The SANE ASIA process

Increasing population and urbanization continue to add stress to agricultural land worldwide but the pressure is particularly acute in Asia, where population density on arable land and urban development rates are especially high (Table 10). Such critical land use trends are herein illustrated by briefly describing the situation within countries involved in the SANE-Asia program ¹.

After a quarter century of war, destruction, isolation and impoverishment, Cambodian farmers have a compelling need and desire to improve their food production. Although the majority of Cambodian farmers cultivate rainfed rice as their primary crop, rice yields in Cambodia are the lowest in the world. Cambodia still has a high degree of forest cover (65.7%), although, due to poor management and other factors, deforestation is increasing steadily. Agriculture is limited by low soil fertility in most areas and poor water management in others. Unique agroecosystems involving traditional agriculture have been developed over time but are increasingly threatened by ongoing and proposed developments on the Mekong River. Much of the potentially rich farmland is still inaccessible due to the presence of about 4.5 million undetected land mines.

India’s soils are generally of poor quality for agricultural crops; however, they are responsive to irrigation, fertilizers and other inputs. There has been no significant change in land use patterns over the past two decades, with the exception of expanded areas under irrigation. Land is mostly owned by smallholder farmers. The recent steep rise in the number of marginal and small farms is partly due to land sub-division, promoted by the Hindu Law of Inheritance and population growth. Since the 1960s, India’s rice, wheat and sugarcane production has experienced phenomenal growth, due largely to the introduction of modern high yielding varieties and the expansion of irrigation, although environmental costs associated with such expansion are still unmeasured.

Forest cover has significantly decreased in the Philippines, while grassland and agricultural areas have increased. However, proportionally, agricultural land has rapidly decreased around urban areas. The most serious soil constraints are due to erosion, acidity and infertility. Cultivation of marginal land is prevalent. Sixty-one percent of farmland is owner-operated. Sharecropping tenancy is still common in approximately 20% of farmland, despite past reforms to abolish this condition.

The terai (lowlands) account for 14% of total land area, but for 42% of all cultivated land. The middle mountains cover 29% of the total area, concentrating 43% of the cultivated land. The high mountain regions add up to 19% of total area, and only 9% of cultivated land. Only 33% of Nepal’s land mass is considered "suitable" for agriculture; of this, much arable land is in mountainous terrain which raises concerns about soil degradation and also for the forest sector. A good deal of land is unproductive due to soil limitations and conditions. Land tenure is highly skewed, with a large portion of the land owned by few. Rapid urbanization has led to massive conversions of agricultural land for industrial uses. Chemical farming tends to be dominant, especially in the lowlands. There is a serious lack of knowledge and education concerning the usage and risks of chemical pesticides. As a result, soil and water quality, along with human health is being affected by agricultural pollution.

Lowland areas in the central region, the northeast plateau and the northern hill areas are suitable for rice production and some vegetables. The highlands, having a more complex physiography and soil parent materials, are better suited to fruit trees, maize and kenaf. The Omacoop study (1991) on land and soil suitability for current land uses noted that, by the standard set by the Department of Land Development, 34.7% of the total land area is not being "properly" used. For example, much sensitive watershed forest lands are farmed. Also, many crops grown are ill-suited to their location. Thailand has been experiencing rapid conversion of agricultural lands to industrial areas. Zoning regulations have been ineffective, due to politically powerful land speculators. Land distribution is still highly skewed, with a large number of farmers are landless.

Of the country’s 330,000 square kilometers, 70% is considered upland, and almost 30% of the population lives in such areas. Nineteen million uplanders are ethnic minorities; 2 million of which are practicing shifting cultivation. Farm-based (homegardens, orchards, mixed with crops, and woodlots) and forest-based (shifting cultivation/fallow upland areas) forms of agroforestry are important land management methods. There has been some recent shift from monocropping to diversified farming.

