Land Conversion

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background Information about Magalang Magalang is a first class municipality in the province of Pampanga. The municipality of Magalang consists of 27 barangays with a total population of 52 607. The farmer group is comprised of 2 452. It has a total land area of 9, 731 hectares and a total agricultural area of 7, 217.1940 hectares. Also,it has a total residential area of 506.6034 hectares, total industrial area of 320.3150, total commercial area of 198.8437 hectares and total institutional area of 1 356.0780 hectares. Magalang is also known for being an agricultural town in Pampanga. There are variety of crops being planted: palay (rice), yellow corn, green corn, legumes (mongo, peanut, cowpea), rootcrops (camote, cassava, gabi, raddish), leafy vegetables and fruits.
Commodities Production/Population
A. Crops MT/Heads
1. Palay(rice) 24 955.17
2. Yellow Corn 1 929.46
3. Green Corn 10 528.23
4. Legumes (Mongo, Peanut, Cowpeas etc) 181.22
5. Rootcrops (Camote, Cassava, Gabi, Raddish) 591.95
6. Leafy vegetables and Fruits 223.13

B. Livestock
Commercial
1. Broiler 1 464.000
2. Layers 326.000
3. Ducks 17 750
4. Sheep 280
5. Swine 1 409
6. Cattle 449
7. Quail 6 000
Backyard
1. Carabao 3 406
2. Cattle 980
3. Swine 2 220

Development Potentials in Magalang
1. Fertile Arable Land for Agri-based Economic Activities
2. Accessibility to Good Transportation Facilities
3. Seat of Integrated research Center, Agricultural State College, training and Animal Breeding Centers
4. Existence and availability of indigenous materials for income-generating projects
5. Availability of Institutions Supportive of Economic related activities such as Banking Institutions, Communications transportation, Power/Energy Facilities and Others.
6. Feedmills Serving the Needs of Livestock and Poultry Raisers
7. Significant Number of Agricultural Dealers for Farm Inputs
8. Ideal sites for Industrial related activities
Magalang has a poblacion area of 595.53 hectares which compose of five barangays. The other twenty two barangays of the town which constitutes about 9 135.7275 hectares composed of rural areas. The General Existing Land Use of Magalang is composed of the following:
a. Built-Up Area
The built-up area is composed of the residential, commercial, institutional and open space. The residential area of Magalang is 506.6034 hectares. Most of the residential uses are along transport lines as road ways. Other residents, however, built individually apart from the settlement cluster and are interspersed with other land uses. The commercial area is approximately 198.8437 hectares. This includes the 7.6 hectares vet alight aircraft. Almost all commercial activities are done in the urban core. The institutional area covers approximately 1386.0780 hectares or 14.24% of the entire municipality. This is composed of schools, chapels, churches and other government institutions. The open space is composed of the cemeteries and parks and playgrounds which is approximately 51.9659 hectares.

b. Industrial
The industrial area is composed of poultry piggery, rice mills and mini-conos. A large portion is occupied by the TIPCO at Barangay Sto. Rosario and the organic fertilizer manufacturing at Barangay Navaling.
c. Forest
The total area for forest is 50.00 hectares.
d. Agricultural
The rest of the ares or 7217.1940 hectares is devoted to agricultural uses.
While in the Existing Urban Land Use of the Municipality of Magalang is composed of Barangays San Pedro I, San pedro II, STa Cruz< San Nicolas I and San Nicolas II.
a. Residential
The residential area is approximately 177.6163 hectares or 19.72% of the total urban area. Residential structures are mostly built along the existing roads.
b. Commercial
The commercial area is 22.5908 or 2.51% of the entire urban area. This is composed of the public market, banks and other privately owned commercial establishments.
c. Institutional
The institutional area is 15.5272 hectares, more or less institutional structures in the urban area are the municipal compound, churches and schools.
d. Open Space
An approximate area of @.0018 hectares is open space. This is composed of the cemetery and playground.
e. Industrial
The industrial area covers an approximate area of 57.2050 hectares or 6.35% of the urban area existing industrial structures of mini-conos and other light industries.
f. Agricultural
The agricultural area is 624.7623 hectares more or less.
Lastly, under the proposed land use, the proposed built-up area for the municipality is expected to reach 2 378.0439 hectares more or less. This is a slight increase to the existing built-up area. This is composed of the residential, commercial, institutional and open space. The existing residential area is expected to increase to accommodate increase in population. Residential expansion and proposed at Barangays Navaling, a 40 hectares at Barangay San Pablo, a 6 hectares, area at Barangay San Ildefonso and a 4.4 hectares area at Bucanan.
The commercial activities are proposed to occupy an area of 380.00 hectares. This will includes the 160.00 hectares area at Barangay Ayala which is proposed for a golf course, hotel, cottages and resorts. The institutional area is sufficient to accommodate the need of the populace up to the end of the planning period. This is also the same with the area for open space.
While the expansion in the industrial area is proposed to be at 420.3150 hectares more or less, there is a need to expand this land use to keep up with the municipality’s vision of an attainment of sustainable growth and development under balanced agricultural-industrial and human ecological security. The proposed areas for industrial are at the following barangays: Sta. Maria, Sto. Rosarion. Navaling, San Ildefonso/Balitucan. That area at Barangay Sto. Rosario is the most suitable area for industrial expansion because of its proximity to Clark Airport as well as the already congested Angeles City. The road leading to the site is already concreted and the electrical facilities are already developed.
The forest area occupied by Magalang is proposed to remain the same. The agricultural area will be slightly reduced to 6882.6411 hectares or 70.72% of the entire municipality to give away for development of other land uses.
Existing General Land Use LAND USE | AREA | PERCENTAGE | 1. Built-Up- Residential - Commercial -Institutional - Open Space 2. Industrial3. Forest4. Agricultural | 2 146.491 hectares506.6034198.94371 386.078051.9659320.315050.00007 217.1940 | 22.05%3.29%0.52%74.14% | TOTAL | 9 734 hectares | 100% |

Existing Urban Land Use LAND USE | AREA | PERCENTAGE | 1. Residential2. Commercial3. Institutional4. Open Space5. Industrial6. Agricultural | 177.6163220.590816.52722.001857.2050624.7623 | 19.72%2.51%1.83%.22%6.38%69.37% | TOTAL | 900.7034 | 100% |

