Empowering farmers for rural development: the MASIPAG experience

by

Charito P. Medina

Problems for farmers in the Philippines created by the Green Revolution have led to the emergence of organizations seeking alternative solutions. Highly successful amongst these is the Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development (MASIPAG), started in 1985 as a response to growing concerns by farmers over their dependent situation. The phenomenal growth of MASIPAG is due to its commitment to improving the quality of life of resource poor farmers through supporting their participation and empowerment in the development process. Farmers adapt or develop their own technologies and maintain access and control of production resources such as seeds, technology and land.

In developing countries, agriculture is not just about food production; it is about survival and a way of life. Before the Green Revolution (GR), farmers produced food but also developed knowledge and technology such as improving and exchanging seed. Such technologies accumulated as local, traditional or indigenous knowledge. Farmer-developed technologies are actual manifestations of the coping mechanisms of farmers to a myriad of environmental challenges. These were all shared freely between community members and passed on from generation to generation.
Introduced in the early 1960s, the GR modernized and changed the configuration of farming. The new technology was centered on new High Yielding Varieties (HYVs) that required high inputs of fertilizers, pesticides and irrigation. Support services such as credit and extension personnel were also put into place. The result was a dramatic increase in yield that contributed to a substantial gain in food production at the national and global levels. To the resource-poor farmers, who constitute more than 60 per cent of all farmers, the increase in yield has not compensated for the increase in external inputs (seeds, fertilizers, pesticides) that they use in the new production technology. Indeed, they have had to borrow capital to buy the inputs and pay the interest on their loans. The burden was multiplied by uncertainties like the incidence of pests, diseases or other natural calamities such as drought, typhoons or flash floods. Natural calamities caused poor harvests reducing the capacity of the farmer to pay off interest on loans. Next season farmers forced to borrow again causing a debilitating cycle of indebtedness. The situation worsened over time and indebtedness became more serious. The hungry remained hungry.
Most of the varieties that had been developed by farmers were lost, displaced by HYV monocrops. The drastic reduction in biodiversity resulted in more frequent outbreaks of pests and diseases as natural barriers such as predators disappeared. Farmers started to experience new health problems, often related to exposure and use of chemical pesticides or malnourishment due to a reduction in the variety of foods sources. For example traditional sources of protein, like fish, birds, frogs and snails were all eliminated in the farm by pesticides.
The GR also had social costs. Farmers lost control of their production assets like seeds, technology and land. Seed selection and improvement as well as seed saving and exchanging them with other farmers, were replaced by commercial seeds developed in research institutions. Rice farmers even 'forgot how to grow rice' because these modern technologies were developed with the total exclusion of farmers. The farmers were disempowered and had become passive recipients of technology.

The response: Farmer-Scientist Partnership
In a series of symposia that culminated in a national conference on rice in 1985, farmers complained that the GR had not made their lives any better - quite the reverse. Born out of need, the Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development (MASIPAG) was organized. The ultimate goal is to improve the quality of life of resource poor farmers and empower them through:

• participatory planning and development,
• effective and efficient utilization of locally available resources and farmer-developed/adapted technologies, and
• access and control of production resources: seeds, technology, and land.

There are three stakeholder sectors in the partnership:

• farmers to become active partners in development,
• scientists to provide technical support, and
• non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to facilitate organizing and coordination.

This development approach has five strategies:

• farmer-scientist partnership to combine the theories and technical knowledge of the scientists to that of the experience and practical knowledge of the farmers,
• bottom-up approach to prioritize community needs, problems and aspirations,
• farmer-led research and training through the farmer-managed trial farms cum training center,
• farmer-to-farmer mode of technology transfer, and
• advocacy for sustainable/organic agriculture, genuine agrarian reform and other issues affecting farmers.
  
  
  
  
  

  MASIPAG: Increasing number of farms and selections

  
  
  
  

The farmers decided to start with the traditional varieties because they do not require much capital input and are ecologically adapted to diverse agro-ecological conditions. The traditional rice varieties could also be improved later. To join MASIPAG, farmers simply have to signify their intention. Aspiring partner members either need to have an existing organization or have to start one. Support is available from several sources. There may be a Community Organiser or Peoples' Organisation (PO) in the area to give advice on organizing a local group. Roving technicians from MASIPAG or partner NGOs will also be available to help.
Initially, an orientation workshop about local and global trends in agriculture as well as alternatives like sustainable organic agriculture is conducted by farmer trainers from the nearest PO, or technical staff from either the regional office or from the national secretariat. Then the farmers must establish a trial farm where they plant 50 to 100 traditional varieties and MASIPAG rice 'selections'. MASIPAG uses the term selection for seed that cannot technically be called a variety because it does not meet the criteria for purity and uniformity. Use of these seeds is intentional to maintain more genetic variability, giving wider possibilities to match selections to environmental conditions.
The farmers observe the characteristics of the different varieties and selections to assess them for suitability to the local environmental conditions and pest resistance. The top ten performing locally adapted varieties are then chosen for planting. Some farmers also do further verification trials in their farm by planting the top 10 to 15 varieties before they finally select two to five. Farmers are given between a hundred grams to one kilogram of seed per variety so that initially the farmer must re-learn the important skill of mass-producing seed.
An important spin-off from the community level organizing is that the mosaic effect of the different neighbouring varieties creates a barrier to pests and diseases because of the differential resistance between varieties. The trial farm involves no cost to the farmers except for the collective work required for its maintenance. By planting several varieties on their farms, farmers also benefit from the different rates of plant maturity. Harvest is spread over a longer period allowing the farmer to spread out the work, rather than having to hire in costly outside labor.