The land holding average of 1.4 ha. per family is still the general trend within Laos. Rural poverty is seen by some to be a result of low input--low output agriculture. Several government agencies believe that agriculture must be modernized. Since 1986, as the state has become increasingly linked to its more developed neighbors, modern technologies and inputs are gradually entering the country and thus modifying traditional agroecosystems.

Given the above scenarios, several NGO and farmer organizations in each of the countries have initiated alternative development projects promoting agroecological technologies in order to assist resource-poor farmers. The SANE-Asia program was designed to support such diverse ongoing initiatives related to sustainable agriculture in the region. This unique approach was based on the belief that individual organizations should build on their strengths rather and direct efforts at networking and joint cooperation. Donors hesitated initially at this idea. It would mean that they would have to share recognition with other donors already providing initial support to activities in the region. Eventually, NGOs and donors alike agreed that this approach was appropriate for the region. The result was an eclectic program built on the pre-existing agenda of NGOs in the region. The endogenous origins of this agenda created a dovetailing of activities aimed at satisfying local needs.

The original SANE Program Proposal for Asia was the product of a three-day consultation held on 26-28 February 1994 at IIRR in Silang, Cavite Philippines. The consultation was attended by 17 regional and national NGO networks involved in sustainable agriculture together with representatives from international institutions working within the region.

Initially, there was resistance from some participating NGOs to work under the SANE Program as it came at a time when regional NGO networks had started a process of consolidating their efforts. It was felt that external initiatives might disrupt this process. The group, however, decided to organize the regional consultation to clarify the situation and to reach a decision on that issue at a later stage. In that consultation, the participants decided to articulate a regional agenda for SA. They also directly discussed the proposed SANE program and tried to determine how SANE could complement this agenda (Figure 7).

This consultative process created a sense of ownership of the program by the participants and provided the space to shape the SANE program based on the existing needs, priorities and the capabilities of regional NGOs. The regional agenda also provided the common framework and direction in which NGOs could implement their individual programs and yet contribute to a set of commonly defined goals.

The same process of consultative planning was used in implementing regional activities. Though preparatory work to launch such initiatives took longer, the process generated a higher level of participation that ensured a higher probability of success.

SANE-Asia established a coordination mechanism that ensured accountability and yet allowed organizational flexibility. The coordination mechanism consisted of Lead Agencies, a Steering Committee and a Regional Secretariat.

Identified Lead Agencies handled the implementation of program activities. They were selected based on their existing programs and organizational capacities. With this arrangement, SANE-Asia not only complemented existing programs, but also recognized the strengths of individual organizations. It also increased agency participation, which contributed to the success of the program.

The Steering Committee provided overall guidance for the program and conducted periodic reviews of program implementation. It also ensured accountability of the lead agencies. Representatives of the Asian Institute for Rural Development (AIRD), ANGOC, IIRR and PAN-AP composed the SANE-Asia Steering Committee. ANGOC and IIRR served as the Regional Secretariat and provided coordination to the program.

The SANE-Asia program was an activity-based plan, which implemented regional and country-specific initiatives involving several regional and local institutions. Regional activities focused mostly on capacity building, networking, policy advocacy and on strengthening the Asian sustainable agriculture movement. On the other hand, country level activities centering in Laos included, area-based technology development, establishment of integrated farming models, capacity building and training (Figure 2).

The regional consultation group originally gave low priority to the Agroecological Lighthouse concept in order to focus efforts and resources on existing program initiatives in the region. As an experimental activity, the group decided to implement a "lighthouse" in Laos.

SANE-Asia selected Laos as its lighthouse, mainly because the country had traditionally been under-represented in SA activities, and through lighthouse activities it could benefit from a capacity-building agenda. The Sustainable Agriculture Forum (SAF) in Laos had been recently formed and sought assistance from the SANE group. A number of SA technologies were known and validated in Laos, for example, rice-fish farming and improved upland farming. It was felt that these technologies could be "scaled-up" at a national level by highlighting successful local experiences as lighthouses.