Proposed General Land Use LAND USE | AREA | PERCENTAGE | 1. Built-Up2. Industrial3. Forest4. Agricultural | 2 378.0439420.315050.006 582.6411 | 24.44%4.32%.52%70.72% | TOTAL | 900.7034 hectares | 100% |

Proposed Urban Land Use LAND USE | AREA | PERCENTAGE | 1. Residential2. Commercial3. Institutional4. Open Space5. Agricultural | 2204216.52722.0018620.1744 | 24.43%4.651.83.2368.86 | TOTAL | 900.7034 | 100% |

The total land area of 9 731.2576 ha. are distributed among the barangays as follows: BARANGAY | AREAS | 1. Ayala2. Bucanan3. Camias4. Dolores5. Escaler6. La Paz7. Navaling8. San Agustin9.San Antonio10. San Francisco11. San Ildefonso12. San Jose13. San Isidro14. San Miguel15. San Nicolas I16. San Nicolas II17. San Pablo18. San Pedro I19. San Pedro II20. San Roque21. San Vicente22. Sta. Cruz23. Sta. Lucia24. Sta. Maria25. Sto. Nino26. Sto. Rosario27. Turu | 755.88285.2711170/5910177.6268793.9630143.8063149.79931 348.6995211.5342243.54421 506.9399251.5000210.7869231.420691.3790125.4525177.666015.1261113.1520304.9335306.8121250.4195149.4772246.9020317.0248616.9929471.5472 |

Agricultural Area and Production CROP | AREA (Hectares) | Production (Metric Tone) | 1. Ricea. Irrigatedb. Rainfed (Physical Area only) | 3 818.33557.08 | 19 092.002357.00 | 2. Root Cropa. Camoteb. Cassavac. Raddishd. Gabi | 64.280.5027.0962.39 | 964.0010.00217.00624.00 | 3. Corna. Yellowb. Green | 149.451 834.71 | 748.006 422.00 | 4. Legumesa. Mongob. Peanutc. Cow Peasd. Sitaw | 12.502.8091.7526.62 | 5.003.3644.00330.33 | 5. Fruit Vegetablesa. Eggplantb. Tomatoc. Ampalayad. Squashe. Patolaf. Okrag. Watermelonh. Upo | 16.252.3263.888.004.252.802.000.50 | 52.5050.00638.7585.0024.9011.4020.0010.00 |

Existing Industrial Establishments TYPE | Number | 1. Poultry/Piggery farm2. Cono? Semi-cono/ kiskisan3. Concrete products making4. Garments making5. Meat processing plant6. Feedmill7. Leathercraft8.Refilling Plant | 7026611111 | TOTAL | 107 |

Existing Commercial Establishments Type of Establishment | Number | 1. Services 2. Trading General Merchandise 3. Sari-sari Store 4. Foodshop/Bakeshop 5. Pawnshop 6. Bar/s 7. Gasoline Station | 15613578581053 |

Law Governing Agricultural Land Conversion in the Philippines Republic Act 8435 is also known as AFMA or Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act. It is an act defining measures to modernize the country’s agriculture and fisheries sectors to make them competitive in the market. The Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA) of 1997 (Republic Act 8435) was passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on December 15, 1997 and December 16, 1997, respectively. It was signed into law by then President Fidel V. Ramos on December 22, 1997. The law took effect on February 9, 1998. There is a need to modernize the Philippine agriculture to improve the living conditions of the majority of the farmers and increase their productivity amidst the growing needs of the markets (local and abroad). Modernizing agriculture is the way by which farmers can realize better income. AFMA hopes to improve the quality of life, not only of the farmers and fisher folks, but every Filipino. Specifically, it intends to achieve the following: a) To modernize the agricultural and fishery sectors by transforming these sectors from a resource-based to a technology-based industry;
b) To en hance profits and incomes in the agricultural and fishery sectors, particularly of the small farmers and fisherfolk by ensuring equitable access to assets, resources and services, and promoting higher-value crops, value-added processing, agribusiness activities, and agro-industrialization;
c) To ensure the accessibility, availability and stability of food supply at all times;
d) To encourage horizontal and vertical integration, consolidation and expansion of agricultural and fishery activities, groups, functions and other services through the organization of cooperatives, farmers’ and fisher folk’s associations, corporations, nucleus estates, and consolidated farms and to enable these entities to benefit from economies of scale, afford them a stronger negotiating position, and enable them to pursue more focused, efficient and appropriate research and development efforts; e) To promote people empowerment by strengthening people’s organizations, cooperatives and NGO’s, and by establishing and improving mechanisms and processes for their participation in government decision-making and implementation;
f) To pursue a market-driven approach to enhance the comparative advantage of our agricultural and fishery sectors in the world market; g) To induce the agricultural and fishery sectors to continuously ascend the value-added ladder by subjecting their traditional or new products to further processing in order to minimize the marketing of raw, unfinished or unprocessed products; h) To adopt policies that will promote industry dispersal and rural industrialization by providing incentives to local and foreign investors for them to establish industries that have backward linkages to the country’s agricultural and fishery resource bases;
i) To provide social and economic adjustment measures that increase productivity and improve market efficiency while ensuring the protection and preservation of the environment and equity for small farmers and fisherfolk; The law shall empower the agricultural and fisheries sector to develop and sustain themselves. Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act shall ensure the development of the agriculture and fisheries sectors in accordance with the following principles:
a) Poverty Alleviation and Social Equity. - The State shall ensure that the poorer sectors of society have equitable access to resources, income opportunities, basic and support services and infrastructure especially in areas where productivity is low as a means of improving their quality of life compared with other sectors of society;
b) Food Security. - The State shall assure the availability, adequacy, accessibility of food supplies to all at all times;
c) Rational Use of Resources. - The State shall adopt a rational approach in the allocation of public investments in agriculture and fisheries in order to assure efficiency and effectiveness in the use of scarce resources and thus obtain optimal returns on its investments;
d) Global Competitiveness. - The State shall enhance the competitiveness of the agriculture and fisheries sectors in both domestic and foreign markets;
e) Sustainable Development. - The State shall promote development that is compatible with the preservation of the ecosystem in areas where agriculture and fisheries activities are carried out. The State should exert care and judicious use of the country's natural resources in order to attain long-term sustainability;
f) People Empowerment. - The State shall promote people empowerment by enabling all citizens through direct participation or through their duly elected, chosen or designated representatives the opportunity to participate in policy formulation and decision making by establishing the appropriate mechanisms and by giving them access to information; and
g) Protection from Unfair Competition. - The State shall protect small farmers and fisher folk from unfair competition such as monopolistic and oligopolistic practices by promoting a policy environment that provide them priority access to credit and strengthened cooperative-based marketing system.

