844 Source: Bureau of Agricultural Statistics 2013. 1. Coconut Coconut production increased at an annual average growth rate of 0.50 percent over the last six years. In 2012, coconut production increased to 15.86 million

metric tons from 15.3 million metric tons in 2008. These increases were brought about by the recovery of coconut trees from the adverse effects of El Niño phenomenon in 2010, the expanding fertilization program, and disease control interventions of the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA). The top coconut producer is in Davao region with a 17.2 percent share in national production in 2012. Other major producing regions of coconut are Northern Mindanao, Calabarzon, and Bicol. 2. Banana Banana production grew at an average rate of 1.5 percent per year between 2008 and 2012. Area planted/harvested with banana has also expanded at an average annual growth of 0.88 percent (Crop Statistics of the Philippines 2008 ‐ 2012). Table 3 shows Davao and Northern Mindanao as the top producing regions in 2012, accounting for 30 percent of the total area planted to banana in the country. Banana production from Davao, Northern Mindanao, and Soccsksargen accounted for 72 percent of the total national

output in 2012. 3. Pineapple Pineapple production has also increased by an average of 2.07% per year in the past five years. The area planted with pineapple also expanded by an average annual growth rate of 0.08 percent in 2008−2011. Northern Mindanao and Soccsksargen remained as the top producers in 2012, and had a share of 87 percent in national pineapple production. There has also been an increase in area harvested from corporate farms, namely, Del Monte, Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corporation, Mount Kitanglad Agricultural Development Corporation, Davao Ventures Corporation, and Dole Philippines. The major export markets for these commodities are the United States (43 percent) and the Netherlands (32 percent) for coconut oil, Japan (48 percent) and China (14 percent) for fresh banana, and the U.S. (37 percent) and Japan (15 percent) for pineapple (BAS 2013). 9 Although a decrease in export value is observed for coconut oil in the last two years, the total FOB for

coconut oil, bananas, and pineapple and pineapple products amounts to a little more than $2 billion primarily because of the better export performance of fresh bananas (Figure 2). Figure 2. Top five agricultural exports, 2007−2013, FOB value in US$ million 1600 Coconut oil 1400 1200 Bananas, Fresh 1000 800 Tuna 600 Pineapple and Pineapple Products 400 200 Desiccated Coconut 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Source: Updates on Agricultural Trade Performance, BAS 2013. For several decades, the performance of agriculture in the country has lagged behind its potential, given the available human and natural resources. Philippine agriculture faces numerous challenges apart from low productivity and production. Among these are high production costs, post‐production and distribution losses, high environmental and market risks to producers, low private sector interest in agriculture, and degradation of ecosystem services. In terms of resource degradation, natural

Attention! This is a preview.
Please click here if you would like to read this in our document viewer!


resources and biodiversity have dampened economic services that would have supported higher productivity growth. In summary, there is an observed gap between earlier set productivity targets in agriculture and what the actual production is in a number of major crops. Topping this concern is the dwindling productivity through the past years that is exacerbated by climate variability and change. Related to this is the declining income for agriculture that could also explain the stubborn poverty levels, particularly in agriculture‐dependent rural communities in the Philippines. At the macro‐level, the clear trend in the decreasing competitiveness of Philippine agriculture needs to be abated along with the wide‐ranging environmental impacts directly and indirectly associated with agricultural production. GREEN AGRICULTURE OVERALL CHALLENGES Several studies on the impacts of commercial agriculture on the environment at the local scale have been conducted with the objective of

promoting sustainable agriculture to a broader audience. These impacts threaten the natural resources that support agriculture, specifically the availability of water for irrigation and habitats and breeding areas for fish. It is noteworthy to observe a growing awareness on the unsustainability of many existing agricultural practices because of their environmental costs and their threat to the livelihoods of farmers (Briones 2005). These environmental impacts are reviewed in terms of scope and severity of the challenges in addressing environmental problems mostly caused by the expansion of agricultural land, the conversion of forests and upper watershed areas to agriculture, and the intensive use of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides. 10 1. Deforestation Agriculture has been among the major drivers of land use and cover change (LUCC) in the Philippines since the 1930s. The Philippines used to have approximately 27 million ha of tropical rain forests during the Spanish era. In

1900, the forest cover declined to 70 percent or 21 million ha (Garrity et al. 1992) (Figure 3) but by 1996 the forest cover had decreased further to 6.1 million ha (20 percent) (FMB, 1998), a total of almost 15 million ha of forest lost in a period of 100 years, because of mechanized logging that occurred in 1935−1970 followed by a boom in wood production up until the early 1990s. These figures are equivalent to an average rate of forest loss of 0.15 million ha per year (Cruz et al. 2011). The greatest depletion of forest area happened in 1935−1970 (about 181,000 ha/year of forest loss), at a time when the rural population was rapidly increasing and a consequent expansion of agricultural lands into forested areas occurred (World Bank 2009). Deforestation could also be attributed to some government policies that encouraged the conversion of forests to agricultural land such as the case of state‐sponsored settlement schemes of indigenous people in Palawan and Mindanao. Figure 3.

Change in forest and agricultural lands in the Philippines (1970−2000) 14 12 10 13.1 12.16 10.9 13.09 11.5 8.95 7.4 8 6.2 5.6 5.4 1990s 1995s 2000s 6 Forest Area Agrilands 4 2 0 1970s 1980s Source: DENR EMB (2002) The decline in forest cover in the country led to the deterioration of its key environmental and economic services and functions, including biodiversity conservation; soil and water conservation; the supply of raw materials for wood, food, and other products; and livelihood opportunities. The loss of forest cover has been a factor in the slowing of the Philippines’ economic growth. The contribution of the forestry sector to national GDP is now insignificant (Cruz et al. 2011). 2. Soil Erosion and Degradation During the 1990s, the Philippines embarked on trade policy reforms, liberalization of foreign investment regulations, and the relaxation of some food and agricultural sector policies, including the long‐standing quantitative restrictions on rice

and corn importation (through Executive Order 470). There was a drastic change in tariff rates averaging 20 percent for most agricultural commodities, except for rice and sugar, which remained highly protected. The economic effects of trade liberalization could result in crop diversification, exploitation of 11 natural resources such as deforestation and land degradation due to the widespread effects of trade barriers on resource allocation, factor incomes, and government finances (Coxhead and Jayasuriya 2004). For instance, the increased protection of corn induced producers to expand corn production and intensify the use of uplands, not to mention population pressure and poverty, which resulted in direct and negative environmental impacts (Coxhead and Jayasuriya 2003). Upland farms in the Philippines primarily cultivate corn, banana, and pineapple, most notably in the Northern Mindanao provinces of Bukidnon and Cotabato, but, with intensive cropping and tillage techniques, cases

Attention! This is a preview.
Please click here if you would like to read this in our document viewer!


of accelerated soil erosion were observed. The Bureau of Soils and Water Management (BSWM) in 1993 categorized 45 percent of the Philippines’ land area to be moderately to severely eroded, the same as 38 percent of Mindanao’s agricultural lands. Hillside erosion and downstream sedimentation were considered by Shively and Coxhead (2004) to be among the important agricultural externalities the Philippines is facing. They also reported that the Philippines is experiencing soil loss between 74 and 81 million t/ha/year, which is way above the acceptable soil loss limit of 10–12 t/ha/year for developing countries. These soil losses affect 63 to 77 percent of the country’s total land area. Aside from downstream sedimentation, soil erosion leads to nutrient loss as a result of the removal of fertile topsoil. The area planted to banana shows an increase of 50,000 ha, that is, from 300,000 ha in 1990 to 350,000 ha in 2000. At present, most banana companies are looking for more land to

expand their plantations because of diminishing land productivity. Less productive land is attributed to the overuse of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, with high fertilizer use leading to mineral deficiencies in the soil, especially of calcium, iron, magnesium, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc (Astorga 1996 as cited in Calderon and Rola 2003). Soil degradation has been identified as one of the most serious ecological problems and a major threat to food security in the country (Philippine National Action Plan (NAP), 2004 ‐2010). NAP reported that about 5.2 million hectares are seriously degraded, resulting in a 30 to 50 percent reduction in soil productivity (Asio et al. 2009). These degraded lands are used for biodiesel production, but, if there is no appropriate soil management, this would cause further soil deterioration. 3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that 13.5 percent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

come from worldwide agriculture, thus contributing to the phenomenon of climate change (IPCC 2007). Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) are the major GHGs emitted by agricultural production processes. In 1994, the Philippines came up with its first Greenhouse Gas Accounting through the U.S. Country Study Program to address the problem of climate change, which reported emissions in 1991 (Table 4). Estimates were updated with 1994 data for the National GHG Inventory included in the Initial National Communication that was submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Table 4 shows that the largest source of GHG emissions in the Philippines is the energy sector (49.7 percent), followed by the agricultural sector (32.9 percent). GHG emissions coming from the agricultural sector are mainly from CH4 which is a by‐product of rice paddy cultivation. In particular, CH4 emissions come from anaerobic decomposition of organic matter in

the aquatic environment of rice paddies. 12 In the Philippines, rice cultivation is the largest source of GHGs, which make up 63 percent of total agricultural emissions. Although emissions from rice cultivation increased by 1.1 percent between 2001 and 2011, emissions from the livestock sector decreased by 0.26 percent over the same period. Emissions generated during the application of synthetic fertilizer accounted for 5.94 percent, and decreased some 0.86 percent between 2001 and 2011. Altogether, the Philippines contributes only 0.5 percent to global GHG emissions, but managing this is still important. Table 4. Philippine GHG emissions in 1994 Sector Energy Industry Agriculture Wastes Land use change in forestry (LUCF) Total1 Total CO2 equivalent emissions (ktons), 1994 % of total Projected 2008 CO2 equivalent emissions (ktons) % of total % Change 50,038 10,603 33,130 7,094 49.7 10.5 32.9 7.0 122,344 20,500 20,1772 6,173 70.4 11.8 11.6 3.6 145 93.3 ‐39.1 ‐13.0

