FACTORS AFFECTING YOUTH INVOLVEMENT IN AGRICULTURE IN SELECTED

AREAS OF THE DAVAO REGION

A Research Report
In Partial Fulfillment of the Course Requirement in PM 299.2
University of the Philippines-Open University (UPOU)

Submitted by:
Lorenz Daniel P. Lumen
2012-34047
Student

Submitted to:
Professor Josefina Tayag, DPA
Faculty-In-Charge

December 2020

1
Contents
Contents ............................................................................................................................... 2
Tables.................................................................................................................................... 3
Figures .................................................................................................................................. 3
Abstract ................................................................................................................................ 4
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 6
Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................... 6
Assumptions ........................................................................................................................... 7
Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 8
Review of Related Literature.................................................................................................. 9
Agricultural development ....................................................................................................... 9
Youth participation in development ..................................................................................... 13
Theoretical Framework........................................................................................................ 19
Harris-Todaro Model ............................................................................................................ 19
Positive youth development ................................................................................................. 19
Conceptual Framework ....................................................................................................... 21
Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 25
Research Design ................................................................................................................... 25
Research Participants ........................................................................................................... 26
Data Sources and Collection Procedures .............................................................................. 26
Data Analysis......................................................................................................................... 27
Ethical Aspects ...................................................................................................................... 31
Results and Discussion ......................................................................................................... 32
Agricultural Development in Davao Region .......................................................................... 32
Descriptive Analysis .............................................................................................................. 40
Factors affecting Youth Involvement .................................................................................... 44
Outcomes ............................................................................................................................. 47
Summary and Conclusion .................................................................................................... 49
Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 51
References .......................................................................................................................... 53
Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 57

2
Tables
Table 1. Data Matrix Set ........................................................................................................... 25
Table 2. Variables for the binary logistic regression ................................................................. 28
Table 3. Derivation of youth involvement ................................................................................ 29
Table 4. Sociodemographic Frequencies .................................................................................. 41
Table 5. Sociodemographic Averages ....................................................................................... 42
Table 6. Youth Perceptions on the Factors and Decision Influences ........................................ 42
Table 7. Results of the Logistic Regression ............................................................................... 46

Figures
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Study ......................................................................... 21
Figure 2. GVA growth rate in AFF, Davao Region, 2011-2018, at constant 2000 prices .......... 32
Figure 3. Labor productivity growth rate, Davao Region, 2010-2017 ...................................... 33
Figure 4. AFF Employment and Percentage Contribution to Total Employment, Davao Region,
2015-2019 ................................................................................................................................ 34
Figure 5. Typical value chain map ............................................................................................ 35
Figure 6. Top producers of several major crops, Philippines, 2019 .......................................... 36
Figure 7. Agriculture value of production, Davao Region, 2019 ............................................... 37

3
 Abstract
The youth are the future of Davao Region’s agricultural development. However, data and
literature revealed that the youth were less inclined to join the agricultural labor force. The
study aimed to assess the factors affecting the youth involvement in the Region, how
agricultural development had been occurring, its merits and constraints, and the youth’s
importance to the sector. The mixed method approach involving quantitative and qualitative
data was employed using online survey questionnaires to 60 respondents in Davao City and
Davao Oriental, and a key informant interview with a representative from the Department of
Agriculture (DA) XI.

The Harris-Todaro model and the positive youth development (PYD) theory served as the
theoretical bases for the study. The study was also guided by the conceptual framework,
wherein sociodemographic, internal or within-agriculture, and external or outside-agriculture
factors influence youth involvement or non-involvement in agriculture. Their decision to
involve or stray from agriculture has implications on their personal welfare and plans, as well
as their contributions to agricultural development. Not all factors identified in the conceptual
framework were statistically significant, although, the results supported the theoretical
framework of the study.

Logistic regression, descriptive, and content analyses were done to analyze the data. Results
revealed that the significant factors affecting youth involvement were sex, work experience,
infrastructure, social amenities and technical support, and access to agricultural education.
Males and the youth with more working experience were more likely to involve themselves in
agriculture.

Availability of infrastructure, social amenities and technical support, and access to agricultural
education were also identified as significant pull factors that could bring the youth into
agriculture.

Descriptive analysis also revealed that the youth were perceptive of the constraints of the
Region’s agricultural development. Interestingly, the analysis showed that the youth could be
influenced towards involvement in agriculture, as long as improvements were made in the
sector.

4
Policy recommendations leaned towards strengthening the implementation of youth
development policies, programs and activities, and institutionalizing youth participation as a
requirement in the formulation of programs, activities, and projects of the national and local
government.

5
 Introduction
The youth are vital to nation-building and development (Youth in Nation-Building Act, 1994).
In the Philippines, this holds true especially for agriculture, wherein agricultural workers are
older and less educated (Briones, 2017). High underemployment, relatively lower wages
(Briones, 2017), and higher vulnerability due to climate shocks (Briones et al., 2017) also
characterize the sector. These factors, assuming economic rationality, make agriculture less
attractive for the youth to engage in.

The Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) Labor Force Survey time-series data revealed about 29
percent or 597,741 agricultural workers comprise the Davao Region’s labor force in 2019, a
significant reduction from the 33 percent contribution or around 641,025 agricultural workers
in 2015. Other national figures suggested that youth workers’ contribution (aged 15-24) to
total employment declined from 18.7 percent in 2015 to 15.2 percent in 2019. In the Region,
agriculture remained the lowest among the major sectors in terms of labor productivity despite
its relatively higher labor contribution compared to the industry sector (PSA, 2019).

A study by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) in 2019 validated the
decrease in agricultural employment, which resulted from agricultural out-migration or
workers' movement from agriculture to other sectors. Those who out-migrated were mostly
young and high school-educated workers driven by push and pull factors, including unfavorable
on-farm working conditions, greater opportunities to engage in non-agricultural jobs, and the
sociocultural bias on the agricultural profession.

In terms of education, the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) data showed an increasing
number of students enrolled in agriculture-related higher education disciplines, from 63,471
students in 2010 to 115,458 students in 2019. However, these figures only translated to about
3 percent of the total enrolled higher education students spanning 2010-2019, which was far
behind the industry- and service-related disciplines such as engineering (14%) and information
technology (13%).

Statement of the Problem

Research Question: What were the factors affecting the youth’s decision to engage in
agriculture in selected areas of the Davao Region, with what effects or implications?

6
Tentative answer

The youth’s role is indispensable, especially now that the country adopts sustainable
development goals (SDGs). It is only logical that sustaining the country for future generations
would involve developing future leaders – the youth, and especially true when talking of the
country’s food source, agriculture. With the aging, less educated, and declining agricultural
labor supply, coupled with unfavorable on-farm conditions, bias against the agriculture
profession, and the readily available job alternatives, it begs these questions: what
considerations factor in the youth’s decision to participate in agriculture, i.e., education,
employment, and how do the agriculture sector and its stakeholders engage or influence the
youth to turn to agriculture?

Preconceived factors included family background (in agriculture), personal ambition/career

path that is personally rewarding (Fizer, 2013), financial background/support, exposure to
agricultural studies (Magagula & Tsvakirai, 2019), availability of non-agricultural alternatives
and the perception on unfavorable working conditions and experience on the conversion of
farmlands to other purposes (NEDA, 2019).

Assumptions

• Youth – to be consistent with the PSA’s statistic, the youth in this study considered the
age range of 15-24. The population engaged in agriculture is aging and needs to be
replenished by today’s youth. The inclinations of the youth and their willingness to be
involved in agricultural development and production needed to be studied.

• Contribution – the thought process that led to this study involved the assumption that
youth involvement contributes to agricultural development. This also set the research
direction, particularly in gleaning the factors that affect youth involvement in the
sector.

• Agricultural knowledge – this study assumed that the youth obtained knowledge of
agriculture from their family and educational background, and their exposure to
different knowledge sources such as the media, which could have stemmed from a
curiosity of the source of their basic need, that is, food.

7
Objectives

General Objective. The study primarily aimed to assess the factors that affect youth
involvement in agriculture in Davao Region, with what effects or implications.

Specifically, the study attempted to:

• Make a situationer on how agricultural development had been occurring in the Davao
Region, including the key players, and if the youth are interested in joining the
agricultural labor force
• Identify the merits/constraints in the agricultural development of Davao Region, in
general and specific areas
• Discuss the importance of youth participation, whether this has been occurring or not,
and:
➢ The factors that hindered or enabled them
➢ Their plans for the future
➢ Their potential contribution
• Select a group of participants to answer the above questions
• Provide recommendations on policy alternatives and ways to improve the study

8
 Review of Related Literature
This section provided an encapsulation of several literature on two major themes related to
the study, namely (1) agricultural development and (2) youth participation in development.
Subthemes, including the agricultural development in Davao Region, youth involvement in
agriculture, as well as its implications, were also discussed to provide further context to the
study.

Agricultural development

In developing countries, the state of agriculture can be described through the statement,
“those that ensure food security are the food insecure.” Farmers and fisherfolk who provide the
nations’ food are mostly impoverished, and what agricultural development has since aimed to
address is removing such irony or inequality. Mosher (1966) posited agricultural development
as a concept involving ‘how to get agriculture moving’ (as cited in Roumasset, 2015), given the
inefficiency associated with the behavior and organization in developing countries. Laiglesia
(2006) provided a similar perspective, such that agricultural development is a process of
creating conditions to fulfill an economy’s agricultural potential.

Likewise, Laiglesia (2006) posited that agricultural development should be focused on

outcomes as distinguished by three broad indicators: production output, production
composition and technology use, implying agricultural productivity. These emphasized that
agriculture is a crucial factor in economic growth, as it is more effective in raising incomes and
uplifting the poorest compared to other sectors (The World Bank, 2020).

However, what agricultural development aimed to address are hunger and poverty (Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation, 2011), malnutrition (FAO, 2013) and gender disparities (European
Institute for Gender Equality, 2016) towards sustainable human development.

Roumasset (2015) talked of behavioral traits that constrained low-income farmers’ agricultural
productivity which included being tradition-bound, uninformed, risk-averse, and even lazy.
Kraaijvanger et al. (2016) likewise described these traits as contra-productive traditional
management. However, these were but a category among the several categorized factors that
affect agricultural productivity, including pests and diseases, soil- and land-related issues,
climatic conditions, and insufficient assets.

9
On the other hand, Schultz (as cited in Roumasset, 2015), through his work ‘Transforming
Traditional Agriculture,’ contended that low-income farmers are privately efficient, while
Gardner (2001) and Roumasset (2015) posited the lack of infrastructure and absence of or
inaccessible markets as the major impediments to agricultural development, respectively. This
study took Schultz, Gardner and Roumasset’s perspectives into consideration in investigating
the factors that affect youth’s decision to involve in agriculture.

Farmers’ productivity or agricultural labor productivity, measured as the ratio of total

agricultural output to total labor input, had been a key indicator of agricultural development
since it determines the livelihood improvement of the rural farming population (Phiri, 2018).
Technological changes and enhanced labor management practices and trade made it possible
for economies to do away with labor intensity and improve agricultural labor productivity
(Taylor & Charlton, n.d.). However, more developed countries tend to exhibit decreasing
agricultural labor supply. Economic contribution of the agricultural sector likewise decreases
as countries get richer (Roser, n.d.). Such trend is influenced by the increase in agricultural
productivity, wherein higher agriculture value added per worker had been observed in higher-
income nations. Even so, this is not the present situation in most developing countries.

The case of Indonesia

In Indonesia’s case, Arifin et al., (2019) observed the contraction of agricultural employment
share as growth rates diverged between agriculture, industry, and services. This had been
attributed to mechanization and the absorption of underemployed agricultural labor into other
segments of the economy. With a lower agricultural workforce share of the total labor force,
wages and productivity levels in agriculture converged with the industry and service sectors,
although agriculture still lagged in terms of wages and labor productivity. The authors
maintained that improving agricultural labor productivity had implications on poverty
reduction and increasing farm incomes, as well as, attracting and retaining entrepreneurial
youth as future food producers.

Imai et al. (2019) emphasized a different perspective, in that diffusion from the agricultural
sector actually produced a positive spill-over since it reduced poverty and inequality within an
economy over time. Improvement in agricultural labor productivity was found to promote
nonagricultural labor productivity growth, although the latter increased faster resulting to the
widening labor productivity gap. Such gap was determined to have reduced urban and rural

10
poverty as well as national-level inequality. However, like Arifin et al.’s assertion, the authors
posited that the structural changes to improve agricultural labor productivity, e.g.,
commercialization, product diversification, revolutions in supply chains, and the integration of
labor, land and credit markets, would play a central role in improving nonagricultural labor
productivity, and reducing poverty and inequality.

