Chapter 2

Presentation, Analysis, and Data Interpretation

This part of the chapter presents the results of the study.

1. What is the profile of the ARB's beneficiaries in terms of:

1.1 Age

Figure 1. Respondents Age Group

Most of the Agrarian Reform Beneficiary (ARBs) -respondents are thirty to sixty years

old. Loomis (1936), as cited in Tauer (1995), found a cyclical relationship between the age of

farmers and the size of the farm of some inputs and output and concluded that farmers between

the ages of 35 and 44 were the most productive. Tauer (1995) believed that as farmer ages and

gain experience, they become more productive with improved managerial ability.

However, in 2014 HelpAge International reported that the aging of farm populations and

the rising average age of farmers have potentially negative implications for agricultural

production and food security. In the United Kingdom, the average age of a farmer is 59 years

old. In Kenya is 60, while in Japan, the highest average age for a farmer is 67 (Henriques, 2019).

In the Philippines, the average age of farmers in the Philippines is between 57 and 59 years old,

and many young Filipinos do not view a career in agriculture as profitable.

1.2 Gender

Figure 2. Respondents Gender

Out of the sixty ARBs, there were twenty-nine, or 48 %, male farmer members, whereas

3, or 52%, were female. The recent data on gender statistics showed that not much has changed

with the social demographics of the agriculture sector. Though the results above show that many

respondents are female, the agricultural labor force is still mainly composed of men at 77%. In

comparison, only 23% of the employed workers in agriculture are women (PSA, 2017). Despite

enacting laws and policies, most female farmers and fisherfolks remain relatively

disenfranchised compared to their male counterparts (Ani and Casasola, 2020). Moreover, in

2019, the agrarian reform program awarded land titles and ownership to most male farmers

(USAID REPORT, 2022).

1.3 Marital Status

 Figure 3. Respondents Marital Status

Figure 3 result shows that majority of the respondents are married. The burden of caring

for the family often makes married farmers pay more attention to daily life problems and other

family concerns. Opara (2010) in his study found that married farmers are likely to be under

pressure to produce more, not only for family consumption but also for sale. The desire to

produce more could lead to agricultural information seeking and use. Similarly, the availability

of family labor could incentivize the married farmer to cultivate more crops and use agrarian

information (Opara 2010).

1.4 Number of Households

Table 1. Number of Households

Number of
Household Frequency Percent
Members
One 2 3%
Two 9 15%
Three 13 22%
Four 13 22%
Five 12 20%
Six 7 12%
Seven 2 3%
Eight 2 3%

A household is an agricultural household when at least one member is operating a holding

or when the household head, reference person, or primary income earner is economically active

in agriculture (Handbook of Household Surveys, 1984). The results above reveal that twenty-six

ARBs – respondents, or 44 percent of the total respondents, have three to four family members,

and one of the members is active in agriculture. The result implies that having a large household

positively affects farming activities. Kimhi (2007) held that it is relevant for family members to

assist in household activities to meet the increased demand for farm labor without additional
labor. The extent of smaller households tends to be poorer; it is mostly the poor households that

sacrifice the future well-being of their male children to satisfy current needs.

1.5. Educational Background

Table 2. Respondents Educational Background

Educational Attainment Frequency Percentage

College Graduate 10 17%
Vocational/ College Level 14 23%
High School Level/ Graduate 22 37%
Elementary Level/ Graduate 13 22%
Has Not Gone to School 1 2%

Table 2 data results disclosed that twenty-four or 40 percent of the total ARB respondents

had attended college or with vocational and college degrees. At the same time, twenty-two, or 37

percent, attended/finished secondary school. Ninh (2021) stated that education boosts farmers'

ability to obtain, decode and understand information, thus enabling them to make better use of

available information to come up with relevant solutions to production, market, and financing

challenges. At the same time, education is found to have a positive effect on the output of rice

farming households because it helps them better manage farms of a more significant size by

combining various inputs in a more desirable way (Ninh, 2021). Das & Sahoo (2012) also found

a relationship between the level of farmers' education and the level of positive, continuous, and

significant productivity.

Brown's (2019) results showed that post-secondary education in a relevant field is a

strong predictor of farm outcomes, such as adopting best management practices, plans to convert

or intensify land use, risk tolerance, and adoption of novel technologies. Das & Sahoo (2012)

concluded in their study that formal schooling opens the mind of farmers to awareness about the

adoption of new farm technology and guidance on better farming methods. So, re-educating and
re-cultivating is an effective way to nurture a new type of high-quality well-educated farmers

who specialize in techniques and management (Chen & Zheng, 2016).

