FAO-Philippines' updated Country Programming Framework 2018-2024 (CPF) remains anchored on five (5) priority areas enunciated in the Philippine Development Plan 2017-2022, which was updated in 2021 to consider the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is guided by FAO’s Strategic Framework for 2022-2031, which seeks to directly contribute to the attainment of the sustainable development goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).  FAO pursues inter-linked and systems-oriented approaches to interventions as strategic means to transform the agri-food systems towards the four betters that leave no one behind: better production, better nutrition, a better environment, and a better life.

This updated CPF is further guided by the UN Socio-Economic and Peacebuilding Framework for COVID-19 Recovery in the Philippines 2020–2023, the roadmap for prioritizing, aligning, and positioning the UN in the Philippines. This update took cognizance of recent developments around Philippine policies, strategies, and plans related to the agriculture, fisheries, and forestry (AFF) sector, such as the OneDA approach to agricultural development of the Department of Agriculture (DA), and the National Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization and Industrialization Plan (NAFMIP).

At the sub-national level, it affirms FAO’s Strategic Programme for Agriculture, Fisheries, and Agribusiness Development in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (SPAFAD-BARMM); and promotes UN coordination and joint programming in BARMM in operationalizing the triple nexus of humanitarian, peace, and development approach. In line with all these guiding platforms and references, as well as with the Philippines’ Gender Mainstreaming Strategic Framework, gender is stressed and mainstreamed in this CPF.

Finally, this CPF has considered the rapidly changing context and key events shaping the country’s prospects, particularly the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

The updating of the CPF involved extensive consultations with relevant national and regional agencies of the Philippine Government, led by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) and DA; relevant ministries of the BARMM Transition Authority; UN agencies in the Philippines; bilateral and multilateral development partners; civil society organizations (CSOs), and private sector entities. It was also informed by the results of two FAO-commissioned reviews: assessment of the implementation of the CPF to date, and a gender analysis of the CPF. 

This enhanced CPF will continue to guide FAO’s partnership and support to the Government of the Philippines – bringing together innovative international best practices and global standards with national and regional expertise in the next three years from 2022 to 2024.

Download the updated FAO Programming Framework in the Philippines 2018-2024 here: http://www.fao.org/3/cc4236en/cc4236en.pdf.

Nutrition remains a major challenge in the Philippines  due to the twin issues of poverty  and weak food security that have resulted in the triple malnutrition burden, i.e., undernutrition, overnutrition, and micro-nutrient deficiency.

Persistent poverty and high food prices limit access to nutritious food, leading to hunger and impeding the improvement of nutrition levels of a significant segment of the population. These, in turn, are caused by a range of factors that include, among others, (a) low budget allocation for agriculture, which also leads to lower budget support for other (nutritious) agricultural commodities vis-à-vis rice; (b) inefficient food systems marked by distortive trade restrictions, inadequate logistics, excessive postharvest losses and uncompetitive marketing practices; (c) climate impacts; and (d) governance and policy delivery gaps stemming from fragmentation and overlaps of food and nutrition investments and programs, lack of coordination among various actors, and ill-equipped frontline workers to handle caseloads of households with malnourished children.

There have been numerous efforts to address food security and nutrition challenges, the most recent being the establishment of the IATFZH and the COVID-19 resiliency task force, the formulation and implementation of the National Food Policy, the formulation of the BARMM Food Security and Nutrition Roadmap, and the passing of Republic Act No. 11148 or the “Kalusugan at Nutrisyon ng Mag-Nanay Act of 2018”. However, the combined impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine conflict derailed the momentum of these efforts and exacerbated prevailing challenges. The imperative for Outcome 1, therefore, is to help further strengthen the capability of the government and stakeholders to (a) enhance the country’s food systems with special focus on raising productivity and resilience of farms and fishing grounds; and (b) improve the enabling policy framework and institutional environment on food security and nutrition. 

