Voices From the Field: Needs of Small-Scale Filipino Rice Farmers

Abstract

This paper presents an assessment of needs and coping mechanisms of small-scale rice farmers in the Philippines. Various ethnographic methods were used in the study. Focus group discussions among farmers and key informant interviews among agricultural staff and extension workers were conducted in 51 villages of 19 municipalities in six provinces of the country. Household survey was conducted among 923 farmers in the provinces of Agusan del Norte, Iloilo and Isabela. The major needs faced by small-scale Filipino rice farmers ranged from overcoming biotic and abiotic stresses, economic sufficiency, structural sufficiency and enhanced knowledge in rice farm management & technologies. Sufficient capital prevailed to be the most common need in rice farming. Other specific needs include low input cost, higher paddy price, access to equipment and post-harvest facilities, adequate irrigation system, farm-to-market roads, overcoming biotic stresses such as pests and diseases, overcoming abiotic stresses such as flooding and drought, and improved knowledge on rice farm management and technologies. Some needs and constraints were found to be location-specific such as biotic and abiotic stresses, but were interrelated. Adoption of key technologies promoted in the PalayCheck system to increase rice production remains a great challenge since these technologies such as the site specific nutrient management are closely interrelated with timely availability of sufficient financial capital. Farmers were found to manage and cope by borrowing money from informal lenders who charge them with high interest rates, and traders that require farmers to sell their produce immediately after harvest with a low paddy price. These situations entrapped our rice farmers in a cycle of poverty, hence pro-farmer policies and programs that addressed real needs of farmers should be in place: easy access to formal financial institutions with low interest rates and simplified credit requirements; a competitive price for paddy; reduction in costs of inputs; livelihood programs to farmers and their households; access to post-harvest facilities; better irrigation systems and road infrastructures; and most of all, strengthening farmer organizations. A working multi-stakeholder partnership among farmer organizations, Department of Agriculture and local government units are imperative in addressing the needs of farmers to increase rice production, farming households' income and achieving the country's goal of rice self-sufficiency.

Full text

Philippine Journal of Crop Science (PJCS) April 2015, 40 (1): 64-75
Copyright 2015, Crop Science Society of the Philippines
Voices From The Field: Needs of Small-Scale Filipino Rice Farmers
Florencia G. Palis1,3*, Catalina Diaz2, Genalin Todcor3, Rica Joy Flor2, Irene Tanzo4 and
Rodmyr Datoon3
1Social Sciences Department, College of Arts and Sciences, University of the Philippines Los Baños, Laguna,
Philippines; 2International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines; 3Formerly working at the
Social Sciences Division, International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines; 4Philippine Rice
Research Institute, Munoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines. *Corresponding author, florenciapalis@yahoo.com
This paper presents an assessment of needs and coping mechanisms of small-scale rice
farmers in the Philippines. Various ethnographic methods were used in the study. Focus group
discussions among farmers and key informant interviews among agricultural staff and exten-
sion workers were conducted in 51 villages of 19 municipalities in six provinces of the country.
Household survey was conducted among 923 farmers in the provinces of Agusan del Norte,
Iloilo and Isabela. The major needs faced by small-scale Filipino rice farmers ranged from over-
coming biotic and abiotic stresses, economic sufficiency, structural sufficiency and enhanced
knowledge in rice farm management & technologies. Sufficient capital prevailed to be the most
common need in rice farming. Other specific needs include low input cost, higher paddy price,
access to equipment and post-harvest facilities, adequate irrigation system, farm-to-market
roads, overcoming biotic stresses such as pests and diseases, overcoming abiotic stresses
such as flooding and drought, and improved knowledge on rice farm management and
technologies. Some needs and constraints were found to be location-specific such as biotic
and abiotic stresses, but were interrelated. Adoption of key technologies promoted in the
PalayCheck system to increase rice production remains a great challenge since these
technologies such as the site specific nutrient management are closely interrelated with timely
availability of sufficient financial capital. Farmers were found to manage and cope by borrowing
money from informal lenders who charge them with high interest rates, and traders that require
farmers to sell their produce immediately after harvest with a low paddy price. These situations
entrapped our rice farmers in a cycle of poverty, hence pro-farmer policies and programs that
addressed real needs of farmers should be in place: easy access to formal financial institutions
with low interest rates and simplified credit requirements; a competitive price for paddy;
reduction in costs of inputs; livelihood programs to farmers and their households; access to
post-harvest facilities; better irrigation systems and road infrastructures; and most of all,
strengthening farmer organizations. A working multi-stakeholder partnership among farmer
organizations, Department of Agriculture and local government units are imperative in
addressing the needs of farmers to increase rice production, farming households’ income and
achieving the country’s goal of rice self-sufficiency.
Keywords: coping mechanism, Filipino rice farmers, needs, poverty trap, rice self-sufficiency
INTRODUCTION
The Philippines, a country heavily dependent on
imported rice, has launched a Philippine Rice Self-
Sufficiency Plan (PRSSP) in 2009 to avoid a similar
scenario to the 2008 food crises. Through the
Department of Agriculture, this multi-billion program
called FIELDS, which stood for Fertilizer, Irrigation,
Extension, Loans, Dryers and Seeds. Altogether, the
key components of FIELDS aimed to increase rice
production in the country and achieve rice self-
sufficiency. This FIELDS program was later modified
into Agri-Pinoy for Food Staples Rice Self
Sufficiency.
While public expenditures in agriculture has
increased markedly in the 1990s and early 2000s,
the gains in terms of improvement in long-term
productivity however were not high ( David 2003).
For instance, the spending on Research and
Development (R&D), basic transport infrastructure,
and institutional development had low priorities
(David 2003).
The national extension platform used by the
Department of Agriculture (DA) to achieve rice self-
sufficiency was the Farmer Field School PalayCheck
or FFS PalayCheck. This is a farmer participatory
approach that promotes eight key checks: 1) use of
high quality seeds of a recommended variety; 2) no
high and low soil spots after final leveling; 3) practice
of synchronous planting after a fallow period;
4) sufficient number of healthy seedlings; 5) sufficient
nutrients from tillering to early panicle initiation and
flowering stages; 6) avoidance of excessive water
stress; 7) no significant yield loss due to pests; and 8)
FG Palis et al
Full Paper

