Content uploaded by Hannah Wittman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hannah Wittman on Feb 23, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Renewable Agriculture and
Food Systems
cambridge.org/raf
Themed Content: Ag/food
Systems and Climate
Change
Cite this article: Heckelman A, Smukler S,
Wittman H. Cultivating climate resilience: a
participatory assessment of organic and
conventional rice systems in the Philippines.
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170517000709
Received: 20 July 2017
Accepted: 28 November 2017
Key words:
Climate resilience; farming system; organic;
rice; Philippines
Author for correspondence: Amber
Heckelman, E-mail: amber.heckelman@gmail.
com,aheckelm@mail.ubc.ca
© Cambridge University Press 2018
Cultivating climate resilience: a participatory
assessment of organic and conventional rice
systems in the Philippines
Amber Heckelman1, Sean Smukler1and Hannah Wittman1,2
1
Centre for Sustainable Food Systems, University of British Columbia, 2357 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4,
Canada and
2
Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, 429-2202 Main
Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
Abstract
Climate change poses serious threats to agriculture. As a primary staple crop and major con-
tributor to agriculturally derived greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, rice systems are of particu-
lar significance to building climate resilience. We report on a participatory assessment of
climate resilience in organic and conventional rice systems located in four neighboring villages
in Negros Occidental, Philippines. The Philippines is one of the foremost countries impacted
by climate change, with an increasing incidence of climate-related disturbances and extensive
coastlines, high population density and heavy dependence on agriculture. Using the United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s Self-evaluation and Holistic Assessment of
climate Resilience of farmers and Pastoralists (SHARP) tool, we measured 13 agroecosystem
indicators of climate resilience, and assessed the degree to which household, farm, and com-
munity mechanisms and outcomes impact adaptation capacity, mitigation potential and
vulnerability. We used a participatory approach to situate these indicators in their socio-
ecological context, and identify targeted interventions for enhancing climate resilience based
on local farmer experiences and socio-ecological conditions. Comparison of climate resilience
indicators across organic and conventional rice systems in this region indicated that organic
rice systems are more climate resilient than their conventional counterparts. As such,
increased policy support for the development of organic rice systems are critically important
as an adaptive mechanism to augment food security, mitigate GHG emissions and improve
climate resilience in the Philippines.
Introduction
Agriculture is facing dramatic challenges due to climate change. Crop varieties are failing
under extreme and changing weather conditions, requiring farmers to implement diverse cop-
ing mechanisms and adaptive strategies. Globally, agriculture is also a major contributor to
climate change, directly responsible for 13.7% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from
2000 to 2010 (Tubiello et al., 2013) and indirectly responsible for an additional 7–14%
GHG emissions through deforestation (Harris et al., 2012). In order to achieve climate resili-
ence, smallholder farming systems require capacity to cope with droughts, floods, pests,
extreme weather conditions, salinization and erosion; mitigate GHG emissions and ecological
degradation; and address worsening inequities, limited resources, social unrest and economic
uncertainty (IAASTD, 2009; Altieri et al., 2012).
The Philippines is one of the foremost countries affected by climate change, ranking num-
ber 3 in the World Risk Index (Birkmann and Welle, 2016) and number 5 in the Global
Climate Risk Index (Kreft et al., 2017). All regions in the Philippines are highly vulnerable
to climate change with significant and frequent exposure to tropical cyclones, floods, droughts
and landslides (Yusuf and Francisco, 2010). The islands contain extensive coastlines with a
high population density, coupled with a heavy dependence on agriculture, natural resources
and forestry for providing livelihoods. Increasing incidences of climate variability and extremes
exacerbate existing food insecurity, poverty and ecological degradation in the Philippines
(Yumul et al., 2011; UNU and ADW, 2014). An estimated 13.5% (13.7 million) of Filipinos
are undernourished (FAOSTAT, 2017). One in five Filipinos live below the poverty line and
farmers have the highest incidences of poverty (PSA, 2017b). Nearly 90% of Filipino farmers
are considered smallholders as they manage <3 ha of land, accounting for approximately half
of the farmland in the country (PSA, 2017a). Approximately 29% of the Philippine labor force
works in agriculture and are largely engaged in rice production (PSA, 2017a). Rice systems are
also responsible for 61% of the country’s agricultural-related GHG emissions (FAOSTAT,
2017), and studies suggest that emissions will intensify with rising temperatures (Van
Groenigen et al., 2013). As a principal staple crop, rice is the largest contributor to calories
derived from cereals and is the number 1 agricultural commodity in the Philippines, valued
at US$2.65 billion (PSA, 2017a). Rice systems are therefore intim-
ately connected to the socio-ecological fabric of the Philippines,
and central to adaptive measures to augment food security, miti-
gate GHG emissions and improve socio-economic conditions
linked to vulnerability.
Globally, rice systems vary significantly and include irrigated
or rain-fed, paddy or dryland, upland or lowland, and managed
using indigenous, organic or conventional modes of agricultural
production. Variations in modes of production have been articu-
lated in terms of disparate agricultural development paradigms,
corresponding to contested visions for rice production in the
Philippines (see Broad and Cavanagh, 2012; Vidal, 2014; Stone
and Glover, 2017). The grassroots farmer-led advocacy network
Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura
(Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Agricultural Development,
MASIPAG) represents one of these contested visions, emerging
in the mid-1980s as a reaction to the environmental and social
costs associated with the Green Revolution (Medina, 2004,
2012; Broad and Cavanagh, 2012). Grounded in their campaign
for organic farming, MASIPAG provides farmers with training
in alternatives to chemical-based agriculture. What began as a
partnership between a relatively small group of scientists and
farmers grew into a network comprising approximately 30,000
farmers, 41 non-government organizations (NGOs) and 15 scien-
tists by the early 2000s (MASIPAG, 2017). MASIPAG member-
ship is attained through participation in a collective of farmers
that form a local people’s organization. This requirement was
implemented in order to address isolation that individual
MASIPAG farmers experienced in the past and to ensure capacity
for community learning and other support mechanisms.
MASIPAG farmers utilize organic rice production practices,
often relying on traditional and indigenous seed varieties, botan-
ical foliar sprays, compost and vermiculture, and intercropping to
support agrobiodiversity, control pest populations and restore soil
nutrients. MASIPAG farmers have documented a range of chal-
lenges in transitioning to organic agriculture. Farmers often
need to learn and implement new farm management strategies;
it generally takes several years to rebuild soil health, and the tran-
sition period is usually marked by significant declines in yields
(see Bachmann et al., 2009). MASIPAG and others report that
these initial challenges are often followed by improvements in
yield, income, household health and food security, as well as
environmental outcomes and social empowerment (Bachmann
et al., 2009; Lin, 2011; Rusinamhodzi et al., 2011; Harvey et al.,
2013).
In contrast, conventional rice farmers in the Philippines
are indirectly affiliated with the International Rice Research
Institute (IRRI) through its national sister organization the
Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice). The dissemination
of PhilRice technology and innovations is facilitated by the
Department of Agriculture through Agricultural Training
Institute extension services. Conventional rice farmers often rely
on hybrid seed varieties, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and
other external inputs and technological innovations to manage
their farms. This infrastructure, along with other institutional
mechanisms that prescribe and support conventional agriculture,
were so effective that by the mid-1980s, only two Green
Revolution rice varieties occupied 98% of the entire rice growing
area in the Philippines, replacing the thousands of traditional rice
varieties that were culturally significant, locally adapted to the
region and required minimal external inputs (Medina, 2004,
2009; Altoveros and Borromeo, 2007).
Defining climate resilience
There is as yet no global consensus on how to conceptualize and
measure climate resilience as it is often defined to respond to spe-
cified research and policy interests, and interpreted using the
evolving concepts of adaptation, mitigation and vulnerability.
However, key developments in resilience theory offer suggestions
on how to define climate resilience. In the context of a socio-
ecological system, resilience is generally understood as an emergent
property derived from the systems’ability to absorb disturbance
and reorganize (e.g., adaptive capacity) so as to either retain or
improve upon the previous structure and living conditions
(Walker et al., 2004; Barrett and Constas, 2014). Thornton and
Mansafi (2010) argue that both the adaptive capacity and mitiga-
tion potential of farming systems must be enhanced simultan-
eously in order to cope with and address global environmental
change. However, mitigation is widely perceived as an inter-
national issue to be addressed largely by institutions and industry.
