Implementation, Challenges, and Success of AES in the Local Government of Calintaan, Occidental Mindoro, Philippines

1. IMPLEMENTATION, CHALLENGES,
AND SUCCESS OF AGRICULTURAL
EXTENSION SERVICES (AES)
IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT OF CALINTAAN,
OCCIDENTAL MINDORO
JERALD M. LADRINGAN
Researcher
DR. NORMA B. MUYOT
Adviser
MASTER IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

2. Introduction
CHAPTER

3. Agricultural extension has played an important
role in economic development. Its role in testing
and disseminating research-based agricultural
knowledge and technology to rural people has
improved agricultural sector.
Suvedi, 2011

4. The good performance of agricultural extension
has a significant impact on improving the
performance of farm production.
Baruwadi,2020
In Asia, the performance of agricultural
extension services is an important factor in
determining the status of the local AES.
Brosio,2014

5. Philippines
The Republic Act 7160 –also known as the Local Government Code (LGC)
• confers the power and authority to local government units to perform specific functions
and responsibilities in the delivery of the basic services including the Agriculture
Extension Services (AES) (Matsuda,2011)
AFMA Law or the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997
• mandates the provision of training, information and support services by the government and non-
government organizations to the agriculture and fisheries sectors to improve the technical, business
and social capabilities of farmers and fisherfolk.

6. • in the development of agriculture,
• rural poverty alleviation, and
• enhancing food security as it bridges the gap between laboratory and individual
fields
• (Qiong Yang,2014; Ruhana,2010).
The vital role of AES (emphasized by some studies)
• ineffective in responding to the demands and technological challenges of various
types of clients.
• Ragasa et al. (2013)
• there is a need to review
• be further strengthened the program implementation of Republic Act No. 7160
particularly the extension and on-site research in agriculture, transfer of appropriate
technology
• (Bueno,2018)
Delivery methods of AES have been critiqued

7. These problems will result in
The rise of local problems
• In food security,
• Sustainability of production,
• The well-being of farmers, and economic
• And social disorder
(Cruz, 2021).
Impact the municipality
• Considering that it is an agriculture-dependent
municipality
• With a total land area of about 82,982.28 hectares
• With major group occupations of 3,367 and 2,139
farmers of rice and corn respectively,
• Minor occupation groups involving farmers of
livestock (765),
• Vegetable (225), and
• Poultry (665)
• (Comprehensive Development Plan, 2021).

8. LGUs must be able to effectively
manage the substantial funds at their
disposal towards projects and policies
that can deliver the highest impact on
their community
Reyes et al. (2021)

9. Determining the level of implementation, challenges, and
success of the AES
• directly benefit the farmers and fisherfolk of the municipality as they will
identify their needs and interventions that respond to their concerns.
• help LGU-Calintaan to provide timely and relevant data and information
concerning the implementation, challenges, and success of its AES.
• contribute to filling the gap and improving public extension services
in the locality and
• contribute to the development and upliftment of lives of the people in
LGU-Calintaan.

10. The study primarily aimed to determine the extent of
Implementation, Challenges, and success in delivering AES
in the Local Government Unit of Calintaan, Occidental
Mindoro, and their relationships.
STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES

11. Determine the extent of implementation of AES in LGU-
Calintaan, Occidental Mindoro in terms of:
a. Technology transfer;
b. On-site research and development;
c. Provision of infrastructures and facilities; and
d. Regulation of agricultural activities.
Determine the degree of seriousness of the challenges encountered
in the implementation of the AES in LGU-Calintaan, Occidental
Mindoro in terms of:
a. Personnel-related attributes;
b. Budget-related constraints; and
c. Strategies in the delivery of services.

12. Identify the level of success of the AES in LGU-Calintaan,
Occidental Mindoro in terms of:
a.Farmer’s/ fisherfolk’s satisfaction;
b.Farmers/fisherfolk’s performance; and
c. Farm/ fishery productivity.
Determine the significant relationship between the
extent of implementation and the degree of
seriousness of the challenges encountered by AES
in LGU-Calintaan, Occidental Mindoro.

13. Determine the significant relationship between the
extent of implementation and the level of success
of the AES in LGU-Calintaan, Occidental Mindoro.
6
Determine the significant relationship between the
degree of seriousness of the challenges encountered in
the implementation and the level of success of the AES
in LGU-Calintaan, Occidental Mindoro

14. 7Assess which indicators of implementation predict the
challenges encountered by AES in LGU-Calintaan,
Occidental Mindoro.
8Identify the indicators of the implementation to determine the
success of the AES in LGU-Calintaan, Occidental Mindoro.
9 Identify the indicators of challenges encountered that predict
the success of AES in LGU-Calintaan, Occidental Mindoro.

