PROJECT DOCUMENTATION REPORT

(September 2004 – September 2007)

Philippine Partnership for the Development of

Human Resources in Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)
Agriculture Sector MST

April 2006
 DISCLAIMER

“The views expressed in this report are strictly those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of
the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Ateneo de Manila University”.
 Abstract

This report discusses the method and outcome of participatory economic policy reform
undertaken by EPRA’s agriculture multistakeholder team. It also presents the content and
recommendations of the Agriculture MST’s policy agenda, particularly the Department of
Agriculture rationalization plan, and specific policy reforms for the fisheries and coconut sectors,
the National Agriculture and Fisheries Council and the areas of sustainable agriculture and food
safety. Finally the report discusses lessons learnt from the MST process and which activities of
the Agriculture MST should be sustained and shared for consideration by other donor agencies.
 Economic Policy Reform and Advocacy Project

PROJECT DOCUMENTATION REPORT

(September 2004 – September 2007)

Submitted to:
EPRA- Ateneo de Manila University

Submitted by:
Caucus of Development NGO Networks
(CODE-NGO)

September 30, 2007

 EPRA PROJECT DOCUMENTATION REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION OF EPRA PROJECT 5

1.1 Background on the Project 5

1.2 MST as its implementing model 5

2.0 PARTICIPATORY ECONOMIC POLICY REFORM PROCESS 6

2.1 Building CSO Constituency and Prioritizing Policy Agenda 6

2.1.1 Convening and Engaging the Civil Society Groups (NGOs and Pos) 6
2.1.2 Regional Consultations 7
2.1.3 Framework of the Regional Consultation 7
2.1.4 Results of the Consultation 7
2.1.5 Identifying Priority Policy Agenda 11
2.1.6 Crafting the Policy papers 12

2.2 The DA Rationalization Process 13

2.2.1 Engaging the Department of Agriculture 13
2.2.2 The Change Management Team and the Process of Crafting the 14
Rationalization Plan of the Department of Agriculture (DA)
2.2.3 Disseminating the Rationalization Plan with NGOs and POs. 15
2.2.4 Towards a Meaningful Mechanism of Peoples’ Participation in Policy 15
Making
2.2.5 The Outcome of the Process of the Rationalization Plan 15

2.3 Localization of Agriculture Development Framework 16

2.3.1 The Concept of Localization 16
2.3.2 The Consultation Process of Xavier 17

3.0 POLICY AGENDA - RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONTENT 17

3.1 Bureaucracy Reform - The DA Rationalization Plan 17

3.1.1 Basic Principle in the Bureaucracy Plan 17
3.1.2 Major Challenges that the DA Rationalization must address 19
3.1.3 Main Features of the Rationalization Plan 19

3.2 Specific Sectoral Policy Reform Agenda 21

3.2.1 Fisheries Sector 21
3.2.2 Coconut Sector 23
3.2.3 Sustainable Agriculture 26
3.2.4 Peoples Participation in Policy Making - The National Agriculture and 27
Fisheries Council
3.2.5 Food Safety 27

3.3 The Region 10 - Pilot Project 28

4.0 ANALYSIS AND MAJOR LEARNINGS 31

4.1 Analysis and Learning 31

4.2 Summary and Description of activities that maybe carried forward. 32

2
 LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACEF - Agricultural Competitive Enhancement Fund

ADMU - Ateneo de Manila University
AFCs - Agriculture and Fisheries Councils
AFMA - The Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act
ARNow - Peoples Campaign for Agrarian Reform
ANGOC - Asian NGO Coalition
AOTP - Agriculture of the Poor
ATC - Appropriate Technology Center
ATI - The Agricultural Training Institute
BAR - Bureau of Agricultural Research
BAR-DA - Bureau of Agricultural Research of the Department of Agriculture
BFAR - Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
BSWM - Bureau of Soils and Water Management
CIIF - Coconut Industry Investment Fund
CIIF-SMC - Coconut Industry Investment Fund – San Miguel Corporation
CHED - Commission for Higher Education
CODE-NGO - Caucus of Development Non Government Organizations
COIR - Coconut Industry Reform Movement
COPE - Community Organizers of the Philippines Enterprises
DA - Department of Agriculture
DA-RFU - DA Regional Field Unit
DBM - Department of Budget and Management
EPRA-TIERG - Targeted Intervention on Economic Reform and Governance
EO - Executive Order
FITS - Farmers' Information and Technology Service
FMD - Foot and Mouth Disease
FPA - Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority
GMOs - Genetically Modified Organisms
HYV - High Yielding Varieties
IFARMC - Integrated Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Councils
ISO - Institute of Social Order
KAMMPIL - Kalipunan ng Maliliit na Magniniyog ng Pilipinas
LBP - Land Bank of the Philippines
LCE - Local chief executives
LGC-Net - Local Governance Citizens Network
LGUs - Local Government Units
LMP - League of Municipalities of the Philippines
LSBs - Local Special Bodies
MAO - Municipal Agricultural Officers
MASIPAG - Magsasaka at Siyentipiko Para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura
MRDP - Mindanao Rural Development Program
MST - Multi-Stakeholder Team
MTPDP - Medium Term Philippine Development Plan
MuCARD - Muslim-Christian Agency for Rural Development, Inc
NAFC - National Agriculture and Fishery Council
NFR - NGOs for Fisheries Reforms-
OSEC - Office of the Secretary
PAFEA - Philippine Agriculture and Fishery Agency
PAFIB - Philippines Agriculture and Fisheries Inspection Bureau
PAFRA - Philippine Agriculture and Fisheries Regulatory Agency
PAFSB - The Philippine Agriculture and Fisheries Standards Bureau

3
PAKISAMA - Pambansang Kilusan ng mga Samahang Magsasaka
PAO - Provincial Agricultural Officers
PARDAF - Philippine Research & Development Agency for Agriculture and Fisheries
PCA - Philippine Coconut Authority
PCARRD - Philippine Council for Agriculture Forestry and Natural Resources Research
and Development
PDAF - Priority Development Assistance Fund
PhilDHRRA - Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural
Areas
PhilNet-RDI - Philippine Network of Rural Development Institutes
PPI - Philippine Peasant Institute
PUMALAOT - Pinalakas na Ugnayan ng Maliliit na Mangingisda ng Look-Tayabas
QUEDANCOR - Quedan and Rural Credit Guarantee Corporation
RA - Republic Act
R&D - Research and Development
RTDs - Round table discussions
SAC - Social Action Center
SALIGAN - Sentro ng Alternatibong Lingap Panligal
SIKAT - Sentro para sa Ikauunlad ng Katutubong Agham at Teknolohiya
STAG - Secretary’s Technical Advisory Group
SusAg - Sustainable Agriculture
USAID - United States Agency for International Development
WCIADP - Mindanao West Coast Integrated Area development Plan
XAES - Xavier University Agricultural Extension Services
XUCA - Xavier University – College of Agriculture

4
 Economic Policy Reform Advocacy (EPRA) Project
Agriculture Sector

PROJECT DOCUMENTATION REPORT 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

In 2004, the Ateneo de Manila University (ADMU) started implementing the Economic Policy Reform and
Advocacy (EPRA) Project as lead proponent. The over-all management of the project was handled by
former NEDA Director-General, Dr. Cielito Habito. The project was a component under the Targeted
Intervention on Economic Reform and Governance (EPRA-TIERG) with funding support from the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID).

EPRA aims to 1) to establish a mechanism that will provide broad and cross-sectoral support to the
formulation, implementation, enforcement and monitoring of policy reforms; 2) define an economic policy
reform agenda with a broad support base; 3) strengthen NGO capability to undertake, advocate, and
enforce economic policy reform initiatives; and, 4) strengthen the capability of the research and academic
institutions and other policy think-tanks to provide timely technical and political support to economic policy
reform initiatives of government reformers and civil society organizations.

The project covers six key thematic advocacy areas, namely; 1) Financial Market Development; 2) Fiscal
Management; 3) Tax Administration; 4) Private Investment in Infrastructure; 5) LGU Financial Planning and
Management; and, 6) Agriculture. The advocacy themes are well related with the Medium Term Philippine
Development Plan (MTPDP) 2004-2010 and the 10-point agenda of the Macapagal-Arroyo administration.

In each of the thematic policy concerns, the ADMU assigned a lead implementing partner which it
constituted into a consortium 2 . For the agriculture sector, Ateneo engaged CODE NGO as its lead partner.

The EPRA Project was conceived on the premise that economic policy reform in the Philippines requires a
complex mix of research, networking, advocacy, political will and capacity building among various
stakeholders. It is commonly accepted that effective policy reform must involve the participation of the three
key stakeholder groups in society, namely: government, civil society and the business sector. A
participatory mode of policy reform has the benefit of ensuring relevance to people’s real needs, promoting
ownership of policies and programs undertaken by the government thereby ensuring wide support, and
harnessing resources from outside of government especially under current severe fiscal constraints.

It was against this background that the ADMU and the members of the consortium proposed an involved
but practical process of formulating economic policy reform agenda grounded on sound analyses while
being owned and supported by key stakeholders.

1
The Caucus of Development NGOs (CODE-NGO) has contracted the Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural
Areas (PhilDHRRA) to write this documentation report.
2
The consortium partners of the Ateneo de Manila University in implementing the EPRA projects were 1) Ateneo Center for Economic Research
and Development; 2) Ateneo School of Government; 3) Ateneo Center for Social Policy and Public Affairs; 4) Philippine Center for Policy
Studies; 5) Public Finance Institute of the Philippines; 6) Consortium of Centers for Local Governance; 7) Evelio B. Javier Foundation, Inc. (later
substituted by the Philippine Business for Social Progress; 8) Galing Pook Foundation; 9) Alternative Law Groups (Philippine Partnership for
Social Service Agencies), 10) Transparency and Accountability Network; 11) Caucus of Development NGO Networks.

5
1.2 MST as its implementing model

One of the key strategies of the project is the creation of a Multi-Stakeholder Team (MST) in each of the six
thematic concerns. The MST consists of a Subject Specialist; a Government Reform Champion; and, a Civil
Society Representative. 3 The Project Development Specialist served as the facilitator and link of the EPRA
Project Management and the MST.

EPRA’s concept of the MST as implementing vehicle for policy reform has the following features:

a) The MST operates from a view of policy reform as a participatory process of informed debate and
public discussion that engages stakeholders seeking to promote the greatest good for the greatest
number, rather than mysterious and arbitrary decisions of powerful policy makers.

b) The MST is multi-stakeholder by nature, being made up of purposively chosen stakeholders with
interest, influence and capacity to participate substantively in economic policy reform in the given
policy reform areas. These stakeholders apply consensus-building in their decision-making process
and their continuing interactions are managed by a lead organization (consortium partner) coming
from civil society. Project-contracted sector managers provide process support and project-
contracted subject matter specialists provide substantive technical support to the activities of the
MST.

c) The emphasis on civil society participation is believed to ensure that the views of a broader
segment of citizens are represented in the policy process as a way of balancing the perceived
dominance of business and government on economic policy. EPRA considers this particular aspect
of its program, i.e., a civil society organization serving as lead in multi-stakeholder policy reform, as
its major contribution to the economic policy arena.

