Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Socioecological analysis of smallholder farming systems in the Philippines : identifying multi-scalar… Heckelman, Amber 2019

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2019_september_heckelman_amber.pdf [ 5.17MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0379257.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0379257-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0379257-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0379257-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0379257-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0379257-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0379257-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0379257-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0379257.ris

Full Text

A SOCIOECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF SMALLHOLDER FARMING SYSTEMS IN THE PHILIPPINES: IDENTIFYING MULTI-SCALAR PATHWAYS AND BARRIERS TO RESILIENCE by    Amber Heckelman  M.S., Washington State University, 2012 M.A., Washington State University, 2012 B.A., The University of California-Irvine, 2002   A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF  THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF    DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY  in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES  (Integrated Studies in Land and Food Systems)    THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  (Vancouver)    May 2019    ã Amber Heckelman, 2019   ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the dissertation entitled:  Socioecological Analysis of Smallholder Farming Systems in the Philippines: Identifying Multi-scalar Pathways and Barriers to Resilience   submitted by Amber Heckelman  in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Integrated Studies in Land and Food Systems  Examining Committee: Hannah Wittman Supervisor  Sean Smukler Supervisory Committee Member  Leonora Angeles Supervisory Committee Member Terre Satterfield University Examiner Peter Dauvergne University Examiner   Additional Supervisory Committee Members:  Supervisory Committee Member  Supervisory Committee Member        iii Abstract  Climate change poses serious threats to agriculture. The Philippines is one of the foremost countries impacted by climate change, with extensive coastlines, high population density and heavy dependence on agriculture. Many smallholders are struggling to cope with intensified typhoons, changing rain patterns, floods, droughts, as well as temperature and sea-level rise. As a primary staple crop embedded in the socioecological fabric of the Philippines, rice systems are of particular significance to resilience building efforts. This dissertation engages in a socioecological analysis of smallholder farming systems within the Philippine rice sector, with the broader aim to identify multi-scalar pathways and barriers to building climate resilience.  Drawing on fieldwork conducted between August-December 2016, this dissertation shares the results of a comparative assessment of organic and conventional rice systems located in Negros Occidental Province, an institutional analysis of the organic transition currently underway in the Philippines, and an exploration of a grassroots farmer-led network and their polycentric food sovereignty development approach. Primary data was collected via surveys, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, farmer interviews, and participant observation.  My findings suggest that participating organic rice systems are more climate resilient than their conventional counterparts. Despite increased institutional support for organic agriculture, institutional arrangements remain largely oriented toward promoting Green Revolution technologies; obstructing the speed and scale of organic transition and limiting smallholder capacities for building resilience. To overcome adverse socioecological conditions, smallholders have organized into a polycentric network to implement food sovereignty initiatives that increase  iv farmer control over agricultural resources. This bottom-up and multi-scalar development approach has helped smallholders across the Philippines transition to diversified organic systems, as well as enhanced local capacities for resilience building. The evidence presented here suggests that enhancing smallholder resilience in the Philippines requires improving the socioecological conditions for farmers to engage in adaptation and mitigation strategies, as well as community development efforts to reduce their vulnerabilities. To this end, agricultural policy, development agencies, and researchers must work towards capacity building alongside farmers to regenerate agrobiodiversity and locally available resources, facilitate social learning and collective action, as well as address the root causes of their political economic marginalization.     v Lay Summary Agriculture is both affected by and contributes to climate change related crises. However, agriculture is not homogenous, as farmers employ a range of conventional or alternative management practices, subsequently affecting the degree to which a farming system is both impacted by and contributes to climate change. Additionally, farmers across the globe are often part of marginalized sectors of society that disproportionately experience hunger, poverty, and limited access to resources. Such challenges affect farmer capacities for adapting to and mitigating climate change, resulting in their particular vulnerability to the climate crisis. Three measures – adaption, mitigation, and vulnerability reduction – determine a farmer’s resilience to climate change.  To explore the resilience outcomes of different types of farming systems and identify the necessary conditions and factors for enhancing farmer resilience, this dissertation evaluates conventional and alternative agricultural development approaches currently underway in the Philippines.     vi Preface This dissertation reports on a research project titled “Agricultural Resilience in the Philippines: A socioecological analysis of agroecological and conventional rice systems” that was approved by UBC’s Behavioural Research Ethics Board (UBC BREB Number: H16-00900).  I was primarily responsible for all areas of overall research conception and design, theoretical framing, field data collection and analysis, and manuscript composition.  The research conception, as well as some of the data collection and analysis, was a collaborative effort that also involved Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura (Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development) and Paghida-et sa Kauswagan Development Group (Peace Development Group). Hannah Wittman, Sean Smukler, and Leonora Angeles acted in the typical roles of supervisory committee members, providing input on research design, theoretical framing, analysis, and manuscript preparation.   All five chapters of this dissertation were initially written as stand-alone papers for publication in academic journals. As such, there is some repetition across the chapters, particularly with respect to describing the challenges posed by climate change, contextualizing the Philippine agrarian sector, and laying out my theoretical framework and methodological approach.  Some of the content in Chapter 1 is partially derived from a manuscript that I co-authored with Hannah Wittman. The manuscript was published as a research workshop chapter in the Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies [Heckelman, A., and Wittman, H. (2015). Food Sovereignty: A framework for assessing agrarian responses to climate change in the Philippines. ASEAS – Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies, 8(1), 87-9].   vii All of the content in Chapter 2 is derived from a manuscript that I co-authored with Sean Smukler and Hannah Wittman, acting in their typical roles as committee members to provide input on research design, data analysis, and manuscript preparation. The manuscript was published in a special issue on “Agri/Food Systems and Climate” in the Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems journal [Heckelman, A., Smukler, S., and Wittman, H. (2018). Cultivating climate resilience: a participatory assessment of organic and conventional rice systems in the Philippines. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 33(03), 225–237]. The published manuscript has been lightly modified to satisfy the required dissertation format.  Some of the content in Chapter 5 is derived from a sole-authored manuscript submitted as a research brief for the 2018 Place-Based Food Systems Conference Proceedings that is to be published in the Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development. The manuscript was accepted on May 13, 2019.     Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ................................................................................................................................ v Preface ........................................................................................................................................... vi Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... viii List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. xiii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. xiv Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... xvi Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The climate crisis and agriculture ......................................................................................... 2 1.3 Agrarian responses to climate change ................................................................................... 3 1.4 The Philippine Islands ........................................................................................................... 5 1.5 Significance of Rice .............................................................................................................. 6 1.6 Research Objectives .............................................................................................................. 7 1.7 Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................................... 9 1.7.1 Resilience ....................................................................................................................... 9 1.7.2 Socioecological Systems .............................................................................................. 12  ix 1.7.3 Political Ecology .......................................................................................................... 14 1.8 Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 15 1.8.1 Participatory Research Approach ................................................................................ 15 1.8.2 Case Study ................................................................................................................... 17 1.8.3 Site Selection ............................................................................................................... 18 1.8.4 Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 22 1.8.5 Research Positionality .................................................................................................. 27 1.9 Structure of the dissertation ................................................................................................ 29 Chapter 2: Cultivating Climate Resilience: A participatory assessment of organic and conventional rice systems in the Philippines ............................................................................ 31 2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 31 2.1.1 Defining climate resilience .......................................................................................... 34 2.1.2 Measuring climate resilience ....................................................................................... 36 2.2 Methods............................................................................................................................... 40 2.2.1 Study site ...................................................................................................................... 40 2.2.2 Field research ............................................................................................................... 42 2.2.3 Participant evaluators ................................................................................................... 44 2.2.4 SHARP survey ............................................................................................................. 45 2.2.5 Statistical analysis ........................................................................................................ 47 2.2.6 Participatory gap analysis ............................................................................................ 47 2.3 Results and discussion ........................................................................................................ 48 2.3.1 Socially self-organized ................................................................................................. 52  x 2.3.2 Ecologically self-regulated .......................................................................................... 52 2.3.3 Appropriately connected .............................................................................................. 53 2.3.4 Functional and response diversity ................................................................................ 54 2.3.5 Optimally redundant .................................................................................................... 55 2.3.6 Spatial and temporal heterogeneity .............................................................................. 56 2.3.7 Exposed to disturbance ................................................................................................ 56 2.3.8 Coupled with local natural capital ............................................................................... 57 2.3.9 Reflective and shared learning ..................................................................................... 57 2.3.10 Globally autonomous and locally interdependent ...................................................... 58 2.3.11 Honors legacy ............................................................................................................ 59 2.3.12 Builds human capital .................................................................................................. 60 2.3.13 Reasonably profitable ................................................................................................ 60 2.3.14 Implications for climate resilience ............................................................................. 61 2.4 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 64 Chapter 3: Organic Transition in the Philippines: Implications for smallholder resilience 66 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 66 3.1.1 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................ 70 3.1.2 Disparate Visions for Philippine Rice Systems: Conventional vs Organic ................. 75 3.2 Methods............................................................................................................................... 78 3.2.1 Data collection ............................................................................................................. 78 3.3 Agrarian transitions in the Philippines 1521-present .......................................................... 80 3.3.1 First Transition: Institutionalizing Traditional Agriculture and Social Inequity ......... 81  xi 3.3.2 Second Transition: Institutionalizing the Green Revolution and Vulnerability .......... 84 3.3.3 Toward a Third Transition: Institutionalizing Organic Agriculture and Resilience? .. 94 3.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 115 Chapter 4: A polycentric food sovereignty approach to peasant resilience ........................ 120 4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 120 4.1.1 Challenges to peasant resilience across the globe ...................................................... 122 4.1.2 Transdisciplinary pathways to peasant resilience ...................................................... 124 4.2 Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 127 4.2.1 Exploring the Polycentric-Food Sovereignty-Resilience Nexus ............................... 128 4.2.2. Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG) .............. 132 4.6 Methods............................................................................................................................. 137 4.7 Results and Discussion ..................................................................................................... 138 4.7.1 Using Local Action and Experimentation to Empower Farmers ............................... 139 4.7.2 Fostering Mutual Adjustment and Trust to support Local Food Systems ................. 145 4.7.3 Establishing Overarching Rules that support Local Ecological Knowledge ............. 149 4.8 Conclusion: Building heterogenous pathways to peasant resilience ................................ 155 Chapter 5: Conclusion: Enhancing Smallholder Resilience ................................................. 161 5.1 Key Findings ..................................................................................................................... 161 5.1.1 Organic rice systems exhibit greater resilience than conventional ............................ 162 5.1.2 The institutional arrangement remains locked in the Green Revolution ................... 162 5.1.3 A polycentric food sovereignty approach builds pathways to resilience ................... 164  xii 5.4 Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 165 5.4 Contributions .................................................................................................................... 166 5.6 Moving Forward ............................................................................................................... 167 5.6.1 Considerations for international development agencies ............................................ 167 5.6.2 Directions for future research .................................................................................... 170 References .................................................................................................................................. 172 Appendices ................................................................................................................................. 204     xiii List of Tables Table 1.1 Summary of data collection methods ............................................................................ 22 Table 2.1: Thirteen agroecosystem indicators for climate resilience ........................................... 39 Table 2.2: Descriptive statistics for participant evaluators (farmers) ........................................... 45 Table 2.3: Priority rankings for organic and conventional farming system components ............. 51 Table 3.1: Key state agencies facilitating agricultural transition in the Philippines ................... 101 Table 3.2: National Programs for Rice Self Sufficiency in the Philippines ............................... 104      xiv List of Figures Figure 1.1 Study site: a) a map of the Philippine Islands with provincial boundaries and Negros Occidental Province shaded in gray; and b) a satellite image showing the topography of the area containing the four villages accounted for in the study. ............................................... 21 Figure 2.1: Defining a farming system and indicators for resilience. (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, I collect information on various processes and outcomes occurring within the natural, institutional and socio-economic environment, as well as at the household, farm and village/community level. ...................................................................................................... 37 Figure 2.2: (a) Map of the Philippines with provincial boundaries, Negros Occidental shaded and study area highlighted; and (b) the distribution of organic and conventional rice systems sampled in the study. ............................................................................................................ 41 Figure 2.3: Organic and conventional mean (x̅) 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. ..................................................................................................... 49 Figure 3.1: Agricultural development paradigms and features of corresponding farm systems.. 68 Figure 3.2: IAD Framework adapted to explore exogenous and structural features significant to smallholder farming systems. ............................................................................................... 71 Figure 4.1: Peasant capacities to enhance adaptation and mitigation, as well as reduce vulnerability to climate change are contingent upon a number of socioecological factors and conditions.  Identifying socioecological factors and conditions necessary for enhancing  xv peasant capacities to engage in all three measures, may illuminate pathways to peasant resilience. ............................................................................................................................ 121 Figure 4.2: Linking features of a polycentric food sovereignty development approach to features of peasant resilience: (a) polycentric systems that implement (b) food sovereignty initiatives create the socioecological factors and conditions necessary for enhancing c) peasant resilience. ............................................................................................................................ 131    xvi Acknowledgements This work would have not been possible without the contribution of so many. First and foremost, I would like to express my utmost gratitude to my advisor Hannah Wittman, one of the leading thinkers on food sovereignty and whose work I have long admired. I feel fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with her, as she has challenged me to be a better analyst and writer. I would also like to thank Nora Angeles and Sean Smukler for providing guidance throughout all stages of this project. Nora has been instrumental in deepening my grasp of the Philippine agrarian context, while Sean has broadened my understanding of agroecology. Their combined expertise helped to ensure this project made meaningful contributions to the discourse on food sovereignty, Philippine peasants, and resilience.  I am also grateful for M. Jahi Chappell’s long-time mentorship, as our conversations during my graduate student career were not only instructive but also a source of confidence. Maraming salamat (many thanks) to Charito Medina and Ted Mendoza as well for their gracious hospitality during my visits to the Philippines. They too served as significant mentors and guides, providing insights that helped ensure this project stayed relevant and meaningful to the smallholder sector in the Philippines.  Major acknowledgments go to Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura for their collaboration on this work and for hosting me during my visits to Laguna; Paghida-et sa Kauswagan Development Group for providing research assistance, living quarters, as well as sharing their office with me during my stay in Negros Occidental; and the Philippine Rice Research Institute in Negros for showing me the various projects they are undertaking, as well as  xvii providing me with a place to stay during my visits. Because of everyone’s graciousness, my extended stays and travels throughout the Philippines were a great pleasure. Much appreciation to the presiding Governor of Negros Occidental, Alfredo Marañon for meeting with me and extending an invitation for me to attend the 2016 Negros Island Region Organic Summit. Thank you also to the FAO-SHARP team for providing technical support in adapting the SHARP survey tool (version 1.9.0) for the Philippine context. My deepest gratitude goes out to all of the participating farmers for their patience and willingness to share their knowledge and experience; as well as to the late attorney Ben Ramos, and all other agrarian reform lawyers, community development workers, leaders and activists who have committed their lives to empowering and uplifting the lives of resource-poor farmers. None of this work would have been possible without the funding provided by the Bullitt Environmental Fellowship, the Mary and David Macaree Fellowship, the UBC Public Scholars Initiative, the Liu Scholars’ Bottom Billion Award, the Walter Jeffrey Memorial Fellowship, and the Richard Claxton Palmer Scholarship. Receiving these awards not only provided the necessary funding support to carry out this dissertation, but also served as a mobilizing force for me.  I am also indebted to the many friends and colleagues that I have made at UBC. Special thanks to Hannah’s Food Sovereignty Research Group and the members of the Philippine Studies Series, as their interests, passions, and curiosity has helped me to cultivate a richer understanding  xviii of the world, while their friendship and collegiality provided me with much support during this intellectual and life journey.  Finally, I would like to especially thank my family for enduring my absence as I pursued a doctorate degree and for their unwavering love, support, and confidence in me.    xix           To MASIPAG, for occupying the frontlines of  agrobiodiversity, food security, sustainability, and social justice.  May the world continue to learn from your resilience.    1 Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Overview Major reports (De Schutter, 2010; McIntyre et al., 2009; United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 2013), high profile case studies (Altieri and Koohafkan, 2008; Bachmann, Cruzada, and Wright, 2009; Holt-Giménez, 2002), and reviews (Altieri et al., 2012a; Lin et al., 2011) suggest that in order to enhance climate resilience under conditions of limited resources, degrading ecological conditions, and worsening inequalities, the agricultural sector should exhibit high levels of diversity, synergy, recycling, as well as facilitate effective social processes for community empowerment. These studies credit the smallholder farmer sector for building climate resilience through increased use of local varieties, water harvesting, intercropping, agroforestry, soil conservation practices, farmer-breeding practices, and a series of other traditional techniques. However, farm and landscape management practices vary significantly among smallholders, and due to the lack of consensus on how to measure climate resilience, little empirical assessment has been made of the resilience outcomes of different farm and landscape management practices, as well as the socioecological factors that serve to enhance smallholder capacities for building resilience.  This dissertation aims to contribute to the food systems and resilience literature by measuring differences in resilience between smallholder organic and conventional rice systems in the Philippines, as well as evaluating the socioecological conditions and factors that either augment or obstruct smallholder capacities for building resilience. A focus on smallholders is warranted given their substantial role in producing and managing the world’s food and biodiversity  2 respectively (Tscharntke et al., 2012; Barthel et al., 2013; Graeub et al., 2015; Ricciardi et al., 2018). Approximately 83% (475 million) of the world’s farms are smallholder farms (< 2 hectares) occupying 12-24% of agricultural land containing greater crop diversity (Lowder, 2016; Ricciardi et al., 2018). Estimates suggest that 70% of percent of food calories consumed in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa is produced by smallholders (Samberg et al., 2016), and yet many of these farmers are poor, lacking the resources and capital to transform their communities and engage in rural development efforts (IFAD, 2016). In the Philippines, smallholders (< 3 ha) have the highest incidence of poverty (PSA, 2017b) and manage nearly 90 percent of farms, accounting for approximately half of the farmland in the country (PSA, 2015).  1.2 The climate crisis and agriculture Climate change is projected to affect crop production and the livelihoods of rural communities (Easterling et al. 2007), and according to the IPCC (2014), agriculture is a major contributor to the climate crisis. Researchers have suggested that modern industrial agriculture is largely responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions, agrobiodiversity loss, and the degradation of the nitrogen cycle linked to the climate crisis (Rockström et al., 2009; Steffen et al. 2015). This is because the shift toward modern industrial agriculture facilitated a reliance on and subsequent dominance of the fossil fuel and agrochemical industry in the food system (McMichael, 2009b; Patel, 2013). The production and world-wide application of fossil fuel-based inputs, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, have contributed to over 400 marine hypoxic zones worldwide (Diaz and Rosenberg, 2008). Researchers have also suggested that modern industrial agriculture has contributed to agrobiodiversity loss (Shiva, 2012; Ceccarelli, 2012; Montenegro de Wit, 2015), as thousands of traditional rice, corn, and wheat varieties grown in diverse integrated systems were replaced by Green Revolution varieties grown in monocultures (Thrupp, 2000). Although  3 touted for having improved yields, the transition to industrial agriculture made the agricultural landscape more susceptible to pests, disease, climate-related disturbances, market variability, and deteriorating ecosystems (Bennett et al., 2014; Mortensen et al. 2012; Tilman, 2014; Shipanski et al., 2016). These unfavorable outcomes add to the suite of other challenges faced by rural communities, such as demographic change and fragmentation, insecure property and resource rights, environmental conflicts, market failures, inappropriate policies and the erosion of local institutions (Adger et al., 2004; Morton, 2007; Mijatovic et al., 2013).   1.3 Agrarian responses to climate change Agrarian responses to climate change are diverse and representative of competing prescriptions for cultivation (see Fraser et al., 2016; Giraldo and Rosset, 2018). Substantive effort has been made to distinguish modes of production in terms of ‘conventional’ and ‘alternative’ development models, where the former is associated with modern and industrial agricultural systems and the latter with organic and agroecological systems (see Beus and Dunlap, 1990; Rosset and Altieri, 1997; Giraldo and Rosset, 2018).  The conventional or Green Revolution model challenges scientists to develop modern seed varieties (i.e. HYV, hybrids, GMOs) capable of withstanding climate-induced ecological distur-bances such as floods, droughts, and salinization (Fedoroff et al., 2010; Mercer et al., 2012; Mackill et al., 2012; Medina, 2012; Ismail et al., 2013). The process of developing and locally testing modern varieties, and making them available to farmers via commercialization, can take several years. This process is costly, both in terms of the investment required for developing and producing new crop varieties and in terms of their subsequent affordability and accessibility to resource-poor farmers (Perfecto, Vandermeer, and Wright, 2009). There are also significant  4 environmental and health costs associated with applying the chemical inputs required to grow modern seed varieties (Frossard, 2002; Kaur, Kohli, and Jaswal, 2013; Perfecto, Vandermeer, and Wright, 2009; Kesavan and Swaminathan, 2018).  Alternative models for agricultural development have emerged to counter the conventional development model. Often promoted by social movements, alternative development models advocate for diversified organic or agroecological farming systems, applying ecological concepts and principles to the design and management of a farm system (Gliessman, 2007; Vandermeer, 2011).  They also support the preservation of indigenous/traditional seed varieties and place-based knowledge to produce farmer-developed agricultural technologies and innovations, including locally adapted seed varieties (see Bachmann et al., 2009; Mercer et al., 2012; Graddy, 2013). Diversified farming systems have the potential to improve soil quality and carbon sequestration as well as provide farmers, along with their families and communities, with access to diverse and nutrient-rich diets. However, the productive capacity of organic or agroecological smallholder systems has been questioned in terms of their ability to feed growing urban populations, due to reduced access to agricultural inputs, limited labour availability for low-input systems, and other resource constraints (Bello, 2008; Seufert et al., 2012; Reganold and Wachter, 2016; Seufert and Ramankutty, 2017). These contrasting agricultural development approaches have different implications for smallholder farming systems and their capacities for resilience building. I conducted extended fieldwork in the Philippines to explore resilience building processes and outcomes as they are expressed in conventional and alternative agricultural development approaches.  5 1.4 The Philippine Islands There are two reasons why the agricultural context in the Philippines is particularly instructive for understanding the effects of conventional and alternative development models on smallholder capacities for resilience building. First, the Philippines was one of the first countries to institutionalize the Green Revolution in the 1960s, which was followed by the emergence of an organic movement two decades later. Researchers have suggested that the Green Revolution served to “automate food production,” taking it out of the hands of smallholders and placing it within the control of the state (Alvares, 1986), thereby separating farmers from agricultural knowledge development and innovation. The impact of this shift on Philippine smallholders is captured in a statement by Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP): “[l]ocal agricultural knowledge had been replaced by dependence on external inputs, losing thereby indigenous capacities of small farmers to plan his farm work and cope with natural stresses” (2007: 12). Subsequently, an organic movement emerged in the 1980s, led by civil society and non-governmental organizations calling for an end to dependencies on research organizations and external inputs, and mobilizing farmer and community resources to revitalize traditional seeds and management practices that put farmers in control of agricultural resources (Olano, 1993; Frossard, 2002; Bachmann et al., 2009; Sanchez, 2011). By 2010, public sector support for organic agriculture culminated with the passing of the Organic Agriculture Act of 2010 (Republic Act 10068), which mandated local government units to promote organic agriculture.  To date, both agricultural development models persist in the Philippines, shaping the on-going tensions within the Philippine agricultural sector and development discourse (see Altoveros and Borromeo 2007; Rapera et al., 2014; Vidal, 2014; Stone and Glover, 2016), and contributing to  6 an agricultural landscape comprised of conventional and organic production systems (Willer and Lernoud, 2017). Second, the Philippines is one of the foremost countries at risk to climate change (Birkmann and Welle, 2016; Kreft et al., 2017), with all regions in the Philippines ‘very vulnerable’ due to extensive coastlines, high population density, and heavy dependence on agriculture, natural resources and forestry (Yusuf and Francisco, 2010; Mendoza et al., 2014). Although climate interventions have been specifically targeted at the agricultural sector due to its contribution to the economy, food security, as well as greenhouse gas emissions; many Philippine farmers are still struggling to cope with intensified typhoons, changing rain patterns, floods, droughts, and temperature, and sea-level rise (IGES, SEARCA, 2012). Hence, there is a sense of urgency to develop and deploy interventions aimed at enhancing climate resilience.  1.5 Significance of Rice Rice systems are of particular significance in resilience research for a number of reasons. Globally, rice is a principal staple crop and the main staple food for over 89% of the Philippine population (Altoveros and Borromeo, 2007). Approximately 31% (11.84 million people) of the Philippine labor force works in agriculture and are largely rice farmers (or workers). Therefore, any deterioration of rice production systems through climate change would seriously impair food and economic security in the region (Wassmann et al., 2009). Rice systems are also a major contributor to carbon emissions, responsible for 61% of greenhouse gas emissions in the Philippines (FAOSTAT, 2017). However, rice systems are not homogenous. They vary significantly and are often distinguishable as either irrigated or rain-fed, paddy or dryland, upland or lowland, and managed using conventional or alternative modes of agricultural  7 production. Such variations have been shown to demonstrate varying levels of greenhouse gas emissions (Qin et al., 2010; Linquist et al., 2012; Ryu et al., 2012; Skinner et al., 2014). Rice paddies, for example, are one of the most potent sources of human-induced methane, and studies suggest that emissions will intensify with rising temperatures (Van Groenigen et al., 2012). Finally, rice is not only the main staple crop in the Philippines, but it is also a crop that has cultural meaning and significance and has been embedded in the social fabric of the Philippines for centuries (KMP, 2007; Altoveros and Borromeo 2010; Stone and Glover, 2016). In the last six decades, the ways in which rice is grown and the varieties that are grown have changed drastically with the implementation of the Green Revolution, resulting in the transformation of 90 percent of the rice growing area to irrigated paddy systems growing a selection of modern HYVs that required the application of chemical inputs (Estudillo and Otsuka, 2006; Bautista and Javier, 2005; Hayami and Kikuchi, 2007). In the last four decades, however, grassroots farmer-led mobilizations have aimed to revitalize indigenous/traditional rice varieties and the organic agroecological systems from which they are derived (Medina, 2004; Bachmann et al., 2009; Sanchez, 2011; Salazar, 2014; Sahakian et al., 2017). 1.6 Research Objectives Given that the Philippine agricultural sector is crucial for reducing poverty and improving environmental management, and any loss or damage has serious consequences not only on farmers but for the general population in that region, my interest lies in informing the development and deployment of climate interventions in the archipelago. The objectives of this dissertation are to: a) better understand the socioecological conditions that lead to vulnerability in smallholder rice systems; b) examine how a range of agricultural development initiatives are  8 addressing these adverse socioecological conditions; and c) identify pathways and barriers to enhancing smallholder capacities for resilience building. To accomplish these research objectives, I carried out a multi-scalar analysis of agricultural development initiatives on smallholder capacities for resilience building.  I begin with a comparative assessment of the various processes and outcomes occurring at the farming system-level that impact organic and conventional smallholder resilience (see Chapter 2). The specific research questions I explore in that chapter are: What are the current socioecological conditions, community processes, and agricultural practices that characterize organic and conventional rice farmers located in Negros Occidental Province? Are there measurable differences in climate resilience between these organic and conventional rice systems? What are some targeted interventions for enhancing climate resilience identified by both sets of participating farmers? My intention here is to assess the conditions, processes, and outcomes within contrasting organic and conventional systems in Negros Occidental, as well as determine farmer recommendations for climate interventions based on their particular socioecological context. Next, I identify the institutional arrangements that influence smallholder production systems, centering my attention on state-level institutional factors impacting organic transition (Chapter 3). I ask: Why does organic agriculture remain marginal, occupying < 2 percent1 of the agricultural landscape in the Philippines despite four decades of an organic movement, increased institutional support, and accumulating evidence that diversified organic systems enhance                                                1 This number only captures certified organic or in conversion to certified organic. Many more farmers may be using organic practices but are not certified, and therefore are not accounted for in official statistics.   9 smallholder resilience? What state-level institutions are driving/deterring organic transition, including agricultural policies, research and development programs, agricultural training and extension? What are the wider effects of these state-level institutions on smallholder capacities for resilience building? The purpose here is to better understand the institutional levers for agricultural transition, critically analyse state-level mechanisms responsible for the marginal growth of organic agriculture and examine how these structural mechanisms impact smallholder capacities for resilience building.  Finally, I explore a polycentric food sovereignty development approach that is being implemented by a grassroots farmer-led network comprised of resource-poor smallholders, scientists, and NGOs working collectively toward increasing farmer control over agricultural resources through revitalizing local resources, place-based knowledge, and community (or farmer-to-farmer) support mechanisms (Chapter 4). How have existing organic smallholders transitioned/maintained organic agroecological systems in the face of antagonistic development policies and programs in the Philippines? What aspects of a polycentric food sovereignty develop approach may facilitate organic transition and peasant resilience? How and to what extent does such an approach address socioecological conditions and institutional barriers to resilience building? The objective of this chapter is to determine whether a polycentric food sovereignty development approach augments smallholder capacity for resilience building.  1.7 Theoretical Framework 1.7.1 Resilience  The concept of resilience has evolved over time to account for the multidimensional and multi-scalar nature of human-environment relationships. USAID defines resilience as “the ability of  10 people, households, communities, countries, and systems to mitigate, adapt to, and recover from shocks and stresses in a manner that reduces chronic vulnerability and facilitates inclusive growth” (2012). UNDP defines building resilience as “a transformative process of strengthening the capacity of women and men, communities, institutions, and countries to anticipate, prevent, recover, adapt and/or transform from shocks, stresses, and change” (2013: 2). Chaskin et al., describes community capacity as “the interaction of human capital, organizational resources, and social capital existing within a given community that can be leveraged to solve collective problems and improve or maintain the well-being of a given community” (2008: 70). Such definitions demonstrate important consistencies among resilience researchers and practitioners: resilience building is multi-scalar, involving diverse stakeholders at different scales in society; must address various shocks and stresses, as well as transform adverse socioeconomic conditions; and requires strengthening community capacities for social learning and collective action. Although there is no consensus on how to define resilience, agri-food system researchers provide several key insights on how to conceptualize resilient agroecosystems and rural communities.  Given the state of global environmental change, agri-food system researchers suggest farmers should pursue production strategies that enhance both their adaptive capacity and mitigation potential, and that the separation of these activities is sometimes erroneous and problematic for agrarian systems as trade-offs and synergies may occur over different temporal or spatial scales (Thornton and Mansafi, 2010). For instance, the use of agrochemicals may increase yields in the short-term, but at the expense of long-term cumulative contributions to carbon emissions; and the use of agroecological practices may reduce yields over the short-term, but often result in greater  11 productivity and carbon sequestration over the long-term (Rusinamhodzi et al. 2011; Lin, 2011; Harvey et al., 2013).  Vulnerability research has also been identified as key to understanding and building resilience. This is because resilience and vulnerability research are complementary in that the former generally emphasizes ecological-biophysical dynamics, such as ecosystem services, thresholds, and feedbacks; while the later generally focuses on social-political dimensions such as power and inequity that affect the capacity for socioecological systems to engage in activities that enhance adaptation and mitigation potential. Hence, in order to account for the biophysical and social dimensions of global environmental change, Miller et al. (2010) have called for integrating the two concepts. Further, given that the climate crisis is occurring under conditions of worsening global inequities, researchers are also drawing attention to the need for interventions that consider political processes and the distribution of costs, risks, and benefits (Miller et al., 2010). Such concerns over issues of fairness (Paavola and Adger, 2006) have resulted in calls for rights and capacity-based approaches to resilience building (Schlosberg, 2012; Blesh and Wittman, 2015; Shi et al., 2016) to address the dire living conditions, pronounced political marginalization, and economic volatility afflicting rural communities (Barret and Constas, 2014). To this end, researchers have underscored the need to develop community resources, as well as support collective action, social learning, and equity as mechanisms for enhancing “community resilience” (Magis, 2010; Berkes and Ross, 2013).   12 Drawing from these key developments in resilience theory, smallholder resilience is defined in this dissertation as a function of social, ecological, and political integrative processes and outcomes (Cabell and Oelofse, 2012) that enhance adaptive capacity, augment environmental mitigation potential, and reduce the vulnerability of agricultural systems in the face of climate change and rising inequities. Essentially, it is the ability of smallholders to engage in adaptive activities, implement mitigation measures, and reduce their vulnerability to adverse socioecological conditions. As such, a resilient agrarian system should have the capacity to: a) cope with droughts, floods, pests, extreme weather conditions, salinization, and erosion; b) mitigate GHG emissions and ecological degradation; and c) address worsening inequalities, limited resources, social unrest, and economic uncertainty. I use “climate resilience”, “smallholder resilience”, and “peasant resilience” synonymously throughout to refer to “smallholder/peasant climate resilience”. Smallholders in this context explicitly refers to farming systems that are < 3 hectares in size and managed by resource-poor farmers. Peasant is a term used by MASIPAG to link the network and its members to national and international food sovereignty and peasants rights movements aimed at improving the conditions of rural communities, farmers, agricultural laborers, and indigenous peoples (Bachmann et al. 2009; Brenni, 2015).   