An aging agricultural labor force in developing nations

An aging agricultural labor force exacerbates the decreasing agricultural employment share
especially in developing nations.

Guo et al. (2015) examined the impact of an aging agricultural labor population on agricultural
output and found that changes in the working-age households had a significant impact on
agricultural output.

On the average, older workers were less productive than younger workers and the migration
of household members increased the time spent on farm and domestic work by the elderly
and the children. They found out that almost 60 percent of agricultural producers were likely
to exit agricultural production, posing a threat to the future of agricultural development. The
authors recommended the increase in intensity of trainings to nurture professional farmers
and improve their scientific and technological knowledge, as well as cultural attitudes to
counteract the impacts of aging.

Developing different policies to increase agricultural production levels for different types of
farmers should also be forwarded. Young workers who do not intend to abandon farming must
be supported through skills improvement on modern agricultural production, as well as
adequate financial support.

The case of the Philippines

In the Philippines, about 37 percent of Filipinos are employed in the agriculture sector as it is
a major source of income for most households in rural communities (Fatima, 2018). However,
the sector’s share in the Philippine GDP had gone down over time, while government funding
for the sector had also decreased. The agriculture sector is highly vulnerable to natural
disasters, facing around 20 typhoons each year. As a result, 57 percent of agricultural
households are impoverished, and about 70 percent of underemployed Filipinos engage in
agricultural work. Aging agricultural labor force also hounds the sector.

11
Agricultural development in Davao Region

Davao Region’s agricultural development direction had been laid out in the Davao Regional
Development Plan (DRDP), 2017-2022, which reflected the annual targets and indicators as a
monitoring mechanism towards the achievement of the Region’s development objectives and
outcomes.

Chapter 8 of the Plan highlights the Region’s aim of expanding opportunities in agriculture
fisheries and forestry. For the period 2017-2018, the 1.7 and 2.9 percent growth in the gross
value added (GVA) for the agriculture, hunting, fishery, and forestry (AHFF) sector were notable
improvements from the baseline -1.3 percent GVA growth rate in 2016 (RDC XI, 2020).

Improvements on the production levels of commodities had been observed for the period
2017-2018. In addition, affordable credit windows had been provided to farmers and
fisherfolks. From 45,450 insured farmers in 2016, total insured farmers reached 93,697 in 2018
due to massive promotions and subsidies given by the Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation,
the Department of Agriculture (DA) through the Agricultural Credit Policy Council (ACPC), and
the Landbank of the Philippines (LBP). Growth in labor productivity of farmers and fisherfolks
has also been observed at 5.9 percent in 2017 (RDC XI, 2020).

However, the quality of agricultural produce proved to be an issue as it hampered the Region’s
ability to gainfully participate in the global value chains. The production targets, although
improving, remained unmet for most of the Region’s priority commodities under the Industry
Clustering Strategy. Agricultural employment share also decreased from 34.5 percent or
695,000 persons in 2017 to 32.5 percent or 667,000 persons in 2018 (RDC XI, 2020).

Challenges to the Region’s agricultural development

Several challenges, as reflected in the DRDP, 2017-2022, deterred the Region’s agricultural
development, including: high vulnerability to climate change, lack of scientific research to
improve weather-resilient crops, lack of innovative technologies/measures to boost fisheries
production, prevailing unsustainable fishery practices, weak linkages with private stakeholders
and the academe, insufficient support to the Region’s priority agri-based industry clusters,
sustaining productivity amidst the changing policy environment, and the declining interest of
youth to agriculture (RDC XI, 2020).

12
Meeting the challenges

To this end, strategies to address these challenges leaned towards the promotion of agriculture
to the youth, clustering of farm landholdings to improve productivity, enhancing small farmers
and fisherfolks capacities to adopt better technologies, strengthening research and
development and capacities particularly on disaster risk reduction and climate change
adaptation, strengthening collaborations among the key agricultural stakeholders, improving
farm and fisheries management towards sustainability, and ensuring high quality agriculture
and fishery products (RDC XI, 2020).

Youth participation in development

The United Nations recognizes the youth’s role in development, particularly in the
implementation of development programs and initiatives (DFID-CSO Youth Working Group,
2010). The youth are defined as individuals between the ages of 15 and 24 and are varied
across regions in terms of socio-economic, demographic, and geographical situations. Those in
developing countries face the challenges of limited access to resources, education, training,
employment, and broader economic development opportunities.

The large number of young people has since presented an opportunity, as youth participation
in development strengthened the young people’s abilities to meet their own subsistence
needs; reduces economic, political, and social vulnerabilities; promotes ownership and
sustainability of interventions; and helps gain entry into target communities, particularly the
grassroots, and builds up trust and social capital (DFID-CSO Youth Working Group, 2010).
Through active participation, young people are empowered to play a vital role in the
development of their respective communities. Young people have long been recognized as a
major human resource for development and key agents for social change, economic growth,
and technological innovation.

Although there had been an increasing interest in youth participation, this has often only been
at a superficial level as young people are often included in one-off discussions, where their
contributions do not actually affect core structural policy decisions (DFID-CSO Youth Working
Group, 2010). In order to slowly change the paradigm by truly realizing the youth’s role in
development, several case studies have been collated to showcase youth participation in

13
organizational development, policy and planning, implementation, and monitoring and
evaluation.

Case studies of youth participation

Youth involvement in research have allowed for greater depth of gathering information and
skills build-up, as in the case of young consultants employed in the Ministry of Youth in Nepal.
Young researchers have been found to be more flexible, curious, and full of zeal, which made
them easier to work with. The UN-Habitat mobilized young people to share the responsibility
in the board of the UN-Habitat Opportunities Fund for Urban Youth-led Development, where
it was found that the youth pushed for stable democracies, sustainable economies, and equity-
based societies (DFID-CSO Youth Working Group, 2010).

In Bahrain, the Department of Youth and Sports assessed the youth’s needs and aspirations,
which resulted in the crafting of an action plan that included the formulation of a national
youth commission, national youth development fund and an inter-ministerial committee for
youth affairs.

Likewise, in Argentina, local young people had been involved in budgetary decisions for youth
services. The participatory youth governance has led to the development of creative solutions
to issues, and improved accountability and transparency since the youth were much careful in
spending public money (DFID-CSO Youth Working Group, 2010).

The Philippine example

In so far as youth participation is concerned, the Philippines had been receptive of the youth’s
role to nation-building and development, as in the form of policies and programs, prominently
the creation of the National Youth Commission (NYC) and the National Comprehensive and
Coordinated Program on Youth Development through Republic Act (RA) No. 8044 or the Youth
in Nation-Building Act of 1994.

The NYC envisioned an enabled, involved, and patriotic youth that realize their aspirations, and
is mandated to provide policies on all youth-related initiatives, programs, projects and
activities of the government, towards sustainable development inclusive of the youth (NYC,
2020). In the realization of such mandate, the NYC spearheaded the formulation of the
Philippine Youth Development Plan (PYDP), 2017-2022 which would serve as a framework for

14
unified action among youth and key development stakeholders towards the promotion of
holistic youth participation in terms of their economic, social, cultural, civil, and political rights.

Youth involvement in agriculture

The Zambian experience

Agriculture-wise, Trevor & Kwenye (2018) studied the rural youth involvement in Zambian
agriculture and found that youth involvement was a source of income generation and provided
the needed labor in critical pre-farming and post-farming activities. Results also revealed that
the agricultural involvement of the youth had been constrained by lack of access to capital,
poor storage facilities, poor road networks, poor access to agriculture insurance for farm
produce, and lack of technical assistance. Recommendations to increase rural youth
participation in agriculture included the need to address the challenges that rural youths face,
at the same time, promoting interventions that reinforce the benefits derived from
participating in agriculture.

The case of Nigeria

Similarly, Adekunle et al. (2009) examined the constraints to the youth’s involvement in
agricultural production in Nigeria.

Findings of the study identified inadequate credit facilities, low returns to agricultural
investment, lack of access to tractors and other farming inputs as the major impediments to
youth’s participation in agriculture.

Other factors perceived included public perception of farmers and the lack of basic knowledge
of modern farming techniques. These led the authors to conclude that much still needed to be
done in enhancing youth’s active participation in agricultural production.

The study recommended policies to be crafted on: (1) enhancing the youth’s knowledge of
basic farming activities through new/strengthened agricultural training centers; (2) making
agricultural science compulsory among secondary school students to boost knowledge of
agriculture among youths; (3) provision of credit facilities for the youth through micro-finance
and rural commercial banks; and (4) changing people’s negative perceptions towards farming
through proper public orientation and education.

The case of the Philippines

15
AFA (2014) provided an extensive analysis on the contexts and prospects of attracting youth in
agriculture, including the Philippines’. Much like other Asian countries, the Philippines has had
its total agricultural employment share decline over time, which also resulted to the
contraction of the youth’s agricultural labor contribution.

PAKISAMA (as cited in AFA, 2014) characterized that the farmers and fishers were aging, with
their children not keen on replacing them in the family farm for lack of interest and/or
incentive. Relatively fewer students have been enrolled in agriculture and related courses
which were offered primarily in state universities and colleges. Young farmers had been
entrusted with the marketing of their family’s produce and they took on extension services by
sharing agricultural knowledge or technologies.

As with other developing nations, the low regard for farming, lack of access to land, lack of
access to capital, perception that farming is laborious, lack of participation in governance, lack
of rural youth groups, dependence on chemical or instant farming, and the climate risks affect
the youth’s involvement in Philippine agriculture.

Interestingly, the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PRRI) found that the youth are still
interested in farming (as cited in AFA, 2014). They have expressed interests in contributing to
agriculture, say providing capital to relatives toiling the land.

Relatedly, the youth participation climate in Philippine agriculture can be considered

conducive, as several policies and programs have been placed, to wit: (1) the aforementioned
RA 8044 or the Youth in Nation-Building Act to promote youth as key players in nation building
(2) RA 10601 or the Farm Mechanization Law of 2013 which will enhance farmers’ productivity
and income through agricultural machines, as well as and attract young farmers to mechanize
farms; (3) Rural Farm School Act of 2013 which establishes rural farm schools in every province
free from tuition and other fees; (4) RA 10679 on the promotion of entrepreneurship and
financial education among Filipino youth; (5) 4-H Clubs of the Agriculture Training Institute
(ATI) in promoting laddered training on agri-entrepreneurship; (6) Young Farmers Program
aims to encourage young agriculture and fisheries graduates (20-39 years) to go into
agribusiness and become entrepreneurs; (7) Youth for Agriculture and Fisheries Scholarship
Program which gives priority to youth from the poorest families and children of farmers; and
(8) Adopt a Farm Youth Program to enhance the skills of young farmers through the use of new

16
agricultural technology. With these policies, programs, and projects in place, it is questionable
how the youth’s involvement in the sector has been declining.

Gultiano & Urich (2000) assessed the implications of the growing youth population in the
Philippine context. Said study showed that youth in the rural areas engaged in agriculture were
generally poor due to lack of access to high school and college education, as well as the lack of
access to land and other work opportunities. As far as policy is concerned, the study
recommended for education (at least in the secondary level) to be made more relevant to
people’s living conditions and work prospects. Likewise, fair, and equitable treatment should
also be given particularly to the youth migrants. To raise family incomes especially among the
landless youth, opportunities for off-farm employment must also be generated.

Implications

Setting aside these constraints, Manalo (2019) asserted that engaging the youth in agricultural
development influences changes in communities. Hung (2004) examined youth participation
in community development and urban agriculture in New York and concluded that the youth
can be agents of change as long as they are provided with platforms to develop their leadership
and competence and provide for their identities as valuable members of the community.
Similarly, Haruna et al. (2019) studied youth participation in agricultural education and found
that the youth studying agriculture were aware of their roles in agricultural development.
Awareness, coupled with knowledge, is being extended to their communities, which ultimately
leads to more sustainable food production practices, i.e., improved agriculture.

A more relevant finding of Njenga et al. (as cited in Manalo, 2019) suggested that the
digitization of agriculture and marketing information, as well as the shift to mechanization, are
better suited to the youth as they are more tech-savvy or adaptable and inclined on disruptive
and innovative technologies, which define the future of the world, i.e., development.

Synthesis of the related literature review

This literature review examined various related studies on agricultural development and the
factors affecting youth’s participation in agriculture, looking at the examples of countries,
including the Philippines. Results and recommendations of these various literature emphasized
the importance of agricultural development in uplifting the poor, and the more pressing
challenges that hound the sector i.e., lack of infrastructure and markets, and an aging labor

17
force. The youth could play a more proactive role in agricultural development, but the pressing
concerns in the sector should be addressed, incentives should be provided to them through
policies, and empowerment through greater opportunities in decision-making should be given.