CHAPTER II
THE PROBLEM AND ITS CONTENT
I. Statement of the Problem This paper seeks to determine the effect of “land conversion,” which means the transformation of agriculture land use to industrial use, to the food security in a municipality in Pampanga which is in the midst of modernization such as Magalang This study shall expound on the quality of life after conversion in Magalang. On the economic aspect, this paper aims to establish an answer to the problem due to land conversion. This also aims to know the effect of land conversion to the quality of life. Moreover, this paper also aims to know if the food and other basic needs in Magalang are more affordable before the land has been converted. Lastly this paper aims to know if land conversion ensures poverty alleviation and social equity. Furthermore, this paper also considers the following statements in relation with AFMA: How does land conversion conform to this program? How does AFMA influence the conversion of lands for the purpose of sustaining development, maintaining the availability of food supplies, improving the quality of life especially the labor force that will be affected? Moreover, this paper should present the net effect of land conversion to the municipality of Magalang after examining its economic and social impact.

B. Hypothesis The researchers have come up with the following assumptions: * There is improved quality of life on farming families after the conversion because quality food and other basic needs become affordable. * Farmers who sell a part only of their farmland are better off compared to those farmers who sell their whole farmland. * Farmers who sell a part only of their farmland improved their farming practices and farm management. * The people know that the foods they are buying from market are safe and nutritious.
C. Objectives
The researchers aim to know whether there is improved quality of life on farming families after selling their land for conversion which is measured through affordability of safe and nutritious food, affordability of other basic needs and whether there is improved farming practices and farm management. Also, the researchers aim to know which farming families are better off after the conversion: (1) farming families who sell their whole farm land or (2) farming families who sell a part only of their farmland.
D. Importance of the Study The agricultural industry has long played a significant role in regional development of throughout the world especially on rural and remote areas of every country. But this industry tends to diminish even on these said areas because of one process: LAND- CONVERSION. Land conversion is a necessary and inevitable process towards progress. Pampanga, a province with a productive land for agriculture, is on to the process of land conversion because of urbanization. Some of its municipalities such as City of San Fernando and Angeles City were already urbanized and some were on the verge of urbanization such as Magalang. Numerous studies concluded that land use conversion has had positive impacts in terms of creating industrial estates, which contribute to the over-all improvement of individuals, the community and local government. Improved quality of life is expected to be the result of land- conversion.
Quality of life is determined as the level of wellbeing of residents and the sustainability of the physical environment. It is also define as the physical, emotional, intellectual, or cultural satisfaction in a person's everyday life. There are several factors of quality of life which includes standard of living, food security, safe and healthy environment.
Standard of living is the level of wealth, comfort, material goods and necessities available to a certain socioeconomic class in a certain area. Factors such as income, quality and availability of employment, class disparity, poverty rate, quality and affordability of housing, hours of work required to purchase necessities, gross domestic product, inflation rate, number of vacation days per year, affordable (or free) access to quality healthcare, quality and availability of education, life expectancy, incidence of disease, cost of goods and services, and infrastructures reflects a region’s quality of life.
Food security is the measure of the ability that ensures access to essential nutrition. It refers to a household's or country's ability to provide future physical and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that fulfils the dietary needs and food preferences of that household for living an active and healthy life. Its fundamentals were Food availability (which is sufficient quantities of food available on a consistent basis), Food access (having sufficient resources to obtain appropriate foods for a nutritious diet) and Food use (appropriate use based on knowledge of basic nutrition and care, as well as adequate water and sanitation).
Determining Quality of life also take into account intangible aspects of human life such as safety and health environment. These factors reflect how residents perceive on how they are secured in terms of community safety and health.
The land conversion process will have an effect on the quality of life on the agricultural areas especiall on the municipality of Magalang, which is known as the “Food Basket of Pampanga”. The researchers wanted to identify the satisfactory level of residents in Magalang especially those who are in the farming industry. Since, satisfaction has a positive correlation with productivity. The researchers also wanted to determine the best move or solution balance private property rights and the public interest regarding land conversion as a way to development without affecting the future quality of life of farmers in the municipality. Because land use change provides many economic and social benefits, it also comes at a substantial economic cost to society. E. Scope and Limitation The study will focus on the effects of land conversion to the quality of life of farmers in the municipality of Magalang which is named as the “Food Basket of Pampanga”. It aims to determine the effect of land conversion in a specific area from while keeping track of the amount of land capable to sustain the resident’s quality of living. The measure of quality of life will be only based on standard of living, food security, and some intangible human aspects of the farmers who sold their land for conversion. The researchers did not include other factors of quality of life such as spiritual and psychological factors. Data are to be acquired through the surveys given to the concerned farmers who sold their whole farmland and those who sold part of their farmland only. Magalang, the most prominent candidate municipalities for land conversion was chosen because of the time and resource constraint. Lastly, the data that will be interpreted which were given by the local municipality will be from 1997 to 2012.