cutting and threshing the crop at the right time (see
http://www.pinoyrkb.com/main/).
Most public agricultural extension systems however,
often fail due to inadequate consultation of farmers
about their needs in their farming livelihoods such as
in rice production (Babu et al. 2012, FAO 2003). More
so, most agricultural expenditure is usually poorly
focused on the real needs of small-holder farmers
(ActionAid 2013). It is therefore important to revisit and
assess the needs of the Filipino rice farmers in relation
to the attainment of rice self-sufficiency of the country.
The „Farmer-back-to-farmer‟ (Rhoades and Booth
1982) and „farmer-first-and-last‟ (Chambers and
Ghildyal 1985) models advocated to take in farmers‟
needs and priorities, and in turn infuse them in
research programs instead of using the conventional
top-down transfer of technology. These models
acknowledge that farmers are knowledgeable about
their own situation, and what works and does not
work. These models also allow farmers to participate
in assessing their needs and constraints to make a
significant contribution in identifying the ways and
means of addressing the challenges in rice production.
Rice, the staple food of the country, remains an
important source of livelihood for about 12 million
Filipino farmers and family members (FAO 2007a).
The small scale farmers and landless agricultural
workers comprise the 40% of the agricultural labor
force nationwide (Balisacan and Ravago 2003).
Balit (1998) stressed that any development effort
should begin by listening to farmers and taking into
account their perceptions, needs, knowledge,
experiences, cultures and traditions (Balit 1998). Palis
(2004) stressed that the emic (farmers‟ point of view)
and etic (scientists‟/extensionists‟ point of view) need
to be reconciled in technology development and
dissemination for efficient extension and getting high
likelihood of impacts. This paper argues that needs
assessment is central to identify the relevant problems
and challenges experienced by farmers in the country.
In turn, this will lead us to realize what further interven-
tions that would fit to local needs or what policies to be
designed, so as to increase rice production in the
country to meet rice sufficiency level. Hence, this
study assessed the needs of small-scale Filipino rice
farmers relative to achieving rice self-sufficiency, and
documented their coping mechanisms in rice
production.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Sites
The study was conducted in six provinces: two prov-
inces representing each of the three big islands of the
country, namely: Camarines Sur and Isabela for
Luzon, Bohol and Iloilo for the Visayas, and Agusan
del Norte and Agusan del Sur for Mindanao. Provinc-
es, municipalities and villages were selected based
on: the size of rice growing area, presence of FFS
PalayCheck training implemented by PhilRice and
Agricultural Training Institute (ATI) of DA, accessibility,
and upon consultation with local agriculture officials
especially on peace and order situation.
Research Methods
Various ethnographic methods were used to elicit
ethnographic accounts and collection of both
quantitative and qualitative data. Focus group
discussions (FGDs), and key informant interviews
(KIIs) were employed to gather qualitative data from
the six provinces in the Philippines between July 2009
and March 2010. Informal interviews, secondary data,
and field observations within 2011-2012 were also per-
formed.
The FGDs conducted covered a total of 51 villages in
19 municipalities of the six provinces with a total of
711 farmers, 389 male and 322 female farmer partici-
pants (Table 1). In each province, 3-4 municipalities
with 2-3 villages in each municipality were selected,
using the same aforementioned criteria. The group
size for each FGD varied, but generally consisted of
8-20 farmers. The group was a mixture of men and
women, but in Agusan del Norte, majority (62.5%)
were women.
Key informant interviews were also employed among
the Municipal Agricultural Officers (MAOs), municipal
and provincial extension workers or Agricultural
Technicians (ATs) of the different Local Government
Units (LGUs) and staff of other government agencies
such as DA Regional offices, National Irrigation
Administration (NIA), and National Food Authority
(NFA).
To triangulate the results in the FGD and KIIs, a
household survey on farmers‟ needs was conducted
during 2010-2011 involving 923 farmers, for both wet
and dry season. Due to budget and time constraints,
only three out of the six provinces were covered, one
province representing an island, namely: Isabela for
Luzon, IloIlo for Visayas, and Agusan del Norte for
Mindanao. In Agusan del Norte, the general dry
season of the country corresponds to its wet season
while the the general wet season of the country
corresponds to its very wet season. Respondents
65
Needs of small-scale Filipino rice farmers
Province Munici-
pality Village Participant
M F Total
Agusan
del Norte 4 12 69 115 184
Agusan
del Sur 3 6 32 43 75
Bohol 3 9 67 52 119
Cama-
rines Sur 3 9 60 38 98
Ilo-ilo 3 6 55 46 101
Isabela 3 9 106 28 134
Total 19 51 389 322 711
Table 1. Number of focused group discussions (FGD)
participants in selected study areas, 2009-2010

were sampled using simple random sampling from the
total list of farmers in each of the villages of
municipalities selected from the three provinces.
The qualitative data were summarized and thematic
analysis was employed. The quantitative data were
analyzed using basic statistical tests such as means,
standard deviation, frequency counts, and percent-
ages; as well as T-test for test of means and
chi-square tests or Fisher‟s exact for comparing
proportions. Costs and returns analysis was also
conducted but only in Agusan del Norte due to time
constraints. To address this limitation, findings from
the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (BAS) were
utilized and cited.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Socio-economic Profile
Farmer characteristics across the three provinces are
generally similar (Table 2). The average age of farm-
ers was 53 years old, 16 being the youngest and 89
the oldest. Male farmers (70%) exceeded women
farmers (29%); and mostly were married (83%) with
an average household size of 5. The average number
of children was 4 and the average years spent in
school by the farmers was 9 yr or an equivalent level
of 3rd year high school. Farmers‟ experience was on
the average 25 yr with average farm size of 1.29 ha.
Farmers‟ average annual income is PhP20,000 or
US$500 (BAS 2012), equivalent to PhP1,667 or
US$40 per month. From the survey in Agusan del
Norte, the net income above cash cost during wet
season was PhP27,991 on the average or PhP22,750
if family labor is valued; and during dry season was
PhP 29,500 or PhP23,800, if family labor is valued
(Table 3). More than a third of the farmer respondents
had secondary source of income.
Farmers’ Needs
Table 4 & 5 presents the common major needs (or
constraints) reported by farmers with rankings from
the most needful to the least. The needs in this paper
are similarly defined as constraints. Farmers‟
responses refer to problems or constraints they have
in rice farming. The needs were derived from the
constraints mentioned by farmers. Findings from the
survey and FGDs on the major needs of the rice farm-
ers are similar (Tables 4 & 5). There were 8 out of 10
needs listed in the FGDs that corresponded with the
results in the household survey.
The needs of farmers ranged from overcoming biotic
and abiotic stresses, economic and structural
sufficiency and improved knowledge on rice farm
management and technologies.
Economic sufficiency
Sufficient Capital. The top most need of rice farmers
is sufficiency in capital (Tables 4 & 5). This lack of
sufficient capital for rice production were also reported
by Sebastian et al. (2000), Hossain et al. (1995) and
Gerpacio et al. (2004). Considering that rice farmers
kept reiterating this concern, it is high time for the
government to listen to them and devise practical
pro-farmer policy and strategy that can address this
concern. More so, capital investment insufficiency of
farmers in rice production is a major hindrance in
achieving the goal of rice self-sufficiency in the
country.
Characteristic Agusan
N=359 Iloilo
N=282 Isabela
N = 282 Total
N=923
Age (years)
Mean
Standard
deviation
Range
51.13b
11.66
16-83
58.50a
12.93
26-89
50.13b1, 2
12.69
24-87
53.25
12.43
16-89
Gender (%)
Male
Female
56.5c
42.3a
71.3b
28.0b
83.3a
16.0c
70.4a
28.8b
Civil status (%)
Single
Married
Widow
Widower/
Separated
3.9a
84.4a
9.4a
6.0a
79.8a
13.2a
5.0a
84.4a
7.5a
5.0b
82.9a
10.1b
Education
(years)
Mean
Standard
deviation
Range
8.25a
3.04
1-15
8.96a
3.40
1-15
8.80a
3.20
1-15
8.67
3.21
1-15
Occupation (%)
Rice farming
as primary
occupation
Rice farmers
w/ secondary
Occupation
72.4a
49.3a
76.6a
26.6b
81.2a
30.9b
76.7
35.6
Farm experience
(years)
Mean
Standard
deviation
Range
21.88a
12.87
1-78
29.70a
15.95
2-70
24.66a
14.27
1-66
25.41
14.36
1-78
Farm size (ha)
Mean
Standard
deviation
Range
1.04b
0.63
0.13-0.25
1.41a
0.80
0.10-4
1.43a
0.85
0.15-4
1.29
0.76
0.10-4
Household size
Mean
Standard
deviation
Range
5.05a
2.18
1-15
4.48a
2.18
1-13
4.18a
1.82
1-14
4.57
2.06
1-15
Number of
children
Mean
Standard
deviation
Range
4.49a
2.73
0-22
4.45a
2.75
0-15
3.46a
2.28
0-12
4.13
2.59
0-22
Table 2. Respondents‟ socio-demographic characteristics
(Household survey, 2010-2011)
1 One way analysis of variance with unequal replications was used for comparing means of
quantitative data while chi-square tests or Fisher‟s exact tests was utilized for comparing
proportions.; 2Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 0.05 level of
significance.
FG Palis et al 66

