But rather than focus on the newest and latest technology, 8Villages, a mobile social network for smallholder farmers, has gone old-school by using simple 2G/GPRS to supply farmers with a range of agriculture-related information via cell phones. It is part of the company’s DNA to ensure farmers in the field are have simple yet actionable information, while connecting mobile carriers and large agribusinesses to the ‘little’ farmer.

Potentially millions of farmers could benefit from 8villages technology platform. But big leaps take time and so a small, but significant, step was made in Indonesia which has a huge agricultural base combined with high cell phone penetration rates. This provided the perfect foundation for 8villages to launch its service in 2012 but primarily focused on linking farmers.

Thousands of farmers in Indonesia have had access to 8Villages service, which focused on setting up networks for farmers to receive information and communicate with each other in small groups using the simple mobile phone as its platform.

Armed with a mobile phone, a farmer can opt for a subscription package which would allow him or her to communicate in small groups about relevant content provided by the private or public agriculture sector.

Groups consist of between 10-15 farmers based on their crops and location. This allows them to share useful information, such as dealing with a particular pest problem, weather conditions or responsible use of pesticides, rather than being sent ‘spam’ or information simply not relevant to their circumstances (geography, crops etc.).

In order to make it interactive and avoid the top down communication approach, farmers can ask questions and get them answered either by other farmers in their user group or by agricultural experts from 8villages’ partners, which are a combination of the private and public sector. This all works without the need for an internet connection since it is SMS-based.

The scheme is focused on empowering farmers with knowledge and up-to-date information and techniques in order for them to make more informed decisions.

The challenge for extension services workers and the private sector is to adequately reach farmers in an archipelago of more than 17,000 islands and then sustain that with appropriate information.

Simple cell phone technology could help bridge that gap by giving farmers the opportunity to connect to a relevant and broader community. The information flow can be secured with farmers not feeling isolated and relying on intermittent word-of-mouth.

Matt Kovac is Director of Advocacy at CropLife Asia based in Singapore.

** photo credits to http://www.8villages.com/

But given the huge advantages and few drawbacks of recycling, it can be surprisingly difficult to get some new projects off the ground. There are many barriers for organizations like ours in encouraging the farming community to recycle more used pesticide containers.

Malaysia is a good example of the challenges faced when launching such an initiative but of the huge rewards that can be achieved if they are overcome.

A container recycling pilot project was launched in 2003 in the Cameron Highlands in Malaysia. The interesting thing about the scheme was that it was a demonstration project using economic incentives, in this case a voucher redemption scheme.

The overall aim of the pilot was to encourage people to adopt environmentally-friendly behaviour through incentives or disincentives. In the initial stages it involved academics, NGOs, producers, distributors and end users.

One of the challenges was the sheer number of stakeholders involved. These included the Department of Agriculture, Cameron Highlands District Office, Malaysian CropLife & Public Health Association, WWF and Malay Vegetable Growers Association.

With any pilot scheme there are plenty of lessons that are learnt from doing something for the first time. The really interesting outcome from running an incentive scheme was that the farmers interviewed discounted the need for incentives: they were just grateful that a mechanism was set up for them to dispose of what was originally scheduled waste as normal solid waste.

Convenience is also a big selling point. If it’s too hard to return empty containers then farmers just won’t bother. They have countless other tasks to take care of so recycling needs to be easy and convenient to encourage them to participate.

According to the stakeholders, the pilot project was a success and once brought to its conclusion it was taken up by the authorities in Malaysia and evolved into a national recycling programme. The scheme expanded to cover the rice areas of Sungai Besar, Selangor and the vegetable growing areas in Tangkak, Johore.

In 2006 when the recycling program went fully nationwide, with the help of Malaysian CropLife & Public Health Association (MCPA), the national recycling program was integrated into the then newly created RSPO’s (Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil) Principles and Criteria (P&C).

This opened the door to for plantations to manage their empty pesticide containers in a legally approved manner by participating in the national recycling programme.

So what was the key to success?

• The Government had the political will – giving exemption to all triple rinsed containers from being classified as scheduled waste. Governments must be willing to work with the agricultural industry.
• The Government had the strong support of the industry.
• End users (e.g. plantations) should always actively seek Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) certification.
• The contractors who collect containers and recycle them are the key and were fully supported.

Matt Kovac is Director of Advocacy at CropLife Asia based in Singapore.