CHAPTER III
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act had an ambitious goal for the Philippines. It include poverty alleviation and social equity, food security, rational use of resources, global competitiveness, sustainable development, people empowerment, and protection from competition are in the right places. However, this act pledged for too many roles on many things with too many agencies but had too little of resources. By the time the act started, it wavered. Its budget was not materialized and sadly the annual financial flows sharply declined from 2000 to 2005. And, the little support it received from the government was furthermore misallocated: more funds went to production support while far less in marketing, R & D, human resources and inter-agency linkages. This program is bad example that before its launch, all resources must already been allocated to their proper places. Also, because of the lack of resources, its stakeholders believed that AFMA did not achieve its goals. It was through a survey that concluded the failure of information, education and communication due to the problem that the public could not receive that all programs of the Department of Agriculture were AFMA programs now. According to this survey, two thirds believed that the AFMA failed to strengthen people’s organizations, cooperatives and NGOs that is to enhance the comparative advantage of the agriculture and fisheries sectors. Four out of five respondents believed that the AFMA has not ensured the accessibility, availability and stability of food supply. About half felt that the AFMA was unable to promote industry dispersal and lastly, two-thirds of the respondents say that the AFMA was not able to improve the quality of their lives.
The results of the implementation of AFMA seemed to have mixed up. On the first principle, poverty alleviation, AFMA did not work because partly due to the lack of resources for it and the non-compliance for its proper budget specified in the AFMA. Next, on Food security, there was a positive result. Agriculture and fisheries grew almost 3.5% annually between 1995 and 2005. This growth led to improved food security, mainly in rice, poultry and fishery. On the third principle, rational use of resources, marketing and R & D were not prioritized. Remember that cost-benefit analysis results are the most appropriate guides in the allocation of investments. Furthermore, marketing and R & D yields higher cost-benefit ratios. But sadly, the budget went to production support which has the lowest cost-benefit ratios. In terms of global competitiveness, there were no significant products inventions for export over the past years. Our top exports remained unchanged: banana, pineapples, tuna, seaweeds, carrageenan, and coconut products. And lastly, with regards to sustainable development, because of the little flow of resources, farm incomes, for instance, did not increase. If the budget was allocated properly, there would have been more jobs and if there were also private investors. In comparison, some Asian countries took 20 years to achieve their high agricultural productivity. And one of its key success factors was a well-budgeted R & D program that engages with scientists and researchers form universities and the private sector. Another, they have a market information system with timely, accurate and accessible information. Their producers are learned on how the market works, especially of cost, quality and supply reliability. And lastly, they have private and foreign investors, which is true. Most of the resources are privately owned. If they invest, they produce more jobs and with more jobs, there is higher income, more growth, therefore, better standard of living. Moreover, the Government must have put more faith on the validity of cost-benefit analysis. Give the proper budget so that the program would achieve its goals because in the end, it would be a win-win situation for everybody, not counting the praise the will get from the global society. So, the national government should build better ties with its local government units. Like a ship, they must act as one crew. As the Department of Agriculture ‘steers’ towards agricultural development, the LGUs ‘rows’ for it. The Agriculture Competitiveness Enhancement Fund (ACEF), created under the Agricultural Tariffication Act of 1996, is a safety net measure that is supposed to enhance the competitiveness of the agricultural sector because of the temporary and initial adverse impact of globalization. The purchase of ACEF credit at regional level will enhance the trade capacity of stakeholders. As of 2005, Luzon got the higher total ACEF Loan of 27% for regular projects. Mindanao has 17% and Visayas 9%. Apparently, the ACEF Executive Committee is having difficulties in dispensing the remaining unallocated amount of P2.7 billion. This is because, first, the Department of Budget and Management has put a cap of P800, 000 per year on all projects and second, the ACEF expires by 2007. The survey revealed that the AFMA national priority is irrigation for rice that accounts for the largest budget share at 30%. Regionally, irrigation it is true in both Luzon and Visayas, Mindanao’s top priority is more infrastructure like roads and ports, etc. Lastly, the book recommended the following: pursuit of more vigorous macro and sub-sectoral policy reforms and law enforcement relative to agricultural trade, continuation of stronger trade negotiation initiatives, provision of assistance to small and medium enterprises and cooperatives, revisit of the Agricultural Competitiveness Enhancement Fund (ACEF), reprioritization of the remaining budget of the ACEF, revisiting of the implementation mechanisms of the ACEF, and integration of trade issues into the national development agenda.1 Surely, the effects of land conversion are varied among the majority and the marginalized in the country. In this case, the considered minority will be the upper class while the majority will be the toilers of the land, the farmers and fishermen who comprise the lower fifth of the country’s poor who live in rural areas. In the past few years land classified as agricultural is estimated to be 10 – 11 million hectares. However, this has declined because of the conversion to non-agricultural use. These agricultural lands were converted to industrial or residential areas which are supposed to grow infant industries in the real estate and production fields. The money then earned from selling these lands are supposed to alleviate the farmer’s standard of living. Is this really the case in land conversion? The key to a progressive country is a modern agriculture. Since most lands of the country are agricultural, so must its primary industry be agricultural. From the colonial period to the 1990s, the Philippine markets were secure. Upon having gained independence, nationalist policymakers pushed industry over agriculture which they regarded backwards and untimely. The infant industries which hoped to be the answer for progress never grew up to become competitive in the world because their home markets were limited by the lack of purchasing power of the majority who depend highly on agriculture. So the people and policymakers thought, we should modernize agriculture to ease Filipino poverty.

1 Congress of the Philippines. Modernizing Agriculture (Report and recommendations of the Congressional Commision on Agriculture Modernization). (Congress of the Philippines, 1997).