Sufficient financial capital is highly needed for buying
inputs such as seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, and fuel
as well as for paying fees for machine rentals, labor,
and for irrigation. For one cropping season, farmers
reported that they would need more than PhP10,000
ha-1 to finance their rice production. Furthermore, they
need more capital if they are going to hire labor
considering increasing labor costs.
From the survey in Agusan del Norte, the average
total cash cost of material inputs, including fuel,
machine rentals, and irrigation fees, was around
PhP8,000 during wet season and PhP7,200 during dry
season. When labor costs were factored in, the aver-
age total cash cost would be PhP25,000 for both sea-
sons (Table 3). Fertilizer costs ranged PhP3,000 –
10,000, with an average of PhP4,000 ha-1.
With high input costs and insufficient capital, farmers
are unable to buy and timely apply the recommended
amount of farm inputs. Hence, insufficient capital of
farmers has negative implications on technology
adoption and in turn, on the attainment of rice suffi-
ciency. An example is the site specific nutrient
management (SSNM) promoted in the FFS
PalayCheck. The correlation of rice yield to fertilizer
nutrient use has long been established and thereby
following SSNM has great potential to increase rice
production (Mutert and Fairhurst 2002).
The SSNM emphasized the critical importance of
applying the right kind, amount and timing of fertilizer
application considering the target yield level of the
farmer. With insufficient capital, often farmers are not
able to follow the SSNM recommendations. Farmers
often reduce the amount of fertilizer applied, and the
timing of fertilizer application depends upon the availa-
bility of money to buy fertilizer. For instance, in the
village of Panaytalon of Agusan del Norte, some
farmers reduce the amount of fertilizer from the
recommended 6-8 bags ha-1 to 2-3 bags ha-1, and use
organic and foliar fertilizers. Lack of sufficient capital
might explain why the average fertilizer use of rice
farmers in the country is still relatively low, even with
the continuing presence of fertilizer as a component in
government rice programs (Sebastian et al. 2000;
Briones 2014).
Access to Formal Credit with Low Interest Rate
Farmers are constrained in their access to credit from
formal financial institutions with lower interest rate,
such as the Land Bank of the Philippines. Primarily
due to high transaction costs, physical access to
formal financial institutions, lack of financial literacy,
voluminous documents required, and lack of both
collateral and capacity to pay (Yaron et al. 1997).
Formal banks or financial institutions normally are
located at the center of the city or municipalities. As
also reported by Poliquit (2006) and Geron and
Casuga (2012), these formal financial institutions are
often not geographically accessible to farmers in
Season
Result*
Wet Season
Income
Yield (kg ha-1) 3843.0
Price per kg of palay (PhP kg-1) 13.74
Gross Income (PhP ha-1) (A) 53198.6
Cash Costs
Material inputs paid 7894.0
Hired labor inputs
(including value of labor paid in kind) 17231.3
Total Cash Cost (B) 25125.3
Non-Cash Cost
Value of owned materials inputs 1941.6
Value of unpaid family and exhange labor 3286.7
Total Non-Cash Costs (C) 5228.2
Total Production Costs for Wet Season
(D = B+C) 30353.6
Net Income above Cash Cost (A - B) 27991.1
Net Income Above Total Cost or Profit
(A - D) 22750.0
n =273
Dry Season
Income
Yield (kg ha-1) 3991.4
Price per kg of palay (PhP kg-1) 13.55
Gross Income (PhP ha-1) (A) 54306.3
Cash Costs
Material Inputs paid 7015.5
Hired labor inputs
(including value of labor paid in kind) 17837.6
Total Cash Cost (B) 24853.1
Non-Cash Cost
Value of owned materials inputs 1829.4
Value of unpaid family and exhange labor 3729.9
Total Non-Cash Costs (C) 5559.3
Total Production Costs for Dry Season (D=B+C) 30412.5
Net Income above Cash Cost (A - B) 29453.2
Net Income Above Total Cost or Profit
(A - D) 23893.8
Table 3. Cost and return analysis (PhP ha-1) of rice
production for transplanted rice, Agusan del
Norte, 2010
* The cost and return analysis for Agus an del Norte was the only data done at the time
this paper was written. For uniformity, only farmers who practiced transplanting and used
certified or good seeds were considered in the analysis (n=212).
Need
Percentage**
Rank
Sufficient capital
89.7 1
High paddy price 79.5 2
Adequate irrigation system 74.4 3
Access to equipment and
post-harvest facilities 61.5
4
Low input costs 53.9 5
Technologies/infrastructures
to manage Abiotic
stresses
51.3
6
Technologies to manage
Biotic stresses
25.6
7
Improved knowledge on rice
farm management & 23.1
8
technology
Adequate farm-to-market roads 12.8 9
Able to pay-off debts 7.7 10
*Needs were derived from constraints reported by farmers; **Multiple responses
Table 4. Farmers‟ needs* in rice production based from
FGDs, 2009-2010
67
Needs of small-scale Filipino rice farmers