This is partially due to challenges associated with engaging com-
munities (at the local level) in agricultural carbon market schemes
(see Unruh, 2008; Raboin and Posner, 2012; Loft et al., 2017). But
the separation of adaptation and mitigation activities is problem-
atic for farming systems as trade-offs and synergies may occur
over different temporal or spatial scales (Harvey et al., 2013).
For example, the use of agrochemicals may increase yields in
the short-term, but at the expense of long-term cumulative con-
tributions to GHG emissions; and the use of agroecological prac-
tices may reduce yields over the short-term, but often result in
greater productivity and carbon sequestration over the long-term
(Lin, 2011; Rusinamhodzi et al., 2011; Harvey et al., 2013).
Another key development in resilience theory is the integration
of vulnerability, a condition often defined as a function of expos-
ure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity to external shocks or stresses
(Choptiany et al., 2015). Resilience and vulnerability research are
complementary in that the former generally emphasizes eco-
logical–biophysical dynamics, such as ecosystem services, thresh-
olds and feedbacks; the latter generally focuses on social–political
dimensions such as power and equity that affect the capacity for
adaptation and mitigation. Hence, Miller et al. (2010) have called
for integrating the two concepts in order to account for the bio-
physical and social dimensions of global environmental change
and to foster a more sophisticated understanding of ecological,
biophysical, social and political processes and the distribution of
costs, risks and benefits. Resilience can therefore be conceptua-
lized as a suite of integrative processes and outcomes (Cabell
and Oelofse, 2012) that determine the ways that complex socio-
ecological systems respond to a range of trends, cycles and shocks
(Miller et al., 2010). Our study defines climate resilience as a func-
tion of social and ecological integrative processes and outcomes
that enhance adaptive capacity, augment mitigation potential and
reduce the vulnerability of a farming system. The latter component,
accounting for socio-ecological conditions driving vulnerability, is
an important distinction from Climate Smart Agriculture.
Measuring climate resilience
Our interdisciplinary study investigates the hypothesis that diver-
gent agricultural management practices in the Philippines result
in rice systems with different degrees of climate resilience. To
explore the adaptive capacity, mitigation potential and vulnerabil-
ity of organic and conventional rice systems, this study utilizes the
Self-evaluation Holistic Assessment of climate Resilience for
2 Amber Heckelman et al.
farmers and Pastoralists (SHARP) tool. The tool was developed by
a team of agricultural experts at the United Nations Food and
Agricultural Organization (FAO) in consultation with academics
and practitioners and involved a multi-step process that included
a review of existing resilience frameworks, methodologies and
assessment tools (Choptiany et al., 2015). The SHARP tool collects
data and farmer feedback on 54 components of farming systems,
including household, production, environment, government, social
and economic dimensions. The concept of a farming system is the
unit of analysis. Distinct from a single farm, a farming system is a
population of individual farms that have similar resource bases,
enterprise patterns, household livelihoods and constraints, and
for which similar development strategies and interventions would
be appropriate (Dixon et al., 2001). A farming system is multidi-
mensional and multi-scalar, containing the household; the farm;
and the natural, institutional and socio-economic environment
(Darnhofer et al., 2012,p.6)(seeFig. 1a). We use ‘farming system’
and ‘rice system’interchangeably, the latter being an explicit indi-
cation that rice cultivation is a commonality.
Due to the complexity and variability of farming systems over
time and space, researchers have suggested that context-dependent
indicators of resilience should be measured in lieu of attempting to
quantify resilience itself (e.g., Bennett et al., 2005; Carpenter et al.,
2006). For Darnhofer et al. (2010,p.195–196), emphasis should be
placed on ‘identifying more general ‘rules of thumb’for use by
farmers and facilitators to guide farms, the industry sector, the
national agricultural systems and the interconnected part of the
international food and fiber system towards a more resilient orien-
tation’. The FAO SHARP tool builds on 13 agroecosystem indica-
tors (or characteristics of resilience) that are cited most often in the
literature on socio-ecological systems resilience (Cabell and Oelofse,
2012), paying particular attention to general ‘rules of thumb’for
agroecosystems (see Table 1). The indicators are behavior-based,
integrate core aspects of socio-ecological systems, and encompass
the four phases in the adaptive cycle: growth/exploitation, conser-
vation, release and reorganization/renewal (see Walker et al., 2004;
Fig. 1. (a) Using a socio-ecological systems approach and the concept of a farming
system as our unit of analysis, our participatory assessment of climate resilience
engages in a multidimensional and multi-scaler analysis of organic and conventional
rice systems. (b) Using the SHARP tool, we collect information on various processes
and outcomes occurring within the natural, institutional and socio-economic envir-
onment, as well as at the household, farm and village/community level. This informa-
tion is used to comparatively measure 13 agroecosystem indicators identified as
proxies for climate resilience.
Table 1. Thirteen agroecosystem indicators for climate resilience identified by
Cabell and Oelofse (2012)
Agroecosystem indicator Definition
1. Socially self-organized The social components of the
agroecosystem are able to form their
own configuration based on their
needs and desires
2. Ecologically self-
regulated
Ecological components self-regulate via
stabilizing feedback mechanisms that
send information back to the
controlling elements
3. Appropriately connected Connectedness describes the quantity
and quality of relationships between
system elements
4. Functional/response
diversity
Functional diversity is the variety of
ecosystem services that components
provide to the system; response
diversity is the range of responses of
these components to environmental
change
5. Optimally redundant Critical components and relationships
within the system are duplicated in
case of failure
6. Spatial/temporal
heterogeneity
Patchiness across the landscape and
changes through time
7. Exposed to disturbance The system is exposed to discrete,
low-level events that cause
disruptions without pushing the
system beyond a critical threshold
8. Coupled with local natural
capital
The system functions as much as
possible within the means of the
bio-regionally available natural
resource base and ecosystem
services
9. Reflective and shared
learning
Individuals and institutions learn from
past experiences and present
experimentation to anticipate change
and create desirable futures
10. Globally autonomous
and locally
interdependent
The system has relative autonomy from
exogenous (global) control and
influences; exhibits a high level of
cooperation between individuals and
institutions at the more local level
11. Honors legacy The current configuration and future
trajectories of systems are influenced
and informed by past conditions and
experiences
12. Builds human capital The system takes advantage of and
builds resources that can be
mobilized through social
relationships and membership in
social networks
13. Reasonably profitable The segments of society involved in
agriculture are able to make a
livelihood from the work they do
without relying too heavily on
subsidies or secondary employment
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 3
Darnhofer et al., 2010). Similar to biotic indicators typically
employed to monitor ecosystems, Cabell and Oelofse (2012) sug-
gest that the presence of these 13 agroecosystem indicators in a
farming system indicates a capacity for adaptation and transform-
ation, while their absence signals vulnerability and the need for
intervention. The SHARP tool links data related to a farming sys-
tem to these 13 agroecosystem indicators in order to measure cli-
mate resilience (Choptiany et al., 2015).
In summary, climate resilience is an emergent property of
farming systems, arising from the unique interaction between
farmer, farm and context (Carpenter et al., 2001; Cabell and
Oelofse, 2012; Choptiany et al., 2015). Using a socio-ecological
systems approach and the concept of a farming system as our
unit of analysis, we carry out a participatory assessment of climate
resilience that engages in a multidimensional and multi-scalar
analysis of organic and conventional rice systems (see Fig. 1a
and b). We use the SHARP tool to collect data on farming system
processes and outcomes occurring within the natural, institutional
and socio-economic environment, as well as at the household,
farm and barangay (village/community) level. We comparatively
measure 13 agroecosystem indicators identified by Cabell and
Oelofse (2012) to assess climate resilience. Additionally, we iden-
tify targeted interventions for enhancing climate resilience given
socio-ecological conditions and farmer experience.