1.7.2 Socioecological Systems  Although resilience theory offers guidance in identifying outcomes and processes relevant to enhancing smallholder resilience, there remains a paucity of empirical assessments largely due to a lack of consensus on how to measure resilience. In the last few years, however, there has been substantial international effort to identify indicators of resilience and develop methodological tools capable of assessing the resilience of food and farming systems based on these indicators.  13 An important foundation among such efforts has been the reliance on socioecological systems (SES) frameworks to simultaneously consider the ecological, social, governance, and/or economic dimensions of resilience building (see Bergamini et al., 2014; Choptiany et al., 2015; Mijatovic et al., 2013; Rotz and Fraser, 2015).  The adoption of an SES framework in resilience research has come to represent an effort to engage in comprehensive analyses of responses to climate change (Ostrom, 2007). With respect to agriculture, an SES framework makes explicit the multifunctionality of farming systems, capturing biological and biophysical processes, allowing for an analysis of structure and the flows of material and energy over time; as well as social processes that determine the rules and institutions that mediate human behaviour and systems of knowledge (Ostrom and Cox, 2010; Ross and Berkes, 2014). AN SES framework represents “a significant attempt to cross disciplines and build a more comprehensive perspective on human-environment relations” (Fabinyi et al., 2014: 6).  Consistent with this trend, I adopt an SES framework to assess the implications of conventional and alternative development initiatives on smallholder resilience. Although comparative studies between conventional and alternative agrarian systems are prevalent in the wider literature on agriculture, most of these studies have tended to center on assessing particular outcomes, such as production levels, environmental externalities, and financial costs and benefits (see Badgley et al., 2007; Lin, 2011; Pimentel et al., 2005; Seufert et al., 2012; Jacobsen et al. 2013); while neglecting important processes of such systems, such as social organization and advocacy around human rights, environmental justice, and intellectual property rights that potentially mitigate  14 inequity. My conception of smallholder resilience and adoption of an SES framework facilitates the consideration of such previously neglected social, political, and economic processes.  1.7.3 Political Ecology  This dissertation also applies a political ecology lens to its analysis. A combination of ecology and political economy (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987), political ecology is concerned with investigating the impact of capitalist development on species, landscapes and ecosystems; and the social and political implications of environmental protection, conservation, and management (Peet et al., 2011). Central to these investigations is how knowledge is produced and legitimized to frame agricultural problems and its solutions (Stone, 2016), as well as how inequity, specifically concentrated power and wealth, contributes to environmental degradation (Peet et al., 2011).  An actor-oriented political ecology lens, therefore, illuminates the ways key actors (e.g. transnational entities, government agencies, grassroots organizations) shape climate change interventions and resilience building efforts by enabling or constraining production choices, retaining or challenging unequal power relations, and contesting visions of agricultural knowledge and development (Bailey and Bryant, 1997; Peet et al., 2011; Blaikie and Brooksfield, 2015; Stone, 2016).  The theoretical framework applied in this dissertation engages in a multi-scalar and multi-dimensional analysis of the trajectory of smallholder resilience among rice farming communities in the Philippines, drawing on phenomena occurring at the institutional to the household-level. This work answers calls to move beyond household and community-level diagnostics and engage in more critical analysis and the deconstruction of power relations in resilience research (Fabinyi et al., 2014; Blesh and Wittman, 2015).  15 1.8 Methodology 1.8.1 Participatory Research Approach Participatory research approaches offer methodological frameworks to involve community members and stakeholders in the research process (Kindon et al., 2007), which potentially fosters social learning, a critical process and indicator of resilience (Paavola and Adger, 2006; Magis, 2010; Ross and Berkes, 2014).  Calls for inclusion, democratization, and collaboration are all prominent themes in the agri-food system resilience literature (Pimbert, 2018). The idea that farmers should be active participants (versus mere subjects) in climate resilience research is representative of the growing recognition that many farmers have extensive experiential knowledge derived from centuries of accumulated experiences and interaction with the environment held within their communities. The existence of hundreds of thousands of genetic varieties and landraces, for instance, have been attributed to the legacy and ongoing work of farmers (Mercer et al., 2012; Graddy, 2013; Rapera et al. 2014). Although farmers are increasingly identified as important actors, occupying the frontlines for managing agrobiodiversity, sustainability, and food security, they remain one of the most politically marginalized populations (Hart et al., 2015). To account for and mitigate adverse political economic conditions, agri-food system researchers are calling for the involvement of farmers in the research process to ensure fair and transparent processes for identifying agricultural problems and solutions (Thompson and Scoones, 2009; Blesh and Wittman, 2015; Fraser et al., 2016). Essential features of community-based participatory research include a research agenda defined by community partners, community members engaged in the research process, development and promotion of an action plan, and relationships rooted in trust and mutual accountability (Bacon et al., 2013; Guzmán et al., 2013).  16 Informed by these works, this dissertation takes a participatory research approach and involves community members and stakeholders in the research process. Specifically, this project collaborated with the grassroots farmer-led network Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura (Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development, MASIPAG). The Network emerged in the mid-1980s to provide an alternative to the centralization and commercialization of agricultural knowledge and technologies associated with the Green Revolution. MASIPAG is a leftist non-militant organization that subscribes to a bottom-up, dispersed multilevel pattern of governing and employs rural development strategies that are oriented toward local empowerment and increased farmer control over agricultural resources. The research agenda was co-developed with the National Coordinator who indicated during the nascent stages of the project that many MASIPAG farmers were noticing that their organic farms were better off than their neighbors’ conventional farms after experiencing an extreme weather condition or disturbance, such as a flood, drought, or pest infestation. According to the National Coordinator, an investigation into these farmer observations and a comparative assessment of the resilience of organic and conventional farms would be useful and meaningful to MASIPAG. Following preliminary fieldwork and in-person meetings with MASIPAG members that occurred over a three-month period in 2014, a research proposal was drafted and shared with MASIPAG. After conversations and exchanges about the research process with stakeholders – including MASIPAG Board of Trustees, as well as MASIPAG National and Regional staff, Provincial farmer leaders, and participating Farmer Associations – the study was approved and conducted between August-December of 2016 with the support of a team at Paghida-et sa Kauswagan Development Group (Peace Development Group, PDG), a not-for-profit partner organization of MASIPAG.   17 1.8.2 Case Study Given that the concept of resilience is still undergoing rigorous evaluation by scholars, my purpose here is to provide a case study that is both exploratory and evaluative so as to contribute to efforts to refine resilience theory. Much like the accumulation of case studies that “challenged the conventional wisdom and prompted theoretical refinements related to property rights and the prospects for collective action” (Poteete et al., 2010), my intention is to provide a case study that contributes to our understanding of the socioecological factors significant to smallholder resilience. Second, the case study method is often characterized as “an intensive study of a relatively well-bounded phenomenon” (Poteete et al., 2010: 33) that uses “detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information” (Creswell, 2013: 97) to improve understanding of complex processes. Given the complexity of the challenges that farmers face, many of which are exacerbated by the climate crisis, a case study approach allows for a close examination of the multi-scalar and multi-dimensional variables that characterize the experiences of farmers and the socioecological context to which they are embedded.  Third, the accumulation of rich socioecological context enables this dissertation to overcome the tendency to homogenize communities by accounting for heterogeneity in its matched comparison of conventional and organic rice systems located within four neighboring villages. This comparative analysis aims to bring into focus the differences and similarities between the two agricultural management systems, allowing for an interpretation of how parallel processes of change play out in different ways within each system (Collier, 1993).  18 Finally, due to its ability to generate useful data that can contribute to building theory, the case study method is particularly suited for researchers with limited time and resources (Lijphart, 1971), realities that characterize the experience of many graduate students, including myself. That said, although the case study was an appropriate method for this research project, it does have its limitations. Case studies are difficult to replicate, have limited external validity, and are often dismissed as anomalies by scholars more concerned with generalizability than context-dependent knowledge and experience (Poteete et al., 2010; Flyvbjerg, 2011). Unlike experimental methods, case studies lack experimental controls and often account for a multitude of variables making synthesis and comparison to other case studies challenging (Lijphart, 1971; Poteete et al., 2010). This dissertation overcomes the latter challenge in part by adopting methodological frameworks and tools that allow for cross-case analyses, such as the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework (see Chapter 3) and the Self-evaluation and Holistic Assessment of climate Resilience of farmers and Pastoralists (SHARP) survey tool (see Methodological Tools below and Chapter 2), respectively.  1.8.3 Site Selection In 2014, I conducted preliminary fieldwork to select a field site in which to carry out the case study. The process of selecting a field site involved visiting seven rice producing villages located in 4 out of the 16 regions of the Philippines: five potential village sites were recommended and arranged by MASIPAG’s National Coordinator and 2 developed from discussions that took place at a MASIPAG Visayas Regional Meeting and a MASIPAG Climate Change Workshop. Sites that meet the following criteria were included in the study: a) famers have historically, recently, and/or are projected to contend with weather or climate-related disturbances; b) conventional and  19 MASIPAG organic rice systems are situated side-by-side; and c) farmers are receptive to having a researcher return for an extended period to carry out the assessment.  Negros Occidental Province was selected for its historical and current political economic context, as farmers from this province are renowned for their struggle for agrarian reform, as peasant uprisings were often met with violent attacks inflicted by sugar plantation owners wanting to retain their landholdings. The province is also one of the first in the Philippines to commit to going 100 percent organic, allowing for an interesting investigation of new institutions and their potential impact on smallholder organic transition. Such context provides an opportunity to embed my investigation in the political economic conditions that shape farmer capacities for resilience building. Negros Occidental is located in the Western Visayas Region (VI). According to MASIPAG farmers in the village, these rain-fed and irrigated rice systems have historically contended with floods and droughts. Negros Occidental is ranked the 46th most vulnerable out 74 provinces in the Philippines, where vulnerability is “a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate variation to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity” (Yusuf and Francisco, 2010: 5-6). According to the Manila Observatory, Negros Occidental ranks 19 out of the top 20 Philippine provinces at risk to projected temperature increase. Selecting a province that ranks in the relative middle – in terms of its exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity to climate variation – ensures the presence of some infrastructure and agricultural interventions necessary for the purposes of our comparative evaluation. The risk of selecting a region that ranks high in vulnerability (specifically in terms of high sensitivity and low adaptive capacity) is the possibility of having very little to no existing infrastructure or agricultural interventions for  20 which to carry out a robust comparative assessment. Future research, however, should certainly target these most vulnerable provinces.  Four villages containing conventional and MASIPAG organic rice systems located in Negros Occidental were ultimately selected for the case study (see Figure 1.1). One of the villages was first visited during preliminary fieldwork while attending a MASIPAG Visayas Regional Meeting (noted above). The other three villages were recommended by PDG due to their proximity to one another. Expanding our case study beyond these four villages would create both a burden for farmers and research assistants, as the next village containing conventional and MASIPAG organic rice farmers was located 2 hours away. Due to organic farmers representing less than 1 percent of agricultural laborers in the Philippines, finding a site that met the above criteria would be challenging without the support of MASIPAG and their partner organization PDG. However, a limitation in selecting sites recommended by these organizations is the potential for these organizations to choose “show villages" (see Chambers, 2006) and “show farmers” (see Stone, 2018 and Flachs, 2017) that exemplify the work and successes of their organization, rather than villages and farmers that may not be performing well. However, in this case, having a good example of the network’s local institutional arrangement allowed for a robust analysis of how MASIPAG’s particular development strategies are unfolding on the ground. Furthermore, this study also included non-MASIPAG conventional farms and farmers in order to establish a wider comparative perspective.     21  Figure 1.1 Study site: a) a map of the Philippine Islands with provincial boundaries and Negros Occidental Province shaded in gray; and b) a satellite image showing the topography of the area containing the four villages accounted for in the study.    22 1.8.4 Data Collection Mixed methods approach This research project uses a mixed methods approach, relying on a combination of desk research, key informant interviews, pre-assessment focus groups, surveys, post-assessment focus groups, farmer interviews, and participant observation to collect the necessary information and data required to meet the outlined research objectives (see Table 1.1).  Table 1.1 Summary of data collection methods  Method Purpose Desk Research Identify state agricultural agencies, agricultural development policies and programs, and other structural conditions impacting smallholders. Explore the existing literature on MASIPAG and the broader Philippine organic movement. Key Informant Interviews Using the Agroecological Risk and Resilience (ARR) Screening Tool* (MercyCorps, 2014) as an interview guide, conduct key informant interviews with MASIPAG and PhilRice representatives to understand both the logic and risk associated with their respective agricultural development strategies.  Farmer Pre-Assessment  Focus Groups Organize two focus groups, one with organic farmers and another with conventional farmers. Facilitate a mapping and cropping calendar exercise to acquire additional contextual information related to current socioecological conditions, such as the needs of farmers, issues related to land tenure, and other factors enhancing/obstructing resilience. Participant Surveys Conduct 40 surveys using the Self-evaluation and Holistic Assessment of climate Resilience of farmers and Pastoralists (SHARP) Survey Tool* (Choptiany et al., 2015). Following completion, submit raw data to FAO-Rome for cross-sectional data analysis. Farmer Post-Assessment  Focus Group Organize another focus group to share preliminary results of the SHARP survey and invite participants to engage in a ‘participatory gap analysis’ to determine farmer priorities and recommendations for interventions.      23 Method Purpose Farmer Interviews Conduct semi-structured interviews with participating farmers to collect personal stories and insights on the factors impacting smallholders, as well as gather farmer reflections on why some farmers choose to engage in organic versus conventional agriculture and vice-a-versa. Participant Observation Engage in participatory observation to garner an understanding of the Philippine agrarian experience. This includes participating in smallholder cultivation practices and attending farmer organized meetings as well as other meetings and events organized by local governments and state agents.  * Additional information about the methodological tools used in this study are provided below.   Data Collection Tools The Self-evaluation and Holistic Assessment of climate Resilience of farmers and Pastoralists (SHARP) Survey Tool was used to collect data on various indicators of farming system resilience. The tool was created in a collaborative manner by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and external partners (i.e. academics and practitioners), for the purpose of measuring and monitoring climate resilience while at the same time empowering smallholder farmers to develop climate resilience in a participatory manner (Choptiany et al., 2015). The tool is designed to a) provide a comprehensive understanding of farmers’ practices and conditions; b) identify trends and patterns significant to enhancing smallholder resilience; c) generate a greater understanding of which practices work and build farmer capacities for enhancing resilience; and d) provide direction for improving and implementing policies that promote good practices and address concerns where needed given the socioecological context (ibid).  The survey is comprised of 54 practical questions that are linked to the 13 resilience indicators identified by Cabell, & Oelofse (2012): socially self-organized, ecologically self-regulated,  24 appropriately connected, functional and response diversity, optimally redundant, spatial and temporal heterogeneity, exposed to disturbance, coupled with local natural capital, reflective and shared learning, globally autonomous and locally interdependent, honours legacy, builds human capital, and reasonably profitable. The tool measures these indicators to determine the degree of resilience a farming system has, and results can be compared at the indicator level, aggregated according to assessment areas, or in its entirety in order to comparatively assess overall resilience (Choptiany et al., 2016). Additionally, the SHARP tool facilitates an exploration of how smallholders are affected by the governance environment. To this end, the tool provides a guide for identifying relevant policies and laws occurring at the national, regional and local levels (see Choptiany et al., 2015: 64-65).  I adapted this guide into a semi-structured interview protocol to gather key informant insights on institutions shaping production systems (i.e. agricultural management practices, input access, knowledge and information), the environment (i.e. land management practices, rights to land and water), social mechanisms (i.e. cooperatives, labour, skills and education), and economic conditions (i.e. insurance, market information, fiscal incentives). The SHARP tool measures indicators as proxies for resilience rather than measuring the effects and responses to an actual climate-related disaster (see Holt-Giménez, 2002).  As such the tool is limited in that it focuses on correlations versus causality. It also has the potential for confirmation bias as the tool focuses attention to an index of behaviour-based indicators of agroecosystem resilience identified by Cabell and Oelofse (2012), possibly blinding the researcher to other features of resilience. However, built into the tool are questions that enable participants to determine the significance of a farming feature in building resilience given their experience and particular socioecologial context. Coupled with the integration of farmer  25 interviews and focus group discussions, the SHARP tool also allowed for a degree of flexibility in order to adapt the tool and analyze the results alongside participating farmers.  Other resilience assessment tools were reviewed, including the Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socioecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (Bergamini et al., 2014) and the Didactic Toolkit for the Design, Management and Assessment of Resilient Farming Systems (Altieri et al., 2015). All three tools are grounded in comprehensive conceptions of resilience that account for processes that contribute to adaptation, mitigation, and vulnerability reduction; as well as use participatory research approaches that allow for flexibility to adapt the tools to local conditions. However, I chose to use the SHARP Survey Tool because it had already been piloted, could be completed using an online app, and utilizers of the survey have the opportunity to submit their results to an FAO managed global database and ultimately contribute to cross-sectional analyses of climate resilience. As part of this study, I worked with MASIPAG, PDG, and the FAO-SHARP team to adapt the SHARP Survey Tool (version 1.9.0) for the Philippine and Negros Occidental context as well as translated into both Hiligaynon and Filipino. This allowed for the inclusion of crop and species varieties common to the region, for example. More details on the SHARP tool are provided in Chapter 2.  The Agroecological Risk and Resilience (ARR) Screening Tool was also used to collect data. The ARR tool is an interview guide created by Mercy Corps, a global humanitarian organization that works with farmers, agri-business, communities, and local governments to carry out more than 70 agricultural projects worldwide aimed at improving sustainability and increasing incomes for smallholders. The purpose of the ARR tool was to enable practitioners to better ensure that food security, agriculture and resilience building initiatives do not have adverse  26 consequences on smallholders over the long term. It does this by facilitating consideration of the risks and opportunities associated with interventions with respect to maintaining agroecosystem health and minimizing the depletion of natural resources that smallholders are dependent on (MercyCorps 2014). The tool is grounded in a food system perspective adapted from Pimbert et al., (2001) and ten agroecological principles derived from Gliessman (2006) and Gunderson (2010): preservation and enhancement of agroecosystem diversity; conservation and enhancement of soil health and nutrient cycling; supporting ecological pest and disease regulating mechanisms; maximizing renewable energy potential; supporting and diversifying livelihoods; prioritizing & enhancing local food production and food security; reducing dependence on external synthetic inputs; optimizing water use; integrating local and scientific knowledge; and strengthening local organizations (MercyCorps, 2015). The ARR Screening Tool was selected because of its complementary conception of resilience, defined as the capacity of communities in complex socioecological systems to learn, cope, adapt, and transform in the face of shocks and stresses; and because the guiding questions facilitate an exploration of the potential impacts of agricultural development strategies on smallholder capacities for resilience building. The tool was used to guide discussions with MASIPAG and PhilRice scientists to better understand the agroecosystem impacts of their respective resilience strategies.  Recruitment Strategy PDG staff provided assistance with recruiting farmers.  As a partner of MASIPAG, the staff worked with several farmer associations in the region that contained members of MASIPAG. Further, as a result of PDG’s rural development work, including supporting farmer efforts to facilitate agrarian reform in the region, the staff have long established relationships with both conventional and organic farmers in the region. As such, the PDG staff were instrumental in  27 locating and reaching out to villages with both conventional and MASIPAG organic farmers. PDG staff spoke the local language (Hiligaynon) and the national languages (Filipino, English) and helped with translating written research materials into Hiligaynon (i.e. consent forms and survey), as well as provided verbal translations during meetings and discussions with farmers.  After several orientations and trainings were provided to PDG staff to familiarize them with the research project, objectives, and materials, PDG staff contacted the leaders of five farmer associations in the area and asked permission for me to attend their next meeting in order to introduce the study and invite them to participate. Ultimately, a combination of conventional and organic farmers from all five farmer associations agreed to participate. Participant farmers were located in four neighboring barangays (villages). Additional farmer associations containing MASIPAG organic farmers were not contacted due being a significant distance away (over a 2-hour commute), posing a substantial burden for farmers to participate in research activities. 1.8.5 Research Positionality  My interest in the Philippines and the Visayas region is grounded in my cultural ties to the country and region, as my mother’s side of the family are also Visayan.  Presenting myself to participating farmers as a first-generation Filipina American with ancestral connections to the region seemed to position me in liminal space in the field, as I was perceived as both Westerner and balikbayan (returning countryman), yet always an outsider in the respective villages especially due to the language barrier, as I do not speak Hiligaynon. As a UBC Public Scholar2                                                2 A program at UBC through the Graduate and Post-doctoral Studies office for students at the University of British Columbia who are carrying out work that aims to make a social contribution through engagement with multiple sectors, fostering innovation and enhancing understanding within the public and the academy. https://www.grad.ubc.ca/psi   28 engaged in knowledge translation and mobilization, I also occupy a liminal space as a researcher, straddling the line between the academy and development work. I used my persistent liminality to an advantage as it afforded me the ability to adapt to village life and culturally connect with research participants, while also providing enough distance for me to exercise reflexivity (see Enosh and Ben-Ari, 2015); the latter of which fostered a recognition of the plurality of agricultural knowledge derived from researchers, agricultural and community development workers, and farmers. Recognizing and exploring “incongruities” among stakeholder approaches to agricultural development facilitated my integration of multiple perspectives in the construction of knowledge relevant to smallholder resilience (see Enosh and Ben-Ari, 2015: 2).  Further, given that smallholders are often excluded from directly contributing to formal systems of knowledge production (i.e. universities, agricultural research institutions, extensions services, etc.), I intentionally designed this research project to involve farmers in the research process. This was accomplished through creating spaces for social learning and exchange between organic and conventional farmers and the research team, as well as across the four villages represented. Participating farmers were also invited to engage in a participatory gap analysis in an effort to identify appropriate climate interventions given existing socioecological conditions and farmer experiences.  These efforts, coupled with emphasizing my role and intention to learn from the experiences and expertise of participating farmers, helped to address the power dynamic between researcher and participants (see Karnieli-Miller et al., 2009). In other words, I explicitly positioned myself as a learner and observer, rather than as an expert.   Finally, my interest as a researcher is to produce work that is useful to organizations engaged in agricultural and community development initiatives. To this end, this research project was  29 carried out in collaboration with MASIPAG with the shared intention of informing their work and efforts to enhance smallholder resilience in the Philippines. Given my relationship of solidarity with MASIPAG, I acknowledge my predisposition to support the work of MASIPAG.  I exercised and ensured my ability to act as a critical researcher by relying on multiple sources of data and information and triangulating my research findings, and by continually acknowledging my positionality and reflexivity.  1.9 Structure of the dissertation This dissertation is made up of five chapters. All chapters were written as stand-alone papers for academic journals and have been modified to fit the required dissertation format. A brief summary of each chapter is provided below. Chapter 1 introduces the ‘wicked’ challenges the climate crisis poses on agriculture and synthesizes key developments in resilience theory that call for more comprehensive and participatory diagnostics of agricultural development initiatives. In this chapter, I also briefly contextualize the Philippine agrarian sector, lay out my research objectives, and justify my research approach.  Chapter 2 explores outcomes and processes occurring at the farming system level that impact smallholder resilience. This chapter is one of a growing collection of empirical studies that point to organic agriculture as a vector for enhancing resilience capacities. In the presented case, MASIPAG organic farmers located in Negros Occidental Province exhibited greater capacity for enhancing climate resilience, in spite of receiving less institutional support than their conventional counterparts.  30 Chapter 3 identifies state-level institutions that are influencing the rate of organic transition in the Philippines. In this chapter, I identify the causes, conditions and actors that prompted the organic movement in the Philippines, stymied its growth in spite of increased public and institutional support, and directed its evolution into the disparate conceptualizations that are used to characterize and qualify organic agriculture today.  Chapter 4 explores a farmer-led network that uses a polycentric structure to implement food sovereignty initiatives. In this chapter, I draw a link between MASIPAG’s polycentric food sovereignty development approach and peasant resilience, highlighting the ways in which the network’s decentralized and farmer-led organizational structure, programming and services, promotion of diversified organic (or agroecological) farming systems, and political organizing and advocacy creates heterogeneous pathways for resource-poor smallholders to build resilience.  Chapter 5 summarizes key findings of the dissertation. In this final chapter, I review the features of a farming system that are important for cultivating climate resilience; the state-level institutional mechanisms and key actors that are presenting challenges and barriers to resilience building; and the ways resource-poor smallholders are resisting and resolving these institutional challenges and barriers through community development and collective action. I also reflect on the contributions and limitations of this dissertation, as well as illuminate key considerations for research and development initiatives aimed at cultivating climate resilience in the Philippines and beyond.    31 Chapter 2: Cultivating Climate Resilience: A participatory assessment of organic and conventional rice systems in the Philippines 2.1 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 coping 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 resilience, 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., 2012b).  The Philippines is one of the foremost countries affected by climate change, ranking number 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  32 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 farms/holdings are < 3 ha and account for approximately half of the farmland in the country (PSA, 2015). 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 intimately connected to the socio-ecological fabric of the Philippines, and central to adaptive measures to augment food security, mitigate 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 articulated 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, 2016). 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,  33 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 scientists by the early 2000s (MASIPAG, 2017). MASIPAG membership 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, botanical foliar sprays, compost and vermiculture, and intercropping to support agrobiodiversity, control pest populations and restore soil nutrients. MASIPAG farmers have documented a range of challenges 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 transition 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,  34 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).  2.1.1 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 specified 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 socioecological 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 mitigation potential of farming systems must be enhanced simultaneously in order to cope with and address global environmental change. However, mitigation is widely perceived as an international issue to be addressed largely by institutions and industry. This is partially due to challenges associated with engaging communities (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 problematic for farming systems as trade-offs and synergies may occur over different temporal or spatial scales (Harvey et al., 2013). For  35 example, the use of agrochemicals may increase yields in the short-term, but at the expense of long-term cumulative contributions to GHG emissions; and the use of agroecological practices 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 exposure, 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 ecological–biophysical dynamics, such as ecosystem services, thresholds 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 biophysical 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 conceptualized as a suite of integrative processes and outcomes (Cabell and Oelofse, 2012) that determine the ways that complex socioecological systems respond to a range of trends, cycles and shocks (Miller et al., 2010). This study defines climate resilience as a function 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.   36 2.1.2 Measuring climate resilience  This interdisciplinary study investigates the hypothesis that divergent agricultural management practices in the Philippines result in rice systems with different degrees of climate resilience. To explore the adaptive capacity, mitigation potential and vulnerability of organic and conventional rice systems, this study utilizes the Self-evaluation Holistic Assessment of climate Resilience for 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 multidimensional and multi-scalar, containing the household; the farm; and the natural, institutional and socio-economic environment (Darnhofer et al., 2012, p. 6) (see Figure 2.1a). I use ‘farming system’ and ‘rice system’ interchangeably, the latter being an explicit indication that rice cultivation is a commonality.   37 	 Figure 2.1: Defining a farming system and indicators for resilience. (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, I collect information on various processes and outcomes occurring within the natural, institutional and socio-economic environment, as well as at the household, farm and village/community level. This information is used to comparatively measure 13 agroecosystem indicators identified as proxies for climate resilience.   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  38 ‘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 orientation’. The FAO SHARP tool builds on 13 agroecosystem indicators (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 2.1). The indicators are behaviour-based, integrate core aspects of socio-ecological systems, and encompass the four phases in the adaptive cycle: growth/exploitation, conservation, release and reorganization/renewal (see Walker et al., 2004; Darnhofer et al., 2010). Similar to biotic indicators typically employed to monitor ecosystems, Cabell and Oelofse (2012) suggest that the presence of these 13 agroecosystem indicators in a farming system indicates a capacity for adaptation and transformation, while their absence signals vulnerability and the need for intervention. The SHARP tool links data related to a farming system to these 13 agroecosystem indicators in order to measure climate 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 socioecological systems approach and the concept of a farming system as our unit of analysis, I carry out a participatory assessment of climate resilience that engages in a multidimensional and multi-scalar analysis of organic and conventional rice systems (see Figure 2.1a-b). I 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. I comparatively measure 13 agroecosystem indicators identified by Cabell and Oelofse (2012) to assess climate resilience.  39 Additionally, I identify targeted interventions for enhancing climate resilience given socio-ecological conditions and farmerzv experience. Table 2.1: 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. Honours 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  40 2.2 Methods  2.2.1 Study site  According to the Manila Observatory (2005), Negros Occidental (Figure 2.2a) is ranked 19th most 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 nor the least vulnerable, but rather mid-range relative to other Philippine provinces. I chose a mid-ranging province to examine climate resilience as selecting a more vulnerable 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 assessment. 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 intervention 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 meeting 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 certified organic farming (Philippines News Agency, 2017); more than double the national rate of 1.89% (Willer and Lernoud, 2017). Although organic agriculture is garnering political and public support in Negros Occidental, as well as around the country (see Salazar, 2014), many   41 		Figure 2.2: (a) Map of the Philippines with provincial boundaries, Negros Occidental shaded and study area highlighted; and (b) the distribution of organic and conventional rice systems sampled in the study.  	 	 42 institutional mechanisms still favor conventional agriculture in the region. For example, of the 90 hectares of land managed by PhilRice Negros, one of the six rice research stations attached to the Department of Agriculture and working in collaboration with IRRI, only 6.5 hectares are designated for organic rice, while the remaining are designated for conventional rice breeding and seed propagation. Our study is thus carried out in a region with pre-existing institutional mechanisms that favor conventional agriculture, but also waves of mobilization and growing interest in organic agriculture.  2.2.2 Field research  A growing number of researchers emphasize the importance of ‘multi-stakeholder engagement’, ‘people-centered and participatory 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 socioecological change (Blesh and Wittman, 2015). The idea that farmers 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 methodological frameworks to involve community members and stakeholders 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  43 promotion 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 weather 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 including 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-et 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 evaluators’ 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 by creating spaces for participatory learning and exchange between organic and conventional farmers and the research team, as well as across the four villages represented. A community resource mapping and cropping calendar exercise was facilitated to enable farmers to situate the study within their socio-ecological  44 contexts. The participant farmer evaluators also provided data on 54 farming system components utilizing the SHARP tool, which were then used for three purposes.  First, I 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 facilitated exercise to determine which farming system components should be prioritized for interventions to enhance climate resilience given existing socio-ecological conditions and farmer experience. Thirdly, I facilitated a participatory gap analysis (PGA) to obtain farmer insight on possible and preferred interventions to enhance climate resiliency.  2.2.3 Participant evaluators  A total of 40 smallholder farmers (N = 40), comprised of 18 organic and 22 conventional farmers from four neighboring villages in Negros Occidental, Philippines agreed to participate in the case study (see Table 2.2). Most participants had been farming their entire lives and are small-holder (primarily) subsistence farmers, meaning crops grown by participating farmers are typically 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 participants that ranged between the ages of 25–78. On average, household 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), managed communally (i.e., trial farms and other communal land) and  45 accessed/managed for additional resources (i.e., forested areas). Several farmers also own and manage livestock, including chickens, ducks, pigs, carabao (water buffalo) and goats. Figure 2.2b shows the distribution of the organic and conventional rice systems accounted for in our assessment.  Table 2.2: 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 x̅ 55 54 56 Household size x̅  5.6 6.1 5.2 Land Access (hectares) x̅ 1.7 1.65 1.74  2.2.4 SHARP survey  The SHARP survey tool was used to collect data on the 54 components of farming systems. I 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 hardcopy 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 relationships with the participating farmers. Consistent with the SHARP methodology, the collected data pertaining to the 54 farming system 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  46 than one agroecosystem indicator due to serving multiple purposes in a farming system. For example, ‘intercropping’ contributes both to a farming system being ‘appropriately connected’ and having ‘spatial and temporal heterogeneity’, hence it is accounted for in both agroecosystem indicators. Other components 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 several 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 farmers. 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  47 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.  2.2.5 Statistical analysis  A two-way t-test was conducted to determine statistical differences 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).  2.2.6 Participatory gap analysis  Three weeks following the completion of the SHARP surveys, participants 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 worksheets for documenting reflections and recommendations made by farmers. The small working groups were intended to facilitate consensus building during the PGA exercise.   48 2.3 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 (Appendix 1). Mean scores for 6 out of the 13 agroecosystem indicators were also significantly higher for organic farming systems than conventional (Figure 2.3). Overall, average mean scores were 15.2% higher (P < 0.001) for organic rice systems in climate resilience than conventional systems.   49 	 Figure 2.3: Organic and conventional mean (x̅) 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.  	 	 50 	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 2.3). The results of the PGA include farmer suggestions for how to improve low scoring (or high priority) farming system components, and ultimately enhance climate resilience given existing socio-ecological conditions and farmer experiences. The results and discussion of the PGA are incorporated into our analysis of the 13 agroecosystem indicators below.     51  Table 2.3: 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 ** Animal disease control 27 12 ** Livestock feed and nutrition 2 1 ** Soil quality and land degradation 28 33  Aquaculture feed and nutrition 3 18 ** Local farm inputs 29 25  Money saving methods and facilities 4 3 ** Role in household 30 34  Market prices 5 7 ** Household diet diversity 31 28  Buffer zones 6 5 ** Water conservation 32 22  Buyers 7 4 ** Seed/Breed sources 33 32  Government support 8 31  Pest management control 34 20 ** Livestock variety 9 8 ** Livestock breeding 35 38  (Para)Veterinary access 10 19 ** Weed species management 36 39  Sellers 11 24  Responses to disturbances 37 23  Financial support 12 9 ** Diversity of income sources 38 41  Land access 13 6 ** Leguminous plants 39 27  Access to local markets 14 14 ** Energy conservation 40 35  Intercropping 15 11 ** Household decision making 41 46  Market information access 16 17 ** Information and communication technologies 42 51  Trust and cooperation 17 10 ** Diversity of production activities 43 37  Record keeping 18 16 ** Energy sources 44 48  Trees and agroforestry 19 15 ** Crop variety 45 42  Synthetic/Natural fertilizers 20 13 ** 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   52 2.3.1 Socially self-organized  There were no significant differences between organic and conventional rice systems overall for the socially self-organized indicator, measured by their active participation in groups, access to local farmers markets, previous use of internal coping mechanisms and access to communal resources (Supplementary Table S1). High levels of self-organization impart greater intrinsic adaptive capacity (Cabell and Oelofse, 2012). At the subcomponent level, conventional farmers on average indicated a significantly more active participation with a greater variety of groups than their organic neighbors (1.2). Both organic and conventional 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 consumption 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 dissemination 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.3  2.3.2 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.                                                