In the case of the Philippines, the population's median age is 24.09 years. The level of

education of these young Filipinos is much higher than that of the previous generations. Along

with higher education, young Filipinos are incredibly tech-savvy compared to their predecessors.

Having a higher level of schooling and greater exposure to new technologies gives Filipino youth

various options to consider when making career decisions. Thus, young Filipinos are

increasingly less interested in agriculture, partly due to underpaid and underappreciated farmers

(Asis 2020).

1.6 Source of Income

Table 3. Respondents' Source of Income

Source of Income Frequency Percent

On - Farm 43 72%
Trading 1 2%
Farm Laborer 2 3%
Pension 2 3%
Remittances 1 2%
Self-Employed 3 5%
Government Employed 5 8%
Privately Employed 2 3%
Construction Worker 1 2%

Most of the ARB’s respondent source of income is from On-Farm activities such as

farming, agricultural production, and other casual and seasonal farming activities. Their other

sources of income are employment, pension, remittances, etc. Though agriculture is the key

driver of the economy in rural areas and a significant source of jobs, with about 36% of the total

employed population working in the sector, many Filipino farmers are still poor and depend on

subsistence farming and fishing for their livelihoods (IFAD Report, November 2016).

According to the Philippine Statistics Authority report in 2019, the country's nominal

wage rate for agricultural workers was Php 331.10 per day. On average, male farm workers were
paid PhP 335.00 per day, higher than the average wage rate of female farm workers at PhP

304.60 per day. Across regions, CALABARZON recorded the highest daily wage rate of PhP

399.08, and Central Visayas had the lowest at PhP 276.43. Similarly, in an article published by

the Philippine News Agency in June 2020, small farmers earned an average of PHP8,000 to

PHP9,000 monthly income, which dropped 30 to 40 percent or PHP3,000 to PHP4,000 due to

the COVID-19 pandemic (Maandig, 2022).

Meanwhile, Quimba & Estudillo (2018) highlighted the most important sources of

income growth are nonfarm wage work, foreign remittances, and domestic remittances,

indicating that nonfarm work and migration are essential pathways out of poverty. But

households in remote areas remain engaged in agricultural wage work and the production of

high-value agricultural products.

2. What is the social condition of the Agrarian Reform beneficiaries before and after the
DAR-ARCESS project?
Table 4. Social Condition of the Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries
Engaged in Sugarcane Production Before and After
the DAR-ARCESS Project

Legend:
Rating Verbal Equivalent
3.26-4.00 – Often
2.51-3.25 – Sometimes
1.76-2.50 – Seldom
1.00 -1.75 – Never

Table 3 results reveal ARB respondents engaged in sugarcane production “never”

availed/patronized any social services from non-governmental and governmental entities before

the DAR-ARCESS project implementation. Nevertheless, after the DAR-ARCESS project

implementation, ARB beneficiaries “sometimes” patronized/availed of social services. The

answers from the interview conducted disclosed that they benefit from the cash-for-work aid

from the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) as payment for labor

rendered on typhoon rehabilitation projects. They also received rice subsidies from the local

government unit for impoverished farmers and livelihood and skills training provided by TESDA

and other agencies.

On their extent of memberships to organizations and associations, ARB respondents

replied that they “never” joined any organizations and associations before and after the DAR-

ARCESS project implementation because they were unsure of the organization or association. In

the article published in Philippine Daily Inquirer (2020), the failure of many farmers’

organizations and cooperatives to sustain a viable operation from the lack of skills and training

has repelled several Filipino producers from joining or forming such groups. As a result, most

farmers fail to go beyond production and lose the opportunity to earn more (Ocampo, 2020).

Likewise, the study conducted by the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) titled

“The Role of Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) in Agriculture Value Chain” revealed that

the registered ARB organizations (ARBOs) being monitored by the Department of Agrarian

Reform (DAR), many groups eventually become inactive from the lack of managerial and

organizational skills among members (Ocampo, 2020).

Moreover, most ARBOs in the country are organizationally weak, even among those

registered as cooperatives. The failure of many farmer organizations to be viable has stifled the
interests of smallholders to join or form farmers’ organizations and thus reduced their

participation in the higher value chain. Low and declining membership has also been observed

among ARBOs caused by the withdrawal of membership, inability to attract new members, and

mismanagement (Magno-Ballesteros, & Ancheta, 2020). 

Regarding their extent of access to DAR Services before the DAR-ARCESS project, they

”never” have any access to land tenure services. The respondents have “seldom” for agrarian

policy advisory, land titling, credit, rural infrastructure, extension, and capability building. And

“sometimes” for technical advisory support and social services. One of their reasons was that

landlords and large corporations had control of the bulk of farmland for sugarcane plantations.