The Crop Protection industry is trying to find solutions to the perennial challenge of encouraging farmers to recycle pesticide containers. Pilot schemes and programmes across Asia have been a popular choice designed to improve container management recycling rates.

Unfortunately, Asia has one of the lowest recycling levels in the world, with about 30% of containers returned and processed for re-use. This is significantly lower than other regions although developed markets have experienced far more environmental and political pressure to recycle containers.

Part of the problem is the huge number of small and fragmented farm holdings dotted across the Asia Pacific region. This makes it much harder to get container management messages relayed to farmers, while convincing them that the small numbers of containers they often discard create environmental concern.

One of the key messages to convey is that the empty containers have plenty of uses once they are properly processed, cleaned and recycled. These include fence-posts, parking cones or drainage pipes. Schemes are exploring how some of this value can be passed back to farmers to incentivise them to hand back empty containers for recycling.

The Crop Protection industry is very much aware of this low figure and is determined to improve recycling rates with a host of promising and already successful initiatives taking place across Asia. These programmes are being delivered by both regional and national CropLife associations.

For example in the Hubei Province in central China, a pilot scheme was launched which involved the training of more than 2,000 farmers, service workers and retailers into safe container management.

The project created a high level of awareness within China and former Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao attended one of the events. More importantly, after the programme rice farmers reported higher levels of satisfaction with their crop protection services while boosting their incomes.

Other successful programmes have taken place in more developed markets such as Canada and Australia. For example, CleanFARMS was developed by CropLife Canada and has now become a global brand within container management programmes around the world. The CleanFARMS standard sets strict guidelines for the proper management of agricultural waste and has become a non-profit organisation in its own right.

Australia runs a national programme called drumMUSTER for the collection and recycling of containers, of which CropLife Australia is a partner. Established 13 years ago, drumMUSTER has disposed of over 20 million chemical containers.

Asia has yet to establish such a long-running and successful container management programme but the industry can at least see what the possibilities are.

Currently there is a real buzz about an established recycling project in Malaysia which involves a voucher redemption scheme for farmers. Interestingly, feedback from some farmers suggests they are not interested in financial reward, but just want a convenient way to return pesticide containers.

This is definitely food for thought for the industry weighing up the financial costs of such programmes.

 Matt Kovac is Director of Advocacy at CropLife Asia based in Singapore.

In Asia, progress is being made to improve the responsible use of crop protection products or pesticides. But while immense progress is being made to ensure farmers use products responsibly there is still plenty of work to be done.

In the heart of Southeast Asia, Thailand is an excellent example of what can be achieved when different organisations come together for the common good of raising safety standards among farmers.

It was revealed in a survey that Thailand had a particular challenge with the re-use of empty containers among farmers, along with a need for big improvements to the premises of local formulators and retailers..

Thailand presented a tough challenge given its fragmented agricultural community. If a CropLife stewardship campaign was to succeed in improving standards it would need buy-in from strategic partners such as the government, retailers and the nation’s farmers.

And this is exactly what happened. Senior government officials became involved along with strong support from the Royal Thai projects to get the campaign’s objectives across, improve safety levels while improving crop production methods.

Thailand’s story highlights how vitally important it is to build partnerships with national and local governments, NGOs and other organisations if an initiative aimed at educating farmers is going to succeed.

When everyone is on the same page, positive progress can be achieved. But it’s still a monumental task to get all different parties involved and moving in the same direction. Despite the coordination challenges, the results speak for themselves.

Senior government officials recognised that retailer training was the best way to get safety messages across to farmers and scored big wins in raising awareness. And the government helped by producing bright and colourful comics and notebooks which conveyed safety messages in a fun and entertaining way.

As a result, farmer training methods have improved dramatically and pesticides are now used in a much more responsible manner.

However, the industry cannot afford to rest on the laurels despite having seen some impressive improvements in Thailand and across the region. Training needs to be on-going and practices need to be constantly monitored to make sure standards are maintained. Effectively, behaviours have to change and that takes time to embed.

Training programmes have proved themselves to be a valuable tool in responsible use campaigns. They encourage participation which is arguably the best way to learn, leading to behavioural change. They are also useful when involving other stakeholders to help increase the effectiveness and outreach of any campaign.

While Asia is behind the curve compared with some regions, there are some exciting programmes currently taking place across Asia, including projects in Malaysia and India, designed to further improve the responsible use of crop protection products. .