Methods
Study site
According to the Manila Observatory (2005), Negros Occidental
(one of the Philippine’s 81 provinces, Fig. 2a) is ranked 19 at
risk to projected temperature rise. In an assessment of 74 of the
81 Philippine provinces, Yusuf and Francisco (2010) ranked
Negros Occidental the 46th most vulnerable, making the province
neither the most or the least vulnerable, but rather mid-range
relative to other Philippine provinces. We chose a mid-ranging
province to examine climate resilience as selecting a more vulner-
able province (i.e., high exposure, high sensitivity and low adaptive
capacity) would increase the likelihood of insufficient infrastructure
and/or adaptive mechanisms to allow a robust comparative assess-
ment. Negros Occidental ranked 48 in exposure, 17 in sensitivity
and 37 in adaptive capacity to climate variability (Yusuf and
Francisco, 2010)––indicating, to some degree, that climate inter-
vention efforts are present but inadequate in the province.
The governors of Negros Occidental and the neighboring
province of Negros Oriental signed a memorandum of agreement
in 2005 committing the island to 10% organic production by 2010
with the long-term vision of making the island the ‘organic food
bowl of Asia’. However, neither province has succeeded in meet-
ing its commitments. Recent reports indicate that approximately
16,000 of the 400,000 hectares (or 4.8%) of agricultural land in
Negros Occidental have been converted to organic farming
(Philippines News Agency, 2017); more than double the national
rate of 1.89% (Willer and Lernoud, 2017). Although organic agri-
culture is garnering political and public support in Negros
Occidental, as well as around the country (see Salazar, 2014),
many institutional mechanisms still favor conventional agricul-
ture in the region. For example, of the 90 hectares of land mana-
ged by PhilRice Negros, one of the six rice research stations
attached to the Department of Agriculture and working in collab-
oration with IRRI, only 6.5 hectares are designated for organic
rice, while the remaining are designated for conventional rice
Fig. 2. (a) Map of the Philippines with provincial boundaries, Negros Occidental shaded and study area highlighted; and (b) the distribution of organic and con-
ventional rice systems sampled in the study.
4 Amber Heckelman et al.
breeding and seed propagation. Our study is thus carried out in a
region with pre-existing institutional mechanisms that favor con-
ventional agriculture, but also waves of mobilization and growing
interest in organic agriculture.
Field research
A growing number of researchers emphasize the importance of
‘multi-stakeholder engagement’,‘people-centered and participa-
tory approaches’and ‘social inclusion’in fostering resilience
(Reed et al., 2010; Tanner et al., 2016). These approaches to
research are critical for recognizing political economic context
and power dynamics as structural conditions that influence
both how farmers perceive the resilience of their agroecological
systems, and the strategies they utilize to cope with socio-
ecological change (Blesh and Wittman, 2015). The idea that farm-
ers should be active participants (vs passive subjects) in climate
resilience research recognizes that many farmers have extensive
experiential knowledge derived from generations of accumulated
experiences and interaction with the environment. In recognition
of the simultaneous ‘plurality of knowledges’among farming
communities and their historical and systematic exclusion from
knowledge production, participatory approaches offer methodo-
logical frameworks to involve community members and stake-
holders in the research process (Kindon et al., 2007). Defining
features of community-based participatory research include a
research agenda defined by community partners, community
members engaged in the research process, development and pro-
motion of an action plan, and relationships rooted in trust and
mutual accountability (Bacon et al., 2013; Guzmán et al., 2013).
Our research agenda was developed in collaboration with the
former MASIPAG National Coordinator. MASIPAG farmers
were noticing that their organic farms were ‘better off than their
neighbors’conventional farms after experiencing an extreme wea-
ther event, such as a flood, drought or pest infestation. The
MASIPAG National Coordinator indicated that an investigation
into these farmer observations and a comparative assessment of
the climate resilience of organic and conventional farms would
be useful and meaningful to MASIPAG. Preliminary fieldwork
and in-person meetings with MASIPAG network members includ-
ing MASIPAG Board of Directors; MASIPAG National, Regional
and Provincial staff; and Farmer Associations occurred over a
3-month period in 2014; primary data collection via the SHARP
tool was carried out during August–December of 2016 with the
support of a team at Paghida-it sa Kauswagan Development
Group (Peace Development Group, PDG), a not-for-profit partner
organization of MASIPAG. The research team presented the study
design at four local Farmer Association meetings, and invited
members to participate in the study following the presentation.
A total of 40 organic and conventional rice farmers across four
neighboring villages joined the research team as ‘participant eva-
luators’in a comparative assessment of climate resilience.
The research process was designed to increase understanding
of climate resilience and involve farmers in the evaluation process.
This was accomplished through creating spaces for participatory
learning and exchange between organic and conventional farmers
and the research team, as well as across the four villages repre-
sented. A community resource mapping and cropping calendar
exercise was facilitated to enable farmers to situate the study
within their socio-ecological contexts. The participant farmer eva-
luators also provided data on 54 farming system components util-
izing the SHARP tool, which were then used for three purposes.
First, we assessed the 13 features of an agroecosystem identified
by Cabell and Oelofse (2012) as proxies for climate resilience.
Secondly, the data were used by participants themselves in a facili-
tated exercise to determine which farming system components
should be prioritized for interventions to enhance climate resili-
ence given existing socio-ecological conditions and farmer experi-
ence. Thirdly, we facilitated a participatory gap analysis (PGA) to
obtain farmer insight on possible and preferred interventions to
enhance climate resiliency.
Participant evaluators
A total of 40 smallholder farmers (N= 40), comprised of 18
organic and 22 conventional farmers from four neighboring vil-
lages in Negros Occidental, Philippines agreed to participate in
the case study (see Table 2). Most participants had been farming
their entire lives, and are small-holder (primarily) subsistence
farmers, meaning crops grown by participating farmers are typic-
ally allocated for household consumption and the surplus and/or
selected crops (i.e., sugarcane) are sold for the purposes of paying
debts or generating income. There are also collective efforts being
made to process and package certain crops (i.e., cassava noodles).
Prior to receiving land as agrarian reform beneficiaries, many
farmers indicated that they were sugarcane plantation workers.
Participants were asked to self-identify as either an organic or
conventional farmer. There were 21 male and 19 female partici-
pants that ranged between the ages of 25–78. On average, house-
hold size is 5.6 persons and participating farmers have access to
1.7 ha of land. This includes land that is individually owned or
leased (i.e., rice fields, sugarcane fields and home gardens), man-
aged communally (i.e., trial farms and other communal land) and
accessed/managed for additional resources (i.e., forested areas).
Several farmers also own and manage livestock, including chick-
ens, ducks, pigs, carabaw (water buffalo) and goats. Figure 2b
shows the distribution of the organic and conventional rice sys-
tems accounted for in our assessment.
SHARP survey
The SHARP survey tool was used to collect data on the 54 compo-
nents of farming systems. We adapted SHARP version 1.9.0 for the
Philippine context, including translation into both Tagalog/
Filipino (the national language) and Ilongo/Hiligaynon (the local
language). The survey was made available in electronic and hard-
copy form and administered to the participating farmers by a team
of field assistants––all of whom are affiliated with PDG, have had a
long-term presence in the region and have established relation-
ships with the participating farmers. Consistent with the SHARP
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for participant evaluators (farmers)
Total Organic Conventional
Participants 40 18 22
Male 21 11 10
Female 19 7 12
Age range 25–78 25–72 33–78
Age x
̅55 54 56
Household size x
̅5.6 6.1 5.2
Land Access (hectares) x
̅1.7 1.65 1.74
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 5
methodology, the collected data pertaining to the 54 farming sys-
tem components were compiled into 13 agroecosystem indicators
and scored to comparatively measure the climate resilience of
organic and conventional rice systems. Some components appear
in more than one agroecosystem indicator due to serving multiple
purposes in a farming system. For example, ‘intercropping’contri-
butes both to a farming system being ‘appropriately connected’
and having ‘spatial and temporal heterogeneity’, hence it is
accounted for in both agroecosystem indicators. Other compo-
nents may be broken into sub-components. For instance, ‘the
total number of groups’and ‘the number of different types of
groups’a farmer actively participates in both contribute to the
measurement of the ‘group membership’variable (one of the 54
farming system components) but are scored independently. Such
instances therefore result in a total of 84 scores calculated for
each organic and conventional farmer survey.