‐126 4,492 2.6 100,738 173,686 Source: Summarized from Merilo (2001); Notes: 1. Numbers may not add up because of rounding off; 2. Projected emissions from agriculture are only for the rice sector. 4. Biodiversity Loss Climate change significantly brings compounding challenges in biodiversity and agricultural resources that have serious repercussions on national food security—a challenge that, through the years, has remained insolvable. Although significant efforts have been implemented in relation to climate change, its analysis vis‐à‐vis food security concerns, as a basis for the formulation of adaptive and responsive policy and developmental actions, remains a critical platform that warrants immediate attention. FAO (2008) has mentioned that there has been a less systematic attempt to explore the threats posed by climate change to the biodiversity most important to food security, and the crucial role biodiversity for food and agriculture will have in response to

Attention! This is a preview.
Please click here if you would like to read this in our document viewer!


climate change. Thus, there is an urgent need for a better understanding of the critical interfaces among agriculture, biodiversity, and climate change systems specifically analyzed in the Philippine context. It is estimated that, by the end of this century, climate change will be the main driver of biodiversity loss (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). The IPCC (2007) projected that increases in global average temperatures exceeding 1.5−2.5 Celsius in concomitant atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations would result in major changes in ecosystem structure and function, ecological interactions, and species’ geographic ranges, with predominantly negative consequences for biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services. These changes will greatly affect the wide array of ecosystem services provided for by biodiversity that actually are the very natural resource base for climate change adaptation and mitigation of many communities. Several studies have recognized various threats to

agricultural biodiversity but very few have quantified the losses. For example, the promotion of Green Revolution technologies is 13 considered to have contributed to agro‐biodiversity erosion. The Green Revolution brought significant increases in rice production partly as a result of the expansion of cropland, partly through the adoption of modern varieties, and through increased use of fertilizer and pesticides, increased use of irrigation or controlled water supply, and other changes in technologies over time. Yet, these have had biophysical costs, including in the Philippines. One of the main concerns has been the serious degradation of natural resources, including soil, water, and biodiversity. According to Phalan et al. (2013), crops that have expanded, such as soybean, oil palm, sugar cane, maize, and rice, are considered drivers of biodiversity loss, particularly in tropical countries. The Philippines has a total of more than 5,500 collected and documented traditional

varieties of rice. The adoption of modern varieties has led to the gradual displacement of about 300 traditional rice varieties. The genetic diversity that has developed or evolved in the country is also threatened by the inadvertent introduction of exotic pests and diseases. In the case of banana, for example, the threat of erosion of more than 90 local varieties is due to the infestation of banana bunchy top virus, banana mosaic virus, and sigatoka disease. Changes in land use brought about by industrialization and development projects have affected the natural habitats of many plant species or destroyed populations/genotypes of plant genetic resources. Deforestation has also contributed to biodiversity erosion because of changes in the vegetative composition of a deforested area, thus causing the loss of many of the wild species. 5. Mangrove Ecosystem Degradation In the Philippines, the reduction in mangrove area was estimated by the National Mapping and Resource Information

Authority (NAMRIA) to be from 400,000−500,000 ha in 1920 to roughly 153,577 ha in 2005 (Gevaña et al. 2010), concentrated in the provinces of Oriental Mindoro, Quezon, and Palawan. Southeast Asia has 35 percent of the world’s 18 million ha of mangrove forests (Spalding et al. 1997), but it has also suffered from the highest rates of mangrove loss: 70–80 percent in the Philippines and Vietnam for the last 30 years (Spalding et al. 1997). Around half of the 279,000 ha of Philippine mangroves lost from 1951 to 1988 were developed into aquaculture ponds; 95 percent of Philippine brackish‐water ponds in 1952–1987 were derived from mangroves (Primavera 2000). This transformation has resulted in the loss of essential ecosystem services generated by mangroves. Shrimp culture is the major human activity, which accounted for 35 percent of the global decline of more than one‐third of mangrove forests in the last two decades (Valiela et al. 2001). Shrimp aquaculture in mangrove areas

involves the construction of brackish‐water grow‐out ponds that use both the rich soil and the tidal exchange of lagoon water, which aids plankton growth. Although the majority of shrimp aquaculture ponds are built in mangrove intertidal areas, technology exists that enables the construction of ponds inland of the mangrove areas and mechanically controls the exchange of water. Although this method reduces the physical destruction of mangrove areas, the untreated pond effluent discharged into the estuaries is of environmental concern (Nickerson 1999). Effluent from these shrimp farms can damage mangrove ecosystems, which will have a chain effect, not only on available fish, but also damaging the sustainable coastal ecosystem through 14 the alteration of seabed fauna and flora communities (Fortes 1988). Hurtado et al. (2001) found that excessive grazing of siganids and sea urchins decreased the yield of Kappachycus sp. and Eucheuma sp. in Antique, Philippines. 6. Water and Air

Attention! This is a preview.
Please click here if you would like to read this in our document viewer!


Pollution Commercial agriculture has also contributed to the deteriorating quality of air and water systems that has threatened the sustainability of croplands and other natural resources. The introduction of the Green Revolution in the Philippines in the early 1960s (U.S. Library of Congress n.d.) marked the start of environmental degradation that is attributable to agriculture. The Green Revolution introduced the so‐called high‐yielding rice varieties and high yields, which can be achieved only with the corresponding application of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. This dramatically changed the traditional organic practices of farmers, which eventually made them over‐dependent on chemical inputs to protect their crops from pests and increase their yield. In banana and pineapple production, restricted pesticides such as paraquat, ethoprop, fenamiphos, methidathion, and carbofuran 10G are still being used. The amount of pesticide applied per unit area is highest with these

crops. Aircraft application of pesticides and bagging fruits in insecticide‐impregnated plastic bags for transport are common practice on banana plantations (Bajet and Tejada 1995). Additionally, burning and improper waste disposal of plastic bags, soaked in chlorpyriphos, used to cover the fruit from insects, and the polypropylene strings to tie these bags may result in air pollution and loss of freshwater biodiversity if they find their way to river systems. Calderon and Rola (2003) noted that adverse environmental impacts of commercial banana plantations such as reduced water quantity, reduced aesthetical value of river systems, and destruction of biodiversity in rivers downstream are considered as costs. The same study identified the practice of aerial fumigation with pesticides as the main source of chemicals that contaminate rivers downstream. A valuation of the water resources in Lantapan, Bukidnon, conducted by Rola and Tabien (2001) showed that the majority of the

respondents who did not rent out land are still dependent on the river for their domestic water supply (98 percent) and for recreation (35 percent). Since most people in the area do not have ready access to water sources in their home, they are forced to take the risk of using contaminated water from rivers for their everyday domestic need. Air pollution and water pollution remain as the most significant environmental risks from banana production. In the case of Davao City, aerial spraying has been a primary concern of civil society because of the proximity of monocrop plantations to residential areas. This spraying is deemed to contaminate the air quality and water supply. In 2007, an anti‐aerial spraying ordinance was passed in Davao City to respond to this growing concern regarding the environment and health. Despite the clamor from other residents in the Davao region to completely ban aerial spraying, this agricultural practice remains the norm for large plantations in the Davao

del Norte area. However, according to the private sector, aerial spraying remains the most practical way for pest control. With more advanced technologies such as the use of global positioning systems that allow people to make more precise calculations of the area to be covered, the private sector asserts that pesticide drifts are avoided (Davao City LGU; Davao del Norte LGU; Davao Private Sector 2014). 15 Inappropriate use of fertilizers and pesticides has led to water pollution and damaged ecosystems. Water runoff from agriculture can enter water systems, thus destroying wildlife habitats and wetlands, and has also led to algal blooms. PHILIPPINE GREEN AGRICULTURE ASPIRATIONS AND APPLICATIONS The government of the Philippines employed different instruments to address the different identified environmental risks associated with the commercial agricultural sector, and in effect facilitate the greening of agriculture. The following instruments are broadly categorized into (a)

direct regulation, (b) instruments that correct or create markets, and (c) information, advocacy, and voluntary approaches. 1. Direct regulation In the 1960s, the government implemented policies that emphasized economic development, with little attention to environmental conservation. This led to the exploitation of natural resources, conversions of natural ecosystems to other uses, pollution and sedimentation from urban and industrial centers, and agricultural expansion (World Bank 2009). The government responded to these concerns and came up with a succession of laws for environmental management and sustainable development. In fact, the Philippines is one of the few countries that constructed natural resource accounting way back in the 1990s, but this was not sustained because of budgetary and capacity constraints. The government has lately renewed its interest in environmental accounting as threats to ecosystems are apparent. The following discussions lay out the comprehensive

