The Challenges and Opportunities of Green Farming

PAGE 14

The Challenges and Opportunities of Green Farming in the ASEAN Region:Special Focus on the Philippine ExperiencesTeodoro C. Mendoza* & Pablito M. Villegas***Teodoro C. Mendoza Faculty of Crop Science, College of Agriculture, University of the Philippines Los Baos, College, Laguna, Philippines. ecofarm. mndz2011@gmail.com** Pablito M. Villegas, Owner/Entrepreneur, Villegas Organic and Hobby Farms Complex; Managing Director, KASAMA KA Organik Kooperatib, Malvar, Batangas; and Philippines Convenor for Southeast Asia, INOFO/IFOAM Farmers Sectoral Body. pabsvillegas2010@gmail.comIntroduction Food shortages were avoided in the past, and the world successfully evaded the Malthusian prognosis that "food is increasing arithmetically while population is growing exponentially". The paradox is that the world produces more than enough food for everyone, yet more than 800 million people go hungry. Food is cheaper and diets are better than 40 years ago, but malnutrition and food insecurity threaten millions" (Badgely et al. 2006; Mendoza, 2008). It is true that the world produces enough food, but it is not distributed equally or equitably. Moreover, the food production strategies adopted to feed and cloth the world's population have departed greatly from natural processes and the major proponents then were unmindful of the consequences that soon nature will strike back. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) Report (2008) stressed that the industrial or plantation approach, and monoculture farming increased productivity but led to social inequity, marginalization of small scale farmers, environmental degradation and many health issues. To resolve such issues, radical changes are needed in agricultural technologies, systems, practices, investments in education, research, extension and policy. Coming into terms with nature presents both challenges and opportunities. The challenges are enormous if we are to consider the features of the strategies that fed the world in the past century. The conventional, modern, industrialized or brown agriculture is characterized mainly by specialized, mono-cropped, mechanized, use of HYV and genetically modified seeds and high amounts of external inputs (fertilizers, weedicides and pesticides) and expensive irrigation. All the inputs and logistics requirements in the value chain- from pre- to production (i.e. cultivation, fertilization, pesticide application or crop protection, irrigation, and harvesting) to the hauling trucks, cold storage, and processing (Pimentel et al. 1995; Mclaughlin et al. 2000; Pfeiffer 2003), are directly and indirectly based on fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, uranium powered nuclear power plants for electricity). The energy flow to agriculture increased 50 times to 100 fold or more (Pimentel et al. 2005). It is known that fossil fuel reserves continue to decline or have already reached their peak. Extraction and exploration have become more difficult and expensive. With the ever-increasing demand (at 87 million barrels/day) (Rodolfo 2008) and unstable situation in the Middle East, oil- producing countries have propelled fossil fuel price increases. Consequently, the prices of agro-chemical inputs for production up to distribution have increased (Lucas et al. 2006; Pfeiffer 2003; Goodchild 2007; Rodolfo 2008; Mclaughlin et al. 2000; Vidal 2007). The simple law of supply and demand is adversely affecting the prices of agricultural inputs and the logistics aspects of food production-to-distribution (from seeds to consumers table).Indeed, the cheap petrol oil propelled the rapid growth of industrialized agriculture coupled with the huge subsidy given by the developed economies had resulted in overproduction. In turn, it cheapened food prices. For a while, consumers were happy but cheap food were also addicting. In reality, the alleged cheap food prices were distortions as they accounted only for the financial prices (which were further distorted by state subsidies in industrialized countries). Food prices did not include the health and ecological costs of chemically-based and industrialized agriculture. The total costs should include (1) the financial - the costs of purchased inputs - seeds, fertilizer, pesticides, fuel, machineries, cost of money, labor, storage, packaging, marketing, and distribution; (2) the ecological - soil quality deterioration due to the inputs and farming methods applied and all other environmental and ecological costs (Mendoza 2004; Lopez et al. 2007, Lampkin & Padel 2000). (3) the added health and wellness costs which are still difficult to quantify. What we are trying to point out is that the consumers are simply paying a small fraction of the total costs of their food bill. It has been estimated that the true cost of a beef burger in the US is about US$100/kg if the ecological costs are counted (http://www.spirulinasource.com/earthfoodch7a.html). But it is sold only at US$2.00US$3.00/kg. The current market price is so low because of government subsidies and the ecological costs of raising beef are not included. It means that future generations will pay dearly for these unseen or hidden costs and negative externalities. With pricing based on the true or total cost accounting (financial + ecological + health costs), conventionally grown products are indeed grossly under-priced. Their price tags are way below their actual costs of production and including price mark ups in the value chain (Kaplinsky & Morris, 2003). In effect, distorted prices led to distorted views and priorities of governments that in turn prefer to serve the interests of their constituents the people, through popular but unrealistic cheap food regime under chemical agriculture means. On the contrary, the linear thinking of overproduction ( over supply ( cheap food, is not true for all countries and people. Cheap food is not true for the poor and the jobless (worse, mechanized/chemical agriculture led to joblessness).Overproduction and oversupply are not true for all countries and farms within countries (Africa, Japan imports 70% of their food, while the Philippines now imports 30% of its food supply). Green revolution technologies adapt well only in favorable environments or in the resource-endowed farms.Exports of heavily subsidized cheap foods distorted the priorities and policies of food deficit countries. It is cheaper to import, so why produce locally? The theory on comparative advantage dominated. For a while, it worked. Food deficit countries later realized that soon, food supply will become scarce and those who are rich could afford to buy. A case in point is the Philippines that propelled the price increase in rice from $400 to $1,100/ton in 2008 due to the perceived rice shortage coupled with the corruption of the Macapagal Regime in the country resulting in over-importation of as much as 2.5 Million Metric Tons (Mendoza 2008).The years of cheap oil are gone from where industrialized, modern agriculture is based, and so with the cheap food regime. No less than the ADB President had said the era of cheap food is over! Uneven economic growth among countries (North to South) and within countries has led many to food insecurity and poverty . This has altered the earlier linear equation, from overproduction ( over supply ( cheap food, to cheap food ( poverty ( population increase ( resource degradation.

