It is said that you reap what you sow. But it seems not to be so with our rice and corn farmers. They invest in inputs and are soon left with an empty bag after battling gargantuan obstacles such as erratic weather, unhealthy soil conditions, pestilence, and cheaper imports. Moreover, they also have to fight for their share of government incentives; and as stakeholders for their participation in policy formulation.

This was shown in a study conducted by a UPLB RDE team entitled, “Social equity and public policy dimensions of innovative rice and corn technologies,” which bagged the second place in the AFMA Best R&D Paper Award, socioeconomics research category. The award was given during the 19th National Research Symposium of the Bureau of Agricultural Research on Oct. 4-6, 2007.

The RDE team from the Institute of Agrarian and Rurban Development Studies, CPAf, led by Dr. Linda M. Peñalba and composed of Ms. Aida O. Grande and Ms. Flordeliza A. Sanchez as members, conducted the study to find out the social equity implications and public policy dimensions of rice and corn production programs. Simply put, the team wanted to find out who has more access to incentives and whether the farmers take part in the decision-making process.

According to Dr. Peñalba, their study revealed that farmers who are in a better financial position have more access to technologies. Since government subsidy to outputs is only minimal, farmers who are more affluent can avail themselves of seed subsidies and other input support compared to resource-poor farmers. Likewise, the team found that resource-poor farmers tend to have limited access to information, thus, they seek technical assistance less frequently than those who are in a better financial position.

In addition, seeking technical assistance from a municipal agriculture officer (MAO) can often be tricky. Farmers have to know how to ask the right questions to be able to get the right answer because most MAOs are constrained by the need to be impartial in recommending seed varieties and pesticide or insecticide brands. Their recommendations might put them in danger of being accused of corruption.

Devolution has also affected the delivery of agricultural extension services to farmers. In some instances, municipal agriculturists are assigned to perform other tasks not related to their mandated work. Limited resources allocated to agricultural development programs aggravate the situation. If agriculture is the last in the priority list of the LGUs, the agriculture sector of that municipality is likely to suffer. Farmers are left to fend for themselves even if the national government has grandiose plans for agricultural development. The study also noted that most farmers and MAOs who were interviewed have not participated in any policy and planning activities.
As a result, the study came up with recommendations to address the issues on social equity and policy dimensions. The team suggests that the DA should formulate a comprehensive and a more interactive IEC campaign to inform farmers of the technology or assistance which they can provide and to give farmers more opportunity to access agricultural extension services.

A very lucrative farming business is definitely still a war to be won. There are countless obstacles at every turn in the journey towards farming beyond subsistence agriculture. While there are people who open our eyes to what is truly happening at the grassroots, many more should be enlightened to make the system more efficient so more can be reaped than what has been sown.