Attention! This is a preview.
Please click here if you would like to read this in our document viewer!


policy instruments of the government aimed at reducing environmental risks from agriculture. The Philippine Environmental Policy (Presidential Decree 1151) and Philippine Environmental Code (Presidential Decree 1152) In pursuit of the government’s responsibility to ensure the attainment of an environmental quality that is conducive to a life of dignity and well‐being and to recognize the right of the people to a healthy environment, PD 1151 (effective 1977) envisions a better quality of life for all, through the development of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). These statements include details on the environmental impact of the proposed action, project, or undertaking; any adverse environmental effect that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented; alternatives to the proposed action; a determination that the short‐term uses of the resources of the environment are consistent with the maintenance and enhancement of the long‐term productivity of the same; and,

whenever a proposal involves the use of nonrenewable resources, a finding must be made that such use and commitment are warranted. The Philippine Environment Code (PD 1152) was drafted on the same day as PD 1151 but took effect two months later. The code established specific environmental policies for land use management, natural resource management and conservation, and waste management, and prescribed environmental quality standards specifically for air and water. The national government established a system of rational exploitation and conservation of fisheries, aquatic, wildlife, and forest resources, and encouraged citizen participation in the maintenance and/or enhancement of their continuous productivity. Miscellaneous provisions of the code include the integration of environmental education in school curricula at all levels; undertaking of research programs on environmental management; consideration of achieving population‐environment 16 balance; keeping informed on

current environmental developments (both foreign and domestic) and disseminating them to the public; and the operation, installation, and use of pollution control facilities. The Philippine Agenda 21 (PA 21) The Philippines codified its recognition of the importance of the environment in the 1987 Constitution, which stipulates that “The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.” In order to achieve sustainable development, the government formulated the Philippine Strategy for Sustainable Development, that is, PA 21, in 1992. PA 21 provided a listing and brief discussion of trends in demography, culture, the economy, urbanization, human development, the environment, and politics, which portray, in broad strokes, a picture of baseline conditions. The list includes, among other things, the growth of social inequity and environmental degradation, market distortions, trade deficits,

destructive mining, concentration of economic power, indiscriminate agricultural land and ecosystem conversion, threats to food security, pollution, inadequate waste disposal, and water shortage (Bautista 2012). The set of guidelines for sustainable development has focused on improving productivity while keeping in mind the limitations of the natural environment’s carrying capacity. After the formulation of PA 21, numerous laws and regulations were passed to address property rights in forests and uplands, and destructive farming and fishing practices. One of the major legislations enacted was Republic Act 8435 (Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997) that establishes that the Department of Agriculture (DA) together with other appropriate agencies should take into account climate change, weather disturbances, and annual productivity cycles in order to forecast and formulate appropriate agricultural and fishery programs. But, despite all the government’s efforts, the use

of unsustainable production practices has continued (Updated Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2011−2016). The Agricultural Fisheries and Modernization Act (AFMA) (Republic Act 8435) and Agricultural Fisheries and Modernization Plan The AFMA of 1977 mandates the identification and protection of all agricultural and fishery lands that can be developed for economic and commercial purposes. These are classified into “(1) the Network of Protected Areas for Agriculture and Agro‐Industrial Development (NPAAAD); (2) the Strategic Agriculture and Fishery Development Zone (SAFDZ); (3) Model Farms; and (4) Watershed Areas” (Briones 2005). In addition, the AFMA, as amended by RA 9281 on 30 March 2004, governs agricultural policies. The AFMA’s main purpose is to “modernize” the agricultural and fisheries sector in order to increase its profitability and remain competitive in lieu of increasing globalization. It also aims to be more reactive to environmental concerns by emphasizing

Attention! This is a preview.
Please click here if you would like to read this in our document viewer!


that development in the sector should be sustainable and not detrimental to the natural resource base (DA 2004). In line with the AFMA and the Philippine Development Plan (PDP), the DA formulated the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Plan (AFMP) 2011−2017. This provides the strategic framework and serves as a roadmap for the DA in achieving its goals of “raising rural incomes, ensuring food security, enhancing global competitiveness, and increasing sustainability and resilience” (DA 2012). 17 The AFMP aspires to achieve sustainable modernization of the agricultural and fisheries sector through mainstreaming climate change adaptation and risk reduction in its interventions. This entails the sound use and management of resources in addition to ecologically sustainable technologies to rehabilitate degraded land and water resources. The AFMP highlights the need for the DA and local government units (LGUs) to work together in achieving the goals of the plan through

cost‐sharing. Since the PDP emphasized that agriculture has been a low priority in many local development agendas, the AFMP encourages LGUs to increase their investments in agriculture while fostering financial independence from the central government (DA 2012). The AFMP also highlights the need to pursue public‐private partnerships by allowing the DA to concentrate on delivering timely investments in infrastructure such as farm‐to‐market roads, fish ports, and large abattoirs, and allowing the private sector to invest in “private goods” such as post‐harvest facilities, seeds, fertilizer, and other farm inputs. In reducing sector‐wide transaction costs and overlapping roles between departments and other government agencies, the AFMP proposes the creation of a National Convergence Initiative. This is to guarantee more efficient and effective program planning and implementation between agencies (DA 2012). The Philippine Development Plan (PDP) The primary goal of the PDP

is to achieve inclusive growth. One of the main concerns of the PDP is to increase productivity in agriculture and its linkages with the service and industry sector while taking into consideration the need to increase the sector’s resiliency to risks, including those caused by climate change. This entails households involved in agriculture diversifying their production and livelihood in line with the government’s effort to strengthen the insurance system, promote MSMEs, generate technology through R&D, accelerate agrarian reform, improve institutional coordination, and introduce other community‐based services. In seeking to improve rural infrastructure, the plan intends to enhance connectivity within the value chain and explore possible partnerships with the public sector for finance (NEDA 2014). It also includes natural resource valuation and accounting, and sustainable conservation financing. Moreover, the plan aims to augment productivity by 19 percent in 2016,

particularly in commodities such as palay, corn, sugarcane, pineapple, coconut, coffee, banana, mango, and others in the livestock, poultry, and fisheries industry. In order to sustain resource‐dependent communities, NEDA (2014) concentrated on projects that involved increasing adaptation and management capacity for the environment and natural resources in addition to improving their quality. The national government endeavors to increase climate‐/disaster‐resilient infrastructure and to acquire more effective vulnerability and assessment tools through the use of investments and innovative financing. Efficient management practices that focus on the preservation and rehabilitation of the entire biodiversity are also emphasized in order to foster the country’s ecosystem services. It is therefore underscored that the country must be able to comply with the minimum quality standards for air, land, and water to have a more sustainable environment (NEDA 2014). The PDP requires

coordination from concerned agencies, programs, the private sector, and development partners to be able to implement the abovementioned plans. Several planning committees are assigned to update the plan with the guidance of the planning committee chair. The NEDA Board‐Development Budget Coordination Committee is in charge of macroeconomic policy coordination while the Land Use Committee looks after the coordination mechanism for the environment (NEDA 2014). 18 The PDP aspires to stimulate the passage and enactment of some policies for the agricultural sector such as the National Land Use (cited in the aforementioned) and the Soil and Water Conservation Act. The Soil and Water Conservation Act is a framework that will promote soil and water conservation technologies and practices for sustainable land and water management (NEDA 2014). The National Climate Change Action Plan (2011−2028) The Climate Change Commission (CCC) formulated a National Climate Change Action Plan (NCCAP)

Attention! This is a preview.
Please click here if you would like to read this in our document viewer!


in 2010 as a response to the Philippine government’s concern for the country’s vulnerability to climate change risks. The plan intends to introduce various strategies and actions for adaptation and mitigation in order to reduce both the vulnerability of the population to climate change and the greenhouse gases being emitted. In addition to enhancing the adaptive capacity of communities and the natural ecosystem, the NCCAP 2011−2028 also stipulates directions toward pursuing total economic valuation and environmental and natural resource accounting in the country. One of the key priorities to be addressed by the NCCAP is environmental and ecological stability. The anticipated outcome for this priority includes the protection and rehabilitation of critical ecosystems, and the restoration of ecological services. Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (Republic Act No. 9003) RA 9003 states that it is declared the policy of the state to adopt a systematic, comprehensive, and ecological

solid waste management program that will, among others, (a) ensure the protection of the public health and environment; (b) use environmentally sound methods that maximize the use of valuable resources and encourage resource conservation and recovery; (c) set guidelines and targets for solid waste avoidance and volume reduction through source reduction and waste minimization measures, including composting, recycling, re‐use, recovery, green charcoal process, and others, before collection, treatment, and disposal in appropriate and environmentally sound solid waste management facilities in accordance with ecologically sustainable development principles; (d) ensure the proper segregation, collection, transport, storage, treatment, and disposal of solid waste through the formulation and adoption of the best environmental practice in ecological waste management, excluding incineration; (e) promote national research and development programs for improved solid waste management and resource

conservation techniques, more effective institutional arrangements, and indigenous and improved methods of waste reduction, collection, separation, and recovery; and (f) strengthen the integration of ecological solid waste management and resource conservation and recovery topics into the academic curricula of formal and non‐formal education in order to promote environmental awareness and action among the citizenry. The law mandates the establishment of a National Solid Waste Management Commission that will oversee the implementation of solid waste management plans and prescribe policies to achieve the objectives of this Act. A National Ecology Center will also be established under the Commission, which will provide consulting, information, training, and networking services for the implementation of the provisions of this Act. Organic Agriculture Act of 2010 (Republic Act 10068) 19 The Organic Agriculture Act (OAA) of 2010 is geared toward developing organic agriculture in the