Food security in all its dimensions of accessibility, availability, utilization, and stability is an overriding goal of the updated CPF to contribute to the PDP’s overarching strategic pillar to lift most of the Filipinos out of poverty and malnutrition. FAO focuses on achieving improved institutional capacities at the LGU and community levels to produce the following outputs: (a) responsive, integrated, and coherent food security and nutrition plans, policies and programs with strong components on food safety and quality standards and nutrition-sensitive and gender-responsive food systems, while providing equal emphasis to agriculture and fisheries in both rural and urban areas; (b) adopted and working digital innovations – some built on the digitalization of food supply and distribution chains developed during the pandemic and under the CPF – that help reinforce the resilience of food systems; and (c) strong knowledge and information systems that allow coordinated gender-disaggregated data collection, monitoring, evaluation, and reporting across multi-sectoral areas of food security, nutrition, and food safety and quality standards.

In realizing these outputs, FAO will be guided by the Philippine Plan of Action for Nutrition (PPAN), which it would help adapt at the regional and local levels. These outputs will break down silos and improve connectivity and coordination within and among food systems; facilitate the emergency/pandemic proofing of the food supply chain; and promote synergy in implementing food security and nutrition interventions – all for the benefit of the Filipino. These will also help enable the government, local communities, and other stakeholders in both urban and rural areas to develop and demonstrate behaviors that promote overall well-being, and foster a supportive environment that protect their nutrition, food security, and health.

Declining productivity and the resulting low level of competitiveness have impinged on the growth of the AFF sector.  Productivity continued to deteriorate because of the limited application of technology coupled, high vulnerability to climate variability,  and persistent degradation of natural resources.  The persistently high level of agricultural trade protection  and the resultant high domestic prices arguably could have weakened the impetus to undertake effective measures to improve productivity on the parts of both government and producers themselves. The low level of competitiveness of the sector stems from: (a) inadequate budget allocation for AFF; (b) limited access to financing by small farmers and fishers; (c) limited market support and underdeveloped value chains; (d) inadequate infrastructure to support commodity value chains; (e) insufficient investment in research and development (R&D); (f) limited diversification of the farming system; and (g) high post-harvest losses ranging from 15 percent in rice to 50 percent in fruits and vegetables (WB, 2014). The sector has not fully maximized the potentials of commodities with significant revealed comparative advantage (RCA),  primarily because agricultural budget has largely been focused on traditional crops with low comparative advantage, and government interventions on commodity value chains have been fragmented.

Moreover, damages and losses as well as the often underreported or poorly assessed long term impacts of recurrent disasters also affect the sector’s productivity and competitiveness. The Russia-Ukraine conflict again exposed the extreme vulnerability of the AFF sectors to the high volatility of supply and prices of imported inputs, further indicating that the country’s weaknesses in adding local value to food commodities, and in resilience to shocks. Likewise, long-standing issues such as weak enforcement of ENR laws; inadequate efforts on DRR and CCA; and limited private sector investments in CCA and DRR initiatives such as risk transfer mechanisms (PDP 2017-2022), continue to beset the management of ENR.

Notwithstanding the above, there are promising developments and trends that augur well with a renewed focus on AFF and ENR. Climate issues and the pandemic appears to have ushered in heightened public interest in food security, local food culture, agribusiness, ecosystem services and environmental protection. The restrictive mobility during the pandemic renewed appreciation for urban agriculture and rapidly expanded backyard gardens, vertical farming, hydro/aeroponics, etc. It also spurred innovative food distribution networks and logistics systems such as mobile markets, online platforms that reduced or eliminated middlemen, social media marketing, etc. The CPF aims to capitalize on or tap into these nascent behavioral or attitudinal shifts to further expand or stretch the AFF and ENR value chains. It will help empower households and communities and enhance their capacity for self-determination and food self-sufficiency while encapsulating FAO’s gender transformative programming for food security, nutrition and sustainable AFF. 

Like many industries, the AFF sector was negatively affected by the pandemic, and saw slight contractions in 2020 and 2021 (by 0.2 and 0.3 percent, respectively). However, the sector exhibited resilience in the way it still managed to grow in terms of output and employment at the height of the pandemic lockdowns. The performance of the sector was marred primarily by the lingering impacts of supply disruptions in livestock, due to the African swine fever (ASF); natural disasters; and pest infestation. Unfortunately, this resilience of the sector, along with the food sector, is rapidly being eroded due to their high dependence on imported inputs (fossil fuel, fertilizer, feeds, wheat, etc.) that are currently at risk. The CPF will endeavor to help the AFF, and food sectors overcome these disruptions and lead these toward a stronger path of long-term sustainability and resilience. The CPF also aims to help government seize the opportunity to shape a better post-pandemic and post-conflict new normal for the AFF, ENR, and food sectors via FAO’s accelerators of technology, innovation, data and complements: governance, human capital, and institutions, among others. 