farming villages. Thus, continued reliance on informal
credit has remained a major source of financing for
Filipino farmers.
With inadequate funds and high costs of inputs, rice
farmers are therefore forced to borrow money with
high interest rate from informal money lenders, buyers
and traders because of fast and easy access, less
paper requirements, and they get the money on hand
with less transaction costs. Aside from many paper
requirements, farmers especially those who are less
educated are afraid to borrow due to inadequate
understanding of the process which is so complicated
to them. Similar findings were also found by Gerpacio
et al. (2004) among corn farmers.
From the six provinces, loan interest from informal
money lenders including the rice buyers and traders
ranged 10-20% per mos. Normally, buyers and traders
charged 30-40% for the 3-4 mo for one rice cropping,
that is including land preparation, harvesting and
threshing. Private money lenders normally require 1
sack of fresh threshed palay or paddy rice (equivalent
to 50 kg or 1 cavan) as interest for every Php 1,000
borrowed. In Agusan del Norte, a loan of PhP 1,000
can also be paid in kind by 3 cavans of fresh threshed
palay. Some farmers in villages with self-reliant farm-
ers‟ organizations were able to avail of a PhP 2,000-
loan with one cavan of threshed palay as interest.
In 1998, about 38% of farm households in the Philip-
pines borrowed, but only 11% loaned from formal
institutions (World Bank 2000). Similarly, the ratio of
agriculture production loans to gross value added
(GVA) in agriculture and fisheries decreased from 41%
in the late 1970s to only 22% in the late 2000s (Geron
and Casuga 2012). Farmers are henceforth always
under the mercy and control of rice buyers, traders,
and private money lenders. They do not have any
choice but to comply with the informal credit rules just
for his/her family to survive. In this manner, farmers
are demonstrating the state of kapit sa patalim, which
literally means holding or grasping a knife blade. This
is a Filipino idiomatic expression that is often used
when someone is in dire need and at an unfavorable
position (at times, hazardous situation) but that person
doesn't have any choice but to grab that opportunity
just to survive or solve a problem.
Ability to Pay-off Debts at Harvest
Most farmers (75-90%) immediately sell the fresh
palay harvest (22-26% MC) to pay off debts. This is a
very common practice to most farmers, except in Iloilo
where they usually sell dried weight palay, because
the people whom they owe money for capital are
already requiring them to pay back. Farmers have no
choice as they must sell their palay to creditors as part
of their agreements (PAN AP 2007).
Aside from paying off debts, other reasons for selling
harvested rice straightaway include: a) farmers in
general need cash immediately, b) buyers would still
take out 7 kg for every bag of fresh paddy as discount
(locally known as “resiko”) to the buyers, which is
equivalent to the amount lost if the grains were dried,
and c) lack of drying facilities and to do away with
labor cost for drying. They do not want to take risk in
drying, getting the paddy damaged and incurring more
costs and getting a low price at the end. Since it is
hard for them to dry their crop especially during the
wet season, they sell their fresh weight palay to the
private traders and millers and informal money lenders
(Chupongco et al. 2008).
Dry Season Wet Season
Needs Percentage (%)**
Agusan
N=359 Iloilo
N=282 Isabela
N=282 Total
N=923 Agusan
N=359 Ilo-ilo
N=282 Isabela
N=282 Total
N=923
Overcoming biotic
stresses 83.1 89.4 77.0 83.1 71.6 92.6 74.8 79.0
Pests 70.8 68.1 51.1 63.9 61.6 68.8 51.8 60.8
Diseases 12.3 21.3 25.9 19.2 10.0 23.8 23.0 18.2
Overcoming abiotic
stresses 37.9 66.7 61.7 54.0 26.4 59.9 67.3 49.3
Drought 19.2 42.2 42.9 33.5 8.9 16.0 12.4 12.1
Flooding 14.2 12.1 12.8 13.1 15.3 33.3 41.8 29.0
High soil salinity 3.9 11.3 3.9 6.2 1.9 10.6 6.0 5.9
Typhoon, strong
wind 0.6 1.1 2.1 1.2 0.3 0.0 7.1 2.3
Sufficient capital 65.5 50.7 40.8 53.4 56.8 49.3 36.9 48.4
Low input cost 28.7 49.0 38.7 37.9 21.7 47.2 37.2 34.2
High yield 23.1 47.5 46.1 37.6 19.5 43.3 41.5 33.5
Low price of quality
seeds 11.7 36.5 39.0 27.6 10.3 35.5 36.9 26.1
Higher paddy price 31.8 14.9 9.6 19.8 25.3 17.0 7.4 17.3
Adequate farm-to-
market roads 7.0 7.1 11.7 8.5 6.1 9.2 11.0 8.6
Equipment and post-
harvest facilities 8.7 5.3 11.6 8.5 7.6 5.7 10.3 7.8
Adequate irrigation
system 14.2 0.7 3.9 6.9 8.4 0.0 2.5 4.0
Table 5. Percentage of farmers reporting needs* in rice production (Household survey 2010-2011)
FG Palis et al 68
*Needs were derived from constraints reported by farmers
**Multiple responses

Out of the harvested paddy, farmers often sell 75-90%
of their paddy right after harvest, while the 10-25% is
kept for home consumption. For example, in Gainza,
Camarines Sur, about 80% of the farmers sell wet
paddy. In the province of Bohol, farmers reported that
for 80 sacks harvested, 60 sacks are sold immediately
while the remaining 20 sacks are stored for food.
Thus, 75% of harvested rice is used to pay their debt.
From the survey in Agusan del Norte, 20% is kept for
home consumption, but this also includes rice to be
given to children and other relatives.
The stored paddy for consumption however, may not
last for the household until the next harvest which is
the case for almost all of the villages covered in the six
provinces. In Barangay Poro, Canaman, Camarines
Sur, about 80% of the households are usually short of
rice supply for a month before the next harvest. They
buy or loan milled rice from the stores.
The immediate selling of paddy has been a part of
Filipino culture and values pertaining to the concept of
suki system (regular or loyal customer relationship),
utang na loob (debt of gratitude), and hiya (shame)
(Jocano 1966; Lynch 1970). In the suki system,
farmers have regular buyers of paddy from whom they
also get credit. Trust and friendship between the farm-
ers and the buyer/trader are important to maintain this
relationship. As such, farmers practice reciprocity and
observe a strong sense of indebtedness. If they do not
immediately sell their produce to these buyers/
creditors after harvesting, they feel embarrassed to
mingle with them due to unpaid debts, and they could
no longer get credit from them in the next cropping
season.
However, when there are calamities (typhoon,
drought, floods, pest and disease infestations), many
farmers were not able to pay their loans at harvest
period because the income they earned from rice
farming was not enough to support all their needs.
Sometimes, they have nothing to harvest because the
typhoons and floods destroyed their rice harvest.
Consequently, farmers may not be able to take
succeeding loans unless creditors give them a second
loan, with even higher interest rates. In 2011, a series
of typhoons caused floods that destroyed around 6%
of rice farmlands in the country and lost around
600,000 tons of milled rice to the floods and strong
winds (GIEWS 2012). This is also true when there is
drought. For instance, the El Niño phenomenon in
1998 caused rice production to fall sharply by 24.2%
in the country (Balisacan et al. 2003). It is estimated
that 50 % of the world‟s rice production is affected to a
greater or lesser extent by drought (Bouman et al.
2005).
Given the religiosity of Filipinos, farmers offer this
situation to God for solution as “Bahala na ang Diyos,”
or God will provide. Many farmers see this situation as
God-given and beyond their control, and faith in God
enables one to look forward for the better days ahead,
because God will provide solution to their needs.
Many Filipinos believe that God does not give a
person a „cross or problem‟ that one could not bear.
Structural Sufficiency
Higher Price of Paddy. Filipino farmers considered
higher price of paddy as a need to increase rice
production and household income (Table 4 & 5). This
is needed to break their cycle of poverty because the
higher price of paddy would result to higher income
from rice production, and hence, sufficient capital in
rice cultivation. This in turn will enable them to adopt
improved technologies like SSNM and use of certified
seeds in the PalayCheck system.
Most farmers associate limited post-harvest facilities
to low paddy price especially during wet season.
Sebastian et al. (2000) noted that farmers sell their
products during harvest months where price is low
because they do not have a place to dry or store their
rice. As a result wholesalers dictate rice prices to
retailers and consumers. Similarly, farmers do not
want to take the risk of damaging their rice grains
which would result to much lower paddy price.
According to farmers, the price of paddy is normally
based on the following criteria: dry or low moisture
content (tested by biting), no discolored grains, no
broken grains, fully-filled grains and with high head
rice and milling recovery. Based from these criteria,
the buyers and traders dictate the price. In Pototan,
Iloilo, traders who are not residents of the village have
associations and they follow a standard price for the
produce. For wet and dried paddy, the prices vary by
about PhP 2 kg-1 palay.
The National Food Authority (NFA) whose buying
price is higher than the market price, failed to
influence farm gate and commercial prices (Sombilla
2006). As experienced by farmers, the NFA procure-
ment was a tedious, time consuming and unfriendly
process, coupled with uncertainties of being bought.
Hence, they rarely sell their produce to the NFA (PAN
AP 2007). The average procurement of NFA during
1974-2004 was only 4% of the total production, which
is insignificant to make an impact on the market
(Sombilla et al. 2006).
While farmers are forced to be content with the very
low farm gate price that traders or wholesalers offer,
the retail price has been going up steadily, without the
farmers benefiting from it (PAN AP 2007). In 2010, the
average buying price of traders is much lower than
that set by the government through the National Food
Authority (NFA), taking advantage of the lack of
bargaining power of farmers. The buying price for
paddy in Agusan del Norte was PhP 2.00-3.50 per kg
during very wet season (equivalent to general wet
season) and PhP12.00-15.50 during wet season
(equivalent to general dry season). According to the
Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (2012), the palay farm
price in 2010 was pegged at PhP16 per kg palay. The
price differential is comparable to the study of Hughes
69
Needs of small-scale Filipino rice farmers