SAF is an autonomous coalition of international NGOs and Lao development workers who are promoting sustainable agriculture, community forestry and other environmentally sound and participatory approaches to rural development in Laos. SAF was founded in March 1991 by a group of Lao development workers employed by international NGOs with rural development programs in the Lao PDR. SAF is affiliated with many Southeast Asian Sustainable Agriculture Networks and Coalitions.

1. To support the Lao people in their struggle to achieve food security by promoting low-cost, environmentally sound and participatory techniques and approaches to agriculture, forestry and rural development in general.
2. To provide a forum for Lao development workers to learn and share experiences about such approaches and techniques.
3. To facilitate coordination and information flows between individuals and organizations (both governmental and non-governmental) that are working in the field of sustainable agriculture and community forestry in Lao PDR.
4. To organize and coordinate workshop and other training activities on topics relevant to SAF objectives.
5. To cooperate with regional networks and organizations in other countries with similar objectives in order to share experiences and information.

A three-day workshop facilitated by SANE was held in Vientiane in November, 1996 to further develop the capacities of the SAF’s 18 member NGOs and enhance their understanding of agroecological principles and IPM techniques. Sessions devoted time to practical activities that resulted in the design plans of lighthouses appropriated for both lowland and upland/hilly areas.

SANE- Asia actively engaged in information exchange on SA initiatives and debates on agricultural issues. At both national and regional levels, SANE-Asia provided space for NGOs and other sectors to articulate their position on General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), biotechnology, food security, alternative marketing and resource management. A whole range of regional activities was undertaken to advance these agenda.

Twenty-one Philippine NGOs involved in sustainable agriculture attended a two-day Agroecology Mini-Course conducted at the IIRR Campus in Silang, Cavite, Philippines. Dr. Miguel Altieri, SANE General Coordinator was the main resource person of the mini-course. The focus was on various agroecology topics including principles and concepts of agroecology; processes, interactions and synergisms in agroecosystems; ecological bases for agroecosystem management; ecological soil management and conservation; ecological pest management; rapid rural appraisal and agroecosystem diagnosis methods; indicators of sustainability; conversion to organic farming; agroecology and rural development; and design requirements of sustainable agroecosystems. IIRR and ICLARM also contributed to the course by sharing their own experiences and programs on agroecology.

SANE-Asia revived the regular production of the SA Newsletter (SAN) initiated by the Southeast Asian Sustainable Agriculture Network (SEASAN) to promote practical information exchange among SA practitioners within the region. In a two year period four SAN newsletters were produced, each focusing on a specific issue: food security and nutrition, extension approaches and on-farm experimentation, indigenous upland agroforestry and alternative networking. About 2,000 newsletters where distributed throughout the region and in other non-Asian countries.

The NGO Federation of Nepal (NFN) organized the first National SA Fair held in 3-6 January 1996 in Biratnagar. The fair coincided with the general assembly of NFN, which was attended by more than 600 national NGO members.

The Fourth National SA Fair in the Philippines held 29 April – 1 May 1995 was organized by the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NASAC), Center for Alternative Development Initiatives (CADI) and the Archdiocese of Jaro, Iloilo. SANE-Asia supported the coordination work of PhilDHRRA and the participation of its 10 local NGO members involved in SA. The fair tackled the theme: ‘Alternative Economics and Formative Values – SA in the Age of GATT, Biotechnology and Opportunism’. More than a hundred NGOs, people’s and church organizations participated in the fair.

The Organic Agriculture and Food Fair in Thailand was organized by the Alternative Agriculture Network (AAN) in February 1996. This national fair aimed at promoting alternative agriculture through linking of producers, consumers and people promoting green shops, alternative marketing and development of organic agriculture standards.

Case studies have been carried out in order to document specific field experiences of SA projects in the region. They provided an opportunity for organizations in the region to document impacts of alternative technologies and share their experiences in a systematic manner. The case studies are in the process of being compiled into a singled document to be subsequently distributed to key SA organizations in the region (Table 11).