FAO will contribute to the achievement of PDP outcomes through the following outputs (a) stronger, technically equipped, and better coordinated institutions that create an enabling legislative and policy environment for a productive, competitive, and resilient AFF and ENR, hence robust food systems and stronger food security; and; (b) improved access of vulnerable food system actors (poor rural producers, small farmers, fisherfolk, rural women, agrarian reform beneficiaries, indigenous peoples, upland and forest dwellers, etc.) to appropriate local and global technologies, knowledge and practices, sustainable and gender-responsive agribusiness value chains, and SRSP programs.

To realize these outputs, FAO will employ a multi-sectoral, integrated, and circular economy  approach as a key strategy to improve productivity and sustainability in producing adequate food staples and high value crops (HVC), including forest-based products, while relying less on imported inputs and natural resources. This approach will feature efforts to integrate production processes towards value addition; strengthen community-based organizations and other forms of clustering (e.g., cooperatives, block farms) to achieve economies of scale; and promote innovative private sector partnerships to help farmers and fisherfolk add value to their commodities and create and diversify markets. The integrated circular economy approach will promote the expansion of organic, urban, and upland farming; hasten agrobiodiversity and landscape restoration; reduce the use of new and imported materials; and encourage the production of new materials and products (e.g., fuel) from recaptured wastes of production processes; among others. It will harness the promising trends and shifts in behaviors and preferences, such as in the emerging agricultural tourism due to the growing interest in local food products and culture and elevating profile and standards for Filipino cuisine. In support of this, FAO will promote the integration of agro-ecology and regenerative farming practices in agri-tourism sites.

FAO will continue to help create employment and livelihood opportunities in forestry and ENR by supporting advocacies and establishing laws, policies and programs that (a) facilitate the design and application of appropriate management arrangements in forestlands, watersheds, wetlands and other environmental formations by, among others, enhancing its ongoing initiatives on forest plantations and forest certification system; (b) enhance science-based conservation of biodiversity and rehabilitation of coastal habitats, marine and terrestrial protected areas; (c) protect, settle, and delineate indigenous peoples’ ancestral lands and other land tenure and rights issues; and (d) support community and family-based agroforestry farms technically and financially. Sustainable livelihoods can also be achieved through responsible ecotourism carried out within ecological limits that are determined through carrying capacity and benchmarking studies alongside regular tracking of the state of local environment and natural capital. 

Policy and program initiatives will be carried out to expand the application of digital technology in the agricultural value chain spanning finance, farm production, processing, marketing, logistics and on to retail (i.e., from “finance to field to fork”); and to foster the use of adaptive and climate resilient technologies vis-à-vis different landscapes. The extension system will be further enhanced by decentralized establishment of climate smart farmer field schools (CSFFS) and robust R&D jointly with the LGUs and academic and research centers of excellence. To improve the efficiency of extension services, FAO will contribute to the a) capacitation of provincial LGUs to coordinate delivery including through the application of information and communication technology, and b) facilitation of legislative action such as in the promotion of enabling budgeting and institutional reforms. 

Sustainable AFF practices and ENR management will underpin the new role of small producers and indigenous peoples not merely as producing agents, but more importantly, as resource stewards.  Circularity in production will be enhanced to reinforce sustainability and resilience and allow the AFF and food sectors to withstand supply and price shocks, especially from imported inputs (e.g., fossil fuel, fertilizer). Innovative institutional arrangements (e.g., certification, contract farming, out-grower schemes) shall be strengthened to enable small farmers to enter supply or marketing arrangements with agribusiness firms to support the employment for upland farmers, IPs, fisherfolk, and rural women. In this regard, and in line with the new thrusts of DA, technical and institutional support will be provided for the strengthening of agri-industrial cooperatives and other forms of clustering as a primary vehicle for the empowerment of small farmers and fisherfolk, and their greater participation in value-adding for their products. 