Philippines through improving farm productivity (soil fertility) while reducing health risks and environmental risks from agriculture. The promotion of organic agriculture reduces the use of chemical external inputs such as fertilizer, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals and introduces viable management practices that focus on soil fertility and varietal breeding/selection based on the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) definition (DA 2011). More specifically, this Act aims to “promote the healthy use of soil, water, and air as well as minimize all forms of pollution thereto that may result from agricultural practices” and “handle agricultural products with emphasis on careful processing methods in order to maintain the organic integrity and vital qualities of the production at all stages” (DA 2011). Furthermore, the OAA serves as a framework for policy formulation, research, promotion, and implementation of organic agriculture under the National

Organic Agricultural Program, which is carried out by the National Organic Agriculture Board (NOAB), comprising heads from different departments. The Bureau of Agriculture and Fisheries Product Standards (BAFPS) of the DA acts as the secretariat for all national technical and administrative work for the NOAB with support from the member agencies (DA 2011). The OAA equally encourages organic farm certifications that conform to the requirements for foods and food control systems. In addition to certification, the OAA promotes the use of incentives to encourage production and propagation in the organic farming industry. The enactment of the Philippine Organic Agriculture Law covers four components: (1) policy formulation on regulation, registration, accreditation, certification, and labeling of organic agriculture; (2) research and development and extension (RDE) of appropriate, sustainable environment‐ and gender‐friendly organic agriculture; (3) promotion and encouragement of the

Attention! This is a preview.
Please click here if you would like to read this in our document viewer!


establishment of facilities, equipment, and processing plants that would accelerate the production and commercialization of organic fertilizers, pesticides, and other appropriate inputs; and (4) implementation of organic agriculture programs, projects, and activities, including the delivery of support services. Ultimately, the strategies and key components of the OAA focus on strengthening the following principles: “continuous policy, legal, and institutional reforms; participatory/multi‐stakeholder process; public‐private partnerships; integration/convergence with existing development initiatives; local‐national‐global relationship; counterparting/cost‐sharing; ecologically sound, socially acceptable, and location‐specific interventions; and gender mainstreaming” (DA 2011). Restrictions on the use of permitted substances Pollution Control Law (Presidential Decree 984), Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999 (Republic Act No. 8749) and Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004

(Republic Act No. 9275) This law took effect on 18 August 1976 under then President Ferdinand Marcos and is a national policy aiming to prevent, abate, and control pollution of water, air, and land for the more effective use of the resources of the country. Pollution, in this law, means any alteration of the physical, chemical, and biological properties of any water, air, and/or land resources of the Philippines, or any discharge thereto of any liquid and gaseous or solid wastes as will or are likely to create or to render such water, air, and land resources harmful, detrimental, or injurious to public health, safety, or welfare, or that 20 will adversely affect their use for domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other legitimate purposes. This law created a National Pollution Control Commission that provides technical, scientific, and other services, including the necessary laboratory and other facilities as may be required to carry out the provisions

of this Decree. The Commission may conduct scientific experiments, investigations, and research to discover economical and practical methods of preventing water, air, and land pollution from different sectors, including agriculture. Also, RA 8749 and RA 9375 were both created to (a) formulate a holistic national program of air and pollution management that will be implemented by the government through proper delegation and effective coordination of functions and activities; (b) streamline processes and procedures in the prevention, control, and abatement of pollution of the countrys air and water resources; (c) promote environmental strategies and use appropriate economic instruments and control mechanisms for the protection of air and water resources; (c) formulate an integrated and water quality management framework through proper delegation and effective coordination of functions and activities; (d) promote commercial and industrial processes and products that are environment

friendly and energy efficient; (e) provide for a comprehensive management program for air and water pollution focusing on pollution prevention rather than on control; (g) promote public information and education and encourage the participation of an informed and active public in air and water quality planning and monitoring; and (h) formulate and enforce a system of accountability for short‐ and long‐term adverse environmental impact of a project, program, or activity. This will include the setting up of a funding or guarantee mechanism for clean‐up and environmental rehabilitation and compensation for personal damages. Land use planning and zoning National Land Use Act (Senate Bill No. 3091) and National Land Use and Management Act (House Bill No. 6545) President Benigno Aquino III certified as urgent on 1 February 2013 the above bills that will establish a national framework for the management and allocation of the countrys natural resources. Both bills hurdled the third and

final reading in the Senate and House of Representatives in September 2012. These have been languishing in Congress for almost two decades. The National Land Use Act (NLUA) seeks to create a National Physical Framework Plan that will place land resources into four categories: protection (for conservation), production (for crops, fishery, livestock, and poultry), settlement development (for residential purposes), and infrastructure development (for transportation, communication, water resources, social infrastructure). To oversee the implementation of the bill once it becomes a law, a national land use authority will be created, replacing the National Economic and Development Authority Board‐National Land Use Committee. Unlike existing laws on land, which are all sectoral in approach, the NLUA aims to institutionalize a centralized paradigm for classifying land according to use (Casauay 2013). 21 The conversion and reclassification of agricultural lands to nonagricultural use

Attention! This is a preview.
Please click here if you would like to read this in our document viewer!


(i.e. residential, commercial, and industrial) affect the environment and its natural resources. Under AFMA, it is the government’s policy to promote food security, including the sufficiency of staple food such as rice and corn. In terms of land use, AFMA provides for the protection or nonconversion of all irrigated or irrigable agricultural lands, particularly among the network of protected areas for agricultural and agro‐ industrial development (NPAAAD). Land use policies that provide protection for the environment and affect food security and rice self‐sufficiency include the following regulations: (1) Presidential Decree No. 705 (or the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines (RFCP)), as amended by PD No. 1559, generally provides for the protection, rehabilitation, and development of forestlands; and (2) RA 7586 or the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act of 1992, which seeks the establishment of a comprehensive system of integrated protected areas (i.e.

biologically important public lands, including forest areas) ranging from large natural parks to landscapes and seascapes, to wildlife sanctuaries and small watersheds, among others (Senga 2001). Soil Survey and Conservation Program (Republic Act No. 3082) The Soil Survey and Conservation Program took effect on 1 January 1962 and was planned and executed by the Bureau of Soils under the secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The Act states that it is the policy of the state to survey, protect, and conserve soil and promote the wise use of soil and water at the earliest possible time in order to safeguard the usefulness of those two vital resources and thereby ensure stable farm production, which is basic to the economy and the general well‐being of the people. A national soil survey will be accomplished in five years with a view to making the data on the types of soil in all the various agricultural regions of the country available as maps. The maps will be used as a guide

for determining suitable crops to be grown; the amount and kind of fertilizer, lime, and other soil amendments to apply if needed; and the required soil management practices to be adopted for optimum yield of crops. From the information obtained in the soil survey, erosion control measures will be formulated. These measures will include, among others, contour tillage, terracing, strip cropping, cover cropping, and construction of farm ponds. Any measure or measures recommended for adoption for any particular farm or region will be the result of a thorough study of all factors and must include an ocular examination of the area. The result of this study will be published and made available to farmers in the different municipalities of the province for the information and guidance of farmers and landowners. The Bureau of Soils will provide technical assistance to farmers in the proper use of fertilizer and to other parties desiring such services, based on chemical analysis of soil.

Requirements for environmental impact assessment on significant agricultural investments Improving the Environmental Impact Statement System (Executive Order No. 291) and further strengthening the implementation of the Environmental Impact Statement System (DAO 96‐37) Both orders, which were enacted in 1996, are to strengthen the EIS System by determining its scope and procedural flow to meet the following objectives: to ensure that environmental considerations are incorporated at the earliest possible stage of 22 project development; to further streamline the current procedures in the conduct of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in order to improve its effectiveness as a planning, regulatory, and management tool; and to enhance maximum public participation in the EIA process to validate the social acceptability of the project or undertaking so as to ensure the fullest consideration of the environmental impact of such a project or undertaking. An EIS System was founded

based on the environmental impact statement required under PD 1151. Environmentally Critical Projects (ECPs) or projects in Environmentally Critical Areas (ECAs) proposed by all agencies and instrumentalities of the national government, including government‐owned or government‐controlled corporations, as well as private corporations, firms, and entities, must submit an EIS for review and evaluation to secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC). A declared Environmentally Critical Project or Environmentally Critical Area cannot proceed without an ECC. Furthermore, ECPs and ECAs were classified and some related to commercial agriculture are (for ECPs) forest occupancy, extraction of mangrove products, and grazing; (for ECAs) areas that constitute the habitat for any endangered or threatened species of indigenous Philippine wildlife (flora and fauna); that are traditionally occupied by cultural communities or tribes (indigenous cultural communities); that are frequently