3 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.    53 Ecological self-regulation reduces the 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 chemical pesticides and subsequently contribute less to the accumulation 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 pesticide 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 farmers identified agroforestry as a priority for intervention. The PGA revealed that limited land access is a prominent reason why farmers 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.  2.3.3 Appropriately connected  There was no significant difference between organic and conventional 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 services; as well as their employment of intercropping strategies and sense of trust and cooperation in the community. At the subcomponent level, organic farmers had a  54 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 market information and weather forecasting services. Several of associated 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 production 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 suggested creating mechanisms for sharing within and between communities, 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).  2.3.4 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 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  55 methods practiced (4.4). Several of the corresponding farming system components were listed as priorities for both organic and conventional farmers, 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 training 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.  2.3.5 Optimally redundant  There were no significant differences between organic and conventional 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 following a disturbance (Cabell and Oelofse, 2012). Scores for organic systems were significantly lower for the sub-component for fertilizer sources (5.6). This is likely due to many organic farmers producing 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 livestock (i.e., corn stalks, water cabbage and sweet potato leaves), as well as indicating an interest in livestock management trainings.   56 2.3.6 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 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 farmers 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 percentage of intercrops (6.6). Both agroforestry and intercropping were identified as priorities for both organic and conventional farmers, and proposed interventions were discussed earlier.  2.3.7 Exposed to disturbance  There were no significant differences between organic and conventional rice systems for the exposed to disturbance indicator, suggesting 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). Organic rice systems contain significantly more native species/varieties (7.5) which have potentially adapted to changes over time in the region. To improve responses and resilience to disturbance, farmers expressed interest in identifying and adopting climate resilient crop varieties, particularly drought-resistant  57 varieties, 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.  2.3.8 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 conservation 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 environmentally friendly animal disease control methods (8.8).  2.3.9 Reflective and shared learning  There were no significant differences between organic and conventional rice systems for the reflective and shared learning indicator, suggesting both groups of farmers engage in comparable amounts of knowledge exchange for the purposes of improving local knowledge and capacities  58 for building and enhancing resilience. Measured in terms of group participation, response to climate 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 recommended 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.  2.3.10 Globally autonomous and locally interdependent  There were no significant differences between organic and conventional rice systems for the globally autonomous and locally interdependent indicator. Although it is impossible for farming systems to be entirely globally autonomous, a greater degree of local interdependence 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, Ilooked at whether farmers were engaged in direct selling/trading to consumers and direct buying/trading with producers; relied on local farm inputs, previous collective action, local species, local energy sources or chemical inputs; have the ability to breed animals at the local level and practice animal disease control; and have access to local markets. At the subcomponent level, organic systems rely on more local crop and livestock 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  59 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 consumption. 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).  2.3.11 Honors legacy  Organic rice systems scored significantly higher in the honors legacy 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 household 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 communities, and recruiting young people who have the knowledge and capacity to document and maintain records on cropping calendar, production practices, weather patterns, and related disturbances and farmer responses.   60 2.3.12 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 participation in groups, household equality and investment in human capital. Organic farmers indicated a greater knowledge and application of land improvement strategies (12.2). They also reported greater investments in human capital, such as prioritizing expenditures related to education in their household (12.6). During the PGA, farmers recommended the adoption of organic farming practices to reduce health concerns, as well as production costs.  2.3.13 Reasonably profitable  There were no significant differences between organic and conventional rice systems for the reasonably profitable indicator, measured 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 comparably, 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  61 government to subsidize crop and livestock insurance for its farmers. Both sets of farmers have needed additional financial support over the past 5 years 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 microfinancing 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 farmers 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).  2.3.14 Implications for climate resilience  Our integrative analysis of the SHARP survey scores, priority rankings and PGA explored key areas of variation in climate resilience between organic and conventional farming systems. It also identified possible interventions for enhancing climate resilience given existing socio-ecological conditions and based on farmer knowledge and experience. Our findings indicate that organic rice systems 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; Bachmann et al., 2009; Chappell et al., 2013; Graddy, 2013). In the context of climate resilience, the implication of having higher  62 diversity (or a heterogeneity of features) is that farming systems will have multiple back-ups that improve the capacity 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 comparative studies of organic (or alternative) and conventional farming 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 ecological 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 traditional 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  63 participation 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, inadequate land access remains a major barrier to implementing farm and landscape management practices that enhance climate resilience, such as establishing buffer zones and agroforestry systems, 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 institutional level.  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, augmenting 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 collecting and exchanging knowledge, information and resources. This preference for household and community (or local) mechanisms for enhancing adaptation,  64 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 outline 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 microfinancing, 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.  2.4 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 difference between the two systems in terms of their climate resilience, and at the sub-component level in a few cases conventional rice systems are more resilient, the majority of indicators suggest that organic rice systems are overall more climate resilient than their  65 conventional counterparts. Based on farmer insights and recommendations from our survey, interventions that require external support and services from researchers, government organizations and NGOs are needed to enhance adaptive capacity, augment mitigation potential and reduce the vulnerability 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.     66 Chapter 3: Organic Transition in the Philippines: Implications for smallholder resilience  3.1 Introduction Over the last half-century, the world has witnessed a major shift in the practice of agriculture. The systematic agricultural modernization efforts that began mid-20th century as part of the Green Revolution and associated development efforts have resulted in the transformation of traditional and diverse agroecological systems across the globe (Amend et al., 2008; Patel, 2013). The transition to modern agriculture resulted in unprecedented growth in world food production (Conway, 1997; Uphoff, 2002), but at the expense of 75% of the world’s agrobiodiversity (FAO, 2010), adverse ecological conditions, and farmer marginalization (Patel, 2013). Increased consideration for social and ecological dimensions of agriculture gave rise to a shift toward alternative approaches to cultivation that reduce dependence on chemical inputs, such as organic and agroecological farming practices (Dahlberg, 1994; Pretty 1995; Uphoff 2002; Altieri and Nicholls, 2005). However, ‘high yields’ or ‘doubling production’ remains the central concern and focus for many agri-food system researchers (Conway, 1997, 2012; Rosegrant et al., 2014; Lipper et al, 2014); conflating increased production with improvements in food security, rural development, and economic gain (Sen, 1997; Bezner Kerr, 2012; Patel, 2013).  At the same time, climate change poses serious threats to agriculture, food security, economic stability and well-being (Easterling et al. 2007; Renton, 2009; Edes et al., 2012). Echoed across the world are concerns over the viability of farming systems and the livelihoods of rural  67 communities, adding to the suite of other challenges rural communities face, such as insecure property and resource rights, environmental degradation and conflict, market failures, and the erosion of local institutions (Adger et al., 2004; Morton, 2007; Mijatovic et al., 2013). Although concerns over the adaptive capacity of farming systems, degradation of planetary systems, and vulnerability of communities are shared across the international community, prescriptions for agriculture are varied (see Figure 3.1). Agricultural development has emerged as contested space, where diverse and competing prescriptions for cultivation represent a spectrum of visions for agri-food systems (see Sumberg et al., 2012; Fraser et al., 2016; Giraldo and Rosset, 2018).     68   Figure 3.1: Agricultural development paradigms and features of corresponding farm systems. The intention of this figure is to not provide an extensive description of the two paradigms nor a complete list of corresponding farm systems, but rather to identify important distinctions. Although these distinctions are not always exclusive, as there are cases of Climate Smart Agriculture using agroecology, as well as instances of industrial organic systems exhibiting features of conventional agriculture, focusing on the above delineations can be heuristically useful.    69 Given these competing visions for agricultural development and the pronounced threat of climate change, there are growing efforts to identify farm management systems that have a greater capacity for simultaneously increasing adaptation and mitigation capacity, as well as reducing the vulnerability of farming systems. The term “organic” reflects food production systems that exclude (or strictly limit) the use of manufactured fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, insecticides and fungicides, plant growth regulators such as hormones, livestock antibiotics, food additives, and genetically modified organisms (Siddique et al., 2014; FAO, 2018). Systematic reviews of comparative research on conventional and organic systems suggest the latter can perform well under adverse environmental conditions (see Badgely et al., 2007; Seufert et al., 2012), as well as exhibit greater adaptation and mitigation capacities (see Fließbach et al., 2007; Scialabba and Müeller-Lindenlauf, 2010; Harvey et al., 2013; Rodale, 2014). Yet, as of 2015, only one percent (50.9 million hectares) of the world’s agricultural land is certified organic or in conversion (Willer and Lernoud, 2017). Although this is just a fraction of the global agricultural landscape, this number reflects a fivefold increase from 1999 (ibid). A quarter of this land (12.8 million hectares) and nearly 90 percent (2.1 million) of the producers are located in developing countries (ibid). These numbers, however, do not account for farms and farmers that use organic practices but are not certified.  The marginal space organic agriculture occupies across the global agricultural landscape has given rise to an interest in exploring the institutional mechanisms driving farmer management practices (Obi, 211; IPES-Food, 2016; Davila and Dyball, 2018) and shaping socioecological conditions linked to resilience (Neufeldt et al., 2013; Blesh and Wittman, 2015; Hodbod and Eakin, 2015; Hoque et al., 2017). This chapter aims to contribute to this body of work and  70 ongoing efforts to cultivate resilient agricultural systems, focusing on the organic transition in the Philippines. By examining state-level institutions, key actors, and socioecological conditions that have shaped Philippine agriculture over time, this chapter illuminates the ways in which these structuring conditions affect the trajectory of organic agriculture and the resilience building capacities of smallholders. Here, “resilience” refers to farming system processes and outcomes that serve to improve smallholder adaptation and mitigation capacities, as well as reduce their vulnerability to climate-related disturbances (Heckelman et al., 2018). The focus on smallholders is motivated by the substantial role they play in producing the world’s food and biodiversity (Tscharntke et al., 2012; Barthel et al., 2013; Graeub et al., 2015; Ricciardi et al., 2018), and given their predominance in the Philippines, as nearly 90 percent of farms/holdings are < 3 ha and account for approximately half of the farmland in the country (PSA, 2015).   3.1.1 Conceptual Framework  The purpose of this chapter is twofold: to assess the impact of historical and current state-level agricultural development initiatives on the organic transition currently underway in the Philippines; and to understand the implications of these institutional dynamics on smallholder vulnerability and climate resilience. An institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework guides this inquiry into state-level structural conditions responsible for shaping agricultural development in the Philippines (see Figure 3.2). Distinct from a theory or model, an IAD framework outlines “the elements and general relationships among these elements that one needs to consider for institutional analysis” (Ostrom, 2011: 8). It is the dynamic interactions between institutions, key actors, and social and biophysical conditions that drive human behaviour and socioecological change (ibid).   71    Adapted from Ostrom 2011: 10  Figure 3.2: IAD Framework adapted to explore exogenous and structural features significant to smallholder farming systems. Integration of Multiple Level Perspective (MLP) theory is used to characterize organic transition (a niche development) in the Philippines as it unfolds within a landscape dominated by a conventional development paradigm (the Green Revolution regime). Integration of Resilience theory is used to explore how state or regime efforts to facilitate organic transition impact smallholder capacities for building resilience.   Exogenous Features: Farming systems and the Rural Landscape The biophysical conditions significant to Philippine rice systems include the distribution of land, water, seeds, and other inputs. The degree of access farmers have to these agricultural resources affects their farm management choices. At the same time, the management practices farmers employ affect agrobiodiversity, soil quality, and other indicators of agroecosystem health. For example, farmers who only have access to commercial HYVs are likely to also apply the required chemical fertilizers and pesticides to their rice fields and are less likely to adopt organic farming methods. Further, the application of these chemicals often has deleterious effects on water quality and aquatic species (i.e. fish, snails, frogs) that may serve as alternate food sources for farmer households, thereby impacting food security by limiting access to diverse diets and  72 traditional foods (Mendoza, 2004; Medina, 2004; Ong’wen and Wright, 2007). Hence, accounting for biophysical conditions in an institutional analysis of organic transition illuminates the environmental limitations and costs that impact smallholder behaviour.  The socioeconomic conditions that characterize the smallholder experience are also important to consider. Philippine agrarian history reveals that rural communities are often afflicted with social inequities that have resulted in the political economic marginalization of farmers against the concentration of power and wealth among landed elites (discussed further below). Such conditions have resulted in generational poverty for many smallholders who continue to have the highest incidences of living below the poverty line (PSA, 2017b). Such conditions were also the impetus behind hundreds of peasant uprisings and civil society mobilizations aimed at addressing social inequities, revealing occurrences of peasant organization and collective action. The point here is to not only characterize rural communities but to explore how these socioeconomic conditions impact farmer choices and vice-versa.  Institutions are broadly defined as systems of rules, norms, programs, and strategies adopted by individuals operating within or across organizations, that subsequently give rise to social practices (Young, 1999; Ostrom, 2011). Institutions include government policies, legal structures and market structures that shape human interaction and activities (North, 1990; Norton et al., 2006). In the context of agricultural development, an institutional arrangement can be understood as the structural features and mechanisms that mediate farmer rights to resources (e.g. land tenure, water access rights, etc.), provide incentives to cultivate certain food crops and varieties (e.g. credit packages), as well as shape farming knowledge and skills through the development (e.g. agricultural research and extension) and deployment of technologies and  73 innovation (Eicher and Staatz, 1990; Norton et al., 2006) – all of which shape farmer behaviour, as well as the social and biophysical landscape of rural communities.  Action Arena: Regime-Niche-Landscape Interactions and Organic Transition Key Actors refer to the stakeholders involved in agricultural research, development, and practice. Ostrom argues that key actors, using their position(s), available information and level of control, have the capacity to shape “action situations” (2005: 33). An action situation is a conceptual space where key actors interact, solve problems, and share information and resources in order to orient and shape human activity (Ostrom, 2011). The potential outcomes of an action situation, in the context of agricultural transition, are determined by: • Key actors shaping agriculture – e.g. research institutes, state agencies, local governments, NGOs, extension agents, and farmers • Positions that key actors hold that lend them power and resources – e.g. implementing body for agricultural policies, fund allocator for agricultural research and development • Sets of actions that are allowed/incentivized – e.g. credit packages for purchasing external inputs, farmer cooperative rules and member requirements • Information availability – e.g. understanding risks, costs, benefits; knowledge of other agricultural development strategies • Farmer control – e.g. ability to choose, take initiative, confer with others • Outcomes of farmer behaviour – e.g. conventional farming, organic transition • Costs and benefits of farmer behaviour – e.g. conversion costs, less dependency on commercial seeds and agrochemicals  74 To guide an analysis of these variables and their contribution to organic transition, I utilize Multiple Level Perspective (MLP) theory to illuminate the patterns and mechanisms significant to the transition process (Geels, 2002). This includes identifying the socio-technological ‘regime’ largely responsible for mainstreaming conventional agriculture in the Philippines and examining the ways in which this regime is stabilized and disrupted by ‘niche developments’. Consistent with Geels’ (2002) conception of a regime, the ‘agricultural development regime’ is a set of rules and actors that are oriented by agricultural technologies, regulations, infrastructure, markets, supply networks, and cultural meanings. Niche developments are radical innovations that fall outside of what is considered to be, for example, mainstream conventional agriculture. According to the MLP, the combination of ‘landscape’ pressures (e.g. biophysical and socioeconomic conditions) and niche developments (e.g. alternative agricultural development strategies) are what facilitate regime change (e.g. organic transition and new institutional arrangements). However, regime change often occurs incrementally due to being ‘locked in’ by a set of rules, actors, and existing structures (Sutherland et al., 2015: 10). The structure of the MLP – the landscape, niche developments, and regime – fits well into IAD framework and is therefore used to characterize and analyze the state of organic transition in the Philippines as it unfolds under the dominant agricultural development regime. Evaluative Criteria: Resilience Theory  Finally, key developments in resilience theory constitute the evaluative criteria used to assess the impact of state-level agricultural development initiatives on smallholder capacities for building resilience. Integrating resilience theory into the IAD framework serves to clarify the suite of farming system processes and outcomes necessary for simultaneously augmenting adaptation and mitigation capacities (see Cabell and Oelofse, 2012; Thornton and Mansafi, 2010; Harvey et al.,  75 2013), as well as reducing farmer vulnerabilities (see Miller et al., 2010). With respect to the latter point, resilience researchers have underscored the need to develop local resources, as well as support collective action and social learning (Magis, 2010; Berkes and Ross, 2013, 2014; Barret and Constas, 2014). Drawing from these works, I explore the extent to which state-led organic transition strategies serve to build smallholder capacities for (re)generating: • Agrobiodiversity – e.g. genetic diversity, crop diversity, landscape diversity • Locally available agricultural resources – e.g. seeds, organic fertilizers, bio foliar sprays • Local institutions – e.g. in situ seed banks, communal work, collective action • Place-based knowledge – e.g. farmer knowledge, technology and innovation sharing • Farmer empowerment – e.g. farmer engagement in designing rural development schemes, agrarian policies and programs  3.1.2 Disparate Visions for Philippine Rice Systems: Conventional vs Organic Like many parts of the world, the Philippine agricultural sector exhibits disparate visions for agricultural development. Researchers make the distinction between conventional and organic systems, where the former is attributed to productivism and Green Revolution technologies, and the latter to alternative development models aligned with the principles of food sovereignty and agroecology (see Bachmann et al., 2009; Sanchez, 2011; Broad and Cavanagh, 2012; Tadeo et al., 2012; Vidal, 2014; Davila, 2018).  Recent Philippines-based research indicates that organic systems are more resilient than their conventional counterparts, due to containing higher crop, farm, and landscape diversity which enhances adaptive capacity; employing more land and soil-improvement measures that increase  76 mitigation potential; and being governed by household and community mechanisms that serve to reduce vulnerability (Mendoza, 2004, 2005; Heckelman et al., 2018). Studies have also found that Philippine organic systems yield similar or sometimes higher production levels than their conventional counterparts (Mendoza, 2005, 2016; Bachmann et al., 2009; Icamina, 2011; Broad and Cavanagh, 2012) or are more profitable due to lower production costs and higher returns (Mendoza, 2004; Rubinos et al., 2007; Bachmann et al., 2009; Lamban et al. 2011; Pantoja et al., 2016).  Of the 98 countries that reported increases in certified organic farmland and in-conversion areas in 2015, the Philippines is ranked eighth in having the highest increase, expanding from 110,000 hectares in 2014 to nearly 235,000 hectares in 2015, more than doubling the amount of land under certified organic agriculture (Willer and Lenoud, 2017).  The archipelago is also ranked fifth globally in having the highest total number of organic producers, estimated at 166,000 producers (ibid). Although the above statistics reflect some progress in facilitating organic transition, these achievements are marginal in the context of larger agricultural development trends in the country, as certified organic agriculture makes up less than 2 percent of the Philippine agricultural landscape and employs less than 1 percent of 13.7m agricultural laborers (ibid). All of the above figures, however, only account for farms and farmers that are certified organic or are in the process of converting, thereby excluding agroecological and other forms of farming that do not involve the use of chemical inputs or pesticides. The slow pace and marginal degree to which certified organic agriculture has been adopted in the Philippines is a stark contrast to the rapid agricultural shift that occurred with the Green Revolution, responsible for transforming 40 percent of the Philippine rice growing area in three  77 years between 1966-1969 (Bautista and Javier, 2005) and 90 percent of area by 1987 (Bautista and Javier, 2005; Estudillo and Otsuka, 2006; Hayami and Kikuchi, 2007). Proponents of the Green Revolution attribute the rapid shift to conventional farming practices to farmer preference, while others have suggested that the shift to conventional farming practices was driven by public investment and legislation (Hazell, 2009; Bautista and Javier, 2005) that was guided and substantiated by manipulated data (Jerven, 2014; Patel 2013). Further, although organic transition remains marginal relative to the conventional systems that make up the vast majority of the Philippine agricultural landscape, the occurring shift could represent a “niche innovation” (or niche development) used by civil society actors to destabilize the dominant agricultural regime (see Geels, 2011). These works and others highlight the need to examine key actors and policy to identify and better understand the structural mechanisms that support or obstruct efforts to scale-out organic agriculture in the Philippines. This chapter focuses this analysis on rice systems due to its significance in the Philippines and the controversy surrounding modern rice technologies (see Stone and Glover, 2016; Vidal, 2014). As best summed up by Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (Philippine Peasant Movement, KMP):  [T]he rice crop is embedded as a core of traditional agriculture, a fundamental link to the struggles for land and resources, and is the center of socio-cultural life and heritage of many Asian societies… [and it has] been radically threatened and transformed since the incursion of the Green Revolution technology (2007: 13).  78 3.2 Methods 3.2.1 Data collection This chapter draws from a review of the academic literature, policy documents, government and non-government reports on agricultural development and transition in the Philippines, as well as fieldwork conducted between August and December 2016. This data is used to temporally situate the analysis within significant historical and present-day contexts, and account for the long-time presence of contested visions of agricultural development in the Philippines, as well as the key actors associated with these divergent paradigms. While I consider historical and present-day phenomena occurring at the national scale, the focus of the analysis centres on the experiences of smallholders in Negros Occidental Province. Primarily an agricultural province, a focus on Negros Occidental offers insight into longstanding agrarian conflicts that emerge out of the widespread inequity, hunger, poverty, landlessness, and unemployment that characterize the experience and vulnerability of smallholders throughout the Philippines.  To identify state-level institutional mechanisms that either support or obstruct efforts to scale out organic agriculture, primary data was collected through key informant interviews, focus group discussions, farmer interviews, and participant observation. Seven key informant interviews4 were carried out with representatives from civil society non-government organizations (n=3), universities (n=2), and a state agency (n=2). Questions posed to key informants were designed to explore how smallholders are affected by the governance environment (or institutional arrangement), facilitating consideration of relevant policies and laws occurring at the national,                                                4 Some key informants held multiple positions. For example, one civil society NGO representative is also a faculty member at a university and both university representatives held positions with either a civil society NGO or a state agency.  79 regional and local levels. Derived from the Self-evaluation and Holistic Assessment of climate Resilience of farmers and Pastoralists (SHARP) Tool5, these questions gathered key informant insights on the institutions shaping: production systems (i.e. agricultural management practices, input access, knowledge and information) the environment (i.e. land management practices, rights to land and water), social mechanisms (i.e. cooperatives, labour, skills and education), and economic conditions (i.e. insurance, market information, fiscal incentives) (Choptiany et al., 2015: 64-65). Key informants were also asked to discuss how their respective organizations are navigating and responding to climate change given social, environmental, and institutional conditions. Derived from Agroecological Risk and Resilience (ARR) Tool6, this line of questioning was directed specifically to MASIPAG and PhilRice scientists to better understand the agroecosystem impacts of their respective resilience strategies. Three focus group discussions were facilitated with smallholders (n=40) to characterize socioecological conditions and identify the impacts of relevant policies and programs in Negros Occidental. Recruited from focus group participants, 10 semi-structured interviews were conducted to gather personal perspectives of the state of agriculture in Negros Occidental, including insights on farm management practices, current socioecological conditions, and challenges related to climate change. Participant                                                5 The SHARP tool was created in a collaborative manner by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and external partners (i.e. academics and practitioners), for the purpose of measuring and monitoring climate resilience while at the same time empowering smallholder farmers to develop climate resilience in a participatory manner. The tool is designed to a) provide a comprehensive understanding of farmers’ practices and conditions; b) identify trends and patterns significant to enhancing smallholder resilience; c) generate a greater understanding of which practices work and build farmer capacities for enhancing resilience; and d) provide direction for improving and implementing policies that promote good practices and address concerns where needed given the socioecological context. 6 The ARR tool is an interview guide created by Mercy Corps, a global humanitarian organization that works with farmers, agri-business, communities, and local governments to carry out agricultural projects worldwide aimed at improving sustainability and increasing incomes for smallholders. The purpose of the ARR tool is to enable practitioners to better ensure that food security, agriculture and resilience building initiatives do not have adverse consequences on smallholders over the long term. It does this by facilitating consideration of the risks and opportunities associated with interventions with respect to maintaining agroecosystem health and minimizing the depletion of natural resources that smallholders are dependent on.  80 observation included attending: an impromptu meeting with the incumbent Governor of Negros Occidental, the Negros Island Region Organic Summit, a meeting at the Vice Chancellor’s Office for Research Extension at the University of Philippines Los Baños, an organized Department of Agrarian Reform Dialogue held in Bacolod, several farmer association meetings, and a MASIPAG farmer breeder training. News articles, press releases, and other publications are incorporated for triangulation purposes. The collected data was deductively coded and analyzed thematically. Transcriptions and fieldnotes were coded using Nvivo (version 12.2.0) and additional data derived from electronic and hardcopy materials were collected and organized manually into broad themes outlined by the IAD framework (e.g. environmental conditions, social conditions, agrarian policies and programs, key agricultural organizations, etc.). Data compilation was an iterative process that involved organizing and reorganizing content into nested thematic concepts informed by MLP theory and resilience theory (e.g. agricultural development regime, alternative development approach, smallholder vulnerability, etc.). 3.3 Agrarian transitions in the Philippines 1521-present An institutional analysis of the organic transition that is currently underway in the Philippines requires understanding the larger historical context within which this shift is occurring. Because describing ‘niche development’ initiatives require understanding their origins, as well as the ways in which they destabilize the dominant ‘agricultural development regime’, it is instructive to first review the agricultural transition that occurred under colonial regimes. Next, I turn my attention to the Green Revolution to first identify the key actors and structural mechanisms that comprise the respective regime, then characterize the ways in which it transformed the rural  81 landscape, and specifically the rice growing sector. This information is then used to situate the current state of the organic transition now underway, with a focus on determining where the Philippines thrives and falls short of both scaling out organic agriculture and enhancing smallholder resilience.  3.3.1 First Transition: Institutionalizing Traditional Agriculture and Social Inequity  The first transition describes the move from indigenous communal farming systems to privately owned plots that were cultivated using methods introduced by Spanish friars, such as irrigated wet-rice cultivation, and the use of the plow and carabao (water buffalo) for labour. This transition occurred under Spanish colonial rule between 1521-1898 and resulted in farmers adopting a blend of indigenous and western cultivation practices, such as the incorporation of western technologies and Christianity into existing cosmovisions and cultivation practices, referred to as traditional agriculture. Although novel at the time, I refrain from referring to traditional agriculture as a niche development due to the archipelago being comprised of a diverse network of villages with distinct languages, customs, and cosmovisions prior to the arrival of the Spanish. In other words, there was not a pre-existing dominant regime coordinating cultivation practices.  However, over time Spanish colonizers, backed by the crown and the Vatican, institutionalized the plantation economy, transforming native Filipinos into the labouring peasant class. The social inequity that emerged under this newly installed dominant regime was preserved under the subsequent (neo)colonial regime through implementation of land reform policies that failed to redistribute Spanish landholdings to the peasant class.  Spanish Colonial Regime: Institutionalizing privatization and financial debt  Spanish authorities introduced the idea of personal possession and private ownership through the  82 granting of land titles, transferring land that was formerly communally owned to complicit indigenous elite groups, Spanish settlers, and soldiers who served the crown (Olano, n.d.; Vargas 2003). In these newly established encomiendas, landowners (or encomenderos) acquired the right to collect rent and taxes from the people living within their boundaries (Vargas, 2003). Spanish authorities also condemned indigenous rituals and cultivation practices and introduced Christianity and western innovations and technologies, such as irrigated wet-rice cultivation, and the use of the plow and carabao (water buffalo) for labour (Aguilar, 1998). Although these production methods and technologies increased yields, they also required capital. Loans and cash advances were provided by monastic estates, thereby introducing the newly formed peasant class to the system of financial debt (ibid). As the colonial economy became increasingly more monetized, the accumulation of debt among the smallholder peasant class facilitated penury in the countryside against a concentration of land and resources in the hands of a few landowners and corporations (Olan, n.d.; Franco and Borras, 2005).  The Spanish colonial regime, therefore, facilitated the move toward increased privatization, the decoupling of what would be considered indigenous knowledge systems from cultivation practices, and the accumulation of financial debt and subsequent landlessness among rural households. Although hundreds of peasant uprisings occurred during this period (Putzel 1992; Isaac et al., 2017), by the turn of the 20th century, peasants were “deeply entrenched” in the plantation economy as a result of generations of impoverishment and socioeconomic conditions that forced them to be dependent on and subservient to the landed elite (Aguilar, 1998: 219). Hence the legacies of the Spanish colonial regime on the rural landscape were the concentration of land, resources, and political economic power among the landowning class.   83 The (Neo)Colonial Regime: Maintaining social inequity The peasant oppression and marginalization that occurred under Spanish colonial rule persisted under US occupation, beginning in 1898 and following independence in 1946. At the end of the Spanish colonial regime, over 20 percent of cultivated lands (185,000 ha) were owned by monastic estates (Hayami, Quisumbing and Adriano, 1990). A major source of peasant unrest, these lands were targeted for redistribution by American colonizers in the early 20th century. Beginning in 1902, the appointed Civil Governor of the Philippines William Taft purchased 166,000 ha for US$7 million from the Vatican for redistribution (Adriano, 1991; Baldwin, 1902). However, due to employing a market-based approach, as the new colonial government wanted to recover the costs, the bulk of the redistributed friar lands went to American firms, businessmen, and landlords that could afford to purchase the lands, rather than Philippine peasants (Adriano, 1991).  The deteriorating situation for peasants and mounting tension between landlords and tenant farmers gave rise to the Huk rebellion that commenced in 1946, the same year the Philippines gained its independence (Vargas, 2003; Isaac et al., 2017). Successive governments from Presidents Roxas to Magsaysay responded with a series of counterinsurgency operations that limited the Huk uprising but did nothing to ease peasant unrest as the issue of landlessness remained (Vargas, 2003; Isaac et al., 2017). Post-war governments passed agrarian reform and agricultural development programs aimed at addressing peasant unrest, but their implementation were subverted by landlords and some government officials themselves (Putzel, 1992).  For example, the Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1954 (RA 1199) was implemented with the stated intention of facilitating more equitable transactions and just relations between tenant farmers and  84 landholders by limiting the crop-share payable to landlords to 30 percent of the base crop (Mangahas, 1974: 302-303). The Land Reform Act of 1955 (RA 1400) was aimed at expropriating and redistributing estates (>300 ha) to family-sized lots (<6 ha) for landless peasants (Mangahas, 1974: 303). Both acts, however, were deemed “ineffective as the landlord-dominated Congress cut down their enforcement by providing only a meager sum to the programs while watering down the provisions by raising retention limits and inserting additional requirements” (Vargas, 2003: 5; also see Putzel, 1992:116-117).  Exploring the legacies of both colonial regimes on the rural landscape illuminates the structural processes that limited peasant access to land and resources. It also reveals how the dominant institutional arrangement facilitated the social inequity that continued to worsen over time, and by the 1960s the Philippines “was on the brink of chaos” as peasants were mobilizing in the countryside while students were demonstrating in the capital (Isaac et al., 2017: 11) – the agrarian context under which the Green Revolution was implemented in the Philippines.  3.3.2 Second Transition: Institutionalizing the Green Revolution and Vulnerability The second transition – from traditional to modern agriculture – occurred in the latter part of the 20th century. Dubbed the ‘Green Revolution,’ this transition marks a period in which the state facilitated the adoption of HYVs and chemical inputs, as well as the expansion of irrigation. Despite the novelty surrounding modern agricultural technologies, I refrain from referring to the Green Revolution as a niche development as initiatives were similar to earlier colonial regimes in their emphasis on increasing yields through western technologies that required capital, thereby preserving the role of debt in farming. Although these new technologies transformed the biophysical landscape, they did little to address social inequities as well as maintained an  85 institutional arrangement that centralized power. However, unlike earlier colonial regimes, the Green Revolution regime grew to comprise a network of US-based international development and philanthropic organizations, multinational research and financial institutions, state agencies, and the agroindustry that collectively worked toward building the necessary resources and infrastructure for transforming the traditional rice growing landscape to high yielding monocultured systems dependent on fossil fuel-based chemical inputs. Hence, from its very beginnings the Green Revolution exhibited institutional power bolstered by US-based organizations and industries and is therefore considered an extension or modernization of the dominant colonial regime, rather than a transformation of it. To unpack this institutional dynamic, I identify the roles of various actors within the Green Revolution regime and examine the ways in which they have influenced smallholder management practices. I then describe the implications of such processes and outcomes on rice farming systems and the wider rural landscape, drawing connections to agroecosystem and community indicators for climate change vulnerability.  The Green Revolution “Knowledge” Regime: Centralizing agricultural knowledge and  innovation In an effort to quell social unrest, the last half of the 20th century marks a pivotal era in which agricultural modernization and industrialization efforts were introduced and intensified in the Philippines and many parts of the world (Hayami and Kikuchi 2000; Patel, 2009). Such efforts led to the development and diffusion of modern crop varieties, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, as well as the expansion of irrigation and mechanization of cultivation practices. Two research institutions were instrumental to this effort: the International Rice Research Institute  86 (IRRI) and its sister organization the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice).  The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) was established in 1960 following an agreement between the Rockefeller and Ford Foundation, and the Philippine government (IRRI, 2018), as well as substantial funding from both foundations and USAID (Putzel, 1992). According to the signed Memorandum of Understanding, IRRI is “to do basic research on the rice plant and applied research on all phases of rice production, management, distribution and utilization." By the mid-1970s, in support of these initiatives, then president Ferdinand Marcos gave IRRI the legal authority to occupy the farmlands where its research and operations facilities now reside (Presidential Decrees 457 and 1046-A). The land transaction occurred under martial law, and according to local accounts, these respective farmlands were forcibly taken from local farmers (KMP, 2009: 5), who were then hired as farm workers for IRRI (Quijano and Adapon, 2007). IRRI received diplomatic status (Presidential Decree 1620) meaning neither its research activities nor labor practices could be made to undergo litigation, giving IRRI complete immunity from accountability to serious complaints, accidents, or allegations made by workers and farmers about toxic exposure to agrochemicals and other inputs (ibid).  Such controversial stories surrounding the inception of IRRI are dwarfed by the extensive focus on IRRI’s research accomplishments. IRRI spearheaded the Green Revolution in the Philippines and other parts of Asia with its release of IR8 in 1966 (Estudillo and Otsuka, 2006: 123).  IR8 was a short, sturdy, and high yielding inbred rice variety capable of absorbing high amounts of fertilizer, and hence was promoted alongside, chemical inputs (Bautista and Javier, 2005). Its responsiveness to chemical inputs is what distinguished IR8 from traditional and indigenous varieties.  