15. CHAPTER
METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the methodologies that has employed in the conduct of this study. This
includes the research design, time and place of study, respondents, sampling techniques, data
gathering procedure as well as the instrument, and subsequently, the statistical tools to be
used in analyzing the gathered data.

16. Research Design
This study utilized the descriptive research design.
The numerical data as outcomes of the responses
were correlated to each of the following variables –
the extent of implementation, encountered
challenges, and level of success. In that sense, the
relationships between variables were tested,
analyzed, and inferred.

17. Figure 2. Map showing the location of the study.
Time and Place of the Study
• This study was conducted in the Municipality of
Calintaan, Occidental Mindoro from March to April 2022.
• Calintaan was chosen as the place of the study because
the following reasons:
1. First, Agriculture is the major source of the local
economy of Calintaan and it is given that activities
related to AES has a huge impact in the
development of the municipality.
Based on the Registry System for Basic Sector for
Agriculture (RSBSA), Calintaan has 7,641 farmers
and 1,736 fisherfolk.

18. Figure 2. Map showing the location of the study.
Time and Place of the Study
2. The findings of this study could help the LGU
in determining the status of the AES being
delivered and in identifying plans and
programs in strengthening its AES in the area.
3. This study would help all sectors and
implementing agencies in providing scientific
data they will be needing for the programs
they will be pursuing for the municipality.

19. Respondents and Sampling
Techniques
• The respondents of the
study were 172 individuals.
They were selected through
purposive sampling
technique which were
composed of 93 farmer
representatives, 37
agricultural extension
workers (AEW) and 42
fisherfolk representatives.
• The purposive sampling
technique was used to
ensure that all
respondents have
experienced or
encountered AES from
the LGU.

20. esearch Instrument
20
I
This study utilized a self-made survey questionnaire
comprised of four parts. Based on the
recommendations of the experts and data analysts it
was administered to another set of 20 select
respondents for the tests of reliability.
II
Using Cronbach’s Alpha, the internal consistency of the
questionnaire was determined.
reliability coefficients
• 0.95 for the extent of implementation of AES;
• 0.93 for the degree of challenges encountered,
• 0.96 for the level of success of the AES delivered.
(signifies the questionnaire was highly reliable)

21. 01
Permission And
Approval
02
Translation
(Tagalog)
03
Orientation Of
Respondents
• Asked for permission
• Informed that the data to be
gathered from their responses
will be treated with outmost
confidentiality and solely for
research purpose only.
21
After determining the
reliability and validity of
the research instrument,
• Sought permission and
approval
• Municipal Agriculturist
• The researcher has
translated the survey
questionnaire in the local
language used (Tagalog)
• To administer it easily to the
identified respondents.
Data Gathering Procedure
• Oriented and briefed about the
purpose, scope and direction
of accomplishing the
instrument.

22. Data Gathering Procedure
04
Retrieval
05
Encoding
06
Discussion
Data and
responses were
encoded and
organized
The survey
questionnaires
were retrieved
Data were
analyzed and
interpreted.

23. 01
02
03
Weighted
Mean
Pearson’s r
Correlation
Regression
Analysis
Data Analysis
In this study the
variables were measured
through statements
rated on a 5-point Likert
scale.
Statistical tools

24. Core Concept Template
Determining the extent of
implementation of Agricultural
Extension Services (AES)
• Extension services,
• On-site research and development services,
• Infrastructures and Facilities Services, and
• Regulating Agricultural Activities.
01
03
Weighted
Mean
Identifying the level
of success of the AES
• Farmers Satisfaction,
• Farmers Performance, and
• Farm productivity.
Determining the degree of seriousness of the
challenges encountered in the
implementation of the AES
02
a. Personnel Delivering the Services?
b. Budget Limitation? and
c. Approaches of service delivery?

25. Pearson’s r Correlation
Extent of implementation and
degree of seriousness of the
challenges encountered of AES;
utilized in examining the relationships between :
Extent of implementation and the
level of success of the AES
Degree of seriousness of the challenges
encountered in the implementation and the
level of success of the AES.

26. Ladder Infographics for PowerPoint
03
02
01
Challenges encountered that
predict the success of AES
Implementation that determine
the success of AES;
Regression Analysis
used to find out the indicators of
Implementation that predict
the challenges encountered
of AES;

27. CHAPTER
Conclusions And
Recommendations
Five
This chapter summarizes the
findings based on the results,
presents the conclusions of the
study and gives recommendations
on the outcomes of this research.

