In the past, when we were already in the month of March, farmers, through their sanjeras, have to be busy already in repairing and rehabilitating their respective communal irrigation canals, water impounding dams, dikes, etc. Those must be prepared before the onset of rainy days because, by then, almost all of them were so busy in their actual farming operations.
Last year, I observed that a lot of farmers were bit luckier. It was an election year. There were sponsors and donors in aid of their election or re-election. In fact, when an election period is nearing, a lot of politicians suddenly declare and claim that they are pro-farmers.
As election day draws closer, more and more construction materials, water pumps, farm tractors and other farming inputs are given to farmers as baits. Worse, they claim that those "goods" came from their personal money. They regard farmers as recipients of dole outs. Those concerned politicians think that farmers are stupid breeds of human beings people who can always be fooled by faked generosity.
Others have to mobilize the local agriculture offices as part of their political campaign machinery; thus those agricultural technologists deployed even in far-flung areas at the pretext of organizing or reorganizing farmers groups, or implementing special projects. Were those assistance given to farmers during election periods be sustained in the succeeding years or every year as a matter of policy? No. “Far far away soup!”
In the campaign trail, I personally heard complaints of farmers in some areas, as well as witnessed the deplorable conditions of several irrigation facilities, access roads, etc. I also heard about those reports as to how funds that were supposedly intended for agriculture, like the RA 7171 Fund and calamity funds, were either used or re-aligned into other purposes, such as purchase of monobloc chairs, umbrellas and the like for distributions come election campaign period. Note that a re-alignment of agriculture-oriented budgets do not need public hearing or consultation anymore, so the tendency is to ignore the farmers.
Relatedly, I remember of a reported ADB study which revealed that “rich and middle classes grab subsidies for the poor."
As election day draws closer, more and more construction materials, water pumps, farm tractors and other farming inputs are given to farmers as baits. Worse, they claim that those "goods" came from their personal money. They regard farmers as recipients of dole outs. Those concerned politicians think that farmers are stupid breeds of human beings people who can always be fooled by faked generosity.
Others have to mobilize the local agriculture offices as part of their political campaign machinery; thus those agricultural technologists deployed even in far-flung areas at the pretext of organizing or reorganizing farmers groups, or implementing special projects. Were those assistance given to farmers during election periods be sustained in the succeeding years or every year as a matter of policy? No. “Far far away soup!”
In the campaign trail, I personally heard complaints of farmers in some areas, as well as witnessed the deplorable conditions of several irrigation facilities, access roads, etc. I also heard about those reports as to how funds that were supposedly intended for agriculture, like the RA 7171 Fund and calamity funds, were either used or re-aligned into other purposes, such as purchase of monobloc chairs, umbrellas and the like for distributions come election campaign period. Note that a re-alignment of agriculture-oriented budgets do not need public hearing or consultation anymore, so the tendency is to ignore the farmers.
Relatedly, I remember of a reported ADB study which revealed that “rich and middle classes grab subsidies for the poor."
In short, farming was obviously not really a serious priority, notwithstanding the fact that a given locality is primarily an agricultural place. I can only infer that when it comes to funds and resources for farmers, they are the first to be whimsically prejudiced, compromised or manipulated. So, every election is an “opportunity” to exploit.
Farmers predicaments
Towards the later part of May each year, an ordinary farmer has to deal with serious money problem. The month of June is the start of rice planting season and, at the same time, opening of school classes. Hence, the “triple whammy” which an ordinary farmer has to confront with: (1) start of rice planting season, (2) opening of school classes, and (3) the dangers of natural disasters such as typhoons and floods. These are not ordinary problems.
They are the primordial justifications of the supposed Farmers Summit we were then pushing at this time of the year regularly in order to devise realistic action plans to assist ordinary farmers in confronting the “triple whammy.” Note that that the local governments budget cycle starts in July. By then, the outputs from such supposed summit would have been inputs in the budget process.
At most, meetings are held when farmlands were already eroded, or when crops were already perished by calamities. Or meetings were held when there were already alarming statistics about increasing drop outs of schoolchildren of families of poor farmers.
Similarly, during summer, seemingly, some if not most local governments are more preoccupied (or is it a habit already) with those fiestas and festivals, lakbay aral[1] as well as conferences that would eat much of our local funds. Thus, funds have to be focused more for the expenditures of those celebrations and recreational travels, while the expected needs of farmers are, well, again put as a least priority.