To compete in an increasingly interdependent world, the Philippines must opt for a modern agriculture. Severe inequality of income and assets is the main reason why Filipinos are poor worsened by unequal access to social services. The urban poor are lucky to have these services at least for they are easily reached. The rural poor, the country’s poorest are sadly left behind, despite the fact that they are the ones feeding the nation. Empowering the rural people will greatly boost agriculture. Policies must be altered and the following are necessary to achieve such goals: interest rates must be generally lower, higher land taxes must be imposed to penalize owners of idle or abandoned lands, public investments in rural infrastructure, education, training and research must be maximized, rural credit must be accessible to small farmers at reasonable cost, stronger linkages between LGUs and agricultural research institutes, the Magna Carta for Small Farmers, and finally, a well-defined national land-use master plan. Of our country’s total land area of 30 million, almost half are prone to erosion and soil degradation. Only one-third of this land area can be used for agricultural purposes. Problem is, these lands are not well irrigated and are furthermore being converted to industrial or commercial establishments. To address this issue, National Protected Agricultural Areas (NPAAs), declared by the Administrative Order 20, began. It stated that food security be the national objective. These NPAAs are to be preserved and protected from land conversion; farmers can feed the people at times of crisis which means no need to import food from other countries. In fact, an Agricultural and Fishery Development Zones was proposed to be set up within NPAAs to promote crop programming that would enhance, by nature, regional comparative advantage to cropping. Only half of the lands were distributed when in 10 years this reform should have been done by then. Among the problems that caused this delay was the lack of funds to buy the privately owned lands, the resistance of land owners, the high land valuation and poor system for land records. To resolve the former issues mentioned above, it was suggested that a progressive agricultural tax be imposed so that people will be discouraged to own large tracts of land. On the other hand, if land reform was successful, beneficiaries must be helped so that they become productive. The government built agrarian reform communities to coordinate with the farmer’s production. Unfortunately, the government could not provide all their financial needs very well that it sorted to urban agribusiness where there is a joint-venture contract-growing between government and these communities. Irrigation had had problems that concerns its low returns on large-scale irrigation networks, increasing operations and maintenance costs. That accordingly, had reduced the total area of irrigated lands—a threat to our food security. The suggestions included the following: lower installation cost, sustainability, system-control by its users and the participation of private business in financing to keep the system running. Also, the government need to start investing on research and development as it has been prioritized last. If this area had enough support, it would yield the highest return in all of agriculture’s investments. Also, the transfer of commodities from the producers to the consumers had too many intermediaries where in every stop there is a trade margin. Because of this, farmers get paid in lower prices while consumers spend more than they should. Another problem is the poor medium of transporting these goods. Thus it is cheaper o ship corn from Thailand to the Philippines than from Mindanao to Luzon. This problem should be a higher priority of the government. Of the important factors a farmer should be is to be educated. He must be open to changing technology so that he can make wiser decisions among options that have been continuously adding up now. The government had many flaws. First is the duplication of tasks. There is a weak and unclear coordination among agencies. All agencies, first of all, should be under the Department of Agriculture. For example, fishery subsector was neglected. The Department of Agriculture should be renamed into Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. The AGRICOM stated that its modernization should be characterized by growth, efficiency, equity and sustainability. And the following are some of their key recommendations: the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform should be turned over to the Department of Agriculture, small-scale irrigation should be promoted by the government and that irrigation services, as much as possible, be supported by the private sector, and finally public investments in rural infrastructure should give priority to high-growth areas of agriculture. As soon as this framework is adopted, the Government should develop an agricultural and fisheries modernization plan for five-year and ten-year program. To make up for the government’s historical neglect of agriculture, it should invest more to the sector. Provide Science Fund to pay for the career development of Filipino agricultural scientists.2 2 Dy, Rolando T. Ph. D., et al. Modernizing Philippine Agriculture and Fisheries: The AFMA Implementation Experience.(Inkwell Publishing Co., Inc.: Pasig City, Phil., 2008) In September 2000, 189 nations adopted the UN Millennium Declaration, a broad-reaching document that states a commitment “to making the right to development a reality for everyone and to freeing the entire human race from want.” The United Nations Millennium Development Goals are eight goals that all 191 UN member states have agreed to try to achieve by the year 2015. The United Nations Millennium Declaration commits world leaders to combat poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental degradation, and discrimination against women. The MDGs are derived from this Declaration, and all have specific targets and indicators. The declaration specifies a set of eight goals consistent with this commitment: (1) eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, (2) achieve universal primary education, (3) promote gender equality and power women, (4) reduce child mortality, (5) improve maternal health, (6) combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases, (7) ensure environmental sustainability, and (8) develop a global partnership for development.3 The MDGs are inter-dependent; all the MDG influence health, and health influences all the MDGs. For example, better health enables children to learn and adults to earn. Gender equality is essential to the achievement of better health. Reducing poverty, hunger and environmental degradation positively influences, but also depends on, better health.4

3 Millenium development Goals (MDGs); Goals and Targets from the Millennium Declaration. <http://www.alliance2015.org/fileadmin/user_upload/MDGs.pdf>, (Accessed on January 14, 2013)

4 “Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)”, World Health Organization,” www.who.int/topics/millennium_development_goals/about/en (Accessed on January 14, 2013)

CHAPTER IV
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
In this study, researchers will investigate if there will be improvement in the quality of life of farming families affected by farmland conversion in the Municipality of Magalang in Pampanga.
There will be two sets of discussions in the study. First discussion will be the effect of selling the entire farmland, to be converted to non-agricultural land use, to the improvement of the farmer’s quality of life. Second discussion will be the effect of selling a part of farmland to the improvement of the farmer’s quality of life.
In this study, also the researchers will be conducting comparative analysis of which farmers are better off, farmers who sold their entire land or those farmers who just sold part of their farm land. A. Variables
The independent variables in study are the (1) affordability of safe and nutritious food, (2) affordability of other basic needs, and (3) improvement of farming practices and management.
The dependent variable will be the land conversion and will be measured through the amount of land converted by each farmer.
As growth proceeds over time, the structure of the economy tends to change in several important ways. Due to agricultural to non-agricultural land use conversion, portion of the labor force engaged in agriculture declines while the portion of the workforce in industry and services rises. Household moves from rural areas to cities. The share of total output produced by the agricultural sector declines while share from the industry and services increases conflicting with national food security goals.
In rural communities, many people rely on subsistence farming for their livelihood. With improvement in rural areas, households should be benefiting from increased incomes which can be spent on their other basic needs especially having access to more food.
The researchers also consider the AFMA Law in the study. The AFMA law seeks to enhance better income for small farmers and fisher folks in the country by ensuring access to resources and services. It aims to modernize the Philippine agriculture by transforming agriculture and fishery sectors from resource-based to technology-based industries. It has provided millions of the country’s farmers and fishermen the chance to improve the quality of their lives.
According to AFMA, the State shall assure the availability or accessibility of food supplies at all times. In the People on the Land: Changes in Global Population and Croplands during the 20th Century by Ramankutty et. al, it is indicated that international experience shows that rapid economic growth is always accompanied with shift of land from agriculture to non-agricultural use. Based on this, economic growth increases the demand for land thus weakening incentives for agricultural production.
The effect of land conversion will be measured by examining the changes in the converted land, the effect on productivity and its ultimate impact on the quality of life of farmers. To meet the goal, changes in Magalang’s converted land over time and its conversion to commercial, industrial, and residential areas will be compared to the guidelines of AFMA.
The researchers also used the concept of Human Development Index (HDI) to summarize whether there is improvement in the life of farmers who sold farmlands. The Human Development Index (HDI) is used for measuring quality of life. HDI measures the average achievement in three basic dimensions of the human development: (1) to live a long and healthy life, (2) acquire knowledge, and (3) have access to the resources needed for a decent standard of living. The HDI measures basic human capabilities in these dimensions. The three basic dimensions will be reflected on the researchers’ survey questionnaire.