The SHARP tool also asks farmers to rank the adequacy and
importance of farming system components. For instance, after
answering a series of questions pertaining to seed sources (one
of the 54 farming system components), the farmer is also asked:
To what extent does this combination of seed sources meet the
needs of your farm system? How important is it to have access to sev-
eral sources of seeds for your farm system? This collection of data is
then used to also generate a priority rankings list of farming system
components to determine which components should be prioritized
for interventions given existing socio-ecological conditions and
farmer experience. Through this approach, participating farmers
provide guidance in the interpretation of survey results, drawing
attention to features of a farming system most critical to the farm-
ers. To generate priority rankings for the respective farming system
components, the data acquired through the SHARP survey were
transcribed into three scores: academic, adequacy and importance.
Academic scores are automatically calculated and generated by the
SHARP tool (Choptiany et al., 2015:47).Both‘adequacy’and
‘importance’scores are generated by the participating farmer and
are based on a Likert scale. These three scores are added together
to produce a final score, which is used to generate priority rankings
for the farming system components. Low scores are an indication
that the farming system component is in need of improvement
measures and is perceived as important by the farmer.
Statistical analysis
A two-way t-test was conducted to determine statistical differ-
ences between organic and conventional SHARP survey scores
at the individual sub-component level (1.1 group membership,
1.2 functions of groups, etc.), agroecosystem indicator level
(1. socially self-organized, 2. ecological self-regulated, etc.) and at
the whole farming system level (see Fig. 1 and Supplementary
Table S1). Continuous raw data scores were used in the analysis
of all 84 sub-components. Sub-component scores were then
averaged by agroecosystem indicator and again by farming system
to determine differences at each level. All statistical analyses were
conducted using the data analysis tool in Excel V15.37 (Microsoft,
Redmond, Washington: Microsoft, 2016).
Participatory gap analysis
Three weeks following the completion of the SHARP surveys, par-
ticipants were presented with preliminary results of the SHARP
survey, then asked to break into working groups to explore the
identified trends and patterns, and to discuss targeted
interventions for enhancing resilience in their rice systems. A
facilitator was assigned to each of the four working groups and
equipped with a hardcopy of the preliminary results and work-
sheets for documenting reflections and recommendations made
by farmers. The small working groups were intended to facilitate
consensus building during the PGA exercise.
Results and discussion
Statistical differences between conventional and organic systems
were evident in 25 out of the 84 sub-components, where organic
scored higher in 22 of the 25 instances (Supplementary Table S1).
Mean scores for 6 out of the 13 agroecosystem indicators were
also significantly higher for organic farming systems than con-
ventional (Fig. 3). Overall, average mean scores were 15.2% higher
(P< 0.001) for organic rice systems in climate resilience than con-
ventional systems.
The results of the priority rankings exercise indicate that
organic and conventional farmers have identified many of the
same farming system components as priorities for intervention.
Conventional farmers share 18 of the top 20 priorities identified
by organic farmers (Table 3). The results of the PGA include
farmer suggestions for how to improve low scoring (or high prior-
ity) farming system components, and ultimately enhance climate
resilience given existing socio-ecological conditions and farmer
experiences. The results and discussion of the PGA are incorpo-
rated into our analysis of the 13 agroecosystem indicators below.
Socially self-organized
There were no significant differences between organic and con-
ventional rice systems overall for the socially self-organized indi-
cator, measured by their active participation in groups, access to
local farmers markets, previous use of internal coping mechan-
isms and access to communal resources (Supplementary
Table S1). High levels of self-organization impart greater intrinsic
adaptive capacity (Cabell and Oelofse, 2012). At the sub-
component level, conventional farmers on average indicated a sig-
nificantly more active participation with a greater variety of
groups than their organic neighbors (1.2). Both organic and con-
ventional farmers have limited access to local markets and have
targeted this component for intervention. According to the
PGA, establishing market contacts would help improve market
access; however, farmers emphasized that household consump-
tion is the number 1 priority, and local consumers are the second
priority. Farmers indicated that communities should organize and
support mechanisms for farmer exchange, information dissemin-
ation and record keeping to document changes in weather and
production; as well as continue to pursue access to land through
the Department of Agrarian Reform.
1
Ecologically self-regulated
Organic farming systems exhibit a significantly greater degree of
ecological self-regulation, measured by the use of perennial
crops, local crop and livestock varieties, nitrogen fixing plants,
buffer zones, agroforestry, sustainable energy sources and the
lack of chemical inputs. Ecological self-regulation reduces the
1
The Department of Agrarian Reform is a Philippine government agency responsible
for executing agrarian reform policies and the redistribution of agricultural land in the
Philippines.
6 Amber Heckelman et al.
amount of external inputs required to maintain a system (Cabell
and Oelofse, 2012). As expected, organic farmers on average use
more traditional (local) crops/livestock (2.2), avoid using chem-
ical pesticides and subsequently contribute less to the accumula-
tion of hazardous waste (2.3), and apply natural fertilizers (2.6)
made from locally sourced ingredients. The region lacks a waste
management system, so most non-organic waste, including pesti-
cide containers, are either dumped in open waste piles or burned.
Both organic and conventional farmers identify fertilizer use as a
priority for intervention, and expressed interest in improving their
own compost, vermicast and botanical foliar production; as well
as implementing soil/land improving practices, such as applying
organic matter on elevated areas of the farm and fallowing land,
and planting legumes, cover crops and other green manuring
strategies. Both rice systems have very few buffer zones, but do
contain agroforestry systems, and organic and conventional farm-
ers identified agroforestry as a priority for intervention. The PGA
revealed that limited land access is a prominent reason why farm-
ers do not establish or expand their buffer zones or agroforestry
systems. Given this condition, farmers suggested bordering their
farm fields with trees, establishing tree nurseries and planting
more native tree species as solutions for improving and/or
expanding agroforestry systems.
Appropriately connected
There was no significant difference between organic and conven-
tional rice systems for the appropriately connected indicator.
Connectedness describes the quantity and quality of relationships
between the system (Cabell and Oelofse, 2012). Connectedness is
measured in terms of farmers’access to seed/breed sources, market
information and weather forecasting, and (para) veterinary ser-
vices; as well as their employment of intercropping strategies and
sense of trust and cooperation in the community. At the sub-
component level, organic farmers had a significantly higher level
of intercropping practices than conventional farmers (3.2). Both
farming systems appear to lack trust and cooperation and access
to (para)veterinary services; as well as have similar access to mar-
ket information and weather forecasting services. Several of asso-
ciated farming system components were listed as priorities for
both organic and conventional farmers. During the PGA, farmers
expressed interest in improving intercropping measures to enhance
crop diversity and incorporate both herbal and root crops into pro-
duction practices. Farmers proposed devising a farm diversification
plan that also includes a trial farm and seed bank for the purposes
of collecting and propagating native (or local) varieties of corn,
rice and vegetables, as well as improving access to seeds. To foster
more trust and cooperation within the community, farmers sug-
gested creating mechanisms for sharing within and between com-
munities, such as establishing links between Farmer Associations
for seed exchanges to occur. To improve market information
access, farmers suggested forming committees that will take charge
of gathering market information from the television and radio, as
well as monitor and determine market prices for crops. Because
(para)veterinary services were distant and/or inaccessible for
many farmers, farmers recommended establishing links to (para)
veterinary services through the barangay (village government).
Functional and response diversity
Organic farming systems contain significantly higher functional
and response diversity, measured in terms of species diversity,
diversification of farming activities (by category), income sources,
and pest and animal disease control methods. Heterogeneous
features within the landscape and farm can impart buffering
and regenerative capacity following a disturbance (Cabell and
Fig. 3. Organic and conventional mean (x
̅) scores for 13 agroecosystem indicators for climate resilience. Significant differences determined by t-test are indicated
as: *P< 0.05, **P< 0.01, ***P< 0.001.
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 7
Oelofse, 2012). Organic rice systems scored higher in crop and
livestock diversity (4.1), diversity of farming activities (4.2), and
number of pest and animal disease control methods practiced
(4.4). Several of the corresponding farming system components
were listed as priorities for both organic and conventional farm-
ers, including livestock variety, animal disease control and pest
management control. To improve livestock diversity, farmers
recommended adopting native species and engaging in more
breeding practices. They also expressed interest in receiving train-
ing on livestock management practices, including an orientation
on disease control and deworming practices, with many farmers
emphasizing a preference for utilizing herbal supplements and
other natural remedies. Farmers also indicated a desire to learn
additional and alternative pest management practices.
