By Hom Gartaula, Alice Laborte, and Jon Hellin
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Los Baños, Philippines
Filipino farmers stand at the frontline of multiple crises. Climate change is intensifying rainfall variability and typhoons, while production costs keep rising, and many young people are leaving farming altogether. Despite substantial government investments in research, extension services, and subsidies on seeds, mechanization, and other production inputs, millions of smallholders—especially women, tenants, and remote communities—continue to struggle accessing technologies and programs that could improve their livelihoods.
Using the Inclusive Innovation and Impactful Scaling (I3S) framework, this two-part blog explores how agricultural research for development (AR4D) can better reach farmers, including smallholders in the Philippines. While the examples below are from across Asia, the lessons and recommendations are highly relevant to Filipino policymakers, researchers, and practitioners, helping them design more tailored interventions aligned with farmers’ varied needs and preferences.
Why inclusion matters
Climate and market shocks do not affect everyone equally. Women and marginalized groups carry heavier burdens because they have less secure land tenure, limited access to credit, and fewer opportunities to influence decisions. Literature shows that closing gender gaps to improve access to productive resources can increase global agricultural productivity by 20–30% (FAO, 2011) and reduce food insecurity for 45 million people while also growing capital by over $1 trillion annually (FAO, 2023; Paudel et al., 2020).
These findings resonate strongly in the Philippines. In a village in Guinayangan, Quezon Province, research indicates that when women gain access to low‑cost livestock enterprises and climate-smart agriculture (CSA) training, adaptive capacity and household incomes improve (Rosimo et al., 2018). Research on smallholder upliftment across Philippine rice communities similarly highlights that financial literacy, sustained support (such as technical assistance, farm inputs, machinery and equipment, etc.), and inclusive value chains are essential for resilience. However, many farmers continue to face challenges related to debt and limited resources (Nicetic et al., 2022; de Ocampo, 2024).
A large share of smallholders still reports low profitability and limited voice. Gender analyses reveal persistent gaps in access to machinery, decision‑making, and benefits from support services. Gender equality in Philippine rice is therefore not only a justice issue—it is key to improving agricultural efficiency (Olvida et al., 2025; RWAN, 2022).
Why technical solutions alone do not work
If inclusive innovation is so clearly beneficial, why is it so hard to achieve?
One reason is that policies often treat technologies as neutral tools, and it is assumed that they will automatically help “farmers” once disseminated. However, farmers are not a homogeneous group. As on technical performance, adoption depends as much on social context that is shaped by their socio‑economic characteristics, assets, behavior, and the production and marketing systems they operate in (Maligalig et al., 2020).
In the Philippines, rice communities span irrigated plains, rainfed lowlands and uplands, and coastal floodplains, each with distinct risks and livelihood systems. Within any barangay, households and landholdings vary by land size, tenure status, gender and age of the household head, non-farm income, and social networks. Women and men often have different responsibilities and decision spaces in production, marketing, and household care. Young people navigate their own mix of aspirations and constraints.
Under these conditions, a combine harvester or drone service designed for large, contiguous fields may be unprofitable or inaccessible in fragmented tenant landscapes. Climate‑smart practices that require upfront investment or secure land rights may exclude renters and sharecroppers. Seed subsidy schemes may reach male household heads while women, who often manage seed selection and postharvest processing, have little say over varietal choice.
Evidence from other Asian rice systems mirrors this. Studies of small‑scale mechanization in Nepal show that male‑biased information channels and service models leave female‑headed households at a disadvantage, even where machines are available (Paudel et al., 2020). Analyses of CSA projects find that interventions built around an “average farmer” often reinforce entrenched gender biases rather than transforming them (Rao et al., 2025; Puskur and Malhotra, 2024).
Most critically, innovation is seldom neutral. When new practices interact with unequal institutions such as land markets, labor relations, credit, and norms, they may lead to benefitting some groups more than others. Without intentional inclusion, scaling can deepen inequality or bypass entire populations.
From “technology transfer” to socio‑technical innovation bundles
Recognizing these realities, agricultural research for development (AR4D) organizations have advanced the idea of Socio‑Technical Innovation Bundles (STIBs). STIBs combine technical options, such as stress‑tolerant seed, small‑scale machinery, water‑saving practices, or digital advisories with social and institutional innovations that address context‑specific barriers (Gartaula et al., 2023; Johnstone et al., 2023).
STIBs are implemented through multi‑stakeholder “learning labs” that bring together farmers, NGOs, government agencies, and researchers to co‑design, test, and adapt bundles over time. As Gartaula et al. (2023) noted, this approach “stays away from the blueprint model of technology transfer.” It instead builds on existing practices and institutions to develop context‑relevant combinations of social, technical, and technological innovations.
This logic is directly relevant to the Philippines, where many projects and programs are implemented, already considering multiple components but may not be consistently applying explicit gender and equity lenses. Making these initiatives more “STIB‑like” could be a powerful step toward responsible scaling.
