AJAD Volume 2 Issue No. 1&2 December 2005

Biodiversity is said to be the "heart of sustainable agricultural systems." Biodiversity research is envisioned to provide a better understanding of development issues so that better policy responses, management practices and actions will ultimately redound to a better quality of life for all, especially the poor. It is in this light that the Philippines-Netherlands Biodiversity Research Programme for Development is revisited and analyzed in this paper. This and other similar projects provide lessons for capacity development at the community, national, regional and international levels.

To proceed with its analysis, the paper fleshes out the framework of sustainable development, situating the role of biodiversity in determining the pathway of development. As shown, biodiversity, as an element of the natural resource base, and in concert with technology and sociocultural factors, will continue to be relevant in a rapidly changing and increasingly globalized world. It also presents the sustainable livelihood framework to illustrate that biodiversity alone, being only one component of natural capital, cannot alleviate poverty if nothing is done with the other capital assets.

One important lesson gleaned from the analysis of biodiversity research is that not all biodiversity is good. The key is to better understand the interactions between various levels and how these can be harnessed into positive interactions to produce a productive, stable and sustainable resource base. Another emerging lesson is that biodiversity can be conserved in agroecosystems if the poor resource users can be enabled to use it to improve their assets in the context of the sustainable livelihood framework. The effective management and conservation of agricultural biodiversity can be achieved through product value addition and link to market, germplasm enhancement, and participatory plant breeding, among others.

The paper expounds on the challenges confronting institutions of higher agricultural education (HAE) in the context of the significant role of education in alleviating poverty, especially in rural areas, and in light of the changing needs of rural areas and economies. Specifically, HAE institutions are called upon to initiate and lead in articulating a vision for the future that serves the needs not only of agriculture but also of all who inhabit the rural areas. They can step beyond their traditional role by merging forces with other stakeholders to enrich and support other levels of education with critical knowledge and information on agriculture and natural resources management (NRM), the latter being crucial in the pursuit of rural development, poverty reduction, and food security.

To perform an active and constructive role in rural development, agricultural universities need to adjust their programs to accommodate new topics, as well as teaching and learning models; forge new partnerships with schools, academia and rural space stakeholders; expand its representation in governance; and hold continuous dialogue with policymakers. Their extension services could include support to education for rural people that encompasses primary, secondary, vocational, and adult education. University-school linkages are perceived to be illustrative of a decentralized, democratic, and community-based response to rural development problems.

It is noted that universities can potentially become showcases of local traditions and knowledge, reflecting the regional, cultural, and ethical traditions of their society, as well as global movements and forces. In reinforcing their roles as contributors to a culture of learning and rural development, it is emphasized that HAE institutions need to engage more directly and more effectively in partnerships and dialogue with other local educational institutions and their surrounding communities. Findings of the ongoing IIEP-UNESCO/FAO program of research on HAE institutions in Asia are expected to provide information on how higher education institutions contribute to learning and rural development, and insights on how their strategic role in this field could be strengthened and further developed.

Economic growth among Southeast Asian countries during the last 25 years has averaged at five percent per year and has been accompanied by a decline in the relative importance of agriculture in the national output and employment. The response of poverty to this growth and structural transformation has been equally remarkable, with the headcount ratio in 2002 registering a more than 50 percent drop from the 1990 figure.

Although impressive, Southeast Asia's overall record in growth and poverty reduction has not been uniform, as evident in the experiences of countries like Indonesia, Philippines and East Timor, as well as the transition economies, namely, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Vietnam. In these countries, liberalizing agricultural trade, combined with public investment in productivity-enhancing support services, would advance the interests of the poor. To contribute in the efforts to strengthen the continuing war on poverty especially in these transition economies, the paper highlights the lessons learned in poverty reduction so as to identify more clearly the policy options for achieving the Millenium Development Goals in the Region.

One powerful lesson that has emerged in tackling poverty and food insecurity concerns the use of policy, investment and institutional reforms to enable the rural poor to partake of the windfall from efficient domestic markets and the improved access to technology, infrastructure and education. The success stories would show that the main push to these efficiency-enhancing reforms has come, not from globalization nor agricultural policy but from the internal realization that the country and its citizens were the major beneficiaries of the reform. Another important challenge facing countries in the Region is to find the appropriate mix of policies and institutions that would maximize the enormous benefits from globalization while protecting against its risks and pitfalls. Lastly, given that the investment requirements for poverty reduction are beyond the resources of low-income countries, the paper identifies the critical role of the development assistance community.