In generating desired outcomes, FAO will build on, scale up, or institutionalize developed capacities, generated knowledge, established models and tools, and proved concepts from the various projects implemented under the CPF in the last three years. It will leverage successes to strengthen partnerships and mobilize resources for the planned initiatives. Through the above-stated approach, strategies, and initiatives, it is expected that national and local governments, communities, and key stakeholders will actively participate in and benefit from the three outcomes and pursue sustainable and equitable development paths.

Capabilities remain limited in the national and local governments to minimize vulnerability and strengthen resilience of individuals, families and rural communities affected by climate change impacts and natural and human-induced disasters, including pandemics and other public health challenges. There have been improvements especially in responding to disasters, but capacities to undertake anticipatory actions to minimize losses and impacts of impending disasters are still wanting. For example, LGUs have inadequate skills to use geospatial information that are urgently needed for risk assessment of vulnerable areas to inform planning, early actions, and development of risk-informed SRSP interventions. The LGUs and line agencies lack technical and financial capability to establish reliable state-of-the-art information and communication systems that are essential before, during, and after disasters. Unfortunately, line agencies and LGUs have not maximized access to funds available for CCA and DRR management also due to capacity challenges such as in project proposal formulation. These weaknesses extend to coordinative mechanisms to address and respond to climate-induced and other natural disasters and public health crises because their memberships are generally composed of the same capacity-deficient government entities. 

The policy regime for risk transfer mechanisms is likewise deficient, lacking in innovation to attract private sector investment in DRR management.  Threats posed by zoonotic epidemics (e.g., ASF, Avian flu) and other risks attendant to animal health, food safety, phytosanitary and quarantine issues likewise warrant early detection mechanisms that are not yet available in agencies tasked to prevent the spread of these diseases. The nature of risks to AFF especially among smallholders is becoming more complex than ever, exacerbated by the impacts of unprecedented extreme events such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Meanwhile, the recovery and rehabilitation efforts in the aftermath of conflicts in BARMM and the pandemic that affected the whole of Mindanao will be prioritized and hastened in support of the PDP’s regional equity thrust. The comparative advantages of the Bangsamoro and non-Bangsamoro areas may be harnessed to bring prosperity and lasting peace in BARMM. 

FAO will contribute to the achievement of PDP outcomes by delivering two outputs that will reduce vulnerability and  enhance resilience: (a) strengthened capacities of national and local governments, key stakeholders, and affected population for coordinated, inclusive and technology-enabled emergency preparedness, anticipatory action, response, and social protection that are responsive  to extreme natural- and human-induced disasters; and (b) enhanced capacity of vulnerable populations to access information, appropriate risk reduction and transfer mechanisms, and adaptation practices and resources. FAO’s contribution will revolve around context-specific support to capacitating farm households living in hazard prone areas through intensive adoption of the twin elements of climate smart agriculture (adaptation and mitigation). DRR management practices will be improved by capacitating public institutions to develop specific and anticipatory work plans, including one-health approach; better analyze climate, temperature, rainfall, zoonotic and other risk data; establish warning mechanism for early actions; and put in place inclusive and risk-informed SRSP systems (e.g., risk insurance and digital financing). Resilient livelihoods and profitable social enterprises adopting the circular economy approach and conservation initiatives, will be promoted in upland, coastal and marine (e.g., aquaculture/blue economy), and conflict areas, especially in Mindanao.  These initiatives will ensure community resilience through risk-informed, gender-responsive initiatives, and equitable access to socio-economic opportunities and resources. At the same time, these will promote a common understanding of diversity and inequalities in areas affected by conflict to accelerate sustainable and equitable development for just and lasting peace in Mindanao. Along with the outputs and strategies (e.g. circular economy) in Country Outcome 3, these outputs fully support and contribute to the Philippine nationally determined contribution to climate change adaptation and mitigation.

The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the value of good governance as it exposed how outcomes are closely tied with the quality of governance and how weak governance can often exacerbate vulnerabilities. This indicates the strong need for greater capacity and commitment towards evidence-based, inclusive decision making, and resilience planning in the face of ever-increasing threats posed by natural and human-induced disasters. The CPF will support government efforts to elevate the quality of governance in pursuit of the OneDA framework and the UN’s whole of society, whole of government approach. It will support a holistic approach toward a food secure and resilient Philippines with empowered and prosperous farmers and fisherfolk. This will be achieved through collective action; attracting private sector investments in inclusive agribusiness defined by efficiency, productivity, sustainability, and resilience.