While modern agriculture and the accompanying economic growth have decreased the population of the poor, still there are many poor and unemployed. Cheap food in the past had supported population increase (from less than billion pre-oil-based industrial agriculture to more than 7 billion now, averting the Malthusian famine!). The world population will expand further to about 9.2 billion by 2050 (IAASTD 2008), 9.1 B (FAO), or 34% higher than today. At the current population growth rate, the Philippines will be 168 million and ASEAN at around 675 Million people at that time. How we can the country and for the ASEAN Region successfully, reliably, and sustainably address the food requirements of the growing number of mouths to be fed, considering finite land, water, production inputs, and the amount of energy required to produce and distribute the food? This is indeed the big challenge for ASEAN Countries to address and resolve.

The case of the Philippines, the 12th most populous country in the worldRelevant data are shown below: More than 50% perceive that they are poor (Government statistics show that 30% are poor).

30% (30M) of the population are in the uplands.

Only 6M ha of the 17M ha of forests in 1900 are remaining. The Philippines, a formerly log-exporting country, is now a lumber-importing country. From less than 10% food import to 30% food imports (2008 and to date). The Philippines has exceeded the ideal carrying capacity 3 times of the land (CIA 2006, Mendoza 2008), 6 times by 2050.Food is abundant in the market. But food is a problem among:>>> subsistence farmers who do not harvest enough food crops to feed their families till the next harvest, or those who have harvests but because they are heavily indebted, have nothing left to buy food after paying their debts.

>>> landless rural workers who depend on daily labor or contractual work in sugarcane, rice, corn, and fruit plantations, as the very nature of the crops makes their work seasonal.

>>> subsistence fisherfolk who cannot catch fish because of bad weather, who have no money to buy fuel for motorized boats to go farther out to sea to catch fish, or suffer a dwindling catch as a result of overfishing, and because of unscrupulous individuals who use illegal fishing methods (dynamite fishing, muro-ami) that destroy not only fish populations but more so their habitats.

>>> low income groups who, because of large family sizes, have lower quantities of food to feed per person. And now, food is a big problem because prices have increased without a proportional increase in pay for wage earners and salaried people. It is fast becoming a big burden for those who spend 65% or more of their income on food. The poor are being priced out of the prevailing food market (Mendoza 2008). Re-greening Agriculture Presents both Challenges and Opportunities in the PhilippinesThe Resource Base (water, soil, forest)Massive deforestation had occurred due to legal and illegal logging. The policy on log export before coupled with the availability of machines for logging (industrialized logging) led to rapid logging and deforestation. Workers and families of logging companies stayed and built upland communities when logging was finished. They continue to do slash and burn farming to grow food crops. Deforestation of the uplands and super heavy rains (due to climate change) is now causing flash floods, landslides, and massive soil erosion (1 B tons of top soils every year), resulting in the inundation of the lowlands.Not only upland deforestation has occurred, but mangrove deforestation also happened in the coastal areas. This caused the loss of fish breeding areas; the illegal fishing significantly decreased fish catch causing deeper poverty among small, subsistence fisher folks and their families. The loss of mangroves predisposed more coastal villages to storm surges (as shown by the Haiyan/Yolanda typhoon that was experienced in the Visayas Regions). Further upland deforestation is now due to high population (30% of Philippines population) in the uplands, and mangrove deforestation is also due to the high population of fisherfolk in the coastal areas (30% of Philippine population are subsistence fisher folks). They are the worst hit whenever extremes of weather occur. These are also the sector who belong to the financially challenged or poor segments of Philippine society. They are the ones dependent on past cheap food regime or the ones worst hit by skyrocketing food price increases.

Conversely, there exists tremendous opportunities in the reforestation of the upland and mangrove areas. The Bantay Dagat model communities that reforested mangroves and prevented mangrove deforestation, enforce no fishing in fish breeding areas, policed their ranks in doing illegal fishing methods, have observed increases of fish catch and improvement in the living conditions of small fisher folks and their families. Upland agro-forestry communities (Bgy. Bagong Silang, Los Baos, Laguna and other communities) have demonstrated that the production, protection and preservation roles (3Ps) of upland agroecosystems could be achieved.The clear challenge and opportunity is how to upscale and massively expand and implement on a nationwide basis these development models or success stories of upland agro-forestry and mangrove Bantay Dagat models.The addiction to the use of agricultural chemical inputs that led to soil fertility decline or soil degradation, and the accompanying practice of mono-culture agriculture in major agro-ecosystems (rice, corn, sugarcane, coconuts), have indeed led to the impoverishment of farming and rural communities. Poverty in the Philippines can be briefly described as: Soil impoverishment decrease in soil fertility, from about 3% Soil Organic Matter (SOM) to 1.5% SOM now! This led to increased used of chemical fertilizer from 5-10 bags to 15-20 bags in sugarcane, 3-5 bags to 10-15 bags in rice and corn. Prices of sugar and rice & corn did not proportionally increase with the increase in prices of inputs. Labor and logistics prices also increased hugely. Altogether, it diminished farm profitability and income and make the Filipino farmer even poorer today than 20 to 30 years ago.

High costs of production due to spiralling cost of chemical inputs which are mainly financed by informal credit extended at usurious rates of interest without crop insurance left farmers with no protection against flooding/super typhoons crop failures or the climate change adverse impacts. Very limited crop insurance only covers the credit portion of the loans that include only the fertilizer, pesticides and seeds components of the loan. The agricultural credit gap in the Philippines is even worse estimated at more than PhP300 Billion Pesos or US$ 6.5 Billion Dollars per year with an annual increment of at least 5 to 10 per cent. Urgent reforms are needed in agricultural finance to meet the credit needs of agriculture-based value chain to enable the Philippines to overcome the worsening agriculture and agribusiness cum agrarian credit drought. In contrast, the Thailands Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives had an outstanding loans of more than US$ 24 Billion dollars to more than 30 diversified agri-based enterprises in 2013 and reached out to more than 7 Million farm families with a recovery rate of more than 95 percent of due principal by its more than 1,100 branches and village banks. The Bank released more than US$10 Billion in March 2012 (BAAC Annual Report 2011-2012). Thailand is also implementing weather-based crop insurance Progressive countries (South Korea, Japan U.S., Europe) pay their farmers the full crop value (average of 3x the value of expected harvest) after a disaster or crop failure.It takes about 3-4 successful crop harvests before the rice farmers can recover from a calamity. They have not fully recovered, and then another calamity (flood, super typhoon) occurs. Crop financing and their food requirements are sourced through informal lenders who are at the same time the supplier of production inputs (fertilizer, pesticides, seeds). Terms or conditions of repayment is during harvest time when prices are low, and these are further depressed when heavy rains occur. Only exceptional farmers (3-4 out of 100 farmers) can make both ends meet, meaning, they have enough rice to eat before next harvest. Poverty and hunger (malnutrition or hidden hunger) prevail in rice, corn, sugarcane and coconut farming communities.