CHAPTER V
METHODOLOGY
A. Methods of Research
1. Descriptive method was used in this research study. By using descriptive method, the researchers gathered information about the existing condition of the town of Magalang. In using this method, the current nature of the situation was discussed and the causes of particular phenomena were explored. With the descriptive method, the researchers were able to describe the impact of land conversion to the quality of life of farming families in Magalang by assessing the affordability of food and other basic needs after the land conversion. Furthermore, the researchers also described how the farming techniques of the farmers in Magalang improved after a portion of their land was converted to non-agricultural use. In using the descriptive method, the researchers also described the current state of land conversion in Magalang.
2. Survey method was used in this research study to obtain first-hand information from people of Magalang. The researchers administered survey through the use of questionnaires. Two sets of questionnaires were used in the survey. The first set of questionnaire was designated for farmers whose entire land was bought and converted to non-agricultural use. The second set of questionnaire was for farmers who just sold a portion of their land and still have their own land wherein they can grow crops. The first set of questionnaires consists of two categories: affordability of safe and nutritious food and affordability of other basic needs. The second set of questionnaires includes an additional category which is improved farming techniques. Both set of questionnaires were translated in Filipino and Kapampangan by the researchers so that the respondents would be able to comprehend clearly the statements in the questionnaires. The results of the survey were then assessed by the researchers and were used in the analysis regarding how the how land conversion affects the quality of life of the farming families in Magalang.
B. Data Gathering The research study used both primary and secondary data. The primary data were gathered through surveys. The researchers also acquired information through interviews. The secondary data were obtained from the documents provided by the municipality of Magalang. Official statements and publications of the different government offices were also used in the research study. The researchers went to the Municipal Hall of Magalang and interviewed the town’s municipal engineer, Engr. Pile to ask about the current state of the land conversion in Magalang. Furthermore, the researchers also went to Magalang’s different offices like Department of Agriculture and Department of Agrarian Reform to ask about the barangays where a large portion of agricultural land had been converted to non-agricultural use. The Department of Agriculture in Magalang provided the researchers with documents which contain the total number of farmers in Magalang and the different crops that the town is producing. Documents which have the information about the number of hectares per barangay dedicated to agriculture were also given to the researchers. The Department of Agrarian Reform, on the other hand, guided the researchers in conducting the survey in Barangay San Ildefonso. The researchers also went to different barangay halls to ask about the farmers who sold their agricultural land for non-agricultural use. The researchers referred to the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA) in analyzing the land conversion in Magalang. Republic Act 8435 or the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997 (AFMA) aims to modernize the Philippine agriculture so that it can compete in the global market. The researchers were also tasked to determine whether Magalang had already set aside a food reservation area through the development of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). Moreover, the researchers also determined if Magalang, have already done the mapping for the Comprehensive Land Use Plan based on the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA) definition of mapping for agriculture.
C. Location/Site of Research The site of the research is the town of Magalang in Pampanga. The town is not yet industrialized compared to the cities and other towns of Pampanga. In the past, Magalang was mostly agricultural in nature but with land conversion, it has experienced gradual urbanization throughout the recent years. Magalang is located at the northeast part of Pampanga. The town is classified as a 1st class municipality and belongs to the 1st district of Pampanga. The total land area of Magalang is 9,731 hectares and has a total of twenty seven barangays. As of 2007, the town has a total population of 98,595. About seventy nine percent of the total land area of Magalang is devoted to agriculture which makes the town predominantly a rural area. The town produces the highest production of rice and sugarcane in the province of Pampanga. Apart from farming, the other flourished industries in Magalang are livestock and poultry, food processing industry, and goat raising. To conduct the survey, the researchers went to different barangays in Magalang. The researchers conducted the survey in specific barangays which include San Nicholas, San Ildefonso, San Agustin, San Vicente, and Dolores.
D. Sampling The research study was conducted in the town of Magalang in Pampanga. There were two sample groups in the research study and the respondents were chosen through snowball sampling. The first group of respondents consists of farmers who converted all their land to non-agricultural use. On the other hand, the second group of respondents consists of farmers who converted only a portion of their land and thus still has a farmland in which they can use for agricultural purposes. Each group will have thirty respondents since for the survey to be normally distributed; sample size should at least be equal to thirty.
E. Tools of Analysis In order for the researchers to assess the respondents’ answer from the survey, Likert scale was used. Each Likert scale contains Likert items which consist of two parts. The first part is the stem, which is the statement of an attitude or behavior. The second part is called the scale which is where people express their agreement with the statement. The statements on the survey were answerable by strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree which are considered the scale. The survey statements were positive in nature so the scoring for the answers are the following: strongly agree (4), agree (3), disagree (2), and strongly disagree (1). There were two Likert scales used in the first set of survey questionnaires: 1.) Affordability of Safe and Nutritious Food and 2.) Affordability of Other Basic Needs. The first Likert scale (Affordability of Safe and Nutritious Food) consisted of 16 Likert items. The second Likert scale, meanwhile, consisted of 14 Likert items. The second set of questionnaire had an additional Likert scale which is Improved Farming Technique. This Likert scale consisted of 10 Likert items. For each set of survey questionnaires, the respondents’ answers from each category were summed. Likert scales are “summated” scales, so called because a respondent’s answers on each Likert item were summed to give their overall score on the attitude or value. The average scores in each item were also identified by the researchers. Moreover, the researchers also made an item analysis for each set of questionnaires. The researchers tallied how many of the respondents answered strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree in each question. From this item analysis, the percentage for each response (strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree) for every category were identified separately for the two sets of survey questionnaires. Qualitative analysis will be used in analyzing the information collected from the questionnaires and interviews. In the qualitative analysis, the researchers will focus on describing how the quality of life of the farming families in Magalang improved after converting their agricultural lands to non-agricultural use. The researchers also referred to AFMA in order to assess the condition of land conversion in the town of Magalang.