Optimally redundant
There were no significant differences between organic and conven-
tional rice systems for the optimally redundant indicator. Optimal
redundancy is measured in terms of water, energy, fertilizer, seed
and livestock sources; land management practices, varietal diversity,
human and animal nutrition, and cereal bank access; as well as
market access and productive assets. Redundancy gives a system
multiple back-ups that support buffering and renewal processes fol-
lowing a disturbance (Cabell and Oelofse, 2012). Scores for organic
systems were significantly lower for the sub-component for fertil-
izer sources (5.6). This is likely due to many organic farmers pro-
ducing their own fertilizer and/or having limited sources for natural
fertilizers. Neither organic nor conventional farmers had access to
cereal banks (5.11). Both sets of farmers identify livestock variety as
a priority, and farmer recommendations for improving livestock
variety center on (re)adopting native livestock varieties. Livestock
feed and nutrition is a priority for both organic and conventional
farmers, with farmers recommending more diverse diets for live-
stock (i.e., corn stalks, water cabbage and sweet potato leaves), as
well as indicating an interest in livestock management trainings.
Spatial and temporal heterogeneity
Organic rice systems scored significantly higher in spatial and
temporal heterogeneity, measured in terms of farm and landscape
heterogeneity, agricultural management practices, quantity of
trees and invasive species, percentage of intercropping, types of
soil observed and presence of perennials. Systems that contain
Table 3. Priority rankings for organic and conventional farming system components
SHARP farming system components Org Con SHARP farming system components Org Con
Crop/livestock insurance 1 2
a
Animal disease control 27 12
a
Livestock feed and nutrition 2 1
a
Soil quality and land degradation 28 33
Aquaculture feed and nutrition 3 18
a
Local farm inputs 29 25
Money-saving methods and facilities 4 3
a
Role in household 30 34
Market prices 5 7
a
Household diet diversity 31 28
Buffer zones 6 5
a
Water conservation 32 22
Buyers 7 4
a
Seed/breed sources 33 32
Government support 8 31 Pest management control 34 20
a
Livestock variety 9 8
a
Livestock breeding 35 38
(Para)veterinary access 10 19
a
Weed species management 36 39
Sellers 11 24 Responses to disturbances 37 23
Financial support 12 9
a
Diversity of income sources 38 41
Land access 13 6
a
Leguminous plants 39 27
Access to local markets 14 14
a
Energy conservation 40 35
Intercropping 15 11
a
Household decision making 41 46
Market information access 16 17
a
Information and communication technologies 42 51
Trust and cooperation 17 10
a
Diversity of production activities 43 37
Record keeping 18 16
a
Energy sources 44 48
Trees and agroforestry 19 15
a
Crop variety 45 42
Synthetic/natural fertilizers 20 13
a
Land management practices 46 36
Customary rules on climate change and agriculture 21 43 Group membership 47 47
Combination of traditional and modern species 22 29 Info on climate change, cropping practices, weather 48 49
Water access 23 44 Previous collective action 49 45
Water quality 24 40 Diversity of assets 50 50
Non-farm income-generating activities 25 30 Infrastructure 51 52
Mitigate crop/livestock losses 26 21 Synthetic pesticides 52 26
a
Demarks top 20 priorities for conventional farmers.
8 Amber Heckelman et al.
spatial and temporal heterogeneity often contain more patches for
recovery and nutrient restoration, and greater instances of renewal
following disturbances (Cabell and Oelofse, 2012). Organic farm-
ers implement more farm and landscape management practices
that create a greater degree of temporal heterogeneity (6.1),
such as rotating crops, fallowing land and establishing wind
breaks/hedges. Organic rice systems also contain a higher per-
centage of intercrops (6.6). Both agroforestry and intercropping
were identified as priorities for both organic and conventional
farmers, and proposed interventions were discussed earlier.
Exposed to disturbance
There were no significant differences between organic and conven-
tional rice systems for the exposed to disturbance indicator, suggest-
ing both rice systems experience comparable levels of small-scale
disturbances. Measured in terms of exposure to invasive species
and climate-related disturbances, such as temperature and rainfall
variability, unusual disease and pest infestation, as well as conflict
and livestock raiding. Livestock breeding practices, buffer zones
and reliance on local species were also considered as features that
provide enhance resistance. Exposure to disturbance helps to
increase resilience over time by allowing a system to develop
mechanisms for coping and recovering from change (Cabell and
Oelofse, 2012).Organicricesystemscontainsignificantlymore
native species/varieties (7.5) which have potentially adapted to
changes overtime in the region. To improve responses and resilience
to disturbance, farmers expressed interest in identifying and adopt-
ing climate resilient crop varieties, particularly drought-resistant var-
ieties, as well as documenting and adjusting the crop cycle to the
changing weather patterns and using water management strategies
to mitigate invasive species. Farmers also expressed interest in an
orientation on disaster and risk reduction management.
Coupled with local natural capital
Organic rice systems scored significantly higher for the ‘coupled
with local natural capital’indicator, measured in terms of land,
soil and water quality; land improving practices, energy conserva-
tion and resource recycling; as well as pesticide use, tree planting
and animal disease control practices. A system that is coupled
with local natural capital engages in responsible use of local
resources which subsequently encourages a system to live within
its means and recycle waste (Cabell and Oelofse, 2012). Organic
rice systems scored higher in land quality (8.1); land improving
practices (8.3), such as planting more nitrogen fixing legumes
and using natural fertilizers; and water recycling and conservation
practices (8.5). However, scores for organic rice systems were lower
for soil and water quality (8.2), indicating that organic farmers
reported more soil degradation and water quality problems than
their conventional neighbors. This inconsistency could be a result
of organic farmers being more attentive to ecological conditions
due to their reliance on ecosystem services. Organic systems
avoid using pesticides, subsequently reducing the accumulation
of hazardous waste in the region (8.6), and use more environmen-
tally friendly animal disease control methods (8.8).
Reflective and shared learning
There were no significant differences between organic and con-
ventional rice systems for the reflective and shared learning indi-
cator, suggesting both groups of farmers engage in comparable
amounts of knowledge exchange for the purposes of improving
local knowledge and capacities for building and enhancing resili-
ence. Measured in terms of group participation, response to cli-
mate change, use of extension services, record keeping practices
and sources of knowledge on the environment and agriculture
—reflective and shared learning provides people and institutions
and opportunity to learn from the past and from each other
(Cabell and Oelofse, 2012). At the sub-component level, organic
systems scored significantly higher in record keeping (9.4). Both
groups of farmers identify record keeping as a priority and recom-
mended creating a unified form and mechanism for generating
and maintaining a record of cropping calendars, pests, weather
conditions, and other related changes and disturbances farmers
are experiencing and responding to.
Globally autonomous and locally interdependent
There were no significant differences between organic and conven-
tional rice systems for the globally autonomous and locally inter-
dependent indicator. Although it is impossible for farming systems
to be entirely globally autonomous, a greater degree of local inter-
dependence has the potential to make systems less vulnerable to
forces that are outside of its control, as well as facilitates collaboration
and cooperation rather than competition (Cabell and Oelofse, 2012).
To measure autonomy and interdependence, we looked at whether
farmers were engaged in direct selling/trading to consumers and dir-
ect buying/trading with producers; relied on local farm inputs, pre-
vious collective action, local species, local energysources orchemical
inputs; have the ability to breed animals at the local level and practice
animal disease control; and have access to local markets. At the sub-
component level, organic systems rely on more local crop and live-
stock varieties (10.6). They also avoid chemical inputs (10.10) that
are externally produced, and often imported and made available to
farmers commercially. Both organic and conventional farmers
have indicated access to local markets is a priority, and identified
niche markets as a possible solution for increasing market access.
