The Philippines cannot achieve food security, climate resilience, or inclusive development without radically rethinking how it treats its farmers.
For decades, agricultural policy has been fragmented, underfunded, and misaligned with the constitutional mandate to protect subsistence producers.
The devolution of the Department of Agriculture (DA) under the 1991 Local Government Code was intended to empower local governments. Instead, it hollowed out technical capacity, created fiscal disparities, and left farmers exposed to climate shocks, market failures, and institutional neglect.
Across rural barangays, the technical vacuum is staggering. In Northern Mindanao, there is only one Agricultural Extension Technician (AET) for every 150 barangays-far below the international standard of one technician per 1-2 barangays.
This gap undermines climate-resilient farming, pest management, and market access. Local governments, constrained by limited Internal Revenue Allotments (IRA), rely on Local Farmer Technicians (LFTs) who receive a mere ?4,000/month-hardly a substitute for a professionalized extension corps.
Global models offer a way forward. Vietnam and Ethiopia have re-centralized agricultural extension under national agencies while preserving local coordination.
These hybrid systems-where the national government provides personnel and training, and LGUs offer logistical support-have improved service quality and accountability.
The Philippines must learn from these successes and re-establish a centralized Department of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare (DAFW) to ensure real-time deployment of technicians, centralized data systems, and integrated disaster response.
But this is not just a technical issue-it is a constitutional imperative. Article XIII, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution mandates the State to ‘protect the rights of subsistence farmers and fisherfolk.’
Yet current arrangements focus narrowly on production, neglecting social protection, grievance redress, and income security.
Farmers face rising input costs, climate shocks, and market volatility without adequate safety nets. Fragmented systems failed to respond effectively to African Swine Fever and recurring typhoons. A re-nationalized DAFW would enable coordinated crisis response and uphold farmers’ rights.
The proposed DAFW bill introduces structural reforms that re-center farmer dignity, technical support, and agroecological transition.
It establishes Regional Agricultural Extension and Technical Support Units (RAETSU) and a National Agricultural Extension Corps (NAEC) to restore centralized, science-based extension services.
A Farmers’ Welfare Bureau (FWB) institutionalizes social protection-including insurance, pensions, and health coverage-while Farmers’ Councils at barangay to national levels embed participatory governance and budget oversight.
These reforms are not symbolic-they are systemic corrections to decades of exclusion.
Budgetary neglect compounds these structural failures. From 1985 to 2020, the DA’s share of the national budget declined from 3.57% to just 1.58%.
Even in 2020, amid food insecurity and climate shocks, agriculture received less than 2% of the national budget. In contrast, Malaysia and Thailand allocate nearly 3% or more, while Vietnam exceeds 4%. Bhutan (9.5%), India (6.9%), and Mali (7.8%) approximate the FAO-recommended 10% benchmark for agrarian economies.
South Korea, though allocating only 1.75%, compensates with high per capita spending-nearly $85-due to its smaller farming population and advanced agri-biotech investments.
Filipino farmers receive just ~$13.50 per capita-far less than their regional counterparts. Malaysia ($38.20), Thailand ($45.00), and Vietnam ($49.50) all outpace the Philippines, despite its greater vulnerability to climate shocks and land degradation.
This fiscal injustice undermines food sovereignty, climate adaptation, and rural justice.
To match Thailand’s and Vietnam’s per capita funding, the Philippines must raise its agricultural budget to ?296 billion and ?324 billion respectively-about double the 2026 proposal of ?176.7 billion.
This recalibration is not just about numbers-it is about justice. It means halting land use conversion of prime irrigated ricelands, tripling investments in irrigation and post-harvest infrastructure, expanding access to credit and insurance, and embedding parity funding in national development planning.
The DAFW also proposes a National Agroecology Transition Framework (NATF) and Agroecology Incentive Program (AIP) to shift farming systems toward climate resilience and biodiversity-based production.
Agroecology Transition Zones (ATZs) will be established in priority provinces, supported by decentralized grain silos, composting hubs, and farmer-led seed systems. These zones will serve as living laboratories for participatory research and convergence of support services from LGUs, SUCs, and civil society.
Palay farmgate prices-currently at ?8 -?13/kg-fall far below production costs of ?20-?22/kg, pushing farmers into chronic indebtedness.
The Rice Tariffication Law (RA 11203) dismantled the National Food Authority’s buffer stocking mandate, leaving farmers vulnerable to price shocks
We have proposed that RTL must be replaced also . The DAFW proposes restoring market stabilization mechanisms, including a ?100 billion annual procurement fund to buy 20% of national palay output and ?100 billion in warehouse infrastructure to anchor calibrated release and regional price floors.
These reforms are not abstract-they are rooted in constitutional mandates and SDG targets. They advance SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 8 (Decent Work), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).
They position agriculture not as a relic of the past but as a driver of inclusive recovery and intergenerational renewal and food sovereignty.
Conclusion
Feeding the nation begins with restoring dignity, equity, and institutional support for the farmers who grow our food. The current system-fragmented, underfunded, and misaligned with constitutional mandates-must be overhauled..
The proposed Department of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare (DAFW) offers a blueprint for structural reform: re-centralized extension, participatory governance, agroecological transition, and fiscal justice. These are not optional reforms-they are moral and strategic imperatives.
Recommendations
1. Establish the DAFW to centralize extension services, disaster response, and farmer protection.
2. Create RAETSU and NAEC to restore technical capacity and deploy trained personnel nationwide.
3. Institutionalize the Farmers’ Welfare Bureau (FWB) to deliver insurance, pensions, health coverage, and grievance redress.
4. Recalibrate the DA budget to ?296-?324 billion by 2026 to match regional peers and meet FAO benchmarks.
5. Launch the Agroecology Incentive Program (AIP) and designate ATZs to support climate-resilient farming and biodiversity-based production.
6. Restore market stabilization mechanisms by procuring 20% of palay output and investing in decentralized grain infrastructure.
7. Establish Farmers’ Councils at all levels to embed participatory governance and budget oversight.
8. Create a Special Fund for Agricultural Extension and Welfare (SFAEW) to ensure predictable, welfare-oriented financing.
9. Halt land use conversion of prime irrigated ricelands to protect food sovereignty and rural livelihoods.
10. Expand farmer access to credit, insurance, and digitaltools to build resilience and market inclusion.
(Teodoro ‘Ted’ C. Mendoza PhD is a retired professor and UP scientist of the Institute of Crop Sciences at the University of the Philippines Los Baños)