They are part of CropLife Asia’s Responsible Use Initiatives which reach out to millions of farmers every year via a host of different media. Programmes have been running for more than 15 years and new lessons are learned all the time on the most effective way to engage the key stakeholders.

Training the trainers is a cornerstone of these programmes and will continue to be part of our sustained efforts to improve responsible use of pesticides across the region, and the world.

Matt Kovac is Director of Advocacy at CropLife Asia based in Singapore.

How many times have you sat down for dinner and thought about intellectual property rights (IP)? Never, probably. But the food you eat contains critical IP which is as important to food as IP is to pharmaceuticals and technology products.

The challenge is that in an increasingly metropolitan world in which we live, most of us don’t pause to think about the fresh ingredients we enjoy that has come from the fields to the grocery store to the table.

Farmers in Asia and around the globe constantly face new challenges to bring food, fuel, and fiber to a growing population. As the number of people increase and the amount of arable land decreases, producing enough food has become increasingly challenging. Innovation with strong IP protection is critical to ensuring we continue to enjoy food on the table. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that between 20 and 40% of the world’s crop production is lost annually to weeds, pests, and diseases. Innovation is necessary  to provide farmers with new tools to combat these growing challenges, and developing these new tools for farmers requires an upfront investment in research, time, and, of course, money. So the protection of IP remains vital to the scientists and entrepreneurs who invest decades of R&D and significant resources developing solutions to agricultural problems.

Protecting IP begins with a government commitment to innovation. Studies have shown that countries with stronger IP protection produce more food. Let’s look at the regulatory data that crop protection companies must generate and submit to national authorities to be permitted to market their products to farmers using Brazil and India as examples. Brazil has 10-year protection of regulatory data in place while India currently has none. Companies are required to submit regulatory data to national authorities to demonstrate they are safe and efficacious and this data is protected against competitors copying or using it during this period. .

In the past five years, Brazil has yielded over twice the amount of cotton per acre as India despite the fact that India dedicates eight to 10 times more land to cotton production. But this just scratches the surface. Around the world, countries with more robust IP rights have greater access to innovative agricultural technologies, see greater crop yields, and become more competitive globally. Indeed, IP is crucial to bringing food to your table each and every day through private sector investment in R&D and subsequent advances in modern agriculture. And this investment isn’t small.  Average R&D costs for each active chemical ingredient approved by a national authority in the US and EU has climbed from $152 million in 1995 to $256 million in 2008.

And to ensure this investment continues, greater works needs to be done on eradicating counterfeiters.  CropLife International and CropLife Asia are strongly involved in anti-counterfeiting efforts with law enforcement for more effective measures to protect farmers and the environment from the potential risks of illegal pesticides. Enforcement of IP by police, customs and regulators and more transparency in the international trade of pesticides is essential to sustain product innovation and ensure that pesticides are traded and used in a responsible manner.

Groundbreaking technologies have been essential in facing the monumental changes that have shaped agriculture over the past century, and will continue to influence how food is grown across the globe. Without strict IP enforcement, the development of some of the world’s most valuable innovations would not be possible.

Douglas T. Nelson is Senior Advisor for Trade, Intellectual Property & Strategic Issues at CropLife America.

Do judges know better than mothers what their children should eat?

In the Philippines, apparently they do. Or at least they think they do.

Last month, my country’s Court of Appeals stopped field tests on genetically modified eggplants—crops that I would happily feed my own children and grandchildren.

We’ve been eating GM crops for years. I grow them on my farm in San Jacinto during the dry season. They’re such excellent crops that I plant them on the 12 hectares that I own and also rent an additional 3.5 hectares.

I’ve also grown eggplants. They’re the leading vegetable crop in the Philippines, where we call them talong. They come in many shapes and colors, from elongated or rounded to purple, violet, or green. Some even have white stripes.

Mothers like me can cook talong a hundred different ways, but one of everybody’s favorite dishes is called pinakbet. Talong is a main ingredient, along with other vegetables as well as fish or shrimp, all stirred together in a hot and delicious mix.

If you were to ask Filipinos to pick their favorite Filipino plate, pinakbet probably would win the contest.

I’m very concerned that the judges have ruled against a technology that would make it easier for farmers to grow talong and mothers to feed it to their children.

If their decision had been based in sound scientific reasoning, then it would make sense and be accepted. Farmers don’t want to hurt the environment and mothers don’t want to feed harmful food to their children.