Three years after its release, roughly 32% of the Philippine rice growing area was  87 planted with IR8 (Bautista and Javier, 2005).  By 1971, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the United Nations Development Programme organized a consortium of donors under the name the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). With substantial funds from the CGIAR, as well as special tax privileges granted by Republic Act 2707, IRRI had the necessary capital to diffuse technologies, train extension workers, host conferences, workshops, symposia, and establish international networks – all of which served to expand its reach (Chandler, 1992). The Institute continues to employ hundreds of scientific and support staff, as well as carry out agricultural research and training on its 252-hectare experimental farm located at the University of Philippines Los Baños.  In 1975, IRRI discontinued its policy of directly releasing varieties, and transitioned to working only in partnership with national research systems in selecting, naming, and releasing varieties (Chandler, 1992). The national research and development institute that would later take on this role in the Philippines was the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice). Established in 1985 with Executive Order 1061 and funded by both IRRI and the DA, PhilRice has engaged in research and development oriented toward developing high-yielding rice varieties (PhilRice, 2018b). PhilRice has 12 research stations or field offices located across the archipelago, and according to Mariano et al., (2012: 42), the Institute along with the University of Philippines Los Baños, are important vectors of Green Revolution technology as they:  submit promising lines to the Rice Varietal Improvement Group (RVIG), a multidisciplinary and multi-agency body that tests and evaluates the seeds. The RVIG then recommends varieties to the National Seed Industry Council (NSIC) for commercial  88 release. Upon approval of release, PhilRice mass produces the foundation seeds (FSs) and distributes them to the seed production network (SeedNet). The SeedNet produces the registered seeds and sells them to seed growers who then produce the [certified seeds] to be accessed by farmers. The mainstreaming of IRRI and later PhilRice technologies was made possible by a donor/investment policy and infrastructure that facilitated the use of the modern HYVs in monoculture productions systems (discussed further below). Such an institutional arrangement resulted in farmers becoming “passive recipients of technology, to the extent of even forgetting how to farm” as all technologies and problems were supplied and solved by extension workers (Medina, 2004: 2). Consequently, the availability of locally adapted cultivars, landraces and the traditional/indigenous knowledge associated with their cultivation, utilization, and conservation eroded over time (Altoveros and Borromeo, 2007). Although IRRI and PhilRice have expanded their research and development initiatives to include indigenous and traditional varieties, their revaluing of these alternative cultivars is restricted to their genetic material, as these cultivars supply their seed banks with additional genetic material, as well as give them access to new sources of funding that can be used for the research and development of new commercial seed products (see Powledge, 2001; Romero et al., 2011; Rabara et al., 2015; PhilRice, 2018a; Stone and Glover, 2016). To date, the state shows little interest in revitalizing farmer-led and village-centred seed production and exchange, as there is a lack of engagement in establishing local seed farms that produce traditional/indigenous cultivars that are locally adapted (Rapera et al., 2014). Furthermore, the promotion of agrochemicals and highly monocultured farm systems resulted in the loss of agrobiodiversity (Altoveros and Borromeo, 2007), and subsequently, the loss of supplemental food sources previously available to rural communities (Mendoza, 2004; Medina,  89 2004; Ong’wen and Wright, 2007). Irrigation canals, drinking water, and rainwater became saturated with agrochemicals exposing wildlife, livestock, and rural households to toxins (Frossard, 2002; Farmer Interview 2, personal communication, Sep 8, 2016) that have been linked to sterility, birth defects and cancers (Davis, 1993; Layosa, 2007; IARC, 2015). Therefore, the establishment of the Green Revolution knowledge regime resulted in the separation of farmers from agricultural knowledge development and innovation, creating dependencies on research organizations, and consequently, the loss of agrobiodiversity and the indigenous/traditional systems to which they were embedded.  The Green Revolution “Administrative” Regime: Facilitating the conversion from traditional to  conventional farming During the 1960s, the Philippines opened itself up to US investment and trade and American consultants, embassy staff, and USAID personnel played a key role in shaping agricultural development. For instance, through its allocation of “Food for Peace” loans, USAID encouraged the Philippine government to implement an agrarian reform program that focused on disseminating IRRI’s recommendations for modern varieties and chemical inputs (Putzel, 1992:117-119; Mangahas, 1974: 300-301). In 1963, President Diosdado Macapagal enacted the Agricultural Land Reform Code (RA 3844) which sought to change the status of tenant farmers to leaseholders under 25-year payment plans (Mangahas, 1974: 303), as well as established the Agricultural Credit Administration (ACA) and the Agricultural Productivity Commission (APC) for the purposes of providing credits and loans to smallholders, and improving productivity of farms through extension services, respectively. Both entities failed to accomplish their mandate due to “mismanagement and outright graft and corruption” (Adriano, 1991; cited in Vargas,  90 2003). However, the Code served to establish the administrative machinery responsible for providing financial loans to farmers for land acquisition and executing agricultural plans and programming oriented toward achieving greater productivity through extension services and the establishment of agricultural cooperatives. Following martial law declaration in 1972, the Marcos regime bolstered this administrative machine by implementing rural infrastructure development and civic action programs that facilitated the deployment of Green Revolution technologies. Presidential Decree 27, a restricted land transfer program, developed with the participation of USAID personnel, dropped the land ownership ceiling from 75 ha to 7 ha and redistributed land to rice and corn producers (Putzel 1992: 120; Vargas, 2003: 6; Bellasteros and dela Cruz, 2006: 3). However, in order to receive land, tenants had to become members of Samahang Nayon, government-established cooperatives used for both educating and enforcing smallholders to use Green Revolution technologies; the latter of which was accomplished through requiring members to use IRRI’s HYV and the chemical fertilizers and pesticides needed for their cultivation (Putzel, 1992; Araullo, 2006). Masagana 99, a national program for rice production, provided credit to tenants and smallholders to purchase the new agricultural inputs, including fertilizers, pesticides, and cash to pay for planting, weeding, and harvesting (Mangahas, 1974: 300; Hayami and Kikuchi, 2000: 33). These credits were temporary, and farmers would later have to contend with purchasing these inputs at much higher prices due to the rising cost of fossil fuels (Tadeo et al., 2012).  Presidential Decree 27, the agrarian reform law passed under martial law, is credited, along with Agricultural Land Reform Code of 1963, for paving the way for new conceptualizations of land reform that included broad-based human and economic development that centred on uplifting the  91 political and socioeconomic status of beneficiaries (Borras, 2001: 550; Ballesteros and dela Cruz, 2006: 2). However, the program was largely deemed a failure due to only transferring 7% (126,000 ha) of the projected 1,767,000 ha of rice and corn land (Bello and de Guzman, 2001: 198). Part of the failure can be attributed to the lack of funding available to purchase land for redistribution, though substantial foreign funding was awarded for the development and deployment of Green Revolution technologies. For example, the World Bank refused to fund land redistribution, though in 1975 it endorsed the work of the IRRI and Masagana 99 and allocated a $16 million loan for beneficiary support directed through the Land Bank; a $35 million loan to the Department of Agriculture to finance extension services; and a $15 million loan to the Department of Agrarian Reform to support resettlement programs (Putzel, 1992: 136).  Under mounting political pressure from a grassroots coalition of peasants, NGOs, and the church following the January 1987 Mendiola Bridge Massacre7, Congress then President Cory Aquino passed the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)8 in 1991, which was derived from the Gallego-Abad sponsored agrarian reform bill (Borras 2001; Isaac et al., 2017). CARP, much like Marcos’ earlier agrarian reform programs, played an important role in institutionalizing the Green Revolution in the Philippines (see Table 3.1). First, the term “comprehensive” was used to reflect the provision of support services aimed at improving productivity for agrarian reform                                                7 The gunning down of nineteen peasants near Malacañang Palace during a large peasant rally for agrarian reform. 8 CARP acquired and redistributed private land through Compulsory Acquisition, Operation Land Transfer, Voluntary Offer-to-Sell, Voluntary Land Transfer, Stock Distribution Transfer, and leaseback – the latter three market oriented “landlord friendly” options (Borras et al., 2007: 1561; Borras et al., 2012: 124) put the onus on farmers to initiate and monitor the agrarian reform process to ensure land is redistributed (Isaac et al., 2017:12). This includes filing legal complaints with DAR and the Department of Labour when farmer claims are not processed; as well as extralegal methods, such as occupying lands and campaigning to ensure implementation of the agrarian reform program which has often resulted in acts of violence against farmers (Olano, n.d.).  92 beneficiaries (Guevarra and Baldovino-Gabales, 2003: 155). To deliver support services, including infrastructure development (i.e. roads, irrigation, and farm facilities), technology transfer, credit and marketing assistance, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) established Agrarian Reform Communities (ARCs), a cluster of neighboring barangays composed of a critical mass of agrarian reform beneficiaries (Guevarra and Baldovino-Gabales, 2003; Ballesteros et al., 2017). According to a World Bank report (2009), foreign assistance9 supported 58 percent of ARCs, translating to roughly 30 percent of all ARBs nationwide. In a study that covered 1093 rice-farming households, Lapitan (2005) found that “CARP, through ARCs and the provision of support services, positively influenced rice farmers to adopt modern technology in farming.” Others have also associated CARP with the adoption of modern technology (see Ballesteros et al., 2017; Guevarra and Baldovino-Gabales, 2003) and more specifically, HYV and increased use of fertilizers (Nozawa, 2002). In other words, CARP helped fine-tune the administrative machinery used to deploy Green Revolution technologies. Although Green Revolution technology coupled with irrigation resulted in higher yields than traditional varieties (Hayami and Ruttan 1985; Estudillo and Otsuka, 2006), these yield gains did not translate into improved incomes or economic conditions for smallholders, as farmers often paid 50 percent of their crop to landlords, 100 percent interest rates on credit advances used for purchasing required inputs, and exorbitant irrigation fees to facilities controlled by landlords (Putzel, 1992: 120; Layosa, 2007: 39-40). So, although the agricultural growth that occurred                                                9 The World Bank, Asian Development Bank, Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, International Fund for Agricultural Development, and foreign governments with whom the Philippines has diplomatic and trade relations or bilateral agreements and/or are members of the United Nations financed ARC development projects and services (DAR, 2009).    93 alongside the Green Revolution “contributed to the reduction of measured rural poverty10,” when shortfall (or debt) is accounted for poverty remained severe for rural households (Balisacan, 1993: 557). Furthermore, the “weak” implementation of CARP, coupled with the government allowing sales and other forms of land transfers to be undertaken in the informal market, resulted in a number of consequences that ultimately reduced smallholder autonomy (Ballesteros and Cortes, 2008). For instance, due to lacking resources and capital necessary to manage their farms, farmers were (and continue to be) susceptible to sanglaan (land pawning), an informal credit mechanism that transfers cultivation rights from farmers to usurers until the former is able to pay back the monies borrowed (a form of debt farming). Under land pawning situations, a farmer relinquishes his autonomy and agrees to plant the crop(s) and manage the farm according to the usurer’s preference; thereby simulating hacienda conditions, where the farmer becomes a farm laborer and the usurer a provisional landlord dictating production practices. In Negros Occidental Province, many usurers are also conventional seed, fertilizer, and pesticide sellers (Key Informant 2b, personal communication, Nov 28, 2016). Hence, once Negrense farmers lease their land they often relinquish their choice to engage in alternative farming practices (Farmer Interview 2, personal communication, Sep 8, 2016), as it is in the best interest of the usurer to require that the farmer engage in conventional farming, thereby ensuring that the latter stays indebted through the purchase of inputs (Key Informant 2b, personal communication, Nov 28, 2016). Such schemes often result in permanent land transfers from farmer beneficiaries to usurers, as farmers incur significant debts over time due to being forced to purchase expensive chemical inputs (Nagarajan et al., 1993). One Negros smallholder indicated, “‘land reform’ is                                                10 The head-count index is a commonly used poverty measure in the Philippines which accounts for the number of households whose incomes fall below the poverty line. The problem with focusing on household incomes is that it does not account for income transfers, as in the case with farmers paying for financial debts (Balisacan, 1993: 541).   94 now becoming ‘land return’ because farmers are forced to sell land or engage in debt farming” (Farmer Interview 3b, personal communication, Sep 9, 2016).  The separation of farmers from agricultural knowledge, the commercialization of agricultural resources, as well as the environmental costs associated with conventional farming made resource-poor smallholders highly vulnerable to soil degradation, pests, diseases, and other environmental disturbances (Jhamtani, 2008; Pingali and Rosegrant, 1994).  These rural conditions prompted smallholders and associated civil society NGOs to mobilize for an alternative agricultural development strategy, one that can address the social, economic, and political root causes of food insecurity and inequity.  Such efforts describe the origin of the Philippine organic movement.  3.3.3 Toward a Third Transition: Institutionalizing Organic Agriculture and Resilience? The third transition has not fully occurred, rather it describes niche development efforts introduced by smallholders and civil society NGOs in the 1980s to initiate organic transition. These efforts have garnered some institutional support, however current public sector conceptions of organic agriculture do not fully align with farmer advocacies and strategies for agricultural development.  To clarify these tensions, I first characterize grassroots campaigns for organic agriculture. Next, I describe public sector efforts to support organic transition, beginning with local government initiatives, then moving on to state-level initiatives.  I then characterize the current state of the organic transition and identify a number of institutional “lock-ins” obstructing the wide-scale adoption of this niche development. Finally, a comparative examination of grassroots and public sector campaigns for organic agriculture are carried out to determine the ways in which the respective strategies work to stabilize or destabilize the  95 dominant Green Revolution regime, while also considering the wider implications on smallholder resilience. Niche Development: Grassroots mobilizations for organic agriculture After two decades of the Green Revolution, farmers and indigenous peoples in the Philippines found common ground, calling for an end to its human, environmental, and economic costs, and associated neoliberal economic and trade policies (Cordillera Peoples’ Alliance Research Commission, 1997; Frossard, 2002; PANAP, 2007; Bodley, 2008; Sanchez, 2011). Born out of social unrest and rural mobilizations, organic agriculture emerged in the 1980s as an alternative to the Green Revolution regime. Advocates believed that organic agriculture was capable of addressing the social, economic, and political root causes of food insecurity and inequity by reducing dependence on capital intensive chemical inputs, restoring sociocultural processes (e.g. bayanihan (communal work) and farmer-to-farmer exchange), and facilitating self-sufficiency and farmer empowerment through increased farmer control over agricultural resources (Olano, 1993; Frossard, 2002; Bachmann et al., 2009; Sanchez, 2011). Proponents of organic agriculture partnered with not-for-profits, NGOs, farmer networks, and religious institutions to increase access to technical support, as well as strengthen their political power and resistance (Key Informant 2a, personal communication, Sep 6, 2016). Over time, the organic movement garnered the interest and support of various international development agencies and researchers (Frossard, 2002; Bachmann et al., 2009; Salazar 2014), signalling world-wide concerns with the dominant conventional paradigm and growing interest in alternative agricultural development strategies. Both the emergence and growth of organic agriculture in the Philippines can be attributed to the activism of farmers and partnering civil  96 society NGOs and their efforts to shift the agricultural knowledge and administrative regime. For instance, one grassroots network comprised of farmers, scientists, and NGOs has provided the resources, training, and infrastructure to support over 30,000 farmers across the Philippines to transition or maintain their organic farms (MASIPAG, 2018a; also see Chapter 4). Public sector support for organic agriculture  In response to grassroots campaigns, growing concerns over the environmental and economic costs of conventional farming (ABS-CBN News, 2009; Suñer et al., 2016), and trepidations over genetically engineered crops (Minda News, 2017), decentralized local governments operating under the 1991 Local Government Code11 (Republic Act 7160) started implementing ordinances aimed at highlighting organic agriculture as “an alternative to conventional, hybrid and/or GMO” production systems (Aruelo, n.d.; also see Salazar, 2014 and House Bill 2719). Provisions were inserted to prevent farms from growing chemically produced crops or GMOs in their legislative districts (Aruelo, n.d.). By 2007, approximately half of the country’s provincial governments were promoting organic agriculture through declarations of support, policies, information campaigns, events, capacity building, and support for certification, production, and marketing (Sarmiento, 2007; Salazar, 2014). Local governments increasingly identified organic agriculture as a lucrative pathway to sustainable agriculture (ABS-CBN News, 2009) and measure for “liberating people from poverty, sickness and hunger” (LOAMC-Philippines, 2018).                                                11 This code established a decentralized government structure through delegating more powers, authority, responsibilities and resources to local governments comprised of provincial, city, municipal, and barangay (village) governing bodies. This resulted in a number of rural development programs being transferred to local governing bodies, including agricultural extension and on-site research, infrastructure projects, social welfare services, community-based forestry programs, and more.   97 At the same time, the national government steadily integrated organic agriculture into state development policies and programs. This shift is largely a result of NGOs partnering with government offices in the mid-1990s (i.e. the Center for International Trade Expositions and Missions, the Department of Trade and Industry) to develop organic certification standards, structures and processes (Salazar, 2014). The Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries and Natural Resources Research and Development (PCARRD) is credited for sponsoring a national consultation workshop on organic agriculture in 1997 and funding organic vegetable projects in 1998 and 1999 (Briones, 2002; Salazar, 2014). Due to the growth of organic products in the country, the Bureau of Agriculture and Fisheries Standards (BAFS) needed to establish a protocol for discerning organic from conventional products, as well as guidelines for farmers to ensure organic production systems meet national and international standards.  Hence, in 2001, the state launched the Organic Certification Center of the Philippines (OCCP). Now an independent non-stock corporation, the OCCP’s purpose “is to serve as a certification and inspection body for food and food products, and agricultural inputs (e.g. fertilizer, pesticide, feeds, etc)” (OCCP, 2018). In 2003, the Philippine National Standard for Organic Agriculture12 was established “for the purpose of promoting organic agriculture and enhancing market competitiveness by providing a uniform approach to the requirements on conversion, crop production, animal production, special products, processing, labeling, and consumer information” (BAFS, 2016).   The institutional shift toward “promoting organic agriculture” is an outcome of both NGO and private sector influence on the state. In 2005, then President Macapagal-Arroyo implemented                                                12 The standard was based on the earlier work carried out by NGOs in partnership with state agencies.  98 Executive Order 481 to promote and develop organic agriculture in the Philippines with the intention of establishing the Philippines as an organic capital of Asia (Pangga, 2008; cited in Villegas-Panga, 2015); thereby supporting private sector interests in capitalizing on the global export market for organic goods. Five years later, the same administration passed the Organic Agriculture Act of 2010 (Republic Act 10068, subsequently the Act), mandating local government units to promote organic agriculture by putting in place their own organic programs and establishing a local technical committee (or technical working group) to oversee such efforts (NOAB, 2011). The Department of Agriculture (DA), through the National Organic Agriculture Board (NOAB), was (and is) tasked with implementation of the Act. Comprised of various stakeholders in the organic industry, including smallholder, NGO, state agency, and private sector representatives, the NOAB reflects state efforts to exercise inclusivity in the development of organic transition strategies. Hence, many of the goals outlined in the 2012-2016 National Organic Agriculture Program (NOAB, 2011) echo grassroots and NGO campaigns for organic agriculture: 1. Increased farm productivity, reduced expenses on external farm inputs, better incomes for farmers and reduction of poverty in the rural sector;  2. Protected health of farmers, consumers and the public in general;  3. Enhanced soil fertility and farm biodiversity, reduced pollution and destruction of the environment as well as prevention of further depletion of natural resources; and  4. Improved resiliency to disaster risks and climate change vulnerabilities caused by human interventions and naturally induced hazards.  5. Meeting the basic material needs and improving the standard of living for all, upholding human rights, gender equality, labor standards and the right to self-determination.   99 The incorporation of organic agriculture in national development policies and programs has been attributed to the widening concerns over conventional agriculture and growing interest in an alternative vision for agricultural development in the Philippines, one that perceives organic agriculture “as the future of the country’s agricultural sector” (Suñer et al., 2017), “key to Philippine farmers’ success” (Galvez, 2012 cited in Salazar, 2014), and a national strategy to “boost farmers’ income, increase food productivity [and enhance] resilience to climate change” (Go Organic! Philippines, 2011 cited in Salazar, 2014). According to Tadeo et al. (2014: 4), the Philippine government has “zeroed-in on the promotion of sustainable agriculture, and subsequently organic farming” due to the “promise of modern conventional agriculture [having] failed.” A closer investigation of public sector initiatives, however, reveals this momentum and optimism for organic agriculture is undercut by a number of state-level institutional conflicts and barriers, which contribute to the state’s failure in reaching its stated goal of bringing a minimum of 5 percent of agricultural land into organic production by 2016 (NOAB, 2011).  Identifying state-level institutional conflicts and “lock-ins” Despite the passing of the Organic Act of 2010 and the “low to medium level of awareness” farmers have on organic farming activities and markets (signaling a need for the government to “triple its efforts” in disseminating related information and resources) (Piadozo et al., 2014), state agencies continue to promote conventional agriculture and Green Revolution technologies. The same agencies that emerged from and/or support the Green Revolution regime are the same agencies that are expected to also facilitate organic transition (see Table 3.1). For instance,  100 following the 2008 Global Rice Crisis13, then president Benigno Aquino III implemented the Food Staples Sufficiency Program (FSSP). The program required IRRI and PhilRice to work collaboratively to promote hybrid and inbred HYVs of rice, with the stated intention of achieving 100% rice self-sufficiency and zero imports by 2013 (DA, 2012). As a result, hybrid and inbred HYVs of rice, along with fertilizers were distributed under 50:50 subsidy schemes14 covering 201,239 ha and 2,732,784 ha respectively, and 14,113,947 kg of fertilizers (i.e. Bio-N, Vital-N, Bio-con, and organic fertilizers15) in 2009 alone (DA, 2009). To equip farmers with agricultural technologies, the DA’s extension services conducted 75 trainings, 2,790 Farmer Field Schools, 148 technology demonstrations, and 1091 regional trainings, 3,094 farm and business advisory, 206 field days, school-on-the-air, e-learning courses and information caravans (ibid). Such rice research and development activities demonstrate the amount of time and resources the state commits toward the promotion of Green Revolution technologies. There are also instances in which state agents have been accused of discouraging farmers from adopting organic agriculture. For example, researchers at the PhilRice-Central Station were said to have discouraged farmers from adopting organic practices by showcasing data that portrayed chemical fertilizers as more “economically attractive” than organic fertilizers (Key Informant 1a,                                                13 A period that saw the tripling of the price of rice, causing panic in countries across Asia and Africa who rely on rice imports. In the Philippines, people lined up in long queues to purchase subsidized rice. The crisis demonstrated the vulnerability of the entire country to market volatility (Grain, 2008). 14 Government covers 50% of the cost of seeds and 50% of the cost of fertilizers. 15 The inclusion of organic fertilizers was intended to address the increasing cost of chemical fertilizers (DA, 2009)  101 Table 3.1: The role of key state agencies in facilitating agricultural transition in the Philippines  Position Control Role in the Green Revolution Role in Organic Transition Department of Agrarian Reform*  Government agency established in 1971 responsible for the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) (DAR, 2018a).  Comprised of 15 regional and 73 provincial field offices. Oversees the Technical Advisory Support Services (DAR, 2018b). Partners with DA to provide training programs and build infrastructure for agrarian reform beneficiaries (DAR, 2018b). Established 2,210 Agrarian Reform Communities (ARCs), covering 9,698 barangays nationwide (DAR, 2018b), for the purpose of facilitating the adoption of modern technology (i.e. HYVs and chemical inputs). One DAR office (Region 5) is committed to promoting organic agriculture, providing several trainings in organic farming to different ARCs (DAR Region V, 2013; BusinessMirror, 2015). Department of Agriculture*  Government agency established in 1898 and responsible for the promotion of agricultural development through providing the policy framework, public investments, and support services (DA, 2018). Oversees the implementation of the Organic Agriculture Act.  Comprised of 15 regional field offices. Oversees 7 bureaus, including the Agricultural Training Institute, Bureau of Agricultural Research, and Bureau of Plant Industry. Allocates funds to support organic transition through the NOAB.  Coordinates farmer trainings, field schools, technology demonstrations, on hybrid and inbred HYV of rice, as well as chemical inputs. Promotes the use and consumption of GMOs though providing farmers financial assistance for acquiring seeds and inputs (Takumi, 2017).  Distributes organic fertilizers and provides trainings on organic farming. Engages in some consultation with leaders from the organic movement on how to develop and effectively promote organic agriculture.  Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources and Development*  Government agency and branch of the Department of Science and Technology established in 1972 to direct the country’s agricultural research (PCCARD, 2018). Formulates policies, plans and programs for science and technology-based R&D. Allocates funds to the national network of government and higher education institutions involved in crops, livestock, forestry, fisheries, soil and water, mineral resources, and socio-economic R&D (PCCARD, 2018).  Facilitates information and technology transfer of modern agricultural technologies, relying largely on IRRI and PhilRice for rice technologies (David, 1999; Sharma, 2003).  Conducts forums and consultations on organic agriculture, launched a web-based information system for stakeholders, and directs funds to support organic vegetable production (NOAB, 2011).  Philippine Rice Research Institute  Government corporate entity attached to the DA and established in 1985 to help develop high-yielding and cost-reducing rice technologies (PhilRice, 2018b), as well as producing science-based policy recommendations for local and national legislation (PhilRice, 2018e). Comprised of 12 stations or offices located throughout the Philippines. Coordinates the National Rice Research and Development Network (NRRDN), a formal and functional structure of 57 agencies located across the nation (PhilRice, 2018f). Engages in R&D of inbred and hybrid HYVs of rice, as well as bolsters the production of and serves as distribution centers for these modern rice varieties (DA, 2012).  One PhilRice station (Negros) mobilizes 6.5 ha out of 90 ha toward the development of organic fertilizers and a HYV of organic rice.   * Indicates membership on the National Organic Agriculture Board (NOAB), the implementing, evaluating, and monitoring body of the National Organic Agriculture Program (NOAP). Other members include Department of Interior and Local Government, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of Education, Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry, and a number of smallholder representatives (i.e. La Trinidad Organic Practitioners Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Negros Island Organic Producers Association, Molave Organic SRI Practitioners Association), a NGO representative (i.e. AGRO-ECO Philippines Incorporated), a private sector representative (i.e. Saret Organic Farmville), an academe representative (i.e. Pampanga State Agricultural University), and the NOAB Secretariat from the Bureau of Agriculture and Fisheries Standards (NOAP, 2016)   102 personal communication, Sep 5, 2016). For instance, one PhilRice report indicated that organic fertilizers are incapable of sustaining high productivity (see Mamaril et al., 2009). Deleterious views of organic agriculture seem to be pervasive among government agencies tasked with implementing the National Organic Agriculture Plan, as one PhilRice staff indicated (personal communication, Sep 5, 2016): Unfortunately, there are also various groupings or groups within the Department of Agriculture who are not really supportive of integrative farming or still on the conventional agriculture thinking… And of course, when I say the [groups] under the Department of Agriculture, these are the Bureau of Plant Industry, Bureau of Animal Industry, Fisheries, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, and Bureau of Animal Industry. All of these agencies have an organic agriculture component. While there are people who are specializing on adapting to organic agriculture as it is mandated by law, there are also those people who are purely conventional. The DA, ATI, and PhilRice are all accused of being biased toward conventional agriculture and the use of Green Revolution technologies by smallholders and NGO representatives. This is an important consideration given the incentive to work with ATI agents as they serve as “a bridge to access[ing] post-harvest facilities” such as machinery, roads, and more (Key Informant 3, personal communication, Dec 15, 2016). According to one informant, “our government does not really seriously promote the organic farming system [sic]; the DA is mainly focus[ed] on promoting industrial agriculture rather than the agricultural system which is suited to the  103 smallholder” (Key Informant 2b, personal communication, Nov 28, 2016). Another emphasized that the DA at the national level continues to advance conventional agriculture, including hybrids and GMOs (Key Informant 3, personal communication, Dec 15, 2016). Organic farmers shared similar impressions, accusing the DA and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources as “allowing the entry of GMO products” (Focus Group 1, Oct 9, 2016).  The continued orientation toward modern agriculture is a result of over half a century of policies and programming designed to establish and capacitate an administrative machine designed to facilitate the wide adoption of commercial seeds and inputs (see Table 3.2). These National Programs for Rice Self-Sufficiency are designed and put forth by the presiding administration, and since the Marcos administration, there has been a consistent trend toward promoting the adoption of Green Revolution technologies, as organic agriculture alone is often perceived as incapable of producing adequate yields against growing population pressures and diminishing natural resources (Faylon and Cardona, 2007). Therefore, while there are some state-level institutional mechanisms designed to support organic transition, much of the public sector’s energy and resources are still expended on promoting conventional agriculture and maintaining the dominant regime.    104 Table 3.2: National Programs for Rice Self Sufficiency in the Philippines  Administration Program Description Marcos:  1973-1986   Masagana 99 Designed to increase rice production through promoting and incentivizing the use of Green Revolution technologies – i.e. HYVs, chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Aquino:  1987-1989, 1990-1992 Rice Productivity Enhancement, Rice Action  Centred on increasing rice production through the distribution of fertilizer and HYV seeds, irrigation, credit, and price stabilization. Improved irrigation systems, expanded fertilizer assistance, including the use of organic fertilizers. Ramos:  1992-1996, 1996-1998 Key Production Areas, Gintong Ani  Focused on improving farm productivity through subsidizing certified HYV seeds and organic fertilizers and improving irrigation systems and postharvest equipment and facilities. Provided loans for farm inputs and increased expenditure on agricultural research and development. Estrada:  1998-2000 Agriculturang Makamasa  A continuation of Gintong Ani but increased investment in irrigation, postharvest facilities, farm to market roads, and farm mechanization Arroyo:  2001-2010  Ginintuang Masaganang Ani, FIELDS* A continuation of Agriculturang Makamasa but focused on the adoption of hybrid rice technology through providing incentives – i.e. free hybrid seeds, pesticides, and fertilizers. Also focused on fertilizer, irrigation, extension, loans for inputs (including dryers and post-harvest facilities), and HYV seed subsidies.  Aquino:  2010-2016 Agri-Pinoy Rice, Food Staples Sufficiency  Centred on improving yields through agricultural technologies and mechanization, as well as expanding rice areas to include upland, marshlands, and idle farmlands. Broadened the focus of rice self-sufficiency to include other staples. Duterte:  2017-current Masaganang Ani 200 Aimed at boosting rice yields through the adoption of hybrid seeds, increased access to farming equipment, irrigation, and credit.   * Fertilizer, Infrastructure and Irrigation, Extension and Education, Loans and other post-harvest facilities, Seeds Sources: Hernandez, 2013; Ponce and Inoncencio, 2017; Kritz, 2017; Del Rosario, 2018     105  Furthermore, the focus on promoting homogenous irrigated rice systems is at odds with smallholders identifying the need for livestock and crop diversity as coping mechanisms during lean months and unexpected climate-related shocks and disturbances. Root crops, for example, were identified as resilient to drought conditions and not easily destroyed by typhoons (Focus Group 1, personal communication, Oct 9, 2016). One farmer emphasized the significance of crop diversity through sharing his observation of Typhoon Yolanda victims:  in the case of Yolanda victims, they were able to survive by eating coconut meat when government relief goods were delayed. This taught us a lesson on the importance of diversifying food crops so we can sustain ourselves especially during calamities.  Yet, in the case of disasters or other kinds of disturbances that cause severe damage to crops, the government with the help of the FAO provides farmers with HYVs and chemical inputs as part of recovery efforts (FAO, 2016, 2017; ReliefWeb 2015), rather than providing the necessary resources for smallholders to transition to diversified organic systems. Finally, the current Agriculture Secretary, an organic farmer, employs both organic and conventional farming methods, but publicly states that he will leave it to the market to facilitate the transition to organic (Pasion, 2016). Relying on the market to dictate agricultural transition is problematic for two reasons. First, it is important to acknowledge that the rapid transition to Green Revolution agriculture in the Philippines occurred through a number of institutional mechanisms backed by substantial foreign funding. Second, the market “serves those who are able and willing to profit and consume and therefore does not inherently encourage social equity  106 or democratic participation” (Allen, 2010: 298); nor does it capture any of the health and environmental externalities related to conventional production. The central motivation for smallholders to shift to organic agriculture is precisely to address existing inequities and marginalization, as well as health and environmental costs associated with conventional farming. Hence, relying solely on the market is also at odds with the stated claim that the promotion of organic agriculture in the Philippines rests on innovative education and training, comprehensive support services, and supportive policies for resource-poor smallholders (NOAB, 2011). Other barriers and constraints to organic transition Civil society representatives have described the Act as both a significant breakthrough and impediment to organic transition. Prior to the Act, proponents of organic agriculture (i.e. farmers and associated civil society/non-government organizations, activists, community development workers, etc) were perceived as “anti-government” as their advocacies and interventions undermined the state’s agricultural development programs and policies that were aligned with the dominant Green Revolution regime (Key Informant 3, personal communication, Dec 15, 2016). The Act had the effect of legitimizing the organic movement, as well as recognized the “central role of the farmers, indigenous people and other stakeholders at the grassroots” in the development of organic agriculture (Key Informant 3, personal communication, Dec 15, 2016). Now, leaders from the organic movement are sought out by the DA and PhilRice for consultation on how to develop and effectively promote organic agriculture. For Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura (Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development, MASIPAG), a farmer-led network that has played a prominent role in the Philippine organic movement, organic transition requires mobilizing farmers to develop and maintain their own agricultural resources, including traditional/indigenous seed varieties, local seed banks, trial farms, organic  107 fertilizers, and biofoliar sprays (see Chapter 4). According to the National Coordinator of MASIPAG, this need to consult with experts outside of the government reveals a lack of knowledge on organic farming practices among state agents:  The law gives legitimacy to our work in MASIPAG in the promotion of organic agriculture. Before the law, we didn’t work with the Department of Agriculture (DA). We are now openly collaborating with the DA at the local level, [as] local governments are required to form a Technical Working Group to implement the law. [Local governments] often invite people’s organizations of MASIPAG to be members of their technical working group because most of the DA and Agricultural Training Institute (ATI) don’t know how to implement organic agriculture; they are trained in giving trainings about conventional agriculture but not in organic agriculture (personal communication, Dec 16, 2016). A PhilRice staff member shared similar sentiments regarding extension agents, attributing their lack of knowledge to having “no technology yet in the Philippines for organic farming” due to organic research and development being in the “infancy level” at PhilRice (personal communication, Oct 18, 2016). The PhilRice Negros station is exploring vermacast and vermiliquor for hydroponics, as well as working to improve the yields of PSB Rc18, an inbred HYV used in organic rice research (Mendoza, 2016). The inclusion of organic rice research and development at the PhilRice-Negros station has been an important gain in public sector efforts to support organic transition.   108 However, the PhilRice Negros station experiences significant constraints in carrying out organic research and development projects. Of the 90 ha the station utilizes, only 6.5 ha are designated for organic research and development (personal observation). The station’s continued orientation toward conventional farming can be attributed to several factors. First, as an agency of the DA, PhilRice-Negros “serves as the distribution center for quality seeds of high-yielding and disease-resistant modern varieties chiefly suited for Western Visayas” (PhilRice, 2018c). Second, PhilRice is a Government Owned or Controlled Corporation (GOCC), meaning that it is mandated to earn money from the production and sale of rice seeds. Since a wide majority of rice farmers already practice conventional farming, the market demand for conventional seeds (i.e. HYV and hybrids) remains far greater than the market demand for organic seeds. Third, because PhilRice is mandated to grow rice, the Bureau does not allow stations to engage in the production of other crops. As a result, there are tensions surfacing among administrators and policy makers over whether PhilRice-Negros should engage in integrative farming research and development (Key Informant 1a, personal communication, Sep 5, 2016), an important agroecosystem management strategy practiced by organic farmers. For example, there are disagreements over whether vermiculture, mushroom, and livestock production fall outside of the mandate (ibid). The agricultural landscape occupying the PhilRice-Negros station continues to be standardized into 25 x 100 m irrigated plots designated solely for rice production, in spite of the diverse ecosystems and topography that make up the rice growing landscape in the region. The PhilRice-Negros station, therefore, exhibits a limited capacity to engage in research and development of diverse organic farming systems – an ostensible contradiction with the provincial government’s pursuit of “integrated, holistic and coordinated approach to rice production” (Province of Negros Occidental, 2012).   109 Although some federal funding is now allocated for the development and promotion of organic agriculture, the paucity of funds (2% of total agricultural budget) available is presenting challenges to local government units to develop the organic sector with limited resources (Salazar, 2014) and to smallholders in attaining required third-party certification (NOAB, 2011; Willer and Lernoud, 2017). To date, the law restricts the use of the term “organic” to products that pass the third-party certification. Research has pointed out the high cost of third-party certification puts organic certification out of the reach for smallholders and potentially raises issues related to corruption in the Philippines (see Willer and Lernoud, 2017; Salazer, 2013). There are municipalities that want to promote and implement organic farming, have delivered training to farmers within their jurisdictions, only to discover that farmers could not afford the required third-party certification, nor could the LGUs afford to subsidize the costs (Key Informant 3, personal communication, Dec 15, 2016; also see Landicho et al., 2014; Salazar, 2014). Even with a partial subsidy, farmers are apprehensive to undergo the certification process due to the stipulation that farmers can only obtain the subsidy after passing an inspection (Key Informant 3, personal communication, Dec 15, 2016). The onus is on resource-poor farmers to pay for the third-party inspection, estimated at P15,000-50,000/18months (Salazar, 2014; Lacorte, 2014), a substantial amount for resource-poor smallholders (PSA, 2017). For households living at the poverty threshold, an estimated annual income of P21,753 (PSA, 2016), approximately 46-153% of their household income would have to be leveraged. Farmers who do not pass the inspection cannot receive the subsidy and are therefore left to contend with a sizable debt. Additionally, there are instances in which farmers were advanced money for the inspection, passed the inspection, and did not receive the subsidy (Key Informant 3, personal communication, Dec 15, 2016); substantiating concerns over corruption and mishandling of  110 funds by the OCCP (see Sahakian et al., 2017). The concern over exorbitant costs and the potential for corruption is legitimized by the historical precedence of graft and corruption occurring under rural development schemes discussed earlier. These sentiments and experiences reveal both the structural barriers to organic transition posed by the Green Revolution regime, and the confined capacity to which the state, thus far, is willing to support this niche development.  