by Dr. Emil Javier

The start of the year is always an opportune time to pause, to take stock where we are; recall the things that have turned out well; contemplate on the others where we could have done better, and resolve what to do moving forward.

During the past year, a group of well-meaning Filipinos, most of whom are senior citizens and alumni of UP Los Baños (UPLB) plus a few others similarly motivated, got together and organized ourselves into the Coalition for Agriculture Modernization in the Philippines (CAMP, for short). As the name suggests, we are keenly aware and very concerned with how the country is faring and recognize that many of the ills that bother our nation have to do with lack of progress in the rural sector. We have to modernize agriculture to make it more productive, competitive, equitable and sustainable.

It is a matter of record that among our neighbors in Southeast Asia we are making the least progress in making a better life for our people. Poverty among Filipinos has persisted at a painfully embarrassing rate of 26 percent notwithstanding the relatively high economic growth we have been enjoying lately under the Aquino administration. And most of the poverty is found in the countryside, among farmers and fisher folk.

Poverty has many roots but clearly a big part of the problem can be traced to the anemic growth of agriculture which during the past decades averaged 2–3 percent, barely matching population growth.

With our individual specializations, having served in various capacities in the public and private sectors, both in our country and abroad, we are dismayed but not fazed by the proverbial emptiness in the glass. As our inspiring leader President Fidel V. Ramos keeps on exhorting us: KAYA NATIN ITO!

What to do with agriculture in 2016 and beyond to get it moving forward? Beyond generalities what specifically do we want to see done by government and those with stake in agriculture to help farmers and fisher folk attain a better standard of living for themselves, and ultimately for all of us, now and in the future?

Our concerns in agriculture and how to move it forward can be captured under four major headings namely:

•Reform of the bureaucracy of the Department of Agriculture (DA),

•Meaningful participation of stakeholders in the governance of agriculture,

•Continuing investments in rural institutions and infrastructure, and

•Closure on a few important but contentious issues.

I will try to elaborate on them in the coming weeks.

Reform of the Bureaucracy of the Department of Agriculture

Actually except for a few important but contentious policy issues for which we need closure, the legislation, policies, institutions and public appropriations to get agriculture moving forward are largely in place. As far as legislation and policies are concerned, Congress had done its part with the comprehensive Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997 (AFMA) and the fairly detailed Fisheries Code of 1998 (FC) both of which were enacted at the end of the FVR administration.

However, the enabling appropriations did not materialize until a decade later (2008) near the tail of the GMA administration when government finances received a healthy boost from VAT. Since 2010 when President BS Aquino took over, the general appropriations of the DA ballooned from the historical P18–20 billion level to close to P90 billion.

By this time the lack of funds has ceased to be an excuse. The immediate challenge is re-empowering and honing the competence of the DA and its agencies to imaginatively and systematically plan, program and execute.

The most glaring but largely overlooked shortcoming is the institutional capacity of DA to provide central leadership, direction, implementation, coordination, monitoring and evaluationto the totality of efforts in the sector. Structural changes post EDSA have weakened instead of strengthened the organizational capacity of DA to deliver. The staff ranks of DA and its agencies have been decimated by the protracted rationalization plan which took the better of ten years to implement. In the meantime, human resources planning and development were on hold. With an uncertain future ahead, the better qualified staff sought greener pastures elsewhere and DA had difficulty recruiting new graduates.

The rationalization plan had for one of its real objectives the reduction of staff. That objective has been overtaken by the massive infusion of resources into DA and its agencies. The staffing requirements of the present DA with operating funds of P90 billion are obviously much more than the old DA with a previously programmed budget of P20 billion.

At the highest level of organization, the spin-off of four major agencies from DA to the Office of the Presidential Assistant on Food Security and Modernization was a temporary expedient which should be undone. The crops, poultry and livestock subsectors should be re-unified and consolidated under the DA.

However, it is time to devote dedicated leadership and additional resources to the fisheries and aquatic resources sector. Fisheries had always been a poor cousin in the dispensation of DA. With robust scientific stock assessment, enforcement of marine protected areas and closed fishing seasons, our vast fisheries resources can assure us of sustainable catch well into the future. The aquaculture subsector which includes bangus, tilapia, prawns, crabs, mollusks, other valuable finfishes and seaweeds have tremendous upside potential because of our very long coastline and inland waters.

We support the creation of a separate Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (DFAR).

One of the glaring organizational lapses in the DA structure is the absence of an apex agency to provide central oversight, direction and coordination of agricultural extension. The Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160) devolved the provision of direct extension services to farmers and fisher folk to the local government units (LGUs). DA erroneously interpreted the devolution, gave up its strategic coordinating role and limited itself to training of extension technicians under the Agricultural Training Institute (ATI).

The extension direction setting and coordination function should be restored to ATI. Ironically this means resurrecting the old Bureau of Agricultural Extension (BAEx).

In fairness to DA, the Department has two organizational successes to brag about — the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) and the Philippine Carabao Center (PCC). These two are among the best-led, most adequately equipped and funded R&D organizations in the country today.

To the credit of DA Secretaries, present and past, they largely insulated PhilRice and PCC from undue political interference and encouraged merit and professionalism to pervade in the two units.

The existing bureaus of plant industry, animal industry and soils and water management (BPUI, BAI amd BSWM) have dedicated, hardworking scientists and professionals in their ranks. They should be given the opportunity to prove themselves. The Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI), Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI) and the Bureau of Soils and Water Management (BSWM) should be reconfigured from regular bureaus into research and development (R&D), science-based agencies like PhilRice and PCC, and treated accordingly.

Similarly, the supporting innovation and technology dissemination functions for coconut, sugar and tobacco have languished under the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA), Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA) and the National Tobacco Administration (NTA). R&D which ought to be the major deliverables of these parastatal agencies are largely ignored and very much in the backburner.

The R&D budget of PCA is only five percent of its total appropriations. The bulk of R&D for sugar is performed not by SRA but by the Philippine Sugar Research Institute, Inc. (PHILSURIN), a private industry initiative. We do not hear much about tobacco research.

We used to have outstanding scientific research institutions for these crops — Philippine Coconut Research Institute (PHILCORIN) for coconut; PHILSURIN for sugar, and the Philippine Tobacco Research and Training Center (PTRTC) — until they were folded into the larger industry regulatory agencies.

The formula has not worked. We urge that we decouple R&D from regulation and finance and reconstitute the technology innovation and dissemination function into semi-autonomous commodity R&D institutes under the DA alongside PhilRice and PCC.

And finally, DA should launch a massive staff recruitment and training program with masteral, doctorate and continuing education — non-degree programs. The UP System with its Diliman, Los Baños, Visayas and Mindanao campuses; the key regional state colleges and universities (SCUs) like the Marcos Mariano State University (MMSU), Benguet State University (BSU), Isabela State University (ISU), Central Luzon State University (CLSU), Visayas State University (VSU), Central Mindanao University (CMU), University of Southern Mindanao (USM), Mindanao State University (MSU) and University of Southeastern Philippines (USEP) are ready to receive them.

To be continued . . . Meaningful participation of stakeholders in the governance of agriculture (Part 2)

***

Dr. Emil Q. Javier is a Member of the National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST) and also Chair of the Coalition for Agriculture Modernization in the Philippines (CAMP). For any feedback , email eqjavier@yahoo.com.

Read more at http://www.mb.com.ph/what-to-do-with-agriculture-in-2016-and-beyond/#LO5AfoWOqO7GyRcy.99