28. Summary of Findings
Based on the data gathered and
analysis conducted, the following
findings were obtained:

29. Based on the computed overall mean value of 3.54,
the implementation of AES of LGU Calintaan is at
“high” extent.
Three indicators are at “high” extent including
• Transfer of technology with 3.60 computed
mean,
• infrastructures and facilities services with
3.56, and
• regulating agricultural activities with 3.63.
While on-site research and development services is at
“moderate” extent with 3.37 computed mean.
Implementation of AES of LGU-Calintaan
3.6 3.37 3.56 3.63 3.54
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
Extension
services
On-site
research
and
developme…
Infrastructure
s
and…
Regulating
Agricultural
Activities
Overall
Mean
Extent of implementation of AES of LGU
Calintaan
Scale: 1.00-1.5 =Very Poor;1.51 -2.50 =Poor;2.51-3.50 =Moderate;3.51-
4.50 =Good; 4.51-5.0 =Excellent
The “high” extent of the implementation of the AES in LGU-Calintaan can be analyzed
as LGU ensures and supports economic success and social justice in implementing
AES.

30. Challenges encountered in the implementation of the AES
Indicators Mean Interpretation
Personnel-related
attributes
1.96 Not Serious
Budget-related
constraints
2.16 Not Serious
Strategies used in the
delivery of services 1.94 Not Serious
Overall Mean 2.02 Not Serious
• The degree is “not serious” based on
the overall mean value of 2.02.
All indicators are described as at “not
serious” degree of seriousness with
computed mean values of 1.96,2.16,1.94
for Personnel-related attributes, Budget-
related constraints, Strategies used in the
delivery of services
Scale: 1.00-1.5 =Very Low;1.51 -2.50 =Low;2.51-3.50 =Moderate;
3.51-4.50 =High; 4.51-5.0 =Very High

31. Level of success of the AES of LGU-
Calintaan
Indicators Mean Interpretation
Farmer’s/Fisherman’s
Satisfaction
3.42 Moderate
Farmer’s/Fisherman’s
Performance
3.84 High
Farm/Fisheries
Productivity
3.83 High
Overall Mean 3.69 High
• The level of success of AES in LGU-Calintaan
is “high” based from the overall computed
mean value of 3.69.
• A “high” level of success is shown particularly in
terms of
• productivity and
• performance having 3.83 and 3.84 mean
scores respectively.
• While “moderate” level of success is
manifested in farmer’s/fisherman’s satisfaction
with 3.42.
Scale: 1.00-1.5 =Very Low;1.51 -2.50 =Low;
2.51-3.50 =Moderate;3.51-4.50 =High; 4.51-5.0 =Very High
This finding proved that work performance can contribute to the achievement of a specific goal.

32. • The data shows that implementation and
challenges have a moderate and a negative
relationship considering its coefficient value of
-.518.
• Also, the data shows that there is a weak
negative relationship between the indicators of
challenges encountered and the indicators of
implementation of AES related to
infrastructures and Facilities.
Implementation Challenges Encountered
Correlation
Coefficient
Interpreta
tion
Technology Transfer
Personnel Delivering The
Services
-.404** Moderate
Budget Limitation -.313** Weak
Approaches Of Service Deliver -.452** Moderate
On-Site Research And
Development Services
Personnel Delivering The
Services
-.347** Weak
Budget Limitation -.493** Moderate
Approaches Of Service Deliver -.555** Moderate
Provision of
Infrastructures And
Facilities Services
Personnel Delivering The
Services
-.252** Weak
Budget Limitation -.250** Weak
Approaches Of Service Deliver -.363** Weak
Regulation of
Agricultural Activities
Personnel Delivering The
Services
-.324** Weak
Budget Limitation -.442** Moderate
Approaches Of Service Deliver -.552** Moderate
Over All -.518** Moderate
Scale: .000-.200 Negligible; .201-.400 weak; .401-.600 moderate; .601-.800 strong;
.801-1.00 very strong
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Relationship between extent of implementation and
degree of seriousness of the challenges
encountered of AES of LGU-Calintaan
As the extent of implementation gets higher, the degree of
seriousness of the challenges encountered gets lower.