Poverty leads to a high birth rate. High birth rate keeps the population young and young population has high and longer duration of fertility. Economic growth cannot keep pace with the needs of the fast-growing population.Amoeba-like economic landscape and policy structure in the ASEAN countries and the Philippines Thailand wrote off the $1.3 billion Thai farmer indebtedness in the 1980s. Last year, 2013, the Thai government spent $4 billion as support price to their agricultural products. South Korea has a buy high sell low policy to support their farmers and consumers at the same time. In fact, farm income in Korea, as a result of its Saemaul Undong Farm Policy, is even higher than the industrial labor income. Unlike the Thai farmers whose debts were written off, the PhP2 billion indebtedness of Filipino rice farmers that supplied the rice requirements of the Filipino people produced through the Masagana 99 program of the government were not written off and remain a burden that excluded the rice farmers from the formal credit market. These unpaid loans made them unable to avail of formal loans, leaving them no option except through deal with the informal loan lenders or usurers. Several microfinance agencies have sprouted in the rural and peri-urban areas since the Land Bank of the Philippines and the rural banks have ceased to operate in the countryside, but only a few of these microfinance agencies are registered. If registered, they are not being directly supervised by the BSP (Central Bank of the Philippines, or covered by the Banking Law). On credit, if interest rate go beyond 6% per year, any increase in yield is no longer enjoyed by the farmer but mostly by the credit donor considering the prices of inputs and outputs (Mendoza 2013).The interest rate for agricultural loans in Thailand is only 4 - 6 % for cooperatives and averaging about 6-7 percent for individual farm family loans. It is much lower in South Korea (about 2-3%) and Japan (1 to 2 %). In contrast, micro finance interests in the Philippines range from at least 16 percent to 24 % to as much as 36-48 percent per annum.The economic data show that countries whose primary agriculture contributes less than 15% of their GDP can afford to subsidize their farmers. US primary agriculture is less than 5% of their GDP. Through the US Farm Bill, a $ 27 billion dollar fund is available to compensate farmers hit by any crop failure or calamity (drought, hurricane). A PIK program (payment in kind) was implemented in the 80s to stabilize the price of cereals (corn, soybean).21st Century: the Era of Globalization, Climate Change and Peak OilThe main challenges to Re-Greening Agriculture in the 21st century, among others, include globalization (free trade/borderless economy: free movement of goods, services, capital), climate change and peak oil. The Philippines has to endure the reality that it is longitudinally and latitudinally situated in the inter-tropical convergent zone (ITCZ), making it the 3rd most vulnerable country in the world to climate change. While there are many adaptive and best agricultural practices, technologies and systems, the on-ground realities are unduly making these initiatives difficult to implement. Earlier, reforestation initiatives both for the upland and mangrove areas were identified as key activities in the long-term rehabilitation of these agro-ecosystems. Also, tree integration (Mendoza 2002) was found to have the best impacts in terms of CO2 sequestration and in protecting the farms regardless of elevation and crop ecosystems.Backtracking, it is important to ask, What happened to the revenues from log exports? Logs exported in the past were unduly priced low. Correctly pricing our exported logs could have earned more than enough to repay the Philippine indebtedness ($26 B) in the early i980s as estimated by then Dr. Dioscoro L. Umali (former Assistant Director General of FAO/UN in Asia-Pacific and Vice President of University of the Philippines for Agriculture and Forestry) in his speech delivered to the graduating class of UP titled Be the Heroes we never were! (PhP 26 B dollar (@ PhP 44 per 1$; 26 x 44 = PhP 1.144 trillion pesos). This is roughly equivalent to the amount required to reforest 10 M ha of badly deforested areas in the Philippines. Having PhP1.2 trillion pesos, there would be enough funds to rekindle tree planting efforts in the uplands through direct afforestation of areas unsuitable to agroforestry. Environmental restoration through reforestation is costly @ P120, 000/ha, based on our recent experience in our Marikina Watershed Project. The arithmetic costs of restoring 10 M ha of badly deforested areas requires a staggering 1.2 trillion pesos (PhP), or roughly 53% of the 2014 Philippine national budget. It is approximately the value of our underpriced log exports in the past. The challenge is how to convince the countries where we exported our logs to pay us the full amount. Expecting the Philippines to do the reforestation alone or the farmers to do the full scale tree integration in their farm landscape (although some farmers are doing it) could be a long pipe dream. Farmers are not planting trees. The reasons identified are as follows: Trees reduce the space for growing their food crops. Trees or fruit trees take years to mature or bear fruits. They are not assured that they are still there since they do not own the lands (land rights or land security issues). If they own the lands, seedlings are not available or they are so expensive (they lack skills in plant propagation, nursery management) (Mendoza 2002). Emissions by deforestation due to land conversion to agriculture accounted for 12% of the global GHG emissions. The Philippines did not benefit much from her log exports, which caused the high emissions from deforestation.At present the bigger challenge is the transformation of our brown farms into green or organic farms. The transformation from modern brown agriculture to green agriculture is much more complex than it appears to be. First, very few farmers are philosophers, poets, or environmentalists. It is not uncommon to hear farmers tell a farm extension worker, "You were the ones who propagated modern agriculture through the use of fertilizer and pesticides. Why are you telling us now to stop using them?" (Mendoza 1994). Second, now that the adverse effects of the introduced modern systems have already been recognized, why should the burden of change and the attendant risks be solely on them? Farmers are not as impractical as they are portrayed to be. Soil fertility ranges from bad to worse in different places. How would they farm organically without encountering yield declines? A 20% or more decline in yields of rice in the first two croppings after shifting to organic agriculture methods of planting has been observed (Mendoza 1994). It would be short of a catastrophe if the majority of farmers were to decide to shift to organic agriculture overnight. There are attendant risks and problems in organic production. In their study, Villegas & Custodio (2013) listed the following reasons why small-holders vegetable farmers are not ready or reluctant to adopt organic farming. These included erratic and unfavorable weather conditions, natural calamities, lack of knowledge, skills and training on organic technologies, lack of available quality organic inputs, reduction in yields in the conversion or transition stages and overall agricultural productivity, lack of consumer awareness on the benefits of organic vegetables and changing preferences, rigid organic certification process, lack of incentives and financial support for organic farmers, government bias on green revolution or chemical agriculture technology, limited market outlets, and unstable or erratic price fluctuations.Farmers farm for livelihood to generate income for their families, and to produce food. They adopt systems and practices that enable them to achieve their goals in farming, or those systems and practices that lighten the burden of farming such as the use of machines to facilitate land preparation, threshing, and milling; the use of herbicides to control weeds; the use of pesticides to quickly eliminate, if not minimize, the risk of crop failure and possible yield reduction due to pests. Our farmers are now addicted to the use of chemicals. Is it not purely their fault. To produce the food requirements of the rapidly growing population, they were enticed to adopt the practice of chemical-based modern agriculture, also called green revolution agriculture (Masagana 99 in the Philippines). This resulted in soil fertility decline and farmer indebtedness. Will they be alone now in restoring soil fertility or in rehabilitating the addicted soil to chemical fertilizer? India is paying their farmers $250/ha as an incentive to farmers to shift to green or organic agriculture.What about their indebtedness which prevent them from availing loans from formal credit institutions? By the same logic, their indebtedness was not solely their own doing. It was their desire to obtain high yield and the government wish then for the country to be self-sufficient in food. But we cannot tame the wind, and still the water as the song goes! Following the example of Thailand, a credit program for green agriculture must also be designed coupled with weather-based crop insurance. To get agriculture going, an agricultural subsidy fund for restoring the organic matter content of agricultural lands and the agricultural credit gap of more than PhP300 Billion Pesos must be immediately addressed and filled up for a green and ecological agricultural technology to proceed. During the early years (1960s) of massive promotion of modern brown agriculture to accelerate its adoption, farmers were organized into "Samahang Nayon" or village associations and supported by the government. This was through sponsored training and credit programs designed to extend loans to the farmers to enable them to buy agrochemicals and small farm machinery. What about organic agriculture? Farmers are receiving little help or none at all in their shift or conversion to green agriculture. To facilitate massive adoption of green organic agriculture by our farmers, a coherent and comprehensive program must be designed where our farmers will have access to green, organic and ecological technologies, finance, markets and management systems though small farmer-oriented Research and Development and Extension Systems and with supporting Information, Education and Communication modalities at the grassroots and Local Government Units levels..Providing Comprehensive Support Services to our Small-Scale Family FarmsWith all the conditions discussed above, the shift to green agriculture is not easy, simple and straight forward. A Comprehensive Support Systems (CSS) must be put together for our small-scale family farms within and across the value chain (Kaplinsky and Morris, 2003; Mendoza 2008). Agriculture has production and post-production up to consumption linkages, or there are producers as well as consumers. Now is the time for family farm-focused integrated and holistic farming systems development within the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) as we celebrate the 2014 United Nations International Year of Family Farms On the production side, the shift to organic or ecological agriculture within the Philippines and ASEAN constitutes what others call paradigm shift. Brown agriculture is technology-based (machineries, hybrid seeds, chemical inputs, irrigation) while green agriculture is culture-based and it is knowledge-intensive. It involves caring for our health and nurturing the soil, the plants and the environment (Villegas 2008). It is feeding the soil rather than the plants." It is growing the soil, as organic agriculture practitioners readily claim. Rebuilding or re-growing the soil is the first requisite (this assumes that we have accepted the paradigm shift) in the conversion or transition from chemical-based brown agriculture to green and ecological agriculture. This implies a tight-rope balancing during the shifting to green agriculture or organic conversion process. The 1st critical technical step is rebuilding or restoring soil (from 1.5% SOM to 3% SOM) to loosen, to improve water infiltration and retention, to make it favorable for root growth and to have all those population of microbes that fix nitrogen, solubilize phosphorus, synthesize plant growth promoting hormones such as indigenous and gibberelic amino acids (IAA, GAA); microbes that produce compounds that confer systemic resistance (similar to immunity in animals); microbes that detoxify the pesticides by forming chelates or outright decomposition. Understanding those basic needs is necessary since our soil has lost its native fertility due to continuous and faulty crop husbandry practices. As stated earlier, it is not solely the fault of the farmers that the soil has lost its fertility quality. The basic question raised earlier is Will the farmer do soil rebuilding alone?" When farmers were advised to adopt chemically based agriculture, credit, training and all other support services were extended. In the past, we bankrolled the farmers to produce food for us through chemical-based agriculture. A similar strategy should be done to promote the adoption of green agriculture. From brown agriculture to green agriculture, it is but obvious that farmers should also be given similar if not greater support. Organic conversion or shifting from chemical or brown agriculture to Green and Econlogical Agriculture must be considered as public and social goods that deserve government subsidy for the organic conversion process.