These results and recommendations served as a starting point towards understanding the
factors that hinder or enable youth involvement. Moreover, the study referred to the methods
that have been used in these related literature to determine the factors that affect youth
involvement in Davao Region’s agricultural development, and what these factors entailed.

18
 Theoretical Framework
The Harris-Todaro model (Harris & Todaro, 1970) and the positive youth development (PYD)
theory served as the theoretical bases for this study.

Harris-Todaro Model

Harris and Todaro (1970) delved on the two-sector model of urban-rural migration of labor.
The model emphasized certain push and pull factors that influence the decision of workers to
migrate. The Harris-Todaro model took after the Lewis model (1954) which explained
migration as being influenced by the movement of people from labor-surplus sectors (rural
areas) to the labor-deficit sectors (urban areas). On the contrary, Harris and Todaro asserted
that migrants do not necessarily move to labor-deficit areas rather, they assess labor market
opportunities and go for the sector that maximizes their expected gains.

Following the Harris-Todaro model, several push and pull factors have been identified as
applied to agriculture. Push factors include declining resources, increasing cost of social
amenities, loss of employment, religious-ethnic-political oppression, alienation from
community, lack of opportunities for personal development, and the effects of natural
disasters (Bogue as cited in Akpan, 2010).

Pull factors are the likelihood of better employment opportunities, good educational facilities,
diversified marriage opportunities, and better recreational activities.

Furthermore, push and pull factors can also be categorized into social, economic, and
environmental factors, although economic push factors such as the lack of rural credit,
unemployment and poverty, and economic pull factors, e.g., perception of high wages from
urban employment, are said to be more important and dominant (Akpan, 2010).

Positive youth development

Positive youth development focuses on the capabilities, potentials, and behaviors of youth
rather than their deficiencies; hence the youth are viewed as resources rather than problems
(Damon et al. as cited in University of Pretoria, n.d), which was also used as part of the
theoretical framework for this study.

There are five P’s that describe the positive youth development theory, namely possibilities
and preparations, participation, people, places and pluralism, and partnership (Villaruel as

19
cited in University of Pretoria, n.d.). These referred to the opportunities being presented to
the youth; the platforms for youth’s involvement in decisions and outcomes that contribute to
solutions; and the support mechanisms that enable the youth, such as family, institutions, and
the youth workers, as well as access to resources.

Outcomes of positive youth development include competence, confidence, character,

connection, and contribution (Lerner et al. as cited in University of Pretoria, n.d). By building
the knowledge, skills, decision-making, capacities to develop a sense of identity and belonging,
and acceptance of responsibilities, the youth are empowered to serve as resources and experts
of their own development and contribute to the communities and the society. What the theory
ultimately points out is a mutualism perspective, wherein the youth would be able to develop
through the community, and in turn, the community develops through the youth.

Application to the study

The Harris-Todaro model was used in the pre-identification and categorization of factors that
affect youth involvement in agriculture. The push factors were referred to as internal factors,
while the pull factors were the external factors. Quantitative method/s were used to test
whether the pre-identified factors affect youth involvement in agriculture.

On the other hand, the PYD theory was the primary assumption on the implications of youth
participation in agriculture. The study assumed that youth involvement would benefit
communities and the agricultural development in general. A qualitative approach was used to
determine the applicability of this theory in Davao Region’s agriculture.

20
 Conceptual Framework
This study was guided by the conceptual framework below (Figure 1). Sociodemographic,
internal, and external factors affect the youth’s involvement/non-involvement in agriculture.
In turn, their decisions would have implications for themselves and on the development of
their communities, as well as the overall agricultural development in Davao Region.

Sociodemographic Factors Internal Factors

• Age • Vulnerability to climate • Public perception of the
• Sex* conditions agricultural profession
• Family Size • Access to agricultural
• Educational Attainment inputs and markets
• Field of education • Infrastructure,
External Factors
• Nature of work technical support and
• Availability of non-
• Work experience* social amenities*
agricultural
• Gross monthly Income • Returns/income from
jobs/opportunities/
• Family residence agriculture
education
• Current residence • Access to agricultural
• Personal and family
education*
influences

Youth’s Decision Outcomes

• Involvement in • Welfare and plans of the
Agriculture youth
• Non-involvement in • Contribution to
Agriculture Agriculture/community
development
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Study

Sociodemographic factors include age, sex, marital status, household size, educational
attainment, educational background, nature of work, work experience, monthly income, family
residence and current residence. These were included in the study to provide characterization
of the youth, and to determine which of these factors contribute to the knowledge structures
that influence the assessment, judgement and decisions of the youth involving opportunity
evaluation and growth (Mitchell and Krumbolts, 1990). The inclusion of the sociodemographic
factors also replicated what Adefalu et al. (2009)’s did in their study.

21
The internal factors referred to the inherent conditions in agriculture that make it
attractive/unattractive to the youth. Vulnerability to climate conditions, access to agricultural
inputs and markets, infrastructure, technical support and social amenities, returns/income
from agriculture and access to agricultural education were the factors identified in the study
as inherent conditions in the sector. External factors, on the other hand, were conditions
outside agriculture which influence the youth’s decision to participate/not participate in
agriculture (Akpan, 2010; NEDA, 2019). These included availability of non-agricultural
jobs/opportunities and education, as well as personal and family influences.

The decision to involve or stray from agriculture had certain implications on the welfare and
plans of the youth to advance their socioeconomic status and/or contribute to agricultural
development. Take for instance the PRRI findings that the youth, while not employed in
agriculture, expressed interests in contributing to the sector by providing capital to their
relatives involved in farming (as cited in AFA, 2014). Literature on Hung (2004) and Haruna et
al. (2019) also exemplified the youth’s potential contribution/influence on community and
agricultural development. This study examined whether these preidentified factors and
implications were applicable to Davao Region.

Definition of Terms

The following definition of terms allowed for a better understanding of the factors, decision
and implications as used in the study. Basic definitions were mostly obtained from the
Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2020), otherwise, the terms are defined with attribution.

• Age – an individual's development or length of existence measured in years

• Sex – the state of being male or female

• Family Size – refers to the total number of family members in a household (PSA, n.d.)

• Educational Attainment – refers to the highest level of education that an individual has
completed (US Census Bureau, n.d.)

• Field of Education – the domain, branch or area of content covered by an educational

program, often referred to as a subject or discipline (UNESCO, 2020). Field of education
in this study shall be classified as agriculture-related or non-agriculture related.

22
• Nature of work – the type or characteristic of tasks that an individual carries out as part
of his/her work (Lewis, 2019). For this study, the nature of work shall be classified as
agriculture-related or non-agriculture related and shall be obtained for both family
head (or parent) and the respondent.

• Work experience – the experience that a person already has of working, or the period
in which a student works for an employer to get experience. Work experience shall be
measured in years.

• Gross monthly Income – the amount (in PhP) paid to an individual on the basis of goods
or services provided, typically from business or employment. Gross monthly income in
this study shall be obtained for the family/individual, whichever is applicable.

• Family residence – a structure maintained and used as a dwelling unit. Family residence
in this study referred to the respondents’ permanent address, whether urban or rural.

• Current residence – the dwelling place where the individual is presently residing. This
shall be classified as urban or rural.

• Vulnerability to climate conditions – vulnerability in the context of climate change is

the degree to which a system is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects
of climate change (ICC as cited in Fellmann, n.d.). Likewise, agricultural vulnerability is
described in terms of exposure and sensitivity to changing temperatures and the ability
of the farmers to adopt to these effects. The perception as to the extent of the effects
of climate conditions was used as a factor on youth participation in agriculture.

• Access to agricultural inputs and markets – Access to agricultural inputs refers to the
ability of farmers to obtain agricultural inputs (e.g., seeds, fertilizers, crop protection,
machinery, irrigation, and knowledge) that are available, accessible, affordable and of
good quality (ICRISAT, 2020). To sell their produce, farmers must also gain access to
markets through infrastructure connectivity and linkages to institutions. Financial
inclusion or the use of services through the financial markets (i.e., credit and insurance)
by individuals should also be afforded to the farmers (The World Bank, n.d.). The study
considered the youth’s perception on the accessibility of agricultural inputs and
markets.

23
• Infrastructure, social amenities, and technical support – physical structure and social
amenities refer to fundamental facilities needed for the functionality of a particular
area. Poor physical infrastructure and social amenities are often associated in rural
areas (Akpan, 2010). Technical support, on the other hand, refers to capacity building
and production support often provided by the government to the farmers.

• Returns/income from agriculture – refers to income earned, or revenue derived from

sources that include farming land, buildings on or identified with an agricultural land
and commercial produce from a horticultural land (Coverfox, 2020). Going by Akpan
(2010)’s assertion, the study examined whether the returns from agriculture are
significant to attract the youth into agriculture.

• Access to agricultural education – agricultural education refers to the training needs to

address rural development, sustainable natural resources management and poverty
reduction (Gasperini, 2000). Be it in a formal (school) or vocational setting, access to
agricultural education pertain to the offering of curriculum or training as can be
accessed or made relevant to the people’s living conditions or work prospects (Gultiano
& Urich, 2000). The study investigated whether the availability of agricultural education
has bearing on youth involvement in agriculture.

• Public perception of the agricultural profession – there exists a social stigma attached
to farming as a poor man’s job (NEDA, 2019). This makes the agricultural profession
unattractive even to those who have finished agriculture-related courses. Whether this
applied to the youth in Davao Region is subject to investigation.

• Availability of non-agricultural jobs/opportunities/education – NEDA (2019) confirmed

that there is an increase of employment opportunities outside agriculture. The stronger
demand for labor in the non-agriculture sector due primarily to perceived higher
incomes and reductions in job search costs could potentially influence the youth’s
decision to do away with agriculture.

• Personal and family influences – the limited engagement of the youth in agriculture
reflects their strong preference and that of their parents towards “white collar” or
office jobs where working conditions are favorable (NEDA, 2019). The allure of urban
living, as proliferated by the media also influences the youth to divert from agriculture.

24
 Methodology

Research Design

The study employed a mixed method approach involving the data collection and analysis of
quantitative and qualitative data. Table 1 showed the data requirements, sources of data and
collection techniques, type of analysis used, and the ethical considerations as applied in the
study.

Table 1. Data Matrix Set

Data Needed Sources of Data and Analysis Ethical Aspects

Collection Techniques
Situationer on Literature and Content Proper acknowledgement and
Davao Region’s secondary data Analysis referencing of sources
agricultural
development
Merits and Literature and Content Proper acknowledgement and
constraints in Davao secondary data Analysis referencing of sources
Region’s agricultural
development

Factors affecting Survey questionnaire Statistical Informed consent, right to

youth involvement (attached); cluster Analysis privacy, confidentiality
in agriculture sampling – a total of 60
youth respondents
from Davao City and
Davao Oriental
Implications of Semi-structured Content Informed consent, right to
youth involvement interviews and Analysis privacy, confidentiality,
in agriculture literature; purposive proper acknowledgement and
sampling; referencing of sources

Data requirements corresponded to the objectives of the study. Quantitative data included
information i.e., perceptions on factors affecting youth’s involvement gathered through a well-
structured survey, while qualitative data were the responses of the key informant through a
semi-structured interview.

25
Research Participants

The study employed a cluster sampling strategy particularly in the selection of the study areas
in the Region. The selection process was limited to six clusters corresponding to the five
provinces and one highly urbanized city in the Region, namely Davao del Norte, Davao del Sur,
Davao Oriental, Davao Occidental, Davao de Oro, and Davao City. Study areas were selected
using the Excel randomized function. The randomizer generated Davao City and Davao Oriental
as the two study areas.

After the selection of the study areas, the study size was computed using the youth population
for both cities and the percent composition of youth aged 15-24. The allowable sampling error
was set to 0.1 since limited resources cannot capture an error margin of 0.05. These figures
were used to compute for the sampling size through Slovin’s formula (Rono, 2018), illustrated
as follows:
𝑁
(1) 𝑛=
1+𝑁𝑒 2

Where:
𝑛 = sample size
𝑁 = total population (in 2015) x % contribution of youth (aged 15-24)
𝑒 = sampling error
(1,632,991) 𝑥 0.301
𝑛𝐷𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑜 = = 30.09 ≈ 30
1+(1,632,991)(0.1)2
(558,958) 𝑥 0.301
𝑛𝑂𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 = = 30.09 ≈ 30
1+(558,958)(0.1)2

A total of 60 respondents aged 15-24 were sampled for the study, 30 respondents each from
Davao City and Davao Oriental. On the other hand, information from a key informant interview
(KII) was obtained from the Department of Agriculture XI. Other offices/organizations were
requested (LGU Davao City, Davao Oriental, National Youth Commission – Davao, and the Agro-
Eco Philippines, Inc.), however, the requests were not granted.