The International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) organized this international consultation in 9-20 October 1995 IIRR, in Silang, Cavite, Philippines to share training experiences on SA and draw up a trainers’ training program. SANE-Asia supported seven participants from India, Nepal, the Philippines and Thailand. Some of the outputs of the consultation were: an analysis of the SA movements in the different regions, compilations of approaches used to develop training programs, and inventory listings of training institutions, training materials and resource persons.

Twenty five NGO representatives from eight countries in Asia gathered in a three-day regional advocacy workshop in 20-22 September 1995 in Bangkok, Thailand organized by the Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ANGOC). The workshop aimed at consolidating NGO capacities and strengths in policy advocacy towards formulating a regional policy on food security. This workshop helped prepare the Asian process for the World Food Summit, and started a dialogue with the FAO Regional Office in Asia and the Pacific on technical and policy concerns. The workshop also culminated with the Asian NGO Declaration and Action Agenda on Food Security for the World Food Summit.

Twenty-five Asian NGOs attended the workshop. The main activity was to construct a baseline survey for 200 villages (20 villages per country) which will be used to indicate whether the commitments made by governments and NGOs at the World Food Summit have had any significant local impact. The results will also be used as a planning tool for further advocacy work in this area.

The objectives of the study were: (1) to become familiar with SA technologies practiced in the Philippines which would be applicable in Laos, (2) compare a range of methods appropriate for teaching SA, (3) identify support for teaching SA available in the Philippines. Six teachers from Champassak and Luangprabang visited various organizations with Philippine based SA field projects including agricultural schools teaching SA. The teachers expressed their realization that there is more to SA than the technological aspects and, what they thought was SA as practiced in Laos is but a small aspect of the overall concept of SA.

The Trainers’ Resource Center (TRC) on Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development in Phnom Penh, Cambodia was identified as a node for distribution of reference material on SA. The Center received six books, nine working papers, eight information kits and ten videotapes related to SA and rural development. The TRC has a large collection of materials referenced for use by organizations working in the country.

There is a need to provide support to the ongoing process of curriculum revision within the agricultural state colleges and universities interested in incorporating SA issues to their educational programs.

UPLB and SEARCA are proposing a meeting of experts sometime in 1998 to share experiences on incorporating SA into the curricula of universities and colleges. The purpose is to define the basic contents that an introductory course on SA should have, as well as strategies to permeate conventional courses with SA principles.

Four regional farmer cross visits were conducted to promote exchanges between farmers and enhance regional farmers network. The farmers visited communities where SA practices have achieved a significant impact and that may be replicated in their own or other communities (Table 12).

This workshop brought together steering committee members to develop the presentation of the SANE-Asia Program at the Global SANE meeting held in May 1997 in Cuba. The group also discussed activities to be completed and reviewed the strengths of various SANE-Asia Program partners in the region.

This workshop brought together steering committee members and key organizations from the Philippine Working Group to conduct an internal assessment of the program and design a general plan for a second phase of the SANE-Asia program.

A key aspect of any participatory research project is the development and validation of indicators for measuring sustainability in agriculture for various ecosystems and levels of operations. Aware of the importance of SA indicators, SANE-Asia supported a workshop that brought together SA proponents from different sectors to develop and present validation studies on SA indicators.

The first workshop was held in 29-30 May 1995 at SEAMO Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA), Los Baños, Laguna. Jointly organized by SANE-Asia, SEARCA and the University of the Philippines Los Baños, the workshop gathered 57 participants representing farmer organizations, NGOs, government agencies, academe and intergovernmental organizations. Its main objective was to provide a forum for the multi-sectoral exchange of ideas and practical experiences on the indicators of SA at farm, community, landscape, watershed and national levels.

The second workshop reviewed, validated and integrated the set of SA indicators developed during the first workshop into a single methodological framework that has since been used by several groups. The workshop was held on 13-14 November 1997 at SEARCA headquarters in Los Baños, Laguna.