Attention! This is a preview.
Please click here if you would like to read this in our document viewer!


visited and/or hard‐hit by natural calamities (geologic hazards, floods, typhoons, volcanic activity, etc.); that have critical slopes; that are classified as prime agricultural lands; that have water bodies tapped for domestic purposes and that support wildlife and fishery activities; mangrove areas characterized by one or any with primary pristine and dense young growth, near or adjacent to traditional productive fry or fishing grounds, which act as natural buffers against shore erosion, strong winds, and storm floods and coral reefs characterized by spawning and nursery grounds for fish. Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) for the Philippine EIS (DAO 2003‐30) To further improve the Philippine EIS system, the required different EIA study reports and documents were compiled here as well as what contents these documents should contain. The following is a summary of the current documents required by the project proponents for processing ECC applications: EIS; Initial

Environmental Examination (IEE) Report; Environmental Performance Report and Management Plan; Project Description; and Environmental Monitoring Plans. Additionally, a public hearing and public consultation is mandatory for the evaluation of the EIS by the reviewers for them to prepare their EIA Review Committee Report (EIARC). Only then will a decision document be issued, in the form of either an ECC or a denial letter. 2. Instruments that Correct or Create Markets Incentives for adoption of green technologies Several measures are in place in order to protect the main crops (rice, banana, coconut, corn, and sugarcane) and achieve self‐sufficiency. These measures include price support for rice and corn, high tariffs, rice import quotas, as well as import and export restrictions. Various incentives are offered under the AFMA, which include the following: (a) all certified agricultural enterprises are exempt from the payment of customs duties on imports of all types of agricultural and

fisheries inputs, equipment, and machinery until 2015; (b) agricultural food products and agricultural inputs are exempt from VAT (at 12 percent); (c) to assist agricultural producers, a new requirement that all government and private banking institutions must set 23 aside at least 25 percent of their total loanable funds for agriculture and fisheries credit (the Agri‐Agra Reform Credit Act of 2009 or RA 10000); and (d) to assist sugar producers, a requirement for a 10 percent locally sourced bioethanol blend in gasoline, and 2 percent in diesel. The DA (2011: 61−62) offers the following incen ves to adopters of organic agriculture: exemption from payment of duties on imports of agricultural equipment, subsidies for total certification fees and other support services to facilitate organic certification, zero‐rated VAT on transactions of organic food and inputs, and income tax holiday and exemption for seven years from the date of registration of organic food and organic

input producers on all income taxes. Fifty million pesos were appropriated for the implementation of the OAA in the initial year, after which the DA is instructed to allot at least 2 percent of its annual budget for organic agricultural programs (DA 2011). Philippine Good Agricultural Practices (PhilGAP) Farmers in the Philippines have already adopted different approaches to reduce the environmental footprint from commercial agriculture. Some refer to these approaches as Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), which promote sustainability of on‐farm processes to ensure safety and quality of food and nonfood agricultural products (FAO 2003). GAP also refer to applications developed by various private and public organizations with the objectives of (a) ensuring the safety and quality of produce in the food chain; (b) capturing new market advantages by modifying supply chain governance; (c) improving natural resource use, workers’ health, and working conditions; and/or (d) creating new

market opportunities for farmers and exporters in developing countries (FAO 2008; Banzon et al. 2013). Several markets for agricultural exports, including the EU market and those of Japan, Australia, and Korea, have already been imposing rules requiring that imported products be produced applying practices similar to those required in their national GAP programs. Aside from these markets, ASEANGAP was developed to further facilitate trade within the region while aiming to prevent risks, including environmental risks from the production, harvesting, and postharvest handling of fresh fruits and vegetables (Banzon et al. 2013. As more and more countries have already adapted their national GAP certification for their commodities, GAP certification in the Philippines is still in the infancy stage but the good news is that PhilGAP is now harmonized with ASEANGAP and GLOBALGAP (Banzon et al. 2013). Overall, the GAP program covers pre‐ to postproduction practices that are focused toward

Attention! This is a preview.
Please click here if you would like to read this in our document viewer!


reducing the risk of microbial and pesticide contamination in fruits and vegetables. The safety of workers and protection of the environment are considered additional benefits of the program as more detail is placed on the use of pesticides, fertilizer, and other farm agrochemicals, which includes the recommended procedure in purchasing, storing, and disposing of particular farm inputs. Payment for environmental services Environmental User Fee System (EUFS) 24 The EUFS was introduced in Laguna Lake through the influence of the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA). It represents a pioneering water pollution charge system in the Philippines and in the Laguna Lake region in particular. The EUFS, as an economic instrument, was to complement the regulatory approaches to environmental management in the lake to encourage industrial firms to invest in and operate pollution prevention and abatement systems. It introduced a water pollution charge system to abate direct waste discharge

into Laguna Lake through its tributaries by about 5 million out of the 8 million people residing in the Laguna Lake region when the system was introduced. Estimates at that time showed that the major sources of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) loads in the lake were industries (40 percent), domestic sources (30 percent), and agriculture (30 percent). The EUFS includes a fixed fee for administrative costs and a variable fee that is calculated based on the BOD level and the volume of wastewater discharged into the lake (World Bank 2009). Payment for watershed protection and conservation The Makiling Forest Reserve was used as an illustrative example for developing and implementing a watershed protection and conservation fee. Increasing extractive use and habitation in the forest reserve were posing an increasing threat to the reserve ecosystems and to the long‐term health of the watershed. So, in order to halt land degradation and the reduction in water quantity within the reserve, the

solution was to grant property rights to existing farmers in order to create an incentive for sustainable behavior and to control additional settlement throughout the reserve (UNEP 2002). The second part of the strategy involved establishing fees to help protect the reserve, including a watershed pricing mechanism and credits for sustainable farming practices. The negotiations for this scheme have been ongoing for several years, yet there has been no progress because of a lack of support from the decision makers. 3. Information, Advocacy, and Voluntary Approaches Certification and voluntary standards/industry codes of practice Philippine National Standards for Organic Agriculture (PNSOA) The DA through the Bureau of Agriculture and Fisheries Product Standards (BAFPS) approved the establishment of the PNSOA in 2003. These standards for the promotion and development of organic agriculture were prepared for the purpose of providing a uniform approach to the requirements, which is the

basis of the following: conversion to organic agriculture, crop production, livestock, processing, special products, labeling, and consumer information. In 2004, the Philippine National Organic Board was created to support, among others, the implementation of the Philippine National Organic Standards and Certification system, and the establishment of a Five‐year Organic Industry Development Program for adoption by the respective units of the DA in partnership with the private sector (Maghirang et al. 2011; BAFPS 2003). After a series of consultations, a revised PNSOA was approved in 2014 (BAFPS 2014). The widespread implementation of the OAA is hampered not only by the lack of organic inputs such as fertilizer and seeds but also by the lack of a market for organic products where farmers can sell their produce at a premium price. More often than not, organic produce is sold at the same price as the products of modern or chemical agriculture. 25 Availability of organic seeds is

also lacking or even absent in most areas of the country such that the newly approved Philippine National Standard (PNS) on Organic Agriculture still allows for the use of nonorganic seeds as long as these are not treated with pesticides and other inputs not permitted in the standards (DA 2014). The PNS on Organic Fertilizers, on the other hand, has set quite a high percentage NPK content for a nutrient input to be considered fertilizer, for example, 5−7% NPK (DA 2013b). A huge percentage of organic fertilizers produced on‐farm do not even come close to this standard. Another big constraint in the fast adoption of organic farming is the provision of Section 17, on Labeling of Organic Produce, of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 10068, which states that “Only third‐party certification is allowed to be labeled as organically produced” (DA 2013a). We have only two accredited certifying bodies in the country, the Organic Certification Center of the Philippines

Attention! This is a preview.
Please click here if you would like to read this in our document viewer!


(OCCP) and the Negros Island Certification Services (NICERT), both of which are privately owned. Their certification fee ranges from PHP 42,000 to 104,500 per commodity and this certification is renewable every year. There is a provision in the IRR, specifically in Section 24, that provides for a subsidy covering the total certification costs (i.e. application and processing fees, traveling expenses of inspectors, and laboratory fees, among others), which can be availed of three times subject to annual renewal of the application (Gazmin 2012). The subsidy scheme is being implemented through the Agribusiness and Marketing Assistance Service (AMAS) of the DA but, because of red tape, what happens is that the farmer pays first for the certification and then waits for the full amount to be refunded by the government. In some cases, two years pass but the farmer has not yet received his refund (a case in Region II). After certification, the farm or establishment producing and/or selling

organic products still needs to apply for registration at the Bureau of Agriculture and Fisheries Product Standards (BAFPS) of the DA before it will be given a license to operate. Information on environmental accounting The two major Philippine initiatives on environmental accounting were the Environmental and Natural Resources Accounting Project (ENRAP) and the Philippine Economic‐Environmental and Natural Resources Accounting (PEENRA) Project. Both started in the 1990s and continued to about 2000. ENRAP was led by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, funded by USAID, and it adopted the Henry Peskin approach to environmental accounting, focusing on data use for public policy. PEENRA, which started later, was implemented by the National Statistical Coordination Board, which used the SEEA framework for environmental accounting, with the UN Philippines Wealth Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services (WAVES). Advocacy for adopting green technology Advocacy on