CHAPTER VI
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
Qualitative Analysis
Based from the primary data gathered, the researchers were able to comprehend and evaluate the current situation of farming families after they sell their farmlands for conversion. Results of the study revealed that their quality of life improved after selling their lands. According to the interviews conducted, although farming families’ participants are satisfied with the improvement in their food consumption, they are still anxious about future food security of their families. They feel uncertain whether or not they will be able to acquire enough food for their everyday living. Most of the affected farming families were living in the places of barangays that were far from the market, as well as to the municipality and health clinic. They rarely or even didn’t get assistance from the government. Also, transportation in their place is hard and that is they just rely to those vendors who come to their place for their daily food. Even if they plant crops, due to weather disturbances and lack of infrastructure, equipment and management knowledge, most of the crops die or get wasted. Even if farmers on rice harvest their own rice, it is not enough for them. They also buy rice in the market. There were times that they will sell all what they harvested and leaving nothing for their family and buy rice in the market instead. Most of the families are in nuclear structure where two (2) or three (3) families are living in one house and that is why they are having difficulties in acquiring food. In one family, in averaging, there are three (3) to six (6) children. Given this fact, most of parents are having hard time sending them to schools. Thus, letting the children help them in farming and as a result they will ended up as farmers too. Due to poverty and the desire to improve the quality of life they have, farmers sell their land for conversion.
Of the sixty (60) participants surveyed from seven (7) barangays of Magalang, the top reasons why they decided to sell their land are: * For their everyday food. Their food is not enough for the whole family for they don’t have enough money to buy. * Due to the illness of family members. They rarely get health assistance from the government. * For repair and maintenance of their house. They find it hard to live in one house with two (2) or three (3) families in it. Instead of buying lot and construct a house, they will just construct extension of their house. * For payment of their debts. They don’t have enough money to buy their basic needs so they tend to borrow often. There are times that they can’t even pay the interests of their debts. * For the education of their children. In order to for their children to have college degree they have sell their farmland and look for other source of income
Also, other participants decided to sell their land because they feel unproductive in farming. The cost of growing crops is high even they don’t buy seeds. They are the one providing their own seeds from their previous harvests. The cost of fertilizers is high and one of the main reasons why farmers quit farming. They have to borrow money that earns interest for the maintenance of their crops. And at time of reaping, the money they earn is not enough to pay their debts. Also, others decided to sell their farmlands because of land conversion pressure where in most of the farmlands in their area where already sold for conversion. Others sell their farmlands and use the money to buy other farmlands which is irrigated, in near of their house and not in place that is easily to be flooded during rainy season.
Not all farmers sell their whole farmland for conversion. Some just sell a part of their land and left the other part for farming and cultivation. Some farmers used the money they earned to buy farming tools and machineries which they can use to improve their farming techniques and management. However, some farmers who bought farming machineries ended up selling their machineries because they don’t know how to use it well. They ended up in traditional way of farming, the use of carabao instead of tractor. There were also other farmers who used to borrow or rent carabao from others. And, from the money they earned from selling a part of their farmland they bought carabao. A. For farmers who sell their whole farmland for conversion.
After selling their whole farmlands, some farmers remain farmers by renting other farmland to plant crops. There were farmlands bought by other people for conversion to commercial area but not yet developed and were still available for farming. Some works for others farmland as a laborer. Others became tricycle driver. After selling their whole land, some bought tricycle for they find farming unproductive. Some just borrow tricycle and pay fix payment from the part of their income daily. Also, some went to Manila to look for other source of income and went to construction working. B. For farmers who sell part only of their farmland for conversion.
Some farmers did not sell their whole farmlands. These farmers, aside from being farmers, look for other source of income. Some bought tricycle from the money they earn from selling the land so that they can have other source of income. That is why some of the tricycle drivers in some barangay are also farmers.
For the further assessment on the current situation of the affected farming farmers, these data were obtained through survey with the use of structured questionnaire:

Quantitative Analysis
SET A (Farmers who sold all of their farmlands) In the first set of survey questionnaire designated for those who sold all of their agricultural land to convert to non-agricultural use, the breakdown of the number of strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree responses in each index can be found below.
Figure 1

Figure 2

From the bar graphs, it can be seen that in the Affordability of Safe and Nutritious Food category, there were 50 strongly agree responses, 232 agree response, 160 disagree responses, and 38 strongly disagree responses. Meanwhile, in the Affordability of Other Basic Needs category, it can be seen that there was a total of 52 strongly agree responses, 166 agree responses, 146 disagree responses, and 56 strongly disagree responses. From the number of answers in each response category, the researchers came up with the percentage breakdown of the distribution of responses which can be found below.
Figure 3 Pie Chart for the Affordability of Safe and Nutritious Food index (SET A)

Figure 3 shows the corresponding percentage of the perception of the respondents regarding the affordability of safe and nutritious food. The survey results show that the affected farming families can afford safe and nutritious food compared when they have not yet sold their agricultural land. However, the results is just mediocre since the percentage of respondents who disagree (33.33%) and strongly disagree (7.92%) do not go far behind the percentage of the strongly agree and agree responses. Based on the results, 90% of the respondents agree that their family has now enough food to eat after selling their agricultural land. Moreover, 97% of the respondents agree that their family eats three times a day or more. 80% of the respondents also agree that they can afford to buy safe and nutritious food. However, the survey results show that 63% of the respondents do not agree that there are many cheaper alternatives for rice available in the market.
Figure 4 Pie Chart for the Affordability of Other Basic Needs index (SET A)

Figure 4 shows the corresponding percentage of the perception of the respondents regarding the affordability of other basic needs. The survey results show that the respondents’ perception on the affordability of other basic needs is somewhat divided between being affordable and not affordable. Since the percentages of strongly agree (12.38%) and agree (39.52%) responses are just close to the percentages of disagree (34.76%) and strongly disagree (13.33%) responses, this means that although the affected farming families can now afford to buy other basic needs after selling their land, there are still other basic necessities that they cannot purchase easily. The other basic needs in the Affordability of Other Basic Needs index include education needs, health-related needs, and safety needs. The following bar graphs illustrate the number of responses for strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree for each category of basic needs.
Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Based from the bar graphs presented, the researchers came up with the percentage breakdown of the distribution of responses for each basic need category which can be found below.
Figure 8

In the education needs category, it can be concluded that the ability of affected farming families to avail education needs is just mediocre since the respondents’ answers depict that more than half of the responses (37.5% disagree and 20% strongly disagree) disagree to the fact that farmers who sold their farmlands have the ability to avail educational needs of their children or family members.
Figure 9

When it comes to the basic needs related to health, the pie chart shows that the affected farming families are in the middle since the agree (8.33% strongly agree and 42.22% agree) and disagree (33.33% disagree and 16.11% strongly disagree) response almost have the same percentage share. This means that there are certain health necessities that can be easily availed by the respondents and also some other health-related needs which the respondents still cannot afford. For example, it is shown in the survey results that 57% of the respondents agree that they can purchase vitamins and medicines for their family. However, only 30% of the respondents agree that they can afford for the hospital check-up of their children and family than before.