In other words, state-level initiatives to support organic transition are marginal and restricted compared to their larger and long-term commitment to the Green Revolution and conventional farming. Therefore, wide-scale organic transition will be dependent on the Philippine organic movement’s ability to transform (rather than be incorporated into) the institutional arrangement that comprises the dominant agricultural regime. What farmers need and are calling for is an institutional arrangement that is capable and willing to address socioeconomic agricultural knowledge and resource constraints (Piadozo et al., 2014; Salazar, 2014). This includes creating supportive social networks that can provide farmers with adequate trainings, access to organic inputs and markets, spaces to engage in advocacy and social learning, and resources for farmers to build local institutions and develop agricultural technologies suited for their sociocultural and ecological contexts (see de Guzman et al., 2017 and Chapter 4). Competing Visions or Cooption of Organic Agriculture?: Implications for smallholder resilience Fundamental differences appear in the concerns and values expressed by various stakeholders within the Philippine Organic Movement. Small-holder organic farmers and their associated civil society organizations have an explicit interest in eliminating the spiral of debt and dependency that occurred with the adoption of HYVs and agrochemicals. As one informant indicated:  111 The government here in Negros Occidental is being run by landlords, while small farmers suffer from economic poverty... with no provisions and very little funding for farmers, [conventional] farmers are forced to borrow money from traders or lenders and are limited in their freedom to choose how to manage their farm (Key Informant 2b, personal communication, Nov 28, 2016).  Smallholders in Negros corroborated the persistence of such conditions, indicating that “there is no government subsidy to support [our] livelihood… there was a fertilizer subsidy, but this did not reach the intended beneficiaries due to a large-scale scam” (Focus Group 1, Oct 9, 2016; also see Bernal, 2014a, 2014b; Rappler.com, 2014). Negrense smallholders also indicated that they “are still struggling to achieve land tenure security” (Focus Group 2, Oct 10, 2016) as “lack of support is forcing farmers to incur debt until they lose control of the land [while] large tracts of land remain undistributed” (Focus Group 1, Oct 9, 2016). The utang (debt) farming endured by smallholders underwrites inequity and land re-concentration, as well as amplifies their vulnerability to climate change by further reducing their resources and agency to manage the farm.  To reduce such dependencies, smallholder farmers and their associated civil society organizations have identified a number of targeted interventions, including the use of traditional seeds, farmer control of seeds, farmer-to-farmer exchange, farmer developed agricultural technologies, diversified and integrated farming system practices, and trial farms (Focus Group 1, Oct 9, 2016; Focus Group 2, Oct 10, 2016; Focus Group 3b, Dec 3, 2016). Their expressed intention is to avoid dependency on capital intensive farming practices, and foster farmer self-sufficiency and community support mechanisms through the establishment of local institutions.  112 When asked what was needed to support resilience building capacities, smallholders pointed to organic farming (ibid). These requests align with growing recognition that resource generation, agrobiodiversity, traditional seed use, and local knowledge are critical for remediating farmer marginalization and ensuring long-term sustainability (McIntyre, 2009; Villegas-Pangga, 2015). They are also consistent with the resilience literature, which emphasizes the need to develop local community resources, including the natural resource base, as well as increase capacities for social learning and community action (Barrett and Constas, 2014; Berkes and Ross, 2013; Cabell and Oelofse 2012; Magis, 2010). If the Green Revolution regime put agricultural knowledge and innovation in the hands of the state and agrochemical industry, smallholder requests and engagements present organic agriculture as a mechanism for returning agricultural knowledge and innovation back to the hands of farmers (Villegas-Pangga, 2015; Frossard, 2002; Medina, 2002). This emphasis on reduced dependencies and farmer empowerment is markedly different from the state agenda, which tend to center on developing organic inputs and high yielding organic varieties, both of which are to be made available commercially to farmers thereby maintaining farmer dependencies on agricultural technologies. Several smallholders, as well as NGO and government representatives described the first iterations of organic programming carried out by the DA as inadequate precisely due to focusing on the production and distribution of organic fertilizers. One informant described government agencies as “just replac[ing] chemical products or the products of chemical farming [with] organic products” [Key Informant 2b, personal communication, Nov 28, 2016]. This reductive conception of organic farming was exhibited when the DA purchased and distributed thousands of tons of organic fertilizer to farmers, which translated to farmers receiving four bags of organic fertilizer in place of two bags of urea (Key  113 Informant 1a, personal communication, Sep 5, 2016). Such endeavours may have proved to be more harmful than useful, as conventional farmers likely witnessed a decline in yields after solely applying organic fertilizers as a substitute for synthetic products. Indeed, researchers have found that declining yields, along with more laborious and time-consuming practices and limited access to organic inputs were the main constraints to organic transition (Pantoja et al., 2016). A successful conversion process takes 3-5 years due to the need to rebuild soil quality (Key Informant 4, personal communication, Oct 3, 2016). Furthermore, effectively supporting the transition to organic agriculture requires supplying farmers with a variety of locally adapted organic seeds, providing trainings on various organic management practices including the production of organic inputs, and fostering the development of local institutions, such as: local farmer associations that allow farmers to exchange knowledge and support one another; local trial farms where farmers can engage in experimentation and innovation processes; and in-situ seed banks where farmers can collect and develop new organic seed varieties suitable to local conditions and farmer preferences (see Chapter 4; also see Pantoja et al., 2016). The tendency toward organic input development and substitution is arguably a symptom of “industrial colonization” of alternative agriculture (Rosset and Altieri, 1997); that is the process by which alternative, yet still commercial inputs are made available through the same institutional structures (Giraldo and Rosset, 2018) that supported the Green Revolution Regime. As one NGO representative described,  “the government has a different view about organic agriculture; they want to implement organic agriculture to get money out of it, to regulate it and then have this certification fee, guarantee system certifying body wherein they can get money out of it; and they can export” [Key Informant 3, personal communication, Dec 15, 2016]. Another depicted the Organic Agriculture Act as a “market-based framework” intended to “promote  114 organic products in the market rather than address the concerns of the small farmers” [Key Informant 2b, personal communication, Nov 28, 2016].  Conventional smallholders specifically identified the need for training on “how to stop the use of chemical inputs (i.e. fungicides and insecticides)” and “how to convert from chemical to organic farming” (Focus Group 2, Oct 10, 2016). Yet, public sector efforts to facilitate organic transition has failed to address the lack of in situ agricultural resources (Altoveros and Borromeo, 2007; Rapera et al., 2014) and the cycles of debt perpetuated by the required purchase of commercial inputs. Research suggests that separating farmers from the process of knowledge, technology and innovation development creates barriers to certain forms of social self-organization (Giraldo and Rosset, 2018), an important indicator for community and agroecosystem resilience (Magis, 2010; Berkes and Ross, 2013, 2014; Cabell and Oelofse, 2012).  Further, emphasis on technology and innovation in agricultural development schemes undercuts the need to address systemic and structural problems.  For example, the persistent problem of inequitable access to land, irrigation, and biological resources remain significant contributors to farmer vulnerability and barriers to enhancing resilience capacity. Yet institutional narratives continue to frame rural poverty and food insecurity in terms of production gaps, and “improving yields” remains a primary focus in policy and formidable endeavor for key agricultural organizations (Ponce and Inocencio, 2017). Such institutional narratives also serve to retain the notion that production should be dictated by “expert knowledge”, undermining community and farmer capacities for social and reflexive learning. “This is precisely what agroecology had challenged with methodologies used by, for example, the campesino a campesino or peasant-to-peasant movement… where producers are experimenters who disseminate their wisdom through horizontal dialogue and teaching by example” (Giraldo and Rosset 2018: 556). Or, what Frossard  115 (2002) has described as “peasant science” in his account of MASIPAG organic farmers using science as a tool for self-empowerment and farmer-centered development initiatives. Policies that support a knowledge and technology dissemination model that fails to address structural conditions are not only insufficient but may entrench disparities within the agricultural sector (Bezner Kerr, 2012).  3.4 Conclusion As climate-smart agricultural interventions enter the scene, proposed by the same institutions responsible for Green Revolution technology, an institutional analysis framework enables a critical investigation into the claims surrounding these technologies. A look into the transition that occurred under Spanish colonial rule and the subsequent transition that occurred under the Green Revolution reveals similarities between these two transitions and the impact they had on the socioeconomic conditions of farmers. Under colonial rule, the Spanish friars separated the native population from their indigenous systems and facilitated the move from communal land to privately owned land. They replaced indigenous cultivation practices with western innovations that increased productivity but required capital in order to purchase tools and materials for the plow, carabao, and irrigation. The subsequent accumulation of financial debt among the newly formed peasant class resulted in the concentration of land and resources, establishing the plantation economy that ensued for centuries under the colonial regime and following Philippine independence.  Similarly, the Green Revolution resulted in the separation of farmers from agricultural knowledge development and innovation, creating dependencies on research organizations, and subsequently, the loss of agrobiodiversity and the traditional systems for which they were  116 embedded. From the top-down deployment of IRRI and PhilRice technologies to temporary credit packages for fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation and machinery to implementing policies that preserved and supported the expansion of haciendas – these agricultural development schemes failed to address the underlying causes of peasant unrest, the widespread lack of land and resource access and the problem of inequity and corruption within the government (Putzel, 1992; Borras, 2001). From the Philippine smallholder perspective, the Green Revolution either ignored or perpetuated a power dynamic that increased the vulnerability and dependency of smallholders. It is because of these wider implications on the political economy that smallholders developed and continue to harbor distrust for IRRI, PhilRice, DAR, and the DA and are creating alternative pathways to agricultural development that center on issues of justice, equity, and the rights of farmers. The food, economic, and environmental crises and subsequent social unrest that emerged alongside the Green Revolution have resulted in some farmers shifting from conventional chemical-based agriculture toward alternative organic systems in the Philippines. In its earliest iterations in the Philippines, organic agriculture was part of larger movements for social justice and sustainable development. However, with wider institutional support for organic agriculture has come a new branch (or conceptualization) of organic agriculture that centers on standardization and certification, severing organic agriculture from its social justice roots. An important benefit of institutional efforts to establish government standards and certification for organic production is the impact on raising consumer confidence and protecting responsible producers from unfair competition by safeguarding consumers and organic producers them from “pseudo-organic” production (Milestad and Darnhofer, 2003). This institutional iteration of organic agriculture, although considered a move in the right direction, has also created barriers to  117 scaling-out organic agriculture, in the form of high certification costs and limited programming implemented by government agencies that continue to promote Green Revolution technologies. Researchers also suggest these regulatory procedures have fostered a reductionist view of organic farming (DeLind, 2000) resulting in the “conventionalization” of organic agriculture (Milestad et al. 2003). In the Philippine context, organic programming has largely focused on the development and distribution of organic fertilizers and high yielding organic varieties of rice. Additionally, state agencies charged with developing and promoting organic agriculture, continue to act as instruments of the Green Revolution production model. This is due as to over half a century of agrarian reform policies and programs, as well as National Programs for Rice Self-Sufficiency that were all oriented toward promoting conventional agriculture despite its devastatingly low success rate as smallholder farmers continue to suffer from poverty and insecure land tenure due to the high cost of these technologies; and since the 1950s, there were only four years in which the Philippines attained rice self-sufficiency, “translating to a 7% success rate, which has befuddled the public, and has been the subject of severe public criticism” (Ponce and Inoncencio, 2017: 1).   In sum, organic agricultural development has become contested space, comprised of disparate conceptualizations that are derivative of the distinct ways in which various stakeholders structure their approach to scaling out organic agriculture. Understanding the terrain, key players, their underlying purpose of agricultural interventions generates clarity over important distinctions between “conventionalized” organic agriculture and an “alternative” organic agriculture, the latter of which is aligned with food sovereignty principles. Although variations in the defining attributes of organic agriculture exist worldwide (see Sahakian et al, 2017) the inconsistencies are especially important to consider in developing countries given the context of their inception  118 and the fundamental differences in their approach to scaling-out organic agriculture, which has wider effects on the vulnerability of smallholders and their capacity for enhancing resilience. As Milestad and Darnhofer (2003: 88) indicate in their discussion of heterogeneity within organic agriculture: On the one hand there are the farms which produce a variety of products and still make their living through niche markets, selling their products directly to the customer and relying on their personal reputation to ensure product integrity. On the other hand, there is a growing group of specialized farms relying on certification and standardized production methods. They tend to focus on specific crops, the greater national and international markets and to sell their produce through supermarket chains. This second group of organic farms displays some characteristics of an industrialized food system and thereby raise the question whether they still display the characteristics of farm resilience.  As agricultural development and innovation continues to explore new territory and blur old boundaries (i.e. the merging of organic and GMOs, see Bloch, 2018), the integrated concept of resilience enables us to take a comprehensive and critical look at the implications of agricultural interventions. Assessing how interventions contribute to local resources, facilitate social and reflexive learning, and address smallholder marginalization and vulnerability is key to understanding their role in enhancing or obstructing resilience building. This includes investigating historical legacies and existing power dynamics, particularly landlord-driven rent-seeking practices, that retain social inequities within the agrarian sector (see Angeles, 1999). Therefore, the potential for organic agriculture to build resilience capacities in the Philippines will depend on the organic movement’s ability to improve the social, ecological, and economic  119 conditions of farmers. Although farmers did not explicitly identify added labor requirements as a barrier to organic transition, when asked why conventional farmers have not converted to organic, a few organic farmers expressed a belief that conventional farmers think that organic farming is too labor intensive. Farmers likely need resources and incentives to overcome the added financial costs and labor requirements associated with the conversion to organic farming. Further, the organic transition will not be possible if the institutional machinery continues to be oriented toward conventional Green Revolution technologies and afflicted with corruption. What farmers need is “public investment to facilitate their shift to organics, just as governments and international aid agencies initially subsidized the transition to chemical agriculture” (Broad and Cavanagh, 2012: 1190). But public investment needs to be coupled with anti-corruption strategies (see Batalla, 2000) in order to shift the institutional arrangement and allow for organic agriculture to emerge beyond the margins (see IPES-Food, 2016).      120 Chapter 4: A polycentric food sovereignty approach to peasant resilience 4.1 Introduction Building pathways to resilience requires improving community capacities (Frankenberger et al., 2013), measured by human and social capital that can be leveraged to solve problems and improve or maintain the well-being of a given community (Chaskin et al., 2008). For agrarian communities, this includes the development and engagement of locally available resources, social learning and collective action by community members (Magis, 2010; Berkes and Ross, 2014; Ireland and Thomella, 2011) that may also give farmers hope and fortitude to overcome challenges (see Shah et al., 2017). Coupled with the adoption of diversified organic farming systems and efforts to regenerate agrobiodiversity, such processes and subsequent outcomes can serve to augment adaptive capacity and mitigation potential (Thornton and Mansafi, 2010; Harvey et al., 2013; Muller et al., 2012); while also reducing farmer vulnerability by improving the viability and sustainability of farmer livelihoods (Adger et al., 2004; Miller et al., 2010).  Our use of the term ‘peasant resilience’ therefore, describes smallholder farming systems (< 3 ha)16 that exhibit adaptation and mitigation potential, as well as capacities for reducing vulnerability (see Cabell and Oelofse, 2012; Berkes and Ross, 2014); and is inclusive of wider development objectives such as equity, poverty reduction, nutrition, farmer empowerment, and resource access (Frankenberger et al., 2013; Barret and Constas, 2014) – see Figure 4.1.                                                 16 Nearly 90% of farms/holdings in the Philippines are < 3 ha and account for approximately half of the farmland in the country (PSA, 2015). The average area per farm/holding dropped from 2.84 ha in 1980 to 1.29 ha in 2012.   121 This chapter explores movements for peasant resilience in the face of adverse socioecological conditions in the Philippines. To carry out such an investigation, I first explore how the  Figure 4.1: Peasant capacities to enhance adaptation and mitigation, as well as reduce vulnerability to climate change are contingent upon a number of socioecological factors and conditions.  Identifying socioecological factors and conditions necessary for enhancing peasant capacities to engage in all three measures, may illuminate pathways to peasant resilience.   challenges facing resource-poor farmers across the globe translate into barriers for resilience building. Such challenges include agrobiodiversity loss, the consolidation and concentration of agricultural technologies, and the separation of farmers from agricultural knowledge and innovation. Next, I review solutions proposed by resilience and agri-food system researchers to address these global trends and challenges. These include involving farmers and incorporating place-based knowledge in efforts to develop agricultural interventions; supporting polycentric  122 systems aimed at engaging diverse local and community-based interventions; and promoting alternative agricultural development models, such as food sovereignty, that are aimed at giving farmers control over agricultural resources. Finally, to explore whether these proposed solutions serve to enhance peasant resilience ‘on the ground’, this chapter examines the outcomes of a polycentric food sovereignty development approach that has been underway in the Philippines for over three decades. Key developments in resilience theory are used to determine whether the respective outcomes serve to enhance peasant capacities for building resilience and overcoming adverse socioecological conditions in the Philippines. 4.1.1 Challenges to peasant resilience across the globe Agrobiodiversity loss Agrobiodiversity is central to building peasant resilience, as it not only represents the aggregation of species, genetic, and ecological diversity of cultivated plants and livestock that contribute to ecosystem health and adaptive capacity; but it also includes the associated local knowledge and culture essential to food security, health, social equity, hunger alleviation, environmental sustainability, and rural sustainable development (Folke, 2004; Lin, 2011; Santilli 2012; Mijatovic et al., 2013; Barthel et al., 2013). The erosion of agrobiodiversity alongside the increased threat of climate change has, therefore, garnered the attention of many agri-food system and resilience researchers who have attributed agrobiodiversity loss to the implementation of the Green Revolution over the last half-century (Montenegro de Wit, 2015). Beginning with the emergence of the Green Revolution in the 1960s, modern high yielding seed varieties that were “very similar in their genetic constitution” displaced “hundreds of genetically diverse local varieties selected by farmers over millennia for specific adaptation to their own environment and uses” (Ceccarelli, 2012: 41). By the 1990s approximately 75 percent of all rice,  123 50 percent of all wheat, and 70 percent of the world’s corn were derived from Green Revolution seeds (Patel, 2013; Ong’wen and Wright, 2007). And at the turn of the century, Lappe et al., (1998) estimated that 40 percent of all farmers in developing countries used Green Revolution seeds, with the highest proportion in Asia. Consolidation of agricultural resources  This “homogenizing effort” toward the wide adoption of modern high yielding seed varieties and fossil fuel dependent inputs was administered by transnational and national research institutes with the assistance of state agricultural development policies and programs, as well as funding from agroindustry (Sumberg et al., 2012; Patel, 2013). What followed was the consolidation and concentration of sources of seed, technology, fertilizers, and pesticides, and the subsequent dominance of a small number of commodity grain crops with a narrowing genetic base (Pingali and Traxler 2002, Khoury et al. 2014). The global consolidation of the seed grain industry (Ceccarelli, 2012) reduced genetic variation by limiting the free flow of genes between populations through cross-pollination or mixing of seeds that have allowed landraces to evolve in response to climatic change for millennia (Mercer et al., 2012). Plant breeding, formerly carried out by farmers for generations, was increasingly privatized and considered a virtue of agricultural “experts” (Shiva, 2012). To date, the agricultural knowledge regime responsible for developing and deploying Green Revolution technologies is now working to develop drought, flood, and saline tolerant transgenic seed varieties that are marketed as resilience enhancing agricultural technologies or “climate ready” crops (Mercer et al., 2012; Mackill et al., 2012; Medina, 2012; Ismael et al., 2013). Mercer et al. (2008, 2012) and others suggest that the implementation of this ‘transgenic adaptation strategy’ could displace a diversity of existing landraces which may possess the best capacity to survive climatic fluctuations in the long term  124 due to high levels of genetic variation that is already tightly coupled with the environmental variation (also see Mega, 2018).  The consolidation of knowledge and agricultural technologies undercuts farmer and community capacities to address unique socioecological conditions through social learning, collective action, and the generation of local agricultural resources – all of which are key attributes of resilience building (Frankenberger et al., 2013; Cabell and Oelofse, 2012; Magis, 2010; Berkes and Ross, 2013). In problematizing responses to climate change, researchers are therefore calling for transformative change, highlighting “the need and opportunities for integrative responses” to address the “regional differences, social inequities and uneven capacities and drivers of global social-environmental changes” (IPCC Report, 2018: 7-9; also see Pimbert et al., 2001; Pimbert, 2018).  4.1.2 Transdisciplinary pathways to peasant resilience  Socio-ecological systems and polycentric governance Thompson and Scoones (2009: 386) have attributed the ‘modernist project’s’ failure to provide sustainable outcomes to the ‘static equilibrium-centred view’ perpetuated in conventional agricultural science; a view that neglects the dynamic nature of agri-food systems and the complex ecological, economic and social processes to which they are embedded. For many agri-food system researchers, developing climate change interventions requires a perspective that recognizes the co-evolution of social and natural systems, and cultivates people-place relationships that are dynamic, interdependent, irreducible and unpredictable (Blann and Light, 2018: 97). This notion is contingent upon the involvement of citizens, farmers, indigenous and rural people (Thompson and Scoones, 2009), thereby challenging conventional processes for  125 knowledge construction (Mendez et al., 2013). A transdisciplinary approach, therefore, values and integrates different types of knowledge systems, including multiple academic disciplines, as well as experiential, local, and indigenous knowledge (Mendez et al., 2013).   The shift toward considering the complex and dynamic nature of resilience building is perhaps best captured in two trends: the emergence of socioecological systems (SES) as an integrative framework for investigating agrarian responses to climate change (see Bergamini et al., 2014; Choptiany et al,, 2015; Mijatovic et al., 2013; Rotz and Fraser, 2015); and the articulation of climate change as a global collective-action problem that requires polycentric interventions (Ostrom 2010; Rivera-Ferre et al., 2013; Pimbert, 2018).  AN SES framework makes explicit the multifunctionality of farming systems and explores features of resilience within the context of changing social, economic, and environmental conditions (Frankenberger et al., 2013). It captures biological and biophysical processes, allowing for an analysis of structure and the flows of material and energy over time, as well as social processes that determine the rules and institutions that mediate human behaviour and systems of knowledge (Ostrom and Cox, 2010; Adger, 2006). It also contributes toward developing a common language among researchers across social and ecological disciplines, enabling an interdisciplinary or systems analysis of the various factors across social and natural systems that are critical to understanding global environmental change (Ostrom and Cox, 2010).  A polycentric system is described as a bottom-up, dispersed, and multilevel pattern of governing that is capable of enhancing “innovation, learning, adaptation, trustworthiness, levels of cooperation of participants, and the achievement of more effective, equitable, and sustainable  126 outcomes at multiple scales” (Ostrom 2010: 552). First, the units of a polycentric system (e.g. a household, a local government, a province, a region, a national government, or an international regime) exercise considerable independence in generating rules and norms. Second, this multi-scalar structure enables smaller units to encourage face-to-face interaction and common understanding; while providing an opportunity for larger units to resolve problems associated with social inequities, as well as bring in major investments made in new scientific information and innovations. Third, the participants in polycentric systems have “the advantage of using local knowledge and learning from others who are also engaged in trial-and-error learning processes” (ibid: 552). Therefore, polycentric systems (versus monocentric ones) disperse authority (Skelcher, 2005) and allow for a diversity of local approaches to flourish (Aligica and Tarko, 2012).  Food Sovereignty as an Alternative Development Model For Desmarais (2007: 52) “the loss of biodiversity is the direct result of an environmentally and culturally destructive development model, a model that persistently strives to control and manipulate nature to facilitate the accumulation of profit.” To bring about the transformational change necessary to improve the viability and sustainability of rural livelihoods will depend on the ability of peasant groups to attain autonomy from the state, agroindustry, and agricultural knowledge regime responsible for the Green Revolution (van der Ploeg, 2008). And it will depend on the ability of alternative agricultural development models to a) facilitate gender equity and social justice that shape access to food and agricultural resources, b) adopt integrated agroecological approaches capable of producing more food without degrading ecosystems and larger planetary systems, and c) support more regionally organized food systems that centre on access to healthy and culturally relevant foods (Schipanski et al., 2016).   127 Food sovereignty provides an alternative to the conventional Green Revolution development model. Since its articulation by La Via Campesina in 1996 as the right of local people to control their own regional and national food systems, food sovereignty has emerged as a significant topic in the discourse on global food security and climate change. Advocates suggest that food sovereignty initiatives have the potential to create alternative agricultural development models that are better equipped to address food security in the face of climate change; largely due to employing agroecological practices that simultaneously preserve diversity, enhance ecosystem service functions, reduce reliance on costly energy intensive inputs, and link farmer knowledge with political mobilization (Parmentier, 2014; Wittman, 2011; Vandermeer and Perfecto, 2012; Tomich et al., 2011; Altieri et al., 2012a). Food sovereignty also offers a new rights-based framework aimed at empowering citizens, farmers, and states and restraining corporate and supranational controls over the global food system (Ishii-Eiteman, 2009). It endeavors to “alter the dynamics of food systems [sic] placing control of food systems into the hands of those most often disregarded and oppressed by corporate-driven food systems” (Carlson and Chappell, 2015: 4). Food sovereignty has therefore come to represent a paradigm shift in approaches to development, where initiatives generally result in the move from and/or resistance to industrial agriculture and single-crop specialization (Issaoui-Mansouri, 2012), in favor of small-scale agricultural production with a strong focus on agroecology (Chaifetz and Jagger, 2014); and emphasis is placed on redistributing resources and power to state and local-level governing coalitions to better address environmental and climate-related concerns (McMichael, 2009a).  4.2 Conceptual Framework There are clear consistencies between the narratives on resilience, polycentrism, and food sovereignty, particularly with respect to recommendations on how to respond to the challenges  128 posed (or exacerbated) by climate change. All three frameworks share similar diagnoses and prescriptions, including empowering marginalized communities, advocating for local control of natural resources, strengthening sustainable people-place relationships, and privileging indigenous/traditional knowledge systems (discussed further below). Building on the theoretical synergies between polycentrism, food sovereignty, and resilience, this chapter explores the following research question: How and to what extent can a polycentric food sovereignty development approach enable peasant resilience and overcome adverse socioecological conditions?  4.2.1 Exploring the Polycentric-Food Sovereignty-Resilience Nexus Polycentric governance theory acknowledges the role of social movements, civil society organizations, businesses, local governments, and nation-states in shaping collective action (Jordan et al., 2018). This multi-scalar perspective allows for the simultaneous consideration of alternative development schemes derived from grassroots farmer-led mobilizations and the dominant conventional development model often subscribed to by governments and industry. By ‘conventional’ I mean both tendencies to favor: a) centralized, external authority over agricultural knowledge, technology and innovation; and b) highly specialized, reductionist, or “blue print” approaches to farm management that fail to account for socioecological context and complexity. Jordan et al. (2018) identify five ‘propositions’ that describe the features of polycentric systems, as well as their implications (see Figure 4.2a). Arguably, these features enable actors to adapt to changing external conditions and encourage the development of diverse approaches that are likened to complex adaptive systems (ibid).   129 A framework for food sovereignty emerged at the Nyéléni Forum for Food Sovereignty in 2007 (see Figure 4.2b). This framework represents the aggregation, solidification, and amplification of interests and demands of food producers across the globe (Wittman et al., 2010). A review of these principles reveals the different scales (household to global), factors (policies to resources), and dimensions (equity to sustainability) that food sovereignty oriented initiatives engage (Heckelman and Wittman, 2015). Another feature of the food sovereignty approach is that it accounts for management decisions and facilitates equity within agrarian communities, through initiatives promoting agrarian citizenship, social justice, and nutritional health (Desmarais, 2007; Chappell et al., 2013; Vandermeer and Perfecto, 2012; Weiler et al., 2014; Wittman, 2009). Based on a review of the socioecological systems literature, Cabell and Oelofse (2012) identified a number of agroecosystem indicators for resilience, including exhibiting self-organization, investing in human capital, relying on local markets and local resources, and preserving local knowledge and diversity. Based on a review of both the socioecological systems and the psychology and public health literature, Berkes and Ross (2014) found that enhancing resilience requires identifying and developing community strengths, and fostering agency, self-organization, people–place connections, knowledge sharing, and social learning. Drawing from these two works, I identify five features of peasant resilience (see Figure 4.2c). The presence of these five features among peasant communities indicates a capacity for adaptation and mitigation, while their absence signals vulnerability and the need for intervention.  A comparative and preliminary evaluation of features of polycentric systems, food sovereignty initiatives, and peasant resilience reveals the potential for a ‘polycentric food sovereignty development approach’ to provide pathways to ‘peasant resilience’ (see Figure 4.2a-c). For  130 instance, ‘local actions’ that are aimed at ‘localizing food systems’ and generating ‘local control’ of agricultural resources has the potential to foster ‘self-organization’ and ‘connection’, as well as ‘builds social capital’. Having ‘overarching rules’ that are guided by a commitment to ‘building local knowledge and skills’ and ‘working with nature’ has the potential to create rural communities committed to ‘generating local resources’ and ‘supporting agrobiodiversity’. A consideration of the factors and conditions that enable resilience, including physical characteristics (e.g. local infrastructure, ecosystem health), procedural characteristics (e.g. local knowledge, social learning), and social characteristics (e.g. community cohesion, community   131  Figure 4.2: Linking features of a polycentric food sovereignty development approach to features of peasant resilience: (a) polycentric systems that implement (b) food sovereignty initiatives create the socioecological factors and conditions necessary for enhancing c) peasant resilience.  132 leaders) (McAslan, 2011) illuminates heterogenous pathways to building resilience and underscores the idea that resilience is a process rather than a static state (Frankenberger et al., 2014).  4.2.2. Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG) To explore polycentric mobilizations, Ostrom (2010) and others suggest an actor-centred focus in order to examine the motivations behind self-organizing and the degree of direct participation, as well as explore relationships and trust-building efforts between and across actors at different levels and units of governance (Dorsch and Flachsland, 2017). Jordan et al. (2018) recommend researchers describe, explain, and provide normative prescriptions of polycentric systems, which includes, but is not limited to, exploring desirable rules and norms, conflict resolution mechanisms, degree of connectedness and redundancy, and mechanisms that allow for a diversity of local approaches to flourish.  Therefore, to explore the presence and viability of the pathways demonstrated in Figure 4.2, I centre my investigation on Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura (Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development, MASIPAG). MASIPAG is a grassroots farmer-led network comprised of people’s organizations, member scientists and NGOs working collectively toward increased farmer control of genetic and biological resources, agricultural production, and associated knowledge to ensure the sustainable use and management of biodiversity in the Philippines (MASIPAG, 2018a). The network has a decentralized structure, adopts a food sovereignty approach to agricultural development, and according to comparative analyses, members have outperformed their conventional counterparts in terms of ecological sustainability  133 (Sievers-Glotzbach, 2014), economic gain (Bachmann et al., 2009) and resilience (Heckelman et al., 2018). Drawing from fieldwork conducted from August to December 2016, as well as the existing literature on MASIPAG, this chapter explores whether there is a link between MASIPAG’s polycentric food sovereignty development strategies and improved peasant capacities for enhancing resilience, as well as overcoming adverse socioecological conditions in the Philippines.  Understanding how MASIPAG’s polycentric food sovereignty development orientation translates to a suite of resilience building processes and outcomes requires characterization of the larger socioecological context to which it emerged and is embedded. To this end, phenomena occurring at the national scale are considered alongside the experiences of peasants in Negros Occidental Province. A focus on Negrense farmers offers insight into the long-standing agrarian conflicts that emerge out of the widespread inequity, hunger, poverty, and landlessness that shape the experiences of peasants, and their capacities for building resilience.  The formation of a marginalized peasant class The peasant struggle in Negros dates back to the latter half of the 19th century when the unexploited Negros landscape was transformed into sugar haciendas (plantations) following the opening of a neighboring island’s port to world trade. Under Spanish colonial rule, the hacenderos (landed elite), predominately made up of mestizos who emigrated to the region, constructed and embedded the indios (local natives) into the “Negros plantation economy” comprised of “supervised work-gangs paid a nominal daily wage”, “debt bondage” and “corporal punishment” (Aguilar, 1998). As the region became increasingly incorporated into the world market, haciendas expanded, and the Negros landscape gradually came under the control of  134 fewer individuals (ibid). The social system that evolved under these conditions was one that perpetuated the power and accumulation of wealth among the mestizo hacenderos; and transformed the indios into peasants who became increasingly disempowered and marginalized over time (ibid).  Although the Philippine government had undergone major transformations during the first half the 20th century – from Spanish colonial rule, to U.S. colonial rule, to Japanese occupation, to eventually gaining political independence in 1946, haciendas, the plantation economy, and inequity continued to persist in Negros and throughout the Philippines.  The persistence of hacenderos can be attributed to the landed elite occupying government positions and diversifying their business, maintaining their political and economic power in the region (Isaac et al. 2017; Angeles, 1999). Subsequent peasant uprisings resulted in land redistribution efforts that occurred throughout the 20th century, described as meager, restricted, and afflicted with corruption (Chapter 3).  Roughly 5% of families owned 83% of all farmland by the mid-1980s, while 85% of agricultural workers remained landless, with no formal titles to land (Clarke, 1998). The Green Revolution’s contribution to peasant vulnerability It was under conditions of persistent inequity, asymmetrical distributions of power, government corruption, and centuries of peasant unrest and landlessness that the Green Revolution was institutionalized in the Philippines (Putzel, 1992; see also Chapter 3). From the Philippine peasant perspective, the Green Revolution perpetuated these adverse political economic conditions. This is in part due to associated foreign investment, state credit programs, and restrictive and weak agrarian reform policies serving to benefit large landholders who had both access to global markets and capital to pay for the required technologies and irrigation (Hazell,  135 2002; Patel, 2013). As the country became increasingly integrated into the global agro-food system, the Philippine peasantry neither had the political nor economic clout to influence the policy-making processes that affected their livelihoods (Oram, 2003). The landed elite, however, continued to exercise a disproportionate influence over politics, media and the rural economy (ibid).  In 1985, as part of a country wide consultation between farmers and scientists, peasant farmers issued “A Declaration on the Root Cause of Our Problems” that attributed the exacerbation of their “misery” to the “use of high‐yielding varieties of rice grains created by IRRI [sic] that thrive on a package of new technologies involving use of fertilizer, pesticides, machineries, irrigation, etc.” (BIGAS, 1985: Annex II; cited in Frossard, 2002).  For these farmers and others, the Green Revolution development scheme not only failed to address – and even exacerbated – the underlying causes of peasant unrest: the consolidation of wealth and resources within the agrarian sector, government corruption, unfair labor conditions, and persistent debt and landlessness among resource-poor farmers and farmworkers (Putzel, 1992; Olano, 1993; Borras, 2001; Broad and Cavanagh, 2012).  MASIPAG’s Bottom-Up Response to the Top-Down Green Revolution Model MASIPAG was born out of peasant frustrations with the Green Revolution. Fed up with modern agricultural technologies and following the aforementioned country-wide consultation which ultimately found Philippine peasants to be worse-off after over a decade of implementing Green Revolution technologies, peasant participants and sympathetic scientists forged a partnership in 1985 and agreed to work towards improving the quality of life of resource-poor farmers through breaking the control of local as well as multinational fertilizer and pesticide companies, multi- 136 lateral research institutes, and distribution cartels over the rice industry in the Philippines (Olano, 1993; Medina, 2004; Roxas, 2006; MASIPAG, 2018b). Over time, MASIPAG grew to represent over 30,000 farmers, 41 NGO partners, 20 church-based development organizations, and 15 scientists (MASIPAG, 2018a). Having identified the Green Revolution development paradigm as problematic for peasants, MASIPAG works toward creating an alternative development paradigm in the Philippines, one that aims to empower and support peasants to freely develop and share agricultural resources, technologies, and innovations. To accomplish this, MASIPAG orients itself around five strategies (Medina 2002: 16-17):  1. farmer-scientist partnerships to combine the experience and practical knowledge of farmers with the theories and technical knowledge of scientists;  2. bottom-up approach to ensure community needs, problems and aspirations are prioritized;  3. farmer-led research and training through the establishment of farmer-managed trial farms cum training center;  4. farmer-to-farmer mode of technology transfer and knowledge exchange; and  5. advocacy for organic agriculture, genuine agrarian reform, and other issues affecting farmers.  How and to what extent this polycentric food sovereignty development orientation translates to a suite of resilience building processes and outcomes ‘on the ground’ and in the face of adverse socioecological conditions is explored below.  