Pesticide Action Network-Asia and the Pacific (PAN-AP) coordinated this advocacy campaign. Country studies were conducted for India, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand while institutional studies were also undertaken focusing on the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and FAO to review the linkages between rural credit and pesticides use. These studies were presented in a regional consultation held in 8-10 November 1995 in Penang, Malaysia attended by six national and regional NGO networks and several institutions.

The SANE-Asia Program involved a core of regular and active partners. These organizations developed a sense of teamwork over time, which led to better coordination and more open communication. The activities of the Program allowed the key organizations to further develop their strengths thus increasing their impact on greater numbers of people. For example, the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction was recognized as a leader in SA training in the region. It took the lead on a SA trainers consultation to develop a SA Training of Trainers program. With the additional support from the SANE-Asia program the IIRR now has a long-term program to build the training capacity of SA organizations in the region. Similarly, the ANGOC was recognized for its experience and influence in the area of policy advocacy. The Program supported a number of important regional advocacy events, which have allowed ANGOC to continue to play a key role in policy advocacy and can now draw on support of other SANE-Asia Working Group Members for support.

SANE-Asia played a key role in linking NGO initiatives "horizontally" as well as facilitating "vertical" linkages with formal institutions to influence agricultural policies. Given the diversity of participating NGOs and the restricted government policies on NGO functioning in some countries, the implementation of the SANE Program in Asia posed a difficult challenge. In addition, given the decentralized implementation strategy of SANE and its respect for pre-existing SA agendas of program partners, initially made the program integration difficult.

The program relied heavily on the initial program consultation to enlist the support of a large number of independent organizations dispersed throughout the region for program implementation.

The program strategy resulted in assigning tasks based on existing organizational strengths of program partners. This approach helped reduce overlap and strengthened the existing capacities of SA organizations in the region.

The monitoring role of the Secretariat was limited to administrative issues related to progress and outputs of activities. It did not include monitoring of purpose or impact level indicators. In the long term, more emphasis on purpose and impact objectives would improve documentation of concrete

results of the program and thus provide a leadership role to the Secretariat.

Specific and clear policy options derived from practical field level experiences of farmers are strong arguments for advocacy efforts. Increasing farmer input into policy option development will help keep policies grounded around the needs of the farmers.

Philosophical differences remain between SA networks in Asia. Bridging these differences is crucial to making horizontal and vertical linkages in the region. The identification of common ground was helpful to emphasize similarities over differences. Similarly, recognition of the value in diversity increased respect for differing views, and strategies.

The use of cross visits was extremely popular in the program. Cross visits provided an opportunity for farmer leaders and intermediary organizations to exchange experiences. The program realized the need to strengthen the post cross-visit activities of participants in order to concretely promote the lessons learned by those involved in the visits.

The SANE-Asia program provided financial support for new activities and supplementary support to previously planned activities in the region. This support allowed project proponents to improve the quality of their activities or to increase the number of people involved. This value-added approach proved useful given the limited amount of funds available and the many initiatives in the region.

The SANE-Asia Program needs to address more directly macro-level issues facing sustainable agriculture in the region. These include economic globalization, liberalization and the opening of previously centrally planned economies.

The processing and negotiation of the SANE-Asia Program took almost a year from the point program development to actual funds transfer. Part of the difficulty encountered in the negotiation process was that the proponent had to deal with three parties simultaneously: the SANE General Coordination, UNDP-SEED and UNDP-OPS, New York. Moreover, to meet the funding requirements of UNDP, a fund management arrangement was reached with UNDP-OPS for the issuance of three separate contracts to: ANGOC, IIRR and UNDP-Laos. Finalization of the contracts of ANGOC and IIRR took eight months from the submission of the proposal. The Laos contract took longer to finalize.

The difficulty of covering the most populous and rapidly transforming region in Asia is obvious. Nevertheless, the program did involve people from over 10 countries in the region. While efforts were made to distribute the activities of the program throughout the region, it did not involve two of the most populous countries: China and Indonesia.