In this regard, farmers recommended producing and selling organic
fertilizers, and developing marketing strategies that target consumers
with a higher level of health awareness. Many farmers also clarified
that sugarcane, fruits and vegetables require access to the market,
while rice is often produced and consumed for household consump-
tion. Both sets of farmers also identified animal disease control as a
priority, and indicated an interest in studying and producing herbal
crops for the purposes of animal disease control (also see Functional
and response diversity).
Honors legacy
Organic rice systems scored significantly higher in the honors leg-
acy indicator, measured by the participation of elders, sources of
agricultural learning, use of traditional activities, preservation of
traditional knowledge and knowledge of tree products for house-
hold and farm purposes, such as medicinal remedies and crop
protection. A system that honors legacy embodies biological and
cultural memory that guide the trajectory of a system based on
past conditions and experiences (Cabell and Oelofse, 2012).
Organic farmers engage in more traditional activities (11.3) and
indicated an awareness of more traditional knowledge (or stories)
related to climate change (11.4). Farmers recommend generating
mechanisms for involving children in farm activities, facilitating
knowledge and resource sharing within and between communi-
ties, and recruiting young people who have the knowledge and
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 9
capacity to document and maintain records on cropping calendar,
production practices, weather patterns, and related disturbances
and farmer responses.
Builds human capital
Organic rice systems build significantly more human capital than
their conventional counterparts. A system that builds human capital
mobilizes social relationships and resources that improve household
well-being, economic activity, technology, infrastructure, individual
skills and abilities; and facilitates social organization and norms, as
well as formal and informal networks (Cabell and Oelofse, 2012).
Human capital is measured in terms of household health, knowledge
of land improvement strategies, access to infrastructure, active par-
ticipation in groups, household equality and investment in human
capital. Organic farmers indicated a greater knowledge and applica-
tion of land improvement strategies (12.2). They also reported
greater investments in human capital, such as prioritizing expendi-
tures related to education in their household (12.6). During the
PGA, farmers recommended the adoption of organic farming prac-
tices to reduce health concerns, as well as production costs.
Reasonably profitable
There were no significant differences between organic and conven-
tional rice systems for the reasonably profitable indicator, mea-
sured in terms of financial support, non-farm income-generating
activities, market prices/costs, crop and livestock insurance, and
accumulated assets and savings. Being reasonably profitable allows
farmers to invest in the future, which has the potential of adding
buffering capacity, flexibility and building wealth—all of which
can be used to improve farmers’ability to withstand disturbances
(Cabell and Oelofse, 2012). Both rice systems measured compar-
ably and average scores were the lowest for this indictor. A large
majority of participants do not have crop or livestock insurance
and have identified this as a major priority. Farmers recommended
accessing crop and livestock insurance from the Department of
Agriculture, Philippine crop Insurance Corporation, and lobbying
the local government to subsidize crop and livestock insurance for
its farmers. Both sets of farmers have needed additional financial
support over the past 5 yrs and have relied on non-farm income-
generating activities. Financial support is deemed a priority for
both sets of farmers, and farmers desired additional support
from government organizations and NGOs, a subsidy program
offered through the Land Bank of the Philippines, and loans
from Valley Bank, a rural banking institution known for its micro-
financing endeavors. Another recommendation was for Farmer
Associations to develop income-generating projects and maintain
‘common funds’that members can manage and access as needed.
Very few farmers reported to have financial savings, and both sets
of farmers indicated that money-saving methods and facilities
are needed and should be prioritized. The PGA revealed that farm-
ers struggled to come up with solutions for improving market
prices, and rather expressed frustration with having no control
over the price of their produce. However, farmers did recommend
creating mechanisms for staying informed of market prices (see
Appropriately connected section).
Implications for climate resilience
Our integrative analysis of the SHARP survey scores, priority rank-
ings and PGA explored key areas of variation in climate resilience
between organic and conventional farming systems. It also identi-
fied possible interventions for enhancing climate resilience given
existing socio-ecological conditions and based on farmer knowl-
edge and experience. Our findings indicate that organic rice sys-
tems are more climate resilient than conventional rice systems.
In terms of adaptive capacity, organic rice systems contain higher
crop, farm and landscape diversity. This finding is consistent
with previous research that has associated organic (or alternative)
farming systems with higher levels of agrobiodiversity (see
Medina, 2004;Bachmannetal.,2009;Chappelletal.,2013;
Graddy, 2013). In the context of climate resilience, the implication
of having higher diversity (or a heterogeneity of features) is that
farming systems will have multiple back-ups that improve the cap-
acity to buffer against disturbances, and provide opportunities for
dynamic periods of renewal (Altieri, 1999; Jackson et al., 2007;
Lin, 2011). Secondly, consistent with previously conducted com-
parative studies of organic (or alternative) and conventional farm-
ing systems (see Mendoza, 2010,2014; Lin et al., 2011; Abasolo and
Zamora, 2016), organic rice systems also exhibit a higher potential
for mitigating GHG emissions and environmental degradation, due
to organic farmers engaging in more water conservation practices,
and land and soil improvement measures while also relying less on
external inputs and more on bio-regionally available natural
resources to manage their farms. Such engagements promote eco-
logical regulation and stability (Sundkvist et al., 2005; McKey et al.,
2010), as well as more responsible use of local resources and other
ecosystem services (Ewell, 1999; Robertson and Swinton, 2005;
Naylor, 2009).
Finally, vulnerability appears to be comparable between
organic and conventional rice systems. However, organic systems
contain more household and community mechanisms that can
serve to reduce vulnerability, such as engaging in more internal
coping mechanisms, including self-producing farm inputs (such
as seeds, natural fertilizers, and disease and pest control methods)
and maintaining a record of management practices and trad-
itional knowledge on climate change. Such engagements improve
a system’s ability to build social networks and meet its own needs
by fostering collaboration and cooperation, such as knowledge
and resource exchange (Frossard, 2002; Holt-Giménez, 2002,
2006; Ireland and Thomalla, 2011).
Conventional rice systems, on the other hand, appear to have
better access to institutional and market infrastructure, resulting
in a greater number of sources for chemical fertilizers and partici-
pation in more diverse groups. Conventional farmers are able to
source their fertilizers from shops and direct sellers, and reported
greater participation in credit financing programs (one probable
cause for why conventional farmers reported participation in
more diverse groups). These outcomes and processes are predicated
on existing political economic conditions, vs derived directly and
uniquely from conventional farming systems. Overall, organic rice
systems were more climate resilient due to their greater potential
for enhancing adaptive capacity and mitigation, as well as reducing
vulnerability via household and community support mechanisms.
Our integrative analysis and participatory assessment of rice
systems illustrated challenges to climate resilience. First, inad-
equate land access remains a major barrier to implementing
farm and landscape management practices that enhance climate
resilience, such as establishing buffer zones and agroforestry sys-
tems, as well as implementing fallowing cycles. Aside from
engaging in political advocacy for land reform, farmers recognize
that land access is an issue that is ultimately resolved at the insti-
tutional level.
10 Amber Heckelman et al.
Farmer recommendations for interventions include building
individual, collective and local capacities for enhancing climate
resilience. For instance, many of the suggested solutions for
implementing land and soil improvement measures, augment-
ing crop and livestock diversity, as well as collecting, recording
and sharing information, occur at the farmer household or
community level. Such solutions include self-producing farm
inputs such as botanical foliar sprays and natural fertilizers;
establishing local trial farms to study and produce resilient
crop varieties, and local seedbanks to increase farmer access
to seeds; as well as creating community mechanisms for collect-
ing and exchanging knowledge, information and resources. This
preference for household and community (or local) mechan-
isms for enhancing adaptation, augmenting mitigation and
reducing vulnerability confronts and counters institutional
and industry efforts being made to develop and make available
technological innovations through commercial or market
mechanisms, such as modern seed and breed varieties, as well
as chemical inputs.
However, external provisions are also needed to improve other
farming system components and socio-ecological conditions that
are significant for enhancing resilience, and farmers clearly out-
line in their recommendations what interventions require external
support and services. Aside from land access, farmers identified
(para)veterinary services, crop and livestock insurance, and other
financial support mechanisms, such as subsidies and microfinan-
cing, as interventions that should be provided by the government
and local banking institutions. This suggests that government
organizations and NGOs can better support farmers’efforts to
reduce vulnerability by addressing existing economic conditions
that limit farmers’capacity to invest in the future and buffer
against anticipated climate-related shocks and disturbances.