and Daglish (2005), with a PhP 2–5 kg-1 palay
difference in the buying price of dry palay and price of
wet palay.
Equipment & Post-harvest Facilities. Deficiency in
equipment for land preparation to post-harvest facili-
ties is experienced by most farmers throughout the
country (Table 4 & 5) (Mutert and Fairhurst 2002,
Sebastian et al. 2000; Chupongco et al. 2008). Not
having adequate equipment makes it hard for farmers
to facilitate plowing, harrowing & leveling during land
preparation. Lack of equipment failed to synchronize
planting which is promoted by PalayCheck to minimize
pests and diseases. Until now, farmers particularly
in Agusan del Norte are still short of accessing small
hand tractors. To avoid equipment rental, many of
them borrow from the MAO office although the equip-
ment is not enough when farmers borrow at the same
time.
As discussed earlier, limited drying facilities was
closely associated as one of the causes of low paddy
price. Major criteria set by the buyers and traders for
farmers to get a good paddy price are all connected to
good and easy access to drying services to come up
with dry, low moisture content, no discolored, and no
broken grains. The lack of drying capacity is one of the
key reasons of the poor quality of milled rice produced
in the country especially for the wet-season harvest
(de Padua 2007). Of the total production in the
country, only about 14% or around 2.2 Mt is dried
using mechanical dryers (Elepano 2008). About 14 Mt
however, is sundried (Chupongco et al. 2008).
In response to this long concern of farmers, drying
facilities were distributed by the Department of Agricul-
ture through the Philippine Center for Postharvest
Development and Mechanization (PHilMech) to farmer
organizations across the country. As reported by
farmers and based on our field observations, many of
these dryers (flat-bed dryers) were not used by
farmers. According to the farmers, the distributed
dryers were either defective (with broken parts) even
before they were installed and with corroded roofing or
majority of farmers are not technically capable to
operate these dryers. Similar findings were found by
Chupongco et al. (2008) that some dryers distributed
to famers were in poor mechanical condition at
installation, and most recipients received no technical
assistance or after-sales service from the
manufacturer. According to the farmers, the dryers
were useless and were just waiting to be corroded and
dilapidated as well. Unless efforts are done to make
use of these dryers, this program is a waste of
resources and will not help farmers.
Lack of threshers and dryers is experienced severely
by the farmers in Camarines Sur, Agusan del Norte
and Agusan del Sur. In Libmanan, Camarines Sur, a
rise in water level of the river often results to flooding
of rice fields. Both during the wet and dry seasons,
farmers harvest when the fields are wet. Threshers are
not enough when farmers harvest at the same time.
Aggravating the situation is labor scarcity since more
people leave the fields to work in urban areas. Harvest
is late with limited number of people available to do
the job. Given that rice is harvested on wet field,
farmers are forced to sell their palay harvest right
away, otherwise, seeds will germinate in the field. The
lag in threshing and drying causes the quality of grain
to deteriorate. In Agusan del Norte, some farmers wait
for as long as 2 wk. Some farmer cooperatives offer
milling services with free drying, but generally, the
number of milling and drying services in the country
are concentrated with the buyers and traders.
Adequate Irrigation System. Adequate irrigation
system is among the top most important needs of our
rice farmers (Table 4) (Mutert and Fairhurst 2002;
Manalili and Gonzales 2005, Sebastian et al. 2000).
They could not start preparing the field and establish
the crop unless water is available in the irrigation
canals. The provinces of Agusan del Norte and Iloilo
are areas mostly affected by the inadequacy of
irrigation system, from lack of irrigation to poorly
constructed canals. In Agusan, defects were found in
some of the constructed canals, where either water
cannot easily flow to the fields or there is too much
flow during wet season. In Agusan, drainage was a
problem during rainy season due to defective canals.
According to Sebastian et al. (2000), the lack of
effective irrigation systems including poor mainte-
nance of irrigation facilities in the country are major
constraints in the country‟s rice production. He further
mentioned, that this is primarily constrained by the
substantial increase in costs for irrigation development
and management problems for large scale irrigation
projects.
The irrigators‟ associations in respective villages of the
six provinces are actively working with the National
Irrigation Administration (NIA). And yet, the farmers
believe that their efforts are not enough and they
expect that NIA should: a) fix irrigation canals and
drainage system, in particular to solve the problem of
flooding due to overflowing of river, and b) build new
irrigation system to supply water and reduce reliance
of farmers on pumps and shallow tube wells. Further-
more, they were very hopeful to see the outcome of
NIA‟s program on building new irrigation system and
rehabilitating the old ones. Many farmers welcomed
the idea of collective action for cleaning of dikes by the
members of the irrigators association to contribute in
maintaining the irrigation system.
NIA is also promoting a water saving technology, one
of the key checks in PalayCheck system, called
alternate wetting and drying (AWD). The AWD is a
mechanism to save and equally distribute water to the
fields as opposed to the traditional continuous flooding
(Palis 2005; Lampayan 2004). At the same time,
intermittent irrigation or AWD could increase the
efficiency of nitrogen fertilizer in rice production, while
N2O emission is reduced (FAO 2007b). The AWD
extension is further supported by Administrative Order
(AO) 25 or “Guidelines for the Adoption of Water-
FG Palis et al 70