Agriculture neglected
Sometime last month, I came across with an interesting article, Agriculture neglected, written by certain Mr. Ricky Poca in his column Think Bits[2]. It is interesting for me because it confirms my observations which I have been articulating all along. Partly, it reads:
Is it surprising the Cebu provincial government spent more for fiestas than for agriculture in pork barrels of its legislators? The Philippines is an agricultural country but little attention is given to the agriculture sector. The children of rice farmers have lost the passion to produce rice. They do not want to experience the hardship of their parents by remaining poor though they tilled the land and produced food for other people for the many years.
To encourage our farmers and their children to continue farming, the government should prioritize the agricultural sector in the budget. x x x
We appreciate the advocacy … to fight graft and corruption, but the government should give new hope to our agricultural sector by treating our farmers well.
While the article was obviously referring to his observations in Cebu, I believe such is also true or somehow happening in several other places.
Food crisis
Previous to that, I also read a published press release of Senator Kiko Pangilinan, Pangilinan Sees Food Crisis as Farmers Getting Fewer[3]. Reproduced hereunder is part of his statement which I underscore some portions for purposes of emphasis:
Filipino farmers are growing old and the young people are not replacing them in the fields. Sen. Francis Pangilinan, chair of the Senate committee on agriculture and food, said this was an “unseen crisis” in the industry which could affect the country's food supply in the next few years.
The Philippines has about 4.3 million farmers, tilling an average of 2.5 hectares of land each, Pangilinan said in a media briefing. Their average age is 57, much too old to till the fields. “This is reaching crisis level. If we don’t correct this in three years, we will have a problem getting our output,” he said.
Pangilinan said the demographics indicated that younger Filipinos were not enticed to enter in the agricultural sector. For them, farming is not a way out to poverty, he said.
“Their grandfathers were poor, their fathers were poor,” he said. “Why don’t they come in? Because they don't find it viable,” he added.
Pangilinan said the key to encouraging new blood in the agricultural sector was to improve support to farmers so that they could increase their income. He favored the strengthening of the local government’s role in agricultural productivity because the local executives know the needs of their farmers.
Pangilinan said the key to encouraging new blood in the agricultural sector was to improve support to farmers so that they could increase their income. He favored the strengthening of the local government’s role in agricultural productivity because the local executives know the needs of their farmers.
“I am more partial to the idea of just letting the [Department of Agriculture] set the policy direction and then let the local governments implement [that policy],” Pangilinan said.
The local governments’ capacity building should be improved so that they can provide the right agricultural extension services to farmers, he said.
Economists and experts said the Philippine government's weak extension service is one of the reasons for the low yield in the farm sector.
The local governments’ capacity building should be improved so that they can provide the right agricultural extension services to farmers, he said.
Economists and experts said the Philippine government's weak extension service is one of the reasons for the low yield in the farm sector.
Unseen crisis? True. Our farmers are growing old and the young are not replacing them simply because they don’t find it viable; thus, as he prescribes, the need to (1) improve support to the farmers, and that the (2) government should prioritize the agricultural sector in the budget.
Nice formula. maybe the Senator might have already realized that the situation had ripened into “unseen crisis”. But he who prescribes a formula should prove it that it is right, otherwise it remains to be a theoretical formula or another political gimmick.
Nice formula. maybe the Senator might have already realized that the situation had ripened into “unseen crisis”. But he who prescribes a formula should prove it that it is right, otherwise it remains to be a theoretical formula or another political gimmick.
DA policy-making, LGU implementor
According to the Senator, he favored the strengthening of the local government’s role in agricultural productivity because the local executives know the needs of their farmers. Really?
His assumption needs to be extensively reconciled with the degree of performance of every LGU about those devolved responsibilities despite that a number of years already gone by. Farming iss not viable in most places simply because some local officials do not prioritize agriculture or farming. They prefer to concentrate in tourism, mining, or other programs like social celebrations because such are favorable to the business interests of their families or allies. This can be confirmed by examining their local development plans, budgets and actual performance reports. We can discover the share of farming in their over-all performance.
The senator should visit public markets and see personally the situations of vendors of farm crops. Most of those vendors belong to marginal farmers. Instead of using more decent display racks for their vegetables, vendors are using sheets of plastic or paper spread out on the ground of directly on market floor. The spaces allocated for them have no adequate shed to protect them from the sun or rain. Maybe that is what they deserve in the eyes of their supposed leaders or public servants. Truly, many politicians do not know the realities of farming and farmers.
I am not saying that tourism or mining or other programs should not be developed. They should be equally looked into if indeed they are strengths or assets of a place. But in so doing, farmers or farming programs must not be taken for granted. Those devolved funds and resources of agriculture should not be channeled or realigned to non-agricultural uses, or should not be used to subsidize celebrations. Tourism and cultural programs should now be more of public-private-business partnerships.