33. Implementation Success
Correlation
Coefficient
Interpretation
Technology
Transfer
Farmer’s/Fisherman’s Satisfaction .629** Strong
Farmer’s/Fisherman’s Performance .476** Moderate
Farm/Fisheries Productivity .534** Moderate
On-Site
Research And
Development
Services
Farmer’s/Fisherman’s Satisfaction .688** Strong
Farmer’s/Fisherman’s Performance .406** Moderate
Farm/Fisheries Productivity .388** Weak
Provision of
Infrastructures
And Facilities
Farmer’s/Fisherman’s Satisfaction .490** Moderate
Farmer’s/Fisherman’s Performance .514** Moderate
Farm/Fisheries Productivity .570** Moderate
Regulation of
Agricultural
Activities
Farmer’s/Fisherman’s Satisfaction .546** Moderate
Farmer’s/Fisherman’s Performance .527** Moderate
Farm/Fisheries Productivity .587** Moderate
Over All .682** Strong
• The overall coefficient value (.682) suggests
a strong positive relationship between the
two variables.
• This “strong” relationship is manifested
specifically between farmers’ satisfaction
and the implementation of extension
services (.629) and on-site research and
development services (.688).
Relationship between extent of implementation and
the level of success of the AES in LGU-Calintaan
Scale: .000-.200 Negligible; .201-.400 weak; .401-.600 moderate; .
601-.800 strong; .801-1.00 very strong
Farmer satisfaction increases as the quality of local
extension programs is improved .

34. Scale: .000-.200 Negligible; .201-.400 weak; .401-.600 moderate; .
601-.800 strong; .801-1.00 very strong
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
• The data shows that the degree of
seriousness of the challenges has a
negative relationship with the extent of
success but at a “moderate” level.
• revealed in its computed coefficient value (-
.482)
• indicates that there is an inverse or opposite
relationship between the degree of
seriousness of the challenges encountered
and the level of success of AES in LGU-
Calintaan. .
Challenges
Encountered
Success
Correlation
Coefficient
Interpretation
Personnel-
related
Attributes
Farmer’s/Fisherman’s Satisfaction -.442** Moderate
Farmer’s/Fisherman’s Performance -.297** Weak
Farm/Fisheries Productivity -.376** Weak
Budget-related
constraints
Farmer’s/Fisherman’s Satisfaction -.417** Moderate
Farmer’s/Fisherman’s Performance -.226** Weak
Farm/Fisheries Productivity -.306** Weak
Strategies used
in the delivery of
the service
Farmer’s/Fisherman’s Satisfaction -.529** Moderate
Farmer’s/Fisherman’s Performance -.324** Weak
Farm/Fisheries Productivity -.404** Moderate
Over All -.482** Moderate
Relationship between the degree of seriousness of the
challenges encountered and the level of success in the
implementation of the AES in LGU-Calintaan

35. Indicators Beta Coefficient Significance Interpretation
Technology Transfer -0.092 0.36 Not Significant
On-Site Research And Development Services -0.418 0.00 Significant
Provision Of Infrastructures And Facilities 0.357 0.00 Significant
Regulation Of Agricultural Activities -0.442 0.00 Significant
Indicators of implementation predict the
challenges encountered of AES of LGU Calintaan
a. Dependent Variable: extent of success of the Agricultural Extension Services (AES)
R2=0.369; F=24.409; p=.000b
• There are similarly computed p-values (.000) for on-site research and
development services, provision of infrastructure and facilities, and
regulation of agricultural activities
• can predict significantly the challenges encountered by 41.8%, 35.7%,
and 44.2% respectively.
• However, these significant effects are in a negative direction for on-site
research and development services and provision of infrastructure and
facilities.
• While a positive direction exists for regulation of agricultural activities.

36. Indicators Beta Coefficient Significance Interpretation
Technology Transfer 0.271 0.003 Significant
On-Site Research And Development Services 0.109 0.211 Not Significant
Provision Of Infrastructures And Facilities 0.113 0.246 Not Significant
Regulation Of Agricultural Activities 0.283 0.003 Significant
Indicators of the implementation determine the success of
agriculture extension services in the municipality of Calintaan
a. Dependent Variable: extent of success of the Agricultural Extension Services (AES)
R2=0.475; F=37.849; p=.000b
• Technology transfer and regulation of agricultural activities have a
significant effect on the success of the AES based on the computed p-
value of 0.003.
• These two indicators affect success by 27.1% and 28.3% respectively.
• Whereas there is no established significance for on-site research and
development and in the provision of infrastructures and facilities as
revealed by computed the p-values of 0.211 and 0.246 respectively.

37. Indicators
Beta
Coefficie
nt
Significan
ce
Interpretation
Technology Transfer -0.196 0.029 Significant
On-Site Research And
Development Services
0.021 0.838 Not Significant
Provision Of Infrastructures And
Facilities
-0.366 0.001 Significant
Indicators of challenges encountered that predict the
success of AES in LGU-Calintaan.
a. Dependent Variable: extent of success of the Agricultural Extension Services (AES)
R2=0.251; F=18.81; p=.000b
• The personnel-related attributes (p=0.029)
and the strategies in the delivery of services
(p=0.001) significantly predicted the success
of AES by 19.6% and 36.6% respectively.
• Only budget-related constraints (p=.838)
does not predict the success of AES.
• However, the negative signs imply that the
effect of the two indicators is in opposite
direction indicating that as the challenges
increase, the success decreases.