saving Technologies in Irrigated Rice Production
Systems in the Philippines,” with NIA as the lead
agency, supported by the Bureau of Soils and Water
Management, DA-Regional Field Units, PhilRice, and
Agricultural Training Institute for technical support and
assistance (PhilRice 2012). Farmers welcomed these
efforts by NIA that they specially gave incentives to
farmers‟ irrigators associations when adopting AWD.
Farm-to-Market Roads. Rural road infrastructure,
particularly, farm to market roads is one of the major
needs of our rice farmers (Table 4 & 5). This finding is
corroborated with the study of Manalili and Gonzales
(2005). Due to lack of farm to market roads, farmers
experienced difficulty in transporting their harvest and
hauling fresh palay becomes costly. Hauling costs
ranges PhP5-30 per 50kg sack of palay depending on
the distance of the farm to the pick-up point of the rice
buyer, which is usually on the main roads or high-
ways. In some areas, farmers have to cross rivers
through hanging bridges on foot or with the use of
motorcycles.
This is observed in Barangay Sampaloc, the biggest
village in the town of Gainza, Camarines Sur with the
largest rice area. The village is close to the Bicol River
and the only route is through a hanging bridge. They
pay PhP20 per sack for labor aside from the transpor-
tation cost of PhP10 pesos per sack. Likewise, in the
village of Sto. Niño, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte,
farmers sometimes pay PhP20-30 per sack of palay
for transport. Farmers could not do anything but
complain among themselves that the selling price of
produce is low and yet the cost of bringing the
produce to the market is high.
The development of farm to market roads would
reduce the cost of transporting the produce from the
farm to the market. Donnges et al. (2007) reported on
the state of the road in the Philippines of which 14% of
road network is paved. Twenty percent are provincial
roads and 7% are village (tertiary) roads. Gravel roads
make up about 78% of the total network. The rest are
earthen roads and 65% of rural roads are in poor
condition. About half of the rural villages in the country
lack all-weather access to the main transport system.
Majority of the existing village roads are in such a poor
condition that they need to be rehabilitated first before
they can be maintained (Donnges et al. 2007).
Overcoming Biotic and Abiotic Stresses
Another major concern being experienced by Filipino
farmers are pest infestations & plant diseases, such
as rodent, army worm, black bug, leaf hopper, snail,
rice bird, neck rot, stem borer, blast, tungro and
weeds (Table 4 & 5). Pest and disease is considered
as one of the major constraints in Philippine rice pro-
duction and for South and Southeast Asia (Mutert and
Fairhurst 2002).
Closely following biotic stresses are abiotic and loca-
tion-specific stresses such as flooding, water salinity,
and drought (Table 4 & 5). With an average of more
than 20 typhoons a year that cross the Philippine area
of responsibility, flood-prone areas are most likely
affected (PAGASA 2014). Recurrent floods during wet
season frequently destroy planted rice and it is most
devastating to farmers when these occur during the
time that the rice is nearly harvested. Sebastian et al.
(2000) acknowledged that regular occurrences of
natural calamities, such as floods and drought, con-
tributed to the complex development of new strains
and biotypes of rice pests.
When flooding occurs during the crop establishment
stage, farmers are unable to practice synchronous
planting. Flooding causes farmers to establish crops
more than once, sometimes even thrice per cropping
season because of seedling damage. As such,
synchronous cropping is not achieved which, in effect,
also increase the incidence of pests and diseases.
This is commonly experienced by farmers in Agusan
del Norte, Agusan del Sur and Camarines Sur during
the wet season. Moreover, the rice crop cannot
survive when submerged under water for prolonged
periods, especially at the vegetative stage (Mackill et
al. 2010).
Water salinity is another type of location-specific
stress that commonly happens during dry season for
fields in the coastal areas such as the case of Cama-
rines Sur and Agusan del Norte. Problems on salinity
is more of a concern during the dry season because of
salt water intrusion into the river, which is the source
of irrigation during the dry season. Salinity is consid-
ered a major factor in reducing plant growth and
productivity of rice, and may even result in yield losses
of more than 50 % (Zeng and Shanon 2000).
Farmers planting new improved varieties and certified
seeds is an intervention to control pests and location-
specific stresses. More than 75% of farmers in
Agusan del Norte plant certified seeds. Farmers
believe that certified seeds are not only high yielding
but also resistant to pests and diseases. This is a
challenge to research institutions about the develop-
ment of high yielding varieties with pests and diseases
resistance, as well as tolerant to abiotic stresses such
as flooding, submergence, drought and salinity.
According to Lansigan et al. (2000), the El Niño-
induced climate variability in our country regularly
results in: (a) late onset of the rainy season; (b) early
termination of the rainy season; (c) weak monsoon
events characterized by isolated heavy rainfall events
of short duration; and (d) weak tropical cyclone activity
characterized by less intense cyclones. In 2009, the
Philippines suffered from an El Niño-induced drought
that dried up watercourses and irrigation systems in
some of the most productive rice areas in Luzon
(Redfern et al. 2012). This resulted to a reduction of
3.31 % from the 2008 level or a loss of approximately
494,700 tons from 2009 to 2010 (Redfern et al. 2012;
FAOSTAT 2012).
71
Needs of small-scale Filipino rice farmers