Scaling up
The positive personal experiences of farmers, and a common cultural and language context, led to the rapid farmer-to-farmer spread of the MASIPAG concept and technology (both material and knowledge). The farmer-to-farmer diffusion has been made more effective through the organizing efforts of farmers and peoples' organizations. Initiated with five Peoples'/Farmers' Organizations (PO/FO) in 1985, by 1999 MASIPAG had grown to 484 farmers' organizations and a total membership of 20,864 farmers. That same year 62 per cent of the members planted MASIPAG rice varieties on 17,165 hectares of cultivated land. Today, land area has increased along with membership, which now includes 46 NGO partners (from an initial three) and 24 academic scientists.

Empowering the farmers
To empower farmers they should be active participants, not passive recipients, of technological developments. A bottom-up approach becomes imperative to increase the socioeconomic and cultural relevance of agricultural technologies. But this is easier said than done. Often remaining as a conceptual model, attempts have tried but failed. Under Philippine local conditions, MASIPAG was fairly successful at employing the bottom-up approach through POs. The POs became a vehicle for consolidating and coordinating farmers' collective interest and knowledge, while the local leaders were the facilitators of such technological developments. Through their organizations, they were able to articulate, process and implement development approaches and solutions appropriate to specific situations. Sustainability of this development work was also enhanced by local Pos, which remain highly effective at spreading the concept at the local level through workshops and training, depending on a minimum of resources. The scientists in the end, simply provided technical backstopping and the NGOs assisted in organizational strengthening and networking.

• Access and control of seeds: Perhaps one major and concrete realization of empowerment by farmers is control of the seeds by themselves. The diverse variety of seeds maintained and readily available to them through their trial farms is indeed making the farmers very proud. One farmer quipped, 'whatever happens to the world, with the advent of genetically modified food and patenting of life, at least we still have good seeds in our hands'. Control of seeds by the farmers eliminates the cost of procuring expensive HYV or genetically modified (GM) seeds. It also breaks the chain of dependence on seed companies.
• Development and control of technology: An integral component of farmers' empowerment is their ability to develop, improve and modify technology. Since MASIPAG farmers were also trained to do actual plant breeding and management, as well as evaluation and selection of plant cultivars, they can now develop seeds based on their resources, priorities or perceived needs. The farmers can now improve yields of their crops through breeding, ecological and sustainable crop management, soil fertility management and alternative pest management. Truly, the farmers are becoming more important assets in developing alternative technologies (even without government financial support).
• Advocacy: Land tenure is a problem area in many countries in the South. It has many ramifications that are not favorable to farmers. With this realization, MASIPAG farmers also participate in the advocacy of genuine agrarian reform. In localities where agrarian reform was implemented, this farmer-scientist partnership was well suited because of its focus on improving production with minimal external inputs.
  MASIPAG opposes genetically modified organisms (GMOs) when applied to food production because of their inherent risks and potential health and environmental effects. Also, patenting of life forms and life processes is opposed because these run contrary to farmers' rights and welfare. Free trade as espoused by the WTO also adversely affects local and national food security. Thus, MASIPAG has joined local and international campaigns on these issues.
  

Farmer-managed trial farms
Every PO who wants to become a MASIPAG partner must be willing to establish and maintain a trial farm. Currently, there are 230 farmer-managed trial farms throughout the country (see box above). Farmer-led research is done with the trial farm as their laboratory. About 50 to 100 MASIPAG rice selections are usually provided. These are planted side by side and the farmers are taught to observe, measure and monitor certain agronomic characteristics. Locally adapted varieties are then selected. Breeding is mostly done on the central back-up station, but also takes place on the trial farms or by individual farmers. The trial farm also serves as a seed bank for in situ conservation of genetic resources.
There are multiplier effects of the trial farms. For example, just before harvesting, field days are organized where non-member farmers and local government officials are invited to evaluate the performance of the varieties. Thus, the trial farms provide an advocacy tool to lobby local government officials and to convince other farmers of the effectiveness. Farmer-managed trial farms are important for creative organizing. Inactive members of POs usually become active upon knowing the concrete benefits. Non-member farmers often volunteer to become members of the PO so that they can access the seeds and technology or else organize their own farmer organization.