Figure 10

Regarding the safety needs, the majority of the responses (36.67% strongly agree and 44.44% agree) clearly illustrates that the basic safety needs are achievable and affordable for the affected farmers.
SET B (Farmers who sold only a portion of their farmlands) For the second set of questionnaire which was designated for farmers who only sold a portion of their farmland, the following bar graphs represent the number of responses for strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree for each category.
Figure 11

Figure 12

Figure 13

From the bar graphs, it can be identified that in the Affordability of Safe and Nutritious Food category, there were 133 strongly agree responses, 257 agree responses, 78 disagree responses, and 12 strongly disagree responses. Meanwhile, in the Affordability of Other Basic Needs category, it can be seen that there was a total of 66 strongly agree responses, 231 agree responses, 110 disagree responses, and 13 strongly disagree responses. Lastly, for Improved Farming Technique category, there were 45 strongly agree responses, 163 agree responses, 77 disagree responses, and 15 strongly disagree responses. With the number of answers in each response category shown in the bar graphs, the researchers came up with the percentage breakdown of the distribution of responses which can be found below.
Figure 14 Pie Chart for the Affordability of Safe and Nutritious Food index (SET B)

Figure 14 shows the corresponding percentage of the perception of the respondents regarding the affordability of safe and nutritious food The survey results show that the respondents who only sold a portion of their agricultural land can afford to buy safe and nutritious food as shown in the strongly agree (27.1%) and agree (53.54%) responses. These percentages are also far ahead from the disagree (16.25%) and strongly disagree (2.5%) responses showing that there is a significant improvement in the ability of affected farming families in availing safe and nutritious food. Furthermore, the percentages of the strongly agree and agree responses in Set B are higher compared to Set A. Based on the results of the survey, 77% of the respondents agree that staple foods like rice and bread are affordable and available. 93% of the respondents also agree that a variety of food supply is readily available in the market. Although the affected farming families can now afford to buy safe and nutritious food, 57% of the respondents still worry that food will run out before they get money to buy more food.
Figure 15 Pie Chart for the Affordability of Other Basic Needs index (SET B)

Figure 15 shows the corresponding percentage of the perception of the respondents regarding the affordability of other basic needs. The percentage of strongly agree (15.71%) and agree (55%) responses illustrate that the affected farming families can now afford to buy other basic needs. Based on the percentages, it is clearly shown that farming families are much better off in terms of being able to afford other basic needs since the percentage of disagree (26.19%) and strongly disagree (3.10%) are far behind the strongly agree and agree percentage responses.

The following bar graphs illustrate the number of strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree responses for each category of basic needs.
Figure 16

Figure 17

Figure 18

Based from the bar graphs presented, the researchers came up with the percentage breakdown of the distribution of responses for each basic need category which can be found below.
Figure 19

The percentages of strongly agree (16.04%) and agree (38.68%) responses show that affected farming families have the ability to avail the education needs of their children. However, the disagree responses (29.25% disagree and 16.04% strongly disagree) do not fall much behind the percentage of agree responses. Based on the survey, this means that the majority of the affected farming families still cannot afford to send their children to private or good schools as only 27% of the respondents agree that they have the means to let their children go to private schools. It should be noted however that 83% of the respondents agree that they can easily buy the educational needs of their students. This means that the respondents can afford to buy material things needed in school like school supplies and books.

Figure 20

Health-related needs are affordable for farmers who sold only a portion of their farmlands as corroborated by the percentage of responses (14.44% strongly agree and 56.11% agree) which describe that the affected farming families have the ability to avail health services or products.
Figure 21

It is evident from the percentage breakdown (27.78% strongly agree and 58.89% agree) that the farming families affected have the ability to afford safety needs.

Figure 22 Pie Chart for the Improved Farming Techniques index (SET B)

Figure 22 shows the corresponding percentage of the perception of the respondents regarding the improved farming techniques of farmers. As depicted in Figure 22, more than half of the responses pertain to having improved farming techniques of farmers after they sold a portion of their agricultural land. In particular, strongly agree represents 15% of the responses and agree responses make up 54.33% of the respondents’ answers. This means that after the farmers had sold a portion of their farmland, they could now have the means to avail improved farming technologies or tools so that their farming or cultivation of crops would be much easier and more advanced.

CHAPTER VII
CONCLUSION
With the results of the survey conducted by the researchers in Magalang, it is concluded that land conversion does in fact improve the quality of life of farmers. This means that the farmers have now the ability to buy safe and nutritious food and other basic needs compared before. In the two sample groups surveyed, the farmers who only sold a portion of their farmlands are much better off compared to those who sold all of their farmlands. Since these farmers still left a portion of their farmland for cultivating crops, they also experienced improvements in farming techniques. This led to a more efficient and productive farming system for them. In the case of the farmers who sold all of their farmlands, they also showed an improvement in their quality of life but the results is not as significant compared to the farmers who sold only a portion of their farmlands. The disagree responses of the farmers who sold all their agricultural lands are much higher compared to the farmers who did not sell all their land.

CHAPTER VIII
RECOMMENDATIONS
After studying the improvement of the quality of life of affected farming families, the researchers recommend the following: * Farming tools and machineries are important in farming activities especially in remote areas where there are no irrigation facilities and farmers have to cope with the unpredictable weather. There is apparent lack of infrastructure system such as communication. Farmers in these areas don’t have enough information about the farming tools and machineries that cause them to have low productivity. There is a need for collaboration of various groups and agencies of government to promote agriculture development to maximize utilization of scarce resources and man power. Agricultural extensions are an important instrument for stimulating agricultural development which involves the conscious use of communication of information to help farmers form sound opinions and make good decisions. These will ensure increase in farmers’ productivity and quality of life.

* Cooperative banks provide financial services and deeply rooted inside local areas and communities. They are involved in local development and contribute to the sustainable development of their communities, as their members and management board usually belong to the communities in which they exercise their activities. These cooperatives would be a great help to those farmers who need financial assistance. As seen in some studies cooperativism has a positive effect on the productivity of farmers. The researchers recommend that there should be promotion of cooperative banks on farmers for others are not aware of them.