Improved Knowledge on Rice Farm Management
and Technologies
Farmers expressed a need for adequate knowledge
and information on improved rice technologies (Table
4 & 5). Others expressed that they need additional
knowledge on proper application of fertilizers and how
to control pests such as snails, stem borers, rats and
green leaf hopper, fungus, tungro, black bug, rice bug,
and rice blasts. They considered their lack of
knowledge and difficulties in accessing information to
be some of the reasons for having constraints in rice
production. Studies have demonstrated that the rela-
tively low fertilizer use – N, P, K and micronutrients –
and proper timing of application, accompanied by poor
cultural management practices are major sources of
inefficiency in rice production (Sebastian et al. 2000;
Briones 2014; Buresh 2014). And SSNM is one tech-
nology promoted in the FFS PalayCheck to address
this concern.
Farmers in different provinces rely with agricultural
technicians assigned in their localities for trainings and
seminars in crop production. Increasing their aware-
ness on improved technologies such as submergence
and drought-tolerant and pest resistant rice varieties
would be beneficial in facing the location-specific
stresses.
Agricultural information comes from different sources
such as DA technicians, PhilRice, chemical compa-
nies, TV, and radio. On extension services, decentrali-
zation that happened in the country has its good and
bad side. Extension services to farmers are devolved
from the central government to local units in the hope
of bringing services closer to the people. The down-
side is the weak capacity of decentralized units in
running extension activities and unwarranted interfer-
ence of local politicians in technical matters that
hinders implementation. In addition to weak research–
extension linkages, the absence of adequate technical
support by DA to LGUs with weak technical capacity
and a top-down approach to extension delivery have
been major impediments of an efficient rice extension
system (Balisacan et al. 2010).
Efficacy of information system is compromised and
farmers are left to fend for themselves from changes
brought about by economic, environmental or socio-
cultural factors. For example, some farmers are not
aware on the efficient use of fertilizers and how to
control certain pests. In the absence of training or
information for new technologies, farmers rely mostly
from their own knowledge and experience and from
fellow farmers. Farmers also point out that increasing
their knowledge on how to minimize the occurrence of
rice diseases such as Tungro and neck rot, as well as
infestation from golden apple snails and weeds would
be very beneficial to them. Other farmers prefer farm
demonstrations, TV and CDs as venues for acquiring
new knowledge. The majority has access to TV, but
only very few have access to computers for use in
obtaining agricultural information.
CONCLUSION
Assessing farmers‟ needs is central to targeting appro-
priate interventions to rice farmers. Based from the
FGDs and household survey, the common farmers‟
needs ranged from overcoming biotic and abiotic
stresses, economic and structural sufficiency, and
improved knowledge on rice farm management and
technologies. Sufficient capital prevailed to be the
most common need in rice farming. Some specific
needs mentioned are higher price of paddy, adequate
and better irrigation system, access to equipment and
post-harvest facilities, low cost of inputs, increased
knowledge on fertilizer and pest management, rice
farm management and technologies, farm-to-market
roads, and ability to pay off debts due to high cost of
financing.
Although some needs are location-specific, they were
very much interrelated. This is especially true to biotic
and abiotic stresses such as pests and diseases, high
salinity, drought and flooding. There are socio-
economic and political constraints that are difficult to
resolve by farmers alone and require government
interventions through pro-farmer policies and
programs.
Adoption of key technologies, i.e. site specific nutrient
management and synchronous planting, promoted in
the PalayCheck system remains a great challenge,
since following these new technologies are interrelated
with sufficient financial capital. Unless farmers‟ most
pressing need for financial capital and related needs
and constraints are addressed, adoption of new tech-
nologies to increase production, and attain rice self-
sufficiency will remain elusive. Production and harvest
will remain low, leading to farmers‟ low income.
Despite the absence or insufficient infrastructure of
addressing the aforementioned needs, farmers have
managed to cope with them. To sustain production,
they are forced to borrow from informal lenders who
charge high interest rates and traders that require
farmers to sell their produce to them at a low price.
Given this scenario, the farmers do not earn enough
money at the end of the harvest season to finance
their next season‟s cropping activities. Consequently,
they are again forced to borrow from traders under the
same conditions entrapping them to the vicious cycle
of “rice farmers‟ poverty trap,” which majority of the
farmers in the Philippines experience.
There are socio-economic and political constraints that
are difficult to resolve by farmers alone. Government
interventions through pro-farmer policies and
programs that effectively addressed real needs of
farmers are highly needed to help our rice farmers
escape the poverty trap, and at the same time,
increase rice production in the country and attain the
country‟s goal of rice self-sufficiency. These may
include easy access to formal financial institutions that
offer low interest rates with simplified paper require-
ments, a competitive price for rice paddy, reduction in
the cost of inputs, access to functioning and efficient
FG Palis et al 72

post-harvest facilities coupled with technical capacity
building on operation and maintenance, better irriga-
tion systems, road infrastructures, and livelihood pro-
grams for farmers, farmer households, and farming
community to support other sources of income (i.e.
crop diversification and livestock program). The gov-
ernment financial institutions, such as the Land Bank
of the Philippines, need to be farmer-friendly especial-
ly in terms of credit requirements, and responsive to
financial needs of farmers and people in the rural
areas.
Furthermore, there is a need to strengthen farmers‟
organizations so that they would be able to play a
more aggressive role in finding options for their mem-
bers. Strong farmers‟ organizations serve as viable
entities for borrowing capital from formal sources and
collectively negotiating for low cost of inputs and high-
er prices for their produce. However, this can only
happen when these organizations are capacitated on
leadership and management so that they would be
able to conduct activities which would improve the
income of their members.
Supported by practical pro-farmer policies, a working
multi-stakeholder partnership at various levels – na-
tional, regional, provincial, municipal, and village-
between farmer organizations, DA agencies and local
government units can provide the necessary and time-
ly assistance that farmers need in their rice farming
enterprise. And so, putting the disadvantaged farmers
first before the traders, importers, and manufacturers
will boost the capacity of farmers to produce higher
yield and income which could be an impetus in has-
tening the achievement of rice self-sufficiency.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge the Philippine
Rice Research Institute and the Department of Agri-
culture for funding the project; the International Rice
Research Institute for the implementation of the pro-
ject; and to the following for their valuable contribu-
tions in the planning and conduct of fieldwork and
household survey, data management, and analysis:
Engr. Martin Gummert and Carlito Balingbing of the
Post Harvest IRRC Work Group and partners from the
six provinces; Dr. Cesar Tado and Charmaine
Yusungco of PhilRice-Muñoz; other members of the
PRSSP Team of IRRI, namely, Benedict Pamatmat,
Erika Robis, Dr. Francisco Datar, Adrianne Quilloy,
Omega Diadem Danganan, Rachel Delfin, Jaime Gal-
lentes, Ramon Jacinto Gallentes, Kristin Alexis Arella-
no, and Dr. Zenaida Sumalde; MAOs, PAOs, and agri-
cultural technicians and farmers in the six provinces
covered in the study; and Abner Montecalvo and
Alona Maceda of PhilRice-Agusan.
LITERATURE CITED
ActionAid. 2013. Walking the talk:Why and how Afri-
can governments should transform their
agriculture spending. Full Report. http://
www.actionaid.org/sites/files/actionaid/
walking_the_talk_full_report_final.pdf
Babu SC, Glendenning C, Okyere KA, Govindarajan
SK. 2012. Farmers‟ information needs and
search behaviors. Case study in Tamil Na-
du, India. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01165.
IFPRI, Washington DC.
[BAS] Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. 2012. Season-
ally Adjusted Rice Production and Prices
(January – March 2012). Volume XIV. No.
2.
Balisacan A, Sombilla M, Dikitanan R. 2010. Rice
crisis in the Philippines: Why did it occur
and what are its policy implications? In: The
rice crisis: markets, policies and food secu-
rity. Dawe D (editor). / The Food and Agri-
culture Organization of the United Nations
(Rome) and Earthscan (UK).
Balisacan A, Ravago M. 2013. The Rice Problem in
the Philippines: Trends, Constraints, and
Policy Imperatives. Paper presented at the
25th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Na-
tional Academy of Science and Technology,
Manila Hotel, Manila, 10 July 2003.http://
mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/24865 accessed
January 16, 2015.
Balit S. 1998. Listening to farmers: Communication for
participation and change in Latin America.
Training for Agriculture and Rural Develop-
ment 1997–98.
Bouman BAM, Peng S, Castaòeda AR, Visperas RM.
2005. Yield and water use of irrigated tropi-
cal aerobic rice systems. Agricultural Water
Management, 74(2): 87–105.
Chambers R, Ghildyal B. 1985. Agricultural Research
for Resource-Poor Farmers: The Farmer-
First-and-Last Model. Discussion Paper No.
203. Institute of Development Studies, Uni-
versity of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RE, Sus-
sex, Great Britain.
Chupungco A, Dumayas E, Mullen J. 2008. Two-stage
grain drying in the Philippines. ACIAR Im-
pact Assessment Series Report No. 59, 50
pp.
de Padua DB. 2007. Status of rice postharvest indus-
try in the Philippines. Presented at ARF
annual rice forum 2007 and NAST
roundtable discussion on PA 2020,
„Protecting the rice farmers‟ harvest: the
way forward‟, 23 November 2007, Traders
73
Needs of small-scale Filipino rice farmers