As stated earlier, the soil is now addicted to fertilizer. Sudden withdrawal will reduce yields (40-60%). Depending on the level of soil fertility decline, soil rebuilding will take years (3-5 years or even longer). During the initial soil rebuilding process, it is still expected that yields will decline. It will pose serious difficulties for the farmer and his family (and for the whole nation) if he/she suddenly stopped using agro-chemical inputs. There must be efforts to avoid yield decline. Or, there must be ways to compensate the farmers for the yield declines during the conversion period. This was also stressed in the report of Villegas & Custodio (2013). Chemical fertilizer input-saving practices (on-site composting, no biomass burning, nutrient cycling practices etc.) must be introduced. On-farm bio-fertilizer production (planting MPT legumes Gliricidia, Leucaena, Sesbania etc.) must form part of farm designs.The farms need alternative or organic inputs to replace the chemical inputs. But where will they get the materials to make composts? It is on this basis that facilitation efforts should be made as in transport and mixing of the materials to decompose them. Where will they get compost activators? We must consider the logistics requirements of soil fertility restoration.The other important requirement is seed or planting materials. Can farmers use the same seed bred for brown agriculture? Farmers should use seeds bred or selected under organic farming systems (Mendoza & Manigbas, 2014). Seed detoxification for brown agriculture-produced seed should be done. Organic agriculture is associated with diversity or diversified farming (Mendoza 2013). Farmers need seeds of different crop species. As farmers have been practicing monoculture for many decades, they have de-cultured seeds of various crop species. Farmers must be re-trained on seed propagation of various seed lots (orthodox and recalcitrant) and use of appropriate planting materials (cuttings, tubers, roots). Seed support must be designed for the farmers. It is necessary that government or any supportive private individuals initially provide the seed stocks. From there, the farmers though their associations or cooperatives must be able to mass produce the seeds for massive distribution to their fellow farmers. Open pollinated cultivars are preferred as saved seeds from previous harvest could be re-used again and again to relieve the farmers from buying seeds every cropping. A biodiverse integrated and organic farming (BIO farm) achieves farm multifunctionality (Mendoza 2013). Multifunctionality is achieved through the 1) enhancement of ecosystems / environmental services-carbon capture / sequestration in the aboveground tree biomass-wood and fruit trees and below ground through increased soil organic carbon by compost application and crop/weeds residues recycling, in turn restoring soil quality and making the soil healthy; 2) localized production of healthy foods (fruits and vegetables) at the least monetary and energy costs; no transport (no food miles) and refrigeration costs (electricity bills); food is always available in the house (FAITH) by tapping crop perenniality and adaptability to varying soil moisture regime that at the same time is an adaptive response to climate change (risks, El Nio/La Nia cycles); 3) herbs and medicinal plants growing plus the exposure to morning sunshine and fresh air tending the crops that is rejuvenating, altogether lead to considerable savings on medicines; and 4) on-farm production of fuel for cooking (crop residues, tree-branches), which reduce the use of LPG and GHG emissions of cooking (Mendoza 2013).Chemical agriculture is associated with monoculture a monotonous landscape. The shift to diverse agriculture requires re-landscaping or re-designing the farms to achieve the desired ecosystem or soil conditions favorable for the various crops species to be grown. This is also necessary so that nutrient cycling (crop + livestock) and water re-use and conservation (crop + livestock + aquaculture) are integrated in the farm landscape. Equipment for soil digging (backhoe), water reservoir construction (bulldozer, loader) must be made available to farmers. The Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) and Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) should include in their respective budgetary requirements farm machineries for farm landscape improvement. There is no easy way in solving the present soil degradation and erosion situation in farming. Central to their shift to green farming within and across value chain, farmers need affordable and timely available credit. Allowing formal low-interest-bearing loans to be available to our farmers is not only imperative but necessary to correct the historic injustice to our rice farmers. A debt write-off for agricultural loans and agrarian reform land amortizations is the first critical step as what the Thai government did in the 80s and the 90s. But providing interest-free or low interest bearing loans should also be accorded with crop insurance and agricultural finance guarantee mechanisms in view of the high risk (1 in every 3 years) brought about by climate change. Necessarily, a shift to diversified loan portfolio management must look at multi-cropping and irrigated agriculture involving a array or plethora of many high value food and cash crops rather than purely rice-based irrigation mindset. The Agricultural and Rural Credit Policy should be re-designed with the following features:

1. Credit assistance must be employed to promote comparative advantage and competitiveness of crop- and/or livestock-aquaculture based clustering of focal and supporting/related enterprises geared towards better and improved crop-livestock-fishery husbandry and irrigation practices - adequate land preparation, optimum spacing and time of planting, adequate weeding, conservation farming practices, etc;

2. Credit should be designed for ecological and organic agriculture and farming systems in order to promote bio-intensive organic farming and low external-input agriculture with science and technology-based sustainable shifting from chemical to green agriculture. Farmers should pursue practical and applicable nutrient cycling (no crop residue burning), production of organic materials and inputs like organic fertilizers and vermicomposting, utilization of fermentation technology in the production of bio-nutrition plant growth boosters and ecological pest management practices as part of the loan agreement;

4. In the uplands, credit for corn and field crops production will be extended only if the farmers adopt alley cropping and other soil conservation-oriented farming practices (contour plowing, mulching, integration of woody perennials - fruit trees, nitrogen-fixing trees, fuelwood / lumber trees). Hence, credit must not only be extended to corn and field crops production per se but to a corn-based ecological farming systems that will employ balanced fertilization and integrated pest management during the organic conversion or transition period.5. The respective Charters of the Land Bank of the Philippines, Development Bank of the Philippines, Small Business Credit and Guarantee Corporation, Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation and other Government Financing Institutions, including the Agricultural Credit Policy Council and National Credit Council, must be immediately revisited and their respective Boards and Management Executives duly mandated to focus their operations in building village- and community-based rural and agricultural development banking network that will provide and make accessible its loans, guarantee and insurance mechanisms and other financial products to the teeming millions of impoverished farmers, fisherfolks and upland dwellers, including indigenous peoples and persons with disabilities. Their respective performance must be oriented towards social entrepreneurship with a balanced consideration not only on profitability but more on providing optimum outreach facilities and services as well as maximum access among farmers and rural micro, small and medium business entrepreneurs to financial assistance, markets, business development services as well as vitally needed management systems, capacity building and rural enterprise extension services along with more user-friendly and quad-media-oriented information, education and communication modalities. The Philippines will greatly benefit from the successful operation of the Thailands Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives, as the benchmark business and social enterprise model where some more innovations and best practices in rural and agricultural banking and financial delivery and recovery systems could be further introduced, enhanced and grafted to the Philippine Government Financial Institutions.Providing rural financial market policy reforms and low-interest-bearing loans are not sufficient without market access and preferential pricing options.It is common knowledge that during harvest time, prices are low. Farmers cannot wait for the time when prices increase since they have no sufficient storage facilities; besides, they are heavily indebted. The low prices at harvest time plus the higher interest translate to many cavans of rice as peso equivalent of their loans. As stated earlier, South Korea is implementing Buy High Sell Low policy in support of their farmers. Market access with concomitant guaranteed price and/or price support mechanisms must be extended to the farmers to respond to favourable farm gate market signals and help stabilize the prices for the benefit of the consumers. Villegas & Custodio (2013) suggested improvements in the product, market, pricing and information flows within the supply and value chain for the vegetable industries.Foremost, the Comprehensive Support Services (CSS) package for ecological and organic agriculture should also address the needs of the household of small scale family farms. This requires a CSS package that will improve their quality of life; CSS package that will dignify farming and a CSS package that will bring back the viability of small family farms and encourage the youth to make farming their life long profession. To achieve this vision, the following key guidelines must be adopted:The CSS package must be agro-environment-based. Obviously, the upland and lowland agro-environments have different features (land, relief, topography, soil, water regime). Farm sizes are also different. These are smaller in the lowlands, but infrastructures (road networks, communications) are better and nearer to the market channels. Uplands are watersheds for the lowlands and perform ecosystem interrelated services and functions (production, protection, preservation). Farmers planting corn in the uplands and the slash and burn farming methods explains why the residual seedling growth of second growth forest has failed; in turn, this has led to more devegetation, soil erosion, siltation of riverbeds and flashfloods in the lowlands. Agro-forestry systems that involve planting trees (fruits / woods) in the landscape should be emphasized but corresponding incentives and rewards must be formulated (Malayo & Mendoza 2013). Short term gains in any practice/technology should not mask the long-term beneficial effects to the society and the nation.The lowlands are still the food basket of the country. Farmers must be supported to address the declining soil fertility, increasing prices of inputs, and low total farm yields. Seeds and seedlings for location agro-specific diverse cropping systems (rice, corn, sugarcane, fruit trees banana, mangoes) must be provided to spread the risks, sustain year-round productivity along with the main crop. Fortunately, successful models for each crop systems are in place and there are early successful farmer practitioners. They need not be rediscovered. There are more than 50,000 organic farming practitioners in the Philippines dispersed in different villages in the country.The varied requirements of the production systems across value chain of a given agro-environment must be addressed.