The SANE-Asia program established partnerships with many of the key stakeholders involved in sustainable agriculture: farmer leaders; farmers’ organizations (POs/CBOs); local, national, regional and international NGOs, UN agencies (UNDP, FAO), and academe.

There are five CG Centers in Asia (IRRI, ICRISAT, ICLARM, IIMI, CIFOR). These research centers influence the way governments view agricultural development issues and priorities. The CG Centers emphasize upstream research and often have limited contact with farmers. Together with the National Agricultural Research Centers, the CG Centers could benefit from greater input from farmers and NGOs on issues of research priorities, constraints to technology adoption, and more holistic approaches to agricultural development.

The SANE-Asia program should increase its linkages with country offices in the region. This should be done at two levels. The UNDP headquarters should provide country offices with more information on the program and the SANE-Asia Secretariat should have regular consultations with country offices in its coordination responsibilities.

The policy advocacy messages of the SANE-Asia program originated from only a few organizations currently engaged in advocacy work. The SANE-Asia program should strengthen its policy and advocacy role. By identifying key senior government policy makers and using the entire SANE program as the voice for policy recommendations stronger messages can be sent. Specific campaigns should be identified early on in the program, each linked to specific field level activities that support the policy recommendations.

The SANE-Asia Program identified its vertical linkages from farmers to policy makers as one of its key strengths. The program seeks to continue this, by increasing the opportunities for farmers to engage other actors - at any level - who influence the direction of agricultural development in their area.

The SANE-Asia program did not have linkages to popular media (television, radio, or newspapers). In the future, it would be advisable to improve linkages in these areas to promote messages more widely.

The SANE-Asia program recognizes the balance between site specific technologies and practices and general principles of sustainable agriculture and agroecology. In an effort to improve the relevance of field level technologies and practices, the Program suggests the selection of representative sites for field level initiatives. By building the capacity of organizations at these sites, so that they can draw lessons from their own field experiences and share them with others, the program can increase the relevance and impact of its work.

It was agreed during the Global meeting that the program should attempt to leverage the capacity building funds for greater support of site level project implementation. This support could come from UNDP country offices and additional donors. The program should also consider certain cost recovery activities such as opening up training courses designed for the program to others for a fee. Similarly, publications could have a cost recovery component to generate income for the sites where the lessons were generated.

In less than three years of operation, the SANE-Asia Program made a significant contribution to Sustainable Agriculture initiatives in the region. The program touched over 70 organizations in more than ten countries. It started by recognizing the value of the existing agenda of these organizations and provided supplementary support that added value to their activities. The program recognized the existing strengths of individual organizations and built on these in a way that benefited others. Farmer cross visits, regional workshops, case studies, and national conferences were some of the activities that helped these organizations learn from and share with each other (Table 4).

  The SANE-Asia program faced a number of challenges. The idea of yet another program or network in an already crowded civil society arena was the initial challenge.. A decentralized approach with implementation on many fronts solved the problem of local relevance. However, it made program integration more difficult. In addition, it created administrative difficulties associated with receiving and channeling funds to many different partners. Notwithstanding these challenges, the program was able to complete almost all of its planned activities with only a few minor modifications to the plan.

In the future, the SANE-Asia Program plans to build on its strengths and address its weaknesses. While the capacity building strategy remains intact, the Program will emphasize support to a few field initiatives to be conducted in key representative agroecosystems. These sites will become learning centers or lighthouses in the region. A set of region-wide initiatives will be undertaken to help integrate activities of the program. Policy and advocacy recommendations will emanate from the SANE Program and be directed to key policy makers in the region. New linkages (collaborative or otherwise) will be established with the popular media, UNDP and the CG centers in the region in order to broaden the impact of the program. These changes and the experience gained during the first three years will increase the impact and relevance of the program and provide an example for others in other regions of the world.