Data Sources and Collection Procedures

Data were obtained from both primary and secondary sources. A well-structured survey was
employed to determine the sociodemographic information and perception on factors that
affect youth involvement in agriculture. The survey questionnaire included questions on the

26
plans of the youth regarding agriculture, as well as their recommendations, if any, to improve
the Region’s agriculture sector. Due to limitations brought by the COVID-19 pandemic and the
resource constraints, the sampling procedure involved the dissemination of an online survey
questionnaire to the target respondents with permission and assistance from the Davao City
and Davao Oriental Offices of the Provincial/City Mayor (refer to Appendix 3).

Using Microsoft Forms, the online survey questionnaire was structured in such a way that only
the target respondents could access it, and that the first thing that they saw is the free and
prior informed consent (FPIC), stressing data privacy and confidentiality.

On the other hand, KIIs through semi-structured interview questions (Appendix 4) triangulated
the data obtained from the survey since the key informant provided perspectives on youth
participation vis-à-vis agricultural development. Request letters followed by a phone call were
sent to obtain permission for the interview. A phone interview was conducted for the same
limitations on the conduct of the online survey. Secondary data was sourced from online
literature and published data from official sources. Data gathering spanned from November
23, 2020 to December 11, 2020.

Data Analysis

Descriptive analysis using measures of central tendencies and frequencies were used to
characterize the respondents. Since responses regarding the factors utilized the 5-point Likert
scale of 1 – strongly disagree; 2 – disagree; 3 – neutral; 4 – agree; and 5 – strongly agree, the
mean scores were obtained to determine their level of agreement on whether the factors are
true i.e., occurring, and whether their decision to involve or not involve in the sector could be
changed if improvements on the decision factors were made.

Youth involvement in agriculture was measured using a binary, categorical variable taking up
the value of 1 for youth involvement, and 0 for the youth non-involvement in agriculture. Since
the dependent variable (youth involvement) is dichotomous, its relationship with the
independent variables (factors) was estimated using a binary logistic regression model
(Magagula & Tsvakirai, 2019), as illustrated below:

𝑝
(2) 𝑙𝑛 (1−𝑝) = 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑡 (𝑝) = 𝑏0 + 𝑏1 𝑥1 + ⋯ + +𝑏𝑛 𝑥𝑛 + 𝜀

Where:

27
 𝑝 = probability of youth involvement in agriculture
1−𝑝 = probability of youth non-involvement in agriculture
𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑡 (𝑝) = logistic transformation of 𝑝 (dependent variable)
𝑥1 … 𝑥𝑛 = independent variables (factors)
𝑏1 … 𝑏𝑛 = estimated coefficients or slope parameters
𝜀 = error term

Probabilities were used since they are always bounded by 0 and 1, and the dependent variable
youth involvement has a binary response. The logistic or logit transformation was used to link
the dependent variable to the independent variables. Table 2 showed the variables used in the
study.

Table 2. Variables for the binary logistic regression

Variable Measure Description

Dependent Variable
Youth Involvement 1 – Yes, 0 – No Dichotomous
Explanatory Variables
Age Years Continuous
Sex 1 – Female, 0 – Male Dummy
Family Size Number Continuous
Educational Attainment Years Continuous
Work experience Years Continuous
Gross monthly income PhP Continuous
Family residence 1 Rural, 0 – Urban Dummy
Current residence 1 Rural, 0 - Urban Dummy
Vulnerability to climate conditions Number Continuous
Access to agricultural inputs and markets Number Continuous
Infrastructure, technical support, and social Number Continuous
amenities
Returns/income from agriculture Number Continuous
Access to agricultural education Number Continuous
Availability of non-agricultural opportunities Number Continuous
Personal and family influences Number Continuous

28
Youth involvement referred to the decision of the youth to engage or not engage in agriculture.
A value of 1 was assigned for youth involvement, while a value of 0 for youth non-involvement.
Since the youth aged 15-24 could be students, employed workers, or the unemployed, youth
involvement was derived from the field of education and nature of work of the youth
respondents. Moreover, both these variables were also binary (1 for agriculture-related, 0
otherwise), thus, they were indexed to come up with either 1 or 0 corresponding respectively
to agricultural involvement or non-involvement (Table 3).

Table 3. Derivation of youth involvement

Field of education Nature of Work Sum Index Decision

1 1 2 1 Involvement
0 1 1 1 Involvement
1 0 1 1 Involvement
0 0 0 0 Non-Involvement

To determine the goodness-of-fit of the binary logistic regression model to the data set, it must
follow several assumptions which were tested using the following procedures (Schreiber-
Gregory et al., n.d.):

Normality Test using Shapiro-Wilk’s W test

The Shapiro-Wilk test calculated a W statistic that tested whether a random sample comes
(specifically) from a normal distribution. Small values of W were evidence of departure from
normality and percentage points for the W statistic (Laerd, n.d.). The Shapiro-Wilk’s W was
tested using the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) software. The decision rule
was to accept the null hypothesis i.e., the variable is normally distributed when the p-value
takes a greater than 0.05 value, meaning the data fitted the normal distribution.

Multicollinearity Test using Variance Inflation Factor (VIF)

Multicollinearity happens when independent variables in a regression model are closely

correlated to another. This affects the calculations on individual independent variables. The
presence of multicollinearity makes it difficult to fit and interpret the model, specifically
affecting the confidence intervals for coefficients and the t-statistics (Williams, 2015). One way
to detect multicollinearity is when the model is statistically significant, but the individual
coefficients are not. To determine and resolve multicollinearity, the Variance Inflation Factor

29
(VIF) was obtained using SPSS. The decision rule for the VIF was for the values to be less than
10 as this suggested low correlation among the independent variables.

Presence of Outliers using Cook’s Distance

The logistic regression assumed that there were no extreme outliers or influential observations
in the dataset (Statology, 2019). To test for outliers and influential observations, the Cook’s
Distance for each observation was obtained using SPSS. The decision to rule out the presence
of outliers using Cook’s distance was when the point did not exceed 4/n (where n is the total
number of data points) or when the value was less than 1.

Content analysis delved on the identification of patterns in recorded communication.

Alternatively, it dealt with the process of looking into interrelationships in the data of a text (in
any medium). Context analysis on the other hand, applied content analysis in the context of
the historical and cultural setting. It combined the features of formal analysis and the study of
social, political economic, philosophical, religious, and aesthetic conditions during the time the
text was created. The analysis basically contextualized literatures and data with respect to the
study. Content and context analyses were applied in discussing the agricultural development
in Davao Region, including the implications of youth participation in agricultural development.

Hypothesis and decision criterion

To determine the factors that affected the youth’s decision to involve or not involve in
agriculture, we referred to the following hypotheses:

Null : The identified factors do not significantly affect the youth’s

hypothesis involvement in agriculture

Alternative : The identified factors significantly affect the youth’s involvement

hypothesis in agriculture

The decision criterion was to reject the null hypothesis when the p-value is greater than 0.05
(or 𝑝 < 0.05). Hence, factors were considered as significant contributors to the youth’s
decision to involve or not involve in agriculture when they obtained a p-value of less than 0.05,
thereby accepting the alternative hypothesis.

30
Ethical Aspects

Since the survey respondents were subjected to questions particularly on the

sociodemographic profile that may encroach on their private lives, their informed consent was
sought before proceeding with the online survey questionnaire (Appendix 2). The principle of
informed consent demands that the objectives and aims of the study be explained in an
understandable manner, assurance of confidentiality must be stressed, and the interviewer
must request for voluntary participation.

As earlier stated, the online survey was structured using Microsoft Forms, such that they can
only proceed with the questions when they provide their informed consent, as well as when
they satisfied the criteria for the study (from Davao City/Davao Oriental and aged 15-24). As
for the KII, an oral informed consent was obtained from the key informants, and the survey
questions were provided prior to the interview.

31
 Results and Discussion

Agricultural Development in Davao Region

Davao Region’s economy can be considered as agriculture-based. Eleven (11) of its 15 priority
industry clusters are agriculture- and fishery-related, namely abaca, banana, bangus, cacao,
coconut, durian, livestock and poultry, mango, rice, seaweed, and wood (RDC XI, 2017). The
development objectives of the Region’s agriculture, forestry, and fisheries (AFF) sector had
been focused on increasing production and labor productivity, improving food security, climate
resiliency, and agricultural governance. These have been narrowed down to two strategic
outcomes: achieving a significant growth of the AFF sector and increasing access to economic
opportunities by small farmers and fisherfolks.

To determine how agricultural development in the Region had fared in the past few years,
especially in terms of labor, some macroeconomic indicators such as the gross value added,
labor productivity, employment level and percent contribution to total employment are
presented below. For 2011-2018, the gross value added (GVA) of Davao Region’s AFF sector
was displayed in Figure 2. As shown, the Region’s agriculture did not achieve its annual targets
from 2011-2017.

3.5
4 3 2.8
2.5
2
1.5 1.2
2 2.9
2.6
1 0.4 1.4 1.7
Growth Rate

0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
-2 -1.3

-4

-6
Target
-8
Actual
-8
-10

Figure 2. GVA growth rate in AFF, Davao Region, 2011-2018, at constant 2000 prices
Source: Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA)

32
While growth rates hovered between -1.3 and 2.9 percent, the -8 percent growth rate in 2013
went to an extreme, as this was the year after Typhoon Pablo hit the Region, particularly the
provinces of Davao Oriental and Davao de Oro. The GVA growth rates indicated whether the
sector had been contributing to an economy. The average annual growth rate of 0.09 for 2011-
2018 suggested that agriculture contributed positively to Davao Region’s economy.

Climate conditions greatly affected the Region’s agriculture. Aside from Typhoon Pablo, the
constant threats of typhoons and low-pressure areas, as well as the El Niño phenomenon,
which badly affected the Region’s agricultural production in 2015, hampered the sector’s
growth. The El Niño contributed to the -1.3 percent growth rate in 2016. Although there were
negative growth rates for the said period, the positives, especially for 2017-2018 indicated the
sector’s resilience, which implied effective interventions made by the Region’s agricultural
stakeholders.

20

14.8
15 13.4
11.7
10.3 10.5 10.3
10 10.2
10.5 7.2
Growth Rate

5 7.3
2.4
0.9 0.6
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

-5
-4.6 -6.6 Region
AFF
-10

Figure 3. Labor productivity growth rate, Davao Region, 2010-2017

Source: Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA)

On the other hand, the labor productivity growth rates of the AFF vis-à-vis the Region’s, from
2010-2017, were shown in Figure 3. Evidently, the AFF sector has potential in terms of labor
productivity, as it exceeded the Region’s averages in 2010, 2011, 2014 and 2015.

33
These meant that the sector produced more agricultural output with less labor inputs during
the said periods. While the Region had positive labor productivity growth rates throughout
2010-2017, AFF had negative labor productivity growth rates in 2012 and 2016. These
negatives were rather consistent with the GVA growth rates, in that labor productivity should
be affected by decreased production due, but not limited to, environmental conditions.

720 35.0
34.5 Agricultural Employment
700 34.0
33.3 Agriculture Contribution
680 33.0
32.5
Employment (in '000)

660 32.0

Percentage
31.3
640 31.0

620 695 30.0

600 667 29.0 29.0

641 633
580 28.0
598
560 27.0

540 26.0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure 4. AFF Employment and Percentage Contribution to Total Employment, Davao

Region, 2015-2019
Source: Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA)

Figure 4 showed the AFF employment and its percent contribution to Davao Region’s total
employment for 2015-2019. Agricultural employment in the Region had been decreasing since
2016. Similarly, its contribution to the Region’s total employment had been on the decline,
from 33.3 percent in 2015 to 29.0 percent in 2019. While the agriculture sector still employs
about one-third of the Region’s employment, the decreasing percent contribution indicated
two things: agricultural labor is out-migrating to other sectors, and those that are entering the
labor force, as well as the unemployed, opt not to engage in agriculture.

PSA provided that the national average real daily basic pay in 2018 was lowest for the
agriculture sector at PHP202.37, while services and industry reached PHP426.04 and
PHP350.78, respectively. This implied a wide wage disparity among the sectors, with the
agriculture sector as the most disadvantaged.