The value chain framework in providing support services is not only necessary but mandatory. There are many reasons for that:

a) Oftentimes, what is supported is only farm level production. Why produce much if it cannot be remuneratively marketed? The perishability and primary processing requirement for a particular commodity should be addressed at the farm level to avoid and reduce post-harvest losses. Processing any crop primary produce needs volume, capital, technology, equipment. These are well known. We need not reinvent the wheel; we only need to have a working and grassroots-oriented agricultural extension system with the LGUs providing the leadership with the pro-active support of the Department of Agriculture.

In the uplands, if the farmer's choice is to plant jackfruit, processing fruits (dried jackfruit, sweetened fruits, etc.) must be put in place along with the integration of suitable and good paying enterprises (native chicken, bee keeping) to further increase farmer's income.

b) The bottlenecks in production of seeds, seedlings, nursery practices, seed production, storage, distribution scheme, care and management, supplementary multiple cropping systems must also be resolved.

c) The primary market is still the small farm household. The FAITH (food is always in the house) production system must be emphasized to arrest hunger and malnutrition. Easily, 10 perennial species of vegetable can be planted in the farm. It is an irony that the farmers' children suffer malnutrition while they are the ones growing food. Medicines should not be expensive. In fact, through medicinal and culinary herbal gardens, medicine could be free and readily available at door step. Many medicinal plants can be planted or integrated in the small farm households FAITH garden (Mendoza 2013).The institution (cooperativism) and capability-building needs of the small scale farmers must be addressed.The farmers capability to address the value chain may or may not be available in their particular locations. The gaps can be easily identified. Training of farmers to improve their capability should be provided (Mendoza 1996). Properly managed small farms have been shown to be more productive and profitable. In the Philippines, the observed gap in small farm is currently being addressed through the group farming approach of DA, DAR and DENR through their convergence approach to integrated rural development programs. The convergence initiatives, however, must be revisited and redirected with the passage of the Organic Agriculture Act of 2010 (Republic Act 10068), to promote green or organic agriculture. The various requirements of promoting organic agriculture within and across value chain could be addressed through cooperatives. Cooperativism remains as the lasting remedy to the lack of scale economies associated with small farms and the ensuing fragmentation of big landed estates due to the land asset distribution (LAD) or agrarian reform programs in the Philippines, the ASEAN region and the rest of the world.Why is the cooperative movement now being emphasized? Because many benefits accrue if efforts are done through the cooperatives (tax exemption, input price reduction due to bulk purchase etc.). It is not that there are many agricultural coop failures rather than success stories that could be mentioned that we should abandon cooperativism. Multi-purpose cooperatives still remain as the viable option for our small scale farmers including consumers, government and private employees. It is the coop management that will replace the vacuum and scale economy that is missing in small farms. But, there is a need to professionalize the management of cooperatives to make them really work (Castillo, 2013). ASEAN countries could learn from each other and the Philippines should learn from her neighboring countries where the cooperative movement has worked well, especially in the BAAC-financed agricultural cooperatives in Thailand that are registering more than 98 % loan recovery rates.Finally, an all-embracing Social Security for our all our small farmers and fisherfolk alike. A more systematic and programmatic health insurance plans must be provided to all our small farmers and fisherfolk alike. Ask why a farmer sells his/her carabao (the arms and legs of the farmer) or mortgage his land parcel, the farmer may say it is because his wife, child, mother or father needs to be hospitalized. Life preservation takes priority over asset retention, a cherished culture of our people. The average age of our farmers is 58 years. There are many who are senior citizen cardholders. What will be their life if they can no longer do farming? Thanks to the extended family, part of the culture and way of life dominating our lives in the ASEAN region and the Philippines. The farmers must have a social security plan (which is beyond PhilHealth and retirement benefits). This can be called Buhay Panatag sa Kanayanunan (Secure and Stress-Free Life in the Countryside) that describes a socially secure life in the rural areas. The advocacy is for the creation of a new insurance product within the Social Security System in close coordination with the Departments of Agriculture, Health and Budget and Managemnt, that will address the social security needs of small farmers and micro/small entrepreneurs in the countryside. The SSS has to be mandated to effectively address the social insurance and safety nets needs of smallholders in the rural areas. Alternatively, the Government could opt to revisit the charter of the Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation and adopt the CARD Mutually Reinforcing Institutions, insurance and social safety nets mechanisms and transform PCIC into a Countryside Insurance and Social Safety Nets Corporation which will take care of both the social security needs of farmers as well as crop insurance and loan guarantee needs of smallholder farmers and entrepreneurs.. Awareness campaign, via education and communication and policy reforms in promoting the adoption of green agriculture1. There is still low level of awareness on green or organic agriculture within and across the value chain. Massive quad media information, education, and communication (IEC) materials and dissemination drive must be conducted to address this low level of awareness beginning from the principles and practices; importance and urgency of shifting into organic agriculture in response to the environmental, health, resource use and climate adverse impacts of chemically-based agriculture (Villegas et al 2011). A demand-led or consumer-centered promotion of organic agriculture must be tried also (Mendoza 2004).2. Government agencies, state colleges and universities (SCUs), other research institutions and community-based farmer organizations and civil society organizations (CSOs) must join hands in conducting science- and technology-based RD&E services on organic agriculture and in coming up with a compendium of local indigenous, natural farming and science-based technologies and practices. The research results must be effectively and timely disseminated especially to organic farmer producers and their organizations so that the organic advocacy and best practices could spread faster and wider in the country. There is a need for the government to fast-track the internalization and institutionalization of sustainable organic agriculture among its development partners and multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary stakeholders. Indigenous local and science-based organic materials, technologies and practices abound, and they need to be inventoried, properly documented and field validated, screened, and promoted. Such strategic action will provide farmers the whole range of options and plethora of workable, cost-effective and reliable technologies and practices, and organic materials and inputs (Villegas & Custodio 2013) 3. Equally important is Organic Agriculture Education. Currently, degree programs in the field of Agriculture (Bachelors degree, Masters and Doctoral degree programs) mostly cater or emphasize chemically-based or conventional brown agriculture. There is a need to review and revise the curriculum of State Universities and Colleges (SUCs), including the private colleges and universities so that they offer degree programs from the baccalaureate (Bachelors degree) to post baccalaureate (Masters and Doctoral) degree programs in Organic, Ecological and Sustainable Agriculture within or across disciplines of crop/animal sciences- pest & disease management, soil & crop management, harvesting & post-harvest practices, systems, technologies, packaging, storage, food recipes, cooking and eating.4. The Philippines has an enabling law on organic agriculture (RA 10068, the Philippine Organic Agriculture Act of 2008). There is no punitive measure included in the law. It means that farmers are not punished or imprisoned for not shifting into organic agriculture. There is a budget of around $21 Million Dollars annually included in the General Appropriations Act. It is critical and urgent that a pro-active Program Management Offices at the national, regional and LGU/grassroots levels be established to ensure more transparent and cost-effective management systems of the National Organic Agricultural Program (Villegas et al 2011). The civil society organizations (CSOs) consider the law as a triumph over their long years of advocacy in organic farming as earlier advocacies were considered as subversive acts before. But it is simply a start of the long journey. ConclusionsThe shift and transition from conventional brown agriculture to green agriculture is a complex and dynamic process. Green agriculture transcends individual farm boundaries and communities or from net producing and consuming districts, provinces, regions within the country. Globalization propelled by GATT-UR inspired regional unification or integration (i.e. ASEAN Economic Community or AEC for Southeast Asia, Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation or APEC for Asia and the Pacific, NAFTA for North America Free Trade Agreement, to name some of them). Free trade includes the free flow of goods, services, capital and information and is now influencing both the input and output side of the supply and consumption chain.The amoeba-like or unevenness in the state of economic development of the ASEAN countries and the rest of the world influences the levels of logistics, capital, technology and the policy support systems within and across the value chain of each and every agricultural commodities in different countries. The opportunities and benefits of the shift to green agriculture need no further debate. But the shift is not mechanical beginning within the farmers milieu. It is fully recognized now that modern agriculture has led to soil degradation. Farmers should not solely shoulder the whole burden in the shifting process. Soil fertility restoration is material-, labor-, knowledge-, logistics-intensive. The Philippines has a modest initiative (R.A. 10068, the Philippine Organic Agriculture Act of 2008); the impact of this legislative move is yet to be felt considering the number of farmers who are into organic farming (less than 1% to at most 1% of farmers population).Shifting the gear to consumer- or demand-led promotion of organic agriculture as in Community-Supported Agriculture (CSA) as being done in Japan, Australia, Europe and USA, make good sense. But consumers in these countries are more economically well-off than the average consumers in the ASEAN region (500 million people) and also the Philippines (around 100 million people in 2014). Consumer awareness or consciousness built-up is important but the willingness of the consumers to support the producers should be translated into their willingness to buy at the right price of green agricultural products. Brown agricultural products are still cheaply priced but average income consumers are already complaining of the food price increases while the poor are being edged out with food price increases. Stratifying the purchasing power of consumers like distributing food coupons can be one option. The Philippines for about 3 years has been implementing the conditional cash transfer (CCT) for the poor. Organic agriculture production can be integrated into this programme. Together with the local government units (LGUs), vacant residential or farm lots can be devoted to green agriculture food production. This can be done in rural and peri-urban areas.References