But the ruling had nothing to do with science. The judges simply reacted to the lies of activist groups such as Greenpeace, whose well-fed leaders never have to wonder about their next meal.

Biotechnology is widely accepted around the world, where farmers have harvested more than 3.5 billion acres of it over the last 20 years.

A few of those acres have been mine. I started growing GM crops shortly after the death of my husband. They helped me get my life back together and gave me the financial means to send my children to school.

They also put food on the table. I mean this both figuratively and literally because in my home we eat what we grow—and our GM corn uses exactly the same pest-fighting technology that the Court of Appeals just rejected for talong.

This is ridiculous. How can a trait be acceptable in one crop but not in another?

My personal experience demonstrates what scientists all over the world have said: GM crops are a safe and proven option. That’s what the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, and many other groups have proclaimed, along with the National Academy of Science of Technology here in the Philippines.

One of the latest voices to endorse GM food is Michael Purugganan, a Filipino who is the dean of science at New York University, a preeminent university in the United States.

“When it comes to GM technology, [critics] ignore the overwhelming scientific consensus on the safety of GMO crops,” he wrote in GMA News Online, responding to last month’s ruling. “Meanwhile, here in the U.S., I will eat GMO tortilla chips and eat GMO tofu. I hope to one day taste GMO pinakbet. And I do so fully aware that I have nothing to worry about.”

I’ll take it a step further. Biotech crops aren’t merely just okay to eat. They’re actually better than non-biotech crops. They allow us to grow more food on less land, making them tools of conservation and sustainable agriculture. They also improve the health of farmers because they don’t require additional pesticide applications, which can be hazardous to the people who apply them directly to crops.

With its unfortunate decision, the Court of Appeals has hurt the international reputation of the Philippines, which now may be viewed as a foe of progress and technology. More importantly, it has hurt the prospects of ordinary Filipinos, from farmers who struggle to make a living to mothers who simply want safe and affordable ways to feed their children.

Rosalie Ellasus is a first-generation farmer, growing corn and rice in San Jacinto, Philippines.  Rosalie allows her farm to be used as a demonstration plot for smallholder farmers to visit and learn from.  She is a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network

A tall order judging by recent comments from The Mary Robinson Foundation at a Dublin conference in mid-April in which the advocacy group presented research on the challenges linked to feeding the world due to climate change. They claim agricultural production will need to increase by 60% just to meet the growing demand between now and 2050.

The advocacy group added that over the next 40 years climate change, water scarcity and land degradation could reduce food production by one quarter, leading to increased numbers of food insecure people with those in the poorest countries most acutely affected.

Malthusianism-like? Perhaps. Certainly the statistics have certainly captured the imagination of policymakers, politicians, scientists and industry. And rightly so, as ignoring them could have dire consequences for future generations. It’s why these folks continue to frame the conundrum around food security and part of the solution is to enhance food production through new technologies and agriculture practices.

But increasing production isn’t without its challenges from a practical, conceptual, philosophical and ideological perspective. It’s no surprise there are continual attempts to reframe the debate and this is more apparent from a wider political and economic context, such as with the ‘food sovereignty’ which has gained traction in Asia.

Whereas food security refers to the access, availability, sufficient quantity and quality of food for citizens, food sovereignty’s common definition is the ‘rights  of peoples, communities, and countries to define their own agricultural, labour, fishing, food and land policies, which are ecologically, socially, economically and culturally appropriate to their unique circumstances. It includes the true right to food and to produce food, which means that all people have the right to safe, nutritious and culturally appropriate food and to food producing resources and the ability to sustain themselves and their societies’.

It’s a mouthful. So in short, it is a framework that inherently grants people and governments the right to determine their policies on food and agriculture and is effectively a means towards attaining food security. Historically, it is seen as a policy framework targeting globalization (and supporters such as WTO, World Bank and IMF) and particularly agriculture which is used by groups such as the international farmers’ movement, La Vie Campensina, in their global advocacy work and across Asia.

Food sovereignty has crept up the political agenda in Indonesia and is used as part the country’s policy for the Food Law. Why? It’s been attributed to a political reaction to worsening inequality despite a decrease in poverty, the scourge of malnutrition, volatile international food prices, and concerns about a market concentration in the food system.

The food sovereignty policy has already had an impact: that is to negate trade rather than promoting the formulation of trade policies that serve the rights of people through food that is affordable and sustainable for society. It remains to be seen the full extent of the policy towards agriculture but the food sovereignty model need not be at odds with trade openness.