Promotion and Development of Organic Agriculture in the Philippines (Executive Order 481) Executive Order 481 hopes to promote organic agriculture as a farming scheme, especially in rural farming communities; forge effective networking and collaboration with the stakeholders involved in the production, handling, processing, and marketing of organic agriculture products; guarantee food and environmental safety by means of an ecological approach to farming; and ensure the integrity of organic products through 26 the approved organic certification procedures and organic production, handling, and processing standards. This legal instrument also goes with the creation of the Bio‐ organic Farming Authority under the Office of the President (Maghirang et al. 2011). Advocacy on Guidelines on the Certification of Good Agricultural Practices for Fruits and Vegetable Farming (GAP‐FV) of 2005 (Department of Agriculture Administrative Order No. 25) This establishes the rules applied by the

DA for granting, maintaining, and withdrawing a Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) Certificate to individual growers or farms in the fresh fruit and vegetable sector or to their Produce Marketing Organizations (PMOs) that market and/or trade the produce. The certification of agricultural farms aims to increase the market access of horticultural products in both local and foreign markets, to empower farmers to respond to the demands of consumers that specific criteria to achieve food safety and quality be met, to facilitate farmer adoption of sustainable agricultural practices, and to uplift GAP‐FV farmers’ profile as members of the nationally recognized list of vegetable farmers who are setting the benchmark for the production of safe and quality fruits and vegetables, and certified sources (Maghirang et al. 2011). Other voluntary approaches On the other hand, some farmers implemented various technologies, instruments, and strategies into their farming practices not for the goal of

achieving a certain kind of certification but as a means to better their current farming practices. These technologies are often the output of different R&D undertakings of various institutions both locally and internationally, which aims to help farmers increase their income and reduce poverty. In the Philippines, there are numerous research projects by professors and scientists and thesis studies by undergraduate and graduate students from the top agricultural universities on breathing new life into agriculture (Perlas 2013). Perlas also discussed the challenges faced by farmers that affect the decisions of whether to adopt or to not adopt these new technologies, which includes mindset barriers and lack of land ownership. According to Perlas, most farmers do not fully understand the scientific approach to developing these farm technologies and they lack the capacity to sustain any new adopted technology; thus, they revert to their “tried and tested” farming practices. This

Attention! This is a preview.
Please click here if you would like to read this in our document viewer!


particular behavior can also be traced to the asymmetry of information between the research project and target clientele, which tends to lead to nonacceptance of the proposed technology (Catelo et al. 2000 as cited in Perlas 2013). Also, because of a lack of land ownership, farmers are often reluctant to try out new innovations and are risk‐averse because of not having the sole decision‐making capacity. GREEN AGRICULTURE CAPACITY AND INSTITUTIONAL GAPS This section examines the capacities and institutional gaps of the government and private sector to achieve the green agriculture aspirations of the country. The following capacities are discussed in terms of their effectiveness, efficiency, and complications: (a) fiscal allocation; (b) government structure and human resources; (c) research and development institutions and implementing agencies; (d) the role of civil society organizations and nongovernment organizations; and (e) capacity to implement environmental impact assessment.

Identified gaps include the lack of environmental financing, regulatory application on land use and environmental management policies, and a lack of knowledge 27 and skills to mitigate environmental risks from agriculture such as carbon emissions, pesticide residues, and waterway pollution. 1. Fiscal Allocation The capacity for green agriculture at the national level has its own share of strengths and weaknesses. One of the leading strengths nationally stems from the fiscal policies of the government. A national budget is a comprehensive tool for the redistribution of resources in the economy in pursuit of growth and development. Rapid, inclusive, and sustained economic growth is one of the expenditure priorities of the government that relates to green agriculture. Under this priority, the 2013 budget focused on achieving parallel objectives of food security and poverty reduction by allotting resources for infrastructure support and programs to improve agricultural productivity by

expanding production and extension support and postharvest facilities to farmers, with a focus on rice, corn, coconut products, and fish. In line with the 2013 General Appropriations Act, the DA obtained the fifth‐highest budgetary allocation for departments with PHP 64.474 billion while the PHP 23.136 billion allotted for DENR is ninth highest. However, the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), with the function of undertaking scientific and technological research, is outside the top 10 departments with the highest budgetary allocation. 2. Government Structure and Human Resources Another area of strength of the national government toward mainstreaming green agriculture is the engagement of experts in the different levels of decision making, planning, and research within the country. The president is vested with the executive power to head the state and exercise control over the executive departments and bureaus, and appoints qualified officials, with the approval of the

Committee on Appointments, to lead these offices. Approved candidates then assume their cabinet posts to act as secretaries for their respective departments. The leading executive departments of the government that have the capacity to mainstream green agriculture nationally are the DA, DENR, and DOST. The functional coordination and management structure of these departments include several undersecretaries for policy and planning and research and development and directors for different bureaus within the departments. The Local Government Code of 1991 grants the territorial and political subdivisions of the country, through a decentralized system, a genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest development as self‐reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the attainment of national goals, in this case, a national green agriculture program. Under the code, municipalities and component barangays are provided with opportunities to

participate actively in the implementation of national programs and projects by effectively allocating among the different LGUs their respective powers, functions, responsibilities, and resources. In regard to this, every province, city, and municipality has the option to appoint an agriculturist and an environmental and natural resources officer to oversee operations and issues regarding their respective fields. Although the decentralization of tasks and functions from agencies at the national level to LGUs in essence is a good management approach on paper, a tremendous irregularity is experienced 28 in practice. A major fault in the transfer of responsibilities to the LGUs is the lack of a well‐ defined frontier for the separation of tasks and functions. This confusion often leads to dual and ambiguous roles in the LGU, making the downscaling system inefficient. At present, one of the challenges faced in applying the Philippine Development Plan is the overlapping functions

Attention! This is a preview.
Please click here if you would like to read this in our document viewer!


between the DA and the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in providing services to farmers. Such is the case of land titling and distribution, in which the DAR, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the Land Registration Authority (LRA), and the National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP) have conflicting roles. For climate change and disaster risks, the Climate Change Commission (CCC), National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC), and Environment and Natural Resources Bureau of the DENR all have contradicting roles, resulting in inefficiencies (NEDA 2014). Aside from conflicting roles, weak enforcement of regulations is also considered as one of the factors that contribute to resource degradation. According to NEDA (2014), despite the number of laws and regulations passed to address unsustainable practices such as the use of chemicals, deforestation in watersheds, and slash‐and‐burn practices, these activities have continued because

of insufficient financial and technical capacity in addition to low political will to strictly implement the policies. More importantly, these challenges are also rooted in the absence of an Environment and Natural Resources (ENR) valuation/accounting, in which we lack the capacity to do proper inventory and valuation of resource requirements, gains from interventions, and losses from negative impacts. 3. Research and Development Institutions and Implementing Agencies Both the DA and DENR have their respective research and development divisions but the DOST is mandated to provide central direction, leadership, and coordination of scientific and technological efforts and ensure that the results from these are geared to and used in areas of maximum economic and social benefits for the people. In relation to green agriculture, the department is committed to achieving outcomes in developing science‐based know‐how and tools that enable the agricultural sector to raise productivity to

world‐class standards; having highly skilled and globally competitive Science and Technology (S&T) human resources in support of the national S&T programs; and having science‐based weather information and climate change scenarios with associated impact assessments that enable concerned agencies to develop appropriate mitigation strategies. The Philippine Council for Agriculture, Aquatic and Natural Resources Research and Development (PCAARRD) is a sectoral planning council under the department responsible for formulating policies, plans, programs, projects, and strategies for S&T development; for programming and allocating funds; for monitoring R&D projects; and for generating external funds. The council has several divisions in line with undertaking research for the following: socioeconomics, crops, agricultural resource management, forestry and environment, livestock, inland aquatic resources, and marine resources. Also, DOST‐PCAARRD is active in financing

research initiatives aligned to its priorities that are implemented by different state universities and colleges and private institutions across the country. Although numerous research programs are undertaken by different agencies, each with its own priority, no national framework is being developed to integrate all knowledge gained from studies conducted into a flagship research program on green agriculture. Current trends in 29 research are more inclined to developing science‐based know‐how to achieve food security amid climate change by using advanced technologies in crop and climate forecasting, thus giving more emphasis to smart agriculture. As a consequence, all investigations related to green agriculture will always be linked to climate‐smart agriculture. The Role of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and Nongovernment Organizations (NGOs) CSOs have lobbied for policy change not only in the areas of poverty reduction and anti‐ corruption but also in environmental

protection. One of their success stories in recent years is the passing of a law on agrarian reform. The role of NGOs in shaping and facilitating environmental policy has sometimes been as great as in the case of agrarian reform, but only in certain issues. Two examples are the case of illegal logging, which caused a flood in Leyte in 1991 that killed at least 4,000 people, and environmental damage by irresponsible mining companies. After the destructive effects of several typhoons that hit the country recently, especially typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda locally) in 2013, the number of people involved in advocacy programs and information and education campaigns (IEC) is ever increasing. Aside from the government, academe, and private institutions, there is now a strong movement by different NGOs to participate in these initiatives. Although the focus of most NGOs is not directed to green agriculture, their efforts in promoting sustainable agriculture, environmental protection, poverty