137 4.6 Methods This chapter relies on primary and secondary data drawn from fieldwork conducted between August and December 2016, as well as a review of the literature on MASIPAG. Primary data is derived from key informant interviews, focus group discussions, farmer interviews, and participant observation. Seven key informant interviews were carried out with representatives from MASIPAG, universities, an NGO, and the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice). Questions posed to key informants were designed to explore how smallholders are affected by the governance environment (or institutional arrangement), facilitating consideration of relevant policies and laws occurring at the national, regional and local levels. Derived from the Self-evaluation and Holistic Assessment of climate Resilience of farmers and Pastoralists (SHARP) Tool, these questions gathered key informant insights on the institutions shaping: production systems (i.e. agricultural management practices, input access, knowledge and information) the environment (i.e. land management practices, rights to land and water), social mechanisms (i.e. cooperatives, labour, skills and education), and economic conditions (i.e. insurance, market information, fiscal incentives) (Choptiany et al., 2015: 64-65). Key informants were also asked to discuss how their respective organizations are navigating and responding to climate change given social, environmental, and institutional conditions. Derived from Agroecological Risk and Resilience (ARR) Tool, this line of questioning was directed specifically to MASIPAG and PhilRice scientists to better understand the agroecosystem impacts of their respective resilience strategies. Three focus group discussions were facilitated with smallholders (n=40) comprised of conventional and MASIPAG organic rice farmers from four neighboring villages located in Negros Occidental. The focus group discussions were used to characterize socioecological conditions and identify appropriate interventions for enhancing resilience. Recruited from focus  138 group participants, 10 semi-structured farmer interviews were conducted to gather personal perspectives on rice farming in Negros Occidental, including insights on farm management practices, current socioecological conditions, and challenges related to climate change. 1 semi-structured farmer interview was conducted with a former MASIPAG member to gain perspective on the challenges associated with membership. Participant observation included attending: an impromptu meeting with the residing Governor of Negros Occidental, the 2016 Negros Island Region Organic Summit, a meeting at the Vice Chancellor’s Office for Research Extension at the University of Philippines Los Baños, a Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Dialogue held in Bacolod, several farmer association meetings, and a MASIPAG farmer breeder training.  4.7 Results and Discussion The following analysis is organized into three sections. Each section describes specific polycentric food sovereignty development strategies implemented by MASIPAG. To determine the implications of these strategies on adverse socioecological conditions, institutional barriers, and peasant resilience, I first lay out the adverse structural conditions that MASIPAG is responding to, exploring how and to what extent the network is indeed addressing and overcoming these conditions. Next, I examine whether the respective development strategies are generating pathways for peasants to build climate resilience by determining how and to what extent these strategies are improving capacities for peasants to organize, cooperate, build social capital, generate local resources, and support agrobiodiversity. Therefore, each of the three section headings describe specific features of MASIPAG’s polycentric food sovereignty development approach that are being explored (Figure 4.2a-b); whereas the content under the subsequent subheadings describe the conditions MASIPAG is responding to and the implications of the respective strategies on peasant resilience (Figure 4.2c).   139 4.7.1 Using Local Action and Experimentation to Empower Farmers Features of peasant resilience include exhibiting the capacity to self-organize at the grassroots level; build social capital, such as local institutions and infrastructure for social learning; and generate local resources to reduce farmer reliance on commodity markets and external inputs (Cabell and Oelofse, 2012; Berkes and Ross, 2014). MASIPAG’s commitment to local action, experimentation, and farmer empowerment helped peasants to develop such capacities in the face of limited resources and an institutional arrangement that treats farmers as passive recipients of modern agricultural technologies.   Contesting the Green Revolution Knowledge Regime The establishment of the Green Revolution knowledge regime resulted in the separation of farmers from agricultural knowledge development and innovation, creating dependencies on research organizations, and consequently, the loss of agrobiodiversity and the indigenous/traditional systems to which they were embedded. Over time, farmers “became passive recipients of technology, to the extent of even forgetting how to farm” as all technologies and problems were supplied and solved by extension workers (Medina, 2004: 2). The failure to value local knowledge and include farmer perspectives was the primary impetus behind the forged partnership between farmers and scientists that resulted in the formation of MASIPAG.  Unlike the dominant regime, MASIPAG represented a “radical belief in farmers” (Frossard, 2002: 140, quoting a former chief extensionist for MASIPAG) and a development orientation that recognized and valued farmer knowledge and participation (discussed further below). This orientation was coupled with a strong attention to addressing the power dynamic between farmers and scientists resulting in explicit measures being undertaken to ensure equality (Frossard, 2002). Ultimately, this translated into structuring the organization so that member  140 farmers directed network activities, and scientists supported their endeavors. For example, when scientists initially asked the farmers, ‘How can we help?’ the farmers responded, ‘Teach us to breed rice like you do’ (Frossard, 1994: Chapter 3). The subsequent trainings were so successful that farmers were able to teach other farmers the breeding, record-keeping, and selection techniques they learned (Frossard, 2002); thereby asserting their capacities to also engage in seed innovation processes to adapt traditional and indigenous seed varieties to local environmental conditions and farmer preferences. To date, MASIPAG has recruited and trained 70 farmer rice-breeders, 12 farmer corn-breeders, and over a 100 volunteer farmer-trainers. Essentially, member scientists provide the necessary training to (re)connect farmers with agricultural knowledge, innovation, and technology.  Structuring a Network that Builds Social Capital and Local Resources Although MASIPAG is a network of farmers, scientists and NGOs, its institutional structure gives the priority to farmers in decision-making at all levels of the network (Bachmann et al, 2009). The Board of Trustees is comprised of five farmer leaders from across the Philippines and two scientists (Frossard, 1994), and is in charge of policy-making (Key Informant 2b, personal communication, Nov 28, 2016). The research agenda is identified by the farmers (Medina, 2004), and every 5 years, the network devises a strategic plan that is reviewed and approved by the Board of Trustees, National Coordinator, and Regional Coordinators. The strategic plan is translated into annual plans that are used to ensure that the National Secretariat Office prioritizes the network’s activities at the national level (Key Informant 3, personal communication, Dec 15, 2016). The National Secretariat also maintains relationships and responsibilities to international partners. The Regional Secretariat oversees the implementation of the annual plans at the regional level (i.e. Luzon, Visayas, and Mindinao), and includes overseeing regional  141 programming (Key Informant 2b, personal communication, Nov 28, 206). This includes supporting local partnerships, such as the Center for Social Concerns and Development (CESCOD) and the Social Action Center of the local Catholic church diocese – local NGOs that advocate for MASIPAG and recruit farmers to join the network (Roxas, 2006; Key Informant 2a, personal communication, Sep 6, 2016). It also includes supporting Provincial Consultative Bodies made up of elected farmer leaders (ibid) that meet regularly to respond to issues and problems occurring at the local level, as well provide opportunities for farmer-to-farmer knowledge and resource exchange (personal observation). Finally, farmers join the network through People’s Organizations (POs), which are multipurpose cooperatives that are often allied with other NGOs (Roxas, 2006). Members voluntarily adopt the MASIPAG technology and commit to working with other farmers in their area to promote the technology (ibid; personal observation). They also attend seminars, lectures, dialogues, and farm visits and work collectively to ensure the development of new varieties are based on traditional seeds (Key Informant 4, personal communication, Oct 3, 2016). Unlike the Green Revolution regime, MASIPAG works to ensure that these traditional and indigenous plant varieties remain in the hands of communities and are not subject to patenting via Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), as the latter has been identified as an affront to farmers’ “freedom” and their “ancestors’ history” (IATP, 1998; discussed further in the next section). Using its decentralized organizational structure, MASIPAG provides vehicles for building social capital and local resources, as member requirements and engagements result in the sharing of benefits, knowledge, seeds, and technologies, as well as the increase of genetic resources and innovations over time (Medina, 2004). These ‘vehicles’ (or mechanisms) occur in three stages. The first stage brings farmers, scientists, and NGOs together to establish a non-commercial seed  142 bank, build local community organizational capacity, and provide farmer-to-farmer trainings (Oram, 2003). Through trial and error, the network learned to recognize the value of social organization and local resources in meeting the needs of farmers, as members who were surrounded by other members, tended to transition to diversified organic systems more successfully than members who were isolated and alone. This prompted the network to require farmers to form people’s organizations (PO) of ideally 15 or more member farmers. If a farmer needs help recruiting and organizing other farmers, then MASIPAG solicits the help of a community organizer of the nearest MASIPAG PO or NGO partner (Medina, 2004). Working in groups to promote organic agriculture was recognized as an effective strategy and adopted by other non-affiliated farmer organizations (Farmer Interview 1, personal communication, Sep 5, 2016). According to Medina (2004: 5) the establishment of PO’s are fundamental to MASIPAG because: it provides a vehicle for consolidating, coordinating and processing farmers’ collective knowledge and interest. Through a PO, planning and decision making can be done to reflect a common goal. Through their organizations, farmers can articulate, process and implement development approaches and solutions of their own choice to their own specific problems. The PO is an effective coordination mechanism. It has multiplier effect because when someone talks to one member, you are effectively talking to all the members of the organization or the community. [The] PO is also important for mutual support among the farmers. Any member could easily be guided by another member. The weak members are protected from any exploitation by the influential elites because of organizational processes. And if there are benefits that can be derived, the PO assumes  143 the role of equalizer for the diffusion of such benefits. [As a result] there is greater distributive justice.  The second stage centres on cultivating local knowledge through experimentation and technical support from NGOs or agricultural scientists (Oram, 2003). Every PO begins with a trial farm approximately 600 square meters in size (Medina, 2009). Requiring POs to establish local trial farms ensures that members have a designated space for learning how to observe, characterize and monitor rice growing agroecosystems (Medina, 2004). MASIPAG provides each PO between 50 to 100 rice varieties, thereby enhancing community seed resources and capacity for members to carryout experiments and observations to determine which varieties are locally adapted. Trial farms also serve as field sites for farmer-breeders and in-situ seed banks (Medina, 2004), and entail “no cost to the farmer except for the collective work required for its maintenance” (Roxas, 2006: 5). In Negros, a trial farm was growing 84 rice varieties and served as a site for farmer-breeder trainings (personal observation). According to a farmer-breeder at the site, a major priority was to develop and select varieties that were best suited for either the dry or wet season; where dry season varieties would exhibit heat tolerance and wet season varieties would exhibit flood tolerance (Farmer Interview 4, personal communication, Oct 14, 2016). The trial farm is also used to explore other crops and allows “farmers to be scientists” and share their findings with others (Farmer Interview 2, personal communication, Sep 8, 2016). In this way, MASIPAG is not only revitalizing traditional rice varieties, as well as developing new varieties, but farmers are also “learning again the value of extending communal assistance to fellow farmers as a way of building social solidarity while lowering the cost of labor” (Roxas, 2006: 9).   144 The third stage focuses on strategic development, where members organize and participate in regular meetings and trainings on sustainable agriculture techniques, leadership skills, and more (Oram, 2003). Members also engage in collective-action to address limitations – e.g. campaigning for land reform, forming marketing cooperatives, and organizing meetings with neighboring farmers to discuss the harmful effects of agrochemicals (ibid). For example, one collectively-owned farm in Negros managed primarily by MASIPAG famers had successfully transitioned the land from conventional sugarcane to organic rice and vegetables (Farmer Interview 2, personal communication, Sep 8, 2016). However, their collective success was not lasting due to “some farmers [experiencing] an emergency and needing to lease the land” in exchange for credit (financial resources) (ibid). Once you become an ariendo (someone that has leased his/her land) you “don’t have the choice to go organic” as you are forced to cultivate and manage the land according to the lender (ibid). In Negros, many lenders are also sellers of Green Revolution seeds and chemical inputs, so it is in their best interest for farmers to engage in conventional farming (Key Informant 2b, personal communication, Nov 28, 2016). The PO, however, devised a solution to this problem, advising farmers “to lease the land to the association rather than someone outside” (Farmer Interview 2, personal communication, Sep 8, 2016). And so far, “this strategy is working” to prevent further erosion of their organic communal farm (ibid). Other examples include POs located in coastal areas working with local governments to plant mangroves in an effort to control erosion during storm surges, while POs in mountainous regions often work with barangays to plant native trees, including fruit bearing trees, to protect the watershed and control erosion (Key Informant 3, personal communication, Dec 15, 2016).   145 Through the network’s community-based and people-centred approach, which requires the participation of farmers from the planning to the implementation stages of initiatives, MASIPAG not only involves the people for whom development is intended, but also develops communities’ self-reliance (Olano, 1993). For Sievers-Glotzbach (2014) the network’s persistence and achievements over the past four decades can be largely attributed to its decentralized structure, and more specifically, its farmer-led approach at all levels of the organization.  4.7.2 Fostering Mutual Adjustment and Trust to support Local Food Systems Building capacities for farming communities to self-organize and establish connections is a critical feature of peasant resilience, as it provides a mechanism for farmers to engage in multi-scalar and multi-sectoral collective action to address adverse socioecological conditions to resilience building (Cabell and Oelofse, 2012; Berkes and Ross, 2014). MASIPAG’s effort to foster mutual adjustment and trust to support local food systems provides such an example, as it has mobilized farmers to advocate for themselves, organize multi-scalar and multi-sectoral collective action, as well as participate in the development discourse by communicating contentions with and alternatives to the dominant development paradigm.  Responding to a “class war” over land and food in Negros  MASIPAG first reached Negrense peasants in 1996 when it forged a partnership with a local NGO, the Catholic church, and several farmer organizations who coalesced to campaign for land reform in the region (Key Informant 2a, personal communication, Sep 6, 2016; also see Oram, 2003 and Roxas, 2006). A food sovereignty movement17 had already been underway in the                                                17 Although food sovereignty as a concept did not emerge in the global discourse until the mid-1990s, Sanchez (2011: 361) argues that the emphasis on smallholders and indigenous knowledge systems, promotion of ecologically friendly farm technologies, concerted resistance to the agroindustry, and recognition of food security as a human  146 region since the mid-1980s (Sanchez, 2011). Responding to the near-famine conditions spawned by the monoculture-based sugar industry and price crises during the 1970s and 1980s, peasants began   advocating for food security as a human right and calling for state policy to protect and defend the right to seeds, indigenous knowledge systems, and the promotion of ecologically friendly farm technologies (ibid). A derivative of these earlier food sovereignty mobilizations, Negrense peasants identified organic agriculture as a measure for breaking dependence on export-based sugarcane monoculture and costly chemical inputs (Key Informant 2b, personal communication, Nov 28, 2016). They saw organic agriculture as a mechanism for redistributive justice and farmer empowerment, as it “reinforced agrarian reform and other tenurial instruments in reshaping landownership relations” by transforming dependent farm laborers into self-sufficient agroecosystem managers (Sanchez, 2011: 367).  However, because many Negrense peasants were formerly sugarcane plantation workers, they often lacked the experience to manage diversified organic farming systems (Farmer Interview 2, personal communication, Sep 8, 2016). Centered on being “responsive to the needs of small farmers” and “provid[ing] an alternative to the chemical farming system” MASIPAG provided land reform beneficiaries in the region access to traditional/indigenous seed varieties and trainings on organic farm management (Key Informant 2b, personal communication, Nov 28, 2016). MASIPAG also provided farmers the means to organize and participate in “radical actions such as land occupations or mass mobilisations outside government agrarian reform offices” as part of efforts to support the causes of other farmers (Oram, 2003: 99). Negrense peasants perceived MASIPAG as a pathway to self-sufficiency, control over the farming system, food                                                right that arose as part of peasant campaigns in Negros Occidental in the mid-1980s “hew to the classical definitions of food sovereignty.”   147 security, rehabilitating the land, and consolidating their strong community ties (ibid). In this way, MASIPAG provided the agricultural knowledge and resources to build household and community capacities for improving food security and land tenurial security, as well as organizational tools for supporting peasant campaigns for genuine land reform. Self-Organizing and Connecting Local Mobilizations to National and Global Campaigns Beyond rallying for land reform, MASIPAG members are highly politicized in other ways, mobilizing on a range of issues that affect the viability and sustainability of their livelihoods (Focus Group 3a, personal communication, Dec 3, 2016). For example, due to the network’s central endeavor to ensure farmers have control of agricultural knowledge and resources (MASIPAG About, 2018), MASIPAG has positioned itself as staunch opponents of transgenics (Key Informant 4, personal communication, Oct 3, 2016). “Climate ready” seeds, for instance, are identified as antithetical to the MASIPAG approach due to the technology’s narrow genetic make-up, high response to chemical fertilizers, and potential to displace many farmers’ varieties (Medina, 2012). Not only would the implementation of such technologies result in uniformity and a narrow genetic base, making the agricultural landscape susceptible to pest and disease outbreaks, but it could also perpetuate farmer dependencies on costly modern seed varieties that began with the Green Revolution (ibid). This is in part due to the Philippines’ plant varietal protection law (RA 9168) which restricts farmers from seed growing, saving, exchanging, improving and marketing; thereby legally requiring farmers to buy new seeds every planting season, and continuing the vicious circle that ensures profits for commercial seed companies while impoverishing farmers (ibid).   148 In response to the threats posed by transgenic seeds, MASIPAG has engaged in coalition building with national and international partners resulting in a campaign that prompted local governments to ban GMOs and expand organic agriculture in their respective legislative districts (Aruelo, n.d.; Medina, 2012). Forums were conducted at universities and within communities to educate farmers on GMOs (Key Informant 4, personal communication, Oct 3, 2016).  In partnership with Greenpeace Southeast Asia, as well as other activists and politicians, the network submitted a petition that succeeded in granting a temporary moratorium on the development of GMOs in the Philippines (Medina et al., 2015).  In 2013, to demonstrate their disapproval of Golden Rice18, MASIPAG members and allies – comprised of 400 farmers, consumers, and youth – uprooted test plots in Bicol Province (Ranada, 2013). And in 2018, farmers and allies from Isabela, Nueva Ecija, and Bicol Provinces, as well as Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Cambodia commemorated the “historical Golden Rice uprooting” by holding a forum to express farmer contentions with Golden Rice and hosting an organic festival to showcase the diversity of Vitamin A-rich food available in the country (MASIPAG News and Updates, Aug 8, 2018). In partnership with GRAIN and Stop Golden Rice! Network, MASIPAG produced a report drawing attention to the many flaws and concerns surrounding Golden Rice, as well as natural sources of Vitamin A and the need for comprehensive approaches to ensure diverse diets (MASIPAG, GRAIN, 2018). The network also                                                18 Golden Rice is a highly contentious variety of rice that was genetically engineered to contain vitamin A and marketed as a measure for addressing deficiencies in vitamin A occurring in developing world (citations). A symptom of hunger and malnutrition, Golden Rice represents a highly technical and costly response to vitamin A deficiency; costly in terms of the amount of resources, time and energy directed toward developing this technology.  149 publishes farmer sentiments regarding Golden Rice. For example, in an article posted on the MASIPAG website, one member farmer indicated that:  [Vitamin A deficiency] is addressed by eating diverse and healthy food such as green and leafy vegetables and fruits which have higher beta-carotene than Golden Rice. To be able to have diverse sources of food and nutrition, we need a farming system that encourages diversification and sustainability. We also need our land and our local seeds to ensure a healthier and more sustainable farming system (MASIPAG News and Updates, Aug 8, 2018).  In this way, MASIPAG bridges local and national mobilizations to global campaigns, amplifying the voices of peasants while also providing organizational and leadership development at various levels of the network (Tan, 2013). Through its multi-sectoral partnerships across the Philippines and beyond, MASIPAG farmers build effective movements centered on reasserting farmer control over production systems and improving farmer capacities for agricultural knowledge generation and innovation (Oram, 2003). According to Negrense farmers, advocacy for farmers is one of the benefits of being a MASIPAG member, along with trainings on organic farming and access to safe and nutritious food (Farmer Interview 2, personal communication, Sep 8, 2016; Farmer Interview 3, personal communication, Sep 9, 2016).  4.7.3 Establishing Overarching Rules that support Local Ecological Knowledge  An important feature of peasant resilience is agrobiodiversity, which is inextricable from the place-based knowledge to which traditional/indigenous crop varieties are derived (Cabell and Oelofse, 2012; Berkes and Ross, 2014). Through revitalizing traditional/indigenous rice varieties  150 and local institutions like communal farming, as well as promoting diversified organic agroecosystems, MASIPAG is improving farmer capacities to support agrobiodiversity and place-based knowledge in their local communities.  Addressing the Root Cause of Agrobiodiversity Loss in the Philippines Regenerating agrobiodiversity is fundamental to facilitating the adoption of diversified farming systems required to enhance climate resilience in the Philippines (Rapera et al. 2014). Accomplishing this requires building the availability of seeds and planting materials in villages, fostering on-farm seed exchange among local farmers, as well as supporting the adoption of indigenous knowledge and locally-adapted seed technology (ibid). To this end, Altoveros and Borromeo (2007) and Rapera et al., (2014) identify a number of institutional barriers that need to be addressed in order to regenerate agrobiodiversity in the Philippines.  First, indigenous varieties are a low priority and at high risk of being lost due to not being a part of mainstream production systems (Altoveros and Borromeo 2007). Coupled with a donor/investment policy and infrastructure that promotes the use of modern high yielding varieties in monoculture production systems, the country is at risk of losing locally adapted cultivars, landraces and the indigenous knowledge associated with their cultivation, utilization and conservation (ibid). MASIPAG is the only entity producing indigenous or traditional seed varieties for distribution or exchange in multiple localities across the Philippines (Rapera et al., 2014). To date, MASIPAG has collected 600 traditional rice varieties and bred approximately 1,800 MASIPAG rice varieties (including farmer-bred rice), amounting to over 2,000 rice varieties being maintained by the network (MASIPAG, 2018a).   151 Second, because the government was late in recognizing the value of indigenous crop species and knowledge systems, there remains a lack of in situ conservation efforts occurring within the country (Altoveros and Borromeo 2007). At the same time, the revaluing of alternative cultivars by IRRI and PhilRice is restricted to their genetic material, as these cultivars supply their seed banks with additional genetic material, as well as give them access to new sources of funding that can be used for the research and development of new commercial seed products (see Powledge, 2001; Romero et al., 2011; Rabara et al., 2015; PhilRice, 2018a; Stone and Glover, 2016). Nevertheless, the DA shows little interest in revitalizing farmer-led and village-centred seed production and exchange, as the agency exhibits a lack of engagement in establishing local seed farms that produce traditional/indigenous cultivars that are locally adapted (Rapera et al., 2014). On the other hand, MASIPAG’s seed collection is a result of member farmers gathering and/or developing locally cultured rice varieties and distributing them to the network’s nearly 200 seed banks located across the Philippines (Sievers-Glotzbach, 2014; MASIPAG, 2018a). Unlike ex situ seed banks that store seeds in refrigerated vaults, MASIPAG continuously cultivates its seed collection to ensure the varieties evolve alongside changing environmental and climatic conditions. To date, farmer breeders have identified and developed 12 flood tolerant varieties, 18 drought tolerant varieties, 20 saline tolerant varieties, and 24 pest or disease resistant varieties (MASIPAG About, 2018).  Revitalizing Agrobiodiversity and Place-Based Knowledge   Alongside the network’s efforts to revitalize traditional/indigenous cultivars and the diversified farming systems to which they are derived (discussed further below), MASIPAG also supports the development of local indigenous/traditional knowledge (Roxas, 2006), also referred to as place-based knowledge. For example, using the trial farm, members plant indigenous/traditional  152 varieties and engage in seed “selections” to determine what varieties are best suited for their local environments (Roxas, 2006). For MASIPAG, “there is no such thing as one variety which is good for everybody in the entire Philippines,” rather farmers develop and identify multiple varieties that are best suited for their respective agro-climatic conditions (Key Informant 3, personal communication, Dec 15, 2016). This involves the “collection, identification, multiplication, maintenance and evaluation of all rice and other crop and breed varieties” (Olano, 1993: 14). The activities occurring at the trial farm provides an opportunity for participating farmers to “re-learn important skills” such as producing and preserving seeds for the next cropping season (Roxas, 2006: 5).  Members also use the trial farm to engage in pest management experimentation, where farmers determine which varieties and at what stage they are most resistant or susceptible to pests (Olano, 1993). They study “the natural defenses of plants as well as the contributions of insects and other animals to ecological balance” (ibid: 14). Member farmers, for instance, found that when their rice crop became infected with tungro19, they can treat the disease and recover the land by leaving it idle, then planting ‘creeping plants’ like camote (sweet potato), gabi (taro), or kangkong (water spinach) for a year before planting rice again (Key Informant 4, personal communication, Oct 3, 2016). Other farmers found that managing Golden Snails (a common pest in paddy rice systems) is simply a matter of water management (Key Informant 3, personal communication, Dec 15, 2016). By refraining from flooding the paddy initially, golden snails will be absent, and weeds will grow alongside the young rice. Once the weeds appear, water is added to the paddy field, which results in the arrival of the snails; but the snails are more                                                19 A disease that infects cultivated rice and other grassy weeds commonly found in rice paddies and is considered one of the most destructive rice diseases in South and Southeast Asia.   153 attracted to the weeds, thereby preserving the rice crop. Farmers also learn how to use animal waste, hay and other fast decomposing nitrogenous plants to enhance the growth of beneficial microorganisms and beneficial bacteria in the soil (Olano, 1993). And they learn to plant buffer zones to protect against erosion and contamination, such as planting kangkong and cacao to filter water contaminated by agrochemicals (Farmer Interview 4, personal communication, Oct 14, 2016). The learning, observing, and experimenting that occurs at the trial farm teaches farmers how to collect, identify, multiply, maintain and evaluate seed varieties; use alternative techniques to manage pests and maintain the soil’s fertility; and to work together to achieve a common goal (Roxas, 2006).  MASIPAG is also a leader in the organic movement in the Philippines (Salazar, 2014; Suh, 2015). MASIPAG’s success in helping farmers across the Philippines transition to diversified organic farming systems (Tan, 2013) has had the impact of revitalizing lost species and local food sources. Prior to the Green Revolution, rice paddies contained frogs, mudfish, tilapia, birds, crabs, snails, and insects as well as water spinach and water chestnuts (Mendoza, 2004; Medina, 2004; Ong’wen and Wright, 2007). The increased use of agrochemicals and highly monocultured farm systems resulted in the loss of these supplemental food resources. There were even reports of carabao (water buffalo) dying after drinking from irrigation canals saturated with toxic chemicals (see Frossard, 2002). As one Negrense famer recalls, “When I was a child, my aunt said that the cleanest water is the rainwater and now there are warnings to stay out of the rain because of aerial spraying” (Farmer Interview 2, personal communication, Sep 8, 2016). However, with the adoption of diversified organic systems, Philippine smallholders noticed that these creatures started to reappear on their farms, returning important sources of protein to rural households (Mendoza, 2004). Nitrogen fixing legumes, vegetables, root crops and fruit trees are  154 now planted, biological (non-toxic) fertilizers and pesticides are made using on-farm resources, and livestock (e.g. chickens and ducks) are integrated into the farming system (Key Informant 4, personal communication, Oct 3, 2016). Farmers are planting and managing wild forest tree species, such as lipote (Syzygium polycephaloides) which bears a fruit that is used to make wine and katmon (Dillenia philippinensis) which bears a fruit that is used as a spice (Key Informant 3, personal communication, Dec 15, 2016). Through the diversification of crops, food security is augmented in the household and in the community (ibid), and resilience is enhanced as farmers are no longer relying on one product as a source of livelihood, but many (Key Informant 2b, personal communication, Nov 28, 2016).  Further, production and landscape management practices also contribute to maintaining native tree species against state initiatives to plant non-native tree species (Key Informant 3, personal communication, Dec 15, 2016). MASIPAG organic rice farmers indeed reported higher incidences of crop, farm, and landscape diversity than their conventional neighbours (Heckelman et al., 2018). To date, MASIPAG has helped over 30,000 farmers located in 63 out of 81 provinces transition to diversified organic systems (MASIPAG, 2018a).  Furthermore, in the face of resource constraints and institutional barriers, MASIPAG has made organic certification accessible to resource-poor farmers. The 2010 Organic Agriculture Act (Republic Act 10068) restricts the use of the term ‘organic’ to production systems that pass third-party certification. Estimated at P15,000-50,000/18months (Lacorte, 2014), third-party certification has been deemed too costly for resource-poor farmers, thereby putting the organic market out of the reach of resource-poor farmers (Willer and Lernoud, 2017; Salazar, 2014; Chapter 3). Although not recognized under the Act, an alternative (first and second-party) certification system was already underway in many organic farming communities. MASIPAG,  155 along with an alliance of PGS practitioners and supporters, are lobbying for first and second-party certification systems to be recognized under the Organic Agriculture Act (MASIPAG, 2013). Labeled Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS), these certification procedures are “locally focused quality assurance systems [that] certify producers based on active participation of stakeholders and are built on a foundation of trust, social networks, and knowledge exchange” (Willer and Lernoud, 2017: 32). In the Philippines, the MASIPAG Participatory Guarantee System (MPGS) was established in 2004 and gained recognition by IFOAM in 2011 (MASIPAG, 2013). The PGS certification is estimated to cost P700-3,000, a sizable difference from the cost of third-party certification (Lacorte, 2014; Farmer Interview 3, personal communication, Sep 9, 2016).  Through the re-valuing of their skills and knowledge as farmers, coupled with the resources and infrastructure that allowed for the expansion of this knowledge through continual experimentation and training, MASIPAG farmers have developed their own knowledge base (Oram 2003). In this way, the network cultivates agrobiodiversity through revitalizing and institutionalizing place-based knowledge, relying on farmers to pass on their knowledge and technology to other farmers, as well as from generation to generation; thereby ensuring the “viability of nature vis-à-vis human interventions” (Roxas, 2006: 7).  4.8 Conclusion: Building heterogenous pathways to peasant resilience Elinor Ostrom, awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 2009, spent the last years of her life characterizing climate change as a “global collective action problem,” drawing attention to the need for diverse localized efforts to address the problems brought by climate change (Ostrom 2009, 2010). She and others challenge the notion of “universal solutions” and the idea  156 that “external authority and outside knowledge” can solve problems for people, underscoring the need to consider socioecological variability and empower community capacities for social learning, collective action, and local resource development (Ostrom, 2009; Ostrom and Cox, 2011; also see Ong’wen and Wright, 2007; Carlson and Chappell, 2015). Such works take issue with the homogenizing effect of top-down or centralized resilience interventions that run the risk of being generic and standardized (Ostrom, 2010; Ostrom and Cox, 2010). For Ostrom and Cox (2010), coping with our present environmental problems will require polycentric arrangements that enable users to develop rules and organizations at multiple levels. Such polycentric arrangements could simultaneously account for the comparative advantages of local peoples in gathering and maintaining knowledge of local ecological complexity (Moller et al., 2004), and the comparative disadvantages local peoples have in managing large-scale natural resources and environmental pollution problems (Rose, 2002). The loss of agrobiodiversity in the face of climate change provides a case in point, where smallholders who grow a wide variety of landraces serve as custodians of crop diversity, providing plant breeders and farmers the capacity to select resilient varieties (Mercer et al., 2012). Yet dominant agricultural development programs and policies often exacerbate smallholder vulnerability, threatening not only the yields and livelihoods of farmers, but also the traditional/indigenous varieties they cultivate, and subsequently “the ability for agriculturalists worldwide to cope with the effects of climate change through advances in crop breeding” (ibid: 495). In this way, polycentric systems within the agricultural sector could help ensure that agricultural development policies are “led by farmers themselves rather than being crafted by external agents” (Ong’wen and Wright, 2007: 47).   157 To this end, MASIPAG provides an example of the multi-scalar and multi-dimensional effects of such a polycentric arrangement on the Philippine agricultural sector. Through initiatives grounded in food sovereignty, MASIPAG works to ensure farmers have rights to seeds, land, and agrobiodiversity. The network builds capacities and mechanisms for farmers to directly engage in research, politics, as well as build social movements to protect the viability and sustainability of their livelihoods. MASIPAG members are able to collectively organize strategies, rallies and campaigns consistent with locally identified needs, as well as align local mobilizations to national and international campaigns. For many Negrense peasants, the campaign for a food sovereignty and the adoption of diversified organic agriculture is inextricably tied to the historical and ongoing struggle for genuine agrarian reform, sustainable livelihoods, food security, and social equity in the region. MASIPAG enabled Negrense peasants to sever their dependencies on costly external inputs, making them less susceptible to the perpetual debt that forces conventional farmers to lease or sell their land. Since the arrival of MASIPAG in Negros, members have also organized their own associations, banned together to form larger federations, and have collectively helped train other farmers on the MASIPAG agricultural development approach (Oram, 2003). These expressions of problems solving through self-organization, collaboration, social learning, and local resource generation are vital themes across much of the resilience literature (Magis 2010; Cabell and Oelofse, 2012; Berkes and Ross, 2013).  MASIPAG’s effectiveness lies in its bottom-up approach to agricultural research (Oram, 2003), as well as its ability to engage in development at the community level, a level that is often neglected by state initiatives (Olano, 1993). Unlike development planners who make policies based on laboratory research that is limited by strictly controlled conditions that are not reflective of actual field situations; MASIPAG directly conducts its research in the affected areas, resulting  158 in the development of technologies that are area-specific and more responsive to community needs (ibid).  In this way, the network exhibits cultural sensitivity (Medina, 2002) and the necessary flexibility to adapt to local cultural, economic, and agroecological conditions (Oram, 2003). Further, by “taking charge of its own seed production, by producing new rice varieties using many of the same techniques used by professional crop scientists, MASIPAG challenges development industry stereotypes of peasant farmers irrationally resistant to change, innovation and science” (Frossard, 2002: 138). The local development and free exchange of seeds not only assures that locally adapted agricultural resources are shared across communities; but it also promotes a conception of seeds as “community property” that “should be protected from IPR claims of transnational corporations” (Medina, 2004: 8). In this way, the network “seeks to reverse the damage inflicted by decades of government promotion of the Green Revolution” (Roxas, 2006: 13), including the treatment of farmers as passive recipients of environmentally damaging and costly external inputs (Oram, 2003). By capacitating farmers to assert their knowledge and advocacies, as well as develop their own agricultural technologies and innovations, MASIPAG is helping farmers to address the root causes of their vulnerability.  Finally, MASIPAG represents a collective of resource-poor farmers that occupy the periphery of agricultural development yet play a central role in agrobiodiversity conservation in the Philippines (Medina, 2004). Through their lived experiences and daily activities, MASIPAG farmers are revitalizing co-evolutionary socioecological processes that are inextricably linked to agrobiodiversity. Local institutions have emerged, such as the nearly 200 local seed banks and trial farms, and the revitalization of place-based knowledge and bayanihan (communal labor) – all responsible for the in-situ conservation of over 2000 indigenous/traditional rice varieties across the Philippines. Beyond the development of indigenous/traditional seeds and place-based  159 agricultural knowledge and innovation, MASIPAG’s engagements have the potential to regenerate a diversity of rituals, songs, daily interactions, and cultures that serve to re-embed culture in the land and revitalize the ‘way of life’ of agrarian communities (see Ong’wen and Wright, 2017). As Shiva (2012: 4) notes: When we save seed, we also reclaim and rejuvenate knowledge – the knowledge of breeding and conservation, the knowledge of food and farming… To break out of this viciousness of monocultures and monopolies, we need to create virtuous cycles of diversity and reclaim our biological and intellectual commons. Participatory breeding of open source seeds, and participatory framing of open source rights are innovations that deepen seed freedom… Free exchange of seed among farmers has been the basis of maintaining biodiversity as well as food security. By revitalizing agrobiodiversity, MASIPAG is not only enhancing peasant resilience (Cabell and Oelofse, 2012), but also ensuring the availability of natural resources in the future, an outcome that Sievers-Glotzbach (2014) describes as “intergenerational environmental justice.”  The MASIPAG polycentric food sovereignty development approach represents a drastic deviation from the conventional and reductionist Green Revolution model that supports the privatization of seeds and knowledge, thereby undermining agrobiodiversity and place-based knowledge systems (Shiva et al., 2012). The MASIPAG model represents an alternative approach to development that is integrative, people-centred, and based on transdisciplinarity and synthesis, or what Thompson and Scoones (2009) refer to as a “holistic stream” of science. The network explicitly and directly addresses the root causes of peasant vulnerability, accounting for  160 historical legacies and persisting inequities, and working towards reclaiming farmer rights and control over agricultural resources across scales.  Fortunately, MASIPAG is not alone. Across the globe civil society, peasant organizations, and multilateral institutions have all worked towards democratizing the food system, which has often involved  recognizing the role of smallholders in sustainable development, including their associated knowledge, and promoting community-based approaches to development that are participatory and work toward equity, social responsibility, and enhancing farmers’ rights (Pimbert, 2018; Van der Ploeg, 2013; Wittman, 2010; Desmarais, 2007). The fundamental commonality or thread connecting all such people-centred bottom-up approaches to development is the recognition that “the problems related to agriculture are more political than technical” (Rivera-Ferre et al., 2013: 3865). Hence, achieving resilience in the food system may require efforts to counter the political economic mechanisms that are facilitating the global production of an increasingly narrow set of crops by “sourcing food from multiple scales of distribution and diverse markets [as well as] supporting polycentric loci of decision making” (Schipanski et al., 2016: 605). To this end, a polycentric food sovereignty development approach serves as an opposing force to the trend toward centralization and homogenization of agriculture. Through its promotion of diversified organic (or agroecological) farming systems and farmer developed technologies and innovations, its attention to household and community food security, and ability to organize politically to advance smallholder interests at local, national, and international scales, MASIPAG is achieving the kind of structural changes needed to pursue appropriate, economically, environmental, and socially sustainable development (also see Ong’wen and Wright, 2007). Through its polycentric food sovereignty approach to agricultural development, MASIPAG is building heterogenous pathways to peasant resilience.    