34
Key players

The Region’s agriculture sector were composed of key players with different functions. To
better appreciate their interactions, the general value chain map is illustrated, as follows
(Figure 5):

Input Provision Production Processing Marketing Buyers

Large growers, Small/Large

Inputs Farmers, growers, Managed Importers,
Managed Farms,
Operators Growers,
Exporters, Farms, Exporters, Consumers,
Suppliers Managed Farms
Associations Associations Retailers

Financial Institutions, Local Government Units, National Government Agencies,

Enablers Business Support Organizations, Academe, Cooperatives, Civil Society
Organizations

Figure 5. Typical value chain map

Source: Davao Region Industry Clusters Roadmaps, 2014-2030

The typical agricultural value chain in the Region starts with the input provision, followed by
the production, processing, and marketing until the commodity reaches the end-users. Input
provision involves the suppliers of agricultural inputs e.g., raw materials, and other inputs to
production such as land, labor, and capital. Suppliers are often agricultural companies that
produce pesticides, fertilizers, seedlings, feeds, etc., large enterprises, micro, small and
medium enterprises (MSMEs), nurseries, banks, cooperatives, and the government.
Production on the other hand, involves the farmers, contracted and individual growers, and
managed farms. The primary producers could directly market their produce or engage with the
processors. Likewise, the processing and marketing involve small/large growers, managed
farms, exporters, and associations who delivers the final product to the end-users. Buyers are
the end-users and are usually the consumers, the importers, and the retailers from within and
out of the Region.

Enablers are the support system of the operators in the agricultural value chain. Support
services are being provided by the financial institutions, local government units, national
government agencies, business support organizations, academe, cooperatives, and civil society

35
organizations (CSOs) to enable the primary actors to improve production and uplift their lives.
The youth can always contribute to any segment in the agricultural value chain.
Merits

To be able to maintain and achieve the above-discussed growth in the agriculture sector, the
Region must have done some things right. Delving deeper on how growth was achieved in the
sector, some of the Region’s major agricultural outputs were highlighted below (Figure 5):

ABACA CACAO
PHILIPPINES 72.21 PHILIPPINES 8.49
Bicol 28.94 Davao 6.70
Eastern Visayas 12.61 Central Luzon 0.26
Davao 9.00 Northern Mindanao 0.25
Caraga 7.88 Zamboanga 0.22
ARMM 4.83 SOCCSKSARGEN 0.19

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 0.00 4.00 8.00

Volume (in '000 mt) Volume (in '000 mt)

COCONUT COFFEE
PHILIPPINES 14,765 PHILIPPINES 60
Davao 1,932 SOCCSKSARGEN 21
Northern Mindanao 1,836 Davao 11
Zamboanga 1,747 ARMM 11
CALABARZON 1,643 Northern Mindanao 6
ARMM 1,332 Western Visayas 4

0 10000 20000 0 20 40 60 80
Volume (in '000 mt) Volume (in '000 mt)

BANANA DURIAN
PHILIPPINES 9,158 PHILIPPINES 79

Davao 3,429 Davao 60

Northern Mindanao 1,964 ARMM 7

SOCCSKSARGEN 1,182 SOCCSKSARGEN 4

ARMM 600 Zamboanga 3

Western Visayas 305 Caraga 2

0 5000 10000 0 40 80
Volume (in '000 mt) Volume (in '000 mt)

Figure 6. Top producers of several major crops, Philippines, 2019

Source: Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA)

36
In 2019, the Region ranked among the top in the production of 6 major crops in the country,
namely abaca, cacao, coconut, coffee, banana, and durian. Specifically, the Region ranked 3rd
in abaca production, 2nd in coffee production, and 1st in cacao, coconut, banana, and durian
production. In retrospect, the Region has consistently topped the production of the said crops
even way back in 2010. As earlier depicted in the agricultural value chain, exporters are key
players in the Region’s agriculture sector, and among the commodities being mainly exported
are coconut, banana, durian, mango, pineapple, and pomelo.

Abaca
Fisheries 0.4%
4% Coconut Cacao
0.4%
Poultry 8%
Coffee
9% Crops 0.4%
Banana
71% 45%
Livestock
Others
16% 15% Durian
2%

Figure 7. Agriculture value of production, Davao Region, 2019

Source: Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA)

In terms of the production value, Figure 7 showed that crop production had the largest slice of
the Region’s agricultural value in 2019. This suggested that crop production was the main
driver of agricultural growth.

Further examination showed that banana production had the largest contribution to the total
agricultural production value of the Region, while coconut and durian had 8 percent and 2
percent contributions, respectively. Agricultural production in the Region was enabled by its
fertile lands and generally good climate conditions.

Although weather extremes affected the Region from time to time, the informant from the
Department of Agriculture (DA) affirmed these, even citing that the crop e.g., cacao production

37
in areas such as the Paquibato district in Davao City, and Davao Oriental is only feasible due to
ideal soil, and warm and shaded conditions within the mentioned areas.

Aside from the Region’s innate characteristics which are ideal for agriculture, the agricultural
stakeholders, particularly the enablers, had been proactive in the provision of logistics and
infrastructure support, research and development (R&D), and governance support (RDC XI,
2014).

To enable the producers to market their commodities, one of DA’s infrastructure programs is
the provision of farm-to-market roads (FMRs). The Department of Budget and Management
(DBM) reported that on the average, the DA has been allocated about PhP8.5 billion annually
for FMR projects from 2014-2019. FMRs have been significant in enabling the sector operators
to meet the market standards and demands, especially in the export market, by reducing travel
time and cost, thereby reducing post-harvest losses in terms of quantity and quality. In
addition, technical assistance and capacity building provided by key agencies such as the
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Department of Science and Technology (DOST), CSOs,
R&D institutions and the academe, have been important in strengthening quality control and
production practices to improve efficiency and productivity of agricultural production.

Research and development initiatives had been vital in addressing several issues in the Region’s
agricultural production. For instance, the fusarium wilt disease has hounded the banana
industry for quite some time. To address the concern, the DOST, alongside the Philippine
Council for Agriculture, Aquatic and Natural Resources Research and Development (PCAARRD),
and the academe, initiated an R&D program to address the disease by developing biological
control agents and disease-resistant varieties. Also, DA, and the Pilipino Banana Growers and
Exporters Association (PBGEA), have been assisting in the promotion of management protocols
and policies to mitigate the spread of the disease.

Likewise, the DA had been facilitating the provision of financial and non-financial services as
governance support through the crop insurance as provided by the Philippine Crop Insurance
Corporation (PCIC), credit assistance through the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), post-
harvest facilities, good seeds and planting materials as prescribed under the Republic Act No.
7083 or the Seed Industry Development Act. While crop insurance had slacked in years back,

38
2017 and 2018 data showed that the number of crop-insured farmers reached 91,015 and
93,697, respectively, exceeding the targeted values for both years.

Constraints

While the preceding discussion highlighted the positives in the Region’s agriculture, the
inconsistencies in the GVA and labor productivity growth rates, as well as the dwindling labor
supply and contribution, implied that there were several bottlenecks affecting the agriculture
sector.

To this end, agriculture stakeholders identified the constraints to agricultural development, as

reflected in the Davao Regional Development Plan (RDC XI, 2017; RDC XI 2020). These included
the inadequacies in the delivery of services and vulnerability to climate change risks, as well as
market linkages constraint, and the insufficient support to the priority industry clusters. Labor-
related constraints also hound the sector, such as limited job creation in agriculture, weak
farmer organizations and the declining interest of youth in agriculture.

Gaps in the delivery of agricultural and fisheries support services had been pointed out, as
indicated by the poor performance of the sector. As earlier mentioned, the Region did not
reach its annual targets for 2011-2017. Disparities in support services delivery included the lack
of monitoring of government programs, activities, and projects (PAPs), the lack of capacities to
enforce agricultural policies, and the inability of the government sector to address the lack of
access to credit.

Lack of monitoring and evaluation meant that information on the needed improvements on
the implementation and crafting of policies and PAPs were not relayed to the appropriate
entities. The enforcement of policies had been a bottleneck due to the mandate limitations of
key government agencies. More importantly, the government has had difficulties in providing
farmers the access to credit especially in the far-flung or geographically isolated and
disadvantaged areas (GIDAs).

As earlier discussed, the Region had its fair share of climate extremes, and most likely, these
would not go away. Climate risks had been a recurring concern, especially since these are
external factors that cannot be controlled. While it cannot be erased from the equation, its
effects can be mitigated e.g., crop insurance.

39
Inadequate market linkages stemmed from lack of market information and the farmers’
inability to market their produce at the right prices. Given the limited resources of the
government, especially in penetrating the GIDAs, disseminating market information from
person-to-person was constrained. An efficient way of relieving this concern is through
technology-use, particularly through connectivity i.e., the internet, as well as improving the
power supply.

Likewise, insufficient support on the Region’s priority industry clusters restricted its agricultural
potential. As gleaned from the Region’s assessment of the implementation of its Industry
Clusters’ Roadmaps, no substantial support was provided by lead agencies and LGUs on the
implementation of the action plans towards improving the competitiveness of the Region’s
priority agricultural commodities. This limitation has restricted the prospects of the sector to
avail of the opportunities in the international market.

The limited job creation in agriculture took root from weak agricultural growth, compelling a
significant portion of workers to turn to the informal services sector (The World Bank, 2017).
Likewise, weak farmers organization in the Region could also explain why farmers and
fisherfolks are generally poor. Government and non-government interventions were being
provided to farmers and fisherfolks through the farmers or people’s organizations (POs).
However, the POs in the Region often suffered from poor governance and lack of support from
other stakeholders.

Declining youth interest in agriculture was a constraint, as identified by the stakeholders in the
Davao Regional Agricultural and Fisheries Modernization Plan (RAFMP), 2018-2022. As pointed
in this study, aging farmers, and lack of the youth’s interest in agriculture spelled a major threat
in the sustainability of agricultural production in the long term. The latter implied that the labor
supply for agriculture would not be replenished as it should be. Subsequent discussions
examined the perspective of the youth on why the said phenomenon is occurring.

Descriptive Analysis

The succeeding discussions provided the results of the analysis on the primary data gathered
through an online survey using Microsoft Forms. The sample selection was done by tweaking
the online survey form so that only the target respondents can proceed with the survey. A total

40
of 60 youth respondents aged 15-24, from Davao City and Davao Oriental were sampled for
the study. To examine the characteristics of the sample, descriptive statistics were discussed
in this section.

Table 4 showed the frequencies on the sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents.

As can be gleaned, majority of the respondents were females at 35 or 58 percent, while 25 or
42 percent of the respondents were males. Most (42%) respondents were college graduates,
25 percent or 15 respondents were in the college level, and 18 respondents or 30 percent
either attended or finished high school. It could also be noted that 2 respondents were in the
post-graduate level.

Table 4. Sociodemographic Frequencies

SEX EDUCATION
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Male 25 41.7 Highschool_1 13 21.7
Female 35 58.3 Highschool_2 5 8.3
Total 60 100.0 College_1 15 25.0
College_2 25 41.7
FIELD OF EDUCATION (Respondent) Post-Graduate 2 3.3
Frequency Percent Total 60 100
Agri 15 25.0
Non-agri 39 65.0 FIELD OF EDUCATION (Parent)
Not applicable 6 10.0 Frequency Percent
Total 60 100 Agri 8 13.3
Non-agri 45 75.0
NATURE OF WORK (Respondent) Not applicable 7 11.7
Frequency Percent Total 60 100
Agri 9 15.0
Non-agri 35 58.3 HOME RESIDENCE
Not applicable 16 26.7 Frequency Percent
Total 60 100 Urban 27 45.0
Rural 33 55.0
NATURE OF WORK (Parent) Total 60 100
Frequency Percent
Agri 26 43.3 CURRENT RESIDENCE
Non-agri 30 50.0 Frequency Percent
Not applicable 4 6.7 Urban 30 50.0
Total 60 100 Rural 30 50.0
Total 60 100

41
In terms of the field of education, majority (58%) of the respondents had non-agriculture
related education, while 15 or 25 percent had agriculture-related education. Likewise, 75
percent of either of the respondents’ parents had non-agriculture related education, while 13
percent pursued their agriculture-related education.

On the other hand, 58 percent of the respondents were into non-agricultural work, and 15
percent were into agricultural work. Similarly, 50 percent of either of the respondents’ parents
engage in the non-agricultural profession, while 43 percent had agriculture-related work.
Meanwhile, 55 percent of the respondents had their permanent residences in rural areas,
while the respondents were equally divided in terms of current residency. The decision on
youth involvement was derived from the respondents’ field of education and nature of work
since youth respondents were both students (non-working) and workers.

Table 5. Sociodemographic Averages

Average Std. Error
Age 21.02 0.405
Family Size 4.77 0.188
Work Exp. 1.78 0.307
Income 18,378.33 3,404.93

Table 5 provided the averages and standard errors of the continuous variables age, family size,
work experience and income. The youth respondents’ average age was 21 years old; average
family size was about 5 family members; average work experience was 1.8 years, and average
income was PhP18,378. Standard errors tell how accurate the means of the sample are,
compared to the true population. Notably, the standard error for income was very high,
indicating a rather inaccurate representation of the true income of the population.