There was no access to other services, funding, or marketing, and they had little experience

managing land, and many ended up leasing or selling their land (Chandran, 2018). But, after the

DAR-ARCESS project, they “often” have access to credits, technical advisory support, and

capability building.

While other services that were never accessed before the DAR project by the respondents

were now “sometimes” availed/accessed by them. Their knowledge and awareness of the

different support services provided by the Department of Agrarian Reform -ARCESS project

were from the meetings and information dissemination conducted by DAR personnel. According

to the ARB respondents, government and non-government financial institutions offered credit

and financing services. Further, they stressed that before they could avail themselves of the

government‘s cash loans and grants, they had to attend training programs on financial literacy to

educate beneficiaries on the proper use of money and the sustainable way to manage

agribusinesses.

However, in a study titled “Towards a More Sustainable Financing of Small Farmers and

Fisherfolk’s Agricultural Production,” the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS)
highlighted that some small-scale farmers who availed themselves of government-funded loans did

not repay due to the mindset that government money was free (Bayudan-Dacuycuy et al. 2020). In

addition, the PIDS noted that merely granting farmers access to affordable loans and increasing the

government’s loan portfolio to agriculture would not result in long-term gains for the industry as

these programs must be accompanied by other interventions, including the establishment of post-

harvest facilities, tractors and the provision of insurance coverage. Then again, the Department of

Agrarian (DAR) has provided a capability training program to agrarian reform beneficiaries

(ARBs) belonging to the Farmers Association in the local units of Bayawan and Basay to

mitigate the effect of climate change through organic farming. The ARB respondents were

pleased with a livelihood training program of the DAR implemented under the Climate Resilient

Farm Productivity Support (CRFPS) - Sustainable Livelihood Project to benefit the ARBs. This

livelihood training extended to the association will significantly help the ARBs with knowledge

and skills in sugarcane farming to help increase their productivity and farm income.

Table 5. Social Condition of the Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries

Engaged in Rice Production Before and After
the DAR-ARCESS Project
Legend:
Rating Verbal Equivalent
3.26-4.00 – Often
2.51-3.25 – Sometimes
1.76-2.50 – Seldom
1.00 -1.75 – Never

Results in Table 5 show ARB respondents involved in rice production “never”

availed/patronized any social services from non-governmental and governmental entities before

the DAR-ARCESS project implementation. But, “after” the DAR-ARCESS project

implementation, they have “often” access to social services. The interview result revealed that

the respondents received cash subsidies under the Financial Subsidy to Rice Farmers (FSRF) to

assist smallholder rice farmers who experienced the effects of the quarantine measures due to the

pandemic. They used their money to buy farm inputs, food for their families, and other

household needs. Also, they said that they received training in skills development on rice crop

production, modern rice farming techniques, seed production, and farm mechanization, among

others, from DA-PHilMech, DA-PhilRice, DA-ATI, and Technical Education and Skills

Development Authority (TESDA) to improve their competitiveness and income.

On their membership to organizations and associations before the DAR-ARCESS project,

they “never” had availed or joined any farmer's organizations because membership is expensive,

and they cannot afford to pay the monthly dues. They also said that the association offered poor

services and the lack of leadership ability of the managers to lead the organizations. According to

Magno-Ballesteros, & Ancheta (2020), many ARBOs and farmer’s organizations failed to attract

new members due to weakness and mismanagement, resulting in declining memberships. After

the DAR-ARCESS project implementation, respondents “often” availed or had access to social

services. The interview results revealed that they were enlisted in the Registry System for Basic

Sectors in Agriculture (RSBSA) and joined organizations to access agriculture-related programs

and services, including the Rice Competitiveness Enhancement Fund (RCEF). According to

Ocampo (2020), this brings confidence to the farmers that they will not be left out. Also,
membership in an ARBO is associated with better credit access; borrowing ARBO agricultural

households are better off than nonborrowing ARBO agrarian households, and farmer

associations/cooperatives are among the top sources of agricultural credit in the countryside

aside from microfinance institutions. And, Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA)-

holding ARBO agricultural households have higher borrowing incidence than the average ARBO

agrarian households (Galang 2020).

Paje (2021) emphasizes the role of farmer associations as conduits of government aid

and technical knowledge. This study shows that going beyond the impact of training and aid

programs, policy makers should examine the depth and breadth of their reach as well as

recognize the importance of grassroots institutions such as farmer associations as catalysts of

rural development.

