Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
BIG BROTHER – SMALL BROTHER PARTNERSHIP FOR AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT:
An Extension Model for Farm Tourism
By: Asterio P. Saliot, CESO III, Ph.D.*
Introduction and rationale
It is a fact that we are a society of different social and economic backgrounds. Some smart
individuals have accumulated knowledge, skills, experience and wealth and many of them have
philanthropic desire to help others especially the disadvantaged, the poor, and inexperienced. We
call these smart individuals as big brothers and the latter as small brothers.
In the agriculture sector, there are many smart individuals who have achieved certain levels of
success in pursuit of agriculture development. Among these are Mr. Ronaldo Costales of Laguna –
the 2012 Gawad Saka awardee for organic agriculture, Mr. Ramon Penalosa and Mr. Ramon Uy of
Negros Occidental, and Dr. Francisco de la Pena of Panabo City, Davao del Norte who are known as
champions in their provinces as agriculture entrepreneurs. For sure there are others in different
provinces of the country who are in the same category of successful agriculture practitioners.
While the Philippines is largely an agricultural country, agriculture remains the weakest sector in the
economy. We need a model of a big and small brother partnership to address this weakness. We will
base our model to farm tourism as common among the successful agriculture practitioners.
and Promotion
Figure 1. Framework of Farm Tourism extension concept
*
Dr. Asterio P. Saliot is the present Director of the Agricultural Training Institute
The potentials of farm tourism
The concept of farm tourism is not new. This has been practiced by many individuals from many
countries across the globe as a business enterprise. It is the integration of two industries –
Agriculture and Tourism – where tourists visit to learn, experience and enjoy being exposed to
amenities related to agriculture. Tourists usually long for something good to experience such as
farming, feeding livestock, planting and harvesting vegetables, fish feeding and catching, fruit
picking, cooking and eating even just for a day.
Farm tourism offers services that respond to such wishes of tourists which often are limitless. Farm
based activities can therefore be expanded limitlessly.
Owners of these tourist sites are financially capable and have special interest in the business. They
have the resources – land, manpower, and other inputs – even the skills to put up these businesses.
However, such resources are also limited relative to the growing number of clients and their needs.
The inclusion of small farmers
To meet the growing demand of these form of tourism, owners of tourist sites who themselves are
mostly farmers can tap small‐scale farmers. They can be a source of additional farm space, products
and services that cannot be sufficed by big farmers alone. The former can contract with the latter in
mutually acceptable terms to serve each other’s interest. Small farmers can be grouped into clusters,
each may produce specialized products or services (Figure 2).
This partnership described earlier as big brother‐small brother partnership is a collaboration which
ideally addresses the problem of poverty long yearned by the government. It harnesses the
participation of the rich in poverty alleviation and in the pursuit of achieving shared and inclusive
growth. On the other hand, the rich benefits from the participation of the poor as the latter augment
the weaknesses of his farm tourism business. It thus gives both of them the dignity as human beings.
The use of the word brother indicates the intimacy that guarantees both the care and security.
Figure 2. Clustering of small farmers’ contribution in Farm Tourism
Under the context of organic agriculture
Common interest of tourists in agriculture today is not only on food or the delicacy as a result of
good processing of agriculture products but more of health and wellness. It can therefore be said
that Farm Tourism is compatible with organic farming. According to IFOAM, this form of agriculture
holds to the principles of sustainability, health, ecology, fairness and care. It is safe to say that the
context of farm tourism should be organic agriculture which is also a way to mitigate the impact of
climate change.
The role of extension
The role of extension is very crucial in the above mode of farm tourism business. Extension serves as
a teacher, a channel of information, a broker of knowledge, a link to bridge the gap in problem
solving. As a teacher, extension is a means to educate tourists anything that they wish to learn from
the site. It is also a means to educate small farmers on what and how to do to produce the desired
crop or service as demanded by the business owner. At the same time, business owners learn how
to comply with the requirements of farm tourism such as site accreditation and organic certification,
among others. As a link, it connects all players/stakeholders to facilitate business flow ‐ from forging
of partnerships to efficient delivery of services to clients.
Appropriate extension strategies
As a take‐off to farm tourism, extension must be equipped with delivery mechanisms or extension
strategies that are fit to the model. These include extension strategies that are proved effective
based on experience of extension agencies or providers. At present, the ATI will adopt the following
which are being used by the Institute on its stakeholders, such as the rural‐based organizations
(RBOs) (e.g. RICs, 4‐H Clubs, IPs and farmers associations) and rebel returnees:
a. Learning Sites (LS) – are model farms of successful farmer entrepreneurs showing that
agriculture is a viable enterprise employing good agricultural practices and workable farming
strategies. These include demonstration farms that serve as training venues for hands‐on
learning.
b. Schools for Practical Agriculture (SPA) – are learning sites further developed to become
holistic, integrated community based agribusiness‐ecotourism learning centers or “schools”
for hands on training. The farmer‐owners become “teachers” or community extension
workers for other farmers.
c. Farm Business Schools (FBS) – are hands on trainings for farmers on how to develop their
farms into viable businesses.
d. Ladderized course in Agriculture – are courses especially offered to children of small
farmers. This partnership will encourage family approach to agriculture development.