Table 6. Youth Perceptions on the Factors and Decision Influences

Average Std. Error
FACTORS
• Agriculture is susceptible to undesirable climate conditions 4.02 0.138
• Agricultural inputs and markets are easily accessible 3.27 0.111
• Infrastructure, social amenities, and technical support are 3.20 0.118
available in agricultural areas
• Returns/income from agriculture is high/sufficient to cater 2.53 0.133
to the needs of the agricultural workers

42
 • Agricultural education is easily accessible or readily 3.40 0.112
available in agricultural or neighboring areas
• Public perception of the agricultural profession as a poor 3.37 0.130
man's job is true
• There are many non-agricultural opportunities that are 4.03 0.116
readily available and accessible
• Personal and family influences matter 3.93 0.111
INFLUENCE
• Decision is influenced if climate risk is mitigated 3.78 0.126
• Decision is influenced if agricultural inputs and markets are 3.83 0.117
improved
• Decision is influenced if infrastructure, social amenities, and 3.77 0.107
technical support in agricultural areas are improved
• Decision is influenced if agriculture is improved 3.93 0.123
• Decision is influenced if access to agricultural education is 3.70 0.133
improved
• Decision is influenced if such perception is improved, i.e., 3.50 0.129
removed
• Decision is influenced if the agricultural opportunities are 3.88 0.119
equally available
• Personal and family preferences can be changed if the 3.88 0.119
agriculture sector improves

The perceptions of the youth as obtained from their level of agreement on the factors (as
expressed in statements) were presented in Table 6. The level of agreement utilized the 5-
point Likert scale, where a value of 1 meant strongly disagree; 2 meant disagree; 3 meant
neutral; 4 meant agree; and 5 meant strongly agree. Mean scores of greater than 3 meant that
the youth tended to agree with the statement, while mean scores of less than 3 implied a
tendency to disagree with the statement. It is also important to note that the neutral score of
3 could imply neutrality, or unawareness of the youth on the factors.

With mean scores greater than 4, the youth perceived that agriculture was susceptible to
undesirable climate conditions, and that there were many readily available and accessible non-
agricultural opportunities. These results affirmed, respectively, the AFA (2014) and NEDA
(2019) studies that identified climate risks and non-agricultural opportunities as threats to the
youth’s involvement in agriculture. These also implied that the youth were perceptive of the
constraints and conditions in regional development.

43
It was interesting to note that the youth believed that income from agriculture was not enough
to support the needs of the agricultural workers. As earlier discussed, national figures in 2018
suggested that the daily basic pay in the services sector was twice as high as the daily basic pay
of workers in the agriculture sector. Again, the youth were rather perceptive of such disparity,
especially since this could also jibe with the public’s perception of the agricultural profession
as a poor man’s job, which the youth tended to agree with as evidenced by the mean score of
3.37.

Other factors also had mean scores higher than 3, such as the accessibility of agricultural inputs
and markets with a mean score of 3.27, availability of infrastructure, social amenities, and
technical support in agricultural areas with 3.20, accessibility of agricultural education with
3.40, and personal and familial influences with 3.93.

The youth respondents were also asked whether their decision to engage in the sector would
be influenced if there were improvements of the above stated factors. Interestingly, all
decision factors received mean scores greater than 3, which meant that their decision to
involve in the sector could be influenced by the improvements in the agriculture sector.

The youth had the highest level of agreement with 3.93 when agricultural incomes would be
improved. Since the youth perceived insufficient incomes from agriculture, they were likely to
engage in the sector if such insufficiency was overturned. Nevertheless, these results
suggested that there was a potential for the youth to be pulled into agriculture if improvements
were to be made in the sector.

Factors affecting Youth Involvement

The results of the logistic regression are presented in Table 7. On the other hand, appended
are the diagnostic test results (Appendix 5).

From the 17 literature-based factors identified in the study, only 4 factors were statistically
significant as determined by the logistic regression model. The tell-signs were the p-values less
than 0.05. Factors that were statistically significant include sex, work experience, availability of
infrastructure, social amenities and technical support, and accessibility to agricultural
education.

44
Sex

With a p-value of .022, the alternative hypothesis that the factor sex significantly affected
youth involvement in agriculture was accepted. The negative coefficient (B) connotes that
there was a higher probability of youth engagement in agriculture among males. This result
should be logical, since agriculture is labor-intensive, and as characterized by Briones (2017),
the sector is traditionally male dominated. Although female participation increased to about a
fourth of the total agricultural employment in 2015, usually, the female-headed households
would still require additional labor for farming activities. This result is also consistent with Njeru
and Mwangi (2017)’s study wherein, the level of participation of males were higher than the
females in terms of the number of agricultural activities.

Work experience

The factor work experience had a p-value of 0.046, hence it was considered as a statistically
significant factor that affected youth involvement in agriculture in the Region. The positive
coefficient means a higher probability of youth engagement in agriculture for those that had
longer work experiences, regardless of the nature of work. While most (58%) of the
respondents were into non-agricultural jobs, there was a response from one youth respondent
that he/she planned to participate in agriculture while working in the non-agriculture sector.
The result could mean that the youth who have had longer work experiences are much
appreciative of the potential of agriculture to contribute to the overall development of their
communities.

Infrastructure, social amenities, and technical support

The availability of infrastructure, social amenities and technical support in agricultural areas
was likewise a statistically significant factor as evidenced by the p-value of 0.032. The youth
considered infrastructure, social amenities, and technical support in their decision to involve
in agriculture. The result was consistent with Trevor & Kwenye (2018)’s study which identified
infrastructure constraints as influential to youth’s involvement in the sector.

As earlier mentioned, infrastructure was being provided by the sector enablers through FMRs
and irrigation systems, among others. However, one of the constraints was the inadequate
delivery of support services.

45
Table 7. Results of the Logistic Regression
Variables in the Equation
95% C.I.for EXP(B)
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Lower Upper
Step 1a AGE -1.280 .750 2.913 1 .088 .278 .064 1.209
SEX -8.654 3.779 5.244 1 .022 .000 .000 .287
FAMSIZE -1.211 .653 3.440 1 .064 .298 .083 1.071
RESED 2.730 1.719 2.522 1 .112 15.340 .528 445.938
PARED -.426 .616 .478 1 .489 .653 .195 2.184
EXP 1.327 .666 3.965 1 .046 3.769 1.021 13.911
INC .000 .000 1.341 1 .247 1.000 1.000 1.000
FAMRES 1.281 1.957 .428 1 .513 3.599 .078 166.625
CURRES -6.621 3.835 2.981 1 .084 .001 .000 2.447
VUL2 -1.059 .746 2.016 1 .156 .347 .080 1.496
INPUTS2 -5.720 2.923 3.829 1 .050 .003 .000 1.009
INFRA2 4.185 1.948 4.617 1 .032 65.670 1.444 2986.145
RETURNS2 -3.162 1.871 2.857 1 .091 .042 .001 1.657
AGRI_ED2 4.701 2.266 4.305 1 .038 110.079 1.297 9341.789
PUB2 .172 .659 .068 1 .794 1.187 .327 4.317
NON2 2.167 1.590 1.859 1 .173 8.735 .387 196.929
PERSONAL2 -.177 .658 .072 1 .788 .838 .231 3.042
Constant 21.301 12.216 3.041 1 .081 1782530406.347
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: AGE, SEX, FAMSIZE, RESED, PARED, EXP, INC, FAMRES, CURRES, VUL2, INPUTS2, INFRA2, RETURNS2, AGRI_ED2, PUB2, NON2, PERSONAL2.

46
There was infrastructure support, but it might not be enough especially if these are not
provided in areas that need it the most. In addition, social amenities also factored in the
decision of the youth to involve in agriculture.

Social amenities referred to basic services such as health, wellness, and leisure infrastructures
that could make the youth stay in rural areas to be able to engage in agriculture i.e., farming.
Technical support, or lack thereof, also influenced the youth’s involvement in agriculture.

Following the theoretical framework of this study, the youth were inclined to engage in
opportunities that could scale up their knowledge and skills which could be gained through the
technical support i.e., trainings and capability building provided by the agricultural enablers.
While the youth should be enticed to turn to agriculture by improving the income derived from
the sector, the results suggested that the youth looked beyond the incomes and determined
other benefits that could provide personal growth and development, as well as contribute to
the community development.

Access to agricultural education

Lastly, the regression model suggested that the youth could be influenced by accessibility to
agricultural education, as evidenced by the p-value of 0.038. This result is reasonable, since the
youth were inclined to pursue the career paths related to what they had taken up or studied.
The accessibility of agricultural education, hence, contributes to pulling youth towards
agriculture, as can be gleaned also from the studies of Gultiano & Urich (2000) and Haruna et
al. (2019). Key stakeholders namely, the Department of Education (DepEd) had also explored
the promotion of agriculture through the inclusion of an agriculture track in the K-to-12 Basic
Education Program.

Outcomes

Plans

The youth respondents were asked if they planned to engage in agriculture in the future.
Majority of them were willing to engage in the sector following several reasons. The youth
foresaw lots of opportunities in agriculture, and they asserted that the agricultural profession
is a noble job. Some would engage in agriculture to continue their family business and utilize

47
their family’s land. For them, people get their food from agriculture, and it is a source of
livelihood especially for those that live in the rural areas. More importantly, they perceived
agriculture as a cornerstone that enables the society to function. One youth even mentioned
that he/she plans to participate in agriculture while working in a non-agricultural job. However,
some youth asserted that their involvement would depend on the availability of resources and
government support towards the sector.

On the other hand, the youth respondents mostly cited personal interests as the reason for
not pursuing agriculture. Some youth were not interested since their education was not
aligned or related to agriculture. According to them, non-exposure to agriculture also
contributed to the lack of interest in the sector. Lack of time and motivation to develop the
skills for agricultural activities were also cited as reasons for non-involvement. Others reasoned
that they planned to pursue their interests in non-agriculture-related careers. Some working
youth also mentioned that they are already comfortable with their current profession.

Potential Contributions

The youth are the future of agricultural development. Their most important contribution to
agriculture is to replenish the human resource gap that the current aging farmers would create
once they exit the labor force. While mechanization and technologies would solve the
agricultural production woes, the youth are still the better option than their aging counterparts
as they are more adept in these technologies.

More importantly, the youth provide newer perspectives, and they are vigorous in exploring
and doing new things. They are driven by growth and development opportunities, and they are
the drivers of change in their communities. This particular trait makes them more receptive to
innovations and disruptive technologies, as well as more skilled in developing newer, efficient,
and effective systems to solve community and societal problems, which are the ways forward
in agricultural development.

48
 Summary and Conclusion
Research Question and Objectives

The youth are vital to the development of the Region’s agriculture. With the aging farmer
population, the youth’s role as the successors of our agriculture is now truer than ever.
However, data and literature revealed that the youth are less inclined to join the agricultural
labor force. Hence, the research question: what were the factors affecting the youth’s decision
to engage in agriculture in selected areas in the Davao Region, with what effects or
implications? To provide further context, the study also aimed to determine how agricultural
development had been going on, the merits and constraints in its agricultural development,
and the youth’s importance in the sector, as well as provide policy recommendations based on
the findings of the analyses.

Frameworks and Methodology

The Harris-Todaro model and the positive youth development (PYD) theory served as the
theoretical bases for the study. The former posited that people assess labor market
opportunities where they could maximize their benefits, while the latter identified the youth
as resources and experts of their own development, and agents of change in their
communities. The study was also guided by the conceptual framework, wherein
sociodemographic, internal or within-agriculture, and external or outside-agriculture factors
influence youth involvement or non-involvement in agriculture. Their decision to involve or
stray from agriculture had implications on their personal welfare and plans, as well as their
contributions to agricultural development.

Due to research sampling limitations, the study employed online survey questionnaires and
sampled 60 respondents from Davao City and Davao Oriental, as well as conducted a key
informant interview through phone with an employee from the Department of Agriculture (DA)
XI, to obtain the primary data. Likewise, the secondary data were obtained from online
publications and literature. The mixed method approach necessitated quantitative analysis
using logistic regression, and qualitative analysis using descriptive, and content analyses.

49
Results

To answer the research question, the factors affecting youth involvement were sex, work
experience, infrastructure, social amenities and technical support, and access to agricultural
education. Males and those with more working experience were more likely to involve
themselves in agriculture. The availability of infrastructure, social amenities, and technical
support, as well as access to agricultural education were also considerations that could pull the
youth towards agriculture.