There are many policy paths to ensuring food security.

Matt Kovac is Director of Advocacy at CropLife Asia based in Singapore.

It’s a lifecycle approach that developed from a few scattered global programmes initiated by the CropLife association network twenty years ago into an integrated business model in which the major global players in the industry have embraced.

In many ways there are similarities between stewardship and today’s best run corporate social responsibility programmes: the ones that partner with a variety of stakeholders on positive societal change programmes and develop into new business models or practices, which is an impressive feat. (Ploughing with the former foe)

The similarities between stewardship and good CSR programmes are in stark contrast to the superficial that focus on public relations photo opportunities and self-promotion. These have contributed to the air of cynicism and perhaps distrust among multiple stakeholders concerning corporate claims of social responsibility.

Stewardship at CropLife International and regional associations has focused on building a comprehensive approach to stewardship that benefits farmers in the field first, but also safeguards the environment and to protect public health.

Think of it as appropriate management that helps underpin sustainable agriculture and the use of agro-chemicals. This is  work in progress; particularly in Asia where hundreds of millions of small scale farmers need training on responsible use of products and then support to fundamentally change their behaviour to ensure that new business practices are adopted for the long-term. This is a long-term commitment which has a positive impact on societal issues such as farming methods and sustainable agriculture and is not a ‘quick fix’ project.

We are fortunate that stewardship is embedded in many of the biggest crop protection companies’ business models as an ethical way to manage agrochemicals from their discovery and development, to their use and phase-out. They are actively running stewardship programmes across Asia, as is CropLife Asia, to ensure farmers and supply chains use products responsibly.

This is smart partnering and has been extended to a variety of NGOs who are also working with companies and CropLife Asia to train farmers from India to Thailand through to China and Australia.

This is mutually beneficial to  CropLife Asia, the agri-businesses and NGOs to ensure long-term success which is to help farmers to secure and protect food supplies from pests.

Clearly, stewardship is about doing good business and creatively addressing farming issues, not simply feeling good, which is what too many CSR programmes set out to achieve.

Matt Kovac is Director of Advocacy at CropLife Asia based in Singapore.

The two-day meeting concluded with the private sector providing some key recommendations to ASEAN ministers as to how to improve the business environment and help contribute to an ASEAN economic community by 2015 and beyond.

Various sectoral groups split up to give keynote presentations and then encourage debate through panelists Q&A’s from participants that ranged from corporate executives to trade representatives through to policymakers and embassy officials.

The agri-food sector was the most diverse ranging from agri-business through to food, beverage and alcohol and supply chain standards. Despite some obvious differences, there was a lot of common ground. Although a lot of it focused on challenges. Outdated or inappropriate regulatory practices, custom clearance issues, import/export trade barriers, inconsistent sanitary and phytosanitary measures (commonly known as SPS), lax intellectual property protection and traceability issues were common identified barriers.

It was pretty clear among the participants the ASEAN regulatory environment had struggled to keep pace with the strong growth of the agri-food industry as result of demand. But outdated and dusty regulations have a bad habit of constraining the private sectors development and growth.

No one is suggesting that private enterprise should be totally free to operate but a licence to operate is critical. We all have to work within some rules and boundaries but they should allow business to flourish and contribute to economic growth, not derail it.

If ASEAN ministers are serious about a robust economic block, and they are, then harmonization is a key driver for multiple sectors. While there are notable challenges in terms of different social and economic levels of development these should not be used cynically as problems or barriers to achieving an economic community.

An economic community or pact is on shaky ground without agriculture as it can be really hard to get things moving, creating frustration and cynicism. Delaying discussions around agriculture isn’t helpful and solves nothing.

Instead, action is needed and this has come in the form of multiple initiatives and projects which demonstrate the value of integration across ASEAN. The agri-business sector has contributed to a variety of projects. For example, CropLife Asia has contributed to an expert working group on harmonising pesticide residue limits.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) under the UN also has produced some excellent work to assist countries in Southeast Asia towards achieving a harmonized regulatory environment through a comprehensive set of guidelines to support countries in their efforts to harmonize their pesticide registration systems.

The knowledge, technical assistance and drive from the private sector, and IGOs – is there but ASEAN leaders will need a strong political will to drive harmonization related to critical components that contribute to agriculture in the region.

Matt Kovac is Director of Advocacy at CropLife Asia based in Singapore.