Attention! This is a preview.
Please click here if you would like to read this in our document viewer!


alleviation of farmers and fisher folk, biodiversity conservation, and climate change adaptation and mitigation mark a big step forward toward laying the foundation for understanding green agriculture. To monitor the credibility and accountability of NGOs in the country, the Philippine Council for NGO Certification (PCNC) is providing a mechanism of certification for NGOs. Not only does a certification scheme offer transparency for NGOs but it also builds the capacity of these organizations to provide services to the community and provide a better system for GO and NGO collaboration. Microfinance institutions (MFIs) in the country are also breaking ground in providing financial opportunities for the working poor. One such MFI is Lifebank Foundation, Inc., which aims to give financial assistance to workers in the agricultural sector, especially women. Recently, the foundation, together with public‐private‐civil society partnerships, launched a Smart Agriculture Program to introduce

different but complementary forms of education, technology, market, and financial support for farmers and micro‐entrepreneurs. 4. Capacity to Implement EIA The DENR was given the task of administering the EIA system through the Environmental Management Bureau and its regional offices. In spite of its strengthened features, there is a mounting concern that the EIA system, even in combination with existing environmental legislation, is still not enough to combat the escalating deterioration of the environment. In response to this concern, the government is implementing several projects aimed at pilot‐ testing the integration of different strategies and frameworks in environmental management. 30 Devolving the task to the regional offices to issue and monitor environmental clearances covering the whole range of projects is taking a long time to implement because of the lack of both competent government personnel and readily available expertise and resources at the national and

local levels. The law itself did not create permanent career positions for EIA professionals in government service. The regulations also do not prescribe the methodologies to be used during the conduct of the study; neither do the reviewers verify them during their review of the EIS. There still remains a large gap in the procedural guidelines of the review. The monitoring capability of the government needs a lot of strengthening. There are no programs in place, no equipment available, and not enough trained staff or accredited laboratories to analyze the samples. Because of the absence of baseline environmental data, consultants generally have to gather baseline information for every EIA study they conduct or collect secondary data generated by similar studies, which in many cases are scanty and unreliable. There is no central repository of environmental data that can be easily accessed by the consultants or stakeholders nor is there a database of the baseline information contained in

the various EIA studies submitted. There is also an apparent lack of coordination and an overlapping of functions among the government agencies, making the process more circuitous, time‐consuming, and ineffective. For the most part, public hearings and public consultations are haphazardly conducted and poorly presented because of time constraints and the lack of skills within government to handle social issues. Documents are not freely accessible to the public because of fear, uncertainty, and a lack of experience in handling seemingly contentious matters. The government should strengthen the use of the EIA system as a planning and monitoring tool rather than a command and control instrument in order to optimize scarce resources and effectively implement the system. The government needs to rationalize its present structure in order to provide opportunities for growth and satisfaction to its personnel. Training and career opportunities should also be provided to keep experienced and

competent staff from leaving government service. 5. Local Capacities to Monitor and Reduce the Environmental Footprint of Agriculture For the local government in Davao, addressing environmental risks starts from conducting monitoring activities. However, monitoring capacity is limited to testing water quality. The local governments in Davao point out that there is an evident lack of technology and expertise to properly assess soil and air quality. Under the mandate of the Philippine Environmental Impact Statement, a Multipartite Monitoring Team (MMT) has been formed to serve as a panel responsible for dealing with concerns on noncompliance with the ECC. The local governments, however, point out that there have been no cases of noncompliance among the private sector in the region. A survey of LGU officials in Davao City, Davao del Norte, and respondents from the private sector resulted in the identification of indicators that needed to be taken into consideration to strengthen

Attention! This is a preview.
Please click here if you would like to read this in our document viewer!


public‐private partnership (PPP) capacity to achieve green agriculture in the region. The derived indicators are as follows: (a) creation of a special inter‐departmental body for green agriculture; (b) allocation of special funds related to green agriculture implementation; (c) passing of national green agriculture legislation; (d) financial assistance to industry players and farm operators; (e) tax incentives for industry players implementing green agriculture 31 technologies and strategies; and (f) additional training and information and education campaigns related to green agriculture. Multiple factors explain the present gap between the Philippines’ aspirations for green agriculture and progress in the field (Table 5). LGUs and the private sector are becoming more aware of the risks from agriculture, such as the case of Davao City, where aerial spraying has been prohibited. However, despite the knowledge of risks from aerial spraying, some plantations found outside the

city still practice this since no existing ordinance prohibits this practice in areas outside the city. Some of these constraints can be addressed through increased attention to technology transfer and skill development that would mitigate further environmental degradation, for example, accreditation of certifying bodies, providing training and information to farmers on technologies that would reduce risk from commercial agriculture, and promoting organic agriculture. Others will require mainstreaming of environmental regulations in LGU development plans, prioritizing environmental risk mitigation in government development programs and investment plans, and efficient monitoring and evaluation of regulatory measures, for example, banning of aerial spraying, measuring of low carbon emissions, and creating a biodiversity index, could be implemented at the national level. Table 5. Gap analysis of green agriculture instruments Identified gaps Policy instruments Direct regulation:

environmental policies • • • • Instruments that correct or create markets: Agriculture policies • Reasons Lack of a national land use policy framework to guide local land use planning Lack of integrated environmental management policies Awareness of risks but lacking in technical expertise and technology to measure and respond to these risks No stringent implementation of regulation for fertilizers and pesticides sold in the market Conflicting policies on achieving food security and environmental policies Overlapping jurisdictions of government agencies that exercise separate environmental and natural resource management powers and mandates over resource uses Absence of clear financial sources or specific allocation from national and local funds, in particular on the operationalization and implementation of plans and policies Low compliance with laws due to government issues and corruption No existing incentives that would apply pressure for the agricultural sector

to practice good agricultural management, therefore resulting in the overuse of chemical inputs and soil degradation and excessive water use High costs in certification compliance and the related costs of auditing and testing; these costs constrain producers in obtaining certification of environmentally friendly and sustainable products that promote good agricultural practices to minimize impact of 32 agricultural activities on the environment Absence of proper inventory/valuation and accounting of resource requirements, estimation of losses/gains from the impacts of agricultural development Information, advocacy, and voluntary approaches • • • • Government focuses on monitoring small‐scale farmers since large‐scale farmers are presumed to comply with environmental standards Voluntary/self‐regulation on the part of the private commercial sector Limited knowledge and capacity for educational campaigns related to environmental risks and management in agriculture

Limited avenues for public‐private partnerships Self‐regulation is exercised by large companies practicing their own corporate sustainability policies and applied to export products Lack of data system for agricultural statistics related to the impact of good agricultural practices on the environment, including updated land use Limited enabling environment for the private sector to improve sustainable resource use and environmental protection SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the overall facets of green agriculture in the Philippines. Although the agricultural sector remains a key player in the Philippine economy, its potential has not been fully maximized because of the combination of economic volatility of exports and productivity losses due to weather extremes. Through the years, Philippine agriculture has continued to lag behind in productivity growth and the perennial lows of its capital investments have greatly decreased its

Attention! This is a preview.
Please click here if you would like to read this in our document viewer!


competitiveness compared with that of its neighboring countries in Southeast Asia. Political motivation will remain a driver for farms to comply with agricultural or environmental policies. Otherwise, there are no incentives gained by the private sector from the government in complying with standards. Regulatory standards such as the use of chemical inputs and other agricultural practices in the commercial agricultural sector continue to be set by importing countries and this has a direct influence on the environmental performance of the exporting agricultural sector in the Philippines, making it compliant with international standards. However, this is not the case with nonexporting farms, as many of these farms that supply the domestic market remain complacent in complying with national regulatory standards. With limited capacity, regulating nonexporting farms that fail to comply with guidelines continues to be a challenge for the local government. Green agriculture in the Philippines

is gradually taking its form in addressing various environmental risks and impacts from agriculture. However, certain gaps in implementing policies are noted by both the local government and private sector as a failure in coordination, trust, and funding. Moreover, local government units continue to point out the need to decentralize certain policies to allow more regulatory and monitoring functions at the local level. In the case of the private sector, industry 33 leadership is very important as it fosters more coordination between certain producers in the community. 34 REFERENCES Asio, Victor B., Reinhold Jahn, Federico O. Perez, Ian A. Navarrete, and Sergio M. Abit Jr. "A review of soil degradation in the Philippines." Annals of Tropical Research 31, no. 2 (2009): 69‐94. Assessment, Millennium Ecosystem. 2005. "Synthesis report." Island, Washington, DC. Bajet, C. M., and A. W. Tejada. "Pesticide residues in the Philippines: an analytical

perspective." TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 14, no. 9 (1995): 430‐434. Banzon, Agnes T., Loida E. Mojica, and Angela A. Cielo. 2013. Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) in the Philippines: Status, Issues, and Policy Strategies. Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA). Laguna, Philippines. Bautista, Gloria M. 2012. “The Challenges and Prospects of Sustainable Agriculture in the Philippines.” Unpublished paper presented at the Symposium on Environment‐Friendly Agriculture. Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo, 3 March. Briones, Nicomedes D. 2005. "Environmental sustainability issues in Philippine agriculture." Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development 2, no. 1&2. Bureau of Agriculture and Fisheries Products Standards. 2014. Philippine National Standard: Organic Agriculture. PNS/BAFPS 07:2014. BAFPS, Department of Agriculture. Philippines. 52 p. Bureau of Agriculture and Fisheries Products Standards.