Meanwhile, results disclosed that before the DAR – ARCESS project, they “seldom” and

“never” had access to DAR support services. As told by the ARB rice farmers, they could not

access DAR support services due to a lack of awareness of information available among farmers

and untimely information. Another is that they were not members of any farmers association or

organization. Babu et al. (2012) supported their contentions, which observed that the significant

constraints to information access for farmers are poor availability, unreliability, lack of

awareness of information sources available among farmers, and untimely provision of

information. Obidike (2011) believed that ARB’s rice farmers' lack of access to basic agricultural

knowledge and information might lead them to stick to their old traditional methods of farming

system. Ndimbwa (2019) recommended that to deliver agrarian information successfully; there is

a need for a well-organized linkage between information and knowledge producers, delivery

mechanisms, and farmers’ readiness to access and use agricultural information and knowledge.
 Only “after” the DAR-ARCESS project implementation did the ARB's rice farmers have

access to DAR Support Services because they have timely and up-to-date information. This

highly desired information by rice farmers was made available by DAR extension workers, local

government agricultural agencies, and others sources of information. One of the DAR support

services “often” availed by the respondents is Technical Advisory Support and Capability

Building which provides training programs and construction and rehabilitation of infrastructure

facilities to ensure holistic support for the beneficiaries. They said they gained additional skills

and knowledge to help increase their yield leading to productivity and profitability. The

respondents said they were trained in rice product marketing and post-production to reduce post-

harvest losses. Topics include insect pest management, harvesting fundamentals, palay check,

and packaging and sorting.

In addition, ARB’s rice farmers “often” have access to credit. They have said that most of

the time they have resorted to loans from loansharks when emergency household and farm needs

arise, despite the risk of falling into debt due to higher interest rates. Others borrowed from

relatives and friends. Access to credit facilities by poor rural farmers has the potential of making

the difference between grinding poverty and economically secured life as well as enhancing

agricultural productivity (Ajah, et al 2017). Chandio et al (2020) also believed that formal credit

has a dominant role in the development of the agriculture sector. It increases the farmer's

purchasing power for better farm inputs and agricultural technology for high crop productivity.

However, the limited availability of credit services has undermined rural income activities due to

a lack of capital for investment and has prevented farmers from adopting improved farming

practices (Ajah et al 2017). Konu (2013) in his dissertation study concluded that rice farmers

had adequate knowledge about credit facilities and accessed credit from a variety of formal,

semi-formal, and informal sources to help in their farming activities.

 On their access to rural infrastructure and basic services, the respondents stated that they

“often” have infrastructure developments in their community. They have now better roads and

bridges, post-harvest, and storage facilities, irrigation, transport services, and adequate water

supply. Some also said that the delivery of goods and services has improved. Having improved

rural road infrastructure enables connectivity and safe mobility. It also affects access to health,

education, and economic opportunities. This was emphasized in Setboonsarng's (2008) study that

assessed the impacts of rural infrastructure and support services provided by the Agrarian

Reform Communities Project (ARCP) and financed jointly by the Government of the Philippines

and the Asian Development Bank (ADB). Using data from the same 2,290 agrarian reform

beneficiaries’ households from two periods, 2001 and 2003, the study found that average annual

income increased by 12%. Ownership of both household and production assets increased

significantly. Among the project interventions, farm-to-market roads appeared to have the most

significant impact on the communities.

In summary, Agrarian Reform as a prerequisite for growth with equity in solving the

centuries-old problem of landlessness in rural areas (Morales, 1999). It has evolved from being

simply for the redistribution of land to providers of the necessary support services and

infrastructure to make the land productive and improve the economic well-being of ARBs.

Through the successful implementation of land reform programs, the Philippines have achieved

sustained economic growth and successfully reduced absolute material poverty among

beneficiaries. Between 1990 and 2000, it led to increased real per capita incomes and reduced

poverty incidence. ARBs tend to have higher income and lower poverty incidence compared to

non-ARBs. Real per capita income of ARBs increased by 12.2 percent between 1990 and 2000

(Guardian 2003). Under the land reform program, it redistributed 5.33 million hectares of land

that account for 53.4 percent of the total farmland. This accomplishment represents 66 percent of
the total CARP scope. About 3.1 million rural poor households, who constitute about forty-two

percent of the total agricultural population, have directly benefited from land redistribution.

Agrarian Reform has contributed to the improvement of the socio-economic conditions of

landless farmers and the political development of the Philippines in terms of engaging the

landless in the process of policy-making and distribution of large private landholdings to the

landless (Moreno & Leones, 2011). Equally, the DAR-ARCESS project gradually strengthens

the ARB organizations by building them as hubs of support services in the community which is

expected to contribute to increasing ARB household incomes and improving the resiliency of

ARB households.