2.0 PARTICIPATORY PROCESS OF THE POLICY ADVOCACY

2.1 Building CSO Constituency and Prioritizing Policy Agenda

2.1.1 Convening and Engaging the Civil Society Groups (NGOs and POs)

When the MST Agriculture started its work on policy reform advocacy in early 2005, many of the POs and
NGOs were already at the forefront of policy work related to agriculture. Many of these organizations were
strong advocates of various agriculture-related issues such as agrarian reform, the coco levy fund, organic-
based farming technologies, global trade issues, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). While still
actively pursuing their respective field of advocacy work, the NGOs and POs expressed their interest and
willingness to engage in the EPRA processes. Many perceived the need to build a stronger mechanism
among the NGOs to consolidate efforts in policy advocacy especially in the agriculture sector. The
engagement with EPRA presupposes the important principle of participation, independence of the
NGOs/POs, and an agricultural development bias for the small farmers and fishers.

This context was not lost on EPRA and was in fact a basis for its strong commitment to a participatory
process. The MST Agriculture looked at a broader perspective of agriculture and facilitated the
establishment of a constituency of civil society organizations that worked on policy advocacy for agriculture.
To pursue these tasks, CODE-NGO tapped the participation of one of its members, the Philippine
Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA), to spearhead the
convening of the NGO and POs. PhilDHRRA is a recognized national network of NGOs that is focused on
agrarian reform and rural development.

3
In the case of the agriculture sector, the Subject Specialist was Dr. Eliseo Ponce; the Reform Champion was Usec. Segfredo Serrano of the Policy
and Planning Division of the Department of Agriculture; and Mr. Cezar Belangel and Ruel Cabile of CODE-NGO were the representatives of the
civil society. The Project Development Specialist was Ms. Sarah Lantican-Cueno and assisted by Technical Staff Ms. Bernie Aton.

6
The initial meetings were confined to participants coming from NGOs and POs that are based in the
National Capital Region. CODE-NGO also presented its plan to EPRA Management to conduct
consultations in Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. During the months of May to July 2005, EPRA conducted
a number of consultation-workshops in Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao with various stakeholders – the
NGOs, POs, and business sector.

2.1.2 Regional Consultations

The policy agenda of EPRA were identified based on consultations with stakeholders at the national and
regional level. The following consultations were conducted: 1) Secretary’s Technical Advisory Group
(STAG) Meeting, May 12, 2005 at the Bureau of Agricultural Research (BAR), Visayas Avenue in Quezon
City; 2) Mindanao Consultation (Crafting and Affirming a Vision-led Reform Agenda for a Revitalized
Philippine Agriculture), May 30, 2005 at Grand Men Seng Hotel, Davao City; 3) Visayas Consultation
(Agriculture Policy Reform Agenda Consultation Workshop), June 03, 2005 at the Regional Field Unit-VII,
Dept. of Agriculture, M. Velez St., Guadalupe, Cebu City; 4) Luzon (Consultation Workshop on the
Agriculture Policy Reform Agenda), June 8, 2005 at the Bureau of Soils and Water Management (BSWM),
Department of Agriculture, Quezon City. A Synthesis Workshop was conducted on June 21, 2005 at the
Bureau of Agricultural Research, Visayas Avenue, Quezon City.

2.1.3 Framework of the Regional Consultation

There was initially apprehension from the MST regarding the conduct of these regional consultations due to
the prevailing cynicism of some people with so called “consultations”. It has been noted that numerous
“consultations” have been conducted in the past by many private organizations and government agencies,
and an equally number of complaints have consistently cropped up. However, it appears that practically
nothing concrete has been achieved after the conduct of these consultations. In other words, “consultation”
had been frowned by many as a useless exercise.

This perception forced the MST to seriously take on designing the process of the consultation workshops.
As much as possible, the MST avoided a repetition of common questions that have been recurring in many
prior consultations that merely extracted the problems and issues that people experienced on the ground.
Instead, EPRA wanted a design that would encourage the participants to analyze the causes of those
problems/issues, so that appropriate solutions can be articulated, formulated and recommended.

The MST used a “tree” to symbolize the framework of the consultation workshop (Refer to Annex A). The
“roots” of the tree represented the basic drivers of agricultural development or the tangible manifestations
that people would experience on the ground such as infrastructure, credit, irrigation, land tenure, and
technology. The “fruits” represented the results or outcomes of agricultural development which, as
emphasized by the MST, are captured pretty well by the goals of AFMA. And lastly, the “trunk” of the tree
represented the vehicle by which the nutrients from the roots are transformed into necessary substances
and transmitted to develop the fruits to its maturity.

The MST observed that past consultations focused on recommendations that addressed the issues at the
“roots” level. This led to recommendations that come in the form programs such as the need to increase
credit portfolio, construction of irrigations, and budget increase for extension work. While these
recommendations are precise, new problems arise such as availability of funds, lack of personnel, and
human capability.

During the EPRA consultations, the problems/issues were subjected to a deeper mode of problem analysis.
The issues were categorized according to the three aspects of the consultation framework represented by
the three parts of the tree. In analyzing the results of the consultation, the MST maintained that the strategic
problem of agriculture in the Philippines lies in the “trunk” of the tree. The nutrients at the roots are not able
to effectively and efficiently reach the fruits because the passage (the trunk) is weak and problematic.

2.1.4 Results of the Consultation

7
General Assessment - Assessed from the perspective of the goals of AFMA, the consultations generally
described the situation of Philippine Agriculture in terms of:

Food Security - The country is not food-secure as indicated by the high malnutrition incidence
especially in the rural areas. Generally, prices of food are not affordable to many families.

Farmers’ Prosperity – Generally, families in the agriculture sector are the poorest in the
country. This is apparent from the high level of poverty incidence in the rural areas. One of the
reasons for this is the lack or absence of tenurial security of many farmers and fishers.

Competitiveness – The country is not competitive in the global market. Profitability of local
producers especially the small farmers and fishers are hurt by global competition.

Sustainability – There is general concern over the continued environmental degradation

especially destruction of natural resources through illegal logging and aggressive promotion of
large-scale mining. These extractive and destructive practices in turn introduce other
problems such as decline in soil fertility, massive soil erosion, and access to water and
irrigation that affect farmers and fishers.

Specific Issues/ Problems – The following were the specific issues and problems that came out in the
various consultations. Consistent to the framework of the consultation, the issues and problems were
classified into three categories 1) Determinant of Agricultural Growth; 2) Policy Environment; and 3)
Governance.

TABLE 1: ISSUE/PROBLEM MATRIX

DETERMINANTS OF AGRI GROWTH POLICY ENVIRONMENT GOVERNANCE

Low productivity
ƒ high cost of inputs/production
ƒ weak extension services
ƒ lack of farm machinery/facilities
ƒ lack of technology knowledge
Low credit access
ƒ Too many requirements to avail
credit
ƒ High interest rates
ƒ Poor design of credit facilities
ƒ Banks and gov’t. financing
institutions (GFIs) are not
small- farmer friendly
Inadequate agri-related infrastructures
and facilities (pre-post harvests, farm to
market roads, etc.)
Poor/passive approach to RandD and
extension services
ƒ Lack of access to information
and technology
ƒ low level of technology on the
ground despite the high
education level of personnel
ƒ RandD not based on the needs
of farmers/fishers: academic
driven
ƒ Only big farmers/fishers
companies benefit from
researches
Programs do not target the welfare of the
poorest of the poor – not much impact to
poverty alleviation. Nature of DA program
biased to large agri-business that benefit
only few.
Gov’t lacks control on pricing of inputs
Low investment in agriculture
Unclear National Policies in Food Security ;
ƒ Land and Water Use Policies
ƒ Massive/indiscriminate conversion of
prime agricultural land (e.g. housing
subdivisions) undermining food security
ƒ Overlapping Instruments in Land Use
Slow pace of CARP implementation
ƒ No clear policy on distribution of
untitled private agricultural land
ƒ Cases of CLOA cancellation; ARB
non-installation
ƒ Inconsistent policies (lease-back by
large agribusiness corp.)
ƒ resistance of land owners to CARP
ƒ CARP-able areas are converted into
non-agricultural uses
Fisheries/Coastal Waters
• Encroachment of commercial fishers to
municipal waters
• Unresolved water rights for municipal
fishers (DAO 17 issue)
Politicization Issues:
• Highly centralized presidential system
• Lack of political will to implement pro-
poor farmers/fishers
policies/programs
• Lip service of state in servicing needs
of small farmers/fishers.
Lack of continuity in policies/program:
change of administration is equal change
in key personnel and directions.
Lack of political will in implementing
CARP, AFMA, delineation of municipal
waters, etc.
ƒ No commitment to finish CARP
ƒ Lack of political will (DLR)
ƒ Lack of complementation of
programs among DA,DAR,DENR
and LGUs/ lack of unity of gov’t
agencies
ƒ Lack of transparency in the
reclassification of land use
General weakness of institutional/
structural bureaucracy of DA (result to
non-responsive to the needs of the small
farmers/fishers)
National-Local links
• Weak coordination of National
Government and the LGUs

8
 Issues in WTO/GMOs
ƒ No clear programs implemented
to strengthen the competitiveness
in the global market
ƒ Dumping of low priced imported
goods that kills local products
ƒ Smuggling
Low capacity for processing
agriculture/fishery products (i.e. rural
enterprise development poor)
Continued environmental degradation
ƒ soil erosion and siltation; water
pollution; air pollution
ƒ uncontrolled deforestation
ƒ resulted to massive attack of
pests/diseases
Excessive use of chemicals/fertilizers:
continues to destroy quality of the soil in
the long run.
Unsustainable farm/fishery practices:
Mono-cropping farm system: Lack of
crop-livestock mixed farms/diversified
farm/ off farm activities
Fast population growth
• Rampant illegal fishing and weak
enforcement of fishery laws
• lack of capacity-building and legal
support from the LGU to Bantay Dagat
R&D/Extension Work issues
• Lack/improper use of government
subsidy to small farmers/fishers
• Lack or improper use of government
subsidy to small farmers/fishers
• Low priority for RandD and Extension
• Lack of budget for RandD
• Incoherent and undefined role of DOST
and RandD unit of DA
• Poor incentives for scientists working in
agriculture
Lack of patronage for local farmers’ products
Trade liberalization Policies: Hurt the small
producers: unable to complete/ wrong
timing/ Export orientation of fisheries
ACEF not accessible to small farmers/fishers
Gov’t policy biased on chemical based
farming/ dependence on costly chemical
inputs
• Unclear delineation of responsibilities
under the Local Governmetn Code
between national DA and LGUs
Poor/conflicting policy implementation
Transparency/Accountability Issues:
• Lack of transparency in allocation
and use of funds
• Unclear prioritization of funds, wrong
intentions for the right funds
• Lack of effective mechanism for
consultation especially the small and
poor farmers/fishers
• Problem in transparency and
accountability system in policy
formulation/decision making
• Corruption
Low morale of people in the bureaucracy
due to lack of funding support/and
unstable institutional systems.
Specialists/Experts not available to the
actual producers in the field
Lack of effective consultation before
signing agreements in WTO and in
pursuing trade agreements.

Large section of the small farmers/fishers

remained unorganized.

Key Aspirations for Agriculture – The collective vision of Philippine Agriculture is described below.