These farmer recommendations counter the current institutional
trend and tendency to direct government funds for the purposes
of developing technological innovations that are eventually made
available through commercial and market mechanisms.
Conclusion
The results of this case study show a clear difference between the
climate resilience of organic and conventional rice systems.
Although a limited number of indicators show there is little dif-
ference between the two systems in terms of their climate resili-
ence, and at the sub-component level in a few cases
conventional rice systems are more resilient, the majority of indi-
cators suggest that organic rice systems are overall more climate
resilient than their conventional counterparts. Based on farmer
insights and recommendations from our survey, interventions
that require external support and services from researchers, gov-
ernment organizations and NGOs are needed to enhance adaptive
capacity, augment mitigation potential and reduce the vulnerabil-
ity of rice systems in the Philippines. Further insight could be
achieved by engaging in a longitudinal study and incorporating
supplemental analyses that measure additional biophysical and
socio-economic conditions. Additional study of the evolution of
the competing definitions and visions of the organic movement
in the Philippines is also required to give more context to the
diversity of organic production methods within the region.
Supplementary material. The supplementary material for this article can
be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170517000709
Acknowledgements. This project would not have been possible without the
work of the FAO-SHARP team, and the technical support provided by Daniele
Conversa and David Colozza. Major acknowledgments go to Charito Medina,
Former National Coordinator of MASIPAG and Ted Mendoza, University of
Philippines-Los Baños for guidance throughout research development and
fieldwork. Special thanks to Emily Cordero-Guara, Juvelyn Genol, Elmie
Gonzaga, Anabelle Espinosa, Analyn Mirano and Mardie Mangcao with
Paghida-it sa Kauswagan Development Group, and Marie Austria and Jessa
Abejo, for providing research assistance. Finally, our deepest gratitude to all
of the participating farmers for their patience and willingness to share their
knowledge and experiences.
References
Abasolo AO and Zamora OB (2016) Agro-environmental sustainability of
conventional and organic vegetable production systems in Tayabas, Quezon,
Philippines. Journal of Environmental Science and Management 19(1), 58–71.
Altieri MA (1999) The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 74(1–3), 19–31. doi: 10.1016/
S0167-8809(99)00028-6.
Altieri MA, Nicholls C and Funes F (2012) The scaling up of agroecology:
spreading the hope for food sovereignty and resiliency. A contribution to
discussions at Rio, 20.
Altoveros N. and Borromeo T (2007) Country Report on the State of Plant
Genetic Resources for Food & Agriculture of the Philippines (1997–2006).
Philippine Department of Agriculture Bureau of Plant Industry. Available
at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1500e/Philippines.pdf (Accessed 18
September 2017).
Bachmann L, Cruzada E and Wright S (2009) Food Security and Farmer
Empowerment: A Study of the Impacts of Farmer-led Sustainable
Agriculture in the Philippines. Los Baños: Masipag-Misereor.
Bacon C, deVuono-Powell S, Frampton ML, LoPresti T and Pannu C (2013)
Introduction to empowered partnerships: community-based participatory
action research for environmental justice. Environmental Justice 6(1), 1–8.
doi: 10.1089/env.2012.0019.
Barrett CB and Constas MA (2014) Toward a theory of resilience for inter-
national development applications. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences 111(40), 14625–14630.
Bennett EM, Cumming GS and Peterson GD (2005) A systems model
approach to determining resilience surrogates for case studies. Ecosystems
8(8), 945–957. doi: 10.1007/s10021-005-0141-3.
Birkmann J and Welle T (2016) The world risk index 2016: reveals the neces-
sity for regional cooperation in vulnerability reduction. Journal of Extreme
Events 3(2), 1–21.
Blesh J and Wittman H (2015) ‘Brasilience’: assessing resilience in land
reform settlements in the Brazilian Cerrado. Human Ecology 43(4),
531–546. doi: 10.1007/s10745-015-9770-0.
Broad R and Cavanagh J (2012) The development and agriculture paradigms
transformed: reflections from the small-scale organic rice fields of the
Philippines. The Journal of Peasant Studies 39(5), 1181–1193.
Cabell JF and Oelofse M (2012) An indicator framework for assessing agro-
ecosystem resilience. Ecology and Society 17(1), 18–13. doi: 10.5751/ES-
04666-170118.
Carpenter S, Walker B, Anderies J and Abel N (2001) From metaphor to
measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems 4(8), 765–781.
Carpenter SR, Bennett EM and Peterson GD (2006) Scenarios for ecosystem
services: an overview. Ecology and Society 11(1), 29.
Chappell MJ, Wittman H, Bacon CM, Ferguson BG, Barrios LG, Barrios RG,
Jaffee D, Lima J, Ernesto V, Méndez HM and Soto-Pinto L (2013) Food
sovereignty: an alternative paradigm for poverty reduction and biodiversity
conservation in Latin America. F1000Research 2,1–18.
Choptiany J, Graub B, Dixon J and Phillips S (2015) Self-evaluation and
Holistic Assessment of Climate Resilience of Farmers and Pastoralists
(SHARP). Rome: FAO, p. 155.
Darnhofer I, Bellon S, Dedieu B and Milestad R (2010) Adaptiveness to
enhance the sustainability of farming systems: a review. Agronomy for
Sustainable Development 30(3), 545–555. doi: 10.1051/agro/2009053.
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 11
Darnhofer I, Gibbon D and Dedieu B (2012) Farming systems research: an
approach to inquiry. In Farming Systems Research into the 21st century:
The new dynamic. Netherlands: Springer, pp. 3–31.
Dixon J, Gulliver A and Gibbon D (2001) Farming Systems and
Poverty: Improving Farmers’Livelihoods in a Changing World and
Poverty. Rome: FAO and Washington, DC: World Bank.
Ewell JJ (1999) Natural systems as models for the design of sustainable systems
of land use. Agroforestry Systems 45(1–3), 1–21. doi: 10.1023/
A:1006219721151.
FAOSTAT database (2017) Country Indicators: Philippines. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available at: http://www.
fao.org/faostat/en/#country/171 (Accessed on 7th June 2017).
Frossard D. 2002. How farmer-scientist cooperation is devalued and revalued:
a Philippine example. In: Cleveland DA and Soleri D (eds). Farmers,
Scientists and Plant Breeding: Integrating Knowledge and Practice.
London, UK: CAB International Publishing, pp. 137–159.
Graddy TG (2013) Situating in situ: a critical geography of agricultural bio-
diversity conservation in the Peruvian Andes and beyond. Antipode 46
(2), 426–454. doi: 10.1111/anti.12045.
Guzmán GI, López D, Román L and Alonso AM (2013) Participatory action
research in agroecology: building local organic food networks in Spain.
Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37(1), 127–146.
Harris NL, Brown S, Hagen SC, Saatchi SS, Petrova S, Salas W, Hansen MC,
Potapov PV and Lotsch A (2012) Baseline map of carbon emissions from
deforestation in tropical regions. Science 336, 1573–1576.
Harvey CA, Chacón M, Donatti CI, Garen E, Hannah L, Andrade A,
Bede L, Brown D, Calle A, Chara J and Clement C (2013)
Climate-smart landscapes: opportunities and challenges for integrating
adaptation and mitigation in tropical agriculture. Conservation Letters 7
(2), 77–90. doi: 10.1111/conl.12066.
Holt-Giménez E (2002) Measuring farmers’agroecological resistance after
hurricane mitch in Nicaragua: a case study in participatory, sustainable
land management impact monitoring. Agriculture Ecosystems &
Environment 93,87–105.
Holt-Giménez E (2006) Campesino a Campesino: Voices from Latin America’s
Farmer to Farmer Movement for Sustainable Agriculture. Oakland, CA:
Food First books.
Ireland P and Thomalla F (2011) The role of collective action in enhancing
communities’adaptive capacity to environmental risk: an exploration of
two case studies from Asia. PLoS Currents 3. [online] Available at: https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3202516/ (Accessed 25 June 2017).
Jackson LE, Pascual U and Hodgkin T (2007) Utilizing and conserving agro-
biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment 121(3), 196–210. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2006.12.017.