161 Chapter 5: Conclusion: Enhancing Smallholder Resilience This dissertation had three main research objectives. First, to better understand the socioecological conditions that lead to smallholder vulnerability in the Philippines. Gaining perspective on the root causes, drivers, and conditions of smallholder vulnerability enabled me to embed my analyses in the Philippine agrarian context. The second objective was to examine how a range of agricultural development initiatives are addressing these adverse socioecological conditions. Accounting for two disparate agricultural development approaches and management practices occurring in the Philippines allowed for a robust examination of the respective outcomes on smallholder resilience. Finally, my third and main objective was to synthesize these analyzes in order to identify multi-scalar pathways and barriers to enhancing smallholder resilience in the Philippines. Ultimately, this dissertation illuminates the socioecological conditions and factors that either augment or obstruct smallholder capacities for building resilience.  5.1 Key Findings  This research project produced three key findings: 1) organic rice systems located in Negros Occidental Province exhibit greater resilience than their conventional counterparts; 2) the institutional arrangement responsible for supporting organic transition in the Philippines remains locked in the Green Revolution paradigm, thereby obstructing smallholder capacities for resilience building; and 3) a polycentric food sovereignty development approach is key to addressing these institutional lock-ins and creating pathways for smallholder resilience.   162 5.1.1 Organic rice systems exhibit greater resilience than conventional  In Chapter 2, a comparison of conventional and organic rice systems in Negros Occidental Province showed that organic rice systems contain higher crop, farm, and landscape diversity which serves to enhance adaptive capacity; employ more land and soil-improvement measures that increase mitigation potential; and are governed by household and community mechanisms that serve to reduce vulnerability. When participating smallholders were asked to share their recommendations for climate interventions, their responses centered on building individual, collective and local capacities for enhancing resilience through increased farmer control of agricultural resources and improved government provisions to ensure smallholders have access to land and tenurial security, (para)veterinary services, crop and livestock insurance, and financial support. Such 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.  Despite accumulating empirical Philippine-based evidence that smallholder organic rice systems out perform their conventional counterparts, and nearly four decades of an organic movement in the Philippines which recently gained some institutional support, less than 2 percent of the agricultural landscape is certified or in conversion to certified organic. 5.1.2 The institutional arrangement remains locked in the Green Revolution  To explore why organic agriculture remains in the margins, Chapter 3 shares a critical institutional analysis of agricultural transition in the Philippines. In an effort to modernize and industrialize Philippine agriculture, a substantial amount of foreign funding was directed toward the development and deployment of Green Revolution technologies in the country. For over half  163 a century, agrarian reform policies and national agricultural development programs have all been oriented toward institutionalizing the Green Revolution, which also served to establish an agricultural knowledge regime and administrative machine designed to promote conventional agriculture.  In examining the institutional arrangement responsible for supporting organic transition, I found that key agricultural organizations remain locked in the Green Revolution paradigm. The same state agencies and research institutions that were (and are) responsible for promoting Green Revolution technologies, are now the same agencies and research institutions that are charged with supporting and facilitating organic transition according to the passing of the 2010 Organic Agriculture Act (Republic Act 10068). These key agricultural organizations, such as the Department of Agriculture and the Philippine Rice Research Institute are regarded as inappropriate and inadequate champions of organic agriculture by smallholders and government and non-government civil society representatives.  Further, the way in which organic research and development has been taken up by the state has been to develop high yielding organic rice varieties and inputs that are to be made available to farmers commercially; mimicking the Green Revolution model and contradicting smallholder motivations for transitioning to organic which center on severing dependencies on costly external inputs through increased farmer control over agricultural knowledge and resources. If the goal is to genuinely enhance smallholder capacities for building resilience through organic transition, then there is a need to overcome and address these institutional lock-ins, as well as the separation of farmers from agricultural knowledge and resources.  164 5.1.3 A polycentric food sovereignty approach builds pathways to resilience To explore how existing organic farmers were able to transition in the face of adverse socioecological conditions, in Chapter 4 I turned my attention to Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura (Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development, MASIPAG), a grassroots farmer-led network that mobilized over 30,000 farmers to transition to organic/agroecological farming systems in 63 provinces across the Philippines without the support of the state and despite antagonistic development policies. The Network is a leftist non-militant organization that subscribes to a food sovereignty development model and utilizes a polycentric system as a mode for developing and implementing food sovereignty initiatives across the Philippines. That is, it subscribes to a bottom-up, dispersed multilevel pattern of governing and initiatives are oriented toward local empowerment and cultural sensitivity. The network has contributed to the collection and in-situ conservation of over 2,000 traditional rice varieties that are freely exchanged and propagated among farmers. The network builds and maintains local institutions to foster place-based agricultural knowledge, technologies, and innovations. In this way, farmers are treated as fully capable of developing their own organic drought, flood, saline resistant cultivars; establishing their own local seed banks; and developing their own composting and vermiculture systems – and all such place-based knowledge and subsequent innovations are shared and taught freely. The MASIPAG example suggests that polycentric food sovereignty initiatives help Philippine smallholders overcome adverse socioecological conditions, including institutional barriers to organic transition. If we understand resilience to be multi-scalar and interdependent processes and outcomes that support smallholder capacities for simultaneously addressing adaptation, mitigation, and vulnerability; then MASIPAG’s polycentric food sovereignty development  165 approach is creating pathways for smallholder resilience in the Philippines, by increasing farmers’ control over agricultural resources and revitalizing place-based knowledge and agricultural innovation. 5.4 Limitations  Given that this dissertation carries out a single case study, the participating farmers and their farms are not necessarily representative of the diversity of Philippine smallholders nor the unique socioecological conditions that occur across the over 7,000 islands. For example, none of the participants identified as indigenous farmers, nor are they employing management practices that are consistent with the System of Rice Intensification (SRI), affiliated with FAO field schools teaching Climate Smart Agriculture, part of the collection of ecovillages in the Philippines, or located in UNESCO world heritage sites such as the rice terraces in Ifugao Province. As such, future work should expand on this research by carrying out similar assessments in other regions in the Philippines and across the globe.  That said, the natural resource constraints and political economic marginalization expressed by participants are representative of challenges experienced by smallholders around the world (Morton, 2007). Over 70 percent of the world’s poor (living on less than US$1.25 per day) live in rural areas and rely on agriculture as their main livelihood source (IFAD, 2013). Many are contending with the environmental costs associated with the Green Revolution, including degraded soils and depleted water sources; as well as facing ongoing threats to land tenurial security (ibid). Hence, the pathways and barriers to smallholder resilience identified in this dissertation will likely resonate with the experiences of other rural communities across the globe.   166 Although this dissertation took a collaborative and participatory approach, it does not include a follow up investigation to determine whether participating farmers implemented the interventions they identified. Nor does it assess the long-term impact of the research process and project on the participating farmers. As such, this dissertation is limited in its ability to claim that the research process and project served to benefit participating farmers and their communities.  Although academic journal publications have the potential to draw international attention and support for the work MASIPAG carries out, such documents are not directly useful nor accessible to resource-poor farmers. Hence, the key findings of this dissertation will be translated into a pamphlet for MASIPAG to distribute to farmers. Any future works should also be translated into a format that is meaningful to participating farmers.  5.4 Contributions  The contribution of this work is twofold. First, agri-food system researchers have called for studies in resilience to move beyond household and community-level diagnostics and engage in more critical analysis and the deconstruction of power relations (Fabinyi et al., 2014; Blesh and Wittman, 2015). They are also calling for researchers to connect with social movements in order to collectively develop targeted strategies for building more just, sustainable, and resilient food systems (Schipanski et al. 2016: 608). Although such discourse exists in the Philippines they are often “marginalised from dominant policy and research programs” (Davila, 2018: 1). This dissertation, therefore, contributes to this body of work by drawing attention to food sovereignty initiatives in the Philippines that are being taken up by grassroots farmer-led mobilizations to contest and counter the dominant conventional paradigm for agricultural development.   167 Second, much of the recent climate change literature on polycentric systems centres on multi-scalar non-governmental and state government units engaged in broader climate change interventions (see Jordan et al., 2018). Further, policy options that have been proposed for managing complex socioecological systems have not centered on agricultural systems management (Rivera-Ferre et al., 2013). These existing research and policy gaps prompt a need to identify or generate new agricultural development approaches that simultaneously revitalize agrobiodiversity and locally available resources, facilitate social learning and collective action, as well as address the political economic marginalization of farmers. This work meets this need by providing researchers and policy makers with an example of a polycentric agricultural development strategy that has wider implications on socioecological conditions significant to resilience building.  5.6 Moving Forward  What this dissertation and the MASIPAG example reveals is that with the right support, smallholders can bring about the transformational change necessary to build more sustainable, equitable, and resilient farming systems. It is my hope that this work can provide guidance to international development agencies and researchers on how to work with smallholders and larger social movements to shape new institutional arrangements and development approaches that both address the root causes of smallholder vulnerability and build capacities for smallholders and rural communities to enhance their resilience to climate change. 5.6.1 Considerations for international development agencies Despite its achievements, MASIPAG faces a number of constraints and barriers. First and foremost, the political climate continues to be dangerous for peasants and community  168 development workers located in rural sectors in the Philippines. Military conflict and other forms of violence and intimidation by security forces and local elites continue to persist among agrarian communities (Oram, 2003; Angeles, 1999). For example, community leaders, including MASIPAG members have been assassinated or targeted for their advocacies for genuine agrarian reform (see MASIPAG, 2018c; Heckelman, 2018a, 2018b). Such conditions create obstacles and a fear of organizing or working on development issues in rural communities. International development efforts must account for these dynamics and work to safeguard the advocacies of local communities.  Second, there remains a lack of resources and capital directed toward smallholders to support organic transition. Smallholders are expected to endure the costs, making the transition to organic exceptionally difficult for those that have incurred debts as conventional farmers (Farmer Interview 5, personal communication, Oct 12, 2016; Farmer Interview 6, personal communication, Oct 13, 2016). Complicating matters is the role of religious organizations, as partnering with the Catholic Church to help support organic transition in the example of MASIPAG, may create membership barriers for non-Catholic farmers (Oram, 2003). Diversifying religious affiliations as well as retaining secular support for such polycentric food sovereignty development efforts could help ensure that non-Catholic farmers, for example, are not excluded from development efforts.   Third, land access and tenurial security remain prominent concerns shared among Philippine peasants and have been identified as fundamental to sustainable farming and resilience building (Focus Group 1, personal communication, Oct 9, 2016; Focus Group 2, personal communication, Oct 10, 2016). This is because, according to the MASIPAG National Coordinator,   169 In order for farmers to really become resilient against climate change they have to implement diversified integrated farming systems. But if you want to implement diversified integrated farming systems, you have to have control over your land. (personal communication, Dec 15, 2016).   Therefore, interventions aimed at building smallholder resilience must address barriers to land access and tenurial security, especially in the developing world where land conflicts are prevalent. Finally, scaling out diversified organic (or agroecological) systems and improving farmer capacities for building resilience “will not be possible if the institutional machinery continues to favor industrial agribusiness and Green Revolution technology with subsidies, credits, extension programs and the whole gamut of incentives that have helped the rural development paradigm to expand over the past 50 years” (Giraldo and Rosset, 2018: 559). Just as governments, international aid agencies, and the agricultural knowledge regime subsidized and facilitated the transition to conventional farming, substantive public investment and effort is needed to facilitate the shift to more sustainable and resilience agroecosystems (Broad and Cavanagh, 2012). Also, institutional scientists need to create more opportunities for farmers to direct research and interventions, as in the case with MASIPAG scientists and their role is supporting farmer efforts to (re)generate place-based agricultural knowledge and innovation. As described by Hart et al. (2015: 15): The potential of producer movements also depends on political and economic conditions that favor multi-functional practices, technical assistance on multifunctional practices,  170 and their ability to put in place or join organizational systems that pursue multi-functional farm and landscape objectives. It also is shaped by the willingness of other key stakeholders in the landscape, like government agencies, private sector, and civil society organizations, to grant political and institutional space for the farmers to negotiate for their own priorities and solutions, or new governance mechanisms that grant space or effectively pressure other actors into giving producers a place at the negotiating table.  5.6.2 Directions for future research The above constraints suggest that resilience research requires an investigation of land relations and power structures that are responsible for the political economic marginalization of peasants and the ongoing incidences of violent oppression inflicted on rural communities. What MASIPAG farmers are asking for are genuine allies to support their efforts in (re)gaining control over agricultural resources (Farmer Interview 2, personal communication, Sep 8, 2016). Smallholder (or peasant) resilience research, therefore, requires deep contextualization, an understanding of current socioecological conditions and the root causes of peasant vulnerability, and subsequent barriers to enhancing capacities for adaptation and mitigation. Researchers and practitioners must examine how the implementation of interventions support or undermine social and reflexive learning, agrobiodiversity, community capacities and resources, etc. They must also ask to what extent is the respective intervention addressing the existing power dynamics responsible for socio- and political economic marginalization afflicting smallholders.  There is much to be learned from grassroots farmer-led mobilizations, especially amongst marginalized communities and developing countries were smallholders have been contending with centuries of development policies responsible for their plight and vulnerability. How they  171 organize, cooperate, strengthen community capacities in spite of adverse socioecological and political economic conditions is something we should be paying attention to. What the MASIPAG example tells us is that resource-poor smallholders are often at the front lines of community development, agricultural transition, and resilience building, and we should be exploring, analyzing, and strengthening such polycentric, localized, place-based interventions.      172 References Abasolo, A. and Zamora, O. (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.  ABS-CBN News (Feb 19, 2009). LGUs push for organic farming. Retrieved on 27 Feb 2019 from https://news.abs-cbn.com/nation/regions/02/19/09/lgus-push-organic-farming Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 268–281. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006 Adger, W. N., Brooks, N., Bentham, G., Agnew, M., and Eriksen, S. (2004). New indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity (Vol. 122). Norwich: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Adriano, L. S. (1991). Agrarian reform and rural development. In, Philippine rural development. [College, Laguna, Philippines]: University of the Philippines, Los Bańos, 43-59 Aguilar, F. V. (1998). Clash of spirits: The history of power and sugar planter hegemony on a Visayan island. University of Hawaii Press. Aligica, P. and Tarko, V. (2012). Polycentricity: from Polanyi to Ostrom, and beyond. Governance, 25(2), 237–262.  Allen, P. (2010). Realizing justice in local food systems. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3(2), 295–308. http://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsq015 Altieri M. A. (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, M. A. and Nicholls, C. I. (2005). Agroecology and the search for a truly sustainable agriculture. United Nations Environmental Programme, Environmental Training Network for Latin America and the Caribbean. Altieri, M. A., Funes-Monzote, F. R., and Petersen, P. (2012a). Agroecologically efficient agricultural systems for smallholder farmers: contributions to food sovereignty. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 32(1), 1–13. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-011-0065-6 Altieri M. A., Nicholls, C. and Funes, F. (2012b) The scaling up of agroecology: spreading the hope for food sovereignty and resiliency. A contribution to discussions at Rio, 20.  Alfieri, M. A., Nicholls-Estrada, C. I., and Henao-Salazar, A. (2015). Didactic Toolkit for the Design, Management and Assessment of Resilient Farming Systems. Foodtank.com.   173 Altoveros, N. and Borromeo, T. (2007) Country Report on the State of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture of the Philippines (1997–2006). Philippine Department of Agriculture Bureau of Plant Industry. Retrieved on 18 Sep 2017 from http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1500e/Philippines.pdf  Alvares, C. (1986). The great gene robbery. The Illustrated Weekly of India, 23, 6-17. Amend T., Brown J., Kothari A., Phillips A. and Stolton S. (eds.) (2008) Protected Landscapes and Agrobiodiversity Values. Volume 1 in the series, Protected Landscapes and Seascapes, IUCN and GTZ. Kasparek Verlag, Heidelberg.  Angeles, L. C. (1999). The Political Dimension in the Agrarian Question: Strategies of Resilience and Political Entrepreneurship of Agrarian Elite Families in a Philippine Province 1. Rural sociology, 64(4), 667-692. Araullo, D. B., (2006). Agricultural Cooperatives in the Philippines. 2006 FFTC-NACF International Seminar on Agricultural Cooperatives in Asia: Innovations and Opportunities in the 21st Century, Seoul, Korea, 11-15 September 2006.  Aruelo, L. (n.d.) Philippines GMO-Free Zones: Successful Roots in Organic Policy and Law. Retrieved on 18 Sep 2017 from https://www.gmo-free-regions.org/fileadmin/files/gmo-free-regions/Philippines/The_Philippines_GMO-Free_Zones.pdf 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, M. L., 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.  Badgley, C., Moghtader, J., Quintero, E., Zakem, E., Chappell, M. A., Avilés-Vázquez, K., Samulon, A. and Perfecto, I. (2007). Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 22(02), 86–108. http://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170507001640  Bailey, S., Bryant, R. (1997) Third World Political Ecology. London: Routledge. Baldwin, S. E., (1902) The Mission of Governor Taft to the Vatican. Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 4294. Retrieved on 27 Feb 2019 from http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4294  Balisacan, A. M., (1993) Agricultural Growth, Landlessness, Off-Farm Employment, and Rural Poverty in the Philippines. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 41(3): 533-562.   174 Ballesteros, M. and Cortez, F. (2008) CARP Institutional Assessment in a Post2008 Transition Scenario: Implications for Land Administration and Management, DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES NO. 2008-07.  Ballesteros, M., Ancheta, J. and Ramos, T. (2017) The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program after 30 Years: Accomplishments and Forward Options, DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES NO. 2017-34  Barrett, C. B., and Constas, M. A. (2014) Toward a theory of resilience for international development applications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(40), 14625–14630. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320880111 Barthel, S., Crumley, C. L., & Svedin, U. (2013) Biocultural Refugia: Combating the Erosion of Diversity in Landscapes of Food Production. Ecology and Society, 18(4), art71–15. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06207-180471 Batalla, E. C. (2000) De-institutionalizing Corruption in the Philippines: Identifying Strategic Requirements for Reinventing Institutions. Institutionalizing Strategies to Combat Corruption: Lessons from East Asia Conference.  Makati, Philippines, August 12-13, 2000. Bautista, E. U., Javier, E. F. (2005) The Evolution of Rice Production Practices. Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Discussion Paper Series No. 2005-14. Retrieved from https://dirp4.pids.gov.ph/ris/dps/pidsdps0514.pdf  Bello, W. and De Guzman, M. (2001) Why Land Reform Is No Longer Possible without Revolution. In (ed) The future in the balance: essays on globalization and resistance. Oakland, California: Food First Books. Bello, W. (February 1, 1982). Clearing Farmers From The Land. New Internationalist, 108. Retrieved from https://newint.org/features/1982/02/01/clearing  Bennett, E. M., Cumming, G. S. and Peterson, G. D. (2005) A systems model approach to determining resilience surrogates for case studies. Ecosystems 8(8), 945–957. doi: 10.1007/s10021-005-0141-3.  Bergamini, N., Dunbar, W., Eyzaguirre, P., Ichikawa, K., Matsumoto, I., Mijatovic, D., et al. (2014) Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (pp. 1–72). Berkes, F., and Ross, H. (2013) Community Resilience: Toward an Integrated Approach. Society and Natural Resources, 26(1), 5–20. http://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.736605 Bernal, B. (Mar 25, 2014a) Former Nabcor execs tip De Lima about P5-B agri funds misuse. Rapper. Retrieved on 10 Feb 2019 from https://www.rappler.com/nation/53857-nabcor-execs-de-lima-agriculture-funds-misuse   175 Bernal, B. (Oct 15, 2014b) Ifugao mayor to be charged for overpriced fertilzers. Rappler. Retrieved on 10 Feb 2019 from https://www.rappler.com/nation/72097-ifugao-mayor-charged-over-fertilizer  Beus, C. E., and Dunlap, R. E. (1990) Conventional versus Alternative Agriculture: The Paradigmatic Roots of the Debate*. Rural sociology, 55(4), 590-616. Bezner Kerr, R. (2012) Lessons from the old Green Revolution for the new: Social, environmental and nutritional issues for agricultural change in Africa. Progress in Development Studies, 12(2-3), 213–229. http://doi.org/10.1177/146499341101200308 Brenni, C. (2015). Where are the local communities? Food sovereignty discourse on international agrobiodiversity conservation strategies. In Food Sovereignty in International Context (pp. 25-44). Routledge. Birkmann, J. and Welle, T. (2016) The world risk index 2016: reveals the necessity for regional cooperation in vulnerability reduction. Journal of Extreme Events 3(2), 1–21.  Blaikie, P., and Brookfield, H. (2015) Land degradation and society. Routledge. Blann, K. and Light, S. (2017) Sustainability science and ‘ignorance-based’ management for a resilient future. In Food Sovereignty, Agroecology and Biocultural Diversity (pp. 113-134). Routledge. Blesh, J., and Wittman, H. (2015) “Brasilience:” Assessing Resilience in Land Reform Settlements in the Brazilian Cerrado. Human Ecology, 43(4), 531–546. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-015-9770-0 Bloch, S. (Jun 6, 2018) At CRISPRcon, an organic luminary embraces gene editing. Will the industry follow? Klaas Marten’s unexpeted support for gene-edited crops raises questions about how to define “GMOs” as technology rapidly changes. The New Food Economy. Bodley, J. H. (2008) Victims of progress. Rowman and Littlefield. Borras, S. M. (2001) The Philippine Agrarian Reform: Relatively vibrant land redistribution amidst less-than-dynamic agricultural transformation. In (eds) Power in the Village: Agrarian Reform, Rural Politics, Institutional Change and Globalization. Project Development Institute Borras, S. M., Carranza, D. and Reyes R. (2012) In (Eds) Akram-Lodhi, A. H., Borras Jr, S. M., and Kay, C. Land, poverty and livelihoods in an era of globalization: perspectives from developing and transition countries. Routledge. 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.   176 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. Bureau of Agriculture and Fisheries Standards (BAFS) (2016) Philippine National Standard: Organic Agriculture. Retrieved on 18 Sep 2018 from http://www.bafs.da.gov.ph/accreditation/assets/documents/BAFS-PNS-OA-07-2016.pdf   BusinessMirror (August 11, 2015). DAR teaches organic farming in Camarines Sur. Retrieved from https://businessmirror.com.ph/dar-teaches-organic-farming-in-camarines-sur/ (Accessed 3 January 2019) Cabell, J. F., and Oelofse, M. (2012) An Indicator Framework for Assessing Agroecosystem Resilience. Ecology and Society, 17(1), art18–13. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04666-170118 Carating, R. B., and S. Q. Tejada. (2012) Sustainable organic farming in the Philippines: History and success stories. https://www.slideshare.net/x3G9/adx86-38041724 (accessed Sep 4, 2018).  Carlson, J., and Chappell, M. J. (2015) Deepening food democracy. Institute for Agriculture and Trade policy. 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, S. R., Bennett, E. M. and Peterson, G. D. (2006) Scenarios for ecosystem services: an overview. Ecology and Society 11(1), 29.  Ceccarelli, S. (2012) Living seed–breeding as co-evolution. Seed Freedom: A Global Citizens’ Report, New Delhi: Navdanya.  Chaifetz, A., and Jagger, P. (2014) 40 Years of dialogue on food sovereignty_ A review and a look ahead. Global Food Security, 3(2), 85–91. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2014.04.002 Chambers, Robert. 2006. Poverty Unperceived: Traps, Biases and Agenda. Inst of Development Studies. Chandler, R. F. (1992) An adventure in applied science: A history of the International Rice Research Institute. Int. Rice Res. Inst.. Chappell, M. J., Wittman, H., Bacon, C. M., Ferguson, B. G., Barrios, L. G., Barrios, R. G., et al. (2013) Food sovereignty: an alternative paradigm for poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation in Latin America. F1000Research, 1–17. http://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.2-235.v1  177 Chaskin, R. J. (2008) Resilience, community, and resilient communities: Conditioning contexts and collective action. Child Care Pract. 14:65–74. 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.  Choptiany, J. M. H., Phillips, S., Graeub, B. E., Colozza, D., Settle, W., Herren, B., and Batello, C. (2016) SHARP: integrating a traditional survey with participatory self-evaluation and learning for climate change resilience assessment. Climate and Development, 1–13. http://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2016.1174661 Clarke, G. (1998) Politics of NGOs in Southeast Asia: Participation and Protest in the Philippines, Routledge, London. Collier, D. (1993) Chapter 5: The Comparitive Method. In Ada W. Finifter, ed. Political Science: The State of the Discipline II. Washington, D.C.: American Political Science Association.  Conklin, H. C. (1980) Ethnographic atlas of Ifugao; a study of environment, culture, and society in Northern Luzon. Conway, G. (1997) The doubly Green Revolution. Oxford, UK: Penguin Books. Conway, G. (2012) One billion hungry: can we feed the world?. Cornell University Press. Cordillera Peoples’Alliance Research Commission. (1997) PANTATAVALAN: Data and Discourse on the Cordillera. Bagiuo Allied Printers. Creswell, J. W. (2013) Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dahlberg, K. (1993) Regenerative food systems. Food for the future: Conditions and contradictions of sustainability, 75-102. Dahlberg, K. (1994) A transition from agriculture to regenerative food systems. Works.Bepress.com DAR Region V (2013) DAR Sorsogon Goes Organic. Retrieved on 3 Jan 2019 from http://www.dar.gov.ph/region-v/33-news/479-dar-sorsogon-goes-organic  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.  178 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.  David, C., and Balisacan, A. (1982) An analysis of fertilizer policies in the Philippines. David, C., Ponce E., Halos, S., and Lamug, C. (1999) Philippine National Agricultural and Natural Resources Research System: Resource Allocation Issues and Directions for Reforms, Discussion Paper Series No. 99-33. Philippine Institute for Development Studies.  Davis, C. (1993) Environmental concerns about pesticide use in Philippine agriculture. Science of the total environment, 134, 293-306.  Davila, F. (2018) Human Ecology and Food Systems: Insights from the Philippines. Human Ecology Review Retrieved on 18 Sep 2018 from http://hdl.handle.net/1885/139615 Davila, F., and Dyball, R. (2018) Food systems and human ecology. Sustainability Science (pp. 183–210). Routledge. http://doi.org/10.9774/gleaf.9781315620329_11 de Guzman, R. P., Nelson, G. L. M., Abrigo, G. N. A., & Baconguis, R. D. (2017). Selected Organic Agricultural Organizations’ Social Networks in the Promotion of Organic Agriculture in Quezon Province, Philippines. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 5(2), 64-76. De Schutter, O. (2010) UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food. Report on the right to food. United Nations General Assembly. Del Rosario, M. D. (March 9, 2018) Kapampanga farmer thanks gov’t for increased rice harvest. Philippine News Agency. Republic of the Philippines. Retrieved on 3 Jan 2019 from http://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1027989  DeLind, L. (2000) Transforming organic agriculture into industrial organic products: Reconsidering national organic standards. Human Organization 59: 198-208.  DeLind, L. B. and Bingen, J. (2008) Place and civic culture: re-thinking the context for local agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21: 127–151.  Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) (2009) Annual Report 2009: Moving Forward. Department of Agrarian Reform. Quezon City, Philippines.  Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) (2018a) About Us. Retrieved on 3 Jan 2019 from http://www.dar.gov.ph/about-us/mandate-mission-and-vision  Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) (2018b) Major Final Outputs: Technical Advisory Support Services. Retrieved on 3 Jan 2019 from http://202.90.133.237/major-final-outputs-mfos/program-beneficiaries-development   179 Department of Agriculture (DA) (2009) Annual Report. Department of Agriculture. Quezon City, Philippines.  Department of Agriculture (DA) (2012) Food Self Sufficiency Program 2011-2016: Enhancing Agricultural Productivity and Global Competitiveness. Department of Agriculture. Quezon City, Philippines.  Department of Agriculture (DA) (2018) Mandate, Vision, Mission. Retrieved on 3 Jan 2019 from http://www.da.gov.ph/mandate-vision-mission/ Desmarais, A. A. (2007) Globalization and the power of peasants: La Vía Campesina. Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press. Diaz, R. J., Rosenberg, R. (2008) Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems. Science 321: 926–929. 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.  Dorsch, M. and Flachsland, C. (2017) A polycentric approach to global climate governance. Global Environmental Change, 17(2), 45–64.  Easterling, W. E., Aggarwal, P. K., Batima, P., Brander, K. M., Erda, L., Howden, S. M., and Tubiello, F. N. (2007) Food, fibre and forest products. Climate change, 273-313. Ebbinghaus, B. (2005) When less is more: selection problems in large-N and small-N cross-national comparisons. International sociology, 20(2), 133-152. Édes, B. W., Gemenne, F., Hill, J., and Reckien, D. (2012) Addressing climate change and migration in Asia and the Pacific: open access e-book. Asian Development Bank. Eicher, C. K., and Staatz, J. M. (1990) Agricultural development in the Third World (No. 338.1091724 A3 1990). Enosh, G., & Ben-Ari, A. (2016) Reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 26(4), 578–584. http://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315587878 Estudillo, J. P., and Otsuka, K. (2006) Lessons from three decades of Green Revolution in the Philippines. The Developing Economies, 44 (2), 123-148. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1049.2006.00010.x Ewell, J. J. (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.   180 Faylon, P. S. and Cardona, E. C. (2007) Philippine Agriculture: Retrospect and Prospects in Good Agricultural Practices Amid Globalization. Retrieved on 27 Feb 2019 from http://www.fftc.agnet.org/library.php?func=view&id=20110721142241 FAOSTAT database. (2017) Country Indicators: Philippines. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved on 20 Aug 2018 from http://faostat.fao.org/static/syb/syb_171.pdf  Fedoroff, N.V., Battisti, D. S., Beachy, R. N., Cooper, P. J. M., Fischhoff, D. A., Hodges, C. N., Zhu, J. K. (2010) Radically rethinking agriculture for the 21sts century. Science, 327(5967), 833-834. Fischer, J., Abson, D. J., Butsic, V., Chappell, M. J., Ekroos, J., Hanspach, J., et al. (2014) Land Sparing Versus Land Sharing: Moving Forward. Conservation Letters, 7(3), 149–157. http://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12084 Flachs, Andrew. 2017. "“Show Farmers”: Transformation and Performance in Telangana, India." Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 39 (1):25‐34. doi: 10.1111/cuag.12085. Fließbach, A., Oberholzer, H.-R., Gunst, L., and Mäder, P. (2007) Soil organic matter and biological soil quality indicators after 21 years of organic and conventional farming. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 118(1-4), 273–284. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.05.022 Flyvberg, B. (2006) Five misunderstanding about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245.  Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., ... & Balzer, C. (2011) Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478(7369), 337.   Folke, C. 2004. Traditional knowledge in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9(3): 7. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art7/ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2010) The Second Report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome  Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2011) Save and Grow: A Policymaker’s Guide to the Sustainable Intensification of SmallHolder Crop Production. Rome: FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2015) The Impact of Disasters on Agriculture and Food Security. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2016) FAO explains El Niño response in the Philippines. Retrieved on 3 Aug 2017 from http://www.fao.org/in-action/fao-expands-el-nino-response-in-the-philippines/en/   181 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2017) Farmers in the Philippines replant their farms after Typhoon Sarika and Super Typhoon Haima. Retrieved 1 Sep 2018 from http://www.fao.org/emergencies/fao-in-action/stories/stories-detail/en/c/472020/  Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2018) Organic Agriculture. Retrieved on 1 Sep 2018 from http://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq1/en/  Franco, J. C., & Borras, S. M., Jr. eds. (2005) On Just Grounds: Struggling for Agrarian Justice and Citizenship Rights in the Rural Philippines. Quezon City: Institute for Popular Democracy.  Franco, J. C., & Borras, S. M., Jr. (2007) Struggles Over Land Resources in the Philippines. Peace Review, 19(1), 67–75. http://doi.org/10.1080/10402650601181923 Frankenberger, T., Mueller M., Spangler T., and Alexander S. October 2013. Community Resilience: Conceptual Framework and Measurement Feed the Future Learning Agenda. Rockville, MD: Westat. Fraser, E., Legwegoh, A., Krishna, K. C., CoDyre, M., Dias, G., Hazen, S., ... and Sneyd, L. (2016) Biotechnology or organic? Extensive or intensive? Global or local? A critical review of potential pathways to resolve the global food crisis. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 48, 78-87. Frossard, D. (1994) Peasant Science: Farmer Research and Philippine Rice Development. PhD dissertation, University of California, Irvine, California. 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.  Geels, F. W. (2011) The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 24–40. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002 Gerland, P., Raftery, A. E., Ševčíková, H., Li, N., Gu, D., Spoorenberg, T., ... and Bay, G. (2014) World population stabilization unlikely this century. Science, 346(6206), 234-237.  Giraldo, O. F., and Rosset, P. M. (2018) Agroecology as a territory in dispute: between institutionality and social movements. Journal of Peasant Studies, 45(3), 545–564. http://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2017.1353496 Gliessman, S. R. (2007) Agroecology: the ecology of sustainable food systems. CRC Press.  182 Graddy, T. G. (2013) Situating in situ: a critical geography of agricultural biodiversity conservation in the Peruvian Andes and beyond. Antipode 46 (2), 426–454. doi: 10.1111/anti.12045.  Graeub, B. E., Chappell, M. J., Wittman, H., Ledermann, S., Kerr, R. B., and Gemmill-Herren, B. (2015) The State of Family Farms in the World. World Development, 1–15. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.05.012 Grain (April 22, 2008) Philippine and beyond: rice crisis reaping the ‘fruit’ of market capitalism. Retrieved on 4 Oct 2017 from https://www.grain.org/fr/article/entries/1641-philippines-and-beyond-rice-crisis-reaping-the-fruit-of-market-capitalism Guevarra, A. M. and Baldovino-Gabales, D. A. (2003) Chapter 9: Philippines. In, M. Ghaffar Chaudry (Ed), Agrarian Reforms and Agricultural Productivity. Asian Productivity Organization.  Guzmán, G. I., López, D., Román, L. and Alonso, A. M. (2013) Participatory action research in agroecology: building local organic food networks in Spain. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37(1), 127–146.  Harris, N. L., Brown, S., Hagen, S. C., Saatchi, S.S., Petrova, S., Salas, W., Hansen, M. C., Potapov, P. V. and Lotsch, A. (2012) Baseline map of carbon emissions from deforestation in tropical regions. Science 336, 1573–1576.  Hart, A. K., McMichael, P., Milder, J. C., and Scherr, S. J. (2015) Multi-functional landscapes from the grassroots? The role of rural producer movements. Agriculture and Human Values, 1–18. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9611-1 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.  Hayami, Y., and Kikuchi, M. (2000) A rice village saga: Three decades of Green Revolution in the Philippines. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. Hayami, Y., Quisumbing. A., Adriano, L. (1990) Toward an alternative land reform paradigm: a Philippine perspective. Manila: Ateneo de Manila University Press.  Hazell, P. B. (2002) Green Revolution: curse or blessing?. Internat. Food Policy Research Inst. Hazell, P. B. (2009) The Asian Green Revolution (Vol. 911). Intl Food Policy Res Inst. Heckelman, A. (Nov 9, 2018a). Gunmen Kill Rights Lawyer Ben Ramos. Philippine Canadian News. Retrieved on 9 Jan 2019 from https://philippinecanadiannews.com/canada/gunmen-kills-rights-lawyer-ben-ramos/  183 Heckelman, A. (Nov 11, 2018b). [Opinion] The people lost another good defender. Rappler. Retrieved on 9 Jan 2019 from https://www.rappler.com/views/imho/216422-people-lost-good-defender-benjamin-ramos Heckelman, A., and Wittman, H. (2015). Food Sovereignty: A framework for assessing agrarian responses to climate change in the Philippines. ASEAS – Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies, 8(1), 87-94. Heckelman, A., Smukler, S., and Wittman, H. (2018). Cultivating climate resilience: a participatory assessment of organic and conventional rice systems in the Philippines. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 33(03), 225–237. http://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170517000709 Heintze, H J, Kirch L, Küppers B, Mann H, Mischo F, Mucke P, Pazdsierny T, Prütz R, Radtke K, Strube F, and Weller D. (2018). World Risk Report 2018. Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft and Ruhr University Bochum – Institute for International Law and Peach and Armed Conflict.  Hernandez, J. E., and ng Pilipinas, B. S. (2013). Strengthening Palay Seed Systems in Southern Tagalog and Bicol Regions. Hodbod, J., and Eakin, H. (2015). Adapting a social-ecological resilience framework for food systems. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 5(3), 474–484. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0280-6 Holt Giménez, E., and Altieri, M. A. (2012). Agroecology, Food Sovereignty and the New Green Revolution. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 187(000), 120904081412003–14. http://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2012.716388 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 and 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.  Hoque, S. F., Quinn, C. H., and Sallu, S. M. (2017). Resilience, political ecology, and well-being: an interdisciplinary approach to understanding social-ecological change in coastal Bangladesh. Ecology and Society, 22(2), art45–20. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09422-220245 IATP (1998). Biopiracy, TRIPS and the Patenting of Asia’s Rice Bowl: A collective NGO situationer on IPRs on rice. Retrieved on 25 Feb 2019 from  https://iatp.org/sites/default/files/Biopiracy_TRIPS_and_the_Patenting_of_Asias_Ric.htm#1  184 Icamina, P. 2011. Philippines: Organic farming is cost-effective. Malaya.com.ph, April 16. http://www.globalresearch.ca/philippines-organic-farming-is-costeffective/24356   IGES, SEARCA (2012). A Review of Issues and Challenges in Climate Change and Agriculture in Southeast Asia. Hayama: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) (2018). Global Warming of 1.5 ºC: An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 ºC above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emissions pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Retrieved on 9 Jan 2019 from https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/  International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (2015) IARC Monographs Volume 112: evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides. World Health Organization. Retrieve on 1 Mar 2019 from https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/MonographVolume112-1.pdf International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). (2013). Smallholders, Food Security, and the Environment.  International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). (2015). The Mitigation Advantage: Maximizing the co-benefits of investing in smallholder adaptation initiatives. International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). (2016) Rural development report: fostering inclusive rural transformation. Rome: International Fund for Agricultural Development. International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) (2018). About Us: Our History. Retrieved from http://irri.org/about-us/our-history (Accessed 3 January 2019) IPES-Food (2016). From uniformity to diversity: a paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological systems.  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, RRN1279–18. http://doi.org/10.1371/currents.RRN1279 Isaac, F., Carranza, D., and Aceron, J. (2017). From the Ground Up: Multi-Level Accountability Politics in Land Reform in the Philippines.  185 Ishii-Eiteman, M., 2009. Food sovereignty and the international assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and technology for development. J. Peasant Stud. 36 (3), 689–700. Ismail, A. M., Singh, U. S., Singh, S., Dar, M. H., and Mackill, D. J. (2013). The contribution of submergence-tolerant (Sub1) rice varieties to food security in flood-prone rainfed lowland areas in Asia. Field Crops Research, 152, 83-93. Issaoui-Mansouri, K., 2012. Food sovereignty as an emerging concept. Kasarinlan: Philipp. J. Third World Stud. 26 (1–2), 11–21. Jackson LE, Pascual U and Hodgkin T (2007) Utilizing and conserving agrobiodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 121(3), 196–210. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2006.12.017.  Jacobsen, S. E., Sørensen, M., Pedersen, S. M., and Weiner, J. (2013). Feeding the world: genetically modified crops versus agricultural biodiversity. Agronomy for sustainable development, 33(4), 651-662. Jerven, M. (2014). The Political Economy of Agricultural Statistics and Input Subsidies: Evidence from India, Nigeria and Malawi. Journal of Agrarian Change, 14(1), 129–145. http://doi.org/10.1111/joac.12025 Jordan, A., Huitema, D., van Asselt, H., and Forster, J. (2018). Governing Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. Jhamtani, H. (2010). The green revolution in Asia: lessons for Africa. FAO Paper. Retrieved on 1 Mar 2019 from http://www.fao.org/3/i2230e/i2230e03.pdf Karnieli-Miller, O., Strier, R., & Pessach, L. (2008). Power Relations in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research, 19(2), 279–289. http://doi.org/10.1177/1049732308329306 Kaur, A., Kohli, R. K., and Jaswal, P. S. (2013). Genetically modified crops and climate change linkages: An Indian perspective. Agricultural Sciences, 04(10), 541–548. http://doi.org/10.4236/as.2013.410073 Kesavan, P. C., and Swaminathan, M. S. (2018). Modern technologies for sustainable food and nutrition security. Current Science, 115(10), 1876. Khoury CK, Bjorkman AD, Dempewolf H, Ramirez-Villegas J, Guarino L, Jarvis A, Rieseberg LH, Struik PC. 2014. Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the implications for food security. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111: 4001–4006. Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP). 2007. Historical and Political Perspectives on IRRI and its Impact on Asian Rice Agriculture. In The Great Rice Robbery: The Handbook on the Impact of IRRI in Asia. Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific.   186 Kindon S, Pain R and Kesby M (2007) Participatory Action Research Approaches and Methods. New York: Routledge.  Kirch L, Luther S, Mucke P, Prütz R, Radtke K, Schrader C (2017). World Risk Report 2017. Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft. 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.  Kritz, B. April 21, 2017. DA launches high-yield rice program. The Manila Times. Agribusiness. Retrieved from https://www.manilatimes.net/da-launches-high-yield-rice-program/323275 Kuyek D., Zamora O.B., Quijano R. 2000. Hybrid Rice in Asia: An Unfolding Threat. Los Banos, Laguna (Philippines): GRAIN/KMP/MASIPAG/UBINIG. Retrieved on 1 Sep 2018 from https://www.grain.org/article/entries/34-hybrid-rice-in-asia-an-unfolding-threat  Lacorte, G. 2014. Organic food growers seek easier way of certification Philippine Daily Inquirer. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/632090/organic-food-growers-seek-easier-way-ofcertification  Lamban, R. J. G., Cerna, dela, A. K. R., Montiflor, M. O., Bacus, R. G., Concepcion, S. B., Batt, P. J., and Murray-Prior, R. (2011). Factors affecting farmers’ adoption of natural farming technologies in New Albay, Maragusan, Compostela Valley, Philippines. Acta Horticulturae, (895), 153–158. http://doi.org/10.17660/actahortic.2011.895.19 Landicho, L. D., Paelmo, R. F., Cabahug, R. D., Visco, R. G., and Abadillos, M. G. (2014). Prospects and Challenges in Promoting Organic Agriculture in the Upland Communities in the Philippines: Implications to Food Security and Nutrition. 2014 International Conference on Food Security and Nutrition. IPCBEE Press, Singapore.  Lapitan, A. V. (2005). Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and rice farmers' technology adoption decisions. Philippine Journal of Crop Science (Philippines). Lappé, F. M. (1992). Diet for a Small Planet: The Book That Started a Revolution in the Way Americans Eat. Ballantine Books. Lappe, F., J. Collins, and P. Rosset. (1998). World hunger: Twelve myths. New York: Grove Press. Latta S, McMichael P, McGuire KL, Nigh R, Rocheleau D, Soluri J and Perfecto I (2011) Effects of industrial agriculture 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.   187 Layosa, P. M., (2007). The Impact of IRRI on Philippine’s Rice Agriculture. In, The Great Rice Robbery: Handbook on the Impact of IRRI in Asia. Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific. League of Organic Agriculture Municipalities and Cities in the Philippines (LOAMC-Philippines) (2018). About Us. Retrieved on 20 Feb 2019 from http://loamc-ph.org/about-us2018/ Lijphart, A. (1971). Comparative politics and the comparative method. American political science review, 65(3), 682-693. Lipper, L., Thornton, P., Campbell, B. M., Baedeker, T., Braimoh, A., Bwalya, M., ... and Hottle, R. (2014). Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nature climate change, 4(12), 1068. Lin, B. (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.  Lin, B., Chappell, M. J., Vandermeer, J., Smith, G., Quintero, E., Bezner Kerr, R., et al. (2011). Effects of industrial agriculture 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(020). http://doi.org/10.1079/pavsnnr20116020 Linquist, B. A., Adviento-Borbe, M. A., Pittelkow, C. M., van Kessel, C., and van Groenigen, K. J. (2012). Fertilizer management practices and greenhouse gas emissions from rice systems: A quantitative review and analysis. Field Crops Research, 135, 10–21. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2012.06.007 Litonjua, A. C., Bordey, F. H., Beltran, J. C., Andes, A. G. 2017. Is Hybrid Rice Worth Investing In? Rice Science for Decision-Markers, 7. Deparment of Agriculture-Philippine Rice Research Institute.  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 implementation. Environmental Conservation 44(1), 44–55.  Lowder SK, Skoet J, Raney T. (2016) The number, size, and distribution of farms, smallholder farms, and family farms worldwide. World Dev, 87: 16–29. Magis, K. (2010). Community Resilience: An Indicator of Social Sustainability. Society and Natural Resources, 23(5), 401–416. http://doi.org/10.1080/08941920903305674 Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG) (Oct 15, 2013) News and Updates: IFOAM Recognizes MASIPAG PGS. Retrieved on 9 Jan 2019 from http://masipag.org/page/2/?s=organic+certification   188 Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG)  (April 2016). On its 56th anniversary, IRRI still a failure. News and Updates. Retrieved from http://masipag.org/2016/04/on-its-56th-anniversary-irri-still-a-failure/ September 1, 2018. 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). Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG) (2018a) About MASIPAG. [Online]. Available at http://masipag.org/about-masipag/ (Accessed 30 September 2018). Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG)  (Aug 8, 2018b) News and Updates: Farmers and consumers commemorate Golden Rice uprooting victory amid renewed push for field trials. Retrieved on 9 Jan 2019 from http://masipag.org/category/news-updates/page/3/  Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG)  (Oct 22, 2018c) News and Updates: MASIPAG condemns red-tagging of network’s staff and farmer leader. Retrieved on 9 Jan 2019 from http://masipag.org/2018/10/masipag-condemns-red-tagging-of-networks-staff-and-farmer-leader/  MASIPAG, GRAIN (2018) Don’t Get Fooled Again! Unmasking Two Decades of Lies About Golden Rice. Retrieved on 9 Jan 2016 from https://www.grain.org/article/entries/6067-don-t-get-fooled-again-unmasking-two-decades-of-lies-about-golden-rice Mamaril, C.P., Castillo, M.B., and Sebastian, L.S. (2009). Organic Fertilizers: Facts and myths. Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines: Philippine Rice Research Institute. Manahan, M. B. (2013). The State of Agrarian Reform Under President Benigno Aquino III’s Government. Beyond the Numbers: A struggle for social justice and inclusive rural development. Focus on the Global South-Philippines Mangas, M. (1974). The political economy of rice in the New Society Manila Observatory (2005) Climateand Weather-Related Risk Maps. [Online]. Available at http://vm.observatory.ph/cw_maps.html (Accessed 8 August 2017).  Mariano, M. J., Villano, R., and Fleming, E. (2012). Factors influencing farmers’ adoption of modern rice technologies and good management practices in the Philippines. Agricultural Systems, 110, 41–53. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2012.03.010 McAslan, A. (2011). Community resilience: Understanding the concept and its application. Adelaide: Torrens Resilience Institute.  189 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.  McMichael, P. (2009a). A Food Regime Genealogy. Journal of Peasant Studies 36 (1): 139-169 McMichael, P. (2009b). The agrofuels project at large. Critical Sociology, 35(6), 825-839. Medina, C. Benosa-Llorin, V., and Pago, A. C. (December 11, 2015). Philippines Supreme Court bans development of genetically engineered products. Greenpeace Philippines. Retrieved on 3 December 2018 from http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/ph/press/releases/Philippines-Supreme-Court-bans-development-of-genetically-engineered-products/  Medina, C. P. (2002), "Empowering farmers for rural development: the MASIPAG experience." Biotechnology and Development Monitor, No. 49, p. 15-18. Medina, C. P. (2004). The periphery as the center for biodiversity conservation: A case study from the Philippines. Currents, 35(36), 67-71. Medina C. P. (2009) Empowering small rice farmers: the MASIPAG approach. PAN AP (Pesticide Action Network Asia and 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 and Sons, Inc., pp. 191–202. Medina, C. P. (2010). Saving the Rice Seed. PANAP Rice Sheets. Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific.  Medina, C. P. (2011). Rice: Crop Breeding Using Farmer Led Participatory Plant Breeding (Vol. 49, pp. 191–202). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. http://doi.org/10.1002/9781119945932.ch11 Medina, C. P. (2012). Philippine Farmers Reclaiming Their Own Seeds. Seed Freedom: A Global Citizens’ Report, New Delhi: Navdanya. October. Mega, E. R. (November 19, 2018). Small Farmers in Mexico Keep Corn’s Genetic Diversity Alive: “Campesinos” are driving the evolution of maize in North America. Scientific American. Retrieved on 3 December 2018 from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/small-farmers-in-mexico-keep-corns-genetic-diversity-alive/?sf202618656=1andfbclid=IwAR27tl0IhOPlVYchuWGxyAzB-bNAGR2cf0AVL9zrQQJSSqLkC3Ctrg9YVYM s  190 Méndez, V. E., Bacon, C. M., and Cohen, R. (2013). Agroecology as a transdisciplinary, participatory, and action-oriented approach. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 37(1), 3-18. Mendoza, T. (2004). Evaluating the benefits of organic farming in rice agroecosystems in the Philippines. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 24(2), 93-115. Mendoza T. (2005). An Energy-Based Analysis of Organic, Low External Input Sustainable and Conventional Agriculture. Phil. Agric. Scientist 88 (3): 257 – 267.  Mendoza T. (2010). Organic agriculture: the logical sequence to modern chemical 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. Mendoza, T. (2016). Increasing SRI-Organic Rice Yields through Double Rows Planting Pattern and Using Location and Season adapted Rice Cultivar. Journal of Agricultural Technology, 12(4), 767-790. Mercer, K. L., Perales, H. R., and Wainwright, J. D. (2012). Climate change and the transgenic adaptation strategy: Smallholder livelihoods, climate justice, and maize landraces in Mexico. Global Environmental Change, 22(2), 495–504. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.01.003 MercyCorps, 2014. Agroecological Risk and Resilience Tool. Guidance for Considering Agroecological Impact of Agriculture Interventions and Identifying Opportunities to Build Resilience in Food Systems.   Mijatovic, D., Van Oudenhoven, F., Eyzaguirre, P., and Hodgkin, T. (2013). The role of agricultural biodiversity in strengthening resilience to climate change: towards an analytical framework. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 11(2), 95–107. http://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2012.691221 Milestad, R., and Darnhofer, I. (2003). Building Farm Resilience: The Prospects and Challenges of Organic Farming. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 22(3), 81–97. http://doi.org/10.1300/J064v22n03_09 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.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art11/ (Accessed 7 June 2017). Minda News (November 7, 2017).  Protect organic agriculture areas to guarantee healthy, affordable food. Retrieved on 27 Feb 2019 from https://www.mindanews.com/press-release/2017/11/protect-organic-agriculture-areas-to-guarantee-healthy-affordable-food/  191 Moller, H., Berkes, F., Lyver, P.O. and Kislalioglu, M. (2004) Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: monitoring populations for co-management. Ecology and Society 9(3): 2. Montenegro de Wit, M. M. (2015). Are we losing diversity? Navigating ecological, political, and epistemic dimensions of agrobiodiversity conservation Maywa Montenegro de Wit. Agriculture and Human Values, 1–18. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9642-7 Morton, J.F., 2007. The impact of climate change on smallholder and subsistence agriculture. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 104 (50), 19680–19685.  Muller, A. (2009). Benefits of organic agriculture as a climate change adaptation and mitigation strategy in developing countries. Muller, A., Olesen, J. E., Davis, J., Dytrtova, K., Gattinger, A., Lampkin, N., and Niggli, U. (2012). Reducing global warming and adapting to climate change: The potential of organic agriculture. Nagarajan, G., C. David and R. Meyer. 1993. Informal Finance Through Land Pawning Contracts: Evidence from the Philippines. Journal of Development Studies 29(1): 93-107  National Organic Agriculture Board (2011). The National Organic Agriculture Program, 2012–2016. Quezon City, Philippines: NOAB Secretariat, Bureau of Agriculture and Fisheries Product Standards, Department of Agriculture. National Organic Agriculture Program (2016). About: National Organic Agriculture Board. Retrieved on 27 Feb 2019 from http://organic.da.gov.ph/index.php/8-about-noap 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.  Neufeldt, H., Jahn, M., Campbell, B. M., Beddington, J. R., DeClerck, F., De Pinto, A., et al. (2013). Beyond climate-smart agriculture: toward safe operating spaces for global food systems. Agriculture and Food Security, 2(1), 12–6. http://doi.org/10.1186/2048-7010-2-12 Nicavera, E. P. (September 6, 2016). DA steps up support for organic farmers. SunStar Philippines. Retrieved from https://www.sunstar.com.ph/article/96532  North, D. C. (1990). An introduction to institutions and institutional change. In Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (pp. 3–10). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678.003 Norton, G.W., J. Alwang, and W.A. Masters (2006). The economics of agricultural development: world food systems and resource use. Oxon, UK: Routledge Press.  192 Novenario, G. May 2018. How Negros Paved the Way for Organic Agriculture. FandB Report. Retrieved from http://fnbreport.ph/features/agriculture/how-negros-paved-the-way-for-organic-agriculture-gabyn-20180511/ Nozawa, Katsumi (2002) Agrarian Reform Infrastructure Support Project-for Sustainable Development of Philippine Agriculture. Nyéléni Forum for Food Sovereignty. (2007). Declaration of Nyéléni. Retrieved from http://nyeleni.org/IMG/pdf/DeclNyeleni-en.pdf. Obi, A, (2011). Institutional constraints to small holder development in Southern Africa. Wageningen Academic Publishers. Olano, J. N. D., n.d. Land conflict resolution: case studies in the Philippines. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y3932T/y3932t07.htm  Olano, J. N. D. (1993). Non-Governmental Organizations' (NGOs) Role in Agricultural Research. Crop Science Society of the Philippines, 18(1), 13–17. Olano, J. N. D., (2004). Philippines: Agrarian Reform Infrastructure Support Project – Making Agrarian Reform Work. Scaling Up Poverty Reduction: A Global Learning Process and Conference Shanghai, May 25-27, 2004  Ong’wen, O., and Wright, S. (2007). Small farmers and the future of sustainable agriculture. EcoFair Trade Dialogue Discussion Paper, (7). Oram, J. (Ed.). (2003). Regaining the Land: Lessons from Farmers' Experience with Sustainable Agriculture in the Philippines. Ciir. Organic Certification Center of the Philippines (OCCP). 2018. http://www.occpphils.org/index.php/OCCP/about#popup1  Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity (Vol. 241). Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ostrom, E. (2009). A polycentric approach for coping with climate change. The World Bank. Ostrom, E. (2010). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 550–557. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.004 Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 7–27. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00394.x Paavola, J., and Adger, W. N. (2006). Fair adaptation to climate change. Ecological economics, 56(4), 594-609.  193 Paison, P. (July 18, 2016). Agriculture chief: Organic farming not for everyone. Rappler. Retrieved from https://www.rappler.com/nation/141081-agriculture-manny-pinol-organic-farming-not-for-everyone  Pangga, G.V. 2008. The Status of Philippines‟ Organic Agriculture in The Organic Standard. Issue #82, February 2008.pp3-6. U.K: Grolink AB.  Pantoja, B. R., Badayos, G. G., Agnes, C. R. (2016) Constraints to Adoption of Organic Rice Production in Selected Areas in the Philippines. College of Public Affaris and Development, University of the Philippines Los Baños.  Parmentier, S. (2014). Scaling-up agroecological approaches: what, why and how. Oxfam-Solidarity, Brussels, 472-80. Patel, R. (2013). The Long Green Revolution. Journal of Peasant Studies, 40(1), 1–63. http://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2012.719224 Peet, R. (Ed.), Robbins, P. (Ed.), Watts, M. (Ed.). (2011). Global Political Ecology. London: Routledge. Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J., and Wright, A. (2009). Nature’s matrix: Linking agriculture conservation and food sovereignty. London, UK: Earthscan. Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PANAP). 2007. THE GREAT RICE ROBBERY: A handbook on the Impact of IRRI in Asia. Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific.  Phalan, B., A. Balmford, R. E. Green, and J. P. W. Scharlemann. 2011. Minimising the harm to biodiversity of producing more food globally. Food Policy 36:S62–S71.  Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources and Development (PCAARRD) (2018). About. Retrieved from http://www.pcaarrd.dost.gov.ph/home/portal/index.php/transparency/about (Accessed 7 Feb 2019) Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) (2015) Special Report – Highlights of the 2012 Census of Agriculture (2012 CA). Philippine Statistics Authority. Retrieved on 13 Aug 2018 from https://psa.gov.ph/content/special-report-highlights-2012-census-agriculture-2012-ca Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) (2016) Official Poverty Statistics of the Philippines: Full Year 2015. Philippine Statistics Authority. Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) (2017a) CountrySTAT Philippines: Philippine Agriculture in Figures, 2015. Available at: http://countrystat.psa. gov.ph/?cont=3 (Accessed 12 June 2017).  194 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 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-negros/ (Accessed 18 September 2017).  Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) (Apr 18, 2018a). PhilRice helps IPs conserve traditional rice varieties. Retrieved from http://www.philrice.gov.ph/philrice-helps-ips-conserve-traditional-rice-varieties/ Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) (2018b) About Us: PhilRice. Retrieved from http://www.philrice.gov.ph/about-us/philrice/ (Accessed 3 January 2019).  Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) (2018c) About Us: Organization: Locations. Retrieved from http://www.philrice.gov.ph/about-us/organization/locations/ (Accessed 10 November 2018) Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) (2018d) About Us: Our Programs. Retrieved from http://www.philrice.gov.ph/about-us/rice-science/our-programs/  (Accessed 3 January 2019) Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) (2018e) About Us: Our Strategic Plan. Retrieved from http://www.philrice.gov.ph/about-us/rice-science/our-strategic-plan/ (Accessed 3 January 2019) Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) (2018f) About Us: Partners: National. Retrieved from http://www.philrice.gov.ph/about-us/partners/national/ (Accessed 3 January 2019) Piadozo, M. E. S., Lantican, F. A., Pabuayon, I., Quicoy, A., Suyat, A. M., & Maghirang, P. K. B. (2014). Rice farmers’ concept and awareness of organic agriculture: implications for sustainability of Philippine organic agriculture program. J ISSAAS, 20(2), 142-156. Pimbert, M. (Ed.). (2017). Food sovereignty, agroecology and biocultural diversity: constructing and contesting knowledge. Routledge. Pimbert, M. P., Thompson, J., Vorley, W. T., Fox, T., Kanji, N., and Tacoli, C. (2001). Global restructuring, agri-food systems and livelihoods. Gatekeeper Series-International Institute for Environment and Development Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods Programme.  Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., and Seidel, R. (2005). Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. AIBS Bulletin, 55(7), 573-582.  195 Pingali, P. L. and Rosegrant, M. W. (1994). Confronting the environmental consequences of the Green Revolution in Asia. Environment and Production Technology Division (EPTD) Discussion Paper No. 2. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington D.C. Retrieved on 1 Mar 2019 from http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/eptdp02.pdf  Pingali PL, Traxler G. 2002. Changing locus of agricultural research: Will the poor benefit from biotechnology and privatization trends? Food Policy 27: 223–238. Ponce, E. and Inocencio, A. 2017. Toward a More Resilient and Competitive Philippine Rice Industry: Lessons from the Past Three Decades. International Rice Research Institute. Poteete, A. R., Janssen, M. A., and Ostrom, E. (2010). Small-n case studies: Putting the commons under a magnifying glass. Working together: collective action, the commons, and multiple methods in practice, 31-63. Powledge, F. (2001). Patenting, Piracy, and the Global Commons. BioScience, 51(4), 273. http://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0273:ppatgc]2.0.co;2 Pretty, J. N. (1995). Regenerating agriculture: policies and practice for sustainability and self-reliance. Joseph Henry Press. Province of Negros Occidental (July 2012). Kapitoloyo Newsletter. Public Information Division, Office of the Governor. Retrieved from: http://www.negros-occ.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/kapitolyo-201207-july-2012.pdf  Putzel, J. (1992). A captive land: the politics of agrarian reform in the Philippines. Catholic institute for international relations. Quijano, R. F. and Adapon, S. Q., 2007. Pesticides and the Plight of Former IRRI Workers. In, The Great Rice Robbery: Handbook on the Impact of IRRI in Asia. Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific. Qin, Y., Liu, S., Guo, Y., Liu, Q., and Zou, J. (2010). Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from organic and conventional rice cropping systems in Southeast China. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 46(8), 825–834. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-010-0493-5 Quisumbing, A. and Adriano, L., 1987. ‘Tenurial Arrangements and Agricultural Heterogeneity: Implications for A.R.’. Seminar on Agricultural Policy Research, University of the Philippines at Los Baños Agricultural Policy Research Program, 25-26 September.  Rabara, R. C., Ferrer, M. C., Calayugan, M. I. C., Duldulao, M. D., and Jara-Rabara, J. (2015). Conservation of rice genetic resourc-es for food security. Adv Food Tech-nol Nutr Sci Open J.  196 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-1000099.1.  Ranada, Pia (September 14, 2013). PH most 'GMO-friendly' country in Southeast Asia? Environmentalists, farmers are alarmed over continuing approvals of GMOs by the government. Rappler. Retrieved on 3 December 2018 from  https://www.rappler.com/business/industries/247-agriculture/38878-gmo-philippines-golden-rice Rapera, C. L., Mendoza, T. C., Sumalde, Z. M. (2014). Climate Change and Sustainable Agricultural Development in the Philippines: Policy Issues and Strategies. Retrieved on 10 Sep 2018 from https://cem.uplb.edu.ph/research-extension-training/policypapers/40-policypaperseries1/76-policypaper3  Rappler.com (Aug 1, 2014). Lito Lapid to be charged over fertilizer scam. Rapper. Retrieved on 10 Feb 2019 from https://www.rappler.com/nation/72097-ifugao-mayor-charged-over-fertilizer  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 18th September 2017).  ReliefWeb (Jul 27, 2015). Feature: Preemptive, quick disaster response makes PH agri resilient. Retrieved from https://reliefweb.int/report/philippines/feature-preemptive-quick-disaster-response-makes-ph-agri-resilient  Renton, A. (2009). Suffering the Science: Climate change, people, and poverty. Oxfam Policy and Practice: Climate Change and Resilience, 5(2), 53-113. Reyes, C. M. 2002. Impact of Agrarian Reform on Poverty. Discussion Paper Series No. 2002-12 Ricciardi, V., Ramankutty, N., Mehrabi, Z., Jarvis, L., & Chookolingo, B. (2018). How much of the world's food do smallholders produce? Global Food Security, 17, 64–72. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2018.05.002 Rivera-Ferre, M. G., Ortega-Cerdà, M., and Baumgärtner, J. (2013). Rethinking study and management of agricultural systems for policy design. Sustainability, 5(9), 3858-3875. 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.  Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472–475.  197 Rodale Institute, 2014. Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change. Rodale Institute. Retrieved from https://rodaleinstitute.org/regenerative-organic-agriculture-and-climate-change/  Rojas, A., Valley, W., Mansfield, B., Orrego, E., Chapman, G. E., and Harlap, Y. (2011). Toward food system sustainability through school food system change: ThinkandEatGreen@ School and the making of a community-university research alliance. Sustainability, 3(5), 763-788. Romero, G. O., Rabara, R. C., Gergon, E. B., Cristina, M., Newingham, V., Diaz, C. L., ... and Nazareno, E. S. (2011). Development and utilization of the PhilRice Genebank. Philippine Science Letter, 4(1), 24-32. Rose, C. (2002) Common property, regulatory property, and environmental protection: comparing community-based management to tradable environmental allowances. In: The Drama of the Commons, ed. E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolsˇak, P.C. Stern, S. Stonich and E. Weber, pp. 233–258. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press. Rosegrant, M.W., Koo, J., Cenacchi, N.,  Ringler, C., Robertson, R., Fisher, M., Cox, C., Garrett, K., Perez, N.D., Sabbagh, P. (2014). Food Security in a World of Natural Resource Scarcity: The Role of Agricultural Technologies International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA(2014), 10.2499/9780896298477 Ross, H., and Berkes, F. (2014). Research Approaches for Understanding, Enhancing, and Monitoring Community Resilience. Society and Natural Resources, 27(8), 787–804. http://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2014.905668 Rosset, P.M., and M.A. Altieri. (1997). Agroecology versus input substitution: a fundamental contradiction of sustainable agriculture. Society and Natural Resources 10, no. 3: 283–95. Rotz, S., and Fraser, E. D. G. (2015). Resilience and the industrial food system: analyzing the impacts of agricultural industrialization on food system vulnerability. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 5(3), 459–473. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0277-1 Roxas, E. (2006). MASIPAG: A Community Farming System. Environmental Broadcast Circle Association Inc. Rubinos, R., A. T. Jalipa, and P. Bacaya. (2007). Comparative study of organic and conventional rice farming in Magsaysay, Davao del Sur. Paper presented at the 10th National Convention on Statistics. Makati, Philippines, October 1–2.  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.   198 Ryu, J.-H., Kwon, Y.-R., Kim, G.-Y., Lee, J.-S., Kim, K.-H., and So, K.-H. (2012). Life Cylcle Assessment (LCA) on Rice Production Systems: Comparison of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) Emission on Conventional, Without Agricultural Chemical and Organic Farming. Korean Journal of Soil Science and Fertilizer, 45(6), 1157–1163. http://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2012.45.6.1157 Sahakian, M., Leuzinger, T., and Saloma, C. (2017). Uncovering changing prescriptions and practices around organic agriculture in Metro Manila, the Philippines. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 41(5), 505–525. http://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2017.1284173 Salazar, R. C. (2014). Going Organic in the Philippines: Social and Institutional Features. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 38(2), 199–229. http://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2013.833155 Samberg LH, Gerber JS, Ramankutty N, Herrero M, West PC (2016). Subnational distribution of average farm size and smallholder contributions to global food production. Environ Res Lett, 11: 124010.  Sánchez, B. Q. (2011). Does the Food Sovereignty Movement Exist in Negros? The BIND and ONOPRA Experiences. Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of Third World Studies, 26(1-2), 361–377. Santilli, J. (2012). Agrobiodiversity and the Law: regulating genetic resources, food security and cultural diversity. Routledge. Sarmiento, G. 2007. Organic agriculture in the Philippines, a country report. In Regional Conference on Organic Agriculture in Asia. Bangkok, Thailand, December 12–15. Scherr, S. J., Shames, S., and Friedman, R. (2012). From climate-smart agriculture to climate-smart landscapes. Agriculture and Food Security, 1(1), 12–15. http://doi.org/10.1186/2048-7010-1-12. Schipanski, M. E., MacDonald, G. K., Rosenzweig, S., Chappell, M. J., Bennett, E. M., Kerr, R. B., et al. (2016). Realizing Resilient Food Systems. BioScience, 66(7), 600–610. http://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw052 Schlosberg, D. (2012). Climate justice and capabilities: a framework for adaptation policy. Ethics and International Affairs, 26(4), 445-461. Scialabba, N. E.-H., and Müller-Lindenlauf, M. (2010). Organic agriculture and climate change. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 25(02), 158–169. http://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170510000116  199 Sen, Amartya 1997. “Hunger in the contemporary world”, STICERD Research Paper Series, London: London School of Economics. Retrieved from: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/6685/1/Hunger_in_the_Contemporary_World.pdf  Seufert, V., and Ramankutty, N. (2017). Many shades of gray—The context-dependent performance of organic agriculture. Science Advances, 3(3), e1602638. http://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1602638 Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N., and Foley, J. A. (2012). Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature, 1–6. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature11069  Shah, S. H., Angeles, L. C., and Harris, L. M. (2017). Worlding the Intangibility of Resilience: The Case of Rice Farmers and Water-Related Risk in the Philippines. World Development, 98, 400–412. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.05.004 Sharma, R. (2003). Report of the APO Study Meeting on Integration of Agricultural Research and Extension, Philippines, 18-22 March 2002. Asian Productivity Organization.  Shi, L., Chu, E., Anguelovski, I., Aylett, A., Debats, J., Goh, K., ... and Roberts, J. T. (2016). Roadmap towards justice in urban climate adaptation research. Nature Climate Change, 6(2), 131. Shiva, V. (2012). Seed freedom–what is at stake. Seed-Freedom: A Global Citizens Report, Navdanya. Siddique, S., Hamid, M., Tariq, A., and Kazi, A. G. (2014). Organic Farming: The Return to Nature. In P. Ahmad, M. R. Wani, M. M. Azooz, and L.-S. Phan Tran (Eds.), Improvement of Crops in the Era of Climatic Changes (pp. 249–281). New York, NY: Springer New York. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8824-8_10  Sievers-Glotzbach, S. (2014). Reconciling Intragenerational and Intergenerational Environmental Justice in Philippine Agriculture: The MASIPAG Farmer Network. Ethics, Policy and Environment, 17(1), 52–68. http://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2014.885170 Simeon, L. M. (July 4, 2017) Philippines exports organic rice to UAE, US. The Philippine Star. Retrieved from https://www.philstar.com/business/2017/07/04/1716377/philippines-exports-organic-rice-uae-us  Skelcher, C. (2005). Jurisdictional integrity, polycentrism, and the design of democratic governance. Governance, 18(1), 89-110. Skinner, C., Gattinger, A., Muller, A., Mäder, P., Flieβbach, A., Stolze, M., et al. (2014). Greenhouse gas fluxes from agricultural soils under organic and non-organic management — A global meta-analysis. Science of the Total Environment, the, 468-469(C), 553–563. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.08.098  200 Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., ... and Folke, C. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 1259855. http://doi.org/10.1038/461472a STOA. (2016). Human health implications of organic food and organic agriculture. European Parliamentary Research Service (pp. 1–88). Stone, Glenn Davis. 2018. "Agriculture as Spectacle." Journal of Political Ecology 25 (1). Stone, G. D. (2016). Towards a General Theory of Agricultural Knowledge Production: Environmental, Social, and Didactic Learning. Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment, 38(1), 5–17. http://doi.org/10.1111/cuag.12061 Stone, G. D., and Glover, D. (2016). Disembedding grain: Golden Rice, the Green Revolution, and heirloom seeds in the Philippines. Agriculture and Human Values, 1–18. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-016-9696-1 Structural Adjustment Participatory Review International Network (SAPRIN) (n.d.) The impact of Trade Liberalization on Labor in the Philippines: A summary report. Retrieved on 7 Jan 2018 from http://www.saprin.org/philippines/research/phi_trade_sum.pdf  Suh, J. (2015). Community-Based Organic Agriculture in the Philippines. Outlook on Agriculture, 44(4), 291–296. http://doi.org/10.5367/oa.2015.0222 Sumberg, J., Thompson, J., and Woodhouse, P. (2012). Why agronomy in the developing world has become contentious. Agriculture and Human Values, 30(1), 71–83. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-012-9376-8 Sundkvist A, Milestad R and Jansson AM (2005) On the importance of tightening feedback loops for sustainable development of food systems. Food Policy 30(2), 224–239. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2005.02.003.  Suñer, A. S., Libetario, E. M., Olanday, M. O., and Mendoza, T. C. (2017). Mainstreaming Organic Agriculture in the Philippines: Challenges and Opportunities. Tadeo, J., Baladad, R., and Yanny, I. (2012). Organic farming at the center stage: A primer on sustainable rice based farming systems in the Philippines. Jakarta: La Via Campesina Takumi, Rie (November 23, 2017). GMOs as safe as conventional food, beneficial for farmers – scientists. GMA News Online. Retrieved from https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/specialreports/634261/gmos-as-safe-as-conventional-food-beneficial-for-farmers-scientists/story/ (Accessed 3 January 2019) Tan, M. C. The Masipag Approach: Food Security and Sovereignty, Sustainable Rural Development and Farmers' Empowerment.  201 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.  Tashi, S., and Wangchuk, K. (2016). Organic vs. conventional rice production: comparative assessment under farmers’ condition in Bhutan. Organic Agriculture, 1–11. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-015-0132-4 Taylor, M. (2018) “What’s Smart About Climate-smart Agriculture?” Policy Brief #22, January 2018. Oakland, CA: Food First/ Institute for Food and Development Policy.  Thompson, J., and Scoones, I. (2009). Addressing the dynamics of agri-food systems: an emerging agenda for social science research. Environmental Science and Policy, 12(4), 386–397. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.03.001 Thornton TF and Manasfi N (2010) Adaptation—genuine and spurious: demystifying adaptation processes in relation to climate change. Environment and Society: Advances in Research 1(1), 132–155. doi: 10.3167/ares.2010.010107.  Thrupp, L.A. (2000) Linking agricultural biodiversity and food security: The valuable role of sustainable agriculture. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944) 76(2):265–281.  Tomich, T. P., Brodt, S., Ferris, H., Galt, R., Horwath, W. R., Kebreab, E., et al. (2011). Agroecology: A Review from a Global-Change Perspective. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36(1), 193–222. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012110-121302 Tomlinson, I. (2013). Doubling food production to feed the 9 billion: A critical perspective on a key discourse of food security in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies, 29, 81–90. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.09.001 Tscharntke, T., Clough, Y., Wanger, T. C., Jackson, L., Motzke, I., Perfecto, I., et al. (2012). Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biological Conservation, 151(1), 53–59. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.01.068 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 Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (2013). Trade and environment review 2013. Wake up before it is too late: Make agriculture truly sustainable now for food security in a changing climate. Retrieved on 1 Sep 2017 from http://unctad.org/en/publicationslibrary/ditcted2012d3_en.pdf  202 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2013). 2012/2013 Philippine human development report. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations development Programme.  United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2014). UNFCCC Country Brief 2014: Philippines. Bonn: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Retrieved from: <http://newsroom.unfccc.int/media/413664/countrybrief-philippines.pdf>.  United Nations University and Alliance Development Works (UNU and ADW) (2014) World Risk Report 2014. Available at: http://www.ehs.unu.edu/file/get/11895.pdf (Accessed 13th May 2017).  United States Agency for International Development (USAID). (2012). Building resilience to recurrent crisis: USAID Policy and program guidance. Retrieved from http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/USAIDResiliencePolicyGuidanceDocume nt. pdf  Unruh, J. D. (2008) Carbon sequestration in Africa: the land tenure problem. 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 conditions. Nature Climate Change 3(3), 288–291.  Uphoff, N. (2002). Agroecological innovations. Earthscan, London. Van der Ploeg, J. D. (2012). The new peasantries: struggles for autonomy and sustainability in an era of empire and globalization. Routledge. Van Groenigen KJ, Van Kessel C and Hungate BA (2013) Increased greenhouse-gas intensity of rice production under future atmospheric conditions. Nature Climate Change 3(3), 288–291. Vandermeer, J. H. (2011). The ecology of agroecosystems. Jones and Bartlett Learning. Vandermeer, J., and Perfecto, I. (2012). Complex traditions: Intersecting theoretical frameworks in agroecological research. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 37(1), 76–89. Vargas, A. (2003). The Philippines Country Brief: Property Rights and Land Markets. National Parks, 1, 4-47. 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).  203 Villegas-Pangga, G. (2015). Indigenous knowledge systems and organic farming technologies: Farmers’ access to community technological learning. Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. and Kinzig, A. (2004) Resilience, adaptability 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 and IFOAM – Organics International (2017). Available at: https://shop.fibl.org/CHen/mwdownloads/download/link/id/785/?ref=1 (Accessed 20th September 2017).  Wittman, H. (2009). Reworking the metabolic rift: La Vía Campesina, agrarian citizenship, and food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(4), 805–826. http://doi.org/10.1080/03066150903353991 Wittman, H. (2011). Food Sovereignty: A New Rights Framework for Food and Nature? Environment and Society, 2(1), 1–19. http://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2011.020106 Wittman, H., Desmarais, A.A., Wiebe, N. (Eds.), 2010. Food Sovereignty: Reconnecting Food, Nature and Community. Fernwood Publ, Halifax, Canada. World Bank, 2009. Land Reform, Rural Development, and Poverty in the Philippines: Revisiting the Agenda. The World Bank Group.  Young, O. R. (1999). IDGEC science plan: Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change. IHDP. Yumul, G. P., Cruz, N. A., Servando, N. T. and Dimalanta, C. B. (2011) Extreme weather 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, A. A. and Francisco, H. (2010) Hotspots. Mapping Climate Change Vulnerability in Southeast Asia. Singapore: IRSA.       204 Appendix  Appendix 1: Agroecosystem indicators and component results showing mean values (x̅), sample size (n) and percent differences between organic (Org) and conventional (Con) farming systems. Significant differences (P-value < 0.05) determined by t-test are indicated in bold.   Org x̅ Con x̅ Org n Con n diff % p-value Farming System 6.80 5.90 18 22 15.2 <0.001 1. Socially Self-Organized 7.13 6.99 18 22 2.0 0.670 1.1 Group Membership 8.33 7.95 18 22 4.8 0.425 1.2 Functions of groups 7.83 8.98 18 22 -12.7 <0.001 1.3 Access to local farmers markets 3.56 3.82 18 22 -6.9 0.764 1.4 Previous collective action 9.14 8.39 18 22 9.0 0.231 1.5 Access to communal resources 6.78 5.82 18 22 16.5 0.199 2. Ecologically Self-Regulated 7.88 6.02 18 22 31.0 <0.001 2.1 Perennial crops 10.00 9.09 17 22 10.0 0.212 2.2 Reliance on local species 9.78 7.95 18 22 22.9 0.009 2.3 Synthetic pesticide use/disposal 10.00 5.34 18 22 87.2 <0.001 2.4 Use of nitrogen fixing plants 8.61 6.14 18 22 40.3 0.075 2.5 Buffer zones 1.44 0.68 18 22 111.9 0.299 2.6 Fertilizer use 9.72 5.36 18 21 81.5 <0.001 2.7 Agroforestry 7.85 7.33 18 22 7.1 0.419 2.8 Energy sources 5.89 6.23 18 22 -5.4 0.776 3. Appropriately Connected 5.35 4.99 18 22 7.3 0.426 3.1 Seed/Breed sources 7.50 6.68 18 22 12.2 0.341 3.2 Intercropping (practiced) 5.28 3.18 18 22 65.9 0.007 3.3 Access to information 6.85 7.13 18 22 -3.8 0.380 3.4 (Para) Veterinary access 3.53 4.47 17 19 -21.1 0.517 3.5 Trust and cooperation 3.44 3.42 18 22 0.6 0.960 4. Functional and response diversity 7.45 6.06 18 22 22.9 0.015 4.1 Species diversity 4.48 3.45 18 22 29.6 0.034 4.2 Agriculture categories 8.78 6.18 18 22 42.0 0.021 4.3 Income sources 8.33 8.64 18 22 -3.5 0.758 4.4 Pest/animal disease control 8.22 5.98 18 22 37.6 0.016 5. Optimally redundant 4.98 4.95 18 22 0.6 0.897 5.1 Varietal diversity 1.39 1.60 18 22 -13.1 0.604 5.2 Market access  2.33 2.50 18 20 -6.7 0.839 5.3 Water sources 5.78 4.36 18 22 32.4 0.058 5.4 Energy sources 10.00 9.64 18 22 3.8 0.199 5.5 Land management practices 9.22 8.14 18 22 13.3 0.295 5.6 Sources of fertilizers 1.11 4.25 18 20 -73.9 0.003 5.7 Major productive assets owned/accessible 7.25 7.27 18 22 -0.3 0.926 5.8 Seed/Livestock access 6.81 5.34 18 22 27.4 0.164 5.9 Human nutrition 7.43 6.76 18 22 9.9 0.148 5.10 Animal nutrition 3.42 4.21 18 19 -18.7 0.369 5.11 Cereal bank 0.00 0.00 18 22 0.0 NS 6. Spatial and temporal heterogeneity 7.12 5.81 18 22 22.7 0.006 6.1 Temporal heterogeneity of farm 7.12 4.73 17 22 50.6 0.033 6.2 Trees on farm 5.11 3.82 18 22 33.9 0.207 6.3 Types of soil 5.00 3.86 18 22 29.4 0.329 6.4 Land management practices 9.76 8.14 17 22 20.0 0.087  205  Org x̅ Con x̅ Org n Con n diff % p-value 6.5 Heterogeneity of farm/landscape 9.83 9.45 18 22 4.0 0.240 6.6 Intercropping (% of farm) 4.28 1.01 18 22 323.9 <0.001 6.7 Invasive species 6.89 6.36 18 22 8.3 0.616 6.8 Perennials 9.44 9.09 18 22 3.9 0.682 7. Exposed to disturbance 5.18 5.01 18 22 3.5 0.638 7.1 Invasive species 2.89 3.91 18 22 -26.1 0.432 7.2 Disturbances 3.81 4.49 18 22 -15.3 0.255 7.3 Breeding for resistance 8.24 8.42 17 19 -2.2 0.885 7.4 Buffer zones 1.44 0.68 18 22 111.9 0.299 7.5 Reliance on local species 9.78 7.95 18 22 22.9 0.009 8. Coupled with local natural capital 7.61 5.95 18 22 27.8 <0.001 8.1 Land quality 5.28 3.41 18 22 54.8 0.025 8.2 Health of soil/water quality 4.22 5.89 18 22 -28.3 0.027 8.3 Land improving practices 9.28 6.27 18 22 47.9 <0.001 8.4 Energy conservation 5.58 7.07 18 22 -21.0 0.111 8.5 Practices for resource recycling 8.17 5.73 18 22 42.6 0.031 8.6 Pesticides use 10.00 5.34 18 22 87.2 <0.001 8.7 Planted trees 10.00 9.09 18 22 10.0 0.199 8.8 Animal disease control practices  8.29 4.68 17 19 77.1 0.004 9. Reflective and shared learning 7.42 6.96 18 22 6.6 0.208 9.1 Participation in FFS and other groups 8.83 8.91 18 22 -0.9 0.722 9.2 Trends/changes in climate 8.61 7.95 18 22 8.3 0.399 9.3 Extension services 2.22 3.43 18 21 -35.2 0.094 9.4 Record keeping 8.33 5.91 18 22 41.0 0.018 9.5 Sources of knowledge for environment/agriculture 9.11 8.45 18 22 7.8 0.439 10. Globally autonomous and locally interdependent 6.74 6.17 18 22 9.2 0.156 10.1 Direct selling/trading to consumers 0.00 1.43 12 14 -100.0 0.187 10.2 Direct buying/trading with producers 2.78 5.00 18 22 -44.4 0.161 10.3 Local farm inputs 8.28 7.64 18 22 8.4 0.311 10.4 Previous collective action 8.61 9.05 18 22 -4.8 0.562 10.5 Ability to breed animals at local level 5.88 8.42 17 19 -30.1 0.094 10.6 Reliance on local species 7.50 4.17 18 21 80.0 0.005 10.7 Access to local market 4.44 3.82 18 22 16.4 0.487 10.8 Reliance on local energy sources 10.00 9.36 18 22 6.8 0.199 10.9 Animal disease control 7.29 6.32 17 19 15.5 0.492 10.10 Chemical pesticide and fertilizer use 10.00 4.32 18 22 131.6 <0.001 11. Honours Legacy 9.53 8.07 18 22 18.1 0.005 11.1 Elder participation 9.44 8.64 18 22 9.4 0.410 11.2 Agricultural learning 9.11 8.45 18 22 7.8 0.439 11.3 Traditional activities 10.00 8.09 18 22 23.6 0.026 11.4 Preservation of traditional knowledge 9.44 5.91 18 22 59.8 0.009 11. 5 Tree products 9.67 9.27 18 22 4.2 0.494 12. Builds human capital 8.62 6.81 18 22 26.6 <0.001 12.1 Household health 7.22 7.95 18 22 -9.1 0.142 12.2 Knowledge of practices to improve the land 7.33 4.84 18 22 51.5 <0.001 12.3 Infrastructure 9.44 10.00 18 22 -5.6 0.274 12.4 Group participation 8.00 7.86 18 22 1.7 0.736 12.5 Household equality  8.62 8.22 18 22 4.9 0.404 12.6 Investment in human capital 6.11 2.00 18 22 205.6 0.001         206  Org x̅ Con x̅ Org n Con n diff % p-value 13. Reasonably Profitable 3.32 3.41 18 22 -2.6 0.841 13.1 Financial support 2.78 2.73 18 22 1.9 0.973 13.2 Non-farm income generating activities  6.39 6.73 18 22 -5.0 0.801 13.3 Market prices/costs 3.57 2.77 18 22 28.8 0.262 13.4 Insurance 0.00 0.91 18 22 -100.0 0.199 13.5 Savings 3.89 3.94 18 22 -1.3 0.917  * Variations in sample size are due to some farmers refraining from answering the respective survey question, often due to the question not being applicable to the farmer or his/her farming system.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0379257/manifest

Comment

Related Items