Hotel, Manila.
Donnges C, Edmonds G, Johannessen B. 2007. Rural
Road Maintenance - Sustaining the Benefits
of Improved Access (SETP 19). Internation-
al Labour Organization (ILO). Bangkok,
Thailand.
Elepano AR. 2008. Roundtable discussion on food
security with focus on rice: postproduction
issues. Presented at the roundtable discus-
sion on food security with focus on rice, 21
April 2008, University of the Philippines at
Los Banos, College, Laguna.
[FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization. 2003. Ex-
pert Consultation on Agricultural Extension,
Research-Extension-Farmer Interface and
Technology Transfer. Bangkok, Thailand
[FAO] 2007a. Country report on the state of plant ge-
netic resources for food and agriculture –
Philippines. N.C. Altoveros & T.H. Borro-
meo. Rome.
[FAO] 2007b. Adaptation to climate change in agricul-
ture, forestry and fisheries: perspective,
frame-work and priorities. Interdepartmental
Working Group on Climate Change. Rome.
[FAOSTAT] 2012. (available at: www.faostat.fao.org/).
Geron MP, Casuga MS. 2012. Credit Subsidy in Phil-
ippine Agriculture. DISCUSSION PAPER
SERIES NO. 2012-28. Philippine Institute
for Development Studies. Makati City, Phil-
ippines.
Gerpacio RV, Labios JD, Labios RV, Diangkinay EI.
2004. Maize in the Philippines: Production
Systems, Constraints, and Research Priori-
ties. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT.
Global Information and Early Warning System
(GIEWS). 2012. Global Information and
Early Warning System on Food and Agricul-
ture. (GIEWS) Country Reports. Global
Watch. FAO (available at:
http:www.fao.org.giews/ countrybrief/
country.jsp?=code (PHL, THA, VNM, etc for
various countries) accessed January 16,
2015
Hughes P, Daglish G. 2005. Information, knowledge
and training gaps in the post-harvest sector
of the Philippines grain industry: ACIAR
Project ASEM/2005/017. Project summary.
Department Primary Industries and Fisher-
ies, Queensland.
Jocano FL. 1966. “Philippine Social Structures”. Philip-
pine Cultural Heritage No. 2. Manila: Philip-
pine Women‟s University.
Lampayan R, Bouman B, de Dios J, Lactaoen A,
Espiritu A, Norte T, Quilang J, Tabbal D,
Llorca L, Soriano J, Corpuz R, Malasa R,
Vicmudo V. 2004. Adoption of water saving
technologies in rice production in the Philip-
pines. Food and Fertilizer Technology Cen-
ter. Extension Bulletin 548, 15.
Lansigan FP, de los Santos Wl, Coladilla JO. 2000.
Agronomic impacts of climate vari-ability on
rice production in the Philippines. Agricul-
ture, Ecosystems and Environment, 82(1–
3): 129–137.
Lynch F. 1970. “Social Acceptance Reconsidered:
Four Readings on Philippine Values”. IPC
Papers No. 2 3rd ed. Quezon City: Ateneo
de Manila Press.
Mackill DJ, Ismail AM, Kumar A, Gregorio GB. 2010.
The Role of Stress-tolerant Varieties for
Adapting to Climate Change. Based on a
paper from the CURE Workshop on Climate
Change, 4 May 2010, Siem Reap, Cambo-
dia.
Manalili G, Gonzales L. 2005. Impact of infrastructure
on profitability and global competitivenessof
rice production in the Philippines. In: Tori-
yama K, Heong KL, Hardy B, editors. 2005.
Rice is life: scientific perspectives for the
21st century. Proceedings of the World Rice
Research Conference. Tokyo and Tsukuba,
Japan, 4-7 November 2004. 590 p.
Mutert E, Fairhurst TH. 2002. Developments in rice
production in Southeast Asia. Better Crops
International, 15.
PAGASA. 2014. Current Climate and Observed
Trends.http://www.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/
climate-agromet/climate-change-in-the-phili
ppines/116-climate-change-in-the-phili
ppines/594-current-climate-and-observed-
trends. Accessed August 10, 2014.
Palis FG, Cenas PA, Bouman BAM, Hossain M, Lam-
payan RM, Lactaoen AT. 2004. Farmer
adoption of controlled irrigation in rice: A
case study in Canarem, Victoria, Tarlac.
Philippine Journal of Crop Science. Vol. 29
(3): 3-12.
Peng S, Huang J, Sheehy JE, Laza RC, Visperas RM,
Zhong X, Centeno GS, Khush GS, Cass-
man KG. 2004. Rice yields decline with
higher night temperature from global warm-
ing. Washington, DC, PNAS.
Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN
AP). 2007. Endangered: Small Rice Farm-
ers -- The Impact of the Agreement on Agri-
culture on Small Rice Farmers in the Philip-
FG Palis et al 74

pines. Malaysia. 37 p.
Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice). 2012.
PhilRice Studies Get Nods from Engineer-
ing Society. News Releases. http://
www.philrice.gov.ph.page=resources&page
2=news&id=129. Accessed August 10,
2014.
Poliquit L. 2006. Accessibility of Rural Credit among
Small Farmers in the Philippines. MS The-
sis. Unpublished. Massey University, Palm-
erston North, New Zealand. http://
mro.massey.ac.nz/bitstream/
handle/10179/1687/01_front.pdf?
sequence=2
Redfern SK, Azzui N, Binamira J. 2012. Rice in
Southeast Asia: facing risks and vulnerabili-
ties to respond to climate change. In: Mey-
beck A, Lankoski J, Redfern S, Azzu N,
Gitz V, editors. Building resilience for adap-
tation to climate change in the agriculture
sector. Proc. Joint FAO/OECD Workshop.
346 p.
Rhoades RE, Booth RH. 1982. “Farmer-Back-to-
Farmer: A Model for Generating Acceptable
Agricultural Technology.” Agricultur-
al Administration 11 No. 2:127-137.
Sebastian LS, Alviola PA, Francisco SR. 2000. Bridg-
ing the Rice Yield Gap in the Philippines. In:
Papademetriou MK, Dent FJ, Herath EM,
editors. Bridging the Rice Yield Gap in the
Asia-Pacific Region. FAO Bangkok, Thai-
land. p 122-134.
World Bank. 2000. Philippines Rural Development and
Natural Resource Management: Trends,
Strategy Implementation, and Framework
Performance Indicator System. The World
Bank Rural Development and Natural Re-
sources Sector Unit. Manila, Philippines.
Yaron J, Benjamin MP, Piprek GL. 1997. Rural Fi-
nance: Issues, Design, and Best Practices.
ESSD Studies and Monographs Series 14.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Zeng L, Shannon MC. 2000. Salinity Effects on the
Seedling Growth and Yield Components of
Rice. Crop Science. 40: 996–1003.
75
Needs of small-scale Filipino rice farmers