Food Security – All the Filipino people can produce and buy safe and nutritious food. There is a vibrant
food production system that can cope with the growing population; food prices are affordable to all and
nutrition is improved.

Farmers’ Prosperity – High productivity in agriculture; incomes of farmers’ and fishers are improved.
Farming is profitable. Subsistence farmers become “entrepreneurial” farmer. They are the foundation of
local agro-industrialization and drivers of local economic development. Filipino farmers/fisherfolks are
gender sensitive, effectively organized and empowered. They own and control the major means of
production (done through completion of genuine agrarian reform and protecting the water rights of the
small fishers).

As a result, poverty incidence is greatly reduced, and the standard of living of marginalized rural sector
is upgraded. Young people are proud to become farmers/fishers.

Competitiveness – The Philippines is globally-competitive with modernized and responsible agriculture

sector. While the country is a top exporter of some winning commodities (e.g. mango, seaweed), it is
able to effectively protect the weak sectors in the agriculture. Local market is developed and accessible
to small farmers/fishers.

Sustainability – Agricultural technologies protect the environment and preserve the natural resources.
Sustainable agriculture is the banner program of the government.

Governance – Programs in agriculture address the needs of the poor. An agriculture bureaucracy must
be effectively decentralized and must adhere to and promotes transparency, accountability,
participation of the people, and honesty:

Informed by this collective vision, the following general recommendations were espoused:

9
 TABLE 2: General Recommendations
Programs
Develop programs that would impact
poverty alleviation and food security
ƒ Increase productivity and family
income
ƒ Improve farmers/fishers access to
resources/services
ƒ modernization of agriculture
infrastructure and facilities
ƒ target the poor for the 2M
hectares for agribusiness in
partnership with LGUs and CSOs.
Improve the agri-infrastructure and facilities;
ƒ technology support system
ƒ high tech pre- and post-harvest
facilities
ƒ market info and linkages
Improve access of small farmers/ fishers to
credit; simplify requirements to access credit
Develop and Strengthen R&D and Agri-
extension services:
ƒ promote partnership with LGU, POs,
civil society and private sector
ƒ develop model farm
ƒ farmer to farmer approach
ƒ seed banking to improve local
varieties
ƒ farm intensification/
diversification/livestock and crop
mix/non-farm activities (farm
planning).
ƒ Soil fertility and water conservation
integrated pest management,
ƒ info dissemination/recognition of
best practices
Promote Sustainable Agriculture as a
banner program of the national government
and the LGUs:
ƒ promote/implement SA practices
ƒ organic farming
ƒ diversified, integrated farming
systems (FS)
ƒ systems in rice intensification
Support civil society groups in organizing
and strengthening farmer/fisher
organizations
ƒ build strong constituency for
agriculture
ƒ develop capability of farmers/fishers;
sustain values, gender sensitivity,
promote skills; entrepreneurship,
etc.
ƒ strengthen cooperative movement
ƒ continue partnership with NGOs,
POs, and LGUs
Develop programs to support agriculture to
become globally competitive.
Governance
Re-organize the DA to be become
more transparent, responsive,
accountable, consultative, honest
governance
ƒ Maintain continuity of favorable
and good policies/programs
beyond each administration
ƒ Decentralize agriculture;
strengthen LGU capacities to
fully implement their
responsibilities in AFMA and
Fisheries Code;
ƒ Make the local agriculture
council effective.
ƒ Develop, in a participatory
manner, national and local
agriculture development plans
ƒ Strengthen participation of small
farmers/fishers decision making
ƒ Institute anti-corruption
mechanisms
Provide training and extension to
farmers
Adopt sustainable agriculture program
for marginalized sector
Policies
Target the poor in designing agricultural
programs; increase their income and
improvement of their general welfare;
target impact on malnutrition. (DA targets
should not be limited to yields or outputs)
Rationalize/maximize scarce agricultural
budget allocation; allocate P17 B budget
as mandated in AFMA; provide efficient
subsidy scheme for small farmers/fishers.
Allocate adequate budget for R&D and
agricultural extension services
Rational Land Use:
• Pass the National Land and Water
Use Act
• implement Land Use Act policy
• Stop indiscriminate land conversion
of agriculture lands
• Rationale land/water use to promote
Food Security.
Fisheries/Coastal Waters:
• Pass Department Order on
municipal waters (15 km)
• protect fishing grounds thru full
implementation of Fisheries Code
• Implement laws on municipal
shoreline
• Promote effective participatory
coastal resource management
Complete CARP implementation by
2008/, while addressing conflicting land
use and land classification policies
(DA,DAR,DENR)
Develop clear policy for sustainable
agriculture; promote organic farming.
Develop a national strategic plan to face
the global market addressing
competitiveness
Propose to government the position to
take agriculture and fisheries out of WTO
Enforce Clean Air Act policy
Federal system of government before
2010
10
 Programs Governance Policies
ƒ strengthen the support programs for
commodity winners/export potentials
ƒ build/strengthen regional and local
safety nets to protect vulnerable
agriculture sector vs. foreign
competition

2.1.5 Identifying Priority Policy Agenda

Many of the issues raised in the regional consultations were sectoral and local in nature. The MST was
aware that those issues were loaded with progressive sentiments – consistent with the tradition where most
POs and NGOs were coming from. These positions are held dearly and closely to the PO/NGO value
system. Within that context, the MST nevertheless had to articulate the issues from the perspective of
policy makers of the government. Thus, it made efforts to balance its analysis with national and inter-
sectoral orientation.

The MST analyzed the results of the consultations with the intention of defining the priority policy agenda
that are “doable” within the project period and strategically relevant to the situation of the agriculture.

From this analysis, the MST proposed that its priority policy reform agenda is bureaucracy reform. This
advocacy agenda refers to certain bureaucratic and institutional changes within the DA that are necessary
to make it an effective and efficient vehicle in pursuing agricultural development for the country. The
importance of bureaucracy reform is premised on the viewpoint that the set of local and sectoral issues and
problems such as those that were raised during the regional consultations are direct and indirect
consequences of the weak and ineffective bureaucratic and institutional arrangements within the DA – if not
of the entire Philippine government. For the MST, a big part of the problems in agriculture stems from poor
governance.

On July 25, 2005, PhilDHRRA and CODE-NGO presented to the NCR-based POs and NGOs the results of
the regional consultations. In the presentation, the MST proposed the “bureaucracy reform” as its proposed
priority agenda. The participating NGOs and POs confirmed the importance of the said priority. However,
they expressed that there are specific issues of the sector which are not necessary related to the internal
bureaucracy reform being advocated by the MST; such as, agrarian reform, illegal conversion of agricultural
lands, and fishing rights of small fishers in municipal water. They asked EPRA to also include some of the
sectoral issues of the farmers and fishers because those are the real issues experienced on the ground.

Recognizing the position of the NGOs and POs, the MST agreed to consult them. The group agreed to form
a steering group to conduct a series of follow up meetings to identify the priority sectoral policy agenda.
Organizations volunteered to join the steering committee including LGC-Net, PhilNet-RDI, ARNow!, NAPC,
PhilDHRRA, and CODE-NGO.

During the discussions, the POs/NGOs argued that they will engage the EPRA advocacy process within an
agreed framework. To make sure that the advocacy work of EPRA will benefit the sectors they served, the
PO/NGO groups and MST agreed that EPRA will adapt the following basic working principles in its
advocacy work:

1. Preference to small farmers and fishers who are usually located in less favorable environment;

2. Pursue the decentralization process and strengthening local participation in development

planning and implementation. Professionalize the DA bureaucracy by adhering to effective
system of promoting accountability and transparency;

3. Pursue the specific sectoral and local agricultural issues in its discussion with DA leaders.

11
In a meeting conducted at Sulo Hotel on October 7, 2005, the steering committee made a listing of the
priority policy agenda which the POs/NGOs may possibly pursue. It was agreed that a lead NGO will
prepare a paper on each of the issues identified.

A follow-up meeting was held on October 21, 2005 at ISO, Ateneo de Manila where each of the lead NGO
discussed the specific assigned topics.

WTO and Free Trade (Philippine Peasant Institute)

ACEF/Credit and other Safety Nets (Philippine Network of Rural Development Institutes - PhilNet)
Issues of Fishers (NGOs for Fisheries Reforms-NFR)
Developing the Coconut Farmers (Coconut Industry Reform Movement)
Support for the Sugar Farmers (Philippine Network of Rural Development Institutes)
Sustainable Agriculture as main approach to Agri Development (Asian NGO Coalition)
CSO participation in policy making (CODE-NGO)

It was agreed that a follow-up meeting will be conducted to consolidate the reports and make a simple
presentation that would be useful during the planned dialogue with the DA Secretary. Given the resources
of the EPRA project, the MST chose the following specifc sectoral policy agenda.

Coconut Sector
Fisheries Sector
Sustainable Agriculture (as cross cutting issue)
CSO participation in Policy Making (National Agriculture and Fishery Council)
Food Safety

2.1.6 Crafting the Policy papers

The fisheries and coconut sectors were chosen as priority policy concerns since these sectors comprise the
largest population in the rural areas based on agricultural data; and despite their significant contribution to
the country’s economy, are the most economically depressed sectors.

Meanwhile, the Sustainable Agriculture (SusAg) and food safety agenda were considered as cross cutting
themes. SusAg was the most prominent issue raised during the regional consultations, and is pushing for
an agricultural development framework that focuses on poverty alleviation in the most depressed
communities, promote local participation in planning and implementation, enhance cultural integrity, and
protect the natural environment. On the other hand, Food Safety was considered a priority area by the MST
when news of food poisoning incidences and other complaints became prominent issues in the mass
media.

Fishery Sector – CODE-NGO tapped the NGOs for Fisheries Reform (NFR) to assist EPRA in looking into
the situation of the fishing sector and in preparing the policy paper. NFR decided to focus on two specific
issues: 1) delineation of municipal waters as mandated by the Fisheries Code; and 2) foreshore settlements
– the increasing number of fishers’ families are displaced from their residences due to a number of
development projects, such as ports, resorts, and mining explorations, that are being undertaken in many
coastal areas.

NFR initiated several dialogue-meetings with the League of Municipalities of the Philippines (LMP) which
aimed to forge an agreement in strengthening local enforcement against illegal fishing and encroachment in
municipal waters. This process culminated in a conference-dialogue, held last June 30, 2006 at Sulo Hotel,
attended by the officers of the LMP and fisherfolk leaders and stakeholders. 4

4
NGOs for Fisheries Reforms (NFR), Sentro ng Alternatibong Lingap Panligal (SALIGAN), Tambuyog Development Center Inc., Sentro para sa
Ikauunlad ng Katutubong Agham at Teknolohiya (SIKAT), HAYUMA foundation Inc., Community Organizers of the Philippines Enterprises
(COPE), PAMANA, PUMALAOT, BIGKIS-LAKAS, Institute of Social Order (ISO), Lamon Bay IFARMC,

12
The activity was highlighted by the presentation of policy papers related to Coastal Resource Management.
An ad hoc advocacy committee was formed consisting of selected NGO/PO members to make the
necessary follow-ups of agreements made. Succeeding meetings were conducted by the group with the
LMP.

Coconut Industry – CODE-NGO partnered with the Coconut Industry Reform Movement (COIR), a leading
NGO doing advocacy on the coco levy fund, to prepare a policy paper on critical policies necessary in order
to develop the coconut industry. Aside from the policy paper 5 , the EPRA MST and COIR conducted a
review of the coconut master plan of the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA). Round table discussions
(RTDs) were held with the coconut farmers (Lucena City on July 10, 2007), private sector representatives
(July 18, 2007), agriculture experts (ADMU on July 9, 2007), and concerned government agencies (DA
Central Office on August 17, 2007). 6

On August 23, 2007 at the SM Megamall, during the “National Coconut Week” of the PCA, CODE-NGO
made a symbolic turn over of the consolidated summary of the discussions and recommendations of the
RTDs to DA Secretary Arthur Yap and PCA Administrator Garin. A formal policy paper pertaining to the
coconut industry development was submitted to the office of the PCA Administrator last September 7, 2007.

Sustainable Agriculture – CODE-NGO engaged the Xavier University – College of Agriculture of Cagayan
de Oro to facilitate the consultations and the eventual preparation of a policy paper related to the issue of
sustainable agriculture. The initial meetings 7 held with SA advocates (MASIPAG, COIR, Centro-Saka,
KAMMPIL, ANGOC, PAKISAMA) explored a number of possibilities to promote SA within the priorities of
the government.

Several structured consultations on SA were also conducted in Cagayan de Oro City (June 23, 2006),
Davao City (July 10, 2006), and Cebu City (July 12, 2006) 8 . A draft policy paper was presented later to the
participants. 9 The discussion focused on various innovative approaches of agricultural development in the
rural areas. It was clearly established that SusAg is a viable approach to eradicate poverty in the rural
areas. The trend of the discussion was that, in order to promote sustainable agriculture, a special window
should be established by the DA accessible through a competitive grant by Local Government Units. The
planning and implementation of the sustainable agriculture programs should be a local initiative. While high
enthusiasm permeated the flow of the discussions, in the end, the participants remained skeptical about
any positive response from the national government.

Food Safety – The MST contracted Dr. Concepcion Lizada to prepare a policy paper on Food Safety in
the Philippines. On September 17, 2007, CODE-NGO organized a forum where Dr. Lizada presented her
policy paper.

The EPRA-contracted partners who prepared the policy papers were requested to present the results in a
forum (Making Agriculture Programs Work for the Poor: Policy Discussions) conducted last August 22-23,
2006, and attended by civil society organizations and representatives from the Department of Agriculture.

2.2 The DA Rationalization Process – Efforts towards Reforming the Bureaucracy

2.2.1 Engaging the Department of Agriculture

In October 4, 2004, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order 366 mandating all national
government agencies, including the DA, to review, rationalize and streamline its mandate, functions, and

5
EPRA contracted Mr. Joey Faustino (COIR) and Dr. Rolando Dy to prepare policy paper for the Coconut Sector.
6
Deputy Administrator Carlos Carpio (PCA) served as resource person in the various round table discussions, including the coordination of the
preparation and submission of the Policy Paper to PCA.
7
Conducted on June 5 and June 20, 2006 at ISO, Ateneo de Manila University and Partnership Center, Loyola Heights, Quezon City
8
Among the participating NGOs in the consultations were: Appropriate Technology Center (ATC) , MuCARRD, Balay-Mindanaw Foundation,
MILAMDEC, Touch Foundation, XAES, SAC, and Xavier University,
9
Roel Ravanera, Dean of the College of Agriculture of Xavier University in Cagayan de Oro CItywas contracted by EPRA to write the policy
paper proposal on Sustainable Agriculture.

13
organizational structure to improve its performance and service delivery. In reality, the desire for reforms in
the Department was already existent among its reform-minded officials and rank-and-file even long before.
In fact, a similar Executive Order was already signed by former President Estrada a few days before the so
called EDSA II.

The MST found the objective of the Executive Order 366 consistent, although not perfectly, with the
objectives of EPRA MST pertaining to the bureaucracy reform. It was therefore reasonable for the MST to
engage the DA leadership in the bureaucracy reform objective since the DA has the motivation to comply
with the said EO.

The MST subject specialist (Dr. Eliseo Ponce), as a former DA official, made a significant contribution in
engaging the DA leadership in the bureaucracy reform. Through the Rationalization Plan, he initiated MST
meetings with then Secretary Arthur Yap, who later on recognized EPRA’s assistance in the rationalization
planning process of the DA.

During his “turn-over” speech to his successor, Secretary Domingo Panganiban, in June 2005, Sec. Yap
emphasized the importance of the rationalization plan and highlighted the key principles and challenges
that formed the basis for the bureaucracy reform.

Upon his appointment, Secretary Panganiban revitalized the inactive Change Management Team (CMT)
that would later spearhead the drafting of the Rationalization Plan. He provided the needed personnel and
resources including applicable administrative issuances to legitimize its existence and support its actions.
The EPRA MST served as technical support to the CMT and provided feedback on the draft provisions of
the Rationalization Plan.

2.2.2 The Change Management Team (CMT) and the Process of Crafting the Rationalization
Plan

The CMT consisted of several bureau and DA Regional Field Unit (DA-RFUs) Directors. Selected personnel
from the rank-and-file of several bureaus were seconded to serve as the CMT secretariat. The work of the
CMT was grounded on a solid framework defined by 11-point Guiding Principles, formulated by the team
and approved by the Secretary. Usec. Serrano and Usec. Sana (then the Undersecretary for Operations of
the DA) provided the institutional support and coordination.

To facilitate its tasks, the CMT organized sub-clusters to discuss the details of the Rationalization Plan
according to the functions identified, namely: 1) Information, Extension and Communication, 2) Regulation
(Quarantine, Licensing and Inspection), 3) Research and Development and Staff and Councils.

In general, the DA rationalization process employed a participatory and an educative process. The CMT
conducted a number of consultations with the different agencies including the Regional Field Units. It was
an opportunity for many DA personnel to reflect and learn new paradigms about the operations of their
bureaucracy. Considering the complexity of the DA, the Rationalization Plan had to undergo by phases -
starting with the Office of the Secretary (OSEC), the Regional Field Units , attached agencies, and then to
include the attached corporations.

As expected, the rationalization encountered resistance from various sectors. One of the more obvious was
the apprehension of the employees, fearing they would be displaced as a result of organizational changes.
A vocal critique came from the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) which was open relayed
by its National Director during the dialogue-meeting (“Joint DA-DBM Review-Workshop”) of the DA and the
DBM last October 16-18, 2006.

As the DA evolved into a complex bureaucracy that confronts complicated concerns, the prospect of
reforming it poses serious challenges. These challenges were captured in the elements of its core
functions in the areas of regulatory, research and development, extension and training, and the issue of
effective people’s participation. In the regulatory aspect, the commodity-focused structure of the DA is an

14
ineffectual and highly inefficient model as regulations are dispersed among the various “commodity units” of
the DA. The extension, research and development work also follow a fragmented approach, again relying
on the commodities as drivers of the research agenda and technology development. The absence of clear
link-mechanisms to LGUs, in turn affect the extension and training service function, which can be described
as inadequate, or worse, totally non-existent. Finally, effective people’s participation in agriculture
development has received mixed reviews. While there were mechanisms at the national and local levels
that encouraged the active participation of civil society groups, these mechanisms became effective
channels of neither service delivery nor viable venues for pushing pro-farmer policies. On the other hand,
government-private sector partnerships have been forged in these mechanisms, and have contributed to
increased efficiency in agricultural production and enhanced marketing.

The participation of the MST Agriculture to the CMT was attendance and participation in major meetings
and the provision of technical and legal inputs in the drafting of the DA Rationalization Plan through the
Subject Specialist and Legal Consultant, respectively.

2.2.3 Disseminating the Rationalization Plan with NGOs and POs.

The specific contribution of CODE-NGO to the CMT process rested on inputs in the discussions especially
on matters related to the priority concerns of the CSOs (such as sustainable agriculture, and meaningful
participation in policy making). CODE-NGO also conducted forums to provide the POs/NGOs with the
necessary updates and to gather their feedback.

During the second year of EPRA, CODE-NGO increased the number of NGOs participating in the project.
From the NCR, it expanded the geographical reach of the consultations to include the CODE-NGO regional
CSO networks in Cordillera and the Bicol region as well as in the cities of Cebu and Davao. In these
forums, CODE-NGO updated the CSOs about the progress of the Rationalization Plan, and solicited
feedback. 10 .

2.2.4 Towards a Meaningful Mechanism of Peoples’ Participation in Policy Making.

One of the interests of CODE-NGO in its engagement in the Rationalization Plan of the DA was to pursue
possible reforms in the current mechanisms of peoples’ participation in policy making. The formal venue for
peoples’ participation in policy making at the DA are the “peoples’ councils”. For this reason, the MST took
particular interest to look into the possibility of reforming the National Agricultural and Fisheries Council
(NAFC).

Being a member of the sub-committee in NAFC, CODE-NGO perceived that NAFC has not been able to
provide meaningful venues and opportunities of peoples’ participation in policy making. Aside from the
direct experience of CODE-NGO in NAFC, the problem was that there was very little information about the
nature and the status of the NAFC as an agency and as a peoples’ council. The MST requested a technical
person to conduct a research and develop a policy paper on the NAFC. 11 EPRA presented this policy paper
in a forum held last August 31, 2007. In that forum, two action points were identified; namely, 1) the need to
document and disseminate more information about the NAFC; and, 2) the need for CODE-NGO to convene
the CSO members of NAFC to draft a development agenda. This was seen as a move to improve NAFC’s
capacity to become a meaningful venue for peoples’ participation.

2.2.5 The Outcome of the Drafting Process of the Rationalization

By late 2006, the CMT finished the initial draft of the Rationalization Plan, including a draft Executive Order
to lay down the foundation for the eventual implementation of the Rationalization Plan. The DA presented
the Rationalization Plan to the Department of Budget and Management (DMB) twice - in May 24, 2006 and

10
Update and Feedback regarding the EPRA project: Cebu City, September 12, 2007; Davao City, October 27, 2006;
11
EPRA contracted Mr. Tomas Estong to conduct the policy research on the NAFC.

15
October 18-19, 2006. These meetings aimed to ensure the technical compliance and quality standards of
the draft Rationalization Plan. The DA plan received very favorable comments from the DBM.

Before leaving the DA, Secretary Panganiban endorsed the proposed EO to the Office of the President for
approval. When the CMT finally submitted their final outputs, it was expected that the new Secretary will
transmit the documents to the Department of Budget and Management. 12 However, the new DA Secretary
failed to send a clear signal of interest to submit the Rationaliztion Plan to the DBM. Despite several
attempts in the later part of 2006, the MST failed to connect to the Office of the Secretary. Apparently, the
MST no longer enjoyed the interest that the Secretary contrary to his behavior during the first time he was
the Secretary of DA. During the assessment of the CMT held last December 2006 where the MST was also
invited to participate, it was disturbing to note that the office of the Secretary provided a non-commital
position as to the fate of the Rationalization Plan.

This scenario concretely illustrated precisely why the POs/NGOs, in the initial stages of EPRA, had been
apprehensive of any reform proposal to government. It also highlights the inherent weakness of the
governance of the DA to push and sustain meaningful reforms in the sector.

2.3 Localization of Agriculture Development Framework – the DA-RFU Region 10 Initiative

2.3.1 The Concept of Localization

One of the important directions of the proposed Rationalization Plan of the DA was improving the
meaningful participation of the LGUs, POs/NGOs, and most importantly the basic sector organizations in
agriculture development. Local participation is perceived not only to improve governance and service
delivery but eventually increase of investments in agriculture at the regional/local level.

The MST decided to pilot a regional process that will bring together the Regional Field Unit of the DA,
POs/NGOs, and industry leaders into a dialogue to review the DA’s service delivery mechanisms at the
regional level and, later, to implement meaningful reforms. Endorsed by the Office of the Policy and
Planning of the DA, the pilot project was implemented in Region 10. The lead implementer was the College
of Agriculture of the Xavier University in partnership with the DA RFU-Region 10.

The Region 10 initiative aimed to develop a roadmap of participatory mechanism for agricultural
development with particular interest in strengthening the process of program planning and implementation
at the regional level, and an articulation of ways to effectively engage the national government/agencies.

RA 7160, also known as the Local Government Code, devolved the delivery of agricultural extension
services to local government units. Unfortunately, the 16-year-experience of devolution showed
inadequacies in budget allocation, weak linkage with relevant institutions and low technical capacities on
the part of the LGUs. The agriculture sector needs to find the appropriate mechanisms to implement
programs and projects at the local level.

With the devolution of agricultural extension services to the LGUs, the formal mechanism linking research
and extension was weakened. Municipal Agricultural Officers (MAOs) report to municipal Mayors but do not
report to the Provincial Agricultural Officers (PAOs). In the same way, the PAOs are under the provincial

Governors but do not report to Regional Field Units (RFUs) of the DA. The lack of formal linkage
mechanisms at various levels of implementation had a resultant structure that led to unnecessary waste in
resources due to incoherent, often disjointed regional, provincial and municipal plans. This has been
aggravated by the politicization of fund allocation and utilization.

12
Secretary Yap was again appointed as DA Secretary in 2006

16
Low morale prevails among devolved agriculture personnel, especially those belonging to the 5th and 6th
class municipalities. The highly politicized structure, lower salaries, limited career paths, and very limited
field mobility due to absence of transportation allowance were some of the immediate concerns. There is
perception that weak technical capabilities of local personnel were also prevalent.

Local chief executives (LCEs) are generally unprepared to take on additional responsibilities brought about
by the localization of agricultural development. This was especially manifested in the lack of a clearly
articulated vision and direction for the agriculture sector. Local agriculture offices derive most of their plans
and activities from national programs, leaving them very little room to craft location-specific programs. The
unique geophysical characteristics, differing social and religious mores, and the presence of agricultural
commodities which may not be national priorities but which could give the LGUs competitive advantage
when developed, are few of the things that highlight the importance of localizing agricultural development
programs.

2.3.2 The Consultation Process of Xavier University

Given the outstanding performance of the DA-RFU-10 and its willingness to undertake the study, DA
selected Northern Mindanao Region 10 as the pilot region. The College of Agriculture of Xavier University
(XUCA) was tapped to assist RFU-10 in facilitating the consultations and in writing the report.

To facilitate the process, XUCA formed a Research Team. The study was conducted from May to August
2007. The project adopted a participatory process in conducting the study. Sectoral consultations were
conducted with farmers/fishers, agri-industries, CSOs, academe, financial institutions and LGUs. The
research team visited selected municipalities in Misamis Occidental, Bukidnon and Camiguin. A separate
focused group discussion was conducted with agriculture students. In addition, two multi-stakeholder
consultations were convened: first, at the start of the study and second to validate the final output. A total of
158 participants partook in the study as respondents.

3.0 POLICY AGENDA – CONTENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 Bureaucracy Reform - Rationalization Plan of the Department of Agriculture

3.1.1 Basic Principles in Crafting of the Bureaucracy Plan

The engagement of EPRA in the Rationalization Process of the DA is anchored on a set of a critical
advocacy directions agreed with the POs/NGOs constituency. These directions were:

1. In the pursuit of agricultural development, preference must be accorded to small farmers and
fishers who are usually located in less favorable environment, e.g. non-irrigated land, municipal
waters, and uplands. In the past several decades, developmental programs of the government
were heavily biased towards the more favorable areas where the relatively well-off producers
are located such as irrigated rice lands, corporate farms, and aquaculture to the neglect of the
poor marginal farmers and fishers who need the most help.

2. The process of decentralization of support services in agriculture to Local Governments must

be strengthened and completed. It requires a significant shift in the role that the Department of
Agriculture from direct program implementer to one that of “orchestrates” the creation of proper
policy environment. The role of program implementation is left to the LGUs.

3. The DA bureaucracy must be professionalized to insure that merit becomes the primary
consideration in the hiring and promotion of its staff. Positions must be filled up based on

17
 career performance rather than political influences. It must work towards a stronger system of
promoting accountability and transparency

Consequently, the MST made significant efforts to make sure that the above principles were reflected in the
over-all spirit of the Rationalization Plan. One of the immediate proposals of EPRA to the Change
Management Team that drafted the Rationalization Plan of the Department of Agriculture was to formulate
principles which would guide the process of Rationalization. On January 4, 2006, Secretary Panganiban
approved the 11-point principles which would guide the development of the DA Rationalization Plan. There
are as follows:

1. Simplify the national agriculture bureaucracy. This involves focusing on the “steering” functions
of the DA (central and regional) in the provision of national public goods. The “rowing” functions are
left to the LGUs and other partner institutions. Simplification also involves integrating similar
functions within and across agencies. As a result, clear lines of communication within and across
functions and agencies shall be established.

2. Specialize to achieve efficiency and avoid conflict of interest. Each agency must specialize,
thus imposing limits on its domain which an organization has authority to assume responsibility for
autonomous decision-making. An agency’s ‘domain’ means the agenda for which an organization
has responsibility to take independent decisions and the means to implement them.

3. Provide balance across functions. The rationalization must provide appropriate staff balance to
achieve balanced services, across line and staff functions and geographic locations to ensure
system efficiency and client responsiveness. As a parameter, staff balance considers the
magnitude of clients served (e.g., LGUs, producers, private sector).

4. Decentralize the provision of national public goods. The DA must decentralize its
organizational structure by assigning administrative responsibilities to the lowest level of
governance capable of carrying out responsibilities competently. Hence, it must devolve authority
and provide flexibility to the appropriate units in the organization: bureaus/agencies, regions, and
LGUs.

5. Organize services to avoid jurisdictional spillover. It refers to the proper arrangement of

controlling and financing services at the jurisdictional level where there are no spillovers or
externalities on neighboring jurisdictions.

6. Forge partnerships. This refers to the strategy of partnership with other public, private, non-profit,
or profit organizations in implementing programs to reduce the costs of government and increase
investments in the agriculture sector.

7. Outsource public goods. The national government should outsource national public goods and
services from other private institutions which can provide better quality and lower cost services than
government.

8. Streamline to achieve increased system’s efficiency. The DA must be reorganized into a well-
streamlined structure that would result to increase system efficiency and eliminate opportunities for
graft and corruption in the system thru increased transparency, predictability, accountability, and
public participation.

9. Human resources as the most important asset. Manage human resources well to achieve
excellence in service and establish high staff morale.

10. Transform the DA into a knowledge-centered organization. Transformation of people,

processes/culture, and structure so that it treats knowledge as an explicit concern of business and
makes connection between organizational assets and positive business results. It should provide
DA staff the ability to take effective and timely action with knowledge. In this regard, the use of

18
 information/ communication technology to improve individual and system efficiency shall be
optimized.

11. Phased implementation. Phase the implementation of the Rationalization Plan to achieve smooth
transition in attaining the final objectives of reforms.

3.1.2 Major Challenges that the DA Rationalization must address

The need for reforms becomes even more imperative because the country had been lagging far behind with
its neighboring countries in Asia. Within the regional context, the country has eroded its competitiveness,
with a large portion of its population living in abject poverty especially those who are living in the rural areas
and dependent on agriculture. National poverty stands at about 32% while in the rural areas 50%.

The basis of the rationalization process is to make the DA a more responsive, effective and efficient
organization in the provision of public agriculture services that will enable the agricultural sector to
accelerate forward. Under the CMT, the Rationalization Plan defined the framework of the new agriculture
bureaucracy based on the following features:

1. The national bureaucracy should concentrate on its core functions – i) Information, Extension
and Communication, ii) Regulatory, and iii) Research and Development. It should focus on
providing public goods rather than on private goods. Through an effective policy environment, it
must encourage the active participation of the private sector in the over-all development of
agriculture.

2. The bureaucracy must work towards integration of its related functions at all level, work out an
organizational structure that is cost efficient, and must avoid conflict of interest in discharging
its mandate and functions.

3. The bureaucracy should be decentralized. It must promote the local government units to be at
the forefront of agricultural development of their own localities. Meanwhile, the national agency
should be a highly responsive and flexible organization that seeks the continuing improvement
of the capacities of the local government units.

4. The bureaucracy should promote stronger partnerships with the private sector, LGUs, CSOs,
and POs. It should outsource services from the private sector if such services are provided by
the latter at lower costs and with better quality.

5. The bureaucracy should be capable of continuing innovation to improve its efficiency and
responsiveness. It must strive to improve the quality of governance by promoting greater
transparency and accountability

3.1.3 Main Features of the Rationalization Plan

Vision for the “new” Department of Agriculture - The Department of Agriculture is the principal government
agency responsible for the promotion of the agriculture and fisheries sectors geared towards a balanced
and sustainable growth characterized by continuing innovation, increasing incomes, social equity,
productivity and competitiveness, and food security.

Goal of the Rationalization Process - To transform the Department of Agriculture into a modern organization
that is capable of meeting the “national challenge” amidst decreasing government resources and
globalization. The objective is to redesign the DA into a lean and mean organization that is able to do more
with less.

Strategic Shifts of the Bureaucracy – The final draft of the Rationalization Plan formulated by the CMT
contains the following basic features:

19
On Information, Extension and Communication

• From a highly fragmented, centralized bureaucracy to a highly integrated and decentralized

system
• The Agricultural Training Institute (ATI) to become Philippine Agriculture and Fishery Agency
(PAFEA) tasked to orchestrate the national extension system towards greater integration and
accelerated development;
• Completion and strengthening of LGUs’ extension services devolved under the Local
Government Code;
• Provincial governments as the key interface/partner with the DA to orchestrate municipalities
and cities;
• Strong link between research-extension; formulate clear delineation of functions/activities
among the PAFEA, R&D agencies, RFUs and LGUs.
• Staff reduction (ATI, 40%); and more technically competent personnel at the Bureau of
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR).

Regulatory Function

• From a highly fragmented, dispersed regulations to function integration across commodities

• From conflict of interest to clear check and balance; separation of standard setting function
from standard implementation;
• Created the Philippine Agriculture and Fisheries Regulatory Agency (PAFRA) as the apex
agency to provide oversight and leadership in regulatory function;
• The Philippine Agriculture and Fisheries Standards Bureau (PAFSB) for standards; the
Philippines Agriculture and Fisheries Inspection Bureau (PAFIB) to handle all quarantine,
inspection, and licensing;
• Strong linkage of regulatory agencies to research and extension services;
• An increase of 60.98% in the number of positions, (data as of 23 November 2006).

Research and Development

• From a highly fragmented, centralized bureaucracy to a highly integrated and decentralized

system;
• The Bureau of Agricultural Research (BAR) to become Philippine Research & Development
Agency for Agriculture and Fisheries (PARDAF) to orchestrate the system’s integration and
development. It must provide national leadership and develop strong partnerships with regions,
state universities and colleges and the private sector;
• To become efficient, national R&D agencies must go into multi-commodity, and it shall
concentrate on upstream research; devolve midstream research to zonal regions; regional
research to focus on on-farm research; downstream research to the LGUs under regional
leadership and technical support;
• Strong research-extension and research-regulatory linkages; strong subject matter specialist
support to LGUs; clear delineation of functions/activities among the PARDAF, R&D national
agencies, regional R&D units and LGUs.

Staff Functions

• Strong policy and planning unit which should focus on both strategic and operational planning;
M&E at all levels of implementation;
• Admin and finance unit is geared towards standardization of personnel requirement, systems,
and procedures; common admin and finance for the DA regional family;
• Budget and program reforms to follow after the rationalization;
• Outsource services where appropriate;
• Councils to have only one secretariat under the OSEC; no implementation function to avoid

20
 conflict of interest; the Livestock Development Council (LDC) would merge with the National
Agricultural and Fisheries Council (NAFC) to become the Council for Philippine Agriculture and
Fisheries (CPAF).

Regional Field Units

• Integration of functions, programs and personnel of all DA proper and attached agencies under
the RFU;
• Devolution of extension functions to the LGUs as per Local Government Code;
• Provision of common administration and financial services to all line agencies of the DA;
• Strong Agriculture and Fisheries Council and LGU linkage;
• Strong research-extension and research-regulatory linkages; with strong subject matter
specialist support to LGUs.

3.2 Specific Sectoral Policy Reform Agenda

3.2.1 Fisheries Sector

There is a need for a comprehensive and integrated framework for land and water use planning, particularly
for the coastal zone, to guide legislation, management, monitoring, and utilization practices of the
foreshore, the salvage/ easement zone and the coastal zone. Current approaches and strategies for the
management of the foreshore and the coastal zone are geared towards production, utilization and
commercialization. These must be balanced with proper conservation and management interventions.

Policy Concerns and Recommendations for Fisherfolk Settlements - Discussions on the concerns, options
and recommendations for fisherfolk settlements centered on the three main fisherfolk settlement concerns,
namely:

1. Ensuring access to foreshore and the salvage/easement zones;

2. Enhancing tenurial security for coastal settlements of municipal fishers; and
3. Improving access to basic social services for fisherfolk communities.

Ensuring Access to Foreshore and the Salvage/ Easement Zones

There is a need to consolidate policies and provisions on the utilization, development and
management of foreshore areas and the coastal zone to make them simple, coherent and
consistent.

- The foreshore and the salvage/easement zone are lands of the public domain. They
shall not be alienated or disposed of;
- There should be appropriate rules and regulations to ensure public safety and
shoreline protection and sustainable development;
- Equal and equitable public access to and from the foreshore and adjacent lands, as
well as across the shore, must be assured through the monitoring and enforcement of
easements of right-of-way;
- There must be effective management and regulation of structures in the foreshore and
in the salvage/easement zone;
- Undeveloped coastal frontages must be conserved on account of their aesthetic
appeal, natural protective characteristics, ecological benefits, public utility, recreational
use and livelihood opportunities;
- In planning for the management and utilization of the foreshore and salvage/easement
areas, appropriate resource rent must be imposed and enforced for the benefit of the
State and to support monitoring and management activities;

21
 - There must be a clear, rational, and appropriate delineation of roles and responsibilities
among the government agencies, local government units and co-management bodies
for effective management.

There is a need to give preferential rights to small/municipal fishers in the utilization,

development and management of the foreshore areas and the coastal zone.

There is a need for a comprehensive inventory of foreshore areas and salvage easement
zones. Data that should be gathered must include geophysical description, existing claims and
uses/users (legitimate and otherwise), existing legal and illegal structures, nature of adjacent
lands, resources in the area, and community profile. These can be the basis for an effective
land use planning and zoning system.

The framework and guidelines for the proper utilization and management of the foreshore area
and coastal zone must be integrated in the local development plan, land use plan, coastal
development plan, and annual investment plan

There is a need to review and monitor existing holders and applicants of Foreshore Lease
Contracts and their implementation of their proposed utilization plan. Compliance with the
existing provisions of their FLC must be guaranteed such as the provision of right-of-way and
public access to the beach areas.

Enhancing Tenurial Security of Coastal Resettlements

- There is need to develop appropriate implementing rules and regulation, as well as an

action plan to implement the fisherfolk settlement provision of the Fisheries Code (RA
8550). This should include participatory and transparent site selection process and
criteria, inter-agency coordination and institutional arrangement, financing plan/fund
sourcing, model/piloting plan, as well as sustainability and replication plans;
- There is a need for a comprehensive inventory of alienable and disposable lands of the
public domain near/in the coastal zone. This will guide the LGU in their land use
planning, fisherfolk settlement area selection, zoning scheme and local housing and
settlement initiatives for landless fisherfolk;
- Prioritize municipal/ small fisherfolk in the disposition of alienable and disposable lands
of the public domain near/ in the coastal zone;
- Fisherfolk settlement areas must be integrated in land use planning, fisherfolk
settlement area selection, zoning scheme and local housing and settlement initiatives
for landless fisherfolk;
- There is need to review land policies, especially on land classification, disposition and
registration in order to make them simple, understandable and accessible for
municipal/small fisherfolk, so as to give opportunities to enhance their tenurial security
and to complete their imperfect/ incomplete titles;
- Model and pilot appropriate and innovative fisherfolk settlement approaches, strategies
and interventions;
- Fisherfolk families and communities that are threatened or displaced should be
resettled near/in the coastal zone.

Improving Access to Social Services

Far-flung coastal communities and small islands should be prioritized in the delivery of basic
services, such as health and education services, water systems, and power supply.

Support further studies of coastal disaster risks and community vulnerabilities for enhanced
community- based disaster risk management strategies and plan.

22
 Strengthen community participation in the planning, implementation and evaluation of delivery
systems for social services to ensure effectiveness, appropriateness and timeliness.

3.2.2 Coconut Sector

The Need for a Unified Direction for the Coconut Industry - The first major problem confronting the coconut
industry is the lack of top level commitment which has led to a lack of a serious development program for
the industry. It is also manifested in the lack of sustained roadmap for the industry, in the constant changes
in PCA management, and the severely inadequate funds allocated for the development of the industry.

For many years, the coconut farmers in the Philippines had been focused in the production of copra which
is processed into coconut oil. Copra production remained a backward technology. Production and
productivity continuously decline as the rate of senile and nutrient deficient tress increase every year. The
major cause of this is the non-competitiveness of coconut oil in the international market as it competes with
sixteen (16) other oils and fats led by soybean, palm kernel oil, rapeseed, sunflower seed and cottonseed
oil.

Coconuts offer a wide array of products and by-products starting from the coconut meat. Most promising in
the international market today is virgin coconut oil, oleochemicals and the coco methyl ester or biodiesel.

Recommendations

a. It is quite clear that the competitiveness of coconut products is not in copra production and
vegetable oil, but on the evolving advantages of coconut on health, wellness, and the preservation
of environment. Thus, it is important to explore a possible shift in the focus of the coconut industry
from vegetable oil into oleochemicals products for food, nutraceutical products, and other potential
value-added products.

b. The point mentioned above must be treated in the context of a unified and integrated direction for
the coconut industry. Thus, to move the industry forward, it is recommended for the government to
formulate a “stakeholder, market-driven roadmap 13 to develop the coconut industry which includes
a viable scheme for resource allocation based on social and economic returns.

c. The road map must engage the basic sectors (farmers and workers), business sector, and civil
society organizations in program design, implementation and monitoring.

d. The road map must be translated into a strategic plan. Unlike the coconut master plan, the strategic
plan must contain clear vision for the coconut industry, an identification of outputs and outcome, a
clear and viable description of main strategies, and a clearly-defined monitoring and evaluation
framework. .

Within the context of the national strategic plan for the sector, it is imperative that government
agencies clearly understand their roles in the provision of national public goods to achieve the
goals of the sector. .

e. It is also important to review the role (and effect) of the CIIF structure as to its influence in the copra
market, and how it can attract the needed shift to new alternative coco-based products.

The need to make the agriculture bureaucracy effective, efficient, transparent and accountable - A good
development roadmap and program will need an effective and efficient bureaucracy as a vehicle for
implementation. Transparency and accountability would improve credibility and invite the trust and support
of the CSO constituency.

13
Roadmap is meant here as a strategic plan where all stakeholders have agreed to be guided regardless of changes in political leadership. Contrary
to some perceptions, it is not a government mandated (top-down) plan.

23
Despite the devolution of agricultural support service mandated by the 1991 Local Government Code, the
agriculture bureaucracy remains very centralized in its program planning and implementation. As a result,
the design of the programs usually fails to address and consider the particular and varying needs and
situation of the local communities, hampers the creativity (and ownership) of the local government units and
the local coconut sector, and maintains the attitude of dependence on national government. Furthermore,
the centralized system is often vulnerable to political concessions.

The centralized system of planning and implementation also diverts the attention of the national
government from its basic functions i.e., – creating an appropriate policy environment to stimulate and
accelerate agriculture development rather than implementing specific development programs and projects
at the local levels. The latter is better given to the local government units, the business sector, the coconut
farmers and farm workers and civil society organizations.

The agriculture bureaucracy remains politicized. Leadership changes happen too often. This results to very
unstable programs. Appointments and promotions among the rank and file of the bureaucracy are
perceived to be highly political as well. This often results in an unprofessional, demoralized and inefficient
bureaucracy.

Recommendations

a. It is recommended that the agriculture bureaucracy be restructured towards an effective, efficient,

transparent and accountable organization. The Rationalization Plan (based on EO 366) is a good
start, which should be followed through.

b. The national government must review, study, and understand its proper role in development – e.g.,
performing key functions in creating an appropriate policy environment (provider of public goods)
rather than just implement specific projects on the ground. The LGUs must develop as
implementers of specific functions in their locality. This requires continuing efforts for
decentralization including the allocation of funds.

c. The Civil Society Organizations recommend that the system for peoples’ participation (e.g.
National/Local Councils) have to be improved so as to provide real and meaningful participation by
the people, especially the farmers and fishers, in policy making and program designing, planning
and monitoring. The coconut farmers specifically recommended that “Local Coconut Development
Councils” be established at the municipal level (preferably even at the barangay level).

d. The system for civil service employment, hiring, appraisal and promotion must be allowed to
operate to avoid so much political intervention in the bureaucracy.

The Need to Improve the Research and Development and Technology Extension at the Local level, and the
Regulatory and Coordinative Function of the National Government - During the series of consultations, the
improvement of Research and Development was a prominent concern of all sectors – economic scholars,
business sectors, government agencies, and the farmers. For example, there was mention of the
importance of establishing the scientific basis of the health claims of the virgin coconut oil, the efficiency of
various processing technologies for coco-coir and geo-textile products, and development and propagation
of high yielding varieties (HYV) of coconut planting materials. In the case of the PCA, it may be better to
focus its function on research and development.

In particular, the farmers’ sector verbalized the need for effective agricultural extension. The notion of how
to do “extension” work must be reviewed. The farmers recognized the need to assist and develop the
capacity of the local government units to do this function. Participation of the farmers themselves as local
agriculture technicians was highlighted.

24
It was observed that various government agencies conducted similar coco-related projects and activities –
sometimes in the same locality. The situation highlights the need to develop a mechanism for coordination
to maximize common opportunities – resources, technology, capabilities, and focused impact.

Recommendations

a. The national government must take serious action to allocate sufficient funds for research
institutions to conduct the needed research. Along with this, it is important to review the
structure of the bureaucracy to streamline and integrate the research function which is
fragmented in the current bureaucracy structure. For example, PCA must focus on research
and development or the regulatory function.

b. It is also recommended that a new way of doing “extension work” within the Department of
Agriculture be introduced and propagated. The NGOs and POs emphasized that one of the
important components of agricultural extension work, aside from training, is the social
infrastructure building. It is the capacity of the local extension persons to integrate with the
communities, define their issues and problems and formulate plans of action with the
communities, motivate people for common action (organizing), and evaluate the results.

c. It is recommended that PCA constitute a coordinating mechanism for all the government
agencies having coco-based projects and programs. The objective is to maximize the
opportunities in project implementation in terms of resources, capabilities, technologies, and
impact.

The Need for Speedy Resolution of the Coco Levy Fund Cases - While it is important to address the
problems plaguing the coconut industry with or without the coconut levy fund, the speedy resolution of the
coconut levy fund cases, and its judicious fund management and utilization would spell a big difference in
the capacity of the sector and the government to introduce effective and sustainable development
interventions.

The following basic considerations are recommended in the process of the resolutions of the coco levy
fund:

a. the participation of the small coconut farmers in deciding the future of the coconut industry must be
pushed and institutionalized at all levels;

b. the government should exhaust its efforts in obtaining the Writ of Execution from the
Sandiganbayan on the case of the CIIF-SMC shares. It will enable government to liquefy the said
shares and gain a substantial amount of at least Php 50 billion pesos in liquid cash that it should
use for programs to develop the industry and its farmers;

c. Prior to liquefication of any recovered coconut levy asset, it is important to determine viable,
transparent and inclusive structures and mechanisms that shall ensure the delivery of meaningful
development programs for the farmers and the industry. 14

Completion of the Implementation of Agrarian Reform Program - The economic scholars have expressed
that the policies brought about by the agrarian reform law has made all lands covered by the program
ineligible as loan collateral to financial institutions. This is one of the reasons why there is declining
investment for agriculture in recent years. They recommended to amend the agrarian reform law to make
the farms once again eligible as collateral for agriculture loans.

However, the coconut farmers objected to the proposal because they believe that such action will result to
re-concentration of land ownership in favor of the previous wealthy landlords. The economic scholars

14
Faustino, 2006

25
believed that the issue of possible land re-concentration can be resolved through other forms of policy
instruments, not necessarily by making lands ineligible as loan collateral.

On the other hand, the farmers claimed that one of the reasons why farmers are not willing to make long
term improvements in their farms is that, until now, they do not own the land they till; thus, they do not have
clear assurance to benefit from such improvement in the long term. Their recommendation is to complete
the implementation of the agrarian reform as soon as possible, and to continue in promoting social justice
for all.

3.2.3 Sustainable Agriculture

Recommendations to Mainstream Sustainable Agriculture - To contribute in poverty reduction of the rural

areas, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture must establish a special program to enhance
capacities of farmers towards scaling up sustainable agriculture programs and practices especially in
marginal areas.

The program could have the following components:

1. Capacity building - The program will support and undertake training programs that will enhance
capacities of farmers on sustainable agriculture; such as farmer field schools, exposure trips for farmers,
farmer-to-farmer exchanges, and SusAg fairs and information exchanges. It will also provide additional
training and exposures to agriculture personnel of local government units on sustainable agriculture and
related topics.

Given the broad coverage of provincial and municipal agriculturists and the inaccessibility of many of these
marginal areas, the program will support the training and formation of farmer technicians. Farmers, given
the appropriate training have been proven to be effective in extending new farming technologies and
approaches to co-farmers. The local government units will be encouraged to allot funds for the honorarium
and transportation expenses of these farmer technicians.

2. Research on Sustainable Agriculture - The program will link up with agriculture research
institutions, particularly the Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research
and Development (PCARRD) and the Bureau of Agricultural Research of the Department of Agriculture
(BAR-DA). It is recommended that 15% of their research budget be allocated to sustainable agriculture and
related research agenda.

3. Support for organic fertilizer producers - The program will provide technical assistance to farmers
who are willing to produce their own organic fertilizers. For communities and farmer organizations that
decide for group or community production, the Program will facilitate their registration and licensing with the
Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA).

4. Integration of SA in school curriculum - The program will create a committee to incorporate SA

principles and practices in the school curriculum. It will work closely with the associations of agricultural
colleges and universities in making recommendations to the Department of Education and the Commission
for Higher Education (CHED).

Implementation

The implementation of the program will be done on a competitive basis where LGUs, NGOs and other
qualified parties will be requested to submit proposals to implement the program in their localities. The
proposals will be screened given a set of criteria consistent with the objectives of the program.

Management of the Program

The DA Central Office will manage the program in coordination with its Regional Field Units. It will be
responsible for screening and approving proposals, facilitating the transfer of funds, creating necessary

26
committees and working groups, monitoring the progress of funded projects and evaluating the outcomes of
the program.

A Committee of Advisors will assist DA in managing the program. They will take responsibility in finalizing
the criteria for selecting proposals and program implementers. The Committee will have equal
representation from DA, LGU, farmer groups and civil society organizations.

Implementing Institutions

The LGUs are the implementing institutions of the program. They will have the option, however, to
implement it by themselves or jointly with other organizations. They can also delegate it to institutions
(NGOs) with at least 5-year tract record of implementing sustainable agriculture projects. The final
accountability, however, rests on the LGUs. The Program will also accredit NGOs and farmer organizations
to implement the program. A set of criteria for accreditation will be drafted by the DA and finalized by the
Advisory Committee.

Monitoring and Evaluation

DA will conduct regular monitoring of program implementation in coordination with the Advisory Committee.
The Advisory Committee will regularly hold consultations with local communities and project beneficiaries to
provide feedback and recommendations to DA.

3.2.4 Peoples Participation in Policy Making - The National Agricultural and Fisheries Council
(NAFC)

Within the framework of the rationalization plan, CODE-NGO paid particular attention to the sub-cluster that
was assigned to review the mechanism of the “peoples’ council”. The committee discussed the necessary
reforms on the current set up of the NAFC and other councils within the Department.

The following were the main advocacy inputs of CODE-NGO related to the discussions in the Council
Cluster.

ƒ That NAFC should be transformed into a viable institutionalized venue for peoples’ participation in
major decision making. The council must have a meaningful and effective role in the national
agriculture policy making process. Participation must not be a token exercise in the entire concept
of participatory mechanism.

ƒ Unlike the current set up of NAFC wherein the membership is dominated by government agencies,
the representation in the reformed council must be truly representative of the private sectors and
civil society organizations, especially the poor sectors like the farmers, fishers and rural NGOs. The
representations should be truly accountable to their constituencies; thus, they must be given the
capacity to regularly consult and report to their respective constituents.

ƒ To avoid conflict of interest, the council must be a purely policy making body; and therefore must
avoid the function of implementation of agriculture-related development projects. These must be
relegated to those agencies and units that are mandated to implement projects.

Incidentally, the current NAFC is opposed to the idea of not engaging directly in project
implementation.

3.2.5 Food Safety

The policy paper on Food Safety presented by Dr. Lizada in a forum (Food Safety in the Philippines:
Issues and Challenges), held at the Institute if Social Order, Ateneo de Manila University, triggered some
discussions among the NGOs and POs. At the very least, the common feedback was that not many

27
NGOs/POs were aware of the various issues surrounding food safety. More than the issue of food safety,
poverty is seen as the primary problem. However, it was also pointed out that the poor are the most
vulnerable victims of unsafe food because they do not have much economic choices. Thus, it is even
more imperative for government to strengthen the policy environment for food safety to protect the poor.

Other issues raised during the forum were related to the entry of the genetically modified commodities,
food safety and trade, the trend towards product certification in coping with quality standards and its effect
to the access of the small procedures to market, and the need to organize and activate consumer groups.

The use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in enhancing agriculture has been a subject of
discourse globally. Philippine farmers have also given their piece on this issue. Generally, farmers will not
debate on the possibility that biotechnology may pose some benefits for the agriculture sector. However,
the level and intensity of these benefits differ between the big agricultural corporations and the small
farmers. Thus, Philippine farmer’s groups will rely on their observations and experience from the
perspectives of small farmers, in analyzing the costs and benefits of biotechnology and GMOs in
agriculture.

3.3 The Region 10 – Pilot Project

Specific recommendations for the Department of Agriculture, local government units, financial institutions
and the academe have been included in the study.

A. Local Government Units

1. Recognize the local agriculture and fisheries councils and institutionalize their
representation in Local Development councils. The Agriculture and Fisheries
Modernization Act (AFMA) provides the mandate for the creation and strengthening of
Agriculture and Fishery Councils (AFCs) in all levels of government. The AFCs can be
effective venues for research, extension and information exchange. Member-representatives
can serve as good agents in providing relevant information on farmer research needs,
available technologies and industry best practices.

2. Allocate Agriculture Development Fund. Allocate five percent (5%) of the 20% Local
Development Fund to support agriculture development planning and the provision of local
agriculture extension services. This budgetary allocation will be a multiyear budget that is not
subject to annual budget hearings.

3. Create a guarantee fund to allow small farmers access to loans from credit providers.
One of the modes by which farmers may be able to access loans from credit providers is
through guarantee agreements. The guarantee agreement protects the credit providers
against the risk that the loan will not be repaid. In the scheme of things, guarantors should be
able to find ways to protect themselves from going bankrupt if they are to continue
guaranteeing the loans of farmers. One of the modes by which to protect guarantors is to put-
up a surety business, wherein a risk-distributing device or mechanism may be adopted. The
LGU shall serve as guarantor for farmers to access loans from credit providers.

4. Build community-based stakeholdership. Create a strong constituency for local agriculture

development by building stakeholdership and community participation and recognizing a
dialogue mechanism design to sustain the engagements of multi-stakeholders. Conduct a
Farmers’ Summit at least once a year that will report to the community progress in
implementing the local agricultural development plan and consult community members on
issues particularly their priorities in the allocation of the 5% AgriDev Fund and the AgriDev
Guarantee Fund.

B. Department of Agriculture Regional Field Unit 10

28
1. DA RFU 10 to conduct municipal level EPRA Consultations to validate initial findings.
Considering the inherent variability of the agricultural climate characterizing the five provinces
which comprise Region 10, consultations at the municipal level may lead to identification of
programs specific to municipalities thereby ensuring a more focused Agriculture of the Poor
(AOTP) plan.

2. Maximize private sector participation by:

a. Professionalizing the Agri-Industry Association Sector. A more professionalized

associations rather than being personality-centered would encourage participation of
more industry or cluster champions to ensure sustainability of industry associations.

b. Increase the capability of agri-based cooperatives or associations to be involved in more

than one level of the value chain. Development of the entrepreneurial outlook should be
promoted.

c. Strengthen Agriculture and Fisheries Councils (AFCs). With the recent directive of Sec.
Yap for the AFC to assume greater role in agricultural development, strengthened AFCs
can ensure a more productive private sector - LGU partnership in building a more
sustainable local economy. AFCs should be encouraged to maximize their participation in
the Local Special Bodies (LSBs) of local government units.

3. DA RFU 10 to take the initiative in coming out with a Regional Integrated Agricultural
Research Development Program involving attached agencies like BAR and PCARRD, the
academe and the industry sector. It should consider the creation of a Farmers Research
Institute that can contribute to the development of the science orientation of small farmers
and ensure the conduct of more relevant field researches.

4. DA RFU 10 to take the lead with inter-agency collaboration to promote agri-tourism

with the Department of Tourism, to expand the agri-based “One Town-One Product”
program with DTI and to develop and protect watershed areas with DENR.

5. DA RFU 10, in partnership with the different stakeholders. to lobby for the utilization of
the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of the district representatives to
assist farmers and fisherfolks.

6. DA RFU 10 to disseminate information widely and to optimize the implementation of

various components of the GMA Action Plan and other relevant agri-development
programs such as:

a. Sustainable Agriculture for the indigenous peoples.

b. Mindanao Rural Development Program (MRDP)
c. Mindanao West Coast Integrated Area development Plan (WCIADP)
d. Production support programs such as the Agricultural Competitive Enhancement Fund

7. DA RFU 10 to take a more aggressive role in the implementation of agri -related laws
such as:

a. Fishery laws to address illegal fishing particularly electrocution which is rampant in

Bukidnon and dynamite fishing along the coastal areas, and;

b. Plant and animal quarantine laws to ensure that region will be “foot and mouth disease”
(FMD) and bird flu free and to prevent of the entry of introduced species of pest and
diseases (e.g. Brontispa of palms and the chlorotic leaf virus of oil palms which are now in
Bukidnon).

29
C. Academe and Research Institutions

1. Develop a comprehensive understanding of the farmers’ needs to facilitate the

creation of farmer-centered research programs. This can be done through:

a. Active participation in the Local Agriculture and Fishery Councils (AFCs)

b. Programmed frequent interaction with relevant extension personnel, the regional field unit
of the Department of Agriculture and other agriculture players.

Aside from research, the academe can take on 3 roles in agricultural development: training,
information communication and technical support services.

2. Conduct capability building programs for extension personnel, farmers and rural-
based organizations. Training should be an integral part of the activities of academic
institutions. However, to be effective agents in imparting knowledge and skills, these
institutions need to develop a comprehensive understanding of the characteristics and needs
of their target clients (the extension personnel, farmers, farm youth and women) and the
environment under which they operate.

Equipping the farmers and the youth with entrepreneurship skills was among the priority
training needs identified during the regional consultation series. There is a need to address
the immediate challenge of improving the entrepreneurial outlook and skills of farmers. The
lack of cost consciousness of farmers or the misdirected focus on the top line (yield) instead
of the bottom line (cost) coupled with the lack of recording and skills in cost analysis led to
the failure of seeing the bottom line.

Women are more entrepreneurial and have a better understanding of financial statements.
This may be viewed as an opportunity to tap more women for this purpose.

Training programs on specific crop production, handling, processing, storage, marketing,

general and financial management and the social aspects of agriculture could be also
developed.

3. Information Communication Programs:

a) Establishment of knowledge banks - Academe-based information centers could be

effective venues for knowledge sharing among stakeholders in the region. The use of ICT will
facilitate broader reach of these proposed knowledge banks. There is a need, however, to
assess the strengths and weaknesses of several existing Farmers' Information and
Technology Service (FITS) centers in the region to make these academe-based information
centers more responsive to the needs of farmers and other stakeholders. FITS is a PCARRD-
supported information and technology service facility aimed at improving access of farmers,
traders, processors, entrepreneurs and other stakeholders to information and technologies in
agriculture and forestry.

b. Conduct of discussions, workshops, seminars and fairs - Academe can facilitate regular
discussions, online or face-to-face between scientists and farmers tackling specific problems.
It can sponsor workshops and seminars on specific crops and their associated farming
systems that extension personnel, farmers, input suppliers and other stakeholders could
actively participate in. Current venues (i.e. regional conventions, symposia) do not provide
enough opportunity for agriculture stakeholders to discuss specific concerns.

c. Technical support services. Depending on the core competence of academic institutions,

they could also provide, albeit on a limited capacity, technical support services to farmers
such as diagnosis of diseased plants, land suitability assessments, soil and water analysis,

30
 provision of technical advice, etc.

D. Financial Institutions

1. Government financial institutions, particularly the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and the
Quedan and Rural Credit Guarantee Corporation (QUEDANCOR) who are mandated to
manage the Agro-Industry Modernization Credit and Financing Program should conduct a
comprehensive study on flow of credit funds and investments in the rural areas in
Northern Mindanao. The study should focus on facilitating how small farmers can avail of
formal credit towards addressing the increasing incidence of rural poverty. Among others, it
should provide credit-support mechanisms and effective guarantee systems to enhance the
flow of resources to rural areas, encourage the participation of the different stakeholders and
harmonize the delivery of support services to small farmers.

2. The Regional Office of QUEDANCOR, given its powers and resources to support farmers
and rural enterprises, should develop guarantee funds or similar schemes to mitigate
risks in agricultural credit for small farmers. It should coordinate with agricultural
insurance companies, government and private financial institutions, LGUs and other
interested organizations. The scheme should be innovative and should allow the participation
of local stakeholders including the farmers themselves.

4.0 ANALYSIS AND MAJOR LEARNINGS

4,1 Analysis and Learning

4.1.1 The reform of the DA bureaucracy would entail strong commitment on the part of the
Secretary and the Heads of Offices. It needs a stable bureaucracy in order for the planned agenda to be
accomplished. On the other hand, there must be commitment on the part of the CSOs to participate in the
process of reform. For the reform process to succeed, it needs to be viewed by the various constituencies
and stakeholders as a partnership that requires the effective participation of the DA, as agency that is the
object of reform, and the other stakeholders.

4.1.2 The participatory process, while time consuming, is still the best and effectiveness
methodology to promote wide ownership among the various stakeholders and to insure sustainability of the
reforms being pursued. Reforms initiated through this strategy may actually be the most enduring.

However, the extent of participatory approach (how participatory is participatory) had always been
the dilemma in the process. Concepts such as broad constituency, wide participation, and fair
representation are subjective in nature which is exposed to a wide array of debates among different
sectors. Of course, the amount of available resources, affect the extent and quality of participation
especially among the CSOs. Therefore, government must be willing to subsidize their participation in the
form of traveling expenses and lodging.

4.1.3 The reform process needs good, sustained technical expertise and support. There should
be good rapport and confidence between the technical support and the reform champion. It is crucial for the
reform initiative to have these reform champions within the bureaucracy in order to open the doors for
reform initiatives.
4.1.4 CSOs lack the capacity to generate adequate data and information towards an informed
policy reform advocacy. In most instances, this limitation also constrains their effectiveness in engaging the
bureaucracy in its reform initiatives. To make up for the limited empirical and quantitative studies, CSOs
normally rely on qualitative and experiential norms as the basis of their advocacy agenda. In this context,
they need the support of research institutions to expand their understanding and appreciation of
government operations, especially regarding technical issues.

31
 4.1.5 The policy advocacy concerns of CSOs are generally local and sectoral, which are very
much influenced by the thematic mandates of their organization, their unique experiences, the geographical
coverage of the NGO, or by the particular sector that they are serving. Consequently, their policy agenda
are oftentimes formulated in the context of their sectoral, thematic or geographical biases. Their
perspectives and appreciation of cross-cutting welfare issues on the various constituencies are often
shallow and narrow. This is often the strength of the “bureaucrats” that get involved in policy formulation
who utilize macro-welfare and intersectoral analysis. Thus, even under the EPRA experience, it is not
surprising to encounter incidence of conflicting views between the “reform champion” or the subject
specialist and/or the CSOs. There is a need for more time for continued dialogue and partnership among
the government, business sector and CSOs to learn and appreciate each other’s values and cultures.

4.1.6 Designing the series of consultations is as important as deciding to conduct the

consultation itself. Most participants (either from government or civil society) are wary of numerous
consultations, and at times, become cynical or even suspicious of each other, whenever consultations are
conducted. This is especially true if participants perceive that the topic or theme of a consultation has been
already covered by previous similar events, and they find no value-added in participating in the activity.

4.1.7 Oftentimes, the reform agenda collide with the self interest of key officials in the
government. Despite the adequate evidences, recommendations do not receive positive reaction/responses
from the bureaucracy. At a certain point, advocacy work through the promulgation of good policy proposals
and using reform champions in the bureaucracy seem unable to work. The behaviors of the key officials of
the bureaucracy are strongly influenced by the over-all interest of the political leadership. The issue is no
longer sound policy proposal; but more of political interest and political will. This is where the strong
advocacy capability of the CSOs becomes necessary to push fro reforms. However, there is a need for
innovative advocacy techniques to generate greater interest among the CSOs who had become skeptical
about the reform because of previous disappointing advocacy experiences.

4.1.8 There is a general notion among CSOs that government people are resistant to reforms.
This may not be necessarily true in most instances. In the context of making the DA responsive to the
needs of the agriculture sector as experienced under the EPRA project, reforming the DA bureaucracy was
a welcome concept to a large part of the DA rank-and-file.

4.2 Summary and description of activities that maybe carried forward. Which of these activities
you think can be sustained? Which of these activities can be shared for consideration with
other donor agencies?

4.2.1 Implementation of certain portions of the Rationalization Plan of the DA, if already within
the power and capability of concerned agencies and bureaus can already be enforced even without the
orders from the higher leadership.

4.2.2 Building and sustaining on what had been started in RFU-10 especially the “Localizing
Agricultural Development Framework”. There should be support for the interest of some academic
institutions and CSOs to initiate local processes for agricultural development.

4.2.3 CODE-NGO, through its Advocacy Commission, should continue on the work of the reform
pertaining to NAFC as venue for meaningful participation of the CSO at the DA. It must build on the NAFC
policy paper prepared by EPRA. Specifically, there is a need to conduct follow-up activities pertaining to the
gathering of relevant information about NAFC, and to organize the NGOs who are members of the Council
and formulate common action points to improve the structure, mechanisms and operations within NAFC.

4.2.4 The capacity of CSOs to generate quantitative and empirical studies must be enhanced
and beefed up, as well as their advocacy and policy reform initiatives. Programs must be designed and
implemented in such as way that it would improve the linkages between POs/NGOs and the academic or
research institutions, with the shared goal of influencing government to improve its service delivery function.

32