2003. Philippine National Standard: Organic Agriculture. PNS/BAFPS 07:2003. BAFPS, Department of Agriculture. Philippines. 42 p. Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. 2013. CountrySTAT Philippines. Quezon City, Philippines. Accessed on February 16, 2014. http://countrystat.bas.gov.ph Calderon, Reynan P., and Agnes C. Rola. 2003. Assessing Benefits and Costs of Commercial Banana Production in the Philippines. No. 03‐03. Working Paper. University of the Philippines Los Baños, College, Laguna. Casauay, Angela. 2013. “Aquino Certifies National Land Use Act as Urgent.” Rappler, 2 February 2013. Accessed May 12, 2014. http://www.rappler.com/nation/20929‐aquino‐certifies‐national‐land‐ use‐act‐as‐urgent. Climate Change Commission (CCC). 2010. National Climate Change Action Plan 2011‐2028. Manila, Philippines: CCC. Conway, Gordon R., and Jules N. Pretty. 2013. Unwelcome harvest: agriculture and pollution. Routledge. Coxhead, Ian and Sisira Jayasuriya. 2002. “Economic

growth, development policy and the environment in the Philippines” in The Philippine Economy: On the Road to Sustained Growth? Edited by Balisacan, Arsenio M., and Hal Hill. New York: Oxford University Press. 35 . 2003. The open economy and the environment: development, trade and resources in Asia. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. . 2004. "Development strategy and trade liberalization: Implications for poverty and environment in the Philippines." Environment and Development Economics 9, no. 05: 613‐644. Cruz, Rex Victor O., Juan M. Pulhin., and Mendoza M.D. 2011. “Reinventing College of Forestry and Natural Resources: Leading the Way in Integrated Tropical Forest and Natural Resource Management Education, Research and Governance (2011‐2025).” Centennial Professorial Chair Lecture delivered in December 2011 at the Nicolas P. Lansigan Hall, College of Forestry and Natural Resources, University ofthe Philippines

Attention! This is a preview.
Please click here if you would like to read this in our document viewer!


Los Banos, College, Laguna, Philippines. Department of Agriculture. 2014. Philippine National Standards on Organic Agriculture (PNS/BAFPS 07:2014). Bureau of Agriculture and Fisheries Products Standards, Department of Agriculture. Quezon City. 54 p. . 2013a. Organic Agriculture Act of 2010: Implementing Rules and Regulations. Bureau of Agriculture and Fisheries Products Standards, DA, Quezon City. 39 p. . 2013b. Philippine National Standards on Organic Fertilizer (PNS/BAFPS 40:2013). Bureau of Agriculture and Fisheries Products Standards, DA, Quezon City. 12 p. . 2012. Formulation of the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Plan 2011‐2017. DA, Quezon City, Philippines. . 2011. Republic Act 10068: Organic Agriculture Act of 2010. May. Accessed on 14 May 2014. http://ati.da.gov.ph/rtc8/sites/default/files/RA10068 IRR.pdf. . 2004. Agriculture and Fisheries

Modernization Act.. Accessed on 14 May 2014. http://nafc.da.gov.ph/afma/ra8435‐1.php. FAO. 2003. “Report of the Expert Consultation on a Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) Approach.” FAO GAP Working Paper Series 1. http://www.fao.org/prods/gap/Docs/PDF/1eportExpertConsultationEXTERNAL.pdf Forest Management Bureau (FMB). 1998. Forestry Statistics (1997). Forest Management Bureau, Quezon City Philippines. 253 p. Fortes, Miguel D. 1988. "Mangrove and seagrass beds of East Asia: habitats under stress." Ambio (1988): 207‐213. Garrity, Dennis P., David M. Kummer, and Ernesto S. Guiang. 1992. “The upland ecosystem in the Philippines: alternatives for sustainable farming and forestry.” A study commissioned by the National Research Council Project on Agricultural Sustainability and the Environment in the Humid Tropics. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 36 Gevaña, Dixon. T., and Nestor M. Pampolina. 2010. “Plant diversity and carbon storage of a rhizopora

stand in Verde Passage, San Juan, Batangas, Philippines.” Journal of Environmental Science and Management, 12 no. 2. Gazmin, Leandro H. 2012. Incentive Subsidy Scheme for Organic Certification. Presented during the 9th National Organic Agriculture Conference, 6‐8 November 2012, Cebu City, Philippines. Hurtado, Anicia Q., Renato F. Agbayani, Roman Sanares, and Ma Teresa de Castro‐Mallare. 2001. “The seasonality and economic feasibility of cultivating Kappachycus alvarezii in Panagatan Cays, Caluya, Antique, Philippines.” Aquaculture 199 no.3: 295‐310. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report.” Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited by Rajendra K. Pachauri, Andy Reisinger. A. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 p. Maghirang, Rodel G., Reynaldo De La Cruz, and Reynaldo L. Villareal. 2011. “How Sustainable Is Organic Agriculture

in the Philippines?” Trans. Nat. Acad. Sci. & Tech. Philippines 33 no.2: 289‐321. Accessed on 5 July 2014. http://www.nast.ph/index.php?option=com docman&task=doc...7. Ma. Geruda Asuncion D. Merilo. 2001. “Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Strategies: The Philippine Experience.” In Workshop on Good Practices in Policies and Measures, vol. 8 p.10. October 2001, Copehagen. National Action Plan (NAP). 2004. “The Philippine National Action Plan to combat desertification, land degradation, drought, and poverty for 2004‐2010.” DA, DENR, DOST, and DAR, Manila, Philippines. National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA). 2011. “Philippine Development Plan 2011‐ 2016.” Accessed on January 20, 2014. http://www.neda.gov.ph/?p=1128. National Organic Agriculture Board (NOAB). 2011. “National Organic Agriculture Program 2012‐2016. Department of Agriculture.” Accessed on 14 May 2014. http://organic.da.gov.ph/images/docs/National%20Organic%20Agriculture%20Program.pdf.

Nickerson, Donna J. 1999. “Trade‐offs of mangrove area development in the Philippines.” Ecological Economics, 28 no. 2: 279‐298. Perlas, Nicanor. 2013. Smart Agriculture: How Societal Partnerships That Advance Inclusive Entrepreneurial Sustainable Agriculture Throughout the Value Chain Will Eradicate Poverty and Achieve Food Security. Smart Agriculture Program. Lifebank Foundation, Inc. Phalan, Ben, Monika Bertzky, Stuart HM Butchart, Paul F. Donald, Jörn PW Scharlemann, Alison J. Stattersfield, and Andrew Balmford. 2013. "Crop expansion and conservation priorities in tropical countries." PloS one 8, no. 1: e51759. 37 Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA). 2012. “Philippine Agriculture in Figures 2012.” Accessed on 13 May 2014. http://countrystat.bas.gov.ph/?cont=3. Primavera, J. H. 2000. "Development and conservation of Philippine mangroves: institutional issues." Ecological Economics 35, no. 1: 91‐106. Senate Economic Planning Office (SEPO).

Attention! This is a preview.
Please click here if you would like to read this in our document viewer!


2012. Philippine Agricultural Exports At A Glance. Senate of the Philippines, 16th Congress. Accessed on February 3, 2014. https://www.senate.gov.ph/publications/AG%202012‐02%20‐%20Agricultural%20Exports.pdf. Senga, Rafael G. "Establishing protected areas in the Philippines." In The George Wright Forum, vol. 18, pp. 56‐65. 2001. Shively, Gerald, and Ian Coxhead. 2004. "Conducting economic policy analysis at a landscape scale: examples from a Philippine watershed." Agriculture, ecosystems & environment 104, no. 1: 159‐ 170. Spalding, Mark, Francois Blasco, and Colin D. Field. 1997. “World Mangrove Atlas.” Rola, Agnes C., and Celia O. Tabien. 2001. "Saving a river: why do local governments matter." Journal of Environmental Science and Management 4, no. 1‐2: 57‐67. Tiongco, M. 2013. “The Role of Agricultural Input Policies in Transforming Agriculture in the Philippines.” Paper presented at the International Conference on Agricultural

Transformation in Asia: Policy Options for Food and Nutrition Security. Siem Reap, Cambodia, 25‐27 September 2013. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2002. Economic Instruments for Environmental Protection. UNEP Briefs on Economics, Trade and Sustainable Development, Information and Policy Tools from the UNEP. http://www.unep.ch/etu/ U.S. Library of Congress. n.d. “Rice and the Green Revolution: Philippines.” Accessed on 7 June 2014. http://countrystudies.us/philippines/62.htm. Valiela, Ivan, Jennifer L. Bowen, and Joanna K. York. 2001. "Mangrove Forests: One of the Worlds Threatened Major Tropical Environments At least 35% of the area of mangrove forests has been lost in the past two decades, losses that exceed those for tropical rain forests and coral reefs, two other well‐known threatened environments." Bioscience 51, no. 10: 807‐815. World Bank, 2009. The Philippines: Country Environmental Analysis. Sustainable Development Department, East Asia and

Pacific Region. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. 38