Sustainability of CrFS activities after the end of the BINDS program was a challenge identified by all the stakeholders (Oxfam, 2015), which is a common critic of FFS and community-based approaches in literature (see Anderson & Feder, 2004; Ensor et al., 2014; Feder G & Birner R, 2010; Sherwood S & Leeuwis C., 2012; Swanson, 2008; Swanson & Rajalahti, 2010). This research notes that financial sustainability and short timeframes of community- based climate change programs present particular challenge to the scaling up, replicating, and disseminating of successful mitigation and adaptation efforts. CrFS actions with a strong livelihood component had continued in some municipalities after the completion of the BINDS program as a result of funding from LGUs. The sustainability of CrFS is evident by all the LGUs in the research sites developing and/or revising their respective DRR and adaptation plans to incorporate climate-related risks and CrFS livelihood interventions. In addition to this, seven LGUs have allocated about US$ 708,978 in the 2014/2015 financial period from its Bottom Up Budget allocation in support of CrFS. (Chandra et al., 2017, p.226). Diffusion of CrFS, institutional strategies (see Table 1), and sustainability of climate-smart practice in the research sites relied on the ability of donors channeling climate finance directly to local institutions. The Australian Aid initially funded the BINDS program and the CrFS. With the end of this funding, the CrFS model continued to flourish through NGO and LGU assistance. The case provides some insights into scaling-up and sustaining community-based CSA practices, climate change programs targeting smallholder farmers through a combination of trilateral partnerships and the following CrFS strategies: low-cost integrated livelihood models, fostering of social marketing and agribusiness linkages, potential role of participatory vulnerability risk assessment, simple and accessible agricultural technology, and establishing local network connections. (Chandra et al., 2017, p.227).

External organizations such as OXFAM and Rice Watch and Action Network (R1) are needed to train the local government units, NGOs, and communities with the skills on CrFS. The CrFS curriculum involved theoretical information and practical skills application using demonstration farms that enabled farmers to apply new techniques on their farms (Oxfam, 2015). (Chandra et al., 2017, p.215). The training programs for the farmers will take 4-5 months.

Participants described that CrFS was complementary to government mainstreaming efforts, as they practically demonstrate how to (i) respond to climate change and disaster risks; (ii) integrate DRR with climate change adaptation in government policy, plans, and budgeting processes; and (iii) enhance knowledge on climate change based on science and experiences of farming communities...(Chandra et al., 2017, p.218) At the community level, given the need to improve adaptive capacity of farmers and productivity of agriculture livelihoods, FFS in the Philippines are increasingly including climate-related services and extension systems (DENR, 2013). The first few CrFS were initiated in early 2000 by the R1 (in partnership with other NGOs) focusing on climate-information and sustainable agriculture in the municipalities of Gerona and Irosin (Northern Philippines) (Oxfam, 2013). Interviews with NGOs indicate that by 2010, CrFS was strongly advocated by the NGO community as a participatory means of sharing climate forecast information and strengthening of smallholder farmer capacities. (Chandra et al., 2017, p.218) One of the critiques of the CrFS was its weak link to formal markets. NGO and government stakeholders described that the CrFS had weakly integrated the influence of local markets, off-farm policies, value chain and connected farmers to larger traders and buyers – factors that are likely to contribute to improve competitiveness of smallholder-led organic agribusiness. Additionally, it was reported by farmers that CrFS trainings provide weak incentives for smallholder to engage with private companies and respond to changing market demand for organic produce. To work with the formal markets, smallholder farmers need access to credit, comply with quality standards, compete with large-scale farmers and meet regulatory standards (e.g., certification schemes). (Chandra et al., 2017, p.218) CrFS practices that offered increased economic opportunities for farmers resulting from crop and livestock production were more likely to be adopted compared to standalone mitigation and adaptation practices. Similar to research findings from other areas of the Philippines (Araral, 2013b), farmers preferred higher value crops such as corn, permanent crops (e.g., fruit trees), and vegetables...Farmers experiencing impacts of extreme weather events preferred CrFS activities with a focus on food security, income protection, and subsidies to overcome poverty and hardship.(Chandra et al., 2017, p.223)

Implementing this climate change solution does not have direct environmental impacts.