Finally, agrarian reform has had a positive impact on farmer beneficiaries when

compared to non-agrarian reform beneficiaries. The Agrarian Reform beneficiaries tend to have

higher incomes and lower poverty incidence. Moreover, complementary inputs such as irrigation,

credit, and government services tend to increase the chances of farmer-beneficiaries being non-

poor (Reyes 2002).

3. What is the economic condition of the Agrarian Reform beneficiaries before and after
the DAR-ARCESS project?
Table 6. Economic Condition of the Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries
Engaged in Sugarcane and Rice Production Before and After
the DAR-ARCESS Project
Percentage
Crop Before After Increase
Item
s or Description
Average Average
Decrease
1. Farm Productivity (Metric Tons) 73.93 85.37 14.13% Increased
2. Farm Income (Pesos) 115,300.00 132,200.00 12.78% Increased
3. Household Income per Harvest (Pesos) 46,810.00 59,150.00 20.86% Increased
4. Household Resiliency Index  
4.1 Monthly Savings (Pesos) 283.33 525.00 46.03% Increased
Sugarcane

4.2 Monthly Income (Pesos) 4,600.00 6,600.00 30.30% Increased

4.3 Livestock Ownership 2.61 2.67 2.25% Increased
5. Financial Performance
5.1 Operating Profit Margin 68.92 73.12 5.74% Increased
5.2 Asset Turnover Ratio (%) 26.95 28.75 6.26% Increased
5.3 Return on Assets (%) 19.19 21.26 9.74% Increased
5.4 Return on Equity 23.02 25.49 9.54% Increased
 1. Farm Productivity (Metric Tons) 92.50 101.63 8.98% Increased
2. Farm Income (Pesos) 53,089.00 59,556.40 10.86% Increased
3. Household Income per Harvest (Pesos) 24,297.33 29,102.67 16.51% Increased
4. Household Resiliency Index  
4.1 Monthly Savings (Pesos) 435.29 607.14 28.30% Increased
4.2 Monthly Income (Pesos) 3,916.67 5,440.00 28.00% Increased
Rice

4.3 Livestock Ownership 3.03 3.87 25.71% Increased

5. Financial Performance
5.1 Operating Profit Margin 73.96 75.81 2.52% Increased
5.2 Asset Turnover Ratio (%) 16.21 17.24 5.97% Increased
5.3 Return on Assets (%) 11.94 12.93 7.66% Increased
5.4 Return on Equity 15.35 15.91 3.52% Increased

The farm size tilled by the ARB respondents shows a large portion of small-sized family-

operated farms. This fragmentation of farm holdings is largely because of the agrarian reform

program adopted by the Philippine government. This has led to decreased productivity which is

inherent in small-sized farms. Small farmers usually do not have the financial capability to

cultivate their farms to their fullest potential. Coupled with the previous lack of government

support for infrastructure, the small farmer will not be able to take advantage of economies of

scale. Thus, the SRA, the DA, and the DAR have implemented the block farming program

whereby consolidation of small farms into an aggregate area of 30-50 hectares is pursued. The

block farms will be operated as agribusiness ventures taking advantage of efficient tractor

operations, volume purchases and sales, technical assistance for better farming practices, crop

loans, and other services that will improve farmer income. Along this line, we are encouraging

businessmen to develop service companies that will provide farming services (Retrieved from

https://www.sra.gov.ph/the-philippine-sugarcane-industry-challenges-and-opportunities/,

October 29, 2022).

Table 6 results present the economic condition of ARBs Respondents engaged in

Sugarcane and Rice Farming before and after the DAR- ARCESS Project Implementation. First,

on their farm productivity, sugarcane farmers yielded 85.37 metric tons with a 14.13% increase,

while ARBs farmers produced 101.63 metric tons of rice which is 8.98% higher than their
harvest before the DAR-ARCESS. Findings from the focus group discussions (FGD) revealed

that the slight increase in their production was due to the machinery and equipment they received

as beneficiaries of the DAR-ARCESS project. They also received financial grants and subsidies

on farm inputs such as fertilizer, planting materials, and machines as well as technical and

training support services from experts. In addition, they have access to electricity, post-harvest

facilities, and paved road infrastructure. Llanto (2012) believed that electricity and roads are

significant determinants of agricultural productivity. Rural areas with good road infrastructure

and accessibility to electricity would tend to experience higher growth rates of agricultural

productivity than those areas with inadequate roads and energy. Similarly, the mechanization of

farm work also offers many advantages, including the timely performance of operations,

efficiency in performing farm work, reduction of labor hours, and increase in land and labor

productivity. In addition, the increase in government funding for agriculture able to reach out to

more farmers in rural communities, working closely and establishing partnerships with local

government units on projects such as irrigation, farm mechanization, post-harvest facilities, and

intensification of the use of high-quality seeds, fertilizers, and other inputs. These interventions

have helped in decreasing production costs and increasing yields.