This paper reviews the causes of the emergence of modern retailing and the vertical relationships in the Indonesian food value chain, and the consequences of these changes on market organization and value distribution. The findings of this paper suggest that there are both demand- and supply-side factors that contribute to the emergence of modern retailing. The evolution of vertical relationships between farmers and modern retailers observed in Indonesia is a direct response to risks and quality uncertainty. In the vertical relation, large-scale retailers may earn a monopsonistic rent, and there are risks of exclusion of small-scale farmers from the emerging food value chain. However, there are alternative channels through which farmers may sell their products, albeit at a lower price compared to the modern channels, and measures can be instituted to protect them against monopsonistic rents. The findings have important policy implications for developing countries.

Although specialization is the global trend in agriculture, integrated farming systems have emerged in Vietnam. An important motive was the desire to improve the livelihoods and the diet of the nuclear families; this was evident in the analysis using the household life cycle of five phases. Off-farm diversification was especially important for a new household. At the onset of expansion, the new mothers replaced off-farm with homebound activities. During expansion the farmers increased virtual farm size by keeping more livestock; during accumulation they invested in land or education, and during consolidation old couples adjusted farm activities to their labor capacity. Livestock, including fish, was essential for livelihood. The distribution of goats instead of cattle by credit or by "passing-on-the-gift" was far more effective for poverty alleviation.

Technological innovations on the cultivation of rice and fruits, and the breeding of fish were essential for change. The improved food security and reduced cash income from rice after the 1986 reforms pushed farmers to take risks. The farm area and number of component farm activities providing cash determined the level of cash income from agriculture. Farms with at least four flows of biomass between components earned more, demonstrating that real integration improved profits. A minimum area of land in, or close to, the homestead, and know-how are required for an effective integration of components.

Farming and fishing are major sources of livelihood in rural households in the Philippines. Farming systems in the country are complex, multi-faceted, and geared to promote efficient production and a steady source of income. However, these have also wrought unwanted consequences on the environment, notably soil erosion, water pollution, groundwater depletion, loss of natural habitats, and loss of biological diversity. Farming systems are affected by exogenous environmental factors; in turn, the farming systems also affect agricultural production resource bases. Initiatives from various sectors to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of farming systems and to protect the agricultural production bases are in place in terms of policies, programs, and action projects.

The feasibility of the rice-duck system of rice production, practiced in some East Asian countries, is studied in Bangladesh as a sub-project of the Poverty Elimination Through Rice Research Assistance (PETRRA). The Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI) implements the sub-project in collaboration with two NGOs, FIVDB and BDS, in the northeastern (greater Sylhet) and southern (Barisal) regions of the country. Each demonstration trial, conducted in the field of the farmers, is treated as a replication. In these trials, the rice-duck system is compared with the methods of growing rice solely, as traditionally practiced by the farmers in Bangladesh. Evaluation of the activities carried out under the PETRRA sub-project shows that the rice-duck system is not only feasible, but also economically rewarding for the farmers. The yield of rice is, on average, 20% higher in the rice-duck system than the traditional rice system (sole rice), thereby ensuring about 50% higher net return and rice-provisioning ability. The ducks in the rice-duck fields control weeds and insects very effectively; as a consequence, labor and pesticide costs for controlling weeds and insects are minimized and the soil health is improved. The ducks provide another source of added income for the farmers. In view of the favorable results obtained in the study, it might be suggested that the rice-duck system be spread throughout the country as an income-generating activity for the resource-poor farmers.

The ASEAN member countries can be grouped into three sub-groups, each of which exhibits a distinct pattern with respect to food security issues. The first group is made up of the relatively food-secure countries of Singapore and Brunei. The second group consists of Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam. In these countries, except for Vietnam, agriculture has contributed a declining share in GDP, employment, and international trade. In addition, food habits in these countries have changed dramatically in recent decades. The third group is composed of Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Myanmar—economies in transition that require special attention.

A simple exercise shows that the area can collectively achieve food security via trade in rice and maize. Trade facilitation measures and the harmonization/equivalency of food regulation and control standards will reduce the cost of trade in food products. While specialization and revealed comparative and competitive indices point to complementarities between trade patterns among the ASEAN member countries, intra-ASEAN trade in agriculture is quite small. However, integration could address this problem. Further, if integration is to be used as a venue for ensuring food security, the member countries must agree on what food security collectively means to them, and what food items are important to each of them and the region, in general, so that regional integration and cooperation under the auspices of ASEAN can be promoted.

This book is a very topical contribution, coming at a time when the world community is increasingly shifting its attention from the agricultural development of Asia to that of Africa. A rapid growth in food production in Asia, in the wake of the Green Revolution, has increased the overall food availability and reduced the incidence of hunger and famine that were of major concerns in Asia four to five decades ago. Agricultural growth in most parts of Africa is, however, still too slow and sporadic to address the food problems adequately and to prevent the resulting major human catastrophes that fill up television screens around the world all too frequently. Are there any lessons that can be drawn from the Asian success that may be applicable to addressing the food crisis in Africa? "If Asia can do it, why not Africa?" This is the theme of this edited volume consisting of 14 chapters.