38. Conclusions
Based on the findings of the
study, the following can be concluded

39. Implementation
success challenges
A “high” extent of implementation of
AES in LGU-Calintaan is delivered
in the area.
1
The challenges encountered
in the implementation of the
AES in LGU-Calintaan are
“not serious”.
2
The “high” success level of the implementation of its AES in LGU –
Calintaan is the effect of local farmers and/or fishermen’s satisfaction,
better performance, and productivity after receiving AES from the LGU.
3
Conclusions

40. 4
Conclusions
5
6
The high extent of implementation resulted in a lesser or
“not serious” degree of seriousness of the challenges
encountered in the implementation of AES in LGU-
Calintaan.
As the LGU-Calintaan enhances and strengthens its
implementation of AES, productivity, performance, and
satisfaction of farmers and fisherfolk also increase.
Personnel-related attributes, budget-related constraints, and
strategies in the delivery of services hinder the achievement of
higher farmers or fisherfolk satisfaction, performance, and
productivity in LGU-Calintaan.

41. Enhancing on-site research and development, provision of
infrastructure and facilities, and regulation of agricultural
activities will minimize the impact of the challenges
encountered.
On-site research and
development services
Provision of Infrastructures
and Facilities Services
Regulation of
Agricultural
Activities.
IMPLEMENTATION
CHALLENGES
7
Conclusions

42. Technology Transfer
The success of AES in LGU-Calintaan is driven by
technology transfer and regulating agricultural activities.
SUCCESS
Regulation of
Agricultural Activities
IMPLEMENTATION
8
Conclusions

43. Challenges encountered
significantly predict the success
of AES in LGU-Calintaan which
will be attained by having a
pool of knowledgeable and
efficient extension workers
capable of performing their
duties at utmost service.
Success
Personnel-
related
Attributes
Strategies
used in the
delivery of
the service
9
Conclusions

44. Recommendations
In the light of the significant
findings and the conclusion of
the study, the researcher offers
the following recommendations:

45. Recommendations
01
The indicators of challenges encountered regarding personnel-
related attributes, budget-related constraints, and strategies in
the delivery of services must be lowered to “very low” from “low”
level to ensure that the implementation of AES is attaining
quality service delivery among constituents.
All Indicators or parameters with favorable findings should
be sustained to ensure empowerment, satisfaction, good
performance, and productivity among clients.
02

46. Recommendations
03
Enhancement of programs, projects, and activities
focusing on on-site research and development,
infrastructure and facilities, and regulation of agricultural
activities is advised to reduce the impact of the challenges
encountered.
04
Provide a holistic approach in providing interventions related to
technology transfer and regulating agricultural activities to
ensure the success of implementation.
05
Employ or create attractive positions if possible to attract
knowledgeable and efficient extension workers capable of
performing their duties at utmost service.

47. 47
06
07
08
Recommendations
Institutionalized the incentives for exemplary service, products, and techniques of
farmers, fisherfolk, and AEWs to encourage transparency and accountability in
AES-related matters.
The replication of this study in other LGUs is suggested for them to assess their
status in implementing AES in their respective areas. Likewise, the use of the
same or other variables which are not considered in this study is encouraged for a
more comprehensive study like awareness, and socio-economic profile among
others.
Further studies on the implementation of AES focus on the banner programs
related to Agriculture and Fishery like the High-Value Crop Development Program,
Rice Program, Corn Program, Water and Soil Conservation Program, Organic
Agriculture, Livestock Development, Fishery Development, Climate Change
Resiliency, and other related issues are encouraged.

48. 48
09 10
Identification of capacity
development programs or
activities that are contributory
to the advancement of
performance of the AES
delivery in the LGU is
suggested and be included in
the next updating/crafting of
CapDev-ELA,
Comprehensive
Development Plan, and other
related plans of the LGU.
A review of local
regulatory policies
that might affect the
implementation and
strengthening of the
AES of the LGU is
recommended to
provide amendments
if necessary.
Recommendations
Strengthen the agri-fishery
related peoples’
organization/councils’ and
involve during planning,
decision making, and in the
conduct of periodic
evaluation and monitoring
of the programs being
delivered relative to AES
implementation.
11

49. Thank you