Kindon S, Pain R and Kesby M (2007) Participatory Action Research
Approaches and Methods. New York: Routledge.
Kreft S, Eckstein D and Melchior I (2017) Global Climate Risk Index 2017.
Who Suffers Most from Extreme Weather Events? Weather-related Loss
Events in 2015 and 1996 to 2015. Bonn, Germany: Germanwatch
Nord-Süd Initiative eV., pp. 1–31.
Lin B, Chappell MJ, Vandermeer J, Smith G, Quintero E, Bezner-Kerr R,
Griffith D, Ketcham S, Latta S, McMichael P, McGuire KL, Nigh R,
Rocheleau D, Soluri J and Perfecto I (2011) Effects of industrial agricul-
ture on climate change and the mitigation potential of small-scale
agro-ecological farms. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture,
Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 6(20), 1–18.
Lin BB (2011) Resilience in agriculture through crop diversification: adaptive
management for environmental change. BioScience 61(3), 183–193. doi:
10.1525/bio.2011.61.3.4.
Loft L, Pham TT, Wong GY, Brockhaus M, Le DN, Tjajadi JS and Luttrell C
(2017) Risks to REDD+: potential pitfalls for policy design and implemen-
tation. Environmental Conservation 44(1), 44–55.
Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG)
(2017) About MASIPAG. [Online]. Available at http://masipag.org/about-
masipag/ (Accessed 15 September 2017).
Manila Observatory (2005) Climate- and Weather-Related Risk Maps.
[Online]. Available at http://vm.observatory.ph/cw_maps.html (Accessed
8 August 2017).
McIntyre BD, Herren HR, Wakhungu J and Watson RT, editors. (IAASTD)
(2009) Agriculture at a Crossroads: International Assessment of Agricultural
Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD): Global
Report. Washington, D.C., USA: Island Press.
McKey D, Rostain S, Iriarte J, Glaser B, Birk JJ, Holst I and Renard D
(2010) Pre-Columbian agricultural landscapes, ecosystem engineers, and
self-organized patchiness in Amazonia. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 107(17), 7823–7828. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0908925107.
Medina C (2004) The periphery as the center for biodiversity conservation.
Currents 35(36), 67–71.
Medina C (2009) Empowering small rice farmers: the MASIPAG approach.
PAN AP (Pesticide Action Network Asia & The Pacific) Rice Sheet, PAN AP.
Medina C (2012) Rice: crop breeding using farmer-led participatory plant
breeding. In van Buren EL and Myers J (eds). Organic Crop Breeding.
Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 191–202.
Mendoza T (2010) Organic agriculture: the logical sequence to modern chem-
ical agriculture in the Philippine context. Annals of Tropical Research 32(1),
112–129.
Mendoza T (2014) Reducing the carbon footprint of sugar production in the
Philippines. Journal of Agricultural Technology 10(1), 289–308.
Miller F, Osbahr H, Boyd E, Thomalla F, Bharwani S, Ziervogel G,
Walker B, Birkmann J, Van der Leeuw S, Rockström J and Hinkel J
(2010) Resilience and vulnerability: complementary or conflicting concepts?
Ecology and Society 15(3) [Online]. Available at http://www.ecologyandso-
ciety.org/vol15/iss3/art11/ (Accessed 7 June 2017).
Naylor RL (2009) Managing food production systems for resilience. In
Chapin FS, Kofinas GP and Folke C (eds). Principles of Ecosystem
Stewardship: Resilience-based Natural Resource Management in a
Changing World. New York, New York, USA: Springer, pp. 259–280. doi:
10.1007/978-0-387-73033-2_12.
Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) (2017a) CountrySTAT Philippines:
Philippine Agriculture in Figures, 2015. Available at: http://countrystat.psa.
gov.ph/?cont=3 (Accessed 12
th
June 2017).
Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) (2017b) Farmers, Fishermen and
Children consistently posted the highest poverty incidence among basic sectors
for 2015. Available at: https://psa.gov.ph/poverty-press-releases (Accessed
12
th
June 2017).
Philippines News Agency (2017) DA targets more organic agriculture areas in
Negros. Manilla Bulletin. [Online]. July 29, 2017. Available at: http://news.
mb.com.ph/2017/07/29/da-targets-more-organic-agriculture-areas-in-neg-
ros/ (Accessed 18 September 2017).
Raboin ML and Posner JL (2012) Pine or pasture? Estimated costs and
benefits of land use change in the Peruvian Andes. Mountain Research
and Development 32(2), 158–168. doi: 10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-10-
00099.1.
Reed MS, Evely AC, Cundill G, Fazey I, Glass J, Laing A, Newig J, Parrish B,
Prell C, Raymond C and Stringer LC. (2010) What is social learning?
Ecology and Society 15(4), r1. Available at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.
org/vol15/iss4/resp1/ (Accessed 18
th
September 2017).
Robertson GP and Swinton SM (2005) Reconciling agricultural productivity
and environmental integrity: a grand challenge for agriculture. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment 3(1), 38–46.
Rusinamhodzi L, Corbeels M, van Wijk MT, Rufino MC, Nyamangara J
and Giller KE (2011) A meta-analysis of long-term effects of conservation
agriculture on maize grain yield under rain-fed conditions. Agronomy for
Sustainable Development 31, 657–673.
Salazar RC (2014) Going organic in the Philippines: social and institutional
features. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 38(2), 199–229. doi:
10.1080/21683565.2013.833155.
Stone G and Glover D (2017) Disembedding grain: golden rice, the green
revolution, and heirloom seeds in the Philippines. Agriculture and
Human Values 35(1), 87–102.
Sundkvist A, Milestad R and Jansson AM (2005) On the importance of tigh-
tening feedback loops for sustainable development of food systems. Food
Policy 30(2), 224–239. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2005.02.003.
Tanner T, Lovell E, Pichon F, Bahadur AV and Morsi H (2016) Resilience
Scan January–March 2016: A Review of Literature, Debates and Social
Media Activity on Resilience. London: ODI.
12 Amber Heckelman et al.
Thornton TF and ManasfiN (2010) Adaptation—genuine and spurious: demys-
tifying adaptation processes in relation to climate change. Environment and
Society: Advances in Research 1(1), 132–155. doi: 10.3167/ares.2010.010107.
Tubiello FN, Salvatore M, Rossi S, Ferrara A, Fitton N and Smith P (2013)
The FAOSTAT database of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture.
Environmental Research Letters 8,1–10.
United Nations University, & Alliance Development Works (UNU & ADW)
(2014) World Risk Report 2014. Available at: http://www.ehs.unu.edu/file/
get/11895.pdf (Accessed 13th May 2017).
Unruh JD (2008) Carbon sequestrationin Africa: the land tenureproblem. Global
Environmental Change 18(4), 700–707. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.008.
Van Groenigen KJ, Van Kessel C and Hungate BA (2013) Increased
greenhouse-gas intensity of rice production under future atmospheric con-
ditions. Nature Climate Change 3(3), 288–291.
Vidal J (2014) Philippine experts divided over climate change action. The
Guardian: Food Security. April 8, 2014. Available at: https://www.
theguardian.com/global-development/2014/apr/08/philippine-experts-
divided-climate-change-action (Accessed 20th September 2017).
Walker B, Holling CS, Carpenter S and Kinzig A (2004) Resilience, adapt-
ability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and
Society 9(2). [Online]. Available at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/
iss2/art5/ (Accessed 25 June 2017).
Willer H and Lernoud J (2017) The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics
and Emerging Trends. Frick and Bonn: FiBL & IFOAM –Organics
International (2017). Available at: https://shop.fibl.org/CHen/mwdown-
loads/download/link/id/785/?ref=1 (Accessed 20th September 2017).
Yumul GP, Cruz NA, Servando NT and Dimalanta CB (2011) Extreme wea-
ther events and related disasters in the Philippines, 2004–08: a sign of what
climate change will mean? Disasters 35(2), 362–382. doi: 10.1111/
j.0361-3666.2010.01216.x.
Yusuf AA and Francisco H (2010) Hotspots. Mapping Climate Change
Vulnerability in Southeast Asia. Singapore: IRSA.
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 13