While not all identified factors in the conceptual framework were statistically significant,
descriptive analysis revealed that the youth were perceptive of the constraints in the Region’s
agricultural development, e.g., they tended to disagree that agricultural incomes are enough
to provide for the needs of the agricultural workers. Secondary data revealed that such
perception was correct based on the daily basic pay of agricultural workers in 2018 which was
twice as low as those employed in the services sector.

Interestingly, the analysis showed that the youth could be influenced towards involvement in
agriculture, so long as improvements were made in the sector. This result supported the
theoretical framework, since the youth were on the look-out for benefit-maximizing
opportunities, and some were willing to involve themselves in agriculture, albeit conditional.
Aside from filling in the foreseeable labor gap, the youth’s fresher perspectives and zeal make
them more adept in innovations and technologies that lead to the development of solutions
towards a more sustainable and inclusive agriculture.

50
 Recommendations
Policy

As discussed in the literature review, there are existing policies, programs activities and
projects that enable youth participation in agriculture. To recapitulate, RA 8044 or the Youth
in Nation-Building Act, RA 10601 or the Farm Mechanization Law, RA 10618 or the Rural Farm
School Act, RA 10679 or the Youth Entrepreneurship Act, the 4-H Clubs as part of the Farm
Youth Development Program, Youth in Agriculture and Fisheries Program and Adopt a Farm
Youth Program of the Agricultural Training Institute (ATI), were formulated to contribute to the
empowerment of the youth to engage in agriculture.

Much like how agricultural development has been going on in the Region wherein one of the
merits pertain to support services being available, and one of the constraints refer to the
inadequate delivery of such services, the study recommends that the agricultural enablers,
especially the mandated government agencies such as the DA focus its resources on
strengthening the enforcement of the stated policies and improve the implementation of the
mentioned programs and projects, as well as, prioritize infrastructure support and agricultural
education, so that the stakeholders, particularly the youth, would feel that the agriculture
sector is improving. That way, they are also motivated to do their role as enablers of their
communities, and drivers of agricultural development.

As a policy alternative, since youth development emphasizes empowerment by allowing them

to decide for themselves, youth participation in high-level policy- and decision-making
platforms should be encouraged and promoted. Much like gender and development (GAD),
youth participation should also be institutionalized as a requirement in the formulation of
programs, projects, and activities of the national and local government. More importantly, to
ascertain that the aforesaid recommendations are being done, youth participation should be
an indicator in the Regional and Local Development Plans.

Study

The study could be further improved by increasing the sample size, improving the sampling
methods, and by doing case studies or in-depth interviews. Specifically, it is recommended that
further investigation be done on the source of agricultural knowledge, particularly, the youth

51
that are not involved in agriculture. The pre-identified factors could also be expanded to
further investigate and specify the influences on the youth. Additionally, data analysis using
other methods could also be explored. It is also suggested that a focus group discussion be
conducted, a pre-test be employed with the target demographic, and key informants be
expanded to include agricultural youth organizations, agriculture-based school organizations,
civil society organizations and agricultural companies.

52
References
Adekunle, O., Adefalu, L., Oladipo, F., Adisa, R., & Fatoye, A. (2009). Constraints to Youths’
involvement in Agricultural Production in Kwara State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural
Extension, 102-108.
AFA. (2014). Attracting Youth to Agriculture in Asia: Context and Prospects. Asian Farmers
Association for Sustainable Rural Development.
Akpan, S. (2010). Encouraging Youth’s Involvement in Agricultural Production and Processing.
International Food Policy Research Institute.
Arifin, B., Nuryartono, N., Pasaribu, S., Yasmin, F., Rifai, M., & Kurniadi, R. (2019). Profitability
and Labor Productivity in Indonesian Agriculture. World Bank Group.
Balanon, F., Ong, M., Torre, B., Puzon, M., Granada, J., & Trinidad, A. (2007). The Impact of
Youth Participation in the Local Government Process. The United Nations Children's
Fund (UNICEF).
Briones, R. (2017). Characterization of Agricultural Workers in the Philippines. Philippine
Institute for Development Studies, Discussion Paper Series No. 2017-31.
CHED. (2020). Statistics. Retrieved from Commission on Higher Education:
https://ched.gov.ph/statistics/
Coverfox. (2020). What is Agricultural Income? Retrieved from Coverfox:
https://www.coverfox.com/personal-finance/tax/agricultural-income/
DFID-CSO Youth Working Group. (2010). Youth Participation in Development. London: SPW/
DFID-CSO Youth Working Group.
European Institute for Gender Equality. (2016). Gender in agriculture and rural development.
Luxembourg.
FAO. (2013). Synthesis of Guiding Principles on Agriculture Programming for Nutrition. Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Fatima, M. (2018). Agricultural Development in the Philippines. Retrieved from The Borgen
Project: https://borgenproject.org/agricultural-development-in-the-philippines/
Fellmann, T. (n.d.). The assessment of climate change-related vulnerability in the agricultural
sector: reviewing conceptual frameworks. Retrieved from Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations: http://www.fao.org/3/i3084e/i3084e04.pdf
Fizer, D. (2013). Factors Affecting Career Choices of College Students Enrolled in Agriculture.
University of Tennesse, Martin.
Gardner, B. (2001). Agriculture, Economics of. Retrieved from ScienceDirect:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/agricultural-development
Gasperini, L. (2000). From agricultural education to education for rural development and food
security: All for education and food for all. Retrieved from Food and Agriculture

53
 Organization of the United Nations:
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ERP/2013/link_Virtual_pub/pub_40.pdf
Gultiano, S., & Urich, P. (2000). Exploring Implications of the 'Youth Buldge' on the Agriculture
Sector in the Philippines. Thailand: IUSSP/APN Conference .
Guo, G., Wen, Q., & Zhu, J. (2015). The Impact of Aging Agricultural Labor Population on
Farmland Output: From the Perspective of Farmer Preferences. Hindawi Publishin
Corporation.
Harris, J., & Todaro, M. (1970). Migration, Unemployment and Development: A Two-Sector
Analysis. The American Economic Review, 126-142.
Haruna, O., Asogwa, V., & Ezhim, I. (2019). Challenges and enhancement of youth participation
in agricultural education for sustainable food security. African Educational Research
Journal, Vol. 7(4),, 174-182.
Hung, Y. (2004). East New York Farms: Youth Participation in Community Development and
Urban Agriculture. Children, Youth and Environments 14(1), 56-85.
ICRISAT. (2020). Does the Smallholder Farmer Have Access to Quality Inputs? Retrieved from
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics:
https://www.icrisat.org/does-the-smallholder-farmer-have-access-to-quality-inputs/
Imai, K., Gaiha, R., & Fabrizio, B. (2019). The Labor Productivty Gap between the Agricultural
and Nonagricultural Sectors, and Poverty and Inequality Reduction in Asia. Asian
Development Bank.
Jared, L. (2019). Nature of Work vs. Level of Work. Retrieved from Chron:
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/nature-work-vs-level-work-33710.html
Kraaijvanger, R., Almekinders, C., & Veldkamp, A. (2016). Identifying crop productivity
constraints and opportunities using focus group discussions: A case study with farmers
from Tigray. Retrieved from ScienceDirect:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S157352141630032X
Laiglesia, J. (2006). Institutional Bottelnecks for agricultural development. Retrieved from
OECD: https://www.oecd.org/dev/36309029.pdf
Magagula, B., & Tsvakirai, C. (2019). Youth perceptions of agriculture: influence of cognitive
processes on participation in agripreneurship. Development in Practice, 30:2, 234-243.
Manalo, J., Pasiona, S., Bautista, A., Villaflor, J., Corpuz, D., & Biag-Manalo, H. (2019). Exploring
youth engagement in agricultural development: the case of farmers’ children in the
Philippines as rice crop manager infomediaries. The Journal of Agricultural Education
and Extension, Vol. 25, No. 4, 361-377.
Merriam-Webster. (2020). Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved from
https://www.merriam-webster.com/
NEDA. (2019). Out-Migration in Agriculture. R&D Policy Note, pp. 1-8.

54
Njeru, L., & Mwangi, J. (2017). Influence of gender differences on youth participation in
agriculture in Kajiado North Sub County, Kenya. International Journal of Development
and Sustainability, Vol. 6 No. 8: 851-861.
NYC. (2020). NYC Vision and Mission. Retrieved from National Youth Commission:
https://nyc.gov.ph/vision-mission/
Phiri, S. (2018). Determinants of Agricultural Productivity in Malawi. Lilongwe University of
Agriculture and Natural Resources.
PSA. (2016). 2015 Annual LFS Estimates Tables. Retrieved from Philippine Statistics Authority:
http://www.psa.gov.ph/statistics/survey/labor-and-employment/labor-force-
survey/table-title/2015%20Annual%20LFS%20Estimates%20Tables
PSA. (2017). 2016 Annual LFS Estimates Tables. Retrieved from Philippine Statistics Authority:
http://www.psa.gov.ph/statistics/survey/labor-and-employment/labor-force-
survey/table-title/2016%20Annual%20LFS%20Estimates%20Tables
PSA. (2017). Marital Status. Retrieved from Philippine Statistics Authority:
https://psa.gov.ph/content/marital-status-1
PSA. (2018). 2017 Annual LFS Estimates Tables. Retrieved from Philippine Statistics Authority:
http://www.psa.gov.ph/statistics/survey/labor-and-employment/labor-force-
survey/table-title/2017%20Annual%20LFS%20Estimates%20Tables
PSA. (2018). Decent Work Statistics-Philippines. Philippines: Philippine Statistics Authority.
PSA. (2019). 2018 Annual Estimates Tables. Retrieved from Philippine Statistics Authority:
http://www.psa.gov.ph/statistics/survey/labor-and-employment/labor-force-
survey/table-title/2018%20Annual%20Estimates%20Tables
PSA. (2019). Labor Productivity Statistics. Retrieved from Philippine Statistics Authority :
https://psa.gov.ph/labor-productivity
PSA. (2020). 2019 Annual Estimates Tables. Retrieved from Philippine Statistics Authority:
http://www.psa.gov.ph/statistics/survey/labor-and-employment/labor-force-
survey/table-title/2019%20Annual%20Estimates%20Tables
PSA. (n.d.). Family Size. Retrieved from Philippine Statistics Authority:
https://psa.gov.ph/content/family-size-1
RDC XI. (2014). Davao Region Industry Clusters Roadmaps, 2014-2030. Davao City: Regional
Development Council XI.
RDC XI. (2017). Davao Regional Development Plan, 2017-2022. Davao City: Regional
Development Council XI.
RDC XI. (2020). Davao Regional Development Plan, 2017-2022 Midterm Update. Davao City:
Regional Development Council XI.
RDC XI. (2020). Davao Regional Development Plan, 2017-2022 Midterm Update. Davao City:
Regional Development Council XI.

55
Roser, M. (n.d.). Employment in Agriculture. Retrieved from Our World in Data:
https://ourworldindata.org/employment-in-agriculture
Roumasset, J. (2015). Reflections on the Foundations of Development Policy Analysis. Retrieved
from ScienceDirect: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-
sciences/agricultural-development
Taylor, J., & Charlton, D. (n.d.). The Farm Labor Problem. University of California, Davis.
The World Bank. (2017). Philippines Mindanao Jobs Report. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
The World Bank. (2020). Agriculture and Food: Overview. Retrieved from The World Bank:
https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/agriculture/overviewv
The World Bank. (n.d.). Financial access. Retrieved from The World Bank Group:
https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/gfdr/gfdr-2016/background/financial-
access
Trevor, S., & Kwenye, J. (2018). Rural Youth Participation in Agriculture in Zambia. Journal of
Agricultural Extension 22(2):, 51-61.
UNESCO. (2020). Field of education. Retrieved from United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization: http://uis.unesco.org/en/glossary-term/field-education
United States Census Bureau. (n.d.). Educational Attainment. Retrieved from United States
Census Bureau: https://www.census.gov/topics/education/educational-
attainment.html
University of Pretoria. (n.d.). Theoretical Frameworks. Retrieved from University of Pretoria:
https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/28710/02chapter2.pdf?sequence
=3&isAllowed=y
Villaruel, F., Perkins, D., Borden, L., & Keith, J. (2003). Community Youth Development:
Programs, Policies, and Practices. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.
Youth in Nation-Building Act. Republic of the Philippines. (1994). Republic Act No. 8044.
Retrieved from National Youth Commission: https://nyc.gov.ph/republic-act-8044/

56
Appendices
Appendix 1 – Sample Letter

University of the Philippines – Open University

Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines

November 23, 2020

SARA Z. DUTERTE
Mayor
City Government of Davao
San Pedro St., Davao City

THROUGH: Mr. Leo Brian D. Leuterio

City Agriculturist

Dear Mayor Duterte:

I hope you are doing well!