On their farm income and income per harvest, Sugarcane and Rice Farmers had an

increase in their income at 12.78% and 10.86% respectively. And their income per harvest, for

sugarcane farmers is 20.86% and 16.51% for rice farmers. Sugarcane and Rice Famers FGD

results disclosed that having good access to technical and extension support, rural infrastructure,

common services facilities, and involvement of LGUs give them opportunities to augment their

production and thus equate to increase income. Aside from those interventions, with the

implementation of Republic Act No. 11203 or the Rice Tariffication Law; RICE farmers earn an

additional P7,000 pesos per hectare two years after its implementation. Farmers harvest
averaging 400 kilograms per hectare or roughly eight cavans at 50kg each, equivalent to an

additional income of P7,000 per hectare. Also, with the use of the certified seed, the adoption of

modern technology, and mechanizing land preparation, crop establishment, and harvesting,

farmers can attain incremental yields. Rice Farmers are now enjoying the initial benefits of the

law.

In the case of sugarcane farmers, they were excited about a newfound planting

technology that helps them have a greater yield in the sugarcane plantation awarded to them

under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). They credit their harvest to the

Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)’s Sugar Block Farming Project (SBFP), implemented in

partnership with the Sugar Regulatory Administration in 2017. A farmer-beneficiary attested to

the success of this new farming method with his testimony:

“Halos nagdoble ang na-harvest namo karon (Our harvest almost doubled),”

His harvest this season increased to 73.1 tons from an average of 40 tons. This translated

to gross revenue of P168,831, broken down as follows: P149,932 from sugar sales, P10,780 from

molasses, P3,000 from intercropping, and P37,063 from trucking incentives. Deducting the

production cost of P128,768,

The ARB sugarcane farmers also found out that the use of organic fertilizer, a product of

one of their revenue-generating livelihood projects, contributed to the increase of their harvests.

The group also benefitted from the practice of intercropping with crops, such as peanuts, corn,

mongo, and white beans. This farming practice is being promoted by the DAR in a bid to

improve farm productivity, increase the farmers’ income, and improve the quality of their lives.

The DAR commissioned the experts to impart to the farmers the new technology. The latter

taught them the “tractor spike” planting, where sugarcane seedlings were planted with the “baby”
tillers facing sideways to ensure a greater number of tillers growing

(https://www.dar.gov.ph/articles/features/101186, March 19, 2022).

Recently, the COVID-19 pandemic hit the agricultural sector of the Philippines hard.

Several families rely on their income from agriculture as more population works in the

agricultural industry. Because of the impacts of both the COVID-19 pandemic and natural

disasters, it is always unfavorable for the agricultural sector. The supply chain took a heavy hit

with several obstacles, including a lack of transportation, a decrease in demand, and a low

volume of exports. These factors all contribute to the decline of the agricultural industry and the

country’s economy. Due to pandemic-related quarantine restrictions, local farmers had to

schedule market visits, which led to a rise in transportation costs. To make matters worse, several

typhoons hit the Philippines, negatively impacting the economy, which is already suffering the

effects of COVID-19. Typhoons destroyed “agricultural equipment and other livelihood

resources, significantly affecting those who are dependent on farming” for income.

The ARBs Household Resilience Index exposes that sugarcane farmer’s respondents have

a monthly savings increase of 46.03%, a monthly income increase of 30.30%, and a livestock

ownership increase of 2.25% after the DAR-ARCESS project implementation. While rice

farmers have a 28.30% increase in their monthly savings, a monthly income increase of 28.00%,

and a livestock ownership increase of 25.71%. The results from their interview both sugarcane

and rice farmers agreed that their savings were not merely from their farm income but from other

sources. Some of them were from non-farm sources, they said that they have “sari-sari” stores,

and sell other high-value crops and livestock. There were also who said that their savings were

from the remittances and employment salaries of their household members. Farm income can be

both irregular and unpredictable. It fluctuates widely and is often received in a few large amounts

during the year. Prices and costs can vary widely from projected levels. Although living
standards on the farm have become more and more comparable to those of non-farm families,

there are some important differences in managing farm family finances. Bautista & Lamberte

(1990) indicated in their study that non-farm households in rural areas tend to save more, in the

margin, than farm or agricultural households. An increasing share of non-agriculture in rural

income over time, as the intersectoral linkage effects of agricultural growth work themselves out,

can then lead to a higher

Then again, most of the ARB farmers kept carabao, cows, pigs, goats, and chickens. The

same results were revealed by Taruvinga, A., Kambanje, A., Mushunje, A. et al. (2022) that the

majority of the farmers kept chickens, cattle, goats, and pigs for food and nutritional benefits,

source of household income and other indirect socio-cultural benefits. Pica-Ciamarra et

al. (2011) disclosed that an increase in livestock ownership may have direct and indirect benefits

(Pica-Ciamarra et al. 2011). The direct benefits include household income, household food

sources (meat, milk, and eggs), manure, draft power, and transport services, while indirect

benefits include social status, collateral security, a form of savings, and insurance (Pica-Ciamarra

et al. 2011).

