The first three articles in this issue focus on the participation of different stakeholders in development programs. The fourth article is on agrarian reform, while the last one is on the performance of agriculture graduates in a state university.

Using binary logit regression, the paper of Castillo and Armenia found that REDD+ project site, membership in an organization, experience in environmental risks, access to natural resources, household size, and the total on-farm income of households were positively associated with tree planting. Myo Aung, Dizon, Quimbo, and Bustos examined the motivating factors that increased grassroots participation. The beneficiaries’ contributions in terms of their resources like food, labor, shelter, knowledge, and time were indicators of their commitment to the project. The article of Gasmen and Baconguis investigated the patterns of interaction as evidenced by established networks and collaborative arrangements among organic agriculture practitioners – as individuals and organized groups – as well as interaction among agencies and institutions – public and private – that provide support services. Pressing needs for inputs, technical support, and market drew organic practitioners together to interact.

Meanwhile, Gordoncillo revealed that the likelihood of being classified as non-poor was higher for agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) compared to non-ARBs. Further, the likelihood of being classified as nonpoor in 2000 was higher than in 1990 and the likelihood was higher in 2006 than in 2000. The study implied that the observed difference in the likelihood of being classified as non-poor in either intervention or time trend effect cannot be attributed to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

Lastly, Dimayuga’s paper found that passers of the Licensure Examination for Agriculturists (LEA) were those who performed well academically during high school and college and enrolled in a formal LEA review class backed up by self-review.