Results and impacts

• Economic: The yields of MASIPAG bred rice and some selected traditional varieties are in most cases higher or similar, as those of HYVs. Since MASIPAG farmer partners do not use chemical fertilizers and pesticides, net income is significantly higher than with conventional GR technologies (see box below). Additional savings are possible because farmers no longer have to buy seeds. There is also potential to sell the produce as organic which would command a prime price. It is now only a matter of putting organic certification and marketing in place.
  Eliminating chemical input and focusing on the utilization of resources available on the farm further minimizes financial expense. Thus, small farmers evade the burden of borrowing production loans that are usually charged with exorbitant interest. Over time, MASIPAG farmers have become free from indebtedness incurred during the GR period.
  The improvement in net income has resulted in provision of better basic needs such as food, clothing, shelter, health and nutrition, and education. Often, surplus is re-invested in produce diversification to improve food security and sustainability.

Cost and return analysis per hectare of conventional farming (HYV) and organic MASIPAG rice (Sinayawan, Valencia, Bukidnon, 1997) 1One US$ = 51.5 Pesos (as of Feb. 2002)

• Health: MASIPAG farmers practice alternative pest management where the focus is on maintaining ecological balance in the farm. Pesticides are completely eliminated from the food chain and farmers are no longer exposed to toxic chemicals. This has allowed the return of diverse food sources, contributing to better nutrition of the farming family.
• Diversity and environment: The recovery and maintenance of 668 traditional rice varieties (see 2nd box above) contributes to the conservation of the main staple food. Improvement of these varieties through a modified bulk selection breeding strategy has produced 539 MASIPAG selections. All of these are maintained in the central back-up farm, the main source of seeds, distributed to trial farms throughout the country. Maize, a very recent addition to the program, has 49 traditional varieties with 3 improved MASIPAG selections. There are now two regional back-up farms for corn, one in Visayas, the other in Mindanao. At the farm level, each MASIPAG rice farmer plants at least three rice varieties to ensure varietal diversity as an ecological design in preventing outbreak of pests as well as for genetic conservation. Farm diversification and integration of farming components and processes are also incorporated to avoid external chemical inputs and increase sustainability. Thus vegetables, trees and fruit trees are also consciously integrated in farm diversification. In some places where water is not a problem, rice-fish aquaculture has been incorporated into the farming system and recently a livestock component has also been initiated.
  Without chemical inputs and with nutrient cycling in place, natural soil fertility has been improving. Farmers' experience have shown that it requires three to five years of conversion from conventional to organic farming for soil nutrient recovery. Without chemical pesticides, ecological balance is re-established, with plant and animal diversity slowly but steadily increasing.
  

Social equity and cultural sensitivity
Local socioeconomic structures in most developing countries had always been shaped in favor of the big landowners. Resource-poor farmers were often the victims, not the beneficiaries, of agricultural developments. High input technologies, often beyond the means of small farmers, have proved unsustainable. Export crops, not staple crops, have also been the focus of many countries in the South even when there are so many people going hungry in these countries.
Through MASIPAG, farmers are not only articulating their needs but are now addressing and solving their own problems. They are developing technologies to improve production of their staple food and emphasizing low cost production systems. Volunteer farmer-trainers are now teaching other farmers. Through their local POs, farmers can now also negotiate with local government to address farmers' concerns.

Challenges in the future
The greatest threat to this Farmer-Scientist partnership initiative is the second wave of Green Revolution, the 'Gene Revolution', and its transcendent issues of patenting life forms and processes. Genetic engineering might provide initial gains, but in the long run, its effects and impacts on resource poor farmers in the South as well as on the environment could be worse than the GR.
Intellectual property rights or patenting is a tool for consolidating control of our food systems by the patent owners, mostly giant transnational corporations. The implications for MASIPAG farmers are that seed could be effectively stolen through patenting, thus preventing the storing, exchange, sale or improvement of such seed. MASIPAG farmers are becoming more resolute in advocating what they have started as their only alternative. They contend that MASIPAG was their alternative to the green revolution and it will still be their alternative to the gene revolution. For as long as the seeds are in their hands, they have the capability to develop and improve technologies, and for as long as they remain organized, they are insulated from the damaging effects of the new technology. The farmers will determine their own history.

Charito P. Medina
Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development (MASIPAG),
3346 Aguila St., Rhoda Subdivision, Anos, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines.
Phone: +63 49 536-6183, Fax: +63 49 536-5549,
Email masipag@mozcom.com

Sources
Guilaran, L. (2000), "Farmer-led biodiversity and seed breeding initiatives." In: Proceedings of enhancing sustainability of the rice economy in the Philippines. June 3-4, 1999. IIRR, Silang, Cavite, Philippines. pp 89-90.

MASIPAG (2000), "Laboratory without walls." In: SUHAY (Special Edition), April 2000. pp. 23-26.

MASIPAG (2001), Mid-Project Evaluation Report. Feb. 2001. Yap, E. (2000), "Farmer-led seed breeding technologies." In Proceedings of enhancing sustainability of the rice economy in the Philippines. June 3-4, 1999. IIRR, Silang, Cavite, Philippines. pp 84-88.

Contributions to the Biotechnology and Development Monitor are not covered by any copyright. Exerpts may be translated or reproduced without prior permission (with exception of parts reproduced from third sources), with  acknowledgement of source.