6. . Is there a significant difference between social conditions before and after the implementation?
HO1: There is no significant difference between social conditions before and after the implementation.

A paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare social conditions before and after the
implementation.

There is a significant difference between social conditions before (M=2.03, SD=0.85) and after
(M=3.17, SD=0.80) the implementation; t(59)=13.78, p=4.26 E-20.

7. Is there a significant difference between economic conditions before and after the implementation?
HO2: There is no significant difference between economic conditions before and after the
implementation.

A paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare economic conditions before and after the
implementation.

There is a significant difference between economic conditions before (M=3.12, SD=0.36) and after
(M=2.74, SD=0.43) the implementation; t(59)= - 6.84, p=5.04 E-09.

References:

Go, Eugenia C. (2022). Farmers are Rolling On and Rolling Off to Increased Revenue in the
Philippines. Asian Development Bank.

Ajah, E. A., Igiri, J. A., & Ekpenyong, H. B. (2017). Determinants of access to credit among rice farmers in
Biase Local Government Area of Cross River State, Nigeria. Global Journal of Agricultural
Sciences, 16(1), 41-49.

Ani, P.A.B. and Casasola, H.C. (2020). Transcending Barriers in Agriculture Through Gender
and
Development. FFTC Agricultural Policy Platform (FFTC-AP).

Asis, M. (2020). Sowing Hope: Agriculture as an Alternative to Migration for Young Filipinos.

Babu, M. A., Singh, D., and Gothandam, K. M. (2012).The Effect of Salinity on Growth, Hormones and
Mineral Elements in Leaf and Fruit of Tomato Cultivar Pkm1.The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences,
22(1):159-164.

Bautista, R. M., & Lamberte, M. B. (1990). Comparative saving behavior of rural and urban households in
the Philippines.Bayudan-Dacuycuy, C., Magno-Ballesteros, M., Baje, L. K. C., & Ancheta, J. A.
(2020). Towards a more sustainable financing of small farmers and fisherfolk's agricultural
production (No. 2020-38). PIDS Discussion Paper Series.

Brown P. (2019). Gender, Educational Attainment, and Farm Outcomes in New Zealand. Land.
 8(1):18. https://doi.org/10.3390/land8010018.

Chandran, R. (2018). Philippine peasants fight for land 30 years after reform. Thomson Reuters
Foundation. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-philippines-landrights-farming-featur-idUSKCN1IW04K.

Chandio, A. A., Jiang, Y., Rehman, A., Twumasi, M. A., Pathan, A. G., & Mohsin, M. (2020). Determinants
of demand for credit by smallholder farmers': a farm level analysis based on survey in Sindh,
Pakistan. Journal of Asian Business and Economic Studies.

Chen, J., & Zheng, J. (2016). On farmers’ educational problem in the construction of beautiful
village--A case study of Jinjiang City. In SHS Web of Conferences (Vol. 24, p. 02003).
EDP Sciences.

Das, A. B., & Sahoo, D. (2012). Farmers’ educational level and agriculture productivity: a study
of tribals of KBK districts of Odisha. International Journal of Education Economics and
Development, 3(4), 363-374.

Galang, I. M. R. (2020). Land tenure, access to credit, and agricultural performance of ARBs, farmer
beneficiaries, and other rural workers (No. 2020-44). PIDS Discussion Paper Series.

Guardian, E. A. (2003). Impact of access to land on food security and poverty: the case of Philippine
agrarian reform. 29th Session of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome, 12-16.

Handbook of Household Surveys, Revised Edition, Studies in Methods, Series F, No. 31, United
Nations, New York, 1984, para. 13.15.

Heide-Ottosen, S. (2014). The ageing of rural populations: evidence on older farmers in low and
middle-income countries. HelpAge International: London, UK.