Magsasakang Siyentista’s role as big brother
Critical in extension is also the role of Farmer‐Scientists known as Magsasakang Siyentista (MS). They
are experts developed by a consortium of agencies (academe, research institutions, and extension
agencies) and are accredited by the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) as scientists from
among the ranks of farmers at the grassroots level who are capable of developing local‐based
knowledge out of their own farms, and transmitting such knowledge to fellow farmers. They are
known as the critical link between research and extension and can be said to be the best to teach
fellow farmers. In view of their acquired credentials, they will be tapped in the development of farm
tourism sites as among the pool of experts and key resource persons to teach small farmers. As such
they will be the first to be recognized as big brothers.
As a process, their farms will also be recognized as LSs and SPAs then eventually be developed into
farm tourism sites (Figure 3).
If for some instances, big brothers are neither MS nor agriculture experts but have the interest and
the means to venture into farm tourism business – and are willing to be in contract with the
government – they will be assisted by nearby available MS to develop their farms from LS to farm
tourism sites.
Figure 3. Evolution of Farm Tourism Sites
One farm tourism site per province
As public investment to result most effectively, it is safe to consider supporting the establishment of
farm tourism sites only to the most viable unit of governance. It is proposed that there should only
be one farm tourism site per province to be financed by the government.
Fostering effective collaboration among government institutions
The farm tourism model provides an avenue for effective collaboration among government
institutions who will be by the side of site owners and their small brothers, the small farmers in
developing their farm tourism business. Focused on achieving their own development goals and
objectives as they are mandated, the following agencies work collaboratively specifically
contributing to:
9 The Department of Tourism to provide guidance in meeting the requirements of
accreditation as farm tourism site, as well as their endorsement and/or assistance in their
promotion as among local tourist spots;
9 The Department of Agriculture through the Agricultural Training Institute to provide
guidance to big brother in the accreditation of his farm as learning site and at the same time
to be an accredited Extension Service Provider (ESP). ATI, through its extension programs,
also assists ESP in the training an education of small brothers to meet the requirements of
being responsible producers and service providers.
9 The LGUs to assist in the identification of big brothers in their areas and to provide local
enabling environment, such as on business registration, and to ensure peace and order in
the site;
9 CHED to assist in the accreditation of trainings as equivalent to academic units of SUCs;
9 The DA‐RFOs and AMAS to provide marketing assistance in the form of market promotions
and trading facilities and infrastructures for extra produce of farmers;
9 TESDA to provide certification on skills acquired by farm tourism owners and producers (e.g.
NCII);
9 DOLE – to encourage and identify small farmers from among OFW returnees to participate
as small brothers in the farm tourism business;
9 Local third party organic certifying bodies to certify the farms and practices;
9 The Education Department to issue a directive to elementary and high schools to enrich
student learnings and appreciation on agriculture by visiting farm tourism sites through field
trips or educational trips;
9 The DILG to direct LGUs to support to visit organic farms to promote organic agriculture in
the countryside;
9 The Agrarian Reform Department to organize farmers of ARBs to contract with big brothers
in the production of agricultural products for the site;
Towards the attainment of agriculture development goals
The implementation of this extension model directly results in increased knowledge, skills and
attitude (KSA) necessary in the adoption and management of sustainable agriculture practices. As
earlier mentioned, the participation of small farmers will not only contribute to inclusive growth as
they engage in livelihood that results increased income. It also ensures the presence of additional
sources of healthy and safe food stuff for the increasing number of organic consumers and
advocates – thus contributing to the attainment of food safety and security.
As tourist destinations, farm tourism sites increases the popularization of the Filipino culture and
promotes our national identity. Diverse cultural identities can be reflected in many farm tourism
sites as this will be implemented in all provinces nationwide. They become learning sites for tourists
where organic practices are exemplified.
Experience shows that the likelihood for tourists to apply what they learned from the tour is high.
This results in more individuals to participate in the global effort to address the adverse impact of
climate change and restore the good condition of the environment by applying sustainable
agriculture practices in their very own farms. Moreover, bringing school children – the young people
– to these sites preconditions their minds to such good agriculture practices – thus inspires them to
love agriculture and become the future generation of farmers.
Plan and Timeline
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Pilot Phase – 3 sites, 1 per zone (Luzon,
Visayas and Mindanao)
Institutionalization Phase – All other provinces
Copyright: This document is a property of the Agricultural Training Institute (ATI). If used by any
party, it should be properly cited in the name of the Author and the Institute.