I am Lorenz Daniel P. Lumen, a Master of Public Management (MPM) student of the University of the Philippines
– Open University. As a major requirement for my PM 299.2 course, I am conducting a research study entitled
“Factors affecting youth involvement in agriculture in selected areas in Davao Region.”

As can be gleaned from the title, the research study aims to determine the factors that influence youth (aged 15-
24) to participate in agriculture, i.e. employment, education in selected areas in Davao Region. The sampling
method for the study necessitates 100 respondents from the City to respond to the attached online survey
questionnaire link, and for an expert from your Office, preferably from the City Agriculturist Office, to be subjected
to a key informant interview (interview questions attached); Link to the survey:
https://tinyurl.com/youthagrisurvey

To this end, may I humbly request for your assistance in the dissemination of the online survey questionnaire to
the target demography based on the City’s list, as well as, for one of your staff that is well-versed on the said
topic, to accommodate a brief phone interview to be set at his/her convenient time?

Due to the shortened academic term brought by the effects of COVID-19, may I also request for your prompt
feedback and consideration on this request. You may reach me through email at lorenz.lumen@gmail.com and
phone number 0956 815 2922.

Thank you very much and God bless!

Sincerely yours,

LORENZ DANIEL P. LUMEN

Student, MPM
2012-34047

57
Appendix 2 – Free and Prior Informed Consent [Online]

FREE AND PRIOR INFORMED CONSENT

Dear friends,

I am Lorenz Daniel P. Lumen, a Master of Public Management (MPM) student of the University
of the Philippines – Open University, and I am conducting a survey on factors affecting youth
involvement in agriculture in selected areas in Davao Region. This survey is intended to draw
information on the influences affecting youth’s decision to participate or not participate in
agriculture, including employment and education. The results are expected to provide
evidence-based information that may be used to advance policies and programs to encourage
the youth to involve in agriculture.

I would like to invite you to participate in this online survey, which will last around 3-5 minutes.
Your participation is voluntary, and you will not receive any compensation from participating
in the survey. Nevertheless, your participation will provide inputs, which could help our policy-
makers craft preferential policies that could advance both youth and agricultural development.
Your response will be treated will full confidentiality and only the researcher as well as the
UPOU can access your information. To ensure data privacy and security, the online database
that will store all responses, including yours, will be transferred to the researcher’s secure
(offline) database and will be deleted from the web once the survey period ends. Data stored
in the offline database will be deleted a year after the conclusion of the study. If you would like
to have a copy of the study, kindly provide your email address so I can send it to you. You may
withdraw your participation at any stage of the survey. Should you decide to take part in the
survey, kindly select "YES".

Thank you for your valuable participation in this survey. Let us continue to work together for
the advancement of Davao Region’s youth and agriculture.

Sincerely yours,

Lorenz Daniel P. Lumen

Student, MPM
2012-34047

58
Appendix 3 – Online Survey Questionnaire [Microsoft Forms]

Sociodemographic Profile
Age
Sex Male Female
Family Size
Educational Attainment (Respondent)
Educational Attainment (Parent)
Field of education (Respondent) Agri-related Non-Agri-related
Field of education (Parent) Agri-related Non-Agri-related
Nature of work (Respondent) Agri-related Non-Agri-related
Nature of work (Parent) Agri-related Non-Agri-related
Work experience
Gross monthly income
Family residence Urban Rural
Current residence Urban Rural
Factors Affecting Youth Involvement
Strongly Strongly
Aspects Disagree Neutral Agree
Disagree Agree
Vulnerability of agriculture to climate conditions
Agriculture is susceptible to undesirable
climate conditions
Does such vulnerability influence your
decision to engage in agriculture?
Would your decision be influenced if the
risks of climate conditions to agriculture is
mitigated?
Access to agricultural inputs and markets
Agricultural inputs and markets are easily
accessible
Does the accessibility of agricultural inputs
and markets influence your decision to
engage in agriculture?
Would your decision be influenced if
access to agricultural inputs and markets
are improved?
Infrastructure, social amenities and technical support
Infrastructure, social amenities and
technical support are available in
agricultural areas
Does the availability of infrastructure,
social amenities and technical support in
agricultural areas influence your decision
to engage in agriculture?
Would your decision be influenced if the
availability of infrastructure, social
amenities and technical support in
agricultural areas are improved?
Returns/income from agriculture
Returns/income from agriculture is
high/sufficient to cater to the needs of the
agricultural workers

59
 Do returns/income from agriculture
influence your decision to engage in the
sector?
Would your decision be influenced if
income from agriculture is improved?
Access to agricultural education
Agricultural education is easily accessible
or readily available in agricultural or
neighboring areas
Does access to agricultural education
influence your decision to engage in the
sector?
Would your decision be influenced if
access to agricultural education is
improved?
Public perception of the agricultural profession
Is the public perception of the agricultural
profession as a poor man's job true?
Does public perception of the agricultural
profession influence your decision to
engage in the sector?
Would your decision be influenced if such
perception is improved or removed?
Availability of non-agricultural jobs/opportunities/education
There are many non-agricultural
opportunities that are readily available and
accessible
Does the availability of non-agricultural
opportunities influence your decision to
engage in agriculture?
Would your decision be influenced if the
agricultural opportunities are equally
available?
Personal and family influences
Personal and family influences matter
Do personal and family influences bear a
great amount of influence on your decision
to engage in agriculture?
Personal and family preferences can be
changed if the agriculture sector improves
Do you plan to engage in agriculture in the future? Why or why not?

What are your recommendations to improve the agriculture sector?

Note: Survey questionnaire was crafted by the researcher based on the factors identified in the literature review

60
Appendix 4 – Interview Questions

Interview Questions

1. How does Davao Region fare compared to the rest of the Philippines in terms of agricultural
development?

2. What are the merits and constraint on Davao Region’s agricultural development from your
own perspective?

3. Can the Region achieve inclusive growth through agricultural development? How so?

4. How can the youth contribute to Davao Region’s agricultural development?

5. Statistics show that the agricultural labor force is decreasing. The decrease according to
NEDA, can be attributed to the out migration from agriculture to other sectors particularly
of the youth. Why do you think this is happening?

6. What are the measures done by the Region to ensure that the youth plays an important
role in agricultural development?

7. Do you see the youth as the future of agricultural development? Why or why not?

61
Appendix 5 – Diagnostic Test Results

Appendix 5.1 Shapiro-Wilk’s Test of Normality

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
DECISION .458 60 .000 .552 60 .000
AGE .236 60 .000 .838 60 .000
SEX .382 60 .000 .626 60 .000
FAMSIZE .201 60 .000 .927 60 .001
RESED .249 60 .000 .825 60 .000
PARED .259 60 .000 .876 60 .000
EXP .228 60 .000 .679 60 .000
INC .268 60 .000 .457 60 .000
FAMRES .365 60 .000 .633 60 .000
CURRES .339 60 .000 .637 60 .000
VUL2 .177 60 .000 .897 60 .000
INPUTS2 .232 60 .000 .874 60 .000
INFRA2 .222 60 .000 .875 60 .000
RETURNS2 .218 60 .000 .829 60 .000
AGRI_ED2 .254 60 .000 .860 60 .000
PUB2 .183 60 .000 .913 60 .000
NON2 .215 60 .000 .864 60 .000
PERSONAL2 .199 60 .000 .854 60 .000
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Appendix 5.2 Multicollinearity Test using Variance Inflation Factor

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized Collinearity
Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig. Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) .655 .810 .809 .423
AGE -.015 .053 -.104 -.280 .781 .113 8.863
SEX -.216 .153 -.241 -1.410 .166 .534 1.871
FAMSIZE -.054 .046 -.175 -1.157 .254 .681 1.468
RESED .023 .129 .063 .177 .860 .123 8.163
PARED -.012 .059 -.039 -.196 .846 .399 2.505
EXP .061 .031 .323 1.928 .061 .558 1.793
INC -1.706E-6 .000 -.101 -.650 .519 .649 1.540
FAMRES .096 .287 .108 .336 .739 .150 6.660
CURRES .009 .292 .011 .032 .974 .143 6.991
VUL2 -.070 .069 -.176 -1.016 .315 .518 1.929
INPUTS2 -.030 .127 -.060 -.237 .814 .243 4.122

62
 INFRA2 .117 .127 .234 .920 .363 .241 4.152
RETURNS2 .020 .104 .040 .191 .850 .362 2.765
AGRI_ED2 .070 .104 .139 .669 .507 .360 2.781
PUB2 -.104 .069 -.276 -1.499 .141 .462 2.164
NON2 -.010 .086 -.021 -.115 .909 .462 2.166
PERSONAL2 .017 .074 .037 .234 .816 .611 1.635
a. Dependent Variable: DECISION

Appendix 5.3 Presence of Outliers using Cook’s Distance

Residuals Statisticsa
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N
Predicted Value -.50 1.10 .27 .261 60
Residual -.700 .764 .000 .361 60
Cook's Distance .000 .359 .038 .071 60
a. Dependent Variable: DECISION

63
Appendix 6 – Interview Results (Translated to English)

Ms. Jovy Joy Jimenez, DA XI – Research Division

Interviewer: How does Davao Region fare compared to the rest of the Philippines in terms of
agricultural development?

Interviewee: In my opinion, the potential of Davao Region’s agriculture sector is limitless. I

cannot speak for other regions, but Davao Region, in itself, has an active economy, favorable
climate conditions and a great investment environment that provides vast opportunities for its
people. It also has its advantages over other regions, particularly in the export of various
commodities such as banana, coconut and others.

Interviewer: What are the merits and constraint on Davao Region’s agricultural development
from your own perspective?

Interviewee: The great climate is an edge to Davao Region’s agricultural sector. For example,
we are recognized as a top producer of cacao in the country. What makes us excel in this aspect
is the fertile soil that is suitable for cacao production. In the Region, we have the Paquibato
district in Davao City, and Davao Oriental as cacao production areas due to the good soil, and
the right temperature that is warm, at the same time, shaded. However, the Region could
further improve in the provision of farm-to-market roads, since some areas do not have these,
on the post-harvest facilities, and with the recent Rice Tarrification Law, the rice importation
that could affect the farmers. Although, we have yet to know the effects, whether positive,
negative or both.

Interviewer: Can the Region achieve inclusive growth through agricultural development? How
so?

Interviewee: Yes. We are dependent on agriculture as a country. By utilizing this strength and
directing our resources, capacitating our farmers, and thorough research on mechanization
and product development, we may be able to use this to our advantage to become a contender
in the global market.

Interviewer: How can the youth contribute to Davao Region’s agricultural development?

Interviewee: Given their interests on gadgets and technology, it is still a great challenge to
encourage the youth in engaging themselves to farming. In my opinion, giving more incentives
and support to those who will be taking agriculture-related courses and to those who may
develop an application for information dissemination, will help in triggering their curiosity in
agriculture.

Interviewer: Statistics show that the agricultural labor force is decreasing. The decrease
according to NEDA, can be attributed to the out migration from agriculture to other sectors
particularly of the youth. Why do you think this is happening?

Interviewee: It could probably be due to the misconception that there is no future in

agriculture and that those who do this job are poor and uneducated. Because of this stigma,

64
our youth are more interested in the city life. Families of the farmers also discourage their
children to engage in agriculture. In most cases, they want their children to go to school, enter
college and find “professional” jobs in the city, so they could give back and raise their families
from poverty. Even some of the farmers do not see farming, or agriculture as a way to raise
their economic status.

Interviewer: What are the measures done by the Region to ensure that the youth play an
important role in agricultural development?

Interviewee: I know of scholarships that the DA, even its attached agencies, Bureau of Fisheries
and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), probably ATI, provide scholarships to the farmers’ children. The
benefits, really, can send their children to college, and the good thing is, they have to take
agriculture-related courses. The State Universities and Colleges also offer agriculture-related
courses. Although, with the rise of technologies, social media, the youth are really enticed to
go with the trends. I think for them, agriculture is traditional or old school, and this really affects
the sector. These are some initiatives by the government, but I think communicating the
importance of agriculture, and by communicating, I mean truly engraving it in the youth that
technologies cannot feed us is what is lacking. Yes, technologies can help, but food production
is still the key to our survival, and development, of course.

Interviewer: Do you see the youth as the future of agricultural development? Why or why not?

Interviewee: Yes. They are the future of agricultural development and the future of our world.
However, if we, the present generation do not work on better laws, technology, and policies
towards the improvement of this sector TODAY, our future, especially the youth, would not be
able to achieve their full potential. We maybe passing on our burdens, which should not be the
case.

65