ACTIONAID. 2012. Asia at the Crossroads. Prioritizing Conventional Agriculture or Sustainable Agriculture? Report written by Mark Curtis for Actionaid. 46 p.BADGLEY, Catherine, Jeremy Moghtader, Eileen Quintero, Emily Zakem, M Jahi Chappell, Katia Aviles- Vazquez, ANDREA Samulon & Ivette Perfecto. 2007. Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22(2): 86108BP. 2007. Global Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2007. http://www.bp.com/statisticalreviewBURINGH, P. 1989. Availability of agricultural land for crop and livestock production. In Food and Natural Resources, D Pimentel & CW Hall (ed). 69-83. San Diego: Academic PressCASTILLO,ETC.2013.The role of cooperativism across value chain in enhancing ARBs farm productivity and Income. Discussed during the National Conference Climate Smart Agriculture held at ATI, Q.C. Philippines.CIA. 2006. Philippines. World Factbook. 11 July 2006http://sportsforum.ws/sd/factbook/geos/rp.html#Econ, Accessed 15 September 2014.

DEWI D.O. and T.C. Mendoza. 2006. Productivity and Efficiency of Diversified Rice-Based Farming Systems in the Transmigration Village of Rasau Jaya District in West Kalimantan, Indonesia.. The Phil. Agric. Scientist 89 (3): 238-248.DWIYANA E.R. and T.C. Mendoza. 2006. Comparative Productivity, Profitability and Efficiency of Rice Monoculture and Rice-Fish Culture Systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 20 (1):1-11.

GOODCHILD P. 2007 "Agriculture In A Post-Oil Economy," http://www.countercurrents.org/goodchild220907.htm Accessed : April 6,2008

GRAIN.2009.The International food systems and the climate crisis. Climate Crisis Sp. Issue. Seedling Oct 2009.www.grain.org. The complete references used by Grain technical persons can be accessed at http:www.grain.org/go/climatecrisisrefs

Greenpeace.2008. Agrochemical use in the Philippines and its consequences in the environment, geenpeace.org.ph

IAASTD. 2008. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. http://www.agassessment.orgIAASTD. 2008. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. http://www.agassessment.org

IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Parry, Martin L., Canziani, Osvaldo F., Palutikof, Jean P., van der Linden, Paul J., and Hanson, Clair E. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1000 pp.

JEAVONS, J. C. 2001. Biointensive Sustainable Mini-Farming: II. Perspective, Principles, Techniques and History. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 19 (2) : 65-762001

LAMPKIN, N.H. and S. Padel. (eds) 2000. The Economics of Organic Farming: An International Perspective. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

LEU, A. 2007. Organic Agriculture Can Feed the World in Organic Farming, Winter 2007, citing Jules Pretty, 2006. http://www.rimisp.org/getdoc.php?docid=6440

LOPEZ, M.V and T.C. Mendoza. 2004. Farmers Adaptive Strategies in Rice-based Farming Systems in Masantol, Pampanga, Philippines. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 24(1):5-25.

LUCAS MEP,L.C et al. 2006. Fuelling a Food Crisis: The impact of peak oil on food security. The Greens/European Free Alliance, European Parliament.

MAGDOFF, F.and R.R. Weil. 2004. Soil Organic Matter in Sustainable Agric. CRC Press LLC 398 p.

MCLAUGHLIN, N.B., et al. 2000. Comparison of energy inputs for inorganic fertilizer and manure based corn production. Canadian Agricultural Engineering 42(1): 13-35

MENDOZA TC.2013 Achieving Farm Multifunctionality through a Small-Scale Biodiverse, Integrated and Organic (BIO) Method of Farming. Paper presented to the Asia Pacific Regional Symposium on Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Organic Farming held on Dec.2-4. Bangkok, ThailandMENDOZA T.C. 1996. Upscaling the Adoption of Ecologically Sound Agricultural Practices in the Philippines. Paper presented during the 6th International Conference on Permaculture held at Perth, Western Australia. http://permaculturewest.org.au/ipc6/ch06/mendoza/index.html

MENDOZA T.C. 2004. Demand-led Promotion of Organic Farming. ARNOA Newsletter Issue 1, Volume 2, August 2004. Asian Research Network on Organic Agriculture (ARNOA), South Korea.

MENDOZA T.C. 2004. Evaluating the Benefits of Organic Farming Method in Rice Agroecosystems in the Philippines. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. 24(2):93-114

MENDOZA T.C. 2005. An Energy-Based Analysis of Organic, Low External Input Sustainable & Conventional Agriculture. Phil. Agric. Scientist 88 (3) : 257 267.

MENDOZA T.C. 2008. Why food prices increase & what can be done. Philippine Journal of Crop Science 33(2): 87-101

MENDOZA T.C.2001.CO2-Greenhouse Gas-reducing Potentials of Some Ecological Agriculture Practices in the Philippine Landscape. Philippine Journal of Crop Science 26(3): 31

MENDOZAT.C. 1994. Adoption of soil benefiting agricultural practices for lowland rice production in the Philippines. Philippine Agriculturist 77(2):235-241.

PFEIFFER, D.A. 2003. EatingFossilFuels. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html

PIMENTEL, D. 1994. Constraints on the Expansion of Global Food Supply, Kindell, Henry H. and Pimentel, David. Ambio Vol. 23 No. 3, May 1994. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. http://www.dieoff.com/page36htm

PIMENTEL, D., P. HEPPERLY, J. HANSON, D. DOUDS, and R. Seidel. 2005. Environmental, energetic and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. BioScience 55:573582. 9 9

PRETTY, J. and R. HINE. 2001. Reducing food poverty with sustainable agriculture: A summary of new evidence. Final Report from the SAFE World Research Project, University of Essex. Available at Web site: http://www2.essex.ac.uk/ces/ResearchProgrammes/SAFEWexecsummfinalreport.htm

PRETTY, J.N., J.IL.MORISON, and R.E.HINE. 2003. Reducing food poverty by increasing agricultural sustainability in developing countries. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 95:217234RA 10068 Philippine Organic Agriculture Act of 2010. (2010). Arellano Law Foundation. Retrieved September 30, 2010, from http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2010/ra_10068_2010.htmlRIGBY, D. and D. CACERES. 2001. Organic farming and the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agric. Systems 68:21- 40.

RODOLFO,K. 2008. Peak Oil: The Global Crisis of Diminishing Petroleum Supply and Its Implications for the Philippines. Asian Studies Journal 41(1):41-101

SCIALABBA, N. El-H. & C.HATTAM (eds). 2002. Organic Agriculture, Environment, and Food Security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

SEVER, L. E., T.E.ARBUCKLE, and A. SWEENEY. 1997. Reproductive and developmental effects of occupational pesticide exposure: the epidemiologic evidence. Occup. Med. 12, 305-325.

STANHILL, G. 1990. The comparative productivity of organic agriculture. Agriculture Ecosystems And Environment 30 (1990), 1-26

TILMAN, D, J. FARGIONE, B. WOLF, C. D'ANTONIO, A. DOBSON, R. HOWATH, D. SCHINDLER, W. H. SCHLESINGER, D. SIMBERLOFF, and D. S. WACKHAMER. 2001. Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science 2001, 292, 281-4.

TILMAN, D., K.G. CASSMAN, P. A. MATSON, R. NAYLOR, and S. POLASKY. 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418:671677.

UN ESCAP. Sustainable Agriculture and FOOD SECURITY IN Asia and the Pacific. www.unescap.org. Bangkok, Thailand

UNEP. 2010. GREEN ECONOMY. A brief for policy makers on the green economy and MDG. Prepared for the UN Summit on MDGs.

UNPF (United Nations Population Fund). 2008. World Population to 2300. New York: United Nations. http://www.unfpa.org/swp/

VIDAL, J. 2007. "Global Food Crisis Looms as Climate Change and Fuel Shortages Bite," The Guardian, Nov. 3, 2007 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/03/food.climatechange

VILLEGAS, PM and HM Custodio. 2013. Socio-economics and Policy support towards enhancing the organic vegetables industry in the Philippines. Paper presented to the Asia Pacific Regional Symposium on Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Organic Farming held on Dec.2-4. Bangkok, Thailand

WILLER, H. and M. YUSSEF. 2001. Organic Agriculture Worldwide 2001: Statistics and Future Prospects. Foundation for Ecology and Agriculture, Stuttgart, Germany.

WORTHINGTON, V. 2001. Nutritional quality of organic versus conventional fruits, vegetables, and grains. Journal of Complimentary Medicine 7 No. 2: 161-173