Modify devolution
LGU as implementor while DA formulates policy directions? I doubt if there has been an LGU that was sanctioned for not supporting or implementing DA-formulated policies and programs, notwithstanding the fact that certain agriculture-related responsibilities and funds were already devolved to them.
I suggest that the better idea is to revert the agricultural programs and devolve only to a LGU that is particularly ready and capable to assume such responsibilities. Why devolve agricultural responsibilities, funds and personnel to a LGU that has no plans or serious actions to assume and pursue them?
If the plans are viable and actually benefit agricultural productivity, and they are sustainable, then I am quite certain young farmers are enticed because they can foresee a bright future of farming. On the other hand, the devolved agricultural officials and personnel would be motivated to put into practice their skills rather than doing administrative works.
If there is a formulated plan we can monitor the progress of the component projects and strategies, and determine those who are responsible for their failures or successes. There should be funds and resources intended for farmers be squandered or misused. Up until now, I maintain that what we have is a devolution with no accountability.
If there is a formulated plan we can monitor the progress of the component projects and strategies, and determine those who are responsible for their failures or successes. There should be funds and resources intended for farmers be squandered or misused. Up until now, I maintain that what we have is a devolution with no accountability.
Local agricultural offices have to be reverted to DA and be re-structured to provide package of services, such as the provisions for research and laboratory services, marketing and financial services, livestock production and protection services, fishery and aquatic resources management, regulatory and enforcement services. Some local agricultural offices organizational structures are obsolete already. An agricultural officer should be made accountable if targeted programs and plans are not met.
Evaluate local agricultural offices and we will find out that most have no basic laboratory equipment, like soil test kits, basic machineries that may be availed of by farmers etc. Maybe acquisition of farm tools and equipment is not really a priority.
Evaluate local agricultural offices and we will find out that most have no basic laboratory equipment, like soil test kits, basic machineries that may be availed of by farmers etc. Maybe acquisition of farm tools and equipment is not really a priority.
Agricultural extension service
We have a weak agricultural extension service? Why don't we just enlist certified farmers, especially the younger ones, as agricultural extension workers in their respective areas. Just equip them with periodic training under a government institutionalized skills training curriculum. Thereafter, they shall be assessed and granted with equivalent course or eligibility. In this case, a trained farmer is equipped with multiple skills and thus be conferred with corresponding recognition, from TESDA perhaps, which they may use for other employment. They shall also be provided with packaged of benefits, such as PhilHealth coverage, outreach educational exposures and other incentives.
Farmers Support Fund
Senator Pangilinan said that “the key to encouraging new blood in the agricultural sector was to improve support to farmers.” That is long overdue. This was in fact the rationale of the Farmers Support Fund which I integrated in an ordinance I introduced during my incumbency. Unfortunately, this has been one of the "sleeping provision" or repeatedly ignored benefits intended to our farmers.
If only this should be implemented, maybe Senator Pangilinan can contribute his pork barrel into the Fund. Basically, the Fund was intended to be a source of soft loans for small farmers. It may also serve as guarantee fund for loans from willing financial institutions or lending entities. But the key there is to remove chronic political considerations in the selection of recipients.
If only this should be implemented, maybe Senator Pangilinan can contribute his pork barrel into the Fund. Basically, the Fund was intended to be a source of soft loans for small farmers. It may also serve as guarantee fund for loans from willing financial institutions or lending entities. But the key there is to remove chronic political considerations in the selection of recipients.
The “triple whammy” really drubs a small farmer, especially if he is only a tenant. He needs seed capital to rehabilitate his disaster-mangled farm crops, or to replace or repair a basic farm equipment like water pump, sprayer or even carabao. He needs money for the tuition fees of his children. The Fund could be a good source of assistance. Banks need collateral and understandably a small farmer-tenant has none.
It has been long overdue to elevate farmers as true and principal characters of our society. Farming should be a decent and competitive livelihood. Especially in the rural barangays, it is the small farmers and not professionals and businessmen who are serving as barangay tanod and fire volunteers. Still, they have to be in the farm at day time enduring the heat of the sun or risking themselves against thunders and lightning, and then obliged to do patrolling or peacekeeping duties at night time just to ensure a safe and peaceful community.
One more point: Farmers are voters too.
One more point: Farmers are voters too.
Real and actual farmers are now "endangered species." Younger Filipinos are not enticed to go into farming because their parents will, understandably, never encourage them. No parent will encourage his child to be a farmer if the feel that their government is inept and passive about their needs and their future. Worse, if their government has the propensity to exploit and manipulate them.
[1] Lakbay Aral: Is it? August 2009 blog,
[2] (http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/opinion/view. February 1, 2011.