Henriques, M. (2019). The ageing crisis threatening farming. BBC.

https://www.bbc.com/future/bespoke/follow-the-food/the-ageing-crisis-threatening-
farming/

IFAD Report. (November 2016). Investing in rural people in the Philippines. International Fund
for Agricultural Development.www.ifad.org

Korgitet, H. S., & Biru, M. W. (2019). The effect of farmers education on farm productivity:
Evidence from small-scale maize producing farmers in North Bench District, Bench Maji
Zone. Am. J. Des, 1, 94.

Kimhi, A. (2007). Does land reform in transition countries increase child labor? Evidence from
the Republic of Georgia (No. 888-2016-65023).

Konu, L. M. A. (2013). Access To And Management Of Credit By Rice Farmers At The Kpong Irrigation
Project (Doctoral dissertation, University of Ghana).

Llanto, G. M. (2012). The impact of infrastructure on agricultural productivity (No. 2012-12). PIDS

discussion paper series.
Loomis, C. P. (1936). The Study of the Life Cycle of Families. Rural Sociology, 1(2), 180.

Maandig, E. (2020). MisOr farmers lose P400-M income to Covid19. Philippine News Agency.
https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1106906.

Magno-Ballesteros, M., & Ancheta, J. A. (2020). The role of agrarian reform beneficiaries organizations
(ARBOs) in agriculture value chain (No. 2020-24). PIDS Discussion Paper Series.

Morales, H. R. (1999). When Does Agrarian Reform Work for the Poor? Speech delivered at the ADB,
Manila Social Forum: The New Social Agenda for East and Southeast Asia. ADB, Manila, 10 November.

Moreno, F., & Leones, S. E. (2011). Agrarian reform and Philippine political development.  Available at
SSRN 1967844.

Ninh, L. K. (2021). Economic role of education in agriculture: Evidence from rural

Vietnam. Journal of Economics and Development, 23(1), 47-58.

Ndimbwa, T., Ndumbaro, F., & Mwantimwa, K. (2019). Delivery mechanisms of agricultural information
and knowledge to smallholder farmers in Tanzania: A meta–analysis study. University of Dar es Salaam
Library Journal, 14(2), 87-98.

Ocampo, K. R. (2020). Many farmers’ coops turn inactive due to lack of managerial skills —
study. Philippine Daily Inquirer. 10:43 AM December 11, 2020

Obidike, N. A. (2011). "Rural Farmers' Problems Accessing Agricultural Information: A Case Study of
Nsukka Local Government Area of Enugu State, Nigeria" (2011). Library Philosophy and Practice (e-
journal). 660. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/660

Opara, U. N. (2010). Personal and socio-economic determinants of agricultural information use

by farmers in the Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) zones of Imo State,
Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice, 434.

Paje, M. S. (2021). The Determinants and Impacts of Farmer Association Membership in Albay,
Philippines.

Pica-Ciamarra, U., L. Tasciotti, J. Otte, and A. Zezza. 2011. Livestock assets, livestock income and
rural households: Cross-country evidence from household surveys, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) ESA Working Paper No. 11-17.
Rome: http://www.fao.org/3/am724e/am724e00.pdf.

Quimba, F. M., & Estudillo, J. (2018). Sources of income in rural Philippines: The role of
population pressure, urbanization and infrastructure development. Asia Pacific Journal of
Multidisciplinary Research, 6(1), 37-45.

Reyes, C. M. (2002). Impact of Agrarian Reform on Poverty, PIDS Discussion Paper Series, No. 2002-02,
Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), Makati City.

Setboonsarng, S. (2008). The impact of rural infrastructure and agricultural support services on poverty:
The case of agrarian reform communities in the Philippines (No. 110). ADBI Discussion Paper.
Taruvinga, A., Kambanje, A., Mushunje, A. et al. Determinants of livestock species
ownership at household level: Evidence from rural OR Tambo District Municipality,
South Africa. Pastoralism 12, 8 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13570-021-00220-6

Tauer, L. (1995). Age and farmer productivity. Review of Agricultural Economics, 63-69.

Philippine Statistics Authority (2019). Trends in Agricultural Wage Rates.

https://psa.gov.ph/tags/trends-agricultural-wage-rates.
USAID REPORT (2022).PRODUCING OPPORTUNITY: USAID UPSKILLS THE NEXT
GENERATION OF FILIPINO FARMERS. https://www.usaid.gov/philippines/our-stories/jul-
2022-producing-opportunity-usaid-upskills-next-generation-filipino-farmers.

Weiss, E., Kar, A., Nash, J. D., Jaffee, S. M., Briones, R., Figueroa-Geron, C. V., & Macandog, P. B. M.
(2020). Transforming Philippine Agriculture During COVID-19 and Beyond.

World Bank. (2020). Transforming